Webygail13 Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 My quote for dual g5's and PMA8000G is right at $21k. I was told to do a 3 axis GFC500 it would be around $30k. I'm having trouble getting other local shops to call me back or give me numbers, so not sure if this is a good price or not.
ArtVandelay Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 My quote for dual g5's and PMA8000G is right at $21k. I was told to do a 3 axis GFC500 it would be around $30k. I'm having trouble getting other local shops to call me back or give me numbers, so not sure if this is a good price or not. $30k for just the AP or does that include the audio and G5s?
Webygail13 Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 4 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said: $30k for just the AP or does that include the audio and G5s? That was in addition to the $21k for the G5's and audio panel. So $30k just for the auto pilot.
ArtVandelay Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 That was in addition to the $21k for the G5's and audio panel. So $30k just for the auto pilot.Wow, where abouts are you located?I know a shop in Florida probably can do it for less.
Vance Harral Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 5 hours ago, Webygail13 said: I don't know what I don't know yet about IFR, so I'm just looking for some opinions on what some experienced guys would do if you had my budget and wanted a more friendly IFR panel. Thanks! Have you considered doing no upgrades at all until you complete your IFR training? Perhaps unpopular opinion: spending a lot of money on avionics upgrades at the start of IFR training isn't a great idea. For one thing, it might take as long or longer to get a shop to complete the upgrade than it would take to complete your training in your already airworthy, IFR-capable airplane. And as you've already observed, you don't know what you don't know yet. Better to get a bunch of hours under your belt before upgrading, because while there are a few factual truths about equipment and capability, a lot of resto-mod panel design boils down to personal preference. The panel you already have is adequate to train for and pass the instrument rating practical test, at which point you'll be proficient in one airplane. Perhaps the most proficient you'll ever be for the rest of your life. That's a great place to be when thinking about what kind of instrument flying you're really going to do, and what equipment you want to feel safe and comfortable while you do it. Some ugly truths to consider, from an old CFII: A lot of pilots who start instrument training never finish. Some pilots who finish instrument training decide never to fly in IMC, particularly those based in areas of the country where there isn't much piston-single-flyable IMC. Some pilots who fly IMC limit themselves to "gentleman's" IFR conditions, e.g. punching through a thin layer that's a couple thousand feet above the ground. Some pilots with instrument ratings and fancy panels are actually quite bad at basic instrument flying, and are hindered as much as helped by all the gizmos they've got in the panel. I don't say these things to discourage you, just to inject a dose of realism before you break out the wallet. Prove to yourself you have the perseverance to complete the rating. After (or while) you do, lean on friends and/or rentals and/or AATD simulators to gain experience with additional equipment. Then, with rating in hand, decide what kind of IMC flying you're actually going to do. At that point, you'll be in pretty good shape to think about upgrades. 12
Ragsf15e Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 26 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said: Wow, where abouts are you located? I know a shop in Florida probably can do it for less. I thought he mentioned Canada, so currency differences might account for it, but yes, that seems high. Nevermind, it was just high.
Webygail13 Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 I'm in Tennessee. You are correct about me getting some time under my belt before upgrading. My Mooney isn't IFR certified at the moment, so I need to purchase the Garmin updates for the 430 and have the airplane certified. That is going to be about $1000. So I was trying to decide if I wanted to upgrade first and then do all of that, or do all that, upgrade, and then do all of that again. The local shop that gave me quotes said they could have me in two weeks from now and I'd only be down 2 weeks, so that wasn't bad. I have considered what you are saying though in just flying it for a while. If it wasn't for the stupid audio stuff that would be an easier decision. I'm not worried about finishing, I'm not the kind to start stuff and quit. I actually bought my first airplane before I even took a discovery flight and used it to get my PPL. I sold it and bought this Mooney to do my IFR in and hopefully keep as my XC airplane for me and my family! This feedback is really helpful though and I really appreciate it! 2
Vance Harral Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 13 minutes ago, Webygail13 said: The local shop that gave me quotes said they could have me in two weeks from now and I'd only be down 2 weeks, so that wasn't bad. Hmmm... make sure you get a PIREP from some of their customers. It would be quite unusual in the current market to get a multi-component avionics project in the shop door in two weeks and out in just two more. Not impossible, of course. But I'm very skeptical of this estimate, and avionics shops are generally notorious for missing deadlines. Whatever you decide to do about equipment, enjoy the training! 1
Max Clark Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 41 minutes ago, Vance Harral said: Have you considered doing no upgrades at all until you complete your IFR training? sage advice
Max Clark Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 22 minutes ago, Webygail13 said: I'm in Tennessee. You are correct about me getting some time under my belt before upgrading. My Mooney isn't IFR certified at the moment, so I need to purchase the Garmin updates for the 430 and have the airplane certified. That is going to be about $1000. So I was trying to decide if I wanted to upgrade first and then do all of that, or do all that, upgrade, and then do all of that again. The local shop that gave me quotes said they could have me in two weeks from now and I'd only be down 2 weeks, so that wasn't bad. I have considered what you are saying though in just flying it for a while. If it wasn't for the stupid audio stuff that would be an easier decision. I'm not worried about finishing, I'm not the kind to start stuff and quit. I actually bought my first airplane before I even took a discovery flight and used it to get my PPL. I sold it and bought this Mooney to do my IFR in and hopefully keep as my XC airplane for me and my family! This feedback is really helpful though and I really appreciate it! After getting my IFR I use it for three things: Transiting busy airspace (hello DFW) Getting out through a marine layer (all of SoCal) ... I lied there's only two. I don't fly into weather so I have it and stay current in case I blow it with flight planning but I make it a point to get weather before I fly. Autopilot is great for XC, but these planes trim wonderfully you can probably do without it when you learn.
dkkim73 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 1 hour ago, Vance Harral said: erhaps unpopular opinion: spending a lot of money on avionics upgrades at the start of IFR training isn't a great idea. Very thought-provoking. I can definitely see the rationale. I got a lot out of learning the 6-pack and aggressively managing flows and checklists while keeping up my scan during primary training. I'm "probably" not as good at that now OTOH for someone who is an adult with resources, and has committed goals, I can see the time savings of making an educated assessment and getting multiple things going concurrently (I'm projecting, though several other people here have just decided to get PPLs and bought a Mooney, so it's not isolated). I do share the concern it would take longer and might interfere with your training timeline. I do agree you'll really appreciate the fancy stuff a lot more, and have a sense what you want (e.g. HSI under-rated) once you've been doing The Thing for a while. OTOH clear comms is a huge benefit with no downside, so maybe the audio panel alone is a nice treat and will make IFR training better. Plus then you'll have spatial audio, BT for later clearance calls, etc, already. Sounds like you'll need a DB upgrade anyway for your GPS and getting a pitot/static cert. But that's gonna be true either way. 1
varlajo Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Max Clark said: sage advice Except.. An autopilot would be immensely helpful throughout his instrument training. Edited January 16 by varlajo
Vance Harral Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 2 hours ago, varlajo said: An autopilot would be immensely helpful throughout his instrument training. Meh... that's debatable. I'm not a Luddite about autopilots ,and I'm not saying you're outright wrong. I've had good IFR training experiences with students in autopilot-equipped airplanes. If it's there, I incorporate it early and often in the training (including failing it, though honestly I get to teach plenty of autopilot "failures" that are simply pilot error in using it). And I am definitely not saying an autopilot isn't both an operational and a safety advantage in real-world IFR flying. I'm just not convinced it's "immensely helpful" during training as you say, and I don't really think it's critical for the OP to get one in his airplane right now. My experience may be biased by easy access to a pretty good AATD, which I regularly put IFR students in when we're going to do intensive cognitive stuff: first time making them fully responsible for an entire instrument approach sequence with no help, introducing new types of approaches, etc. The "pause" button in the AATD is incredibly helpful during those exercises, and I guess a reliable autopilot is sort of an equivalent if you're limited to doing all your IFR training in a real airplane. 4
toto Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 4 hours ago, Webygail13 said: $30k just for the auto pilot. Kind of a strange quote. One of the G5s is required for the GFC, so you can’t actually get a GFC installed without at least one G5*. And the second G5 is required for all practical purposes if you want to fly IFR. (I’m not sure what backup instruments the STC allows for a G5 AI, but they’re cheap enough that going with two G5s is the choice for most people - it allows the HSI unit to become an AI if your AI unit fails.) * Technically you can install a GFC with a GI-275 or a G3X as the control head, but that would be beyond the budget here.
Max Clark Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 11 hours ago, toto said: Kind of a strange quote. One of the G5s is required for the GFC, so you can’t actually get a GFC installed without at least one G5*. And the second G5 is required for all practical purposes if you want to fly IFR. (I’m not sure what backup instruments the STC allows for a G5 AI, but they’re cheap enough that going with two G5s is the choice for most people - it allows the HSI unit to become an AI if your AI unit fails.) * Technically you can install a GFC with a GI-275 or a G3X as the control head, but that would be beyond the budget here. The GFC 500 (including servos) line item was $19,445 when I had it done. Labor has gone up since then I'm sure.
Max Clark Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 14 hours ago, varlajo said: Except.. An autopilot would be immensely helpful throughout his instrument training. I feel like most of my training was learning how to use the avionics, not necessarily how to fly Instrument. Same with the check ride, can you execute the correct procedures to program, and re-program the avionics in the air (on a GPS approach, now enter a hold on a VOR Radial, reset for VOR approach, whoops which to ILS!). This lines up with the famed $1,000 check-ride button of forgetting to switch the CDI source. I've been sitting here thinking about what it would have been like if there wasn't an autopilot in the plane... I don't have experience to say if it would have been better or worse, only different. Interestingly after I finished my IFR I went to the Mooney PPP where my instructor made me fly the plane by hand! I couldn't remember the last time I had done that. It was hard and fun! I make it a point to hand fly a good amount now. 1
AndreiC Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 I strongly support @Vance Harral's opinion. You can learn everything you need with your current setup, and upgrade later when you know what your real-world needs are. Plus an avionics upgrade will ground your plane for a long time now, so you won't be able to start your training. You don't need an autopilot to do your training, but for real life use of an instrument rating (and overall use of your plane), I would definitely think an autopilot would be very useful. Unless you are flying short flights, it gets boring and tiring to just keep heading and altitude in IMC (or VMC for that matter) for a long time. You can definitely do it, but it is a chore after a while. So before worrying about FD or WAAS, I would spend the money for an autopilot. From what I hear a GFC500 is very nice, but the cheaper option mentioned above seems fine too. (AeroCruze?) Since the audio panel is pretty much independent of the others, I would do that now if it does not ground you for too long. Finally, you could get a one-time database upgrade for $120 or so. An altimeter IFR check should be around $250-300. These costs are pennies compared to an avionics upgrade, just do them and start your training. (You can legally fly for 30 days in IMC, and after that use the GPS as a VMC-only tool. Most of your instrument training will be done in VMC, so you can still shoot practice approaches even with an expired database.) 2
Ragsf15e Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 Just a note, not that it’s better or worse… all the USAF training (at least towards fighters) is done in aircraft with no autopilot. Everyone (fighter/bomber and cargo) does primary instrument training without autopilot. They get about the same time as we do (yes it’s more intense) and they pass an instrument checkride to continue. I actually believe (personal opinion) that having an autopilot gets in the way of training for ifr. However, before everyone loses their $&/! on me, I also believe everyone needs some additional training in their specific autopilot and how to best manage their system once passing their checkride. Yes, “topoff” could be integrated before check, but I think a pilot should be competent enough to pass without the AP and introducing it before just complicated things. 3
varlajo Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 I do not disagree with @Vance Harral @AndreiC @Ragsf15e at all. An autopilot is by no means essential for instrument training or checkride, but I do firmly believe that it is very helpful in reducing workload. Sometimes all we need is a Lemmethink button. 2
Ragsf15e Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 1 hour ago, varlajo said: I do not disagree with @Vance Harral @AndreiC @Ragsf15e at all. An autopilot is by no means essential for instrument training or checkride, but I do firmly believe that it is very helpful in reducing workload. Sometimes all we need is a Lemmethink button. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s an excellent safety addition for ifr flying. I just think you can train without it and end up a very good instrument pilot. 1
Jackk Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 Per the best way to train OP should ask their CFII If they haven’t picked on yet, I’d say that’s the first order of all this IFR business
Crawfish Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 I'd tend to agree I believe during training use of autopilot should be very limited. I often tell my students it is "inop" as when SHTF I expect my students to be able to fly the plane, not have the plane fly them. It's use in primary training I find to be a crutch and not a tool to propel them forward. That being said I find it to be a great tool once you are proficient at instrument flying. In terms of actual instruments learning on a six pack is great, it will only make you better once you have glass. I would recommend a solid GPS for now. (430 is fine for that you can practice ILS for precision approaches.) A key upgrade for efficiency would be a Flight stream 210 if you are going to keep it to me. Makes inputting flight plans and changes 10X faster. Once you're out actually flying you'll have enough time to know what you actually want. I fly my plane in pretty bad weather so for me personally that means WAAS, and multiple ILS for redundancy. I've put 400ish hours on my mooney with standard 6 pack, extra CDI with Glideslope, GTN650 and KFC200. With that I've flown to mins several times and find it very capable. We are moving to glass this year but that is very much a luxury and not a necessity. That being said I also fly for a living so I get to stay proficient by virtue of how often I fly in weather. 1
midlifeflyer Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 4 minutes ago, Crawfish said: I'd tend to agree I believe during training use of autopilot should be very limited. I I tend to think that learning the equipment installed in the aircraft is as important as hand flying. Whatever it happens to be. Hand flying and being able to complete tasks while maintaining control are absolutely essential tasks, but I'm convinced that it is about 15% of what IFR flying is about. I used to say 20%, but along came complex avionics systems, including autopilots. 30 years ago, a newly minted IFR pilot could hop in the airplane a week after the checkride, fly IFR in the clouds and finish with an instrument approach. Not today. I don't think the reason is less hand flying skill; it's less avionics management skill. Two examples. One of the tasks I always give for an IPC or aircraft or avionics transition is a fully coupled vectored ILS to the missed. Sounds like a piece of cake, right? But the reason I do it is the number of times the pilot makes an error that points out missing avionics skills. A few years ago, a pilot failed the IFR checkride. The DPE permitted use of the autopilot throughout. The task was vectors to final for an ILS (different from the setup I use; mine is intended to be a gotcha; this one was not). Applicant flew right through the localizer with the autopilot engaged. DPE was kind and revectored the applicant. Same result. The details of those two tasks are completely different. And so are the errors. But both reflect avionics management issues and at least in my tasks, the pilot would have flown it properly without the autopilot. 3
Flyler Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 22 hours ago, Max Clark said: After getting my IFR I use it for three things: 3.... Not sure how this skipped your mind but I found #3 on your profile. 1
Jackk Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 40 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said: I tend to think that learning the equipment installed in the aircraft is as important as hand flying. Whatever it happens to be. Hand flying and being able to complete tasks while maintaining control are absolutely essential tasks, but I'm convinced that it is about 15% of what IFR flying is about. I used to say 20%, but along came complex avionics systems, including autopilots. 30 years ago, a newly minted IFR pilot could hop in the airplane a week after the checkride, fly IFR in the clouds and finish with an instrument approach. Not today. I don't think the reason is less hand flying skill; it's less avionics management skill. Two examples. One of the tasks I always give for an IPC or aircraft or avionics transition is a fully coupled vectored ILS to the missed. Sounds like a piece of cake, right? But the reason I do it is the number of times the pilot makes an error that points out missing avionics skills. A few years ago, a pilot failed the IFR checkride. The DPE permitted use of the autopilot throughout. The task was vectors to final for an ILS (different from the setup I use; mine is intended to be a gotcha; this one was not). Applicant flew right through the localizer with the autopilot engaged. DPE was kind and revectored the applicant. Same result. The details of those two tasks are completely different. And so are the errors. But both reflect avionics management issues and at least in my tasks, the pilot would have flown it properly without the autopilot. I’ve flown with folks who go to “easier” advanced avionics who gets steam rolled by mindless button pushing not understanding what they are asking the system to do, FMAs, and the next thing that’s going to happen. That said I really really support not using a moving map during IFR training, being able to have that map in your head with the SA it requires behooves a new weather pilot. But a good CFI should be able to slowly work in advanced avionics and their fail downs into proper training, this will not likely be a low time instructor however
Recommended Posts