I'm a member of the Bald Eagle Flying Club with 15-20 hours in the aircraft since we upgraded the avionics--money well spent! Yes, the old avionics were functional but IMC capability and situational awareness are dramatically better. The Dynon package is (mostly) very intuitive. With ongoing training (a way of life?) and attention to some of the pitfalls of general aviation glass cockpit use (e.g system state errors), this package will up my game in pilot performance and and family-flying-safety.
Tom Pulling the old panel was falling apart piece by piece with replacement instruments incredibly expensive, not to mention down time. It is so nice to fly with accurate instruments and flight is not cancelled because of broken equipment. If you want round gages press a button it’s there and easy to read. I’m very happy with the results.
Thank you SOOOO much for this video! I have to decide what to do, and when, to update my Saratoga within the next 2-3 years. Having just spent $30K on miscellaneous Garmin boxes for a Cherokee 180 (ADS-B, dual G5s and so forth), spending another $60k to upgrade the Saratoga with all-Garmin stuff is not very attractive to me and here's the real problem: My avionics shop is like the roach motel: Planes go in and hardly ever come back out, due to a severe shortage of avionics technicians.
If you're flying an older airplane this has to be the best way to go. The system is simpler to use afterward and that by itself will improve safety. The instruments, as they said in the video, are simply better and the additional ADS-B in&out is also a huge plus for safety.
Hey I had to pause it on that old vac. stuff and sure enough I bought the system on EBAY from you guys! Its going on a Cessna 140 and an upgrade from venturi tubes, good thing I have an O-200 to handle the weight :) Take care from Ephrata Wa. PS good vid
Absolutely gorgeous!...Clean and uncluttered. Love that lower panel. OLD 1999 panel?...LOL...Give me a break!...He'd bust a gut laughing if he had seen my legacy 1978 panel with ADF.
Panel upgrades like this are another reason why most should not consider a new 172. Not like Cessna seems to mind, I feel they are jacking up the costs because in reality they don't want to be bothered with making single engine piston aircraft anymore, they just want to sell Jets. Also I am not sure where he gets the figure of $350,000 I spoke to a Cessna dealer for a 2019 172 and he told me $495,000.
talk about putting all your digital eggs in a single basket. A single display away from flying by the seat of your pants. While it does look sexy and a little busy, a backup AS, VS and maybe HSI would be nice.
The real cause of the corroded general aviation in this country is the heavy handed regulation by the FAA. The FAA made it too costly for manufacturers to produce more efficient and to create more cost effective aircraft design. Airplanes are still flying with very unreliable vacuum pumps and magnetos yet the FAA insist its voluminous regulation somehow made aviation safe. To compare with automobile technology, car design has progressed every year and has new improvements in every new generation of design. It's time to ban the FAA from meddling in general aviation.
It's too costly for the owners, not the manufacturers. There are better planes than a 172. Cirrus is always adding something, but you have to dig down into your pockets to get a new one
I love the new glass cockpit units and install both Dynon and Garmin along with others avionics as well I love the moving map in real time along with ADS Bl . but all so love some of the old gauges for back up like airspeed , AH just in case the display fails.? But all the avionics OEM could have the units build so well it's possible they will last as longer than units like the KCS 55A & KFC 200 Auto Pilot flight control system. The KX155/165 or kma24. The units allows so much. When. Set side by side with older avionics and it's weight is so much much lighter When looking into avionics up graders just thank its night a long 500 mile cross country in good weather and you display fails. No airspeed.. No AH. . no DG and any equipment control only via the display can not be access. Now its bad weather still VFR and you have no back up gauges hope the IPAD can take over.
He said the screen is "busy". Indeed, it is. For all the information on display, give me a larger screen. Don't listen to me, however. I'm a 69 year old aviator that still likes round gauges.
hmm, the state of aviation feels too much like the car situation in Cuba, going to great lengths to nurse old junk when 60k should really buy you a brand new state of the art plane with everything. We need multiple revolutions.
operative word is "should" (60k should really buy - brand new? state of the art?) ...... you propose building a modern A/C and furnishing it with "state of the art equipment ............for 60k .... it would have to have a made in Bangladesh sticker on it ................ ;-p
@@cleburne-dfwseptic6843 that's a self fulfilling prophecy. A 172 is an awful plane from 1960. Nice car makers do 'super cars' for much less than a 'new' 172. Volume is a factor but so is sheepish mindlessness. When I say brand new state of the art plane, I'm certainly not talking about the awful 172.
Nice setup. However, I prefer analog airspeed indicators for easyier reading at a quick glance. In lieu of an analog airspeed indicator, a AoA display on top of the glareshield would be an awesome addition to keep your eyes up when making full use of that STOL kit.
@@drteknical6571 Old timers, as in other fields, difficulty in adapting to new and better technologies, but to each his own. I am old timer, but I am all in on Digital. Within a few years, like the Victrola, analog guages gone.
I went with the G500 txi for the same 172n. They probably paid less. The one big issue with my install is there are no real good digital APs available for the 172 that couple to the G500. The G5 compatible AP won't work with the G500, and the Stec-3100 is said to never be stc'ed for 172s.
I wish Dynon would certify the other SkyViews. This HDX unit is overkill for a small piston aircraft. The SkyView Classic or heck even the SE would be a better choice. If your in a 50's or 60's aircraft running steam and DME but want the reliability of solid sate, the HDX is a big leap from where you started.
Lots of very nice information but single screen is much too busy and easy to miss something. Don’t like the idea of not having some basic get you home analogue instruments it’s all very well having backups in the unit but what if the display itself goes?
Amazing info, all within the screen size. . . I've often wondered, if there is a screen glare/reflection issue (be aware note) sort of thing with the glass cockpits. . . example on finals to 07 near sunset (northern hemisphere). . . appreciate thoughts / experiences.
AVweb With that mindset why still have a fluid compass? Also, there could be an electric with battery backup directional gyro, no vacuum system needed.
@@AVweb Are you saying the STC REQUIRES the complete removal of older instruments when glass is installed. Ridiculous to not have backup, when there is plenty of room for it.
I'm a CFI who is contemplating a Dynon suit for a 172 but I am really hesitant because I think it is important for new pilots to learn on a standard 6 pack and then transition to glass. That being said, I saw in your video that you can change the screen to be a 6 pack. I was wondering how accurate it is and if it allows you to fail systems in order to teach. Like the vacuum system for example.
Hi Bill. I have zero aircraft knowledge, but a lengthy career in consumer electronics, from the mid 1970's. I greatly respect what you are saying, but I ask why learn an old technology? I was one of the first to sell PC's with the Pentium chip back in 1993 to retailers. Both the retailer, and consumer had no use for understanding "Dual Pipeline", and all of the intricacies that this advanced technology had to offer. My approach was different from the manufacturers desire to get into all that- it was to show consumers how they can get the best from this new generation of chips. The standard, Feature (what it is) - Advantage (what it does) - Benefit (how that helps the end user). Sometimes we get comfortable with old technologies, and become novices ourselves with major advances. As a future Sports Pilot, I would rather spend my time learning all of the advantages of the Dynon equipment, and I am sure that would entail hundreds of hours. Imagine totally mastering the new technology, and being aware of what lies around the corner as well? I just wanted to offer my viewpoint here. Thanks so much! I wish I had your experience as a CFI. Good for you.
I think learning on the modern technology is better. Why learn something you are going to discard and then have to learn a brand new system. Safer to learn on what your going to fly. That being said most of us fly rentals. Most rentals are a six pack not glass. I can fly a older 172 for $125 verses a g1000 172 for $170 per hour. The plane doesn’t know the difference.
@@cscinc I am a fabricator and work for a laser cutting place. It just isn't that expensive. Ok here is how you know. Ever had a set of selves that are sheet metal and power coated? They are about $600. They are WAY bigger than the panel, more complicated and with additional processes. If you buy it from cessna then yes its the cost of a small boat. But the part itself is cheap as hell.
Maybe I'm an oddball but I like the look of the old panel FAR better than the new one he brags about. It looks like a cheap 8th grade science project. I'd take one look at it and say "no thanks"
a 172N is fundamentally no different than a 2019 version of the 172 other than the avionics. Much cheaper to upgrade an older airplane that has a good airframe. It will fly just as fast and most likely will have a better useful load
Sure we are-Anglisano's head was on a swivel and Van West even stated on camera he cleared the area. We were also working Boston approach control, but that's cut in the edit.
Did anyone else hear him say the airplane LOST 35 lbs after the install? I am calling BS. Yes, the older stuff weighs more. No, it does not weigh THAT much more. Id like to see the Scale weight and balance before and after before I believe it.
I would say based on the age of the plane, it lost 35 lbs and then some. Observe the highly skilled IA learning as he goes with new technology. Remember the additional parts they tried to save, but eventually had to scrap? It adds up quickly. Another advantage for digital.
"If we lose this screen we lose instrumentation..." How can this even come close to being considered safe - much less prudent - particularly in a club plane? To be blunt, it seems foolhardy (aka reckless) to me. This appears to be an example of some people blindly adopting technology beyond logic. Of course they lost 30 lbs. in the conversion - they trashed any possibility of retaining any back-ups. My prediction... this will end in tragedy when someone kills themselves and/or others because this club forgot the concept of redundancy. Not even a yaw string, for Christ's sake - not that a yaw string would work on and SEL aircraft.
Will these new computerized artificial vision, autopilot systems increase or decrease death rate of VFR into IFR, IMC? Will VFR pilots with these news instrument systems deliberately fly into weather and increase the accident rate? I think the VFR into IMC accident rate will drop way down, but time will tell.
Not ONE single "steam gauge" left in the panel. Plenty of room on the right for several back-up gauges running on something besides electricity. I've been a pilot for over 30 years, and while I've enjoyed the integration glass brings to GA and Light Sport, I fail to understand the logic behind getting rid of all "old tech' instruments. That airplane completely depends on electrical power being available (AND the continued functionality) of that bunch of glass for the pilot to have ANY idea about what is going on! Bad Move.
It has battery backup on the back of the instruments. There is the backup artificial horizon. They pointed out that the new instruments detected issues with the pitot static system.
Dan Frederiksen considering the cost of the equipment and the length the airplane was in the shop, along with the 45-50k total for the install, pretty sure he did. But, what do I know? I only work for the largest avionics shop in the country
The more I learn about Dynon, the more I like it, and that’s coming from someone who owns stock in Garmin!
Amazing to see all of this technology making older plane so much safer. Looks awesome!
Do you have any evidence that suggests that this single point of failure makes this plane "safer?"
I'm a member of the Bald Eagle Flying Club with 15-20 hours in the aircraft since we upgraded the avionics--money well spent! Yes, the old avionics were functional but IMC capability and situational awareness are dramatically better. The Dynon package is (mostly) very intuitive. With ongoing training (a way of life?) and attention to some of the pitfalls of general aviation glass cockpit use (e.g system state errors), this package will up my game in pilot performance and and family-flying-safety.
Tom Pulling the old panel was falling apart piece by piece with replacement instruments incredibly expensive, not to mention down time. It is so nice to fly with accurate instruments and flight is not cancelled because of broken equipment. If you want round gages press a button it’s there and easy to read. I’m very happy with the results.
Never hurts to learn about a different system, Thank you for posting AVweb.
Dynon is so much more affordable than the competition. Makes it worthwhile to actually do upgrades on older planes.
Good film and explores what a lot of aircraft owners would like to do....thank you.
Great job. Worth the wait. The glass cockpit provides so much more useful information.
Thank you SOOOO much for this video! I have to decide what to do, and when, to update my Saratoga within the next 2-3 years. Having just spent $30K on miscellaneous Garmin boxes for a Cherokee 180 (ADS-B, dual G5s and so forth), spending another $60k to upgrade the Saratoga with all-Garmin stuff is not very attractive to me and here's the real problem: My avionics shop is like the roach motel: Planes go in and hardly ever come back out, due to a severe shortage of avionics technicians.
If you're flying an older airplane this has to be the best way to go. The system is simpler to use afterward and that by itself will improve safety. The instruments, as they said in the video, are simply better and the additional ADS-B in&out is also a huge plus for safety.
Hey I had to pause it on that old vac. stuff and sure enough I bought the system on EBAY from you guys! Its going on a Cessna 140 and an upgrade from venturi tubes, good thing I have an O-200 to handle the weight :) Take care from Ephrata Wa. PS good vid
I was just thinking that it would go nice in another plane 😁
Absolutely gorgeous!...Clean and uncluttered. Love that lower panel.
OLD 1999 panel?...LOL...Give me a break!...He'd bust a gut laughing if he had seen my legacy 1978 panel with ADF.
Panel upgrades like this are another reason why most should not consider a new 172. Not like Cessna seems to mind, I feel they are jacking up the costs because in reality they don't want to be bothered with making single engine piston aircraft anymore, they just want to sell Jets. Also I am not sure where he gets the figure of $350,000 I spoke to a Cessna dealer for a 2019 172 and he told me $495,000.
Why do you want to buy new of anything, especially aircraft which has high depreciation.
What’s wrong with steam gauges? At the very least as backup. I don’t get the fascination with all glass panels
talk about putting all your digital eggs in a single basket. A single display away from flying by the seat of your pants. While it does look sexy and a little busy, a backup AS, VS and maybe HSI would be nice.
Because they are not as good as modern avionics. Solid state stuff with integration for gps, battery backup, etc, is awesome.
@@fadedflage My thinking has evolved closer to your point of view in the year or so since I posted my first comment above.
That new dashboard looks nekkid.
"Eighty members, that's a lot of cooks in that kitchen".
The dynon screen looks like it has alot of glare. Is that just on camera? Nice video, thank you
Wow that’s clean
Awesome great airplane awesome work
The real cause of the corroded general aviation in this country is the heavy handed regulation by the FAA. The FAA made it too costly for manufacturers to produce more efficient and to create more cost effective aircraft design. Airplanes are still flying with very unreliable vacuum pumps and magnetos yet the FAA insist its voluminous regulation somehow made aviation safe. To compare with automobile technology, car design has progressed every year and has new improvements in every new generation of design. It's time to ban the FAA from meddling in general aviation.
It's too costly for the owners, not the manufacturers. There are better planes than a 172. Cirrus is always adding something, but you have to dig down into your pockets to get a new one
I love the new glass cockpit units and install both Dynon and Garmin along with others avionics as well
I love the moving map in real time along with ADS Bl . but all so love some of the old gauges for back up like airspeed , AH just in case the display fails.?
But all the avionics OEM could have the units build so well it's possible they will last as longer than units like the KCS 55A & KFC 200 Auto Pilot flight control system. The KX155/165 or kma24.
The units allows so much. When. Set side by side with older avionics and it's weight is so much much lighter
When looking into avionics up graders just thank its night a long 500 mile cross country in good weather and you display fails. No airspeed.. No AH. . no DG and any equipment control only via the display can not be access.
Now its bad weather still VFR and you have no back up gauges hope the IPAD can take over.
nice job
The old panel looks better in my opinion... but I'm an old school 6 pack guy who got his PPL back in 2005. lol. :(
He said the screen is "busy". Indeed, it is. For all the information on display, give me a larger screen. Don't listen to me, however. I'm a 69 year old aviator that still likes round gauges.
only a student, but it seems to me ,if you have a electrical problem, you loose everything,, no backup,,,or,,,do you need one,,,,
@@Vito_A_LabellaI personally would much rather fly on an aircraft with 2 different sources of information coming in.
@@Vito_A_Labella, the video specifically mentioned a battery backup to the HDX and the PFD to the left of the HDX.
Nice.
hmm, the state of aviation feels too much like the car situation in Cuba, going to great lengths to nurse old junk when 60k should really buy you a brand new state of the art plane with everything.
We need multiple revolutions.
This is the perfect metaphor.
volume is just not there for that pricing
Need new technology that hasn’t even been invented yet
operative word is "should" (60k should really buy - brand new? state of the art?) ...... you propose building a modern A/C and furnishing it with "state of the art equipment ............for 60k .... it would have to have a made in Bangladesh sticker on it ................ ;-p
@@cleburne-dfwseptic6843 that's a self fulfilling prophecy. A 172 is an awful plane from 1960. Nice car makers do 'super cars' for much less than a 'new' 172. Volume is a factor but so is sheepish mindlessness. When I say brand new state of the art plane, I'm certainly not talking about the awful 172.
Nice setup. However, I prefer analog airspeed indicators for easyier reading at a quick glance. In lieu of an analog airspeed indicator, a AoA display on top of the glareshield would be an awesome addition to keep your eyes up when making full use of that STOL kit.
It isn't cool anymore, so, ...no.
@@drteknical6571 Old timers, as in other fields, difficulty in adapting to new and better technologies, but to each his own. I am old timer, but I am all in on Digital. Within a few years, like the Victrola, analog guages gone.
I like the reduced gauges, less to break. How much weight was saved? Est 30k cost upgrade?
In the video, the said they shaved off 35 lbs. The cost is probably closer to 45k.
I went with the G500 txi for the same 172n. They probably paid less. The one big issue with my install is there are no real good digital APs available for the 172 that couple to the G500. The G5 compatible AP won't work with the G500, and the Stec-3100 is said to never be stc'ed for 172s.
I wish Dynon would certify the other SkyViews. This HDX unit is overkill for a small piston aircraft. The SkyView Classic or heck even the SE would be a better choice. If your in a 50's or 60's aircraft running steam and DME but want the reliability of solid sate, the HDX is a big leap from where you started.
They are going to stop making the Classic and SE soon, so they probably chose the most modern unit with the best bang for the buck.
@@chadcoady9025 that sucks.
Lots of very nice information but single screen is much too busy and easy to miss something. Don’t like the idea of not having some basic get you home analogue instruments it’s all very well having backups in the unit but what if the display itself goes?
You would have the GTN650 and the EFIS D10A.
The small unit to the left of the big screen is a separate backup with altitude, heading, airspeed, artificial horizon, rate of climb, etc.
Amazing info, all within the screen size. . . I've often wondered, if there is a screen glare/reflection issue (be aware note) sort of thing with the glass cockpits. . . example on finals to 07 near sunset (northern hemisphere). . . appreciate thoughts / experiences.
Does the STC allow fabricating your own instrument panel?
How long did it take to work out all the bugs?
I didn't realise what a snappy dresser Jeff was... that cap.
I would put the basic analog mechanical flight instruments in the unused/wasted panel space on the right for the ultimate backup and cross training.
Nah, the STC includes removing the vacuum system. Out with it all...
AVweb With that mindset why still have a fluid compass? Also, there could be an electric with battery backup directional gyro, no vacuum system needed.
I think weight can become a concern too?
@@AVweb Are you saying the STC REQUIRES the complete removal of older instruments when glass is installed. Ridiculous to not have backup, when there is plenty of room for it.
@@drteknical6571 Add another Dynon panel. Move into the future. Sooner or later it will be here regardless.
How much should be the budget for an upgrade like this? Including the garmin 375
Was there any trade-in or salvage value from the old instruments & avionics?
Is the smaller screen to the left a backup ?
YES
Stefenski it's like the Garmin g5 self powered too.
Would this meet the requirements of a technical advanced aircraft with only one display?
You've gotta have a self powered backup. Look at the left side.
I'm a CFI who is contemplating a Dynon suit for a 172 but I am really hesitant because I think it is important for new pilots to learn on a standard 6 pack and then transition to glass. That being said, I saw in your video that you can change the screen to be a 6 pack. I was wondering how accurate it is and if it allows you to fail systems in order to teach. Like the vacuum system for example.
Hi Bill. I have zero aircraft knowledge, but a lengthy career in consumer electronics, from the mid 1970's. I greatly respect what you are saying, but I ask why learn an old technology? I was one of the first to sell PC's with the Pentium chip back in 1993 to retailers. Both the retailer, and consumer had no use for understanding "Dual Pipeline", and all of the intricacies that this advanced technology had to offer. My approach was different from the manufacturers desire to get into all that- it was to show consumers how they can get the best from this new generation of chips. The standard, Feature (what it is) - Advantage (what it does) - Benefit (how that helps the end user).
Sometimes we get comfortable with old technologies, and become novices ourselves with major advances. As a future Sports Pilot, I would rather spend my time learning all of the advantages of the Dynon equipment, and I am sure that would entail hundreds of hours. Imagine totally mastering the new technology, and being aware of what lies around the corner as well? I just wanted to offer my viewpoint here. Thanks so much! I wish I had your experience as a CFI. Good for you.
I think learning on the modern technology is better.
Why learn something you are going to discard and then have to learn a brand new system. Safer to learn on what your going to fly.
That being said most of us fly rentals. Most rentals are a six pack not glass. I can fly a older 172 for $125 verses a g1000 172 for $170 per hour. The plane doesn’t know the difference.
Did the A&P/IA Tom Ward ever fly for Continental Express?
I really wanna know how much it cost. (Not including the gps or ads-b)
Honestly the steam gauges looked better, but I would rather fly on the glass though
a 172 with a wifi password. wow.
You got rid of the plastic and replaced it with a new panel made of what? and what did that part cost?
Most likely just a sheet of aluminum with cutouts made.
That is like $200-400 nothin in the scheme of things. Just laser cut Alum.
@@gusbisbal9803 You wish. When I redid my panel, we did a powder coated one and it was $4000.
@@gusbisbal9803 And the sub-panel is another $1200
@@cscinc I am a fabricator and work for a laser cutting place. It just isn't that expensive. Ok here is how you know. Ever had a set of selves that are sheet metal and power coated? They are about $600. They are WAY bigger than the panel, more complicated and with additional processes. If you buy it from cessna then yes its the cost of a small boat. But the part itself is cheap as hell.
The older instrumentation were not "steam gauges". Just say older instrumentation from the 1980s. Thanks.
Such a sexy glass cockpit
Awesome. Good choice. But no backup G5 are something like that?
There was a backup Dynon on the left side of the Skyview.
@@NoelJacobs ups, sry. Didn't see that.
I am interested to know how much this upgrade costed you guy !
Search up Dynon avionics, its cheap on their site! The guy in this video said it was around 38k
@@AIMLL is it certified and how much is the difference if I wanna just place experimental on a 150 ?
Are you selling the C172N's old avionics? My club's 172N doesn't even have a panel-mount GPS!
WHY YES WE ARE!
talkingbob
You might join a different club 😂😂😂
All these avionics offer little more than a cheap tablet with a portable ADS-B In w/ AHRS but for 100x the $$.
The avionics includes an autopilot, ADS-B out, and engine monitoring, all things a tablet can't do.
Your tablet also isn't certified for any type of flight. It's reference only.
Sounds like someone needs to watch the video again!
@@tonyfdesign Joke's on you. I wasn't about to watch it the first time.
@@BrickyardGaming Guess what else was certified? The original instrument cluster. Not sure what your point is.
IMO de-certify the 172 and fly experimental.
Maybe I'm an oddball but I like the look of the old panel FAR better than the new one he brags about. It looks like a cheap 8th grade science project. I'd take one look at it and say "no thanks"
Thanks. Same here
Might as well install a Garmin G5 in your riding mower.
a 172N is fundamentally no different than a 2019 version of the 172 other than the avionics. Much cheaper to upgrade an older airplane that has a good airframe. It will fly just as fast and most likely will have a better useful load
You dudes are NOT looking out the window!
Sure we are-Anglisano's head was on a swivel and Van West even stated on camera he cleared the area. We were also working Boston approach control, but that's cut in the edit.
Wah,wah,wah. Net nanny showed up. Hahaha!n Karen!
@@videodistro Just look out the window!
Did anyone else hear him say the airplane LOST 35 lbs after the install? I am calling BS. Yes, the older stuff weighs more. No, it does not weigh THAT much more. Id like to see the Scale weight and balance before and after before I believe it.
I would say based on the age of the plane, it lost 35 lbs and then some. Observe the highly skilled IA learning as he goes with new technology. Remember the additional parts they tried to save, but eventually had to scrap? It adds up quickly. Another advantage for digital.
"If we lose this screen we lose instrumentation..." How can this even come close to being considered safe - much less prudent - particularly in a club plane? To be blunt, it seems foolhardy (aka reckless) to me. This appears to be an example of some people blindly adopting technology beyond logic. Of course they lost 30 lbs. in the conversion - they trashed any possibility of retaining any back-ups. My prediction... this will end in tragedy when someone kills themselves and/or others because this club forgot the concept of redundancy. Not even a yaw string, for Christ's sake - not that a yaw string would work on and SEL aircraft.
It has a standby.
NOW ELECTRIC POWER FOR THE MOTORS AND PROPS! WE ARE ON OUR WAY TO REAL ADVANCEMENT!
Will these new computerized artificial vision, autopilot systems increase or decrease death rate of VFR into IFR, IMC?
Will VFR pilots with these news instrument systems deliberately fly into weather and increase the accident rate?
I think the VFR into IMC accident rate will drop way down, but time will tell.
Not ONE single "steam gauge" left in the panel. Plenty of room on the right for several back-up gauges running on something besides electricity. I've been a pilot for over 30 years, and while I've enjoyed the integration glass brings to GA and Light Sport, I fail to understand the logic behind getting rid of all "old tech' instruments. That airplane completely depends on electrical power being available (AND the continued functionality) of that bunch of glass for the pilot to have ANY idea about what is going on! Bad Move.
It has battery backup on the back of the instruments. There is the backup artificial horizon. They pointed out that the new instruments detected issues with the pitot static system.
I would rather fly Grandfather's 1937 J-3, with minimal instruments, then any aircraft with nothing but computer screens for a "Panel"!!!!!
Ok
I sure hope my mechanic is more confident than this guy
I will like to reject this Installation
Their installer got screwed on labor for this...
Well it cost 60 grand so not sure he did.
Dan Frederiksen considering the cost of the equipment and the length the airplane was in the shop, along with the 45-50k total for the install, pretty sure he did. But, what do I know? I only work for the largest avionics shop in the country
@@BrickyardGaming didn't he say it was 50k until they wanted some more and it was 10k more? so 60k. I guess you don't know much.
@@DanFrederiksen Did they really spend 60K on this avionics upgrade? No freaking way!
@@johncarr123 what it sounded like to me. I think he says 50 and then decided to spend 10k more.
Looks so old school for $30k. My $700 PC can simulate all of that AND the plane flying through the air.
It's called certification....
Why not spend another 200 bucks for a bigger screen....
they got the larger of the 2 dynons
@@savethedeveloper Ah, ok... Somehow that size felt cramped to me... Just a few inches more would make all the difference...