What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Cheapest IFR platform

rv8ch

Well Known Member
Patron
Just curious if anyone has come up with a very cheap IFR configuration. I'm not planning to equip my 8 for IFR, but might change my mind at the last minute.

This is coming to a head since I need to order my radio, and I need to decide between the SL-30 ($3115) which has some nice IFR features, and the SL-40 ($1304) which is just a great comm radio.

I also am on the list for a GRT Sport ($2795), but if I go IFR, then I'll want the regular GRT EFIS ($5995) for its CDI/HSI.

Just these two items add about $4800, and I'm just getting started.

I guess I could go for a "cheap" external CDI for about $1500. Anyone have any hints for getting an inexpensive IFR platform?
 
Before the real debate begins....

Mickey,

I'm sure that you will get a lot of responses, both on the legal requirements for IFR, as well as the practical aspects of what you really would need. I would be hesitant to answer the first for you, because I don't know if your rules would be differnt from ours. The second, well, that all depends on what you are comfortable with, how you are trained, etc.

I will, however, give you my thoughts (now that I am flying), on the only thing I am disappointed with on my -8. Of course, it has nothing to do with the airplane, it was my own decisionmaking. I am naturally cheap - I guess that is the way I was raised. So Idecided to save a little money by going with a low-end audio panel and #2 Comm. Now don't get me wrong, they both work exactly as advertised, and pretty darn well. BUt I knowingly gave up a few features that now I kind of wish I had - stereo Intercom (for music), 2-channel Comm monitoring (well, actually 3, since I have two Comm's, and can monitor both), a cell phone interface....All of which I can live without...but why?

I probably saved myself $1000 by "cheaping out" on these two units, and I ended up spending about $92K on the airplane. Would I have noticed the difference in my checking account if I had gone for what I really wanted? Now that I am not building, and money isn't flowing to ACS and Van's like water from a fire hose...I suddenly realized I should have bought what I wanted the first time. Because now, I'll certainly go get what I want, and do a retrofit, and then will have to take a loss on the first units.

I fully understand and sympathize with folks on a limited budget. But will you notice a 1 or 2 (or 5) percent difference? I'm sure you can find something else to work on while waiting for the money to come in for the right radios....

Just my opinion, of course...now onto the debates about VOR or No VOR!

Paul
 
Vor

Keep in mind this is MIN equip for IFR not the most you can stuff in the panel or everything you want. I can't disagree with Paul F. Dye above, but I will take the opposite side of the coin, going MIN (cost, weight and complexity). Of course going MIN also minimizes utility, but at least to an acceptable level for the mission's you intend to fly. On the other hand who would not want a GNS 530 /480.

Mickey you hit the NAIL. IFR equipment is EXPENSIVE. It is not a trivial add on. The extra antennas and wires cause more weight, increased drag (due to weight or external antennas) and of course $$$. How much IFR and what kind of IFR are you going to fly. GPS carries the cost burden of NAV updates.

Consider going ALL VFR equip as you describe and just add a stand alone nav like: VAL all in one IFR unit

Another standalone idea is a used Escort VOR. Remember they had those LED segmented display head with the VOR/LOC/COM receiver incorporated in one unit. However a used out of production radio may not make as much sense. You mention the SL-30 with a CDI head as "compromise", which also makes sense from a minimalist and $$$ stand point, while getting good utility. Narco also made several all-in-on heads with everything up to GS/LOC/VOR/MB, like the Val but with analog display, which I like. They are found used and new as they are still in production. Got to look at the wallet and ask yourself how much IFR am I going to do?

HERE is my logic for going MIN IFR (like Mickey) and HOW:

Look we all know what the required FLIGHT instruments are, there are spelled out in detail in the FAR's. The controversy is if a experimental EFIS counts. I am not going to make a comment about that or step into that debate.

Again like EFIS above there is discussion of what GPS is legal and what is a legal installation. Again I am not going to step into that debate.

However I will comment on min NAV, and what one item can give you a whole lot of legal capability with out spending $1000's for equipment and $100's a year for electronic NAV data base updates. Also keep in mind there is nothing wrong with backing your situational awareness with a non-IFR approved GPS.

Bare min IFR, regarding NAVIGATION: The FAR's are delightfully Vague. All you need is NAV equipment you plan on using for the intended flight. Clearly in the lower 48, USA, you can take off (many times dead reckoning) to vectors or intercept a radial off a VOR. You could happily fly coast to coast, across the USA on the airway system and make a VOR approach where the VOR is off the field or the FAF is defined but two VORs. You can switch back and forth to get the intersection. Of course if you have LOC freq's and a simple MB, you can do LOC approaches to even lower MINS. Also ATC can call the FAF for you many times. Of course there are ASR/PARs approaches. I did a lot of IFR in a basic Piper Tomahawk with just one VOR/LOC and a basic six pack elect/vac instruments. Later I got a MB receiver and that opened up all the LOC approaches which are almost always found with an ILS. Now would I do hard ball IFR, that way? NO

So all you need is one VOR receiver/head. Most VOR's also come with LOC freq's. TO use a LOC you usually need a ADF or MB at least to ID the OM/FAF. ATC with surveillance radar at that airport can call the OM or FAF for you. Obviously even a hand held VFR only Garmin has IFR approach way points, although illegal to use it exclusively its a great tool as a back-up.

With a portable GPS, basic EFIS (or traditional flight instruments) and just one VOR/LOC (may be a MB), you can file IFR (if that is the only NAV you intend on using).

Also you are not stuck with expensive GPS NAV data base updates. Just buy paper charts/plates as needed. To buy, install and maintain an IFR GPS cost $1000's of dollars. A used ESCORT NARCO VOR/LOC head is not expensive. You can also go full meal deal and buy the VAL head with GS/LOC/VOR/MB all in one. Who needs an IFR GPS. Don't get me wrong I want one but it is expensive, and updates are a burden to remain legal to exclusively use it for IFR. I don't plan on flying that much IFR in my RV. As an airline pilot I fly IFR enough, and we do use nav data bases in the flight management computer, but we still use Paper. With a few paper enroute charts and approach plates, the OLD school VOR works.

NOW let me tell you my mission. I don't plan on filing IFR routinely. If I am flying local I am not going to go IFR for the fun of it. Cross country I will try to fly VFR, but there are times it will be nice (safer and legal) to file or POP-UP. Examples are say a marine layer or a little FOG in the morning grounds you (for VFR), but near by weather and airports are VFR; you could file and with a short IMC climb get on top to VFR conditions and on your merry way. Now lets say your en-route, VFR and find the broken under cast is now starting to become solid. The destination still has high ceilings and good Vis. You are enjoying a good tail wind, and instead of ducking down low to finish the flight, you continue at altitude. Now you need an IFR let down on an airway. POP-UP and get it, let down to a VFR conditions to the airport. If you had to, you could fly a VOR or LOC approach.

Staying really current may be a pain in you bare min IFR plane. I fly IFR at work so it's not an issue for me. You can (should) fly and practice attitude instrument flying skills (scan-x/check-interpret-control) with a safety pilot in VFR conditions. To me key and the foundation to all IFR operations and procedures is the scan and control. You can practice procedures on a home PC. However GA simulators are getting very good. A good 1-2 hour SIM session with a good instructor in a full GA Sim can be a great workout and cover situations, weather, winds and emergency scenarios you may not experience in a year of IFR flying. Also they can turn the performance up to match the RV. Flying IFR in a C-172 may not be a good transfer of knowledge and skill to the RV. We all agree I am sure single pilot IFR in a RV means an autopilot on board.

With "IFR" flight instruments one VOR can get you a lot of capability on the cheap. Obviously an IFR GPS is the only way to really go, but it comes at a premium price. The unit will cost several thousand ($3K to $8K not uncommon) and the data base will need maintenance. I don't know all the legal and operational issues with IFR GPS in general aviation, because I never have owned or used one. When I was flight instructing, IFR GPS where just coming in, not common. Approaches where overlay only and not stand alone at the time.

George
 
Last edited:
I agree with George here (holy cow, twice in one month!) Having also flown a lot of IFR with just a vacuum 6-pack and a single VOR (in my CFII days) I am from the minimalist school of IFR.

My own panel is designed around a Dynon D-10 with backups for A/S and a compass, 2 axis A/P (Navaid and Altrak), a Garmin 196, and a used Narco 122 self contained ILS/VOR box. Also just one comm (Icom A200, a great radio, and a bargain. I paid $650 at Oshkosh new.) All total, I have around $8K in the panel, give or take.

Now, I cannot shoot GPS approaches, and cannot fly direct (wink wink) but I don't often travel IFR. When I am forced to, I file airways, like in the stone age. Most airports still have ILS, LOC or VOR approaches, including my home base. I would love an approach certified GPS, but that $$$ buys a lot of gas, and could, hypothetically, be used to buy some paint.

I highly recommend basic IFR capability, especially if you plan to do any traveling. My RV-6 began life as a VFR only airplane (same setup as above, without the VOR or the Altrak.) On the trip home from LOE 4 last year, I was stuck for 3 days in Kansas and Missouri, with weather which would have been easily navigated with the basic IFR setup I have now. Why didn't I start with an IFR panel? Same reason I started with a second hand wood prop- money. I often say- would you rather dream about your perfect airplane, or build and fly one which is just pretty damn good?
 
gmcjetpilot said:
Also you are not stuck with expensive GPS NAV data base updates. Just buy paper charts/plates as needed.

The GRT EFIS does NOT charge for NAV updates because they are derived from government sources (paraphrase from web site). Seems reasonable not to charge for running a simple perl script against the updated database. That is a big reason why I'm tracking GRT so closely, total cost of ownership... I'm surprised they don't advertise this more aggressively.

Chuck
 
Minamlist IFR

Assuming that U.S. rules apply,
One VOR/LOC [optional GS] with CDI
One COM [ please have a good handheld for backup]
[SL30's monitoring 2nd channel will be excellent feature]
Sans marker beacons, add 50' to ILS minimums.
Flight instruments [if EFIS, then have a backup for AS, Alt.]
One handheld GPS like Garmin 295/296. For "situational awareness".
All the paper stuff - plates, enroutes, etc.
A tiny red LED flashlight around your neck or in a place that's easy and certain.
Be reasonably current.
Be reasonable about what you intend to do! What's your backup plan with so little - or no - redundancy. Think about the limitations for single pilot IFR.
In reality, if you say "VFR GPS" in remarks portion of flight plan, you will usually be cleared to go direct with a wink and "what's your on course hdg?"
I fly this way in a C-150, but for the RV, I will add TruTrack 2 axis AP.
This config. will not allow GPS approaches.
Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, good and can you?

Jeff thanks for agreeing you must be in a Turkey induced euphoria or coma. :D

Hevansrv7a great post. As far as: "if you say "VFR GPS" in remarks portion of flight plan, you will usually be cleared to go direct with a wink and "what's your on course hdg?" I agree you can do direct, they may not just give it to you with out asking. ATC does not see the remarks unless they look it up (correct me if I am wrong). What they can give you is a "Vector direct". Since you have GPS you can "help yourself" by accepting (hinting for) direct vectors while using the GPS to stay on course, basically what you said. Technically you on a Vectors, but actually you are GPS direct. There are subtle ways to hint to this:

"Salt Lake center, request VECTORS direct XYZ, I show a "heading of ---" will do it, is that possible? thanks 123 delta mike" ; "123 delta mike, VECTORS direct XYZ, turn left heading ---" "123 delta mike, thanks :rolleyes: "

(My record for direct was 10 minutes out of Seattle cleared direct to Detroit, but that was high altitude at 12 am. If they give a different heading than what you want for direct, it could be for traffic or airspace issues.)

Chuck, I don't mean to hi-jack the thread but Is a GRT, BMA or other "experimental" GPS, non-TSO'ed unit, OK (legal) as a stand alone IFR (en-route and approach) GPS? I am sure it will work, but so can a hand held GPS. Sorry if this is an old question, but I don't recall seeing a definitive answer. From what I read about it you need to have a GPS that can do XYZ per Advisory Circulars or other regulatory guidance. G
 
Last edited:
My understanding is in an "experimental" aircraft and use any GPS in IFR ... as long as you have tested the GPS and it CAN do the GPS apps. As with anything ... you will be ok until you miss big time or crash ... then the insurance and FAA/NTSB will have a field day.
 
Clarification on Minimalist

1] I don't know if ATC sees the Remarks section, but my impression is that they do because I've never had to ask for direct and often ATC volunteers it to get my low-slow-C150 out of the way. But, I admit that sometimes I file "direct" and get away with it, and I'm always careful not to file "slant GPS", only "slant uniform". Never tell a lie on the record.
2] I don't think any non-TSO'd GPS is legal for approaches or even IFR enroute. There's a gotcha in the regs that you have to meet all the TSO standards. For GPS that includes RAIM, etc. In theory you could but in practice I don't think you can. The regs are much tighter for GPS than for other stuff, probably (guess) because they are newer. Example - I have yet to find a TSO'd ADF. The irony is that you can use a crappy ADF to fly an approach or identify a point, but you can't use your handheld GPS as a substitute for it, say on an approach that says "ADF required" because the beacon establishes part of the missed procedure.
(http://www.asy.faa.gov/safety_products/GPSSafetyAdv.htm)
 
GPS for IFR

n468ac said:
My understanding is in an "experimental" aircraft and use any GPS in IFR ... as long as you have tested the GPS and it CAN do the GPS apps. As with anything ... you will be ok until you miss big time or crash ... then the insurance and FAA/NTSB will have a field day.

You must have an IFR GPS to legally use it for navigation and approaches on an IFR flight - even for experimental aircraft. IFR GPSs have RAIM (verifies proper satellite geometry for accuracy), automatic sequencing of waypoints for approaches, and automatically increase sensitivity of the CDI as you approach the airport (all required to be certified for IFR) - VFR units don't have that stuff!!

If you have VOR/LOC/ILS Nav, and use that for IFR navigation and approaches, you can use any GPS for 'reference' purposes. All IFR navigation and approaches must be done with IFR certified nav equipment.

Dennis Glaeser
CFII
 
From the EAA fiyer about IFR for homebuilts...

It is important to note that the GPS is approved for ?supplemental? navigation only. A primary
system based on ground facilities must be installed in the aircraft as well. This requirement is
found in Part 91.205(d), by way of the following statement:
?Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
facilities to be used.?

As we are required by our OpLims to equip the aircraft in accordance with 91.205, this statement
tells us that our primary navigational equipment must be based on ground facilities (primarily
VOR). As this is the case, a homebuilt with only a GPS installed would not be legal for IFR
operations.
The guidance contained in AC 20-138 is based on FAA regulations contained in parts 21, 23, 25,
27, 29, 43, 91, 121, and 135. Of these regulations, only part 91 applies to homebuilt aircraft.
However, the info in the AC is still a valuable tool for the builder who wishes to install a GPS unit,
as it contains accuracy and testing criteria that can be used to verify that the installation meets
the performance requirements acceptable to the FAA.
As with transponders and other equipment discussed previously, GPS equipment must meet the
performance requirements of the applicable TSO (in this case, C129), but there is no specific
requirement for the equipment to be built under a TSO authorization. However, if the equipment
is not built under a TSO authorization, it is up to the builder to verify and document that the
equipment performs within the required specifications.


IMO the above bold statements allow us ... homebuilders ... to verify and document that our hand held or other GPS meets the requirements for IFR.
 
Last edited:
But does it?

The GRT EFIS and maybe the competitors, as far as I know, do not meet the standards and are not intended to. The standards for IFR are much different than for VFR. You cannot demonstrate what is not so. Right?
 
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/8A2AE2491C85226F86256E35004C638B?OpenDocument

Above is the link to: AC 20-138A

please note the page:

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides guidance material for the airworthiness approval of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) equipment. Like all AC material, this AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation. It is issued for guidance purposes and to outline a method of compliance with the rules. In lieu of following this method without deviation, the applicant may elect to follow an alternate method, provided the alternate method is also found by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to be an acceptable means of complying with the requirements of the federal aviation regulations (Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 14 CFR). This AC addresses the following equipment:
a. GNSS sensors, including those incorporating Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS), or the Russian Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS).
b. GNSS stand-alone navigation equipment that provides deviations (steering commands) for en route, terminal, or approach operations (including Category I precision approach).
2. CANCELLATION.
a. AC 20-138, Airworthiness Approval of Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation Equipment for Use as a VFR and IFR Supplemental Navigation System, dated May 25, 1994, is canceled.


So this is the testing you need to do make your GPS (what ever it is) IFR legal.
 
Last edited:
I was referring to

I was referring to the standards in the first link I included and also to the ones that are mentioned in the EAA article. While not technically regs, there is very little chance FAA will ignore the guidance in approving your operating limitations. IMHO.
 
hevansrv7a said:
I was referring to the standards in the first link I included and also to the ones that are mentioned in the EAA article. While not technically regs, there is very little chance FAA will ignore the guidance in approving your operating limitations. IMHO.


Our operating limitations already are VFR/IFR/DAY/NIGHT.

:eek: NOTE: I'm not telling anyone to fly IFR with non-TSO?d equipment or telling anyone to take their laptop with GPS and fly IFR? just stating that IMO we (as homebuilders) can build our own IFR equipment and fly IFR with it.
 
n468ac said:
However, if the equipment
is not built under a TSO authorization, it is up to the builder to verify and document that the
equipment performs within the required specifications.


IMO the above bold statements allow us ... homebuilders ... to verify and document that our hand held or other GPS meets the requirements for IFR.
Among other things, the TSO requires RAIM, automatic waypoint sequencing, course deviation indication with automatic increased sensitivity for approaches, and annunciation of the modes or settings currently in use. This means you would have to document that your VFR/Handheld GPS has these features, and also contains a current aviation database with all the approaches you intend to use, as well as the accuracy and other technical requirements specified in the TSO, to use it for IFR.

Dennis Glaeser
 
DGlaeser said:
Among other things, the TSO requires RAIM, automatic waypoint sequencing, course deviation indication with automatic increased sensitivity for approaches, and annunciation of the modes or settings currently in use.
Dennis Glaeser

Dennis ... where did you find the TSO requirements?

the AC 20-138A doesn't seam to talk about all those items, and doesn't talk about it having to 'meat' the TSO requirement.
 
Last edited:
GPS for IFR

n468ac said:
Dennis ... where did you find the TSO requirements?

the AC 20-138A doesn't seam to talk about all those items, and doesn't talk about it having to 'meat' the TSO requirement.
The stuff I mentioned comes from reading Garmin manuals. The AC says you have to verify the equipment performs to TSO specifications (I'd say that means it has to 'meet' them). You'd need to get a copy of the TSO to know what they all are (be prepared for some heavy technical stuff), but I can assure you the VFR units don't meet them. An AC isn't meant to replace TSOs or FARs, it's just nice (advisory) info.

Dennis
 
Great info thanks Guy's

From what I get, if a GPS does not meet the TSO you can't use it legally. This brings up a few questions:
How do current experimental EFIS/GPS fair against the TSO;
How do you go about the TSO process to show you meet the TSO
(I don't think a pencil whip of the log book will do)

True a VFR handheld GPS is better than an ADF. I would rather have a Garmin handheld on board doing a NDB approach, than not, for all the marbles in MIN WX, with a howling gusty x-wind, even if with an "approved" ADF. It is a great point, but it dances around the issue.

The question is how do the popular EFIS/GPS integrated systems meet or not meet the TSO. Agreed even a Garmin 195 or 296 or whatever can get you down with out hitting something, at least to non-precision Min's.

Most agree that a TSO is needed or at least meeting intent of the TSO, but how do you show your experimental equipment meets the level or standard of the TSO. I think you would have to demonstrate and document it very thoroughly. It cost companies big $$$$ to gain a TSO approval and I suspect that it's cheap and easy the GPS/EFIS manufacture would have already done it. As it stands, I think most Exp EFIS/GPS clearly don't meet the TSO and the manufactures (not sure but what I am hearing). I think the manufactures even say their product is not meant for IFR operations, so I guess a word to the wise.

A TSO in a word is more than a log book annotation. Not knowing much about the TSO process I would think the FAA needs to review and sign off on a one-off TSO. When we talk IFR we are talking airliners in the same airspace in IMC conditions, the level of oversight goes up. A single engine plane lost in IFR airspace can be a big issue to commercial air commerce. If you land and they look into it, it could be a bad thing, especially if it created large havoc or worse, the media gets a hold of it. "Home made plane with home made flight instruments and NAVIGATON gets lost and shuts down LAX."

As far as Aviation Circulars, even if it's NOT the FAR's, it does not mean it's not regulatory (enforceable by law). AC's may not be law but failure to comply or follow them will no doubt be considered reckless by a Judge. Anything that the FAA puts down can become an issue (evidence) in the courts. The AIM has been shown to be "regulatory in nature", even though it is not regulation.

I think I have a clear view :confused:. The easy, safe, legal and FAA blessed way to IFR GPS en-route and/or approach capability is buy a TSO'ed IFR GPS, and install it to the letter of the TSO/AC's on the subject. Yes you can use an experimental EFIS/GPS, but you need something TSO'ed or approved as back-up, GPS/VOR/ILS. As long as a TSO'ed GPS is on-board as back-up to your experimental unit, you can "experiment" all you want.

Last do you want to fly solely with a NAV unit that is not TSO'ed. DO you want a data base that may not be as well scrutinized or have much oversight. How do you know if the FREE nav updates have a problem. Will someone contact you. I still use paper charts and approach plates with a glass cockpit. It's like reading off a computer screen; I would rather have a paper copy in hand.

Thanks for the Great info George
 
Last edited:
The following is copied from the Blue Mountain EFIS One FAQs

"Q: Is EFIS/One certified for GPS approaches?

On the advice of our most trusted avionics dealer and partner, we have decided not to pursue it. For what it will cost to do TSO C129A testing and certification, we'd have to raise the price of the EFIS by more than the cost of a high-volume certified unit. We think it's a better deal to have a reasonably priced glass cockpit, and the interconnect available for those who want to fly GPS approaches. If you have a certified GPS, you can plug it in to drive the flight director and autopilot in approach mode. "
 
My own panel is designed around a Dynon D-10 with backups for A/S and a compass, 2 axis A/P (Navaid and Altrak), a Garmin 196, and a used Narco 122 self contained ILS/VOR box. Also just one comm (Icom A200, a great radio, and a bargain. I paid $650 at Oshkosh new.) All total, I have around $8K in the panel, give or take.
Jeff, I was thinking on your lines but to add the GA-300XL as the IFR GPS/COM. I was also thinking about the D-10 and Narco NAV122w/VOR/ILS/GPS with airspeed and Altimeter backup. The annunciation/switching is one of the challenges for the 300XL installation. But perfect or my mission: Keep it light and inexpensive. Only used for getting VFR on top or out of or under a marine Layer. The Tru-Trac Pilot(T&B) is the backup to the D-10 glass breaking (that is the non-TSOed T&B driving a wing level AP) while getting out of the marine layer . So in this setup half of the equipment is TSOed and IFR certifiable while the tru-trac and D-10 is not. Looks like it would be difficult to get legal but sure would meet all my requirements.
Anyone else use the 300XL as IFR out there?

Brad
RV-6A QB -finish Canopy
 
ATC Vectors

As an IFR pilot and ATC specialist here's the skinny: Remarks are included in an IFR flightplan (FP) that the controller can easily see, however if the remarks are lengthy we have to full route or "FR" the FP to see the entire remarks. "VFR GPS" in the remarks would show up. Legally when you are on a vector, ATC is providing your navigational guidance and monitoring. So, if you request a vector normally you will get "Fly heading XXX and proceed direct XXX when able." If you have a VFR GPS, go direct. We are monitoring your progress. In the case of a radar outage, you would be placed on an airway (non-radar route). I know a lot of "Freight dogs" that are /A equipped, but fly with a VFR handheld GPS and get a lot of direct from ATC by requesting a vector. It is true that you need to evaluate your mission. Out in the Mountan West, it is somewhat rare for us to see single engine IFR. There is the nasty thing called ice and MEA's that are 14,000ft. and higher. I know on the coasts with marine layers prevailing I saw a lot of SE IFR. I personally don't feel most single engine Private Pilots fly enough IFR to stay current, yet there are thousands of builders spending the bucks for IFR Glass panels...go figure.

gmcjetpilot said:
Jeff thanks for agreeing you must be in a Turkey induced euphoria or coma. :D

Hevansrv7a great post. As far as: "if you say "VFR GPS" in remarks portion of flight plan, you will usually be cleared to go direct with a wink and "what's your on course hdg?" I agree you can do direct, they may not just give it to you with out asking. ATC does not see the remarks unless they look it up (correct me if I am wrong). What they can give you is a "Vector direct". Since you have GPS you can "help yourself" by accepting (hinting for) direct vectors while using the GPS to stay on course, basically what you said. Technically you on a Vectors, but actually you are GPS direct. There are subtle ways to hint to this:

"Salt Lake center, request VECTORS direct XYZ, I show a "heading of ---" will do it, is that possible? thanks 123 delta mike" ; "123 delta mike, VECTORS direct XYZ, turn left heading ---" "123 delta mike, thanks :rolleyes: "

(My record for direct was 10 minutes out of Seattle cleared direct to Detroit, but that was high altitude at 12 am. If they give a different heading than what you want for direct, it could be for traffic or airspace issues.)

Chuck, I don't mean to hi-jack the thread but Is a GRT, BMA or other "experimental" GPS, non-TSO'ed unit, OK (legal) as a stand alone IFR (en-route and approach) GPS? I am sure it will work, but so can a hand held GPS. Sorry if this is an old question, but I don't recall seeing a definitive answer. From what I read about it you need to have a GPS that can do XYZ per Advisory Circulars or other regulatory guidance. G
 
Cheapest IFR Platform

Do ANY VFR GPSs have features such as:
- approaches built-in to the database
- auto sequencing of approach waypoints
- increase sensitivity of the CDI at the appropriate places on the approach
(how many VFR GPSs even have a CDI?)
- the ability to select a radial to/from a waypoint and follow it (CDI??)
- RAIM
These are honest questions (from me) - I'm not that familiar with any of them, but I've never seen these things mentioned when discussing VFR units. Without these features, how would you even attempt to shoot an approach?

It seems to me that using a VFR GPS for direct-to enroute navigation and overall situation awareness is a great idea, even when IFR using VOR navigation, especially with ATC vectors as noted by 'billingsatc'.

But certifying a GPS (via TSO or 'equivalent') for IFR means it has to be able to do it all, which is a BIG deal. Don't forget that a GNC300XL (and many other IFR GPSs) requires an annunciator panel and a separate CDI - so the unit itself isn't enough for IFR!

So it seems that the least expensive way to have an IFR aircraft is to put in a VOR (I'd also want ILS) and a VFR GPS. All of your approaches would be VOR (or ILS) - you wouldn't be able to shoot any GPS approaches or approaches which require anything more than a single VOR(/ILS). 'Real' IFR navigation would be via VOR (except on vectors from ATC). Of course the GPS would be used as well (and probably - unofficially - instead) for all navigation. I think as long as the pilot is aware of the 'official' limitations and works within them, it's a pretty workable situation. That defines what I'd call 'light IFR' capability.

Dennis Glaeser
 
The Garmin 295, 296, 396 series have approaches, CDIs, and adjustable CDI scales (this must be done manually) You can also do OBS or Hold to select radials. I do not believe they have RAIM.

I agree the best way to do IFR GPS approaches is with a certified unit but the handheld capabilities are awsome and great to run simultaneous with the approach.
 
Garmin 430 and vacuum gyros

All the discussion about EFIS and handheld GPS is very interesting, but I think we're losing track of the thread -- "what's the cheapest IFR installation". None of the available EFIS systems that are actually LEGAL for IFR come anywhere near approaching the concept of "cheap". And regardless of capability, handhelds aren't legal for IFR use.

The originator of the thread didn't specify any requirements, so I will:

1. Must be new, modern equipment. (Otherwise a used King KX155 Nav/Com wins and he wouldn't have asked the question)

2. Must be LEGAL for GPS, VOR, and ILS approaches.

The answer is: A Garmin 430 GPS/NAV/COM with GI-106 CDI and RC-Allen vacuum gyros.

For a street price of about $8000 for the avionics and $2500 for the gyros, nothing else that's LEGAL even comes close.

Obviously, you'll also need a transponder, and I would add a Garmin audio panel to get the marker beacons. You'll need a backup GPS and COM -- use hand-held equipment (pick your own poison), wired to the audio panel.

I can't imagine attempting IFR in an RV without at least a single-axis autopilot. If you want a LEGAL autopilot, the only options are Century and S-Tec, for about twice the cost of the competitive experimental equipment. But you can offset that by the elimination of the turn coordinator ($700), which both the S-Tec and Century include. By the way, the street price on these is far below the advertised price.

Finally, you might consider upgrading to electric gyros for about $1000 (not counting the back-up alternator you'll also need).

Anyway you go, you aren't getting off cheap. But the 430 is as cheap as it gets.
 
Cheapest IFR Platform

Jon - I agree that the 430 & CDI combo is pretty cost effective. However, how about replacing the gyro's w/ the Dynon D10A? I think you come out well ahead compared to the $3500 for electric gyros, and the battery backup could arguably eliminate the need for a back-up alternator.

You wouldn't be "navigating" via the Dynon, so I'm assuming that the issue of it being legal for IFR doesn't apply. Am I incorrect on this assumption?

I'd think for around $800 you could also throw in a Pictorial Turn & Bank plus a low end airspeed indicator and altimeter as backups to the Dynon. With this set up I think you're still relatively close to the $3500 + backup alternator cost.

Am I missing anything?

Mike Behnke
 
Cheapest IFR...

THE RULES...

Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight,
instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
facilities to be used.
(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:
(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360 degrees
of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in
?121.305(j) of this chapter; and
(ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of ?80 degrees
of pitch and ?120 degrees of roll and installed in accordance with ?29.1303(g) of this chapter.
(4) Slip-skid indicator.
(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.
(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital
presentation.
(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.
(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).
(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).


So here's IMO the cheapest way to go...

Lights for night flight ... $1000.00

VAL Avionics? Integrated Navigation System
Item# VAL_INS_422 $1995.00
GLIDESLOPE, LOCALIZER, VOR plus 3 LIGHT MARKER

EFIS-D10A
$2195

ICOM A200
Price = $759.00

Misc wire, cable, ants ... $1000.00

Note ... the regs do not say anything about TSOd ... you don't even need a transponder.

PS: I'm not saying this is the best stuff to fly in IFR, but is the cheapest way to go and be legal. :)
 
Cheap IFR

n468ac said:
Cheapest IFR...
Note ... you don't even need a transponder.
FAR 91.205 doesn't, but 91.215 does. You'd be pretty limited to where you could go, and have to stay below 10,000 ft without a transponder. :cool:

For an autopilot, TruTrack and Trio have single axis units for $1700 (and they're legal if you verify and document their operation - homebuilt A/C only of course).

If you go all electric (EFIS or electric gyros), a single alternator, dual battery setup (see the AeroElectric list) is very viable, and cheaper than dual alternators.

You can do a GNC300XL, MD-11, SL30, and a single CDI(GPS/VORLOC/GS) for about $8K also - and have true dual nav/coms. Not as fancy as the 430 though... Doing without an IFR GPS is the only way to really reduce $$$.

Dennis Glaeser
 
I'd like to hear from anyone who has flown IFR with the all-in-one VAL $2000 setup. What is it like flying an ILS with the LEDs? Any other operational issues? How about the old Narco NAV 122? Those had a bad reputation when they came on the market a generation or so ago, but surely the bugs have been expunged by now. Any comments? My mission profile is 99% VFR with the capability of leaving/arriving in summertime IFR conditions. But I am not willing to spend 10K to get that last 1% of utility. So, VFR GPS for me, and good old paper charts. Radio-wise, I must make a decision soon. Thanks, Steve
 
VAL Avionics INS 422

Stephen Lindberg said:
I'd like to hear from anyone who has flown IFR with the all-in-one VAL $2000 setup.
Me too!

My reluctance to buying a Garmin 430 or 480 is that these units have been around for quite some time. I'm sure that 5 minutes after I buy and install one of these things they will come out with a new model with twice the features for half the price. Or someone else will. Or they'll announce the G1000 for experimentals at a great price. I'm sure of it! ;)
 
Using EFIS as CDI

Subject to contradiction by those more expert, I believe you can legally use the EFIS such as GRT's for the CDI of the VOR/LOC/ILS. If you want an EFIS anyhow, that makes the Garmin SL-30 a better value than the VAL Nav-only. You get 1.5 nav radios and 1.5 com's, don't need an audio panel, get excellent quality, power, features. Or, so I've heard. Note that the VAL includes marker beacons which gives you that last 50 feet of decision height. But, really, if you are going for cheap IFR how tight do you want to fly it?

This does not make the EFIS legal for a GPS approach, but assuming the EFIS is receiving your GPS signal, even from a handheld, it does offer some good integration for situational awareness while being legal for ILS and somewhat safe.

See Grand Rapids's web site for some pictures of their ILS displays.

If you added a TSO'd GPS later, you could probably continue to use the EFIS as the CDI as long as you had the required annunciators. Then you'd be legal for GPS approaches while using the EFIS for your primary steering and attitude instrument.
 
MTBehnke said:
Jon - I agree that the 430 & CDI combo is pretty cost effective. However, how about replacing the gyro's w/ the Dynon D10A? I think you come out well ahead compared to the $3500 for electric gyros, and the battery backup could arguably eliminate the need for a back-up alternator.

You wouldn't be "navigating" via the Dynon, so I'm assuming that the issue of it being legal for IFR doesn't apply. Am I incorrect on this assumption?

I'd think for around $800 you could also throw in a Pictorial Turn & Bank plus a low end airspeed indicator and altimeter as backups to the Dynon. With this set up I think you're still relatively close to the $3500 + backup alternator cost.

Am I missing anything?

Mike Behnke

I doubt that the FAA or your insurance company would see it that way. What sense would it make to require the Nav radio to be certified but not the gyros that actually make instrument flight possible?

Besides, if all your gyros are in one unit, what's your backup? You're already over the cost of the cheapest option -- vacuum gyros. Now you need to add pitot instruments and a turn coordinator.

I'm not knocking the Dynon. It's probably technically safer and more reliable than certified equipment and definately provides more capability for the money. But the question was what is the cheapest legal IFR gear. The Dynon is not cheapest or legal.
 
jonbakerok said:
I doubt that the FAA or your insurance company would see it that way. What sense would it make to require the Nav radio to be certified but not the gyros that actually make instrument flight possible?

Besides, if all your gyros are in one unit, what's your backup? You're already over the cost of the cheapest option -- vacuum gyros. Now you need to add pitot instruments and a turn coordinator.

I'm not knocking the Dynon. It's probably technically safer and more reliable than certified equipment and definately provides more capability for the money. But the question was what is the cheapest legal IFR gear. The Dynon is not cheapest or legal.

There was something I saw from the EAA put out on this a while back based on guidance it had gotten from the FAA (I wish I could remember where I saw it). As I understand it, there's no requirement to have physical, spinning gyros. The regulation was written long before glass panels existed. You just need something that has equivalent functionality. All the glass panels out there certainly qualify as far as I can tell.

An interesting thing, though, is it's unclear to me if a Dynon (for example) and a backup electric attitude indicator is legal. From how I read the regulations, you need a "Rate of Turn" indicator (I remember there being a way around this, but I remember thinking that it'd be awfully expensive. Once again, I wish I could find that darn article). That would seem to indicate that there's no reasonable way around the turn coordinator. In that case, the Pictorial Pilot seems like a wise choice for an AP.

Does this ring any bells with anyone, or am I just totally off my nut as usual? :)
 
jcoloccia said:
From how I read the regulations, you need a "Rate of Turn" indicator (I remember there being a way around this, but I remember thinking that it'd be awfully expensive. :)

Dynon has a rate of turn indicator.
 
n468ac said:
Dynon has a rate of turn indicator.
Interesting....so it does! My bad :) I know I remember seeing one of them that didn't, though. I thought it was the Dynon, but clearly it isn't.
 
EAA IFR article

jcoloccia said:
There was something I saw from the EAA put out on this a while back based on guidance it had gotten from the FAA (I wish I could remember where I saw it).
Perhaps you are thinking about this:

http://images.rvproject.com/IFR_Equipment.pdf

EAA IFR article said:
The often-asked question is, what constitutes a ?gyroscopic? instrument. Is an instrument
containing an actual rotating mass gyro required, or are alternatives such as ring laser gyros or
accelerometer-based instruments acceptable? Unfortunately, there is no specific definition of a
gyroscopic instrument to be found in any FAA regulation or guidance document.
In order to try to answer this question, the EAA contacted the FAA Small Airplane Directorate in
Kansas City, MO. The Small Airplane Directorate confirmed that there is no published guidance
on this subject, but indicated that the function of the instrument is the main consideration. Any
instrument that performs the function of the required gyroscopic instrument and presents info to
the pilot in the same manner as the gyroscopic instrument will meet the requirement of 91.205,
regardless of what mechanical or electronic means are used to generate the information and
display.

This makes me totally comfortable that flying with a GRT Sport will satisfy the "legal" requirements for a gyro.

That VAL INS 422 is starting to look better and better!
 
GRT Sport and GNC300XL/SL30

I asked John Stark about using the GRT Sport with the 300XL and no annunciator panel (ie MD11). Here is his reply:
------------------------------
Using the sport with the Gnc-300xl will be fine. You will need $300 in
annunciator/switches. Northern Airborne p/n LL-08, 2 ea. pb-08.

John Stark
------------------------------
Two things to note:
- No CDI switching (Sport CDI dedicated to 300XL, separate CDI dedicated to the SL30)
- Since the Sport doesn't have a course resolver, I believe any course selection will need to be done on the appropriate 300XL screen.

So this saves about $500 ($300 vs. an $800 MD11)

Dennis Glaeser
 
Cheap IFR Equip

Thanks for the good info. The discussion has been a good reg review and helped me make some decisions on a panel upgrade. Having just hit the "age 60" limit, I'll be using my -4 for longer trips. Though actual IMC flying will be limited, I see it increasing my utility in enough cases to justify the panel changes.

I am going to use EFIS for flight instrument presentation. Primarily because I don't want to be IMC with mechanical gyros that have been banged against the stops doing acro. The Dynon is leading the list right now.

For nav I am planning to use a Narco Nav 122. My experience with them has been good in two different Tigers I have owned. I was told the older analog ones started having repair difficulties because there was no longer a source for the internal gears that are used to change nav frequencies. I understand they are now available as new parts. The new digital Nav 122 costs more, but eliminates any parts availability problem.

I will continue to use my GPS III Pilot for VFR nav and backup IFR situational awareness. I was planning a second panel mount comm, but the idea of a handheld with its separate electrical source has me reconsidering. The audio selector panel can be basic, because I'll be keeping my stereo intercom and the marker beacon receivers are built into the Nav 122. I also believe a wing leveler to be a good addition for those times when you go head down checking the charts when you are IMC.

I have found sources for 2 1/4 inch airspeed, needle ball, vsi and three pointer sensitive altimeter if anyone is tight on space and wants steam gauge backup. Well, I guess if you're not flying a -4 you wouldn't know what I'm talking about.

Tru Trak has a solid state gyro ADI available. Anyone have any experience with it? They say it will be available in the 2 1/4 inch size soon.

Jim Graham
RV-4
 
I'm interested in the 2 1/4" gauges esp. if there's a reasonable electric attitude indicator. Can you post a link?
 
MM is not needed anymore

One liners:

  • Yes you could use the GRT for the LOC/GS if it has INOP flag.
  • You don't need the MM for a CAT I ILS (any more). When you hear the MM .-.-.-.- and see an amber flashing light what do you do? Nothing, at least for a CAT I ILS. The MM is not needed at all for lower mins or other wise. (IM is for CAT II). All that matters is at DH, on glide slope = continue-land or initiate GA. Middle markers have been removed from all ILS facilities in Canada but still installed in the US. However the OM beacon is still required and its critical for LOC approaches (FAF) and for ILS/GS altitude cross check over the marker. (The OM can have a DME, NDB, Radial or Radar Fix substitute if shown).
  • Yes Mickey I suggested the INS422. I think the VAL INS422 has lots of capability , with a VFR GPS backed up with of course. With an ILS you can get down to the 200@1/2 (RVR 2,400 feet OR with TZ and CL lighting 1,800 RVR). What is the lowest min for an IFR GPS? (MDA 350 ft VIS 3/4?). The mins for GPS are coming down and there are more approaches being added.
  • A single stand alone IFR GPS (basic not a Garmin 480) has the appeal of not needing to install antennas except the "puck"; however an IFR GPS with no ground based NAV is really more limited than the all ground based INS422 nav (with VFR GPS back-up). Of course cost is still higher for the IFR GPS, even with a basic unit, than a ground based NAV set up.

George
 
Last edited:
Life Cycle Cheap

This is an impressive thread! Good impression - lots of very capable boxes. Bad impression - no one person knows all of what's in them, how to use them, or if they're legal. This is not a good thing, especially for IFR, underscored by industry training programs specific to using glass panels and IFR certified GPSs.

My wife specified IFR capable for the -7 (bless her!). With new equipment, the price of that capability over VFR was $8,000 using steam gauges in an all-electric airplane. (That number obviously depends upon your VFR baseline; you may not NEED a radio.) You can do it for less with used gear and vacuum gyros. No databases to maintain, no which-button-do-I-push confusion under stress with a glass anything. Enter the ILS frequency on the SL-30, push the transfer button, and fly the approach. (O.K. So you have to set the OBS if a VOR approach.) Maintaining proficiency and legality is a cost of IFR and that is where the first dollars must be allocated on a recurring basis, otherwise what graces your panel is soon overwhelmed with rusty pilot skills. Stuff so much money into your panel that Greenspan raises interest rates another quarter point, but you bloody well better know how and be able to use it.

So, to me, IFR on the cheap is a traditional six-pack with its well dispersed back-ups and redundancy, CDI, single nav-com with LOC/GS built in, like the SL-30, and a MBR either embedded in an audio panel or stand alone. (Interestingly, there are substitutes for the outer marker, but none for the middle marker, when I last looked.) Then the "panel mounted hand-held" 196 can add awareness and nav, couples with the autopilot, and I can fly "vector-direct". (I recommend reading Avweb's Say Again articles about direct routing concerns.) 'Bout as cheap IFR as you can get, legal, easy to use, lowest approach minimums, and requires only biannual pitot and transponder certs (We all do that, don't we!). Anything more is preference and personal choice. GPS IFR is going to cost more, period, and if your home field has nothing but a GPS approach, dig out all your credit cards. Same problem if it's none but an NDB approach; at least I have an ILS a few miles away. One change to tradition is I would install a Dynon instead of mechanical gyros which eventually cost more in overhauls than springing for the Dynon up front. But, again, this glass gives up the idiot-simple presentation of a compass rose DG for a blinkered view tape display.

Building the airframe is the easy part. :)

John Siebold
 
One of the things about which I confess ignorance has to do with distance reporting.
A certified IFR GPS can most definitely and legally be used as a source for distance, but without that, I "think" you have to then install a DME to be legal.

Am I right?
 
Distance reporting

Highflight said:
One of the things about which I confess ignorance has to do with distance reporting.
A certified IFR GPS can most definitely and legally be used as a source for distance, but without that, I "think" you have to then install a DME to be legal.

Am I right?
What distance reporting do you mean?
If you mean a DME approach then yes you need either DME or an IFR GPS to legally shoot the approach.

Dennis Glaeser
 
Highflight said:
has to do with distance reporting... I "think" you have to then install a DME to be legal.

Ummm, legal to do what? That a bit of a vague statement... Like Dennis said above, if it's a DME approach or a DME arc transition, you need DME or an IFR GPS, but to fly enroute Victor airways and to shoot VOR or LOC approaches, no DME required.
 
Back
Top