Looking for feedback on RV-7A Garmin panel design

[flyvans.com]

looks really good!

definitely leave the g5 where it is!
move the ELT panel away from the bottom edge of the panel (think knees, belts, tablets, arms and such). suggest moving it more to the right/up of the CBs.
and another thing: i would also move the copilot PTT up near the lighting controls, also for the same reason.

you'll have a great time with your panel!

(i did not think about 3d interference much, that's definitely something you need to check/keep under control!)

[N546RV]

Originally Posted by PilotjohnS

My opinion is to leave the G5 where it is. If you have ever seen a G5 in real life, I think there is a lot of info in a tight spot. In addition, I will be using it only for a back up. If I am relying on the G5, my flight has gone to the pits, I am stressed, and I am doing things I dont practice often. In this case, the last thing I want to do is to be twisting my head looking at the G5, looking outside, and trying to troubleshoot; I want the G5 in a place that is easier to look and close enough to see all the symbology. JMHO

I agree with this point; I think I'd summarize it by saying that the primary purpose of the G5 is to be looked at, not interacted with, and as such I think it's reasonable to position it for best visibility, rather than for best access.

[Bavafa]

Originally Posted by N546RV

I agree with this point; I think I'd summarize it by saying that the primary purpose of the G5 is to be looked at, not interacted with, and as such I think it's reasonable to position it for best visibility, rather than for best access.

My reason for moving to the middle is that it becomes useful for both left and right seat. If you don't care to make it useful for the right seat, then leave it where it is.

[Bavafa]

Originally Posted by N546RV

I agree with this point; I think I'd summarize it by saying that the primary purpose of the G5 is to be looked at, not interacted with, and as such I think it's reasonable to position it for best visibility, rather than for best access.

My reason for moving to the middle is that it becomes useful for both left and right seat. If you don't care to make it useful for the right seat, then leave it where it is. Either way, this is going to be a gorgeous panel.

[romaja]

I would consider moving the SDS CPI to where you have the G5. You might be surprised on how much you will be fiddling with the CPI programmer. As mentioned by previous posters if you place the G5 in the middle it can be utilized from either seat.

I have spent a fair amount of time flying partial panel in simulators utilizing only the standby attitude indicator and standby airspeed indicator in the center of the panel and it doesn't take long at all to feel comfortable with your G5 in this location.


Just a thought. Beautiful panel.. Enjoy

Jim

[jliltd]

My two favorite secondary functions on the stick are engine start and flaps. I didn't like the sound of them initially but they are super nice and I have grown to really like them. The start switch has an arming button on the panel. The least interesting things on a stick for me are ident, flip flop and com select. I see you don't have Ident so that's good (Ident is the worst thing to have on a control stick). So in your stick selections I like the Trim, PTT, Flaps, Autopilot Disconnect (which is also CWS) and Boost Pump. Mine has Boost Pump and I could take it or leave it. It does have an annunciator light on the panel since there is no visual cues with the push on/off selector on the stick instead of a visible toggle on the panel. If you were to consider one change on your sticks I would add Engine Start with an arming switch on the panel. I get the feeling many of the comments in this thread concerning Start circuit on the stick are coming from people who don't like it before they try it and maybe don't realize the stick button is disabled after start. I was one myself. Now I am a convert to stick switch start. Remember you still have conventional starting on the standard mag switch in case the stick button or arm switch ever failed. In fact I used the conventional ignition switch to start early on until I got comfortable with the airplane and the stick start. Maybe you could use Start in place of Boost Pump or one of the Comm functions. In fact if I ditched anything it would be the comm controls. Flaps on the stick is awesome in the pattern and on roll-out, especially in a tailwheel. You are going to really dig it.

I like your vertical placement of the center stack. The GMC 507 is perfect on top. Good choice. Remember the Garmin autopilot system is more than what most legacy GA autopilots were. It is a true modern flight control system and does so much with headings, altitudes, Vnav and is so capable it is nice to have right on top; even crotchety old hand fliers like me have been won over by its amazing features and I use it all the time. You might find yourself using its controls more during flight than the GTN and Audio Panel which is opposite of the way legacy panels generally worked with basic autopilots.

Swapping the position of the GTN and Audio Panel could go either way but I lean toward the GTN on top but I could be happy the way you show it too.

I like your conventional bus with breaker path. That always just works. We recently had a VPX Pro take down a whole G3X Touch flight deck in flight because of a faulty $5 USB phone cable being plugged in. That doesn't seem like a very robust or tolerant design. That wouldn't have happen with a legacy bus.

Here again you asked for opinions so that's what you got. In the end go with what feels right for you.

And, by the way, very nice panel. Looks like a lot of thought has been given to the final result.

Jim

[David Carter]

Jim - thanks for the feedback & the kind words. It's good to hear from people that have actual experience with things that are so far just theory to me.

Originally Posted by jliltd

If you were to consider one change on your sticks I would add Engine Start with an arming switch on the panel. I get the feeling many of the comments in this thread concerning Start circuit on the stick are coming from people who don't like it before they try it and maybe don't realize the stick button is disabled after start. I was one myself. Now I am a convert to stick switch start. Remember you still have conventional starting on the standard mag switch in case the stick button or arm switch ever failed.

Can you elaborate on how you have it wired so that the starter switch is disabled after engine start? That's a major feature of the VPX that I'd like to have, but don't want the huge SPOF that the VPX introduces.

Originally Posted by jliltd

Swapping the position of the GTN and Audio Panel could go either way but I lean toward the GTN on top but I could be happy the way you show it too.

I too would prefer the GTN higher, but think there will be depth issues there with the subpanel & structure. It would be nice to hear from anyone who has done the actual analysis on how high up the GTN can be in an RV-7A slider without major mods.

Originally Posted by jliltd

We recently had a VPX Pro take down a whole G3X Touch flight deck in flight because of a faulty $5 USB phone cable being plugged in. That doesn't seem like a very robust or tolerant design.

Exactly why I didn't go the VPX route.

Originally Posted by jliltd

And, by the way, very nice panel. Looks like a lot of thought has been given to the final result.

Thanks! A lot of thought & a lot of thoughtful input from the good people of VAF.

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by PilotjohnS

I am not sure about the avionics master anymore. Garmin has a nice box (Gad 27) that does not let the avionics brown out during start and provides voltage stabilization. With this box, is there still a need for an avionics master?

True modern avionics runs on 10-30 volts, have their own regulated power supply which should handle spikes. However ships voltage can drop below 10V on start. Most EFIS has a back up battery that maintains min voltage.

I'm not arguing, but I would say is there any real good reason for not to have an avionics master if so desired? I know where this idea comes from. Other than that opinion if you want an avionics master put it in. The main argument for not having it is the dreaded avionics master switch in-flight failure (which happens never). If some one argues this is a single point failure; I'd point out we are flying a plane with one engine.

However now with all glass, everything electronic, no analog engine gauges, you need your engine gauges on during or right after engine start to observe oil pressure. This is a matter of preference. One might argue you have some electronic smoke in the cockpit. An avionics master might be a quick way to kill that issue. Could you fly day VFR with no instruments (flight or engine) of any kind? I think so, if you remain cool.

[PilotjohnS]

So I Understand the argument for an Avionics master. But with an all glass panel, it seems to me the main master has become the de facto avionics master. Maybe instead of an avionics master, we just have the main master (panel) and a lighting master? Doesn't that cover everything?

[Carl Froehlich]

If you must have an avionics master, then have two, one for each half of the panel (left EFIS, COMM #1, right EFIS, COMM #2, etc.).

Consider not wiring power to the panel via series from the battery(s) to the master relay(s) then the avionics master. Run all the stuff associated with the panel via the avionics masters directly from to the battery(s), all the non-panel stuff via the master relay. The master relay(s)? unique function in life is to isolate the battery from the big cables needed to start the engine. Loads I have running from the master relays are things not needed to continue IFR flight.

Carl