New Panel - you're doing it wrong

Heh I saw that this morning! :p
 
Mocking it or admiring it?

I like the minimalism. Simple layout, powerful avionics.
 
Interesting. At that point, why stick with a stupid high panel and useless blank space? Take the glareshield closer to the firewall, shrink the vertical, or stick the radios and transponder in front of pilot; same with engine stuff, switches, fuses, etc. If you’re going to get this creative, take it further. Shows lack of imagination. But field approvability of further mods is an arguable reason to paint within the lines.
 
I love that after throwing away most of his panel and putting in the minimum amount of glass, he still came back, got rid of yet another gauge and put a blank in its spot.

Not much of a fan of this panel to begin with, but having that blank in there would drive me over the edge to insanity!
 
I like the carbon fiber look...that's all I've got.
 
172andyou said:
I love that after throwing away most of his panel and putting in the minimum amount of glass, he still came back, got rid of yet another gauge and put a blank in its spot.

Not much of a fan of this panel to begin with, but having that blank in there would drive me over the edge to insanity!
Click to expand...

Maybe that blank is where the future engine monitor is going?
 
"legal" and "Smart" don't always coincide. Not much redundancy there.
 
I don't believe Garmin would have advised a clean-slate installation of these units.

The clean-slate suggestion would have been glass-panels, and knock out the old crap on the RHS.
 
172andyou said:
I love that after throwing away most of his panel and putting in the minimum amount of glass, he still came back, got rid of yet another gauge and put a blank in its spot.

Not much of a fan of this panel to begin with, but having that blank in there would drive me over the edge to insanity!
Click to expand...
I’m guessing he’s waiting x months for a 275 engine monitor
 
Way too cluttered. The GMA/GNC355/Lynx could have easily been replaced with a PAR200b/GNX375 combo. Soooo messy!

And the analog clock? C'mon!
 
Mtns2Skies said:
"legal" and "Smart" don't always coincide. Not much redundancy there.
Click to expand...
To piggy back off your redundancy comment as I thought the same when I saw it… Wonder what percentage of 40 plus year old single engine GA planes ever fly IFR/IMC?
 
I like the HSI, and the intercom/audio panel. I don't like any other part of it at all.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
"legal" and "Smart" don't always coincide. Not much redundancy there.
Click to expand...
What redundancy is missing? If the GPS fails, you have the KX155 and vice versa. If the AI fails, the HSI will go into reversionary mode. If the HSI fails, the CDI takes over. If the alternator fails, the GI275's have backup batteries.
 
I’d bet y’all are the minority. Guessing the stat doesn’t exist but I’d guess it’s in the 20% range.

*Talking hard IMC where redundancy matters.
 
asicer said:
What redundancy is missing? If the GPS fails, you have the KX155 and vice versa. If the AI fails, the HSI will go into reversionary mode. If the HSI fails, the CDI takes over. If the alternator fails, the GI275's have backup batteries.
Click to expand...
I have dual GI275's. I've had both **** the bed after I was in a bank for too prolonged of a time and they lost their reference to the horizon. Luckily I was in VMC, but could have been a big problem if I wasn't. It took them an unnerving amount of time to unass themselves, but I have a lot of other instruments & synthetic vision on my Aera 660 if push came to shove in IMC.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I have dual GI275's. I've had both **** the bed after I was in a bank for too prolonged of a time and they lost their reference to the horizon. Luckily I was in VMC, but could have been a big problem if I wasn't. It took them an unnerving amount of time to unass themselves, but I have a lot of other instruments & synthetic vision on my Aera 660 if push came to shove in IMC.
Click to expand...
No way in hell I’d trust an aera 660 in imc. If a 275 can go whacky I sure as hell wouldn’t trust an aera.
 
Recess both the AI & HSI deep into the panel and have the overlay be a huge magnifying glass.

Use a mirror for redundancy.
 
Salty said:
No way in hell I’d trust an aera 660 in imc. If a 275 can go whacky I sure as hell wouldn’t trust an aera.
Click to expand...
So you've missed my point, cherry-picked a minor detail from my post, taken it out of context and then commented on it. Are you sure you don't work in media?

If I'm partial panel, yeah i'll take the Aera as an aid to situational awareness. It is not my primary means of attitude awareness, nor should it be, but in a bind yeah i'll take all of the assistance I can.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
So you've missed my point, cherry-picked a minor detail from my post, taken it out of context and then commented on it. Are you sure you don't work in media?

If I'm partial panel, yeah i'll take the Aera as an aid to situational awareness. It is not my primary means of attitude awareness, nor should it be, but in a bind yeah i'll take all of the assistance I can.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what your first paragraph is talking about, but yeah, if I’m in the soup and my gi-275 is not agreeing with my aera660, I’m not going to choose the aera660 to look at.
Perhaps I’m not fully understanding you. Was the gi-275 giving an indication it had failed, or just not presenting accurate information?
 
Salty said:
Was the gi-275 giving an indication it had failed, or just not presenting accurate information?
Click to expand...
It was indicating failed and instructing me to level the wings to regain its reference. It was providing no info. I thought "oh well good thing there's reversionary mode" but that too gave the same indication. I would much rather it fully fail than present erroneous information though.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
"legal" and "Smart" don't always coincide. Not much redundancy there.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Any one of those GI-275's can function as an ADI, so there is a lot more redundancy in that panel than most others. I wouldn't be a fan of the single nav radio, though.
 
Groundpounder said:
What are you talking about? Any one of those GI-275's can function as an ADI, so there is a lot more redundancy in that panel than most others. I wouldn't be a fan of the single nav radio, though.
Click to expand...
No, not any-one of them can, only the ones with ADAHARS can, which is probably only two of them, also scroll up and read my other posts.

Don't get me wrong, I love my 275's and wouldn't trade them for any other avionics, but I'd want some more than that.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
It was indicating failed and instructing me to level the wings to regain its reference. It was providing no info. I thought "oh well good thing there's reversionary mode" but that too gave the same indication. I would much rather it fully fail than present erroneous information though.
Click to expand...
Ok, I misunderstood. I agree.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
No, not any-one of them can, only the ones with ADAHARS can, which is probably only two of them, also scroll up and read my other posts.

Don't get me wrong, I love my 275's and wouldn't trade them for any other avionics, but I'd want some more than that.
Click to expand...

OK, so there are two ADI's vs three. Still more redundancy than most other GA airplanes. I would suspect there have been more vacuum pump failures than GI-275 dual failures in the world, so my previous statement stands.
 
Groundpounder said:
OK, so there are two ADI's vs three. Still more redundancy than most other GA airplanes. I would suspect there have been more vacuum pump failures than GI-275 dual failures in the world, so my previous statement stands.
Click to expand...
You can fly partial panel with a vacuum failure. In the panel post #1 has dual GI275 failure leaves you no information. Also - both of those GI275's get their info from the same place, so still a single point of failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top