Modern panels in vintage aircraft?
 

Elsewhere, a debate rages following the posting of a photo of a modified panel in a vintage aircraft. "Nice job" state some comments, where other contributors cry about spoiling an original panel, and losing the vintage look.

Is it okay to renew a vintage panel, particularly steam gauge to glass?

Depends on your aim I guess. Either to have an exact copy down to the finest detail, or have an aircraft that looks the deal from outside but incorporating modern bits in the interests of serviceability, practicality and costs. Camel with radial engine, FW 190 powered by something not BMW for example. WW1 era instrumentation would be headache, along with airstream driven fuel pumps etc etc

airdrome camel

If it's yours, do what you want and stuff everyone else. If anyone criticises you, just ask what they have in their aircraft.

There's no 'should' or 'shouldn't'. It's up to each person to do what they want with the machine they've got.
Having said that, once any artefact gets beyond a certain age, then in my view the present keeper has some sort of responsibility to its heritage and future keepers of it. Not everyone thinks the same, though and who is to say whose view is correct?
ISIS and others have been destroying ancient buildings and monuments, hastening what time will eventually turn to dust. The National Trust try and preserve buildings and their contents, to the extent that you're not allowed to touch things in case the grease from your fingers hastens deterioration.

Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

TOO

Yeah you can do what you like with your toy, but that doesn't change the fact that if it looks wrong it is wrong.

I have a car which looks old but was built by myself not long back, on a brand new chassis and using relatively modern parts, some new. It's not a replica but a car designed on a theme. At various times I've had people spouting all sorts of rubbish, such as "having one of those in the 1950s" to telling me it's built on the chassis of a totally different type of car, telling me it's front wheel drive when it's not, that it's foreign, etc etc. One particular old chap at a car show told me I didn't know what I was talking about when I pointed out he was mistaken.

Guess it depends on whether you are creating a replica or restoring an original.
Can be a pain though hiding a wireless :)

Much as I like orginal, unfiddled old aeroplanes and cars, they have to be usable and an aeroplane that is't being flown because the kit isn't up to the job its owner wants is much more of a pity than adding a modern panel, radio, transponder etc.

There are a few P-51s I've seen in the US with panels which could have come straight out of a Bonanza or similar. :uhoh:

Following my rollover Euromillions win (which I'm assured will happen next week :}), in order to give me the maximum choice of aircraft I have to budget for having the modern panel ripped out and a restored original put in.:ugh:

This not this.

Although, I'll fly either if anyone wants to offer. ;)

That "modern" P-51 is kind of the worst of both worlds isn't it? It's not original but it doesn't really add anything spectacularly useful. If I was going to ditch the original panel I'd be inclined to go for a serious Garmin setup.

Personally I'd go for an original panel with a few mod-cons such as an iPad holder and power point.

The instrument panel (collectively) is a major tool for the pilot, and for IFR flying, maybe most of the resource of the pilot. Basic flying is the same, though airspace, navigation, communication, and engine monitoring may be very different than they were when these aircraft were first built. It is probable that a change to newer "tools" is appropriate.

If it's just a Cub or Moth bimbling around VFR, the basic old instruments are enough. But, VFR in complex airspace, or long journeys, or IFR really benefits from newer equipment. Instead of thinking of it as spoiling a vintage aircraft, I'll think of it as using new instrumentation to keep a vintage aircraft right up there in utility.

A panel I made for the refit of a C182Q

http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/...psgmhwk8wz.jpg

Even when it looks original it maybe not be. Many P-51, Spitfire, and I suspect other Merlin powered aircraft, are fitted with versions of Merlin that are not in accordance with the original, some even fitted with commercial versions of the engine. The latest B-29 reincarnation likewise has engines of different mark to the authentic. Am I to complain about lack of originality? Not in a bulls roar.

It does look a bit odd when you mix EFIS and wood..........

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/displa...573&height=322

It's a bit like "you can't use cement on a historic building", if the Romans had cement, they'd darn well have used it!

As for old aircraft and modern instruments, I'd rather see a mosquito flying around the UK with a glass panel, than them all parked up in museums with steam gauges.

If it's a museum piece, leave as is, if it's a flying machine, do whatever you like.

DH put a glass panel in my 1960 Comanche - the outside is an age-appropriate paint job while the panel is simple, modern and functional. Anyone who hates it doesn't have to fly with me......
https://www.dropbox.com/s/da17zftij8...mall.jpg?raw=1

Most of the crews on the VintageAirRally had original panels - but then had 'clip on' iPads, small transponder and radio discreetly located low down or off to the side etc. Seems like the best of all worlds? I think there is a way of complying with modern legal requirements and making use of modern advantages without reducing the 'vintage look'.

Safe flights, Sam.

In my own area of expertise, it's a bit like 'you can't play Bach on the piano, he didn't have pianos'. Personally I play him on the harpsichord or organ; but I don't begrudge those who play him on the piano.

As Sam mentions, the question isn't whether you should put in a new panel on a vintage aircraft - but how one should go about putting in the necessaries as sympathetically as possible.

My aircraft has no electrical system but I think the time will come when an installed radio and transponder will be a necessity.

That's fine by me. No disrespect intended but a Comanche doesn't generally have the provenance of a P-51 though.

There are Mustangs, and then there are Mustangs. The Cavalier version was aimed at the executive business aircraft market, a very plush personal two seat transport, the military equipment was stripped out, and then rebuilt with a second seat, new avionics, plush leather interiors and luggage bays. Not a ride for you Tay? :)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...A_Cavalier.jpg