“Staged” panel upgrade M20J

[jamesyql]

Figured I would poll the audience as to whether this is an appropriate strategy for a panel upgrade.

 

I am a new VFR pilot, doing night and IFR ratings in the next year. My immediate goal is to have a better autopilot for long cross country and improved engine monitoring. I have considered Dynon however I do not like the idea of keeping my legacy STEC Pitch trim as would be required.

 

Current:

Steam gauges, GNC530W, Century IIB, STEC 60 PSS, GTX335, GMA340, KX170B, JPI700

 

Future Goal:

G3X G5 GFC500 GTN650 (or GNC355) GNC215 GMA345 (for bluetooth)

 

Interim Solution:

Keep current gps/nav/comm units. Just do the G3X, G5, GFC500 (3 axis, hold off on yaw damper until stage 2 upgrade). Then plan for remainder of panel down the road.

[Ryan ORL]

You can do this, the 530W will work fine with the G3X/GFC system, but of course you won't have VNAV which you probably already know.

That KX170B is ancient and takes up a ton of panel space.  I would see if you can't find something, anything, better than that.  Whatever you're putting in the future will be way smaller than that.  I assume you also won't be able to have the G3X show the NAV2 CDI from that either, but I admit I am not knowledgeable about the old analog stuff with the G3X.  I would vote at minimum you try to pick up a used Garmin SL30 or something.  (The only old radio I kept in my upgrade)  It's a great unit, small/thin, and can be easily replaced down the line with the GNC215 (was designed to replaced the SL30 in fact, but not pin compatible).  The SL30 will at least interface with the G3X in every way except flip/flop of the frequencies.

I would also strongly consider the G3X EIS.  I am super happy I have EIS on my G3X.  It is very nice to have everything on the same PFD, and engine parameter alerts are displayed front and center.  Additionally, since you're doing a G3X, that is basically a full panel overhaul, and now is the time to also ditch the analog legacy gauges, which you can do with the G3X EIS.

The GTX335 and GMA340 are fine as-is.  I am told the yaw damper is also easy to add.  I plan to add it to mine later.  There is a spot in the servo mounting bracket for it already.  (It comes that way)

That being said, a G3X + GFC + install including a full new panel is going to be probably 70%+ of the cost of your full system.

[Marc_B]

I don't think there will be much benefit from a staged approach.  Usually it just winds up taking more time in total, more money for duplicate processes and base labor costs, and opens the door to issues more times.  Plus you can do a much better job of tidying up things, removing things not in use and cleaning up the mess if you do it all the first time.

Best process for a big project like this is do it right and do it once.  That will minimize your down time and minimize the ultimate costs (which will be big regardless).

[jamesyql]

Appreciate the reply

I do plan on EIS with the initial upgrade

For the VNAV this is just for approaches correct? As long as I get altitude hold I will be happy for now.

Good thought on the #2 navcomm. It is elderly.

I understand the majority of the cost will be in my first upgrade, I am trying to keep some coin in the bank for unexpected hiccups as I am in my early ownership years.

Other option is to put off the upgrade as long as possible but my current autopilot setup is a bit janky. The century follows the CDI needle in a “reactive” manner and ends up “s-turning” along the GPS track. The pitch is misbehaving and I think needs attention as well.

[jamesyql]

I don't think there will be much benefit from a staged approach.  Usually it just winds up taking more time in total, more money for duplicate processes and base labor costs, and opens the door to issues more times.  Plus you can do a much better job of tidying up things, removing things not in use and cleaning up the mess if you do it all the first time.
Best process for a big project like this is do it right and do it once.  That will minimize your down time and minimize the ultimate costs (which will be big regardless).

Thanks Marc. I will see what the shop quotes the full vs partial job out at. This is definitely good food for thought.

[Marc_B]

9 minutes ago, jamesyql said:

For the VNAV this is just for approaches correct?

VNAV is a vertical mode for descent.  A classic case is a standard terminal arrival with stepdowns.  But you can use it to set up a vertical constraint for 1000'AGL at 5nm from the airport, or set up fixes before each of the "layers" coming in under a Bravo so that it will automatically sequence descents to stay below airspace.  You can also use it to automate stepdowns given by ATC "proceed direct FIXXE, cross FIXXE at 5000 feet".

VNAV is calculated by the GTN.  But the GFC500 just has a mode to follow this path automatically.

These are two good videos to watch to familarize yourself with VNAV.

 

 

[toto]

I probably have the same setup as others here, with the G3X+EIS+GFC500+GTN, but honestly I would think seriously about knocking out your night+IR training with the panel you know.  The GNS is a perfectly capable unit, and while a newer AP might be nice for instrument flight, it's not very important for IR training.  You'll probably do better with a super-familiar panel for your instrument training, and you can tackle the panel upgrade after you have the rating.

[jamesyql]

I probably have the same setup as others here, with the G3X+EIS+GFC500+GTN, but honestly I would think seriously about knocking out your night+IR training with the panel you know.  The GNS is a perfectly capable unit, and while a newer AP might be nice for instrument flight, it's not very important for IR training.  You'll probably do better with a super-familiar panel for your instrument training, and you can tackle the panel upgrade after you have the rating.

Great advice and I suspect my panel upgrade will happen after my instrument rating depending on how long it takes me. Timing of the panel upgrade will be based on cash available and convenient time for plane downtime.

[Paul Thomas]

22 minutes ago, jamesyql said:

Great advice and I suspect my panel upgrade will happen after my instrument rating depending on how long it takes me. Timing of the panel upgrade will be based on cash available and convenient time for plane downtime.

That's the best thing that could happen to you, and hopefully your instructor limits the GPS till the very end of your training. You will be a much better IFR pilot for it. Once you do the panel, flying will be so easy it will be almost like cheating. That being said, there will be a real learning curve with the new technology; it's only good if you know how to use it.

[Marc_B]

I'm of the mindset that the most proficient you'll be is when you spend a lot of concentrated focused time in the aircraft learning.  For me, instrument training was a given once I purchased my Mooney.  But I found that it not only made me a better pilot, but it taught me way more about my aircraft.  So if you're gonna knock out the training before you drop off the Mooney in the shop, great.  But if you're getting in the shop soon or not flying a ton in the mean time you might be able to enhance your equipment knowlege with the new panel as well as better learn the equipment you're planning to fly moving forward.

Start working on your classroom skills, written exam and knowledge base while the Mooney is down, take an onsite Garmin G3X/GTN course as you're finishing up install, and be ready to get all the flight portion done with your new panel.

Now if it's gonna be 3 years before you're ready to get your panel...get your Instrument Rating now!  This is one of the biggest dangers to GA that is pilot mitigated with proper training.

[Ryan ORL]

20 minutes ago, Paul Thomas said:

That's the best thing that could happen to you, and hopefully your instructor limits the GPS till the very end of your training. You will be a much better IFR pilot for it. Once you do the panel, flying will be so easy it will be almost like cheating. That being said, there will be a real learning curve with the new technology; it's only good if you know how to use it.

Re: limiting GPS usage, as a CFII, I don't really see it this way.  The days of flying IFR /A or especially /U are long gone and arguably tuning/identifying an ILS is much simpler on older avionics.  It is much more common to have instrument students that can't figure out how to make the GPS do what they want, or don't properly understand the flight planning logic, or waypoint sequencing, or loading and changing procedures, etc.  Especially on an old navigator like the GNS530W, there is actually considerably *more* screwing around in menus and buttonolgy necessary versus the newer stuff.

It is true, however, that basic attitude instrument flying is easier on a big glass panel like the G3X versus steam gauges or similar, but that doesn't have much to do with the GPS.

[Ryan ORL]

The other thing I will add here, regarding training with a G3X + GNS530W (staged upgrade) versus G3X + GTN650 (full upgrade) is that these are quite different in actual usage and workflow!  The G3X is effectively not part of your IFR workflow at all, other than maybe crossfilling flight plans if you don't have a FlightStream.  All of your IFR button presses are on the GPS navigator itself, not the G3X, and how you fly these procedures and work with them are identical between a G3X, G5, or GI275-equipped aircraft.  It all comes down to the navigator.

The GNS530W is a reasonably capable, but very old now, navigator.  It has a very old knob-style 'buttonology' logic that involves a lot of knob cranking for some activities.  (Seriously get a FlightStream or crossfill via G3X)  I find this to be a significant distraction for instrument students.  Even people with a lot of experience seem to sometimes grab the wrong knob, and continually mess up the cursor on/off stuff.  (Ditto the G1000 aircraft)  Importantly, it does not support most leg types you will find in Departure Procedures (most default to just 'VECTORS'), it does not support airways, it can only depict holds as part of procedures, no VNAV, etc.

Sidenote: The GNS480 was/is a far better unit and I wish it had gotten the praise and adoption it deserved.  It is a better navigator in every conceivable way, both in capability and buttonology, but that is just my .02.  I loved my unit.

The GTN series navigators are obviously state of the art, and they use Garmin's new touchscreen 'buttonology' logic.  It will be a closer match to the G3X, which looks and functions similarly.  It supports all the things you need to do under IFR with no compromises.  The onboard logic is also superior, especially with respect to vectors-to-final and the pitfalls there.

Anyway, the point I am making is that the tasks you're performing in the aircraft under IFR differ significantly between the GNS and the GTN, and the G3X doesn't enter into the equation really at all.

[Paul Thomas]

4 hours ago, Ryan ORL said:

Re: limiting GPS usage, as a CFII, I don't really see it this way.  The days of flying IFR /A or especially /U are long gone and arguably tuning/identifying an ILS is much simpler on older avionics.  It is much more common to have instrument students that can't figure out how to make the GPS do what they want, or don't properly understand the flight planning logic, or waypoint sequencing, or loading and changing procedures, etc.  Especially on an old navigator like the GNS530W, there is actually considerably *more* screwing around in menus and buttonolgy necessary versus the newer stuff.

It is true, however, that basic attitude instrument flying is easier on a big glass panel like the G3X versus steam gauges or similar, but that doesn't have much to do with the GPS.

I'm not a CFI while you teach and share fantastic resources online.

My reasoning for delaying GPS being able to visualize flying to an airport without having a device show you where you are. It really makes you think about how to navigate between places, through an approach, visualize the holds, etc. Having that foundation to rely upon has helped me stay ahead of the boxes, I'm comfortable flying older airplanes, and can still go if I have a GPS failure.

I 100% agree that with new avionics, you'll have to relearn how to use the devices and that programing the devices is harder than tuning a VOR or setting up for an ILS. In many ways, the complexities of these devices make having an autopilot all the more important.

[bigmo]

Also a CFII, but don't do a ton of instructing as work gets in the way. I do a lot of flight reviews & IPCs, however. I agree with @Ryan ORL 100%. To @jamesyql, if your STEC has alt hold, that's a solid system. For me personally, I'd take a good navigator and a good autopilot first before worrying about an EFIS (or anything else for that matter). 

@Paul Thomas not throwing shade at all, but delaying training on the navigator is not a good strategy. It's an essential component of efficiently managing the aircraft and should be started as a wholistic part of training no matter the stage. In IPCs I tend to discover that most pilots know the basics, but really struggle managing holds, vectors to final, and simply using it effectively in busy airspace the way approach and departure controllers expect. Knowing how to work the advanced functions of your navigator when in actual IMC and getting tossed around will literally save your life.

It's funny that @Ryan ORL mentioned the GNS480 - it's the navigator I have in my Mooney. Frankly I love it and it's FAR superior to the 430/530 that Garmin replaced it with. Would I love a new GTN? 100%, but they really offer nothing for me besides quick entry of lengthy flight plans. I do like the VNAV feature, but it's really of no value when operating in the system as you get stepped down when ATC wants, not what the Garmin thinks. It's very cool for VFR flight, however.

For me personally, I fly better on gauges vs tapes. I don't have evidence to back this up, but I believe we detect subtle change better on needles vice tapes. Again, I'd trade my gauges for a G3X tomorrow - but $ lol. I do have a digital AI and that is my poor mans EFIS that works just fine.

I GENERALLY have a personal minimum that I wont enter IMC intentionally without an autopilot. Without autopilot, you're one minor hiccup from an emergency. This sort of supports my first statement, to focus on spending money on what really matters - the navigator and autopilot (and know how to use them REALLY well). I broke my own rule a while back to ferry a plane for a buddy with an inop autopilot. Four solid hours in a bumpy layer - wife threw up twice...not fun. I was SPENT by the time I landed. I was busy the whole time just flying the aircraft. I had zero time to really manage the airplane. Never again. I know there are old timers that bah humbug autopilots, but not this guy.

 

[jamesyql]

Thank you everyone for your thoughtful comments. This is exactly the type of opinions and discussion I was hoping to generate and it will help guide my decision making.

[Ryan ORL]

11 hours ago, bigmo said:

I do like the VNAV feature, but it's really of no value when operating in the system as you get stepped down when ATC wants, not what the Garmin thinks. It's very cool for VFR flight, however.

Agreed, VNAV is totally just nice-to-have territory for me.  I do sometimes use it under IFR though, there's a few places I fly where they like giving descent clearances like "Descend at pilots discretion to 5000, cross 25 miles north of the XYZ VOR at 5000" or some such.  Quick work to add an along-track waypoint, type in the altitude constraint, and do the VNAV thing on the GTN.  (It's been a little while since I had my 480 but I think it also supported along track waypoints?)

[Marc_B]

12 hours ago, bigmo said:

I do like the VNAV feature, but it's really of no value when operating in the system as you get stepped down when ATC wants

I fairly routinely get a "descend at pilot's discretion and cross 'X' at 5000" or a "cross 'X' at and maintain 5000."  Using VNAV just allows you to automate these step downs.  If your winds/speeds are favorable where you are, you'd want to start your descent as late as possible.  So this either takes some brain computation or some GTN computation.

But I find that the busier the airspace on your arrival, the more likely that ATC wants control of you vertically and horizontally to make it easier to maintain separation from others.  So in those cases you're probably more likely to get a series of discrete heading and altitude changes from ATC coming in.

It's not a solution for all (or even most) descents, but it's a nice tool when it's the right one for the problem.

[Pinecone]

The biggest downside to the staged upgrade, IMO, is that it costs more.  It does help if you have a plan and communicate with the shop, so they can install wiring for your final panel the first time, and avoid pulling and reinstalling the interior several times.  Definitely tell them you want to add the Yaw Damper later, as they can run the wires and then just have to install the servo and configure.

But it also makes it harder on them to remove the old wiring, as they will have to keep some or remove it all, wire up what you have, but then have to pull and rewire when you do later stages.

As an alternative path, I would consider 2x G-5, GFC-500 and GTN-x50 as the first stage.  And do your instrument rating on that panel.  This way you learn the GTN well as part of your training.  And gives you experience with tape readouts for speed/altitude/VS making it easier to transition to the G3X.

And having both, the GTN-750 is SO much nicer to use than the 650, think about that also.

Long term, EIS is very important, but you can live without it now.  Or you can add a lot to a JPI 700 just be adding sensors.

[tcal780]

On 1/3/2025 at 2:47 PM, toto said:

I probably have the same setup as others here, with the G3X+EIS+GFC500+GTN, but honestly I would think seriously about knocking out your night+IR training with the panel you know.  The GNS is a perfectly capable unit, and while a newer AP might be nice for instrument flight, it's not very important for IR training.  You'll probably do better with a super-familiar panel for your instrument training, and you can tackle the panel upgrade after you have the rating.

+1 for this.

I never used the AP during my IFR training, nor was I tested on it. For course guidance, I relied solely on an aging Century HSI which constantly needed to be corrected. It wasn't fun, but it got the job done.
That was almost 3 years ago. Last Feb, I began my panel upgrade project. It's almost done, but it'll be well worth the wait and I certainly feel like I earned it.

[Marc_B]

54 minutes ago, tcal780 said:

I never used the AP during my IFR training, nor was I tested on it.

When I did my Instrument checkride the DPE asked for one coupled approach (I have an autopilot).  He said that he doesn't require an autopilot, but if candidates have one he expects that they should know how to use it.  That being said, with instrument training with my CFII it was 99% hand flying and I had more KFC150 training with a fellow Mooney pilot.

For single pilot IFR, the added safety and capability with use of an autopilot can't be understated.  But that is 100% dependent on the pilot being knowledgeable to use it.

[Ryan ORL]

56 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

When I did my Instrument checkride the DPE asked for one coupled approach (I have an autopilot).  He said that he doesn't require an autopilot, but if candidates have one he expects that they should know how to use it.  That being said, with instrument training with my CFII it was 99% hand flying and I had more KFC150 training with a fellow Mooney pilot.

For single pilot IFR, the added safety and capability with use of an autopilot can't be understated.  But that is 100% dependent on the pilot being knowledgeable to use it.

Per the Instrument ACS, DPEs are supposed to be testing on autopilot usage for aircraft that have one installed.

"To assist in management of the aircraft during the practical test, the applicant is expected to demonstrate automation management skills by utilizing installed equipment such as autopilot, avionics and systems displays, and/or a flight management system (FMS). The evaluator is expected to test the applicant’s knowledge of the systems that are installed and operative during both the oral and flight portions of the practical test. If the applicant has trained using a class portable EFB to display charts and data, and wishes to use the EFB during the practical test, the applicant is expected to demonstrate appropriate knowledge, risk management, and skill."

If you have an autopilot installed, you should expect a DPE on an instrument checkride to require you to demonstrate its use on at least one approach and if you struggle with it or display a lack of understanding on it, that is valid grounds for a bust.  (Notice of Disapproval)

[hubcap]

Based on my experience upgrading panels.............do it ONE TIME ONLY.

Get it all done at one time. You do not save any money and your plane will be down longer if you do your upgrade in stages.

 

[ArtVandelay]

I skipped the yaw damper entirely, J doesn’t need it.

Otherwise now days I would do the whole panel. But back in the “old” days we didn’t have the options we have today. So I did the radio stack, then after JPI 900 was introduced I upgraded from 830, then G5 because my HSI was broken, then the rest.

[Pinecone]

It is funny.  I see mostly people without YD saying it is not needed.

Most people WITH the YD, say it is great.

I would make sure the shop wired for the YD, then if you want to add it later, you can just install the servo and configure.

[Pinecone]

2 hours ago, hubcap said:

Based on my experience upgrading panels.............do it ONE TIME ONLY.

Get it all done at one time. You do not save any money and your plane will be down longer if you do your upgrade in stages.

And think if there is any other wiring you may want later.  I had my shop put in a wire to power a SureFly from the battery.  Took maybe 5 - 10 minutes and some wire.  That will save 5 hours of shop time (remove and replace interior to run the wire) when I do install a SureFly (maybe this annual coming up).