The International Cessna^® 170 Association

So, I'm playing around with making my 170 IFR capable (because I don't have enough things to spend money on???)
And came across the Aspen EFD1000 and thought it'd be perfect in the center of the panel in a 170A or early 170B.

Any thoughts on these things?
Would this and a descent GPS Comm be enough?

bagarre wrote:...
Would this and a descent GPS Comm be enough?

...

What will you do about ascending?

I don't know if it would be enough but If I had the same money problem I'd be willing to give it a try.

The first problem you might have is the EFD might be to deep for that location.

You ask is it enough? It is more than you need or it may not be enough as you need the equipment to fly the nav aids and approaches you wish and you will be limited to the capability you have on board. For example yo can not fly a localizer or an ILS approach with a GPS.

I have a friend who has spent the last 5 or more years flying Angle flights IFR in his simple Cherokee 140 with dual VOR and one ILS. He has a hand held GPS for situational awareness.

As for the EFD, that is a fancy piece of equipment but not necessary. You will probably want a IFR certified GPS installation and for that you will need the GPS, annunciator panel and a left right indicator. The annunciator panel may be eliminated with some GPS installations like the 430 if the GPS is in a certain view of the pilot to use the built in annunciator features. The left right indicator can be the same OBS you might have for a VOR and or ILS like a KI-209.

s/descent/decent/

If that wasn't obvious.

bagarre wrote:So, I'm playing around with making my 170 IFR capable (because I don't have enough things to spend money on???)
And came across the Aspen EFD1000 and thought it'd be perfect in the center of the panel in a 170A or early 170B.

Any thoughts on these things?
Would this and a descent GPS Comm be enough?

NewPanel.jpg

I have considered the same thing and I can say with confidence, yes, it will be enough for IFR as long as you have a WAAS IFR certified moving map GPS which I consider minimums for being decent. If not a moving map GPS, I would not really want to fly it IFR, maybe 30 years ago but not now, I don't want to work that hard anymore. Also, I don't know if you could get away from the usually required nav head since the Aspen has its own internal loc and GS. That would something to check out.

Personally, I like backup and would also want a vacuum driven horizon and DG but understand you are short on panel space. There are two 2-1/4" holes above the right side glove box where you have one hole now in the false panel. If you need more 3-1/8" panel holes, you could eliminate the VSI (also internal to the Aspen) and get an EI digital tach which goes in a 2-1/4" hole and remove the old tach. The digital tach is accurate and you can do away with the mechanical cable thru the firewall and the jumping needle plus the crunching and grinding noises that go with it.

I have been using an Aspen for two plus years now in the C-195 with a Garmin 530W and trust them both completely. That set-up does everything I need. You cannot set up a route or direct-to from the Aspen but tied in with the GPS, it will show the route from the GPS on the Aspen map and retain the route in the Aspen if the GPS fails. If ship's power fails, the internal battery will power the Aspen for 15 or 20 minutes. You would have to check the AML to verify they are approved on the early 170 without heated pitot.

As far as fitting in the middle of the panel, yes it will fit. The Aspen has a larger can behind the panel on the upper half but the lower half has a very small can behind the panel with more than enough clearance to clear the yoke T-bar at full nose-up deflection. Mount the Aspen in front of the panel and it should fit just fine but may overhang the panel at the lower corners, an esthetic issue only.

Let us know how it works out.

Thanks. I'm just thinking about it right now.
My wife is taking ground school and planning to get her PPL which means we'll be doing even more flying than we do now.
The plane is currently VFR and I don't trust my vacuum pump or the instruments attached to it.
To make it a safe IFR platform, I'd want to replace near everything anyway - which is what made me think about the Aspen.
I could keep the steam gauges and still have a modern setup.

My GPS/COM is a Garmin 250XL which is VFR only tho. Would have to upgrade that too.

The Garmin 430W/530W series has been replaced but the units are still everything you need for IFR. Prices should be coming down on them and I suspect Garmin will keep supporting them as thay have sold a bunch and most everyone I know who has one does not want to upgrade, including me. Not just because of money either, I like the way they operate and I don't like touch screens. Another chocolate or vanilla discussion, personal preferrence only.

I think it prudent to keep a vacuum system and the Aspen both. Options are good. If you are replacing instruments as well, I have had excellent service from Sigmatek gyros both in the 170 and 195 which shakes more than most flat engines. The Sigmateks don't seem to mind.

bagarre wrote:I don't trust my vacuum pump or the instruments attached to it.

David,

Your current vacuum pump and instruments are as safe as any you would replace them with. Everything no matter how new vacuum or electric can fail. The key is to understand and mitigate the danger. Redundancy is the key here. This is why you want vacuum, engine driven or venturi and electric. This is why when you learn to fly IFR it is important to have a good instructor to explain how to fly partial panel and practice it.

The next and most important thing to understand is, you are not going to fly your 170 IFR like the airliners do in all weather with two well trained current pilots and millions in redundant equipment and a team working behind the scenes to make or help make decisions for them.

You are not going to fly IFR around thunderstorms, or in colder months in the clouds due to icing. What you will do very easily is climb through a cloud layer or descend below one once on top. If you have a failure of a system, you are going to declare it then use the other instruments to descend to VFR. And if you can't descend to VFR you likely shouldn't have been there.

The reason I don't trust the vacuum is because I have no idea how many hours are on the pump and regulator. It was installed on the aircraft in 1973 and that was the last log book entry for it. So, if I have to spend money on a system, I'd rather spend money on a modern system and leave the vacuum as a back up to something like the Aspen.

I'm not interested in shooting minimums, circumventing thunderstorms or pretending I'm an amateur airline pilot. I'm interested in getting out of a place with 1,500 foot overcast and fly into improving conditions without having to skim the ground 500 feet above the towers.

Any experiences here with the GNS-480? It seems to be a far more capable unit than the 430/530 after a bit of research and can support a remote transponder as well. My ideal setup for a piano key panel would be a 480/420(or 430) combo, with the 480 driving a remote GTX-30 transponder and a PMA8000 for audio control. I think would be as capable as the newer GTN series stuff that Garmin has at a fraction of the cost.

David, have you thought of going to a flat panel (such as Avion) if you decide to go that route? I just don't see the EFD1000 fitting well in that panel and if your endgame is to have a more IFR capable aircraft, the layout of that panel is less than ideal. I know it's easily doable, and Richard, Bruce and others will probably chime in and say that panel layout is just fine for IFR, at least the amount of IFR you could safely fly in with this type of airplane.

Good luck!

After doing a little reading and research, for the type of IFR I'm interested in, the Aspen and a 430 are a whole lot of over kill.
I completely over estimated what it means to fly IFR.

Main reason: I'm not interested in precision approaches. I just don't want to fly into that.

So, if my vacuum DOES fail. Needle, Ball and Airspeed should be enough to get me below the 1,500 foot ceiling I was flying into anyway.
Sound right?
If I wanted a 'back up' to augment in the case of a failure, I could buy one of those handhelds.

So if I stayed with vacuum driven stuff I could simply replace my Garmin GNS250XL with a GNS300XL a GPS Annunciation Control Unit and a CDI head and put another COMM in for safety.

...or drop one of these in the panel:
http://valavionicssales.com/ins-429-int ... on-system/

bagarre wrote:The reason I don't trust the vacuum is because I have no idea how many hours are on the pump and regulator. It was installed on the aircraft in 1973 and that was the last log book entry for it. So, if I have to spend money on a system, I'd rather spend money on a modern system and leave the vacuum as a back up to something like the Aspen.

I'm not interested in shooting minimums, circumventing thunderstorms or pretending I'm an amateur airline pilot. I'm interested in getting out of a place with 1,500 foot overcast and fly into improving conditions without having to skim the ground 500 feet above the towers.

EXACTLY!!

And that's why I use a simple dual-venturi system. If it's flying...it's vacuuming!

That's a good idea as well.
I could add a venturi as a backup to the pump.

Or go with two venturis, get rid of the pump and right angle starter and cut 10 pounds from the airplane.

Talked to my avionics guy today while getting the transponder checked out.

His opinion is that my steam gauges are fine since they are all less than 3 years old but it'd be a good idea to send out my vacuum pump to be overhauled.

He wasn't too keen on the Garmin GNS300XL tho. He said he installed quite a few when they first came out and almost everyone regretted not moving up to the 430 as the 300 is 'too manual' for what it cost.

His idea was a Garmin GNS340 (non waas) with a GI-106A head and that's all I'd need.

Thoughts?