Sensibility of converting 1957 172 to IFR panel?

jimmyjack

jimmyjack

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Jun 24, 2015
Messages
252
Display Name
Display name:
Nick
Can I get some honest opinions, please? I am maybe 40% of the way through my instrument rating in my school's plane (530w stack).

I own a 1957 172 with basic VFR panel. I would like a legal IFR GPS panel.

Unless the general consensus is, "Don't do it! Buy another plane." I am thinking: 430W, 106A CDI, GMA 340 audio panel, marker beacon antenna... to supplement my current MK12D and current CDI.

Optionally: Electric secondary AI, electric secondary DG to supplement my *venturi* driven AI and DG.

One shop is saying pitot heat will need to be installed. Also asked if I have circuit breakers or fuses (PO did convert to breakers thank god).

I still have a generator... will an alternator be required?

Thoughts? Money pit or that's just the way it is. I love the plane. Low time engine and it's solid. But it's VFR all the way. Missions will be light IFR to get from point A to point B.

Thanks, much.
 
I would suspect the price delta of selling the '57 172 for an equivalent '70s model that is IFR equipped (with a 430w) would be much less than upgrading your bird.
 
The 57 simply does not have the panel space to do a decent IFR lay out. radios are low in the panel which causes the pilot to widen their scan.

There is a modification to switch to a "Y" type yoke and a square panel like the later modes but it is expensive. and a lot of work.
 
jimmyjack said:
Can I get some honest opinions, please? I
Click to expand...

Just so you understand that opinions are like the hole in your backside ... everybody has one and they all stink.


I have a '58 C-182A that is IFR legal and I've accumulated about 200 hours actual instrument time in her since I bought her in '89. No GPS. No glass panel. Nothing more than a pair of good King 170s with glide slope in one of the King heads. Steam gyros and steam engine instruments. Portable Garmin 295 GPS for ... ummm ... crosschecking the VORs.

Now, if you want to throw money at the airplane, go for it. But there are lots of folks out there with basic radios/gyros like mine flying around and are quite happy with the arrangement. Your call. I prefer spending my coin on avgas and flying.

By all means do the alternator conversion. You won't be sorry with that one. Do it yourself with A/P monitoring/signature if you want to learn something about your airplane. I misremember if that engine has a pad for an engine driven WET vacuum pump. That would be money well spent also.

But lots of glass radios? Sorry, that airplane was not meant for that class of sophistication.

Jim
 
Last edited:
While the early 172,s are great airplanes, for what you want to do not so much. There are so many things you would have to change I wouldn't know where to start. Off hand I can think of no vacuum pump. Wiring not suited for big load. The fact that radios are low in panel which I'm not sure but might be a problem with the rule of having gps so far from pilot. You would probably be better to find a 172 that already had most or all what you want in it.
 
weirdjim said:
No GPS. No glass panel. Nothing more than a pair of good King 170s with glide slope in one of the King heads. Steam gyros and steam engine instruments. Portable Garmin 295 GPS for ... ummm ... crosschecking the VORs.
Click to expand...
I've thought this, too. I'm very much on the fence vs 430w or simply a second nav/com + CDI.

The problem is that the quote for a KX165 + CDI + DME + Audio Panel vs 430W + CDI + Audio Panel is only about $1000 more.

For that extra grand I get GPS approaches.

Now, I'm just an IR student, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the ability to shoot GPS approaches open up a LOT of airports? Or not so much?
 
For me the advantage of gps is to file and usually fly direct. I think you could find a nice plane that had the avionics you want for less than you can install. Your plane will be worth more when you install the avionics but probably only 20 to 30% more maybe. If you take value of your plane plus cost of avionics you could buy a pretty nice plane that will basically be worth what you pay.
 
Last edited:
Theboys said:
For me the advantage of gps is to file and usually fly direct.
Click to expand...
CFII states that I can fly direct with portable GPS as long as I'm under normal radar coverage (ie not out in the boonies).
 
jimmyjack said:
I've thought this, too. I'm very much on the fence vs 430w or simply a second nav/com + CDI.

The problem is that the quote for a KX165 + CDI + DME + Audio Panel vs 430W + CDI + Audio Panel is only about $1000 more.

For that extra grand I get GPS approaches.

Now, I'm just an IR student, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the ability to shoot GPS approaches open up a LOT of airports? Or not so much?
Click to expand...

Why in the world would you get a DME? That technology has been dead for nearly 40 years. Relatively worthless.

I think you said you had a MK-12D and nav head. I don't think much of the MK-12 but when I plan a stack with dual radios, it HAS to be two of the same kind. If one is flaky, you can swap one for the other and see if the problem is in the radio or in the external wiring/nav head of the radio.

With everybody throwing money at glass panels these days you ought to be able to pick up a good used 12D with head on eBay or similar and the same for a good used audio panel.

I don't know how handy you are around things that go spark in the night, but if you have the inclination to figure out which end of the soldering iron gets hot, you can save many thousands of dollars having a good avionics tech and/or A&P teaching you the basics and letting you get your clothes dirty and your hands greasy in the process.

As for shooting GPS approaches, take a look on Airnav at some of your local airports. See which ones have GPS only approaches. Most of them are simply rewritten VOR approaches with GPS overlay points. Yes, there is an advantage to going cross-country straight line, but you don't need a GPS approach approved GPS to do it. If you want GPS, there are several inexpensive (relatively) options for enroute approved GPS.

Jim
 
jimmyjack said:
CFII states that I can fly direct with portable GPS as long as I'm under normal radar coverage (ie not out in the boonies).
Click to expand...

CFII is correct. And, except for a few places in the Rockies and the Sierra, radar coverage is nearly 100%. The last place I want to be IFR single engine is over the big pointy hills.

Jim
 
weirdjim said:
Why in the world would you get a DME?
Click to expand...
Lower workload? Instead of cross referencing two VOR's I can just get DME from one? Of course if I have portable GPS doing that, I guess that's covered.

Right? Wrong?

Also, I will frankly admit that my CFII is a corporate citation pilot. Best of the best and that's what he's used to.

My A&P is also a CFII, though he's extremely old school. He sees no need for any of this for legal IFR flight.
 
In my case I wouldn't be without a approved gps. I fly class a airspace at least 70% of the time and my autopilot will sync to gps and fly holds, and so on. I had a early 172 and it was a great plane and I also checked into upgrading avionics. It was going to cost about what I had in plane and add very little value to plane. Plus early 172 is no speed demon. I fly approach faster now than 172 would even go.
 
jimmyjack said:
Lower workload? Instead of cross referencing two VOR's I can just get DME from one? Of course if I have portable GPS doing that, I guess that's covered.

Right? Wrong? Let's be real. The VORs are there and used to be legal. The portable (or even one of the older panel mount) GPS are the primary navigation instrument and the VORs are used seldom. But legal.

Also, I will frankly admit that my CFII is a corporate citation pilot. Best of the best and that's what he's used to. And if I had Pappy IBM paying my bills that's what I could get used to also. I prefer to do it with sensible but affordable sense.

My A&P is also a CFII, though he's extremely old school. He sees no need for any of this for legal IFR flight. Show him what I've written, ask him for his opinion, and ask if he would mentor you through the installation. You might actually find it fun after the learning curve is over.
Click to expand...

Jim ....
 
jimmyjack said:
Can I get some honest opinions, please? I am maybe 40% of the way through my instrument rating in my school's plane (530w stack).

I own a 1957 172 with basic VFR panel. I would like a legal IFR GPS panel.

Unless the general consensus is, "Don't do it! Buy another plane." I am thinking: 430W, 106A CDI, GMA 340 audio panel, marker beacon antenna... to supplement my current MK12D and current CDI.

Optionally: Electric secondary AI, electric secondary DG to supplement my *venturi* driven AI and DG.

One shop is saying pitot heat will need to be installed. Also asked if I have circuit breakers or fuses (PO did convert to breakers thank god).

I still have a generator... will an alternator be required?

Thoughts? Money pit or that's just the way it is. I love the plane. Low time engine and it's solid. But it's VFR all the way. Missions will be light IFR to get from point A to point B.

Thanks, much.
Click to expand...

Depends on how nice your 172 is, if it's a nice aircraft and you like it, go for it.


"Unless the general consensus is, "Don't do it! Buy another plane." I am thinking: 430W, 106A CDI, GMA 340 audio panel, marker beacon antenna... to supplement my current MK12D and current CDI."

This sounds good.

Don't bother with all the secondary crap and glass, that's how you're going to end up dumping cash, just do what you listed, add a alternator and vac pump and call it a day.


Not sure about the pitot heat, I'd have to look the regs up, but if it were me I'd want it ether way.

Tom-D said:
The 57 simply does not have the panel space to do a decent IFR lay out. radios are low in the panel which causes the pilot to widen their scan.

There is a modification to switch to a "Y" type yoke and a square panel like the later modes but it is expensive. and a lot of work.
Click to expand...

Meh, I've flown planes with older layouts, not that big of a deal.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Don't bother with all the secondary crap and glass, that's how you're going to end up dumping cash, just do what you listed, add a alternator and vac pump and call it a day.


Not sure about the pitot heat, I'd have to look the regs up, but if it were me I'd want it ether way.
Click to expand...
Are you saying just go with the current MK12D and CDI and be done? (Plus alternator (no engine driven vac available on O300A).

That is basically my A&P's opinion. "You know how we flew IFR 30 years ago? You don't want to know..."
 
jimmyjack said:
Are you saying just go with the current MK12D and CDI and be done? (Plus alternator (no engine driven vac available on O300A).

That is basically my A&P's opinion. "You know how we flew IFR 30 years ago? You don't want to know..."
Click to expand...


No, I'd want a IFR GPS, without that I'd just get the plane VFR, spending the money and not ending up /G makes little sense.


BTW leave the handheld business to your CFII, you don't want to start down that road.

I didn't realize you couldn't put vac pumps on your engine, man, you get near ice in your setup (venturis and no pitot heat) you're going to be flying some hardcore partial panel.
 
James331 said:
No, I'd want a IFR GPS, without that I'd just get the plane VFR, spending the money and not ending up /G makes little sense.


BTW leave the handheld business to your CFII, you don't want to start down that road.

I didn't realize you couldn't put vac pumps on your engine, man, you get near ice in your setup (venturis and no pitot heat) you're going to be flying some hardcore partial panel.
Click to expand...
There are electric AI and DG's available, though.
 
James331 said:
No, I'd want a IFR GPS, without that I'd just get the plane VFR, spending the money and not ending up /G makes little sense.
It actually makes a lot of sense, but I'm not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me. That's OK by me.

BTW leave the handheld business to your CFII, you don't want to start down that road.
Let's see now, a CFII, a CFI, and two A&P IAs are saying one thing and you are saying another. Hmmm ... who to believe?


I didn't realize you couldn't put vac pumps on your engine, man, you get near ice in your setup (venturis and no pitot heat) you're going to be flying some hardcore partial panel.
Ice and elderly 172s IFR do not belong in the same sentence.

As I vaguely recall, there IS a way of doing away with the venturis on aircraft without engine pads, but I don't remember what it is. I WOULD opt for the pitot heat as a precautionary measure.
Click to expand...
Jim ....

 
jimmyjack said:
There are electric AI and DG's available, though.
Click to expand...

Yes, but then your ENTIRE aircraft is at a single point failure of the electrical system. I'd do whatever it took to get an engine driven vacuum pump and the GPS portable is internal battery powered for redundancy. Now it starts to make a little sense, doesn't it?

Jim
 
weirdjim said:
Jim ....No, I'd want a IFR GPS, without that I'd just get the plane VFR, spending the money and not ending up /G makes little sense.
It actually makes a lot of sense, but I'm not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me. That's OK by me.

BTW leave the handheld business to your CFII, you don't want to start down that road.
Let's see now, a CFII, a CFI, and two A&P IAs are saying one thing and you are saying another. Hmmm ... who to believe?


I didn't realize you couldn't put vac pumps on your engine, man, you get near ice in your setup (venturis and no pitot heat) you're going to be flying some hardcore partial panel.
Ice and elderly 172s IFR do not belong in the same sentence.

As I vaguely recall, there IS a way of doing away with the venturis on aircraft without engine pads, but I don't remember what it is. I WOULD opt for the pitot heat as a precautionary measure.
Click to expand...

How much IMC time do you have?

A portable GPS is just a EFB, not for navigational use, I wouldn't get in a habit of using for IFR nav, even playing the vectors game.

And no, older and newer 172s have no business in ice, that said stuff happens and having darn near your entire panel take a dump before you even see ice on the struts is bad news bears.

As far as your CFI, II and AP, first off I don't see what the APs opinion matters, outside from if the install can be done and how much, for the instructors I'd want to know how much working instrument time they have, how much actual time they have, if it isn't triple digits seek advise elsewhere. Flying IFR in the wild is much different than in the training environment.





jimmyjack said:
There are electric AI and DG's available, though.
Click to expand...

It's a option, but I'd want a backup battery of some sort and I'd want a nice alternator.

As I recall the electric units are also a little more spendy
 
Last edited:
CFII I'm training with has 18,000 hours.

Another CFII I've trained with, works with him at the same corporation (Citations and King Airs), 14,000 hours. They also both work for the local flight school.

My A&P IA is a CFII, as well, though he's mostly inactive except for A&P stuff. He has 7,000 hours.

So none of their advice is taken lightly, but the two active instructors both come from best of the best glass.

My A&P is the exact opposite.
 
weirdjim said:
Yes, but then your ENTIRE aircraft is at a single point failure of the electrical system. I'd do whatever it took to get an engine driven vacuum pump and the GPS portable is internal battery powered for redundancy. Now it starts to make a little sense, doesn't it?

Jim
Click to expand...
If the electric goes out, I lose electric AI and DG.

If the venturis freeze, I lose vacuum AI and DG.

If both go out at the same time, well no one said flying was safe.

That was the opinion of the 14,000 CFII.... if both go out, what now? Well, what if both went out in the King, or a 182 or... or?
 
James331 said:
How much IMC time do you have?

Your cut and snip is confusing. If you are asking me and without recalculating my log about 350 actual, 150 simulated, and about the same time giving instrument instruction.

A portable GPS is just a EFB, not for navigational use, I wouldn't get in a habit of using for IFR nav, even playing the vectors game.

That's your choice. My choice is different. Diff'rent strokes ... .

And no, older and newer 172s have no business in ice, that said stuff happens and having darn near your entire panel take a dump before you even see ice on the struts is bad news bears.

We can certainly agree on that.

As far as your CFI, II and AP, first off I don't see what the APs opinion matters, outside from if the install can be done and how much, for the instructors I'd want to know how much working instrument time they have, how much actual time they have, if it isn't triple digits seek advise elsewhere. Flying IFR in the wild is much different than in the training environment.

I fly and teach out of the middle of the Sierra and have a very healthy respect for ice, terrain, and single engine reliability. And fog when I can't know what is underneath.

It's a option, but I'd want a backup battery of some sort and I'd want a nice alternator.

If you plan your radios for essential bus with a failed alternator indicator, you've got more battery power time than fuel range.

As I recall the electric units are also a little more spendy

Roughly triple the cost.
Click to expand...

Jim ...
 
Last edited:
if the plane already has a nav/com, what is it missing that it needs to be called an "IFR panel" ? Does it not have gyros, No transponder?
 
Have gyros, though venturi driven. Has transponder. Is that technically legal? Assumed you needed secondaries.
 
JHW said:
if the plane already has a nav/com, what is it missing that it needs to be called an "IFR panel" ? Does it not have gyros, No transponder?
Click to expand...

Actually, if we are splitting hairs, as regards the nav/com, here is the quoted rule:

(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.

​
I suspect that somewhere in the country you could legally fly IFR without a nav/com but that would be the exception rather than the rule.

Jim
 
jimmyjack said:
Have gyros, though venturi driven. Has transponder. Is that technically legal? Assumed you needed secondaries.
Click to expand...

If you are, as you say, an instrument student about halfway through the process and you haven't started to memorize the requirements for IFR flight (including paperwork and required equipment) now might be a good time to start.

Nowhere does it specify how the required gyros are to be driven, nor the requirement for any backups/secondary equipment.

I'd start that regs research RQN (real quick now).

Jim
 
Theboys said:
For me the advantage of gps is to file and usually fly direct. I think you could find a nice plane that had the avionics you want for less than you can install. Your plane will be worth more when you install the avionics but probably only 20 to 30% more maybe. If you take value of your plane plus cost of avionics you could buy a pretty nice plane that will basically be worth what you pay.
Click to expand...

That's really the long and the short of it. For what your upgrades would cost, plus what you can sell your plane for, you can buy an older IFR Mooney or 182 with a 430w already installed.
 
James331 said:
Meh, I've flown planes with older layouts, not that big of a deal.
Click to expand...

Yeah I have too, it wasn't the best option, We did it because we had no other choice.

In this case I believe it is a waste of money to re-configure the early 170/172 with the round panel to get the equipment needed to be of any use today. Specially when you get to do it over in 2020.

The early 172 has no vac pump pad, just Venturis. no deiced pitot tube, to add either is a STC or field approval.
The instrument panel has much of its area restricted to where you can place longer instruments Like electric gyros, because of where the "T" yoke strikes the back of the panel.

plus if he still has the AN1 gyros and up grades to modern style, his Venturis will not support them.
 
Last edited:
jimmyjack said:
Have gyros, though venturi driven. Has transponder. Is that technically legal? Assumed you needed secondaries.
Click to expand...
get your pitot stat check current and you're golden

just remember, don't launch into a low overcast with the venturi, you need a few minutes for the gyros to spin up. And stay out of icing. Neither of these are things you should be doing anyway. There's nothing wrong with venturis, they're a heck of a lot more reliable than vacuum pumps
 
Brad Z said:
If he's gonna upgrade planes, he might as well look for one with at least a 430W. GPS is virtually a requirement for all but the most gentlemanly of IFR operations. WAAS will make the 2020 mandate easier to swallow.
Click to expand...

True, I was trying to find him one for close to what his aircraft will sell for.
 
weirdjim said:
Nowhere does it specify how the required gyros are to be driven, nor the requirement for any backups/secondary equipment.
Click to expand...
I have had two different shops tell me the venturi gyros aren't going to cut it legally for ifr flight.
 
jimmyjack said:
I have had two different shops tell me the venturi gyros aren't going to cut it legally for ifr flight.
Click to expand...

Get it in writing citing chapter and verse of the FARs and I'll have my maintenance inspector at my FSDO give them a call and have a little chat.

Jim
 
weirdjim said:
If you are, as you say, an instrument student about halfway through the process and you haven't started to memorize the requirements for IFR flight (including paperwork and required equipment) now might be a good time to start.

Nowhere does it specify how the required gyros are to be driven, nor the requirement for any backups/secondary equipment.

I'd start that regs research RQN (real quick now).

Jim
Click to expand...


Why?

There are some things I tell my students to commit to memory (lost comms procedures etc) other things I tell them not to waste the mental hard drive space on, required equipment is once such item.

Just look it up.
 
James331 said:
Why?

There are some things I tell my students to commit to memory (lost comms procedures etc) other things I tell them not to waste the mental hard drive space on, required equipment is once such item.

Just look it up.
Click to expand...
I think it's more that my II needs to see that I can shoot approaches, holds, etc before I get into the ground material. Anyone can learn ground, not everyone can fly instruments... maybe?
 
91.205 makes no mention, or excludes venturi driven equipment. "Well, I'll be...."

Are there other regs that I should scour that would be equally applicable to my situation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top