G5's vs Steam Gauges

R

Ron Stubblefield

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
May 25, 2022
Messages
8
Display Name
Display name:
Ronbo422
I recently jumped back in an airplane, after a 17-yr "break", and the 172's at the school, where I received my recurrecy training, all have twin G5's. They also still have the original airspeed, altimeter and VSI. I WANT to use the new G5's but my eyes always go back to the analog gauges.
Is this normal for someone transitioning from old to new? What I've noticed, and it's obviously clear to me, is that when my eyes sweep across an analog gauge I can interpret the info and be on to the next gauge very quickly. The position of the needle against the backdrop tells my brain "Saul Goodman". However, when I look at the G5's I find myself staring at it longer. I do realize that it's a one-stop-shopping type of display, offering so much more info without the need to move ones eyes to another area. With that said, I find that my brain is taking more time to decipher the info presented. It takes extra time to determine what the tapes are doing. I hope that makes sense.
I guess if I'd always used G5's/glass panels in my training then it wouldn't be an issue.
I've heard it said that transitioning from steam to glass is much easier than glass to steam (think renting from a fleet of aircraft). Likely that's why my flight schools 172's still have both. I just need to force myself to use the G5's in order to get used to them. I plan on moving to an area where there's a flying club with MANY 172's, 182's, etc with G1000's.
What are your thoughts?
 
The significant transition is rates, both altitude and speed changes. Usually the steamers fixate on the numbers and not the tapes.
 
Change is difficult at best, so yes, it’s going to take some effort to make the transition. Id suggest having your instructor cover the analog gauges for some of your training time to “force” you to use the G5s a little more.

I don’t know that the instrument transition is more difficult one way or the other, but it seems that pilots with a lot of analog airplane experience have a better picture in their head of what’s going on around them than someone who’s had a moving map for all of their flying.
 
When I made the first flight in my Velocity, the glass panel took a while to get used to. Maybe 2 minutes before I was looking in the right place without thinking. Then another hour before I was totally comfortable.

If I had steam gauges as backup, I bet it would have taken a lot longer.
 
I’ve had dual G5s for a couple of years and still rarely look at the tapes. The steam gauge dials for airspeed, altitude, and VS are just easier to interpret at a glance. The exception is on an instrument approach the air speed tape is part of my scan to nail 90 kts on final.
 
Last edited:
After an even longer break, I had the same problem. Most Glass panels are infinitely adjustable. so at first I switched the glass to a straight six-pack display. Later I added in the artificial horizon to the six pack, but activated the simulated terrain in the Horizon square.

I think most systems allow you to set up different displays on different buttons (but I've not flown a G5].

So then I put 6-pack on one button & full moving maps & tapes on the other with horizon overlay. In the pattern, I'd switch on 6-pack for quick reference. Enroute I set the full moving map & tapes. Now I find I seldom switch to 6-pack.
 
There is an adjustment period for becoming more and more comfortable with glass panels but the best tip is to just use what you’re more comfortable with. No need to force anything as long as you’re safe and proficient on one or the other. Would only be a problem if one said something that didn’t agree with the other but as long they agree, use whatever you’re comfortable with. The benefit you have is seeing how they both function side by side so you can already have an idea of how the glass works if you end up in something without analog gauges.
 
Ron Stubblefield said:
I recently jumped back in an airplane, after a 17-yr "break", and the 172's at the school, where I received my recurrecy training, all have twin G5's. They also still have the original airspeed, altimeter and VSI. I WANT to use the new G5's but my eyes always go back to the analog gauges.
Is this normal for someone transitioning from old to new? What I've noticed, and it's obviously clear to me, is that when my eyes sweep across an analog gauge I can interpret the info and be on to the next gauge very quickly. The position of the needle against the backdrop tells my brain "Saul Goodman". However, when I look at the G5's I find myself staring at it longer. I do realize that it's a one-stop-shopping type of display, offering so much more info without the need to move ones eyes to another area. With that said, I find that my brain is taking more time to decipher the info presented. It takes extra time to determine what the tapes are doing. I hope that makes sense.
I guess if I'd always used G5's/glass panels in my training then it wouldn't be an issue.
I've heard it said that transitioning from steam to glass is much easier than glass to steam (think renting from a fleet of aircraft). Likely that's why my flight schools 172's still have both. I just need to force myself to use the G5's in order to get used to them. I plan on moving to an area where there's a flying club with MANY 172's, 182's, etc with G1000's.
What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

You are correct in your assessment that the glass takes a bit longer to interpret if you are coming from a steam background. The white on black gauges have a greater contrast, and the physical movement of a needle grabs your attention quicker. The G5 does not have nearly as much contrast, and changes are harder to detect. The HSI display is a bit easier to read than the attitude indicator because it has a darker background. However, the reliability and compactness of the G5 is hard to beat. Having said that, I would not get hung up on the instrumentation too much. Every airplane is going to have a slightly different presentation, so just focus on the airplane characteristics more than what display it has.
 
The good news is the G5 is only primary for AH and DG, so no harm/no foul keeping others in the scan.

Remember to keep the two altimeter settings sync’d and using the bugs for altitude and heading keeps you from having to ‘read’ the tape and instead just check that the cyan bug/‘block’ is where it should be which should serve as a crosscheck ofthe Altimeter and course/heading.

I still prefer the steam VSI in our dual G5 172. And the V speed call outs on the tape. I’m less worried about the speed than knowing if it’s bumpy, reduce to ‘A’.

I think all that really means it’s different cues on the G5 and they can serve as a cross check with your other primary instruments.
 
Maybe the tip of covering up the analog gauges, which should help train my brain to interpret info from the G5's quicker, is the answer. I need to get accustomed to the G5's since I'll be starting my Instrument training soon....in the same aircraft fleet.
I do like the G5 as the HSI, though. Being able to bug a heading makes it easier to see as the I come around to that heading.

I am also contemplating purchasing the G5 add-ons, from RealSimGear, to incorporate into my home sim setup. Doing so would require an $89 investment. I think that it would be money well spent. Too bad the sim developers didn't build them into the sims already. :-/
 
Last edited:
In my Mooney, I flew for two years and when vfr would always revert back to the round dials. In IFR it was easy to stick to the g5s. But I had flown 300 hours with the dials, so it was pretty ingrained in my brain to look at them.

when I bought the lance, it still has the round dials in roughly the same place, and an Aspen where the g5s were, but for some reason, I never look at the steam gauges in it, it’s just natural for me to use the tapes on the Aspen. The mind is a strange thing.
 
donjohnston said:
When I made the first flight in my Velocity, the glass panel took a while to get used to. Maybe 2 minutes before I was looking in the right place without thinking. Then another hour before I was totally comfortable.
Click to expand...

I'm still having to search for information after 3 hours in the RV-10 with G3X. Now where is that airspeed???
 
Same. I took 25 years off. 250 hours and IFR all w 80s tech (and LORAN!). Now back in it and I found the G5s in the 172 I started with were easier to get used to than the G1000s in the DA40 I’m flying now. Same as you I find myself fixating on all the data available. Ans switching between Comm 1 act/stby and Comm 2 act/stby with one dial in the G1000 is still costing me a few seconds of processing time. I also find the tapes distracting as well. On approach the airspeed appears to be jumping all around on the tape but on the traditional gauge it’s locked in.

but my localizer intercepts are better knowing exactly what the winds are. :)
 
kyleb said:
I'm still having to search for information after 3 hours in the RV-10 with G3X. Now where is that airspeed???
Click to expand...
How do you have the presentation set up? One of my biggest complaints with glass panels, particularly the larger ones, is the tendency to cram way to much information into the display. Declutter is my friend. A scan volume like looking at a full panel through a toilet paper tube is not an 'enhancing characteristic'

Nauga,
who knows less is more, more or less.
 
I did it the other way around. I trained on glass, then transitioned to steam. I find the steam gauges much easier and quicker to read for all the reasons you mentioned. I can assess a needle’s orientation quicker than I can read and interpret a tape or number.
 
Half Fast said:
I can assess a needle’s orientation quicker than I can read and interpret a tape or number.
Click to expand...
Most of my quick-scan stuff like engine monitor are configured with analog presentations of the digital data for that reason. You can have my 3-pointer altimeters, the ones without the counters, anyway :)

Nauga,
and the joke about a digital exam
 
kyleb said:
I'm still having to search for information after 3 hours in the RV-10 with G3X. Now where is that airspeed???
Click to expand...
It's right here:
p1dbumdnie2c2ah6s0dhup1m6oa.jpg
 
It is not a transition issue IMO rather how you like to process information.

I trained in a G1000...never thought I would be able to afford any glass but ultimately bought a 182 that had both steam gauges and Aspen panel so I get both of both worlds with partial glass lest still have a full six pack...I however tend to fly solely on the steam gauges, easier for me to discern trends and tell the story of what the plane is doing quicker.
 
nauga said:
Most of my quick-scan stuff like engine monitor are configured with analog presentations of the digital data for that reason. You can have my 3-pointer altimeters, the ones without the counters, anyway :)

Nauga,
and the joke about a digital exam
Click to expand...


Just a 2-pointer in my baby Beech. A quick glance and if the big needle is straight down I’m on my VFR altitude.
 
As several have said, analog gauges are easier to read quickly versus digital instruments.

With tapes, setting the bug helps a lot, as you are now analog (gap) to the bug
 
nauga said:
How do you have the presentation set up? One of my biggest complaints with glass panels, particularly the larger ones, is the tendency to cram way to much information into the display. Declutter is my friend. A scan volume like looking at a full panel through a toilet paper tube is not an 'enhancing characteristic'

Nauga,
who knows less is more, more or less.
Click to expand...

At this point, I'm running a single G3X screen. The right half is engine monitoring. The left hand side is airspeed and altitude, heading info, and trim settings. Given that all I'm doing is circling the airfield at this point (until at least 5 hours), I don't need a lot, but it is still work to process integers on the tapes (which represent very specific information) as opposed to needles on gauges (which give you relative info at a glance).

Since you're probably better versed on this stuff than anyone on the board, I have to ask... if you're flying glass, how do YOU set it up?
 
Pinecone said:
As several have said, analog gauges are easier to read quickly versus digital instruments.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm weird. I did my primary training on steam gauges, transitioned to the G1000 with no problem, did my instrument on the G1000, and then transitioned back to steam gauges (for IFR) without much problem. My main issues with steam gauges are the lack of an altitude bug and wind vectors. I just have to make triple sure I remember what I've been assigned and do some mental math calculating the difference between HDG/TRK/DTK.
 
I started training with 6 paks, then about 1/2 through training the school bought a used 172 with a aG1000.
It cost a little more to rent and was available more so I trained in it quite a bit. I still took my check ride in a 6 pak plane.

Then I bought a 172 and had 2 G5s installed. I don't remember any real problems getting used to the G5 and I think the G1000 helped me with that. 1000+ hours now and love my panel.

I trained in my own plane for my instrument rating with the G5s. I use all my instruments while flying.
I like my G5 more than the 275 in my buddys arrow because the 275 is too small for my liking.
IMG_1266.JPG
 
Nice combination, Gary. Excellent position of the digital information, plus minimal clutter, for fast scan.

Enough of the critical steam guages to survive a digital dump, and the major information on the digital display.

Quick scan of the altimeter, big hand either straight up, or down, that is fine. ROC horizontal, fine. T&B ball center, plane level, fine. With just those working, plus a comm radio, you are good to fly to an airport with radar vectors, and approach to a reasonable low altitude for a transition to visual.

PS, I knew my plane well enough to know my airspeed from sounds and feel of the controls, right down to the edge of stall. I kept that feel with an annual series of stalls, with and without flaps. The ultimate backup for failed guages.

Under the hood, I have been vectored to a PAR approach, and then concentrated on stable T&B except when a turn was called for. Terminated at 15 feet! Centered on the runway. When life gets especially tough, go to a military field, they are accustomed to bringing their planes in with minimal stuff working.
 
kyleb said:
I have to ask... if you're flying glass, how do YOU set it up?
Click to expand...
Hopefully flying (again) in the next week or so, but it's glass. PFD is a small-box Dynon with a standard PFD display that's very familiar to me. The biggest issue I have with it is the digital altitude is harder to see trends for e.g. level off, but I''ve been able to work with it in the past and I'm sure I'll be able to here. The g-meter display is also too small for an easy scan so there's an analog g-meter next to it. Some of the extraneous stuff on the PFD in the pic below (OAT, density altitude, input voltage) has been removed as it's not needed in my primary scan. Below the PFD is a G5 with a bog-standard HSI display, and to the left is another small Dynon engine monitor with analog presentations of all critical parameters. Any of the displays can serve as a backup PFD or HSI, and the Dynon PFD can also display the engine monitor, so there's a fair bit of redundancy, including sensors (but not engine sensors). Primary scan volume is compact, and I can get engine trends in my peripheral vision. I also have a large-ish moving map on a center pedestal (Garmin Pilot on an iPad between my knees) for wide-area airspace and traffic management, and a glass navigator/transponder and backup GPS on the right side of the panel. Eventually I'll probably replace the top GPS with a Nav/Com since I'm single radio and GPS-only at the moment.

Wiring this was a whole lot more fun than the original mechanical/vacuum panel.

Panel_new.jpg

Nauga,
harnessed
 
Last edited:
Funny... I used to hate the G5 for their very "aftermarket" big square boxy look.. then I started seeing people that had better installations with them inset flush with the panel and thought that looked sick

Then the GI-275 came out and I was in love for their "factory" look.. got the real restomod appeal keeping the stock round holes but introducing some tech

... well after a few hundred hours flying behind both in our club, I will say.. I am NOT A FAN of the GI-275. Too tiny, and the touch screen is a remarkably stupid idea. The G5 is far more intuitive to set baro or push and click through various bugs. So there's that.
 
I do agree that I still look at the round steam ASI for speed and the round alt and VS gauges for reference, but treat the speed and alt tapes in the G5 / GI-275 more as AP command windows

I guess it's what you're used to
 
Tantalum said:
I do agree that I still look at the round steam ASI for speed and the round alt and VS gauges for reference, but treat the speed and alt tapes in the G5 / GI-275 more as AP command windows

I guess it's what you're used to
Click to expand...
I'm used to both, so what I do is I set the baro, check which one is showing field elevation then make a mental note to disregard the one that's off.
 
asicer said:
That's an interesting perception. Have you looked at them side by side?
Click to expand...
The round one still seems smaller to me, the information just seems scrunched in the middle. So I did some math. Assuming the GI-2.75 has a 1.5 inch screen radius (3 inch diameter) that results in 7.1 square inches of surface area. The same square with 3 X 3 results in 9 square inches. That's not insignificant. The GI-275 would need about an extra half inch or so diameter to have comparable screen area, and even then the information would be "scrunched" into the middle. Sort of like why a square 172 cabin still feels "bigger" width wise than a comparable much larger cabin width (like Mooney) that feels small

But honestly my main gripe is the touch screen. In a small often turbulent cabin having a big knob to push and scroll is just easier than having to tap exactly on the part of the tiny screen you want
 
Tantalum said:
Assuming the GI-2.75 has a 1.5 inch screen radius (3 inch diameter) that results in 7.1 square inches of surface area. The same square with 3 X 3 results in 9 square inches.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the G5 is not a 3x3 square screen. The specs list it as a 3.5" diagonal screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio. Working back the math, I compute it to be 2.8" wide by 2.1" tall resulting in 5.88 square inches (assuming square pixels).
 
Tantalum said:
But honestly my main gripe is the touch screen. In a small often turbulent cabin having a big knob to push and scroll is just easier than having to tap exactly on the part of the tiny screen you want
Click to expand...
The GI275 has twice as many knobs (2 concentric) as the G5. :)
 
Gary Ward said:
I started training with 6 paks, then about 1/2 through training the school bought a used 172 with a aG1000.
It cost a little more to rent and was available more so I trained in it quite a bit. I still took my check ride in a 6 pak plane.

Then I bought a 172 and had 2 G5s installed. I don't remember any real problems getting used to the G5 and I think the G1000 helped me with that. 1000+ hours now and love my panel.

I trained in my own plane for my instrument rating with the G5s. I use all my instruments while flying.
I like my G5 more than the 275 in my buddys arrow because the 275 is too small for my liking.
IMG_1266.JPG
Click to expand...
That's just how the schools 172's are set up, for the most part. Those big ol' dials are just screamin' "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME!", drawing most of my attention away from the altimeter & VS tapes of the top G5. The lower HSI I have no problem with. :)
`Ronbo
 
Tantalum said:
I do agree that I still look at the round steam ASI for speed and the round alt and VS gauges for reference, but treat the speed and alt tapes in the G5 / GI-275 more as AP command windows

I guess it's what you're used to
Click to expand...
More like what you decide to get used to. Easy enough to break the round dial habit if you want to. And I think it happens on its own as time goes by anyway. Setting the altimeter may be the only time I look at them when flying glass.
 
Last edited:
It takes a while, but once you get acclimated to the tapes, they are natural. What bugs me is that the G5s and steam gauge altimeter never exactly agree. I'll bet the G5 is more accurate, and that seems borne out by the biennial static checks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top