Which panel layout would you choose?

Salty

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
13,433
Location
FL
Display Name

Display name:
Salty
original.png

Above is the original panel layout. I'm having a second Aspen, a EI CGR-P & CGR-C installed and trying to decide where to put things. There are two Nav radios wired to both the aspen and one to each of the steam gauge CDI's.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Option 1. Install the Engine gauges front and center and move the NAV 2 CDI down low.


option 1.png

_____________________________________________________________________________

Option 2. Install the Primary Engine Gauge up front and put the Cluster gauges down below.

option 2.png

_____________________________________________________________________________

Option 3. Install the engine monitor front and center and remove the Nav 2 CDI altogether. I can still get Nav 2 on the Aspen, and Nav 1 on both the Aspen and the CDI.


option 3.png
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    71.6 KB · Views: 15
I'd ditch Nav 2 CDI - even more so if you can send one of the Nav CDI signals to the G5.
 
Omg, I didn’t even think of that. I could send them both there and ditch both cdi’s

thanks!
 
Yeah, you have too many CDI's. Also, I'd put the G5 next to the Aspen and the CGR's to the right. The EI Master/Caution lights should be top and center above the Aspens.
 
I do like the suggestions to swap the G5/CDI position, and the engine instruments.
 
Also, do you really need the CGR's to be stacked one above the other? You could put them side-by-side below the G5.
 
Also, do you really need the CGR's to be stacked one above the other? You could put them side-by-side below the G5.
That was going to be my suggestion. For some reason having the two CGRs side by side seems more natural to me. But I'd put them above the G5.
(see what you get when you ask for opinions)? :D
 
I would go with Option 1.
 
Are you cutting a new panel or reusing the old one? That would heavily influence my input on the layout.
 
Are you cutting a new panel or reusing the old one? That would heavily influence my input on the layout.
No reason to cut with the above layouts.
 
No reason to cut with the above layouts.
I’m too OCD to live with blocked-off circular holes everywhere. A tip to save yourself from one of those: Get a USB charging port that will take up the hole.

Starting from the picture in your post #12, I would delete the TC and CDI. Then either move the Aspens to the right one column and put the G5 left of them, or move the G5 to where the TC was drawn and shift the engine instruments to the left one column.

I’m not sure what avionics you have and I’m not very familiar with the Aspen instruments, but in general a CDI will get an analog signal from the radios while glass will get a digital signal, which mostly means less wiring. I would not invest in re-wiring a CDI if it is not required by the approval paperwork for the glass instruments. All of the approach-capable GPS navigators I am familiar with show a CDI bar anyhow.

The G5 is a better backup instrument than a TC. I wouldn’t bother having both if it’s not required by the approval paperwork.
 
Thanks for the feedback. The turn coordinator is needed for the A/P, so it's staying. No empty holes up top. The empty holes at the bottom will be filled with switches and USB ports, etc.
 
Option 2 looks visually best to my eye but I think option 3 is ultimately most pragmatic @Salty
 
Omg, I didn’t even think of that. I could send them both there and ditch both cdi’s

Are either NAV1 or NAV2 SL30-era or newer? That's a pre-requisite for connecting to the G5 since it can only take in digital signals and not analog.
 
Are either NAV1 or NAV2 SL30-era or newer? That's a pre-requisite for connecting to the G5 since it can only take in digital signals and not analog.
both are. IFD 440 & SL30
 
Omg, I didn’t even think of that. I could send them both there and ditch both cdi’s

thanks!

Why do you have a backup AI?

If you trust that much in the PFD ditch the backup AI

If you want redundancy you’ll need to both be able to fly the plane and navigate the plane, so unless you can get nav on the backup AI, you’ll need the backup AI to keep you right side up and a nav head to get you onto the runway if the big TV in your panel dies
 
Why do you have a backup AI?

If you trust that much in the PFD ditch the backup AI

If you want redundancy you’ll need to both be able to fly the plane and navigate the plane, so unless you can get nav on the backup AI, you’ll need the backup AI to keep you right side up and a nav head to get you onto the runway if the big TV in your panel dies
I’m keeping one steam cdi/glideslope
 
I’m keeping one steam cdi/glideslope

I’d go option 3

Do you need the rate/slip indicator? Isn’t that replicated on the primary and backup glass?

I would also keep your engine instruments closer to your main scan, more likely to need to keep a close eye on them, and if you transition to backups you just move your whole scan over to the right

If you dont have one I would also look into getting a AoA, learning to fly AoA is a big improvement for most, landing on AoA is way better than full gross book speeds, especially if you have wing contamination or high DA
 
I’d go option 3

Do you need the rate/slip indicator? Isn’t that replicated on the primary and backup glass?

I would also keep your engine instruments closer to your main scan, more likely to need to keep a close eye on them, and if you transition to backups you just move your whole scan over to the right

If you dont have one I would also look into getting a AoA, learning to fly AoA is a big improvement for most, landing on AoA is way better than full gross book speeds, especially if you have wing contamination or high DA
The turn coordinator is needed for the A/P, so it's staying
 
I’m keeping one steam cdi/glideslope
What’s your reasoning behind that decision? As I mentioned above, I would ditch the CDI, but I also want to understand others’ motivations on things like this.

Can you move the CDI to where the TC is and then, left to right, place the G5 over TC, Aspen, Aspen, and CGR over CGR?
 
What’s your reasoning behind that decision? As I mentioned above, I would ditch the CDI, but I also want to understand others’ motivations on things like this.

Can you move the CDI to where the TC is and then, left to right, place the G5 over TC, Aspen, Aspen, and CGR over CGR?
*edited*

I misread you in my original reply, now edited out. You're saying the same as below but the G5 and CDI on the left of the Aspens. That would be fine, but the image is a little misleading. The right most aspen is actually pretty close to centered in front of the pilot. So I still think this is the best bet.

lance-4836f19e9-3a99-49b4-b169-9c35b548c046-png.113534
 
This would work fine, but would require rewiring the CDI

Screen Shot 2022-12-31 at 7.51.16 PM.png
 
For whatever reason, the other way seems more natural to me. With the map off to the side of the scan.

Side by side.

Screen Shot 2022-12-31 at 7.59.53 PM.png Screen Shot 2022-12-31 at 7.56.23 PM.png
 
Last edited:
I dunno. I'm still kind of partial to this, assuming you are installing the EI master/caution lights. One reason being that you might be spending a somewhat extended amount of time twiddling with the CGR knobs and having that closer to the throttle might be useful. The G5 and GI106 tend to need less twiddling.

upload_2022-12-31_17-9-13.png
 
Heh. Nope. No annunciators needed if I put the gauges there. But I don't like that at all. You can do that on yours. ;)
The CDI belongs below the AI. And it makes more sense to me for the engine to be stacked. JMO, yours is perfectly valid.

*annunciators are optional if the gauges are within 8" of the pilots center line.
 
If you're going to wind up with a blocked off hole (like me temporarily) get a CO detector.
 
Most of us fly with the left hand, which means your right hand does all the button pushing….put the MFD on the right side of the yoke.
 
Back
Top