Panel Inputs please

[RVG8tor]

After thinking through the panel I have come up with several iterations I would like some input from the VAF Forum crowd. The mission is light IFR, I want the ability for file and fly IFR and go direct where able does not mean I intend to cruise in IMC, I also want GPS approach capabilities. The EIFS is all Dynon, I liked the ability to transfer display modes between the screens. Some of the shots below show the HSI display on the Dynon 10-A. The first shot is my first draft; I removed a clock and G-meter that was to the left of the FLT DEK 180-EFIS/EMS.
I wanted the intercom and all radios in one stack but there is no room for this unless I use the horizontal HS34, so that is how I came up with version two. Then I started thinking I think will use the -10A in an HSI mode much of the time so why not have the HS34 near the -10A but I did not want it on the right since that is my flying hand. The AP-74 on the right is OK since that is the Autopilot control, the flying hand should be free at that time. The intercom panel seemed the most logical item to remove from the stack since I think it would be used the least in flight; the transponder would be my second choice for the center if I had to choose. In the center it is still easy to access without upsetting my flying hand. The version 3, and the one I think I like the best has open space on the right, I cut and pasted in an approach chart and clip, the idea is to rivet a clip on this side of the panel to hold maps charts, fight card etc.

Switches will be boost pump on the left sub panel, mags, master and alternate power on the right sub panel and all others on the sloped panel along the right side. Flaps will be controlled from the stick.

Version 1
http://www.mykitlog.com/users/worklo...photo_number=1

Version 2
http://www.mykitlog.com/users/worklo...photo_number=2

Version 3
http://www.mykitlog.com/users/worklo...photo_number=3

[Chino Tom]

Panels are so subjective. I like Version 3, but would lose the 496 and put a 696 where
the approach chart is since the 696 has charts in it. You will get alot of opinions I think.
I thought about my panel for quite a while before ordering the stuff. If the 696 would have
been available, i would have installed it in mine.

[roee]

Mike,

This is not a complete review, but just a couple of points and questions that came to mind at first glance:

1. Big picure. What's your primary purpose for having the Garmin x96? It takes center stage in all 3 of your panel layouts, but you didn't describe what role you intend for it to play. If you'll be using it as a moving map with pseudo-HSI (I say pseudo because it has track, not heading), then you probably don't need the Dynon 10A operating as HSI as well. The 10A would be primarily a backup flight instrument in case the big Dynon fails. Or alternatively, if you can get all the GPS functionality you need out of the Garmin 430, and all the HSI functionality you need from the 10A, then maybe you don't need the Garmin x96 at all. A lot of other possible scenarios... Bottom line, I'm trying to figure out what role exactly the x96 is meant to play among the other instruments, and more broadly, whether you have a coherent use model for it all. You have a lot of equipment with overlapping functional capabilities, which is fine, but... Have you worked out how you will normally use the equipment in your panel? And have you worked through the different possible failures scenarios and ensured that you have adequate backups (both equipment-wise and procedure-wise) to detect and deal with those failures?

2. Small detail. I know tradition says the audio panel goes at the top of the radio stack, but as you pointed out, the audio panel and transponder are the least used during flight. As such, if you're breaking up your stack anyway, then I think they should both ideally go toward the bottom of your panel. Equipment that you scan or manipulate more often should get priority for the prime real estate, higher up and preferably close to the center of your field of vision. So for example, in your Version 3 layout, I would put the audio panel below, not above, the Garmin x96.

-Roee

[N941WR]

Can you put the two Dynon expansion units to the left of the D180?

Otherwise, you will either be switching stick hands or blocking your screen with your left hand to twist the knobs?

The other options are to put those two expansion units down by your knee. They really don't need to be on the panel.

Remember, try to place all your switches you will use in flight on the left side. (lights, fuel pump, flaps, etc.) The switches you will need for starting should go over on the right. (master, mags, primmer, starter, etc.)

Anything you can put on your sick adds to the complexity but makes the plane easier to fly.

[RVG8tor]

I should have explained the use of the G-496. It is there so I can get XM weather functionality. I could get it on the G-430W but that requires the GDL-69 which costs over twice what I can get a 496 for. The 496 also gives me redundant GPS navigation ability.

Good thoughts on the use of the -10a as an HSI with the 496 map it most likely would not be requited in most instances.

My panel is an attempt at main and back ups. The way it is set up I have 2 attitudes and flight instruments, both with battery backups, two coms and two GPS navs, only 1 radio nav. Keep the comments coming, I appreciate them all.

[roee]

I see, that makes sense about the XM on the 496.

A word of caution about your two EFISes (you're probably aware, but I thought I'd mention it). They are not the best backups for each other for two reasons.

1. They share the same primary power source. You said they'll each have battery backups, which takes care of loss of primary power. Good. But an overvoltage condition on the primary power could still simultaneously fry them both. Two independent electrical systems would eliminate that possibility. I know, more weight, cost, etc. That's the tradeoff.

2. Although the two EFISes are different models, both being from the same lineage they surely share much of the same internal design, both hardware and software. As such, they will have the same vulnerabilities and will be more likely to fail simultaneously under some particular sets of conditions. If one of the units was from a completely different manufacturer, they would be far more dissimilar, have different vulnerabilities, and be less likely to fail simultaneously. But then going with two different manufacturers you lose that nice integration you were talking about (switching data between screens, etc.). That's the tradeoff there.

Also, I would think that ideally the backup EFIS should be operated in PFD mode, and be a regular part of your scan to crosscheck the primary EFIS. Otherwise, if the backup EFIS is set up as HSI for example, then it may take you longer to figure out that your primary EFIS is giving you bad data. And by that time, you may already be in an unusual attitude, and now fumbling with the backup EFIS trying to get it into PFD display mode?... yikes! But again, since you have the 496 as HSI, there should be no reason why you couldn't have the backup EFIS always in PFD mode.

Anyway, I think you were soliciting feedback more on your panel layout than choice of equipment. So, back to that. I think if you go with Version 3, except swap places between the audio panel and the 496, you'll be in pretty good shape.

[Ron Lee]

I don't know what the two items are on either side of the main EFIS, but would it make more sense to move the GNS 430 up several inches to be just to the left of the EFIS and move those other two items elsewhere?

[RVG8tor]

Originally Posted by Ron Lee

I don't know what the two items are on either side of the main EFIS, but would it make more sense to move the GNS 430 up several inches to be just to the left of the EFIS and move those other two items elsewhere?

The two items on either side of the EFIS are

On the left the Dynon HS34, this panel allows the Garmin 430 to provide vertical and lateral path information to the EFIS, the HS 34 allow you to set course and select what is displayed.

On the right is the Dynon Auto pilot control panel, it is on the right due since it is used mostly with the Auto pilot engaged.

Sitting in the cockpit with the cardboard version of these items they seem to make sense to keep them near the main EFIS since the bugs they move are in the EFIS (heading, altimeters, altitude setting etc) I also like the location of the G-430, it is in a natural height from my throttle hand which is the hand I will use to manipulate the controls with.

[RVG8tor]

Originally Posted by roee

I see, that makes sense about the XM on the 496.

A word of caution about your two EFISes (you're probably aware, but I thought I'd mention it). They are not the best backups for each other for two reasons.

1. They share the same primary power source. You said they'll each have battery backups, which takes care of loss of primary power. Good. But an overvoltage condition on the primary power could still simultaneously fry them both. Two independent electrical systems would eliminate that possibility. I know, more weight, cost, etc. That's the tradeoff.

I thought of this already and plan and SD8 auxiliary alternator. I also plan some robust OV protection if I can ever understand the diagrams I have read over.

2. Although the two EFISes are different models, both being from the same lineage they surely share much of the same internal design, both hardware and software. As such, they will have the same vulnerabilities and will be more likely to fail simultaneously under some particular sets of conditions. If one of the units was from a completely different manufacturer, they would be far more dissimilar, have different vulnerabilities, and be less likely to fail simultaneously. But then going with two different manufacturers you lose that nice integration you were talking about (switching data between screens, etc.). That's the tradeoff there.

I have read others mention the use of different manufactures for PFDs. But I flown for my entire career the last 10 years in the airlines. we have two identical PFDs and I have never heard of a simultaneous software glitch. Not that it is not possible but very remote.

Also, I would think that ideally the backup EFIS should be operated in PFD mode, and be a regular part of your scan to crosscheck the primary EFIS. Otherwise, if the backup EFIS is set up as HSI for example, then it may take you longer to figure out that your primary EFIS is giving you bad data. And by that time, you may already be in an unusual attitude, and now fumbling with the backup EFIS trying to get it into PFD display mode?... yikes! But again, since you have the 496 as HSI, there should be no reason why you couldn't have the backup EFIS always in PFD mode.

Very good point and in IMC I would make sure it was up on a PFD mode, but as you pointed out in another post, the HSI will be less of an issue with the moving map on the GPSs

Anyway, I think you were soliciting feedback more on your panel layout than choice of equipment. So, back to that. I think if you go with Version 3, except swap places between the audio panel and the 496, you'll be in pretty good shape.

I like this point as well I actually have a version setup like this, but wanted to hear what others had to say, I thought the wiring would be easier with it above the 496.

Thank you for the inputs, at least this is letting me know I am thinking of some of the correct things.

[APACHE 56]

is a righteous goal. You asked for inputs; here?s mine. I remember only a few details from my student days at the Naval Test Pilot School and one of them was a factoid from the human factors module (OK, I didn?t really remember I had to look at my notes). WRT to your panel design I recommend you physically situate yourself in front of a full size panel mockup/picture. Begin with your pre-start procedures and do an entire mission profile ending with the engine shutdown. You do this several times with each panel configuration and eventually you?ll discern which is best for you. Include all the controls, switches, knobs (push/pull, rotary), levers, dials etc in the cockpit whether they are on the front or side panels. You recall from your early military days that the comm/nav controls were invariably located on the side panels. These served two purposes. One was to tune the radios and the other to induce vertigo. You sure don?t want to design in one of these negative attributes in your ?pride and joy.?