Bell 206 Glass Cockpit
 

www.vectoraerospace.com are offering glass cockpits for a range of aircraft including the Bell 206.

Perhaps this could help push used sales if fitted?

For example - if I was going to buy a used 206 I'd much rather buy one with a glass cockpit!

Not sure of the cost but I know that some EFIS systems are available for around $2,000.

Is the glass worth it? What are the benefits other than not looking 'old fashioned'?

http://www.vectoraerospace.com/Porta...ockpit-big.jpg

I think the system is Sagem , I would expect the installed price to be significantly more than $2,000.

Average installed price for ICDS system is $120,000 american dollars....

Vector Gets STC For Bell 407 Glass Cockpit : AINonline

Oh G-D,

I want one, gimme, gimme !

Joel:ok:

Mmmmm ....



for example - if I was going to buy a used 206 I'd much rather buy one with a glass cockpit!


WHY pray tell? ...... :confused:

I think this is a better choice, and it is about 1/3 the cost:

Garmin | Helicopter Solutions

The Australian Army are installing glass cockpits into some of there 206B-1 Kiowas to use as lead in trainers to the Tiger , MRH 90 and F model Chinook to transition onto the full glass cockpits easier.

Looks great, but I have one issue with the installation shown in post #1.

There are backup gauges for airspeed and altitude, but it's possible to get by without either one in a VFR environment.

I really want to see a backup Nr for VFR. I'd be specifying this on any upgrade for any type.

Maybe its being old fashioned, but I still like the old cockpit.

Glass cockpit for S92, AB139, EC225 type IFR aircraft.

But, when flying around low level, VFR, aerial work - Old fashioned, manual, analogue gauges work best. Just a quick glance in, you can see height, speed, rate of descent - No reading required, limited interpretation needed. Certainly not once you are familiar with the aircraft.

I may be speaking out of turn as I've never done low level aerial work with a glass cockpit, but I imagine it wouldn't be quite so easy to interpret the information quickly.

I understand Special 25's comments and which make sense and maybe this is Freewheel's concern also aside from having backup for key data but, presumably, if this has been certified then it means the reliability of showing Nr has been tested?

Spinwing asks why? I was thinking for a private aircraft (say you buy a used 206L or even 406) the analogue instruments begin to look a bit outdated whereas the glass makes the aircraft appear more up to date. Its superficial .. I agree.

I think Blackhawk9's comment probably make most sense for installing glass in that its going to prepare newbies for this same technology in other aircraft.

The Vector set up maybe a bit exxy (expensive) but I know you can get an EFIS kit in the US for low money.

"Glass cockpit or not glass cockpit, that shall be the question!..."

I do not like the new, (in my point of view overloaded) glas cockpit arrangements...
I do not like flying with an autopilot engaged also..

I prefer the "old style" of flying....
Choosing my jobs carefully (in fact: taking whatever comes along...), i managed to get ONLY into utility flying (which i always prefer instead of flying VIP´s somewhere)...

For that kind of work (spraying, fire fighting, cargo work), the "old fashioned" gauges work best for me-because i am used to them.
The only modern equipment in the heli is my own gps which i am using..

With the modern glas cockpit instruments, you shouldn´t loose time reading the indications-everything should be presented in colours and/or within specified limitations....
In fact-i do not see THAT big differences in the systems..

As long as possible i will stick to the "old fashioned" syle...

Call me old fashioned but I tend to like the lastest tech.

I mean, there must be a reason they develop this sh*t and presumably its because its better!

Can someone with glass cockpit experience tell me ... isn't it possible to select a specific item say, Nr or EGT etc. and get the screen to show this up in large size to that if you're doing sling work etc. you can have the info you need in 'supersize' so that you can just turn and glance?

I have flown both glass and steam. IMO once to go glass you will not want to go back. Glass has a lot of information that is not available on steam gauges. And once you get used to it you don't feel overloaded, you just absorb the information.

As for the backup instruments, they are required under current FAA regulations.

Another system is the EFD/MFD1000 system by Aspen Avionics. At 15000USD about half the cost of the G500H. You can add synthetic vision and moving map modules. It is setup to display with or without the information tapes along the sides. So you can use it to train both steam and glass.

With the Aspen displays there are very minimal modifications to the instrument panel, they are designed to fit in the holes from the steam gauges, very simple and much cheaper installation.

Check them out: Aspen Avionics: A New Way to Look at Avionics

I was a steam-only guy until I went into the S-76C+. During initial, for the first five or so hours in the sim, you could have taken the glass and thrown it out the window! I was using the backup analog, because they were the only things that made sense to me. After I got used to it, glass became second nature, and now I wouldn't trade it for anything. I've got some time back in steam, and it is actually harder for me to interpret than the glass (and I had 7,000 plus of steam first). Even doing low level, the glass helps out by giving trends in altitude and airspeed. Very easy to pick up the cues once you get used to it.

I've also got some fixed wing time with glass, and there it is truly a no brainer. Glass gives you so much more situational awarness it ain't funny!

IMHO, there is much more to this than the cool presentation of data, trends, etc. One needs to consider the life cycle implications, especially support. I recently made the choice of a Bell 407 instead of an AS 350B3 or Agusta 119, and the choice of Garmin G500H instead of Sagem entirely because the non U.S. products have an exceedingly poor reputation for post sale support in the U.S.: conveniently located, competent maintenance facilities, spares availability & pricing, training. etc. Neither the B407 or the Garmin would win on the basis of product features, technology, or performance alone, but when considering what living with the product over 10 years might be like, they won hands down over the off shore products. Might be different outside the U.S.

Having flown both analogue and glass, I like analogue because it shows trends (sweep of the hands) better than digital figures. However, if there is a blip into the yellow in the glass, it sure catches your eye real quick.

Swings and roundabouts.

I have been flying the Aspen and Garmin G600 in fixed wing aircraft over a year, and there is no comparison -- the Garmin is head and shoulders better than the Aspen. Of course for VFR flying in the mountains in a helicopter, it is hard to beat a steam gauge attitude indicator and a Garmin 696.

I'm curious, other than the size of the screens, what makes Garmin better? Thanks.

Size of the displays, human interface of manipulating the displays, the font size and readability of the Garmin, air data computer performance and reliability of the wind vector, and, on our units, performance in cold weather.

I have been flying the Aspen in a Cessna 185, G600 in a Cessna 185, and G600 is a Cessna 206 with an STEC 55 AP. All were installed by the same avionics shop.

In the Aspen installation, we have been unable to get the compass properly calibrated, and as a result the wind vector information is useless. On a trip from Alaska to lower 48 in May, when it got to about 1-3 degrees C overnight, the Aspen would blink out on start-up. Then the backup battery would keep us from resetting the unit until the battery ran out after about 40 minutes of flight. Not a desirable thing to have a bright, blank blinking display when you are departing before sunrise. The Aspen crams so much data into a small space, that it is hard to read individual bits of data without studying the display. The font is small enough that I need cheater glasses. The input sequence to change altimeter, heading, altitude is cumbersome compared to the Garmin.

In the 185 with G600, we have yet to have a single squawk. Inputting data is intuitive. The font is large enough that it is easy to read, and easy to see trends in airspeed and altitude. The wind vector info from the ADC is accurate and calibration of heading was straightforward. The PFD and MFD work well together to provide SA for instrument or visual flight. Garmin gave us free synthetic vision, some months after our purchase as part of a product upgrade, and that information is wonderful flying in the mountains. I believe the rotorcraft Garmin product will take an input for a FLIR type device.

In the 206, the STEC AP gives us a flight director and altitude preselect, plus all the good stuff described in the previous paragraph.

The Garmin G500/600 is just a scaled version of what G1000 has, albeit using stock engine gauges and Garmin navigators. By comparison, the Aspen seems like an experimental product.