My opinion hasn't changed. Glass and SVT are the future, period. You can resist, cry and complain even stodgily deny, but it is what it is. Just like computers, you can either adopt and adapt or get left behind.
Glass or steam?
- Thread starter John Baker
- Start date
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,933
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
True, but aviation is an industry that has a solid legacy fleet. One is wise to be able to fly both since it will be several decades yet before the whole fleet converts.
woodstock
Final Approach
I'm no expert (understatement of the year) but as much as I think both planes are too cool for school (the Diamond is one of the prettiest planes out there, to me anyway) I think both are too much to start out on. Kind of like putting a new driver in a tetchy sports car instead of the family Honda.
I do think it will be fun to transition into glass though. I had some time to really inspect the panel and there is a lot of information there. That is fantastic if you already have the experience in weeding it out, but not good if you spend a lot of time trying to find things or figure out what is going on.
ps. We did an ILS approach. Now that was something else. Like a tractor beam pulling you in. Hadn't done that before. Worth the IFR ticket I think!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 5,128
- Location
- Lincoln, Nebraska
- Display Name
Display name:
Jason W (FlyNE)
I don't know. I might agree with you if we're talking about an SR22. But the SR20, the DA40 and a PA20-180 all have 180 hp engines. I wouldn't say it's too much airplane for primary training. You certainly have to plan a bit further ahead in a DA40 than you do in a Cherokee, but not to an unmanageable level. If that were the case the Air Force Academy wouldn't be using them for primary training (they've chosen both SR20s and DA40s at this point).
I do think that it's likely that somebody would solo faster in a Cessna 152 than a DA40. They'd probably even progress faster through their training. But if they're going to be flying a DA40 after their training...they'd probably be best served by starting in one.
That's where a good instructor comes into play. (S)He'll progress them through what is important to concentrate on for their stage of training. As with anything in aviation...a quality CFI makes all the difference. Garbage in garbage out.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Is this where I'm supposed to say "North-up is the only way to fly"?
IMHO, there are advantages to both glass and steam. Most all of my hours are behind steam - and I'm quite comfortable and find it very intuitive both flying it and detecting that there's something wrong. One point of failure doesn't take the whole thing down.
With glass, lose the display(s) and you lose it all (yes, I recognize that there's backups, but transitioning to them from glass takes a bit more time). Glass becomes intuitive, just like steam, given time. There tends to be a weight advantage to glass, and (if so configured) it can do a number of things you can't do with steam.
You can fly well with either, or you can kill yourself with either.
One concern is that which you mentioned: a tendency to direct your eyes to the pretty display. That's also a problem with moving map displays like the Garmin GNS and GTN series. Use properly, it's a great tool, but.... I had a pilot-in-training ride right seat with me a few years ago. He focused on the 430 while I had eyes outside. He couldn't see the airport at 5 miles, while I had it at 10.
As for planes, I see no issue using the SR20 or Diamond as a trainer. They're different than the old spam-cans, but still fly well. Given the number of Cirrii and Diamonds in the general fleet, these are the planes of the future. Likewise, anyone planning a professional career ought to be learning glass from the start. Bottom line is "learn to fly" then transition to the plane of your choice. IMHO, of course.
It's about discipline, information and options. Glass buys you more information and options therefor requires more discipline to use safely and well. However, glass is like horsepower, if you don't need it, it hurts nothing to have it in reserve, however if you don't have it, you don't have those options. Any arguments against are just a rationalization for not spending money. I'm not against that if you feel fine with what you have to not upgrade, but please don't issue safety reasons to justify frugality, just say you're frugal.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
I would beg to differ in that it also depends on the kind of flying you intend to do.
I'd not even think about glass for something used to putter around the patch or go low and slow while sightseeing.
On the other hand, a very rational argument exists for glass when one is running IFR with a very high dispatch rate regularly.
What you do with a Cub <> what you do with a Columbia/Cessna 400 <> what you do with a King Air (or P-Baron).
I'd also add that one "may" consider it frugal to NOT spend more on upgrading an older airframe than it's worth (others may call it "common sense").
To each their own.
John Baker
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 7,471
- Location
- San Diego, California
- Display Name
Display name:
John Baker
Is it getting to the point we have so much crap in the cockpit, that unless your traveling to a specific destination for a reason other than just going flying, you might just as well stay home and have as much fun on your PC simulator?
Perhaps it is the technology itself that is bringing GA to it's knees. I'm thinking the guys flying the low and slow kites, or the aerobatic birds are the only thing that seems like actually flying anymore.
Think about it, a really good simulator, with surround screens rarely get beyond ten grand in price, use no fuel, need no annuals, and are coming very close to simulating the real thing in every way but actually going anywhere.
Granted, there is nothing sexy about a geek sitting in front of a screen, but then there isn't much sexy about a middle aged, to old pilot, who are about the only ones who can afford the real thing anymore either.
Why spend a quarter of a million dollars for the same technology that you can have in your den for a few thousand dollars? Same thrill, a lot less money.
My next door neighbor is a pilot who hasn't flown a real plane in years, yet he "flies" his simulator almost every day. He is a harbor tugboat captain, makes more than enough money to not only fly, but could purchase pretty much any airplane he wants, but doesn't bother with it.
The simulator seems to be enough for him.
-John
Perhaps it is the technology itself that is bringing GA to it's knees. I'm thinking the guys flying the low and slow kites, or the aerobatic birds are the only thing that seems like actually flying anymore.
Think about it, a really good simulator, with surround screens rarely get beyond ten grand in price, use no fuel, need no annuals, and are coming very close to simulating the real thing in every way but actually going anywhere.
Granted, there is nothing sexy about a geek sitting in front of a screen, but then there isn't much sexy about a middle aged, to old pilot, who are about the only ones who can afford the real thing anymore either.
Why spend a quarter of a million dollars for the same technology that you can have in your den for a few thousand dollars? Same thrill, a lot less money.
My next door neighbor is a pilot who hasn't flown a real plane in years, yet he "flies" his simulator almost every day. He is a harbor tugboat captain, makes more than enough money to not only fly, but could purchase pretty much any airplane he wants, but doesn't bother with it.
The simulator seems to be enough for him.
-John
Last edited:
Bill,
The plane you are standing next to is an IFR traveling machine, not a J-3. If you use it as a J-3, I concede your point. If you are buying and selling aircraft for a living, I conced your upgrade cost issue, but if you are buying a plane for use, it is a non starter. Take my plane for example, the upgrade saved me $800,000+ over the cheapest thing that came from the factory with the same capability. I don't love money, I love what I can do with money. I get to fly a glass panel twin for 1/10 of the cost of a used factory model and 1/15th that of a new one. Keep your money safe in the bank, it's all good, I'll let mine keep me safe in a plane. You can protect your money or let it protect you, either way, enjoy what you have.
The plane you are standing next to is an IFR traveling machine, not a J-3. If you use it as a J-3, I concede your point. If you are buying and selling aircraft for a living, I conced your upgrade cost issue, but if you are buying a plane for use, it is a non starter. Take my plane for example, the upgrade saved me $800,000+ over the cheapest thing that came from the factory with the same capability. I don't love money, I love what I can do with money. I get to fly a glass panel twin for 1/10 of the cost of a used factory model and 1/15th that of a new one. Keep your money safe in the bank, it's all good, I'll let mine keep me safe in a plane. You can protect your money or let it protect you, either way, enjoy what you have.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
This is especially true if you're planning to fly freight, charters, etc. in older airplanes. Just guessing that only 1/3 of our fleet is glass. Are you only going to take jobs where the airplane is glass because you don't know how to fly with conventional gauges or you are uncomfortable with them?
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
I was speaking in generalities, rather than specifics. My point was that it all comes down to "mission".
No disagreement that one should buy the plane most suited for their particular mission, and that mission may change over time. If you can't afford full state-of-the-art, you either need to compromise on mission or capabilities, or both. Or you do some kind of club/fractional arrangement.
At the time I bought mine, glass really wasn't an option for GA. Given that my mission is a bit different now, and given the question as to whether to keep the plane or move into something else keeps coming up, my choice is to not spend the cost of a new engine to fully redo the avionics in the plane. If the mission changes further, it may well make sense - or it may make sense to buy something else. The plane is fully IFR capable as it now exists, the only thing it doesn't have that it really needs is LPV/WAAS.
If I go back to flying business trips weekly - or if the HSI system needs major repair - then the panel will need to be re-evaluated. Then again, if I go back to weekly business trips, then I'll also want a deiced bird of some kind....
woodstock
Final Approach
Just wanted to re-iterate:
I thought the glass was pretty nifty. Just too much for when I re-start (if the Cirrus flight was any indication). Both flights in the past 6 months I had to concentrate on getting my head out of the panel. Not good.
I really like simplicity. The plane I soloed in is 40 yrs old now and the panel was duct-taped up. Everything it had, worked, though, and I was happy with it. It had 40 degrees of flaps too!
After the solo I graduated to one that was non-glass but had spiffy cool stuff in it like GPS and autopilot and everything. I found myself using it, which is fine but also I'd hate to be too dependent on it - this is VFR mind you, when the fun part is supposed to be doing the navigating and watching the map to see if you "crossed that road" and so on. Paper map, in case that wasn't clear.
The glass seems like it would take a lot of the fun stuff away.
I thought the glass was pretty nifty. Just too much for when I re-start (if the Cirrus flight was any indication). Both flights in the past 6 months I had to concentrate on getting my head out of the panel. Not good.
I really like simplicity. The plane I soloed in is 40 yrs old now and the panel was duct-taped up. Everything it had, worked, though, and I was happy with it. It had 40 degrees of flaps too!
After the solo I graduated to one that was non-glass but had spiffy cool stuff in it like GPS and autopilot and everything. I found myself using it, which is fine but also I'd hate to be too dependent on it - this is VFR mind you, when the fun part is supposed to be doing the navigating and watching the map to see if you "crossed that road" and so on. Paper map, in case that wasn't clear.
The glass seems like it would take a lot of the fun stuff away.
j1b3h0
Line Up and Wait
Lots of airplane owners here, but I'm not one of them (can't afford it - just a poor airline pilot). I fly glass at work, and what with a sophisticated FMC, autopilot and autothrottles, it can do remakable stuff - RNAV, RNP approaches on glideslope while weaving around mountains!
But even the swankiest glass equipt light planes are stricken to the old fashioned 1800 RVR ILS, right? I mean you don't need glass to do WAAS, just a G430W. So, my question to all the glass proponents is what will it DO that steam gages won't. Yeah, it's the future, but too expensive for the value it offers.
In terms of bang for the buck, an IPAD with foreflt give you 90% of what 'glass' does for not much money. What I'd like to see is an autopilot one could link to the IPAD, either usb or wifi.
But even the swankiest glass equipt light planes are stricken to the old fashioned 1800 RVR ILS, right? I mean you don't need glass to do WAAS, just a G430W. So, my question to all the glass proponents is what will it DO that steam gages won't. Yeah, it's the future, but too expensive for the value it offers.
In terms of bang for the buck, an IPAD with foreflt give you 90% of what 'glass' does for not much money. What I'd like to see is an autopilot one could link to the IPAD, either usb or wifi.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
For VFR flight, the glass is overkill IMHO. Eyes out the window!
I think back to the days when I'd drive down I-81 to/from college and watch the guys in bi-planes flying above us near Lexington, taking in the countryside & traveling slower than the cars below. "Glass, we don' need no steenkeeng glass!"
That seemed like a fun way to spend a Sunday afternoon....So, I agree with you, but might modify that to say that even long-distance VFR flight becomes easier with that gear.
Last edited:
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Nothing wrong with re-starting your lessons in an airplane with conventional instruments, especially since you feel the way you do. As you mentioned, you should be looking outside most of the time anyway.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,933
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Exactly. None of the planes I fly (well, I suppose now it's flew) for hire had great avionics. The Chieftain's avionics were solid and functional, but still a standard 6-pack with dual 430s. The other Navajo (which had P&I of 10) also had avionics that were real junk.
If you're going to be flying for hire, you're going to be flying planes with avionics that you don't like at some point in time.
In another couple years hopefully we'll be able to pick up the Kelly hot pad system.
Datadriver
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 936
- Display Name
Display name:
Datadriver
Want glass, but can only afford steam. Therefore, will rip on glass
John Baker
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 7,471
- Location
- San Diego, California
- Display Name
Display name:
John Baker
My 34 year old Warrior has nothing but the most advanced, yet aged, steam gages that my retired wallet will buy. As a VFR only pilot, two VOR receivers and indicators, with one glide slope I rarely use. Any long X country flights I do, that equipment is all I need.
I also have a Garmin yoke mount Aera 510 that makes getting there pretty much idiot work. It even starts ragging on me if it thinks I'm going to bump into a pile of dirt.
I use my Garmin, but I also use both VORs, and my chart. This not only gives me confidence in my Garmin, it also gives me something to do so I'm not completely bored.
I admit that I have found myself wishing I had more stuff on my panel to fiddle with on long flights, just to have something to do.
For flying around the neighborhood, I don't need much of anything on my panel, I just look out the window.
As a VFR pilot, I have never felt a need for glass, other than my little 510.
-John
I also have a Garmin yoke mount Aera 510 that makes getting there pretty much idiot work. It even starts ragging on me if it thinks I'm going to bump into a pile of dirt.
I use my Garmin, but I also use both VORs, and my chart. This not only gives me confidence in my Garmin, it also gives me something to do so I'm not completely bored.
I admit that I have found myself wishing I had more stuff on my panel to fiddle with on long flights, just to have something to do.
For flying around the neighborhood, I don't need much of anything on my panel, I just look out the window.
As a VFR pilot, I have never felt a need for glass, other than my little 510.
-John