201 panel upgrade starts

[CCAS]

I'm a week out from dropping off my 1989 J model to start its panel upgrade. The before picture is below; I'll have a separate post in a few weeks in the Classified section for anyone interested in legacy equipment that's being removed.

I plan to post updates as the avionics shop makes progress.  The project includes GFC500, G500TXi, GI275 backup, GI275 EIS, GTN650Xi, GNX375, GTR205, yoke Aera 760, Carling switches, Cies senders, LHS, and LED nav/strobe.  Many thanks to @donkaye @shawnd @Lois @201 RedTail for sharing their panel experiences and providing advice during the planning stage.  

John

[Schllc]

Why the 275 for the eis?  It is easily displayed on the txi.  Even less real estate used when it’s a single. The txi can actually split into three panels as well. 
I suppose a backup eis display would be nice though 

[CCAS]

I went round and round with the GI275 EIS decision. Ultimately it came down to two things that were truly individual preference: Other aircraft I'm flying have the GI275 EIS so it's a comfort factor to process data more easily. I also like the placement of a standalone EIS (it'll be roughly where my current JPI 730 is) to make it more natural (for me) to visually catch engine data as I set engine controls and scan navigators.   

[Vance Harral]

Having instructed in a few airplanes with a single, large glass panel that does "everything", I think there really is an advantage to having the engine instrumentation available on an independent device.  The failure rate of the big panels is pretty low, but I'm obligated to simulate "partial panel" on an IPC, and if I choose to do that by simulating a backlight failure of the primary/only display (a very real possibility), it always creeps out the pilot that they no longer have any engine data.

The antidote to that is to mange the engine solely by the physical position of the knobs that control it, which most pilots are pretty familiar with.  That generally works fine, so I don't think it's some sort of critical error to bundle your engine data solely on a single TV screen with everything else.  But it's worth thinking about.

[Max Clark]

5 hours ago, CCAS said:

I'm a week out from dropping off my 1989 J model to start its panel upgrade. The before picture is below; I'll have a separate post in a few weeks in the Classified section for anyone interested in legacy equipment that's being removed.

I plan to post updates as the avionics shop makes progress.  The project includes GFC500, G500TXi, GI275 backup, GI275 EIS, GTN650Xi, GNX375, GTR205, yoke Aera 760, Carling switches, Cies senders, LHS, and LED nav/strobe.  Many thanks to @donkaye @shawnd @Lois @201 RedTail for sharing their panel experiences and providing advice during the planning stage.  

John

That's going to be an amazing panel!

As an aside, I don't understand why Garmin makes the GNX375 but doesn't offer transponder in either the GTN750 or 650 variants. Sure they have the remote transponder for the GTN as an option, but it makes panel planning hard.

[CCAS]

12 minutes ago, Max Clark said:

I don't understand why Garmin makes the GNX375 but doesn't offer transponder in either the GTN750 or 650 variants

Baffles me too but there must be a marketing reason behind it. You’re right about the challenges of panel planning. I’m still finalizing the order of my radio stack but one of the reasons I went with the GNX375 was because I wanted another modern WAAS navigator and also wanted to take advantage of an integrated transponder with ADS-B In. 

[toto]

4 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

Having instructed in a few airplanes with a single, large glass panel that does "everything", I think there really is an advantage to having the engine instrumentation available on an independent device.  The failure rate of the big panels is pretty low, but I'm obligated to simulate "partial panel" on an IPC, and if I choose to do that by simulating a backlight failure of the primary/only display (a very real possibility), it always creeps out the pilot that they no longer have any engine data.

The antidote to that is to mange the engine solely by the physical position of the knobs that control it, which most pilots are pretty familiar with.  That generally works fine, so I don't think it's some sort of critical error to bundle your engine data solely on a single TV screen with everything else.  But it's worth thinking about.

I always have an iPad in my lap with EIS via Garmin Pilot. So if the LCD craps out, GP is an easy backup. 

[shawnd]

But that means a GP subscription ...  I guess $210 a year is a far cry from the thousands of dollars being spent on the panels 

[toto]

11 minutes ago, shawnd said:

But that means a GP subscription ...  I guess $210 a year is a far cry from the thousands of dollars being spent on the panels 

Yeah, I mean if you have a panel full of Garmin hardware, you’re probably spending money on databases anyway. A OnePak gives you the Pro upgrade for free, so it’s basically $100/year for a full-featured EFB on par with any other paid EFB app. And the fact that you get real time telemetry from the panel with EIS makes it worth the price of admission for me. 

[CCAS]

17 hours ago, Max Clark said:

but it makes panel planning hard

Top two contenders for radio stack arrangment.  The panel designer is working on a first markup and there will be several iterations back and forth to refine the design of course. 

 

 

[toto]

7 minutes ago, CCAS said:

Top two contenders for radio stack arrangment.  The panel designer is working on a first markup and there will be several iterations back and forth to refine the design of course. 

 

 

I know this is a very subjective thing, but my GFC control head is at the bottom of the radio stack. It makes one-button changes easy while my hand is resting on the throttle. 

I can see the logic in having it at the top, but with the other AP annunciators already in front of the pilot it’s redundant and less convenient. 

[CCAS]

7 hours ago, toto said:

I know this is a very subjective thing, but my GFC control head is at the bottom of the radio stack. It makes one-button changes easy while my hand is resting on the throttle. 

I started off in the design process with the control unit located on the bottom of the stack. But after sitting in the airplane and going through some chair flying of manipulating the AP controls it actually seemed to work better for me to have it up high. Totally subjective of course. You mentioned your hand resting on the throttle. A fair bit of my flying is over the Rockies and across the Front Range through some frequent rough air....my naturally resting right hand position is often gripping the center post above the mag compass to prevent my head hitting the ceiling.     

[Rick Junkin]

@CCAS I configured my stack just like your first example, GMC 507 on the top and GMA 345 on the bottom, and I really like it. I have my G5 between my PFD and the radio stack and use it for altimeter adjustments, and use the heading and altitude knobs on the GMC 507 right beside it for those adjustments rather than the knobs or the touch screen on the PFD. The audio panel on the bottom has worked out great as well, especially with the frequency color coding on the PFD to show me which radio/freq is active.

I'm starting to transition to the PFD touch screen (I have a G3X) for the autopilot controls, and already use it for all of my radio freq changes. Eventually I'll get to where the G3X and the G5 are my primary interfaces and the radio stack is secondary, excepting the audio panel and flight plan manipulation on the 650Xi. But right now I'm still using familiar button operation on the GMC 507 most of the time until I get more comfortable doing everything on the G3X.

[CCAS]

1 hour ago, Rick Junkin said:

I configured my stack just like your first example, GMC 507 on the top and GMA 345 on the bottom

Thanks Rick - I think the PFD does take some time getting used to so I'm planning to have a similar learning curve. I'm counting on seeing what flows make sense once I get a few dozen hours or so on the glass. 

[Max Clark]

On 1/18/2025 at 2:43 PM, CCAS said:

Baffles me too but there must be a marketing reason behind it. You’re right about the challenges of panel planning. I’m still finalizing the order of my radio stack but one of the reasons I went with the GNX375 was because I wanted another modern WAAS navigator and also wanted to take advantage of an integrated transponder with ADS-B In. 

I did GTN750xi GNC215 and GTX 345R

[Max Clark]

4 hours ago, Rick Junkin said:

@CCAS I configured my stack just like your first example, GMC 507 on the top and GMA 345 on the bottom, and I really like it. I have my G5 between my PFD and the radio stack and use it for altimeter adjustments, and use the heading and altitude knobs on the GMC 507 right beside it for those adjustments rather than the knobs or the touch screen on the PFD. The audio panel on the bottom has worked out great as well, especially with the frequency color coding on the PFD to show me which radio/freq is active.

I'm starting to transition to the PFD touch screen (I have a G3X) for the autopilot controls, and already use it for all of my radio freq changes. Eventually I'll get to where the G3X and the G5 are my primary interfaces and the radio stack is secondary, excepting the audio panel and flight plan manipulation on the 650Xi. But right now I'm still using familiar button operation on the GMC 507 most of the time until I get more comfortable doing everything on the G3X.

I took the Garmin training and was was blown away buy the G3x integration and control of everything. I still like having knobs, but I'm curious how that changes over the next year.

[Pinecone]

On 1/19/2025 at 8:42 AM, toto said:

I know this is a very subjective thing, but my GFC control head is at the bottom of the radio stack. It makes one-button changes easy while my hand is resting on the throttle. 

I can see the logic in having it at the top, but with the other AP annunciators already in front of the pilot it’s redundant and less convenient. 

I went with low mounted control head also.  Less hand movement.

Also, some people have had issues with swapping com frequencies when going for the auto pilot.

[Pinecone]

On 1/19/2025 at 8:33 PM, Max Clark said:

I did GTN750xi GNC215 and GTX 345R

I have 750Xi, 650Xi and 345R.

But I had the 650Xi already.  So the delta to swap it out for a lower capability box versus keeping it was minimal.

[Pinecone]

On 1/19/2025 at 4:26 PM, Rick Junkin said:

I have my G5 between my PFD and the radio stack and use it for altimeter adjustments, and use the heading and altitude knobs on the GMC 507 right beside it for those adjustments rather than the knobs or the touch screen on the PFD.

I put my G-5 to the left and just use my right hand to do altimeter adjustments.

I see people putting their standby down low, and I think that can cause issues with the head tilted down in IMC.

[CCAS]

Worked started a week ago. The shop is making good progress on removals. Only part I have yet to source is a 28V LED replacement for the wing tip trailing edge halogen nav lights. A little scope creep so far: I've asked to see if my warped glareshield can be repaired by their fiberglass guy.    

[shawnd]

Looking good! I sincerely hope you have a better time once they pull the panel off and start working on the wire bundles. That's when the mysteries begin to pop up :-) 

[Pinecone]

I left my wingtip halogens alone.  If you change them to LED you have an issue with the annunciator (Gear Down) dimming.  There are work arounds, but considering how much of a PITA it is to change the bulb, and you may need to change the socket AND do the work around so the Gear Down is not dimmed all the time.........

 

[Marc_B]

4 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

I left my wingtip halogens alone.

+1...I have LED replacements in a box, but figured I'd let sleeping dogs lie for now.

[CCAS]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

I left my wingtip halogens alone.

Awesome and timely input! I knew I read somewhere on MS a discussion related to the gear down annunciator dimming; I just forgot the context until you made this post. I’ll have a chat with the lead avionics tech and let him know I’m leaning toward leaving them alone. Thanks! 

[Ragsf15e]

On 1/18/2025 at 7:55 PM, shawnd said:

But that means a GP subscription ...  I guess $210 a year is a far cry from the thousands of dollars being spent on the panels 

I don’t think you’ll need the GP subscription to use the eis… however, I haven’t tried it.  Ill see if I can do it tomorrow.  I’m thinking the subscription buys all the maps/charts and planning functions, but I’ve been wrong before!