Yet another Katmai planned

[Alex Beylin]

Greetings 260SE and Katmai fans,

I have been lurking for a while now and have read many of the posts here – last week I made a decision that Katmai will me my next airplane. Called Todd and booked a February build slot at a shop near him he is authorizing in the near future (don’t recall the name or location). Seems if I want Todd himself to build me one, it will be late 2009 at best – he assured me the quality will be the same and final QC / delivery will be done by him.

To introduce myself, I live in the Detroit suburbs in Michigan, work at an automotive OEM . I am a latecomer to flying, with less than 1 year on the PPL and just over 250 hrs in the log book My current aircraft is a Cessna Cardinal 177B, being hangered at KPTK. Wonderful bird, and now that I have invested a ton of cash into upgrades (avionics, powerflow exhaust, autopilot, etc), I’ve concluded that a replacement needs to be planned.

My main issue is not speed (although its always nice to get places quicker) but payload. Working hard to keep flying a family activity, rather than one that keeps us apart, the mission is to take my wife, daughter, dog and associated stuff on vacations along the east coast (Florida, New York, Boston) as well as an occasional longer trip West-ward (Arizona, Nevada, etc). The 3 humans add up to 430lb and 60lb of dog flesh, not a lot of weight allowance is left for the luggage, and my girls don’t know how to pack light. Add a possibility that my teenager may want to bring another teenager along….. we started looking at 206s, but the operating costs, the fun factor and the added safety drew me towards the Katmai design.

As I already have most of the avionics I will need in my Cardinal, the plan is to look for a 1976 or 1977 182P airframe with sound basics. After its reborn into a Katmai, I will have the Garmin 530W, 330 and hard-mounted 496, S-Tec 30 AP and PS8000 audio panel relocated from the Cardinal to the new bird and replaced with whatever comes in the original 182.

As for the rest of the design, its open to the discussion and I hope to get a lot of good advice from this forum. With the target to maximize full fuel payload and utility, I need to understand trade offs from the extended baggage compartments, extended wings and engine options. I will use this post to ask questions and plan, hope you don’t mind.

Well, this is long enough for now. See you all around.

Alex Beylin
Currently – N30876@KPTK
Future – N568JK Katmai

[joejenie]

Congradulations Alex! The biggest problem you are going to have is the one I'm having. I can't wait!;) I'm having mine done currently and the shop you are talking about is doing some of my refurbishing. My avionics took 6 weeks longer than planned, so that really screwed up Todd's schedule and therefore had to send mine to Dodge City to have them help him catch up. They have built the Katmai for Todd before, so I'm sure they know what they are doing.

You can also find a lot of answers on just about anything if you read past posts. A lot of the things you are asking about were asked by me and others in the past. If you can't find your answer though, feel free to ask!

[Tom J. Storli]

As I already have most of the avionics I will need in my Cardinal, the plan is to look for a 1976 or 1977 182P airframe with sound basics......


Alex, that's super ! Congratulations !

I'm relatively new here as well, having lurked about for a while, but I won't let that stop me from saying WELCOME !! :)

Since you're planning on moving some avionics, I thought I'd mention a quick something to keep in mind:

All the C182P's (1972 through 1976) have 14 volt electrical systems, as does the 1977 C182Q. But if you end up with a 1978 C182Q or later, remember they're all 28 volt. Most Cardinal 177B's are 14 volt, but if yours happens to be a 1978 model, it will be 28 volt. Just something to keep in mind when you pick the final airframe.

All the best on your new venture.

Cheers,

Tom

[kwmoore]

I have no doubt you'll be really happy with the new plane. I'm sure everyone here will be happy to discuss your questions and plans, whether on the board or by private message/telephone.

Your planned panel sounds very similar to what Joe Rainey is doing. I had planned much the same thing--with a 2nd Nav/Comm (SL30)--until Garmin offered a discount that made two 430w slightly less expensive than a 530w and an SL30. You may want to consider having the avionics done last so any unanticipated delays there do not mess up the rest of the production schedule. My experience (3 planes now! :rolleyes:) is that Todd is very punctual with those things over which he has control.

The Dodge City folks did the refurbishing on my earlier 260se. Everything looked nice and worked great.

To maximize payload, you may want to stay with 182P (1973-1976) airframes. For some reason the 182Q aircraft seem to be 50 lb or more heavier. As Glen mentioned in another thread, 1970-1971 182N (I think) airframes had useful loads over 1200 lb, although cherry examples are few and their resale value may be less.

The IO-470 will give you the most efficiency, especially when run lean of peak (LOP); with this engine you'll be able to leave some fuel behind if necessary and have more payload for people and things without sacrificing range compared to either the stock O-470 or the IO-550. Unless your flying demands maximum takeoff and climb performance at the heaviest weights (i.e., often departing at MGTOW from <800 foot strips at high density altitudes in the summer), the IO-470 will serve very well.

The wingtip extensions are a great addition, noticeably expanding the low-end flight envelope with little or no sacrifice--and possibly a slight gain--in cruise speed. I doubt they add much weight, but Todd or Bill Roberts would know for sure.

We look forward to your updates! :)

[Alex Beylin]

Thanks guys for the welcome.

I did know that I must stay pre'78 to avoid the 28v electrical systems. What I did not realize is that there is a difference in useful load between N, P and Q models. My model guide shows GW of 2950 lb for all models made between 1970 and 1981, when it goes up to 3100 lb. My model preference was for 1974 - 1977 due to minor structural improvements made in '73 and '74. What would make '70-'71 182Ns have a higher useful load?

So far (first thoughts), I am looking at
- IO-470 - lower weight and operations cost than IO-550
- wingtip extentions - saw in one of the discussions that it provides additonal 150 lb useful load (even though it will likely force me to move hangers)

Some questions - feel free to tell me go search if I missed the answers elsewhere:

1. Extended and ultra-exteneded baggage space - does anyone have actual dimentions for each? I assume it does not increase max load in the area beyond the standard (200 LB, from memory). My thought is to build a dog holding pen in part of this area, so she can lay on the floor and not have to be belted into a rear seat. Opinions?

2. Are wingtip extentions compatible with the Flint Aero aux fuel tanks?

3. I saw some discussions on de-ice, but no conclusive solution. I would like to have at-least heated prop and pneumatic boots, as a safety measure for unexpected icing. (Michigan in the winter is full of unexpected surprises). Full TKS would be great, but I am worried about the heavy aroma references elsewhere in the forums. What are the options and weight impact?

Alex

[kwmoore]

- wingtip extentions - saw in one of the discussions that it provides additonal 150 lb useful load (even though it will likely force me to move hangers)
The 150 lb MGTOW increase is only to 2950 lb. Aircraft already having a 2950 lb MGTOW don't get any increase, IIRC.

[Tom J. Storli]

Thanks guys for the welcome.

I did know that I must stay pre'78 to avoid the 28v electrical systems. What I did not realize is that there is a difference in useful load between N, P and Q models. My model guide shows GW of 2950 lb for all models made between 1970 and 1981, when it goes up to 3100 lb. My model preference was for 1974 - 1977 due to minor structural improvements made in '73 and '74. What would make '70-'71 182Ns have a higher useful load? .....

Alex, I believe the focus on useful load is rather illusory. Before I explain why I feel that way, a little background:

Cessna gave the 1970 182N a max gross takeoff weight (MGTOW) increase of 150 pounds, to 2950 - while the landing weight remained at 2800. Given an extra 20 pounds of structure or perhaps only more optional gear, that in itself upped the useful load by about 130 pounds.

Next year, for the 1971 182N, the baggage compartment was extended by 12 inches and the total baggage area capacity increased to 200 pounds. I don't have Cessna's standard empty weights for the -N airplanes, but I imagine they are not too far from the following years (perhaps someone out there has them and will share).

1972 saw the introduction of the 182P with new tubular main gear struts. Also, the former 2800 pound max landing weight was upped to 2950, matching the MGTOW. Cessna marketed the airplanes as either a straight, barebones, model 182P or as a 182P Skylane. The latter had about an extra 50 pounds of options (wheel fairings, avionics, etc.) included in the empty weight, giving useful loads of 1355 and 1305 pounds respectively. These "Cessna standard airplane" useful load numbers remained the same through the 1974 model year.

In 1975, the empty weight for the straight 182P had crept up by 15 pounds, and the useful load was down to 1340, 1295 for the Skylane, and 1230 for the new Skylane II with lots more avionics.

The "no frills" 182P was dropped in 1976 and the largely inflated useful load numbers went with it (not too many buyers opted for bare bones airplanes). The '76 182P Skylane was now at 1243 useful, the Skylane II down to 1169.

In 1977 the first 182Q Skylane with the quieter, 2400 RPM turning, O-470-U engine. Useful loads were within 10 pounds of the last 182P models.

If you're sticking with 14 volt, higher weight airplanes, those are pretty much your choices.

Useful loads for the 1978 182Q actually increased by about 25 pounds over the previous year (and about half as much over the '76 182P), perhaps due to the lighter weight cabling used in a 28 VDC delivery system (higher voltage, lower current, same power, smaller wire size OK) - but that's just conjecture on my part.

The 1979 and 1980 182Q's also benefited with some more small increases in useful load. Of course, the big change came in 1981 with the -R models, when MGTOW went to 3100 (landing still 2950), and useful load for the Skylane went up to 1390 pounds.

By 1986, the 182R usefull was down to 1377. By 1997, the 182S was all the way down to 1200 pounds - albeit some no doubt due to heavier powerplant, etc.

At the end of day, these useful load numbers actually lose a lot of meaning. Most of the trend towards lower useful load numbers year-to-year have little, if anything at all, to do with basic airframe differences (at least in the airplanes discussed above) and everything to do with how the airplanes are or were equipped. "Requirements creep" in systems, avionics, and options have the greatest impact on empty weight, hence on useful load. IMHO, the Cessna "standard" numbers listed have little meaning and give little insight when comparing airframes today.

Personally, were I to choose on the basis of max useful load, I'd pick a 1981 - 1986 182R with the 88 gallon usable wet wings that became available beginning with the 1979 -Q .... all earlier -P and -Q airplanes had the bladder tanks with 56 gal standard or 75 gal LR (except 60 & 79 for the 1972 and most of the 1973 models).

(Although, I'm not certain Todd & Jo's STC covers the -R model - I'd have to ask them first... a wet wing 182Q would be my second choice).

Some might question this choice based on lower climb, ceiling, and performance numbers for the -R airplanes, but that's really nonsense. No one says you have to fly at gross... load the -R to the same weight as a -Q and it performs identically. (BTW, the -Q enjoys much better climb numbers than the -P airplanes).

Anyway, my thoughts for free. No intent on my part to influence your decision, just hopefully putting some perspective on the useful load question. There are likely more important factors for you to consider in choosing your airframe... whatever you choose, these are all great airplanes !

Cheers,

Tom

[Alex Beylin]

Personally, were I to choose on the basis of max useful load, I'd pick a 1981 - 1986 182R with the 88 gallon usable wet wings that became available beginning with the 1979 -Q .... all earlier -P and -Q airplanes had the bladder tanks with 56 gal standard or 75 gal LR (except 60 & 79 for the 1972 and most of the 1973 models).

(Although, I'm not certain Todd & Jo's STC covers the -R model - I'd have to ask them first... a wet wing 182Q would be my second choice).

Some might question this choice based on lower climb, ceiling, and performance numbers for the -R airplanes, but that's really nonsense. No one says you have to fly at gross... load the -R to the same weight as a -Q and it performs identically. (BTW, the -Q enjoys much better climb numbers than the -P airplanes).



Unfortunately, due to my existing investment, I am limited to 14v models. 530 and 330 should be is dial voltage, but (if I recall it right) we had to order a voltage-specific model of ST-30 and GPSS.

Clearly need a model with the larger tanks, 56 gal would not allow sufficient IFR reserves.

Found this on TAP - not a lot of info, will beed to call the number provided tomorrow:

1976 CESSNA 182P; 1752-TT, 1107-TSOH, 1107-TT prop, GNS430, WX950, S-TEC 50, 350-351, paint/ interior 2002, 4/07 annual, $87,500. GA/(678) 367-4239.

It worries me not to see NDH or a reference to completeness of logs....

About TKS - have anyone installed http://www.weepingwings.com/ system on one of Todd's planes?

[joejenie]

The TKS wing is not certified for known icing, so I don't see it doing anything but reducing your useful load. If you need a known icing plane, you need to look at something like a 210.

IIRC, when I was shopping for my plane, I did call on that one you are looking at and it did have damage history. I ran. I was looking for the perfect specimen and I found one pretty close. Mine is a 1979 all original with 700TT. The only problem is I paid too much to get it!

[Alex Beylin]

The TKS wing is not certified for known icing, so I don't see it doing anything but reducing your useful load. If you need a known icing plane, you need to look at something like a 210.


Flying in Michigan, I've been in several situations where the flight started VFR, no ice forecast and ended with rime on the wings and prop base. For me, some way to remove light ice covering from the prop and wings is a hige sefety feature, evem though I would not fly into known ice conditions.

Does Todd use a prop that has capabilities to be deiced (heated or TKS)? Have anyone tried weeping wings with Katmai? Most importantly, will I need canard de-ice equipment (seems unlikely to exist) if all I am looking for is "unexpected ice" protection?

[joejenie]

I hate to say this Alex, but you need a different plane it sounds like! I would look for a De-ice 210 if you are looking for a high wing with great load capacity. There is no such thing as de-ice for the canard and I'm pretty sure that the de-ice for the prop isn't an option. I have no clue if the TKS wings has an STC for the 1970-1980 planes that Todd works on. Good luck.

Joe

[Alex Beylin]

Maybe, but I hope not. Hot prop should be easy to find. Boots / TKS may be trickier because of the canard. I am willing to be experimented on, though, as the Cardinal is perfectly adequate to take me around while the upgrade a/c is in the works.

Lets see it Todd stops by this thread sometime soon to render an opinion.

[Todd Peterson]

Personally I like all the 1970 - 1980 C182 models we work with. There are some changes that went on through the years but all the airplanes are good solid performers. I worry more about the quality of the airframe than the year of construction.

As to the deice options I am not sure if the TKS is now certified for the C182 or not. I contacted the company a couple of years ago and they told me they were working on the approval for their system on a C182. As the ice in Kansas can get pretty bad I was seriously considering the system. Deicing the canard would not present a problem in my opinion as the prop has a slinger ring that pretty much sprays the deice fluid everywhere including the canard. I didn't really want to loose the useful load as full up on fluid it seemed to be fairly heavy although I can't remember what the weight actually was. In addition I like our airplanes really clean and I thought about the mess of fluid everywhere. I could just see it dripping all over our hanagar floor for a week after I used it. I then thought well I probably won't use it much so maybe the mess won't be all that bad then I read an article on this system in Aviation Consumer. They thought it best to activate the system every month whether you need it or not to clean out the bugs. That is when I thought that it might be more trouble than it is worth to me with the kind of flying I do.

[Alex Beylin]

I agree - useful load is a major issue, though one could keep the system empty during the summer month.

182 P and Qs seem to be certified for the weeping wings (http://www.weepingwings.com/) at 40lb dry and 85lb full. Don't know if there are any prop dependancies in the certification, but they do state there is no loss of aircraft performance.

There seems to be more and more electrical deice systems being certified. Prop deice for Hartzell props is available for their whole line (http://www.hartzellprop.com/pressroom/index_press.htm). Kelly has the electrical airfoil deice for Beach and Columbia now - I am certain they will develop additional STCs of there is demand, and 182s are some of the more numerous aircrafts flying.

Which props are currently certified with the Katmai? McCauley does not seem to have a heated prop as an option for P or Q models.

[Alex Beylin]

Its committed - family approval obtaind, deposit check is in the mail!

N-number reserved - N568JK

(568 spells LOV on the phone pad, in the days before cell phones, when my wife and I were dating, we used to send 5683 messages to each other's pagers. J = Janet, my beloved. K = Katie, my daughter. I know, probably too much info, but I just had to share this).

Katmai Millenium Edition with (starting the list, comments welcome)
- IO470 engine, extended wings
- speed kit, standard gear
- flap gap seals, aileron gap seals
- Flint Aero internal tip tanks
- Knots2U HID lights
- super-extended baggage compartment with tiedown hooks for dogs
(wonder what that will do for W&B calculations, with stuff so far aft)

Main instrument panel components are described in the first post - most gear comes from N30876, the Cardinal I fly now.

Build slot is in February (depends on amphib-compatible mods being completed) at Dodge City.

Alex

[kwmoore]

I know you'll enjoy the plane immensely--there's nothing else quite like it.

Last night I renewed my night currency in 2PL, what a blast practicing 40-45 kt approaches and landings in the dark!

How heavy are the dogs?

[Alex Beylin]

Night proficiency is a good thing - I tend to do around 50% of my flying at night, over pitch black landscape. Having a STOL plane would significantly improve my chances of finding an off-field landing spot in case of an engine failure.

We are down to one dog at the moment, but I will figure on 120 - 140 lb of dog flesh in the front part of the baggage compartment. Not sure if I will design a crate-like enclosure or just tie downs and straps for N568JK.

The question of W&B mostly applies to the ultra-extended baggage compartment and the CG envelope. Assuming Selkirk Aviation's STC does not provide for greater than the standard 182s 200lb baggage compartment limit, imagine the front 3/4 of the baggage compartment filled with 120 lbs of doggage, and the last 1/4 with 60 lb of laggage. Would I be inside of the CG envelope at different fuel levels? More research needed.

[Pete]

As a matter of interest, we humans have head phones for hearing protection, among other things.

What does one do for the dog? Their ears are generally designed similar to ours, albeit much more sensitive.

[kwmoore]

The question of W&B mostly applies to the ultra-extended baggage compartment and the CG envelope. Assuming Selkirk Aviation's STC does not provide for greater than the standard 182s 200lb baggage compartment limit, imagine the front 3/4 of the baggage compartment filled with 120 lbs of doggage, and the last 1/4 with 60 lb of laggage. Would I be inside of the CG envelope at different fuel levels? More research needed.

Norm Worthington posted a very nice 182P/Q W&B spreadsheet in this thread. (http://www.260sepilots.org/forums/showthread.php?t=476) If you're not a biotech guy like me, you can probably figure out the unprotection password straight away. ;)

[Alex Beylin]

As a matter of interest, we humans have head phones for hearing protection, among other things.

What does one do for the dog? Their ears are generally designed similar to ours, albeit much more sensitive.

We got a set of dog hearing protectors off the net - Mutt Muffs. (http://www.safeandsoundpets.com/index.html) . They look nothing like the picture, have many adjustable straps and an under the chin strap.

[Squeege]

http://www.safeandsoundpets.com/index.html

Mutt Muffs

Squeege

[Alex Beylin]

Can someone please post the available hight in the center avionics stack on 182P. Current concept calls for the following stack:

- PS Engineersin 8000 Audio Panel (1.3" high)
- Garmin 530W (3")
- Garmin SL30 (1.3")
- JPI 930 (4.696")
- Garmin GTX330 (1.65")

Adds up to almost 12 vertical inches of space - would that fit?

Also, does anyone know if JPI 930 coexist with the stock Cessna MP and RMP gages. Don't want to remove them, just to have JPI screen go out one day and not to be able to fly?

[Meghan]

FYI, the 530W intalled height is 4.58" not 3". A 430W at 2.66" tall might fit..

[kwmoore]

The JPI need not be in the center stack; without that you have plenty of room. I think Norm has the 930 installed on the copilot's side. There should be room for the stock gauges too.

[Alex Beylin]

Thanks Meghan. As I already have the 530W (its moving from my Cardinal), no reason to buy a 430. I love the bigger display!

As for the JPI, I though that if I put it in the center stack, I could preserve all the original gages on the right side as backups - not a big deal, as long as I can retain the original MP / RPM dials as well as the 930.

[kwmoore]

Did you consider the EDM900? The display isn't quite as modern but it looks like it shows all the same info as the 930. I thought briefly about it but decided to do the 700 and FS450, overall less costly and still provided the key info I wanted. If you (or others here) know more about the 900 I'd be interested to hear it.

[Alex Beylin]

Nope - still have to look at the 900 vs 930 vs VM 1000C in detail to see which one gives the biggest bang for the $. I tend to try and max out features when installing new instruments, even if I son't see using all of them right away - replacing later costs a lot more and a few extra $K is not going to make a huge difference in the $300K project.

Any comparisons out there between the above mentioned units? Pireps?

[Meghan]

It looks like Avionics West was able to fit your planned avionics into a 206 panel, although it looks like the lower panel was built with just a bit more room for the stack. No idea how that relates to a 182 radio stack height, though.

http://avionicswest.net/klasen4.htm


Xerion Auracle engine monitor looks to be about a half inch shorter than the 930. That may be an alternative, although you might have to be the STC guinea pig for that one.

[nworth]

As for the JPI, I though that if I put it in the center stack, I could preserve all the original gages on the right side as backups - not a big deal, as long as I can retain the original MP / RPM dials as well as the 930.
I installed my 930 as the primary instrument and discarded the old engine instruments.

I love the clean look and really like the 930 but the FAA mandated some just dumb limitations on the 930 when used as a primary instrument.

For example:

1. It has the red line alarm value for CHTs set at POH levels. These are MUCH too hot. I would prefer to set this value to a lower, more conservative, level. You would think this would be allowed. But no, the number is fixed and can not be changed. In the non-primary version, this can be changed.

2. The Hobbs # is displayed on the 930. To see this, you push a couple of buttons. So, after turning off the engine and all switches, but not master, it's time to get the Hobbs for the flight. During this time, of course, oil pressure has dropped to 0. The 930 insists on issuing an alarm -- useful if you are flying but pretty dumb on the ground. However, the FAA requires this "helpful" warning, even if fuel flow is 0 and RPM is 0 (from which you can infer the engine is switched off!). This does not happen in the non-primary version.

These are inconveniences and I have learned to live with them, but it's really annoying I get a less convenient product even though I had to pay an upcharge for the "certified" article.

[Pete]

The November issue of Aviation Consumer has an article on "Large Format Monitors".

They include a dandy chart on Pg 19 loaded with specs, capabilities, costs, etc. comparing 8 different monitors, including those mentioned in posts above.

[Alex Beylin]

Yes, just saw that - Av Consumer's review timing could not be better.

One of my concerns is to have a complex and reletively new 930 as the only source for engine data. If it quits, I would need at-least MP and RPM gages backed up to get home. Todd and I discussed this and came up with two options:

1. keep existing MP and RPM gages in addition to the 930. RPM should not be a problem as 930 takes the info from the mags, but duplicating MP source would require a T where the JPI A2D converter connects. Not sure there is space and no way to really check it until install time.

2. install a set of JPI slimline MP & RPM gages as backups (not certified primary). I will be talking to JPI about this next week, but on the surface it seems workable, as long as the signals to 930 can be split to a secondary gage.

Leaning towards the second option as easier and cheaper to implement. Thoughts?

[kwmoore]

...install a set of JPI slimline MP & RPM gages as backups (not certified primary). I will be talking to JPI about this next week, but on the surface it seems workable, as long as the signals to 930 can be split to a secondary gage.

Leaning towards the second option as easier and cheaper to implement. Thoughts?
I wanted to do exactly this in 2PL. It turns out the slimline mp gauge wasn't certified for installation in the 182, according to what Jo was told by JPI. I did go with the slimiline tach but we've had some back-and-forth with JPI getting it to work. Right now it looks like they inadvertently sent me a 4 cylinder unit instead of 6 cylinder. :confused: A replacement should arrive mid-week and after installation I'll let you know how it performs. The display is bright and clearly readable even mounted over on the copilot's side. In principle it should be a good solution for you.

[Alex Beylin]

Kevin, they told me MP was ok as a secondary gage, but not primary. Were you trying to put it in as primary?

[kwmoore]

Kevin, they told me MP was ok as a secondary gage, but not primary. Were you trying to put it in as primary?
No, secondary. I'm a firm believer in retaining all of the old Cessna analog stuff because when the fancy electronics fail--and they will, as anyone who owns a windows PC knows!--I'm still legal to fly.

Perhaps it was a misunderstanding between Jo and JPI. Jo's communications experience with them was a little frustrating.

[Alex Beylin]

Attached is the first cut of the panel layout for N568JK.

The primary target is to support hard IMC long distance missions without a need to rely on a partial panel in case of a failure. Still looking for a backup alternator solution, may end up with a secondary battery instead.

I did not have an icon for the 496 docking unit, just pretend its there.

Comments, suggestions, concerns?

Alex Beylin

[Todd Peterson]

The problem with the JPI slimline MP is that it is not certified in the 182, or any other production airplane, as I understand. Even if you want to install it as a secondary or backup unit, it still has to be certified in the 182. Unless something has changed since I ordered Kevin's, JPI told me it is for experimental aircraft only.

Jo

[Alex Beylin]

Does anyone know of a certified digital MP and RPM gages that can be installed as secondaries?

[Brian]

Does anyone know of a certified digital MP and RPM gages that can be installed as secondaries?
They are not yet certified now, but will be shortly. Go to xerionavionix.com.

[kwmoore]

...I did go with the slimiline tach but we've had some back-and-forth with JPI getting it to work. Right now it looks like they inadvertently sent me a 4 cylinder unit instead of 6 cylinder. :confused: A replacement should arrive mid-week and after installation I'll let you know how it performs. The display is bright and clearly readable even mounted over on the copilot's side. In principle it should be a good solution for you.
Indeed the first two units they sent had issues. The 2nd one was apparently programmed as a 4 cylinder instead of 6 cylinder unit. :eek:

Now, after the 3rd installation, it works. I think I will like it, I'm more of a digital than analog guy I guess. However, I'll be negotiating with JPI about reimbursement for some (2/3 ?) of the labor costs involved. :rolleyes:

[Alex Beylin]

Here is another panel alternative, using Chelton's PFD / MFD combo. All seems to be certified for 182P. Worth pricing out, eh?

[kwmoore]

Does Chelton require an external GPS or do they have their own unit?

You will find this to be VERY expensive I think, but I've heard good things about it if you don't mind writing the monster check.

[joejenie]

I think the Chelton Panel is overkill for a 182. If you ever sell it, you will never get that money back. You can build a nice IFR panel like my plane or Kevin's for a lot less money and it does the job just fine with all the information you would ever need.

Of course, I don't see the 182 as an IFR plane except in marine layers. Where I live, you would be crazy to fly it IFR (MEA's at 13000). I built my panel based on being a VFR plane with the capability of shooting an approach if I ever decide to go to the coast and have to shoot an appoach into a 2 minute layer of fog!

Joe

[Brian]

Does Chelton require an external GPS or do they have their own unit?

You will find this to be VERY expensive I think, but I've heard good things about it if you don't mind writing the monster check.

Chelton base price is $54K plus installation. Of course, installation is going to cost you a big chunk whatever you put in, with the possible exception of the Aspen when it gets certified in the late spring.Chelton has another company's GPS built in. It is not Garmin. I have forgotten who they use. A lot depends on how long you can wait. King's sytem will be here by the end of 2008 I think. Of course, if you can just wait a little longer, XYZ will have one better than all the others, and then the leap-frogging will continue ad infinitum.

[Alex Beylin]

You all are right - the cost / benefit just does not add up.
Nice to dream, but I am going back to the original plan - here is current version - almost done with this, comments would be much appreciated.

The one thing that does not show is the Zaon PCAS traffic detector that will sit on top of the panel and will display traffic on the 496. Can't beat the price / performance, expecially when combined with TIS that I already have from the 530 / 330 combo, where available.

Still would like to add a backup MP / RPM gages in case JPL 930 goes on a fritz, but have not been able to find certified once so far.

[Brian]

Alex and others,
I have seen a panel with all the CBs on the upper right hand side of the panel when a multi-gauge engine analyzer is installed. I think that makes sense. Cpmments? What aare the drawbacks of this set-up?
BTW Alex, your panel looks great. I am looking at the same thing,maybe with the Aspen, or maybe just with what I have and new metal panels, but I will use my True Flight instead of the 496.

[nworth]

Here is current version - almost done with this, comments would be much appreciated.

Still would like to add a backup MP / RPM gages in case JPL 930 goes on a fritz, but have not been able to find certified once so far.
You might consider dropping the clock. The STEC has most of the functions the clock has (time in flight, count down, count up) and all of the functions you will ever need for flying a full approach or hold. Get a nice watch instead!

I had a tough time when I first got my 930 -- I'm convinced I was one of their unacknowledged beta testers. My unit went back to the factory 4 times. However, once things got straightened out, it has been totally rock solid and I now view it as an extremely reliable part of the aircraft. I really like the clean look without all the old gauges.

I would also suggest you consider the placement of the 496. I have a 396 mounted on the yoke and I find I spend a lot time manipulating the controls to check weather, winds, etc. I don't think this would be possible, or at least not convenient, reaching across the centerline.

I think you will really like the 530/SL30 combination. I installed 2 430's in my plane mainly so I could display the active Ryan traffic on the second one. But, I fly in a number planes with 530's and I really like some of the added features (like VNAV on a dedicated button and the auto-id of Morse).

Finally, if you are using the 930 as a primary display, you will be required to install a small LED annunciator left of centerline. It looks like you have room between the Altimeter and right AI but it will change the look of the panel a little.

[Alex Beylin]

Revised panel layout
- moved 496 to the center stack, as I like my clipboard on the yoke.

for the LED annunciator required with the JPI 930 - how big is it? could it go on the far left, below the warning lights?

Yes, I have the 530 / 330 combo no and like it a lot. TIS is not always available where I fly, so I will add a Zaon PCAS portable traffic detector as a backup and route the traffic info from it to the 496 display. With ADS/B coming in a few years, cant quite justify spending $10K for full TCAS system.

One of the design criteria is to allow for easy glass upgrade in the future, using either Garmin 600 or Aspen, thats why I chose not to install an HSI.

Final round of comments please. This is from a cover page of a much more complete spec, about to go of for a quote.

[nworth]

dRevised panel layout
- moved 496 to the center stack, as I like my clipboard on the yoke.

for the LED annunciator required with the JPI 930 - how big is it? could it go on the far left, below the warning lights?

Yes, I have the 530 / 330 combo no and like it a lot. TIS is not always available where I fly, so I will add a Zaon PCAS portable traffic detector as a backup and route the traffic info from it to the 496 display. With ADS/B coming in a few years, cant quite justify spending $10K for full TCAS system.

One of the design criteria is to allow for easy glass upgrade in the future, using either Garmin 600 or Aspen, thats why I chose not to install an HSI.

Final round of comments please. This is from a cover page of a much more complete spec, about to go of for a quote.
The LED annunciator is tiny, but there may be STC limitations on how far off center it may be mounted. You should check on this. I thought your original idea was to retain the existing engine instruments; if you do so, the annunciator is not required. You will also save a few AUs. (Aviation Units, also known as $1,000 bills).

Your approach with the Zaon is sensible but be aware it will only work if there's active interrogation by ATC going on. Also, are you sure you can route the Zaon to the 496? -- I thought the 496 would only accept the TIS output from the 330 Xpndr. Finally, don't hold your breath on ADS-B being available "in a few years".

Did you pick up on my comment re. ditching the clock and just using the Garmin transponder functions?

A feature I added to my plane was to route a cable from the VHF antenna to the kick panel so I could use a hand held VHF and get good results. Now's the time to request this if it's important to you.

I think the low amps warning light is redundant with functionality on the 930.

Cool panel!

[Alex Beylin]

The LED annunciator is tiny, but there may be STC limitations on how far off center it may be mounted. You should check on this. I thought your original idea was to retain the existing engine instruments; if you do so, the annunciator is not required. You will also save a few AUs. (Aviation Units, also known as $1,000 bills).

Do you mean to have JPI 930 AND to keep the primary instruments? How does that save AUs? Trying to avoid clutter and need to scan small engine dials.


Your approach with the Zaon is sensible but be aware it will only work if there's active interrogation by ATC going on. Also, are you sure you can route the Zaon to the 496? -- I thought the 496 would only accept the TIS output from the 330 Xpndr.


Yes, the Zaon --> 496 interface is something they added through a special cable recently. If you look at the switches, there is one that will flip-flop serial connection to 496 between the 530 (cross-fill the flight plans) and Zaon display connection.



Did you pick up on my comment re. ditching the clock and just using the Garmin transponder functions?

That clock is existing in the current panel, so I just left it in place - no big deal to drop it if I need the spot for anything.


A feature I added to my plane was to route a cable from the VHF antenna to the kick panel so I could use a hand held VHF and get good results. Now's the time to request this if it's important to you.


Great idea!

[nworth]

Do you mean to have JPI 930 AND to keep the primary instruments? How does that save AUs?
When installed as the Primary instruments, the FAA, as part of their certification process, required the installation of the LED as a "warning" device.

That adds a bit of cost (not much though).

Secondly, as is common, you will be charged several thousand $$$ extra for the Primary version compared to the non-Primary version. Though there is no difference in capability (and, arguably, some reduction in capability because many of the warning limits are locked down and not user reprogrammable), JPI basically amortizes their additional cost of primary certification into the end-user price.

I decided to pay this up-charge because I wanted the clean look of the JPI but others may not feel this is worth it.

[Alex Beylin]

Here is the next version - hopefully its closer to final.

http://www.box.net/shared/3da4kql8g4