IFR Panel Instrument Arrangement

[4-Shipp]

Hey folks, we have a 1950 140A with an 0-200 and an 8 hole instrument panel. We are upgrading the KX 155 with a glide slope and replacing the current NAV indicator with a KI209 w/ GS. Here is a pic of our panel. I need to move the VOR indicator out of the bottom center hole due to interference issues with the control T. I need some advice on what to move where, please.



What is the desired arrangement of instruments for ifr work with this panel? I found two 170 examples here that were the same. I don't remember who they belong to but both owners did use their planes for IFR work.



Is this a better set up or are there other desired options? I like having the turn and slip indicator closer for partial panel work but this panel puts the altimeter out in right field. I would appreciate input from those of you who have used this type of panel for ifr on what you liked where. I am open to suggestions. Thanks,

Bruce

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Bruce,

I never flew actual IFR with it but I setup and practiced a lot with my first 170 with early instrument panel cause I had an early (Garmin 155) IFR GPS. There is no perfect placement which is why the later panel was developed. My setup was very much like the bottom panel. You learn a new scan and you get good at it.

[hilltop170]

Bruce-
This picture has been posted several times before on similar threads.

I originally built the top panel out of 1/8" aluminum sheet using the panel overlay as a pattern with hand-drilled holes and post lights in 1978 to equip 15D for basic instrument flight so I could get my instrument rating and start using the full potential of the plane. It also got a new King Silver Crown radio package at that time consisting of KX170B nav-com with KI209 glidescope nav head, KR86 ADF, KT76 transponder, as well as leaving the existing Cessna Nav-Com 300 in place as an emergency-only backup.

In 2007 the panel was upgraded again with the Garmin package, Icom, and digital instruments. I left the ADF installed because the room was there. I have flown it IFR ever since 1978 and have found the layout works very well. The turn coordinator in the lower center hole is just barely short enough to clear the control column but it does.

My first instructor who is now a senior Captain wth Southwest Airlines taught me to never fly into deteriorating conditions, ice, thunderstorms, or fog. I still use that philosophy religiously 39 years later and have never had a bad experience flying IFR.

Someday I would like to replace the original plastic overlay with one that goes all the way across between the radio stacks.

An Aspen PFD would fit very nicely in the center two holes and would give lots of redundency plus ADHARS info. The lower side of the Aspen is only about an inch or two deep and would clear the control T with lots of room.

IMG_6196.JPG

[LBPilot82]

Bruce,

The lower picture in your post is my panel several years back. I have used that panel to fly lots of actual IFR and got my CFII with it. I find it to be quite user friendly and easy to fly but it does take a little time and training to get the scan figured out. I have added the use of an iPad with foreflight mounted to the windscreen which I really like. As Richard Pulley said, the turn coordinator just barely clears the control T. If one wanted to replace the DG with an HSI it would free up an additional hole for either a 2nd nav indicator or anything else. I do find it a little difficult to access the radios from the right seat (I actually have to reach through the pilot side yoke when someone is ocupying the left seat). Overall, I am very pleased with my setup. Since that picture I have replaced the VOR indicator with a new Garmin GI-106 and had the panel overlay powder coated tan.

[4-Shipp]

Thanks Richard and Richard. Your panels are the only two examples I found of this style panel set up for IFR and used regularly. I have flown a few localizer and VOR approaches with the current set up and I am not sure what I want closest to the AI, the T&B, the VVI or the altimeter.

Actual XC instrument use will be minimal. The 140 only has 21 gal so after gas for an alternate plus reserves is set aside, that leaves pretty short legs. This is being set up as a trainer for my son to get his instrument rating. Yes, I know it is not the perfect solution, but it is what we have. I do know that if he can master this, transitioning to a standard 6 pack will be a non event. I spent many years teaching instruments in the T-37 with a much worse panel than this, and transitioning to the T38 was a snap.


Thanks for your input.

Bruce

[DaveF]

I don't have a good all-in-one picture of my panel, and it's a replacement panel, so not necessarily applicable to what you're doing, but I do fly IFR with it. The second picture is solid IMC flying the ILS36 to Dubuque IA last summer.

The only way I could make it work was to use a 2-1/4" CDI. Maybe changing one of your instruments to a 2-1/4" would let you move the altimeter closer.

PanelTakeoff.jpg

ILS36DBQ_reduced.jpg

[GAHorn]

Bruce, will it swap with the altimeter and still give the behind-the-panel clearance you need?

[4-Shipp]

Thanks everyone for your feedback. It is appreciated.

George, to looks like it should but the plumbing on the back of the altimeter could be an issue.

I like the idea if a HSI instead of a DG but is a pretty pricey option.

I also considered moving the "T" of the 6 pack to the center four holes and putting the T&B to the far left and the VVI to the far right. This would be th closest to a standard panel, but has the disadvantage of moving the center of the scan to the pilots right instead of straight ahead. This option would also involve significant plumbing and wiring changes.

Besides this forum I have talked to the most experienced CFIIs I know and, surprisingly to me anyway, there was no consensus. So, we are going to go with the path of least resistance. I am going to swap the OBS and the VVI and leave everything else where it is...for now.

The wiring on the back of the OBS and the tubing on the back of the VVI are all long enough for the miove so no soldering or Pitot static testing required. The biggest disadvantage I see is having the T&B stranded in right field during partial panel training. I plan on swapping th T&B out for a turn coordinator. That should make it a bit more useful.

Most folks seem to agree that your scan can be adapted to about any panel. My son has only flown this panel, having done his private last summer and getting the requisite hood work here. He got along well and should have no problem transitioning to a 6 pack panel in the future. I'll keep you posted on how his training goes.

Regards,

Bruce

[GAHorn]

Bruce, when you move pitot/static instruments... the age of existing rubber-tubing can be an issue, as it is usually age-hardened. Any great re-positioning of it can fracture the membrane and crumble rubber particles inside, leading to contamination and leaking. (Replacing it with poly tubing is easy.) It's a good method and inexpensive as well.

If you read the thread about dual venturi http://cessna170.org/forums/viewtopic.p ... =venturiis you can see how I resolved pneumatic tubing manufacture using poly tubing and fittings in conjunction with the "second artificial horizon project: http://cessna170.org/forums/viewtopic.p ... al+horizon

[4-Shipp]

Thanks, George.

This airplane was restored a few years ago and has nice , new, flexible tubing. Plenty of slack to move the VVI the few inches required.

[4-Shipp]

I meant to add all tubing is poly as well.

[JohnNielsen]

This is the panel of my Super 170B. The control wheels and grab straps are now covered in black leather.
John