[John Courte]

Since I'm still building the emp (after all this time), I've got some flex in the panel planning, but I I have a couple of questions aimed at the TC's, DARs, CFI's and experienced builders.

1. Can I plan for a VFR Day/Night setup just to get it flying and upgrade to an IFR solution later? How difficult is the retrofit? I'd go with a BMA EFIS/One and AP, ideally. For backup, maybe a Dynon D-10 and some analog gauges for engine monitoring. I'm not terribly interested in steam gauges, I'd like to avoid them if possible, but I need the minimum to stay upright and pointed in the proper direction if I get into trouble with the fancy stuff. I understand that building the capability in at the beginning is much easier than retrofitting, but the cost in time of another five years in the garage appeals to me much less than not having IFR capability. I dont' have an IFR ticket yet anyway. Which brings me to question 2:

2. I want to get my IFR ticket in this airplane. How realistic is that? From go, it would seem like I need a full dual-control setup to receive any kind of instruction. But am I going to be renting time at a flight school while getting the IFR cert? Or is it as simple as finding an instructor willing to ride with me in my own ship?

I realize this sounds like a memo from the Poor Planning Commission, but I'm interested in fallback for scenarios involving changes in funding or schedule, and I want to get as much info as possible. I'll also be the first to admit I'm fairly ignorant of the process, but I'm pretty clear on the mission, which is light aerobatics, maybe some formation (I was never crazy about relative work in skydiving, maybe flying is different), and a viable XC platform to get me around the Southwest and Northwest with the occasional long trip to MI or FL.

THanks in advance.
-john

 

[Mike S]

makes sense

I am planning on a fairly simple panel, VFR + , but am leaving the option open to go IFR at some time in the future.

I think it is a good idea to build in "Up-gradability".

The state of the art in avionics changes so fast that you cant reasonable spec/design a panel while still at the tail building stage.

Set your paramaters, yes, and start gathering info/knowledge.

Even if you dont get the IFR ticket, should you want to sell sometime in the future, it will be an advantage to have the "Up-gradability" factor built in to the A/C.

Mike

 

[airguy]

I'm planning on pretty much the same mission scenarios, but I'll be building in a 2-axis AP and IFR panel from the word go, simply for "just in case".

 

[az_gila]

Make it modular

John,
If you go modular with your panel, such as this commercial one...

http://www.affordablepanels.com/the_panel.htm

...or make your own equivalent... any future upgrades will be easier to do.

Make sure that your radio stack will pull out towards you as a whole (not by the individual rack) and rear stack wiring will be easier to change in the future.

A connector on the inputs to your audio panel would probably be useful to, since most of the stack wires go to other avionics, the audio connections (PTT, mic., headset, etc..) go away from the panel.

I would wait... better electronics will be available in the future, and probably (I hope!) cheaper.

gil in Tucson... bought too early, anyone want to buy a Terra digital transponder?....

 

[hevansrv7a]

Issue of changing Operating Limits?

I was not planning to make my -7A aerobatic. My DAR advised me that it's very hard to get a change in the operating limits. I am not sure if this applies to IFR, but be sure to check it before you decide. You don't get the IFR certification from the DAR, though, you get it the same as with any other airplane, from an avionics guy.

 

[Low Pass]

1. Can I plan for a VFR Day/Night setup just to get it flying and upgrade to an IFR solution later?

Yes. Just make sure your operating limitations include night VFR and/or IFR from the beginning. I believe that's the way it's to be worded.

How difficult is the retrofit?

This is totally dependent upon the nature of your retrofit. I'm on my second complete panel and have plans for a 3rd. Rearranging the panel (with an -8) is pretty straighforward.

I'm not terribly interested in steam gauges,

Then you *may* have issues finding an examiner to fly with you on your check ride and a CFII to instruct you. I urge people to learn with a std instrument stack, the move to non-std after the rating.

2. I want to get my IFR ticket in this airplane. How realistic is that?

If you go witha std configuration, then I believe it's very doable. With a non-std, glass panel, etc., as mentioned above, I believe you may have significant challenges. In this case, you might be better off getting the rating in a nice, stable (Cessna) spam can.

From go, it would seem like I need a full dual-control setup to receive any kind of instruction.

Not necessarily. Only if you need the instructor to act as PIC (real IMC) before you're rated.

Regardless, try to get at least an artificial horizon in your panel. RV's are very unforgiving in IMC. Deadly with no attitude indicator.

CFII/MEI

 

[gmcjetpilot]

EVIS v. Analog, no big deal

I urge people to learn with a std instrument stack, the move to non-std after the rating.

If you go with a std configuration, then I believe it's very doable. With a non-std, glass panel, etc., as mentioned above, I believe you may have significant challenges.

In this case, you might be better off getting the rating in a nice, stable (Cessna) spam can.

Regardless, try to get at least an artificial horizon in your panel. RV's are very unforgiving in IMC. Deadly with no attitude indicator.

CFII/MEI

I am CFII/MEI and a little old fashion. I agree with most but not sure you need to learn a standard "T-ee" or Six-Pak configuration. EFIS is really not different than mechanical gauges, the info is the same, just displayed differently. In fact EFIS displays (good ones) emulate the standard "T", its just presentation compactly. I like a FULL compass rose heading display (DG) verses just the upper arc or quadrant, but you get use to it.

Granted you don't have to move your eyes as far with EFIS as analog, but the concept of attitude instrument flying is the same.

I taught many pilots transitioning from early generation jets to later EFIS Boeing aircraft in 89-93, when EFIS was making an impact. Most of the crews I taught had no EFIS experience. It does take a little getting use to but the transition was painless and of course they embraced it. Believe me there was a LOT of anxiety of the old timers who had flown for 30 years with analog gauges going to EFIS. By the end of the course it was mostly all smiles.

Now going the other way EFIS to analog, granted there is a transition there as well. If going back to say an analog C-172, it would be wise to get some practice, simulator or aircraft training with an instructor before flying IMC. However if you have developed a "Good Scan" and really mastered the art of "attitude instrument flying", the gauges really don't make much difference. Most kids today are super comfortable with video displays and computers, so button pushing is normal. For the old timers, don't fear the glass. I recently got to fly an OLD B747 sim. It flew just like a plane. I could figure out how to fly even with the old stuff. At the large airlines with mixed generations of jets, you can go from EFIS to jurassic. It's just not a big issue, its a small issue.

Analog flight instruments are going the way of NDB or Loran. Keep in mind many EFIS have basically within their display a standard 6-pak or "T-ee". Some old old planes, like the Piper Apache I owned or old Bonanzas had the shot gun approach to instrument placement, Pre 6-Pak. Granted the EFIS scan is simplified because its all there, but teaching: cross-check, interpret, control is still the same. The principles of: hub and spoke, controlling-monitoring, primary-secondary, performance-trend and instrument principles are the same. Bad things about mechanical gyros like precession and acceleration errors are gone with EFIS. On the other hand some of the experimental EFIS have there own idiosyncrasies. A certified EFIS is arguably superior in every way to mechanical gyros.

I would not get too worried about the EFIS issue. I agree once you go EFIS you will not want to go back to spinning wheels and gyro precision.

Now the advice of having a back up attitude indicator is a good one. The back up does not have to be analog, but its highly recommend you have mechanical pitot static airspeed and altitude and one gyro, preferably an attitude instrument. The gyro can be analog or EFIS. I think what LOW PASS is saying is just a simple turn coordinator as a back up can be a challenge to fly on in a RV. Most agree an Auto Pilot is a must for single pilot IFR ops in a fast plane like a RV. This "partial panel" skill (needle-ball & airspeed) is important. However flying with an attitude indicator is easier. How you power the gyro, vac or elect it another debate.

Vac is old news and lost favor, but had it's pros and cons, but mostly con. If you do build an all electric IFR plane you will get into system redundancy. That my be something you want to think of when building, like where will you put a second battery when you upgrade to IFR.

Part of instrument training is flying with the back-up only, "needle ball and airspeed". In the past that was just a rate-of-Turn instrument (Turn coordinator or Turn bank) plus two pitot static instruments, air-speed and altitude. So if outfitting your EFIS plane for true IFR training you should have at least a back-up TC/T&B, airspeed and altitude. The FARS do NOT have requirements for back-ups and independant sources of instrument power, only air-transport category planes have these requirements. However I would not personally teach a pilot in an experimental in actual IMC without back up instruments. Also I want all my students to get real IMC before taking the check ride. There is no hood or foggles that can substitute for flying in the "Goo". It is a totally different thing when you can't peek.

To the original question, you did not mention RV type? Obviously side by side is the only way to go. A RV-8 and dual training in IMC would not be kosher unless you had dual controls and instruments, which is unlikely, but that is up to the CFII.

LOW PASS I hear what you are saying but the EFIS thing is not a big deal. In fact most new planes, Cirrus, Lancair, Diamond, Cessna the list goes on have EFIS, about 15-20 years after all airliners and regional commuters started to go all EFIS. Southwest was one of the last to transition to EFIS. They resisted to the last, wanting to keep all their planes the same, new and old. They eventually had to go to EFIS because Boeing stopped making analog display cockpits. When Southwest got their EFIS they had it programed to display replicas of analog gauges. They even covered up VNAV (vertical navigation) buttons on the autopilot and did not use the auto throttles! The idea was to make the "New Gen" B737's work just like an old classic and jurassic B737-200's. They gave up and enabled the "magic" and let the pilots use it.

So the topic of Analog/EFIS traning and transition is not trivial but its not a big deal either. I guess it depends on the CFII's experience and comfort. Good instrument skill is good skill. A good scan is a good scan and good control is good control. If a student's performance is poor its probably a defect in their skill not the instruments, basics are basics regardless.

 

[John Courte]

Type A/C

It's an RV-7 tip-up, 180hp O360. So far. should have mentioned that..

 

[Sam Buchanan]

I was not planning to make my -7A aerobatic. My DAR advised me that it's very hard to get a change in the operating limits. I am not sure if this applies to IFR, but be sure to check it before you decide. You don't get the IFR certification from the DAR, though, you get it the same as with any other airplane, from an avionics guy.

This is a very common misunderstanding. You do not get IFR certification for an experimental aircraft from an "avionics guy". The reason this is true is that there is no such thing as "IFR certification" for an experimental aircraft. The ability to operate under instrument rules comes from the operating limitations of the aircraft, and they state that IFR ops are legit as long as the aircraft is properly equipped for the particular IFR flight. The pilot makes that determination, not an Avionics guy or DAR.

If the quote was in reference to the pitot certification, then yes, an avionics shop can provide that service.

As far as updating the op lims, the process is pretty straightforward. If wanting to add aerobatic flight to the op lims, the builder can do that without intervention from the FAA.

 

[Davepar]

The pilot makes that determination, not an Avionics guy or DAR.

Pilot or builder? I thought it was builder.

 

[Low Pass]

Pilot or builder? I thought it was builder.

Pilot decides if the plane is properly suited/equipped for IFR flight based on what the builder or others have installed in the plane.

 

[Sam Buchanan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan
The pilot makes that determination, not an Avionics guy or DAR.

Pilot or builder? I thought it was builder.

Pilot is responsible for the legality and safety of the flight. The builder may be completely out of the picture (second-hand aircraft, aircraft modified by second owner, builder deceased, etc, etc).

 

[hevansrv7a]

Claraification and Dissent

This is a very common misunderstanding. You do not get IFR certification for an experimental aircraft from an "avionics guy". The reason this is true is that there is no such thing as "IFR certification" for an experimental aircraft. The ability to operate under instrument rules comes from the operating limitations of the aircraft, and they state that IFR ops are legit as long as the aircraft is properly equipped for the particular IFR flight. The pilot makes that determination, not an Avionics guy or DAR.

If the quote was in reference to the pitot certification, then yes, an avionics shop can provide that service.

As far as updating the op lims, the process is pretty straightforward. If wanting to add aerobatic flight to the op lims, the builder can do that without intervention from the FAA.

Sam, my DAR (write for name if you want) was very clear about OpLims changes needing FAA OK. You are a DAR too. I have not tried it, so it's a matter for others to resolve. This looks like a pretty clear disagreement.

As far as IFR certification, yes, I was referring to the pitot/static/VOR and altimeter checks that a shop does. That log entry is good for 2 years. My Cessna requires this and I'd be very surprised if my RV did not. Equipment is needed, but performance of equipment is required, too. Right? And, GPS/IFR has additional requirements too much for this post.

 

[sportpilot]

IFR for Experimental

Here is a preliminary layout of the IFR panel for Cleve Thompson RV9a. Cleve plans to fly the RV9 IFR and it is legal to do so.

Cleve Thompson IFR instrument layout

The main point in the FAR is that using the EFIS and Garmon 430 you must also have an airspeed, and altimeter, and some type of turn/bank instrument. When filing IFR with this configuration you would file as an RV9a experimental with /G and mode C

other FAR that would apply would be a current annual inspection, Current pitot/static check, current Vor check if you are using a vor, Mode C transponder check, plus all the other documents and certificates as usually required.

The garmin 396 does not enter into the IFR equation, but it is a backup for the 430 and can be used for emergency. The King 155 was only to satisfy the weakness of the 430 that wont track a radial and for backup com. it is not required for IFR, and we have since dropped that out as unneccesary. In place of the King Cleve put in the Icom com radio as backup to the 430 com. The Dynon 10A is a future add-on.

Maybe this will help you set up your panel for the future. Happy flying

 

[Mel]

Operating limitations clearly state that "Aircraft and equipment installed and used under part 91.205 must be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. Any maintainence or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records." This means that if you wish to fly IFR or night VFR, the same rules apply as to certificated aircraft.

 

[RV6_flyer]

Sam, my DAR (write for name if you want) was very clear about OpLims changes needing FAA OK. You are a DAR too. I have not tried it, so it's a matter for others to resolve. This looks like a pretty clear disagreement.

As far as IFR certification, yes, I was referring to the pitot/static/VOR and altimeter checks that a shop does. That log entry is good for 2 years. My Cessna requires this and I'd be very surprised if my RV did not. Equipment is needed, but performance of equipment is required, too. Right? And, GPS/IFR has additional requirements too much for this post.

Each Amateur Built Experimental is different and one must read the Operating Limitations that are a part of the Special Airworthiness Certificate (FAA Form 8130-7 that is Pink in color). FAA Order 8130.2F Change 2 is current. The FAA or DAR are allowed to pick one of two operating limitations with reguard for Aerobatics. You can do them or you cannot. If you can, they must have been done in Phase I. If your Operating Liimitations says you can do Aerobatics and the one you want to do is NOT recorded in the Logbook, then you must return to Phase I, do the maneuver, make the logbook entry that it was completed and another logbook entry that you have completed Phase I.

As for Instrument Flight, the Operating Limitations again is the governing document. FAA Order 8130.2F Change 2 allows the FAA or DAR to pick one of two. One is VFR DAY ONLY the other is VFR day only unless equipted in accordance with 91.205 then night and or IFR. The present verbage for IFR and Night is: "After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with ? 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only."

A DAR cannot modify your Operating Limitations. Only the FAA can. The DAR can issue Initial and Recurent only.

If you have a transponder in your Experimental, you MUST have it check every 24 calendar months. See FAR 91.411 and 91.413. There is NO WAY around this.

Your Operating Limitations does not exempt you from ANY FAR and goes as far to say "No person may operate this aircraft for other than the purpose of meeting the requirements of ? 91.319(b) during phase I flight testing, and for recreation and education after meeting these requirements as stated in the program letter (required by ? 21.193) for this aircraft. In addition, this aircraft must be operated in accordance with applicable air traffic and general operating rules of part 91 and all additional limitations herein prescribed under the provisions of ? 91.319(i). These operating limitations are a part of Form 8130-7, and are to be carried in the aircraft at all times and be available to the pilot in command of the aircraft."

A DAR cannot remove any limitation that is present in 8130.2F Change 2 in reguard to Operating Limitations but we can ADD to the limitations and restrictions.

 

[JonathanCook]

Comments to SportPilot

Hi Sport Pilot,



I am also planning my panel with a GRT EFIS. If you are only using one GRT you should look at the GRT Sport EFIS http://www.grtavionics.com/sport1.htm . It provides almost the same functionality as the Horizon I EFIS at a much reduced cost. One of the great things about GRT is that they will upgrade the Sport to the Horizon for the price difference. Therefore, you can start with the Sport and upgrade to the Horizon without penalty. I am not going to have a analog tachometer, because the RPM is shown on the GRT EFIS and on the GRT EIS 4000. Having the analog tachometer would mean three devices showing RPM. The same is true for the Fuel tank level.



You do not have in your note that the GRT EFIS can run on a battery. This is easily done with the GRT.



The panel that you show in the picture looks to be larger than the Vans standard panel. What Panel are you using?

 

[Sam Buchanan]

Sam, my DAR (write for name if you want) was very clear about OpLims changes needing FAA OK. You are a DAR too. I have not tried it, so it's a matter for others to resolve. This looks like a pretty clear disagreement.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am not a DAR, and there is no need to provide the name of your DAR.

Gary Sobek did an excellent job of explaining the operating limitations under the experimental certificate. As he stated, some changes require checking in with the FAA, but most of us are issued the limitation that allows night and IFR ops if properly equipped. So if your VFR plane has the common night/IFR op lim, and you later decide to equip it for IFR flight, you are good to go as long as you satisfy 91.205 and all xsponder and pitot checks, no contact with the FAA required.

I'm not sure why anyone would not want the aerobatic op lim whether you intend to do aerobatics in initial phase one or not. Gary, is there a reason for an RV builder not requesting the aerobatic op lim?

 

[Mel]

A few builders have asked me NOT to include aerobatic op lims for liability reasons. They are concerned that a later owner may have a problem doing acro and come back to them.
However, even with this limitation, the new owner can get acro included with a recurrent airworthiness provided he can show that the design is approved for acro.

 

[sportpilot]

GRT EFIS

Right you are Jonathan, the sport is less expensive. Cleve chose the Horizon one because it has IFR capability. He likes to use the analog tach as part of the fail safe backup incase of electrical failure. He did not want to pay the premium for a battery backup on the GRT, since he already has the garmin 396 which is battery backup. The Tru Trak ADI has battery backup. So the thinking is that with EFIS failure, 430 failure, or total electric failure, we can use the 396 on battery along with the ADI, airspeed, altimeter and analog tach to make a safe IFR approach. The ADI gives pitch and bank similar to a gyro horizon. We are not going to have a vacuum system.

About the panel, with the GRT EFIS and the 396 panel mount, it will require the extension to allow switchs and breakers as shown. So our layout is based on the extended panel and not the standard. An option Cleve is thinking of is going with the Dual GRT, instead of the Dynon. Panel space permiting. Aerotronics is building the panel and the CAD layout they made fits everything in as shown minus the King CDI. They also say we can use the 3 and 1/8 airspeed and tach instead of the 2 and 1/4.

If your going to start with a VFR panel, the sport EFIS and the GRT 4000 EMS is a great combo. But dont rule out the Garmin 396/496. Our friend flies a Kingair 350 and he wouldnt be caught without his 396 along with his dual Avidyne system. Chat later

 

[RV6_flyer]

Sam:

I prefer to write permissive Op Lims as long as the DESIGNER approves but as Mel said, some builders do not want the next owner to do Acro but they just get a recurrent inspection that includes it.

 

[JonathanCook]

GRT Sport vs Horizon

Hi Claude,

I am still learing about the GRT EFISes, and I must say that it is as much fun as choosing which plane to build. I am planning on flying IFR with the Sport EFIS. As I understand it, the Sport can do every thing that the Horizon can do except show the HSI and transfer data/flight plan between EFIS units. With a single GRT EFIS setup the HSI would not be shown because the attitude would be shown. The attitude page can show CDI and Glide Slope, and with a single EFIS there is no need to transfer data between EFIS units. My plan is to have two Sports setup with one on top of the other. I can upgrade at any time without penalty.

Where did you get the extended panel, and how much did it cost?

Thank you for the feedback.

 

[tonyjohnson]

clock

Claude,

I notice that Cleve's panel includes the clock timer that I now use on a yoke for IFR it a C172. I like that timer and it is cheap at $50 compared to other panel mount timers.

How is it attached to the panel? Since it uses batteries, how can it be detached to change them?

Tony

 

[sportpilot]

EFIS

Jonathan,
Back in June when Cleve started laying out his panel the sport lacked some features compared to the Horison one. Plans to add the WAAS and a jeppesen database to the One plus it will talk to the Garmin 430. It has the split screen and AHRS too. The 430 is the primary nav instrument as far as we are concerned. We have been using it for almost 2 years and it will spoil you forever. It was cheaper to go with the GRT one than it was to use the KX155 with a glide slope. If youve never used the Garmin 430 or the 396 try and get some time on them.

Aerotronics is furnishing the extended panel and they make it as a one piece unit. I dont know the cost. It is also acceptable to add the dropdown to the bottom of a standard panel but you would have a seam.

hI Tony,
We plan to velcro the clock/timer to that spot on the panel. That clock/timer is a very handy design and easy to read during the approach. It will be removable as will be the Garmin 396. We think this will be an easy to fly panel layout. We have been flying a Piper 140 using the 430 and a Narco HSI. and a one axis autopilot. We sure are looking forward to flying the RV9a with the TRU TRAK and ILS coupling.

Our final design CAD layout

We put the wings on Friday Oct 27 2006

Dont rush into your panel layout. Your likley to make many changes. I made that panel picture using the MS Paint program and capturing pictures off the internet. Weve been working on that since June. Let the good times roll aye!

 

[JonathanCook]

Thanks

Thanks Claude,

I hope that it is O.K. for me to send you my panel layout for your comment in a few months when I get closer to that part of the project.

Thanks again.

.

 

[noelf]

Question on FAR 91.171 sub-paragraphs...

I have a SL-30 NAV / COM. One of the checks (and log book entries) allowed is to use a second VOR receiver (independent of the first) to perform this check. Am I allowed to use a hand-held (portable) VOR receiver as the "second" source for this check? Or does the second "system" need to be panel mounted?

 

[frankh]

One thing

I didn't see discussed was whether it is practical to train int he rv?

Answer is abosilutely yes it is..I did and so have a few others on this forum..Its not an easy airplane to hand fly IFR.. In fact its downright hard compared to say a 172, but it can be done.

Upgradeability is most easily achieved by identifying th radio stack you want (GNS 430W) in my case and having the tray prewired and connected. Then you simply buy the radio without the tray and slide it in when your ready to start training.

At least a wing leveller autopilot is an absilute must flying one of these things IFR.

No dual rudders or anything else that the examiner or CFI is required..I have my throttle in the 7a on the left..Good luck if the CFI wanted to use it.

I had no problem in finding an examiner..he had heard about the reputtaion of the RV..His remark was.."What a cool airplane!"

i would recommend a steam guage ASI and altimeter as a backup to the EFIS..I use a Dynon D100, and the TT Pictorial pilot..This gives the backup turn and bank fuction which is better than the Dynon..so I learned to scan between the two.

This helps prevent you getting fixated on one instrument.

All in all your plan is perfectly doable..I know, cus I did it..

Frank