Dual GI 275 in a non standard '6 pack' configuration.

[Lowe Approach]

I'm toying with the idea of replacing the vacuum system gauges with either Dual G5s or GI 275s.
I have a 62' C210 that has not had the panel rearranged and is non standard in configuration. I'm fine with that configuration as its what I've always used. But also could be persuaded to change it if its already the same amount of work as keeping it.

I don't have a GPS currently but intend to install one along with the 2 displays mentioned above. Installing a GPS is really what started this idea in the first place since I would like to make this A/C IFR capable eventually.
I also dont have an auto pilot but would like the possibility of that being a future addition should the opportunity and funds arise.

So here is the question...
Do you think I could get away with installing the 2 GI 275s in the panel in place of the attitude indicator and the heading indicator using the existing holes? Same question for the G5s. If i understand correctly I could eliminate the airspeed indicator with the 275, leaving room for a future 275 displaying engine analytics. Or am I better off just buying a G3x and one GI275 as a backup and just redoing the whole left panel? I'm trying to keep expense as low and incremental as possible but understand that sometimes its better to just bite the bullet.

Non IFR by the way so perhaps I should just tune up the vacuum system and leave it the way it is.
Lots to consider.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That's a tough one. I've flown IFR with a non-standard panel and it was a non-event. I'd probably use the opportunity to find out what it would cost to cut out a new panel (and perhaps increase resale value), but failing that, keep the configuration I'm used to.

 

[LesGawlik]

I don't know the answer, but I am considering something similar. A 182 with non-standard instrument layout. The altimeter is down by your left knee. I don't have an idea how you would do s scan.

I have 2 G5s in my Sundowner. I think those are fantastic. The G5s hook up with a 530W, and a Flight Stream 210. For me, that's a perfect combination. I use an iPad with FF, and I really have no interest in one of the 650-type GPS with touchscreeen, because I already have it with the iPad right in front of me.

I watched some 275 videos, and they look nice. Give the price of avionics, the delta between the 275 and the G5 is not all that much. THe 275 looks nice, but they also look very busy. Would I like to have traffic? Sure, but I have it on the iPad with my Stratus. Would I like to have terrain? Sure, but I have it on my iPad with FF.

The G% and the 275 have an airspeed tape and an altitude tape. When I get the G5 or the 275 in the 182, I doubt I will ever look at the altimeter except for an occasional crosscheck. Same thing with the ASI. I will ultimately relocate all the instruments into a six pack, but initially I don't think you will have any trouble with G5s in any layout you have.

 

[Joe_B1]

275's have a better display and can control the AP directly.

 

[camorton]

So here is the question...
Do you think I could get away with installing the 2 GI 275s in the panel in place of the attitude indicator and the heading indicator using the existing holes?

Yes. IMHO, the 275 > G5 for lots of reasons not the least of which is that you know they will drop right in without major panel surgery. There's also plenty of value in installing them one at a time if funds are an issue. I'd keep the analog altimeter. You will have two holes free when you ditch the CDIs as that will be displayed on the 275s.

FYI, I also have a '62 Cessna (182) with the same panel. At some point in the plane's history, someone re-arranged the instruments as shown. I find it a pretty easy scan for IFR, but as you said, it's whatever you're used to.

C.

 

[Martin Pauly]

If i understand correctly I could eliminate the airspeed indicator with the 275, leaving room for a future 275 displaying engine analytics.

The GI-275 is a fantastic unit. However, for instrument flying I would not want to rely on a pair of identical devices (ANY pair of identical devices). While you have a backup when one goes belly-up, you have no protection from common mode failures - that is a design issue in a component (memory, CPU, software, etc.) which can affect both your primary and your backup in the same way at the same time. With a dissimilar backup which does not share the same basic design you are better protected.

Or: leave the altimeter, airspeed indicator and turn coordinator in your panel. That way, with regular partial panel practice you have the tools needed to save the day.

Failures of these EFIS displays are rare, but they do happen often enough to be a consideration for panel design.

- Martin

 

[Joe_B1]

Or: leave the altimeter, airspeed indicator and turn coordinator in your panel. That way, with regular partial panel practice you have the tools needed to save the day.
- Martin

definitely! Dual 275's are great if you want to remove the vacuum system but always have a backup!

 

[LesGawlik]

If I got dual 275s, how would I drive the synthetic vision? What do I need in order to send that data to the 275?

 

[camorton]

If I got dual 275s, how would I drive the synthetic vision? What do I need in order to send that data to the 275?

The 275 has an internal GPS so nothing else needed to 'drive' the SVT (except an antenna). FWIW, few people seem to like the SVT on the 275. Consensus seems to be that the display is too small for it to be useful. But you get the first 10 hours of use for free so if you really like it, just pony up the $500 to unlock the feature permanently.

C.

 

[Joe_B1]

The 275 has an internal GPS so nothing else needed to 'drive' the SVT (except an antenna). FWIW, few people seem to like the SVT on the 275. Consensus seems to be that the display is too small for it to be useful. But you get the first 10 hours of use for free so if you really like it, just pony up the $500 to unlock the feature permanently.

C.

It's not worth it. Most of the time, it looks like an HSI with a green bottom. Besides, it's so small, it's useless. Free is OK, $ no way.

 

[manac]

I don’t think an unconventional layout makes a difference with the 275’s.
All you really look at is the AI.
When I had the 275’s installed they removed the vacuum t&b and AI, as well as the backup elec AI. Didn’t want any failure prone gyros or vacuum system.

 

[Tantalum]

I love these old panels with the hodge-podge panel layout and haphazard holes and instruments

I understand the "6-pack" thing came later and the aviation industry was still fledgling in the 50's and 60's it's crazy to me that anyone at the time, nevermind very smart engineers, had not thought of a more streamlined and visually friendly layout


As for the OPs question.. we have some older planes in the club as well, the Aztec I'm flying now is a '67, so I'm very familiar with the nonstandard panel layout. The owners have all had their go of placing a G5 there, a 430 here, etc. As posted above all you really look at the is AI anyway..

 

[farangutan]

I was going to say that having the heading and attitude right next to each other is pretty useful for IFR if you're already used to that layout.

 

[LesGawlik]

It is amazing to think how far we've come in terms of human factors engineering. I am still amazed that Cessna put the altimeter by my left knee, in a position where it is very difficult to see the Kollsman window. I think the original panel was laid out by an interior decorator, and not a good one at that.

 

[Brad W]

.......I understand the "6-pack" thing came later and the aviation industry was still fledgling in the 50's and 60's it's crazy to me that anyone at the time, nevermind very smart engineers, had not thought of a more streamlined and visually friendly layout.....

agreed. this is a real head scratcher for sure. People were smart back then too.....I've often wondered what they were thinking.

 

[Rich Holt]

It is amazing to think how far we've come in terms of human factors engineering. I am still amazed that Cessna put the altimeter by my left knee, in a position where it is very difficult to see the Kollsman window. I think the original panel was laid out by an interior decorator, and not a good one at that.

The 60's were wild man. Take a look at where the Bullseye (CDI) is on this beauty. Imagine flying the ole CV-1 approach to the back of the boat at night with that little gem.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

@Lowe Approach I really like my non-standard panel. But then again I'm a sucker for "original". I wanted to keep my plane original but with safety upgrades and I consider my GI275's just that. I could not imagine them without Synthetic vision and not quite sure what everyone else's bellyaching is about.

 

[Tantalum]

@Lowe Approach I really like my non-standard panel. But then again I'm a sucker for "original". I wanted to keep my plane original but with safety upgrades and I consider my GI275's just that. I could not imagine them without Synthetic vision and not quite sure what everyone else's bellyaching is about.

View attachment 101949

Looks great! There's something to be said about keeping the original look while also working to keep it "modern"

I always felt the G5's looked very "after market" as do some (not all) installations of G500 systems

 

[Racerx]

It is amazing to think how far we've come in terms of human factors engineering. I am still amazed that Cessna put the altimeter by my left knee, in a position where it is very difficult to see the Kollsman window. I think the original panel was laid out by an interior decorator, and not a good one at that.

Needs more Feng shui?

 

[Lowe Approach]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. Lots of good info and I appreciate the wisdom.

@Lowe Approach I really like my non-standard panel. But then again I'm a sucker for "original". I wanted to keep my plane original but with safety upgrades and I consider my GI275's just that. I could not imagine them without Synthetic vision and not quite sure what everyone else's bellyaching is about.

View attachment 101949

I like that setup very much. Thanks for that.

 

[Eric Pauley]

Failures of these EFIS displays are rare, but they do happen often enough to be a consideration for panel design.

I'm curious what routes people have gone with here. I currently have vacuum gauges with a backup pump, and I'm planning to replace with two GI275s, leaving the rest of the 6 pack intact. At the same time, I'm going to have two instrument holes free in my lower left panel from replacing engine gauges.

I'm considering moving the vacuum gauges to these slots and ditching the backup vacuum pump, then just running the engine-driven pump to failure. Seems to me that this will add substantial redundancy, even in the event of electrical/backup battery failure, at minimal ongoing cost. Does anybody actually leave their vacuum instruments in when installing digital replacements or is this crazy?

 

[orca64]

I'm toying with the idea of replacing the vacuum system gauges with either Dual G5s or GI 275s.
I have a 62' C210 that has not had the panel rearranged and is non standard in configuration. I'm fine with that configuration as its what I've always used. But also could be persuaded to change it if its already the same amount of work as keeping it.

I don't have a GPS currently but intend to install one along with the 2 displays mentioned above. Installing a GPS is really what started this idea in the first place since I would like to make this A/C IFR capable eventually.
I also dont have an auto pilot but would like the possibility of that being a future addition should the opportunity and funds arise.

So here is the question...
Do you think I could get away with installing the 2 GI 275s in the panel in place of the attitude indicator and the heading indicator using the existing holes? Same question for the G5s. If i understand correctly I could eliminate the airspeed indicator with the 275, leaving room for a future 275 displaying engine analytics. Or am I better off just buying a G3x and one GI275 as a backup and just redoing the whole left panel? I'm trying to keep expense as low and incremental as possible but understand that sometimes its better to just bite the bullet.

Non IFR by the way so perhaps I should just tune up the vacuum system and leave it the way it is.
Lots to consider.

I'm toying with the idea of replacing the vacuum system gauges with either Dual G5s or GI 275s.
I have a 62' C210 that has not had the panel rearranged and is non standard in configuration. I'm fine with that configuration as its what I've always used. But also could be persuaded to change it if its already the same amount of work as keeping it.

I don't have a GPS currently but intend to install one along with the 2 displays mentioned above. Installing a GPS is really what started this idea in the first place since I would like to make this A/C IFR capable eventually.
I also dont have an auto pilot but would like the possibility of that being a future addition should the opportunity and funds arise.

So here is the question...
Do you think I could get away with installing the 2 GI 275s in the panel in place of the attitude indicator and the heading indicator using the existing holes? Same question for the G5s. If i understand correctly I could eliminate the airspeed indicator with the 275, leaving room for a future 275 displaying engine analytics. Or am I better off just buying a G3x and one GI275 as a backup and just redoing the whole left panel? I'm trying to keep expense as low and incremental as possible but understand that sometimes its better to just bite the bullet.

Non IFR by the way so perhaps I should just tune up the vacuum system and leave it the way it is.
Lots to consider.

I had the original “ popcorn” Cessna panel in my 210. I went with a very modern mix. I was going to leave in my old radios, but my instrument guy suggested that I simply do it all at once. In the long run, I think I saved money. You can mount the G5’s flush to the panel, if desired. Clean. Simple but quite functional. No more vacuum system. I had him prewire for a gfc500. I might install a 275as a CDI when I add the autopilot. Just liked the G5’s better than the 275’s.
Original 6 pack design. Good luck.

 

[David Lloyd]

Apparently I am one of the few that did get the synthetic vision. The Dynon avionics Skyview in the RV also had synthetic vision and I never thought it was useful. But most my flying with the RV and now a Mooney is mostly over the flatlands of the east coast. Only occasionally something pops up on the display. Might be more useful in hill country. The SV does come with a couple little things like the flight path indicator, sometimes useful for me. Always get a kick out of the runway showing up on the indicator.
I’ve seen other people install dual 275s and ditch their steam gauges. Uh uh, not today, keeping the airspeed, altimeter and turn coordinator (Stec needs that). I will wait and see what happens over the next few hundred hours. VSI will be gone next year. Maybe the Stormscope too.