Wow! You're so right. The age of GA planes - and pilots too! - totally needs new avionics and systems. To help the young guns! I did wonder if the lad was falling asleep in the back! Another neat watch Josh.
50 yrs ago, flying IMC on "steam gauges" & VOR's I wondered greatly of coming advances in aeronautical capabilities. Some Old Line Pilots were washing out of transition training to 737's, and I grew very curious as to why. A newly hired Southwest FIrst Officer friend of mine sympathetic to my wondering gifted me a 737 Operating Manual. After months of study, it became apparent that the cause for such a high attrition rate in Transition Training was the older pilot's inability to "interface" with the highly automated aircraft and its FMS. The necessity to complete all the steps to "program" the FMS & manage systems without a flight engineer led directly to the concept of "Crew Management" & shared command responsibilities. By the way, not being a jet pilot, it took me almost four yrs of a couple of hours every night or so before a working knowledge of that plane dawned on me. I still can quote the required hydrolic pressures for specific control surfaces. Oy vey! PS. Back then, almost all airline pilots held A/P Licenses.
Enjoyed the segment on the Wx radar. To manage ground clutter at lower altitudes, you need to know where the bottom of the radar beam is. Start with the diameter of the radar antenna to give you the width of the beam in degrees. Most radar beams are conical, so it is the same width vertically as well as horizontally. For example, a 10 inch antenna will give you a 10 degree wide beam (12 inch = 8 degrees, 18 inch = 6 degrees, etc.). Half of that width is 5 degrees. Knowing the tilt angle (which represents the center of the beam), draw an imaginary line out from the nose (or wing) 5 degrees below that tilt number and there is the bottom of your beam. If the tilt is set to 5 degrees up, the bottom of your 10 degree wide beam is roughly parallel to the longitudinal axis of the airplane. Put another way, if you were on the runway for takeoff and you set the tilt to +5 degrees, the bottom of the beam is roughly parallel to the ground. With stabilization, the bottom of the beam will remain parallel to the ground after takeoff. Now, use this as the basis for tilt management. At low altitudes, you don't want ground clutter. So, the bottom of your beam should be at least parallel to the ground to keep the beam off the ground and not producing any ground clutter returns on your screen. When you start getting above the mid teens in altitude, you can start to use ground clutter to give extra clues as to what you are looking at on your screen. There is much more to this technique than I am providing here. There are books and manuals that describe this. Beware of the instructor who warns you to eliminate ground clutter. Down low, yes. Up high, ground clutter is useful. If your instructor doesn't understand this, seek other guidance. This is the tip of the radar iceberg, so to speak. I use to teach how to use Wx radar. Retired now, but this seemed like a good place to throw out my 2 cents. Of course, modern automation is helping pilots get useful information from their radar without having to know some of the basics. However, I always thought it was good to have a handle on some of the basics to better understand the automation.
Well Josh, I agree with you 100+% that everything Garmin brings to the table is amazing! Compared to even 20 years ago it's leaps and bounds better! So much so it goes a long way in saving lives! Now, the proverbial "but", It's so expensive!! I would bet that all the glass on the panel of that Baron cost 50% of the price of the plane itself! I would also bet that if we poled all the Baron owners we could find, the percentage that could afford to, and would do it, is very low! Just GA owners in general, here's all this stuff that could save your life, sorry, can't afford it for one reason or another. All that is NOT a hit on Garmin! It's expensive to develop, test, certify and market all that technology. It's just somehow we need to find a way to do that. It's not luxury items, they are tools to make flying safer and save lives. Sorry, didn't intend to rant. 8( Peace --gary
I think that her panel is aimed at the corporate market, not the flight schools or the Mom and Pop market. I hate to say this but the price will come down once Garmin has the STC's for other aircraft and has more installations done and used. Right now you need a certain units interfacing other certain units. Did you notice the G-125 on the left side was centered? I think it's working off the autopilot. Do more research on that and other G-125's and you might be able to install in light twins. At less cost.
A 172 may satisfy your flight regime requirements, but it seems to me a 182 might be a better fit. It would, for slightly higher operational costs, provide vastly expanded performance capabilities and subsequent margins of safety.
I agree with you on that one. I’ve been looking at what would be the perfect airplane for my mission. Which is to find an airplane that can carry four full sized adults, has over 200 horsepower, has a high useful load, high service ceiling, and is easy on maintenance. As far as I’m concerned, the Cessna 182 is the perfect airplane for my mission. It has on average 230 horsepower, some have 250 horsepower if you have a modified O-470. It has a useful load of 1252 pounds. Cruise speed of 135 knots, which isn’t incredibly fast, but good enough for me. Service ceiling of 14,900 pounds, not that I need to fly that high. It can comfortably seat four full sized adults. And biggest perk for me is it’s easy on maintenance. I know this because I work on one at the flying club that I’ve been working at as an A&P apprentice for more than a year now. As far as I’m concerned, the 182 is the perfect airplane for anyone if they’re looking at owning an airplane, which I’m looking to do further up the road of my career. People say it’s a true jack of all trades airplane, because it can to anything, and do anything well. And like the saying goes, “jack of all trades, master of none, but better than the master of one”.
$$$ That avionics package and install costs as much as the plane (not for Garmin ofc). I upgraded my Piper Lance with Garmin screens incl ap , GFC 500. It was a no brainer to me, absolutely enhances safety, better situational awareness, no vacuum system anymore and an ap that has become my co-pilot. The ESP system really helps you from getting into low speed conditions, unusual attitudes etc.
The Garmin rep said that the rudder bias system uses manifold pressure to sense a loss of engine power. I hope that’s incorrect because in a real engine failure (where the throttle is not pulled back) the manifold pressure will not change if the engine continues windmilling at the same speed. The engine rpm may not change either, because the propeller governor continues to function even if the engine is not producing power. On the Garmin website they don’t go into any detail about how the system detects a loss of engine power, but given the number of parameters that the system has access to it’s probably looking at more than just manifold pressure. Nonetheless it’s great to see tech like this available for piston twins. I’d be interested to see how this works during a more critical engine failure scenario, a sudden loss of power 30 feet off the ground at Vyse.
Good video, Josh. I would like to see glass cockpits more over in a lot of the older planes, but it’s not cheap to update. On another note, though, what was that square cut out in the middle of the front windscreen? I know it has some kind of use.
I know its not a 172 😂 but here's an idea for a new series...locate and purchase a late 20th century Baron and upgrade/ refurbish with your new beau...including all new (Tricked out) Garmin avionics...and then take us on new adventures (faster). I bet you would be on display at the Garmin tent at air venture again...and I would definitely be there to check it out in person.
Those garmins are fantastic instruments for navigating the weather. However, if a pilot doesn't have the common sense of rock and flys into weather anyway because he has to "get there".....useless. Good jab by Justin on going fast lol. Jessica is one smart young lady and a great pilot.
I think these panels are amazing but something has to be done to lower the costs. We know it doesn't cost 30k to put those units together but yet they charge it. I know it has to do with aviation laws etc but something has to be done. Aviation is such a rich man hobby anymore. I'm still rocking my 430w as spending that sorta money is far out of the budget and my plane is down for an engine overhaul which to me is far more important. I just wish they could cut the price down for people!
Hi Josh, just noticed you flying 916TS in the intro at 0:48. I'm in build-assist for my Sling right now and finally had the chance to fly 916TS in Torrance a few weeks back! Did I miss a previous video of you flying the Sling or is there one coming out later?
Bringing aging GA aircraft into the modern age, 1 tens of thousands for a single unit, a time :) Maybe of these aging GA aircraft are not worth what it would cost to put a single glass screen in the craft. :)
That was amazing and likely a lifesaver. It seems like most, if not all, of the crashes for piston twins is due to an engine out. I have a quick thumbs up for Garmin. It's for a non-Aviation related Garmin product. Garmin makes the Xero C1 Pro. It's a radar chronograph and it is used for recording the velocity of a fired bullet, arrow, etc. One of the buttons on mine stopped working. I contacted Garmin, they asked me to do a reset, which I couldn't do because the button that didn't work was used to reset it. I let them know, and they emailed a return shipping label to me. I had it boxed up and shipped to them that day, I received a ship notice the following morning. A few days later a new Xero C1 arrived. All of that happened in 4 days for less. I was and am still impressed with their customer service.
I wonder why it is that airplane manufacturers seem to only put emphasis on the panel when it comes to making improvements. All this new instrumentation technology is great, but that's only half of the package. Considering how old GA airplane engine technology is, engine technology also has to get with the times. There is no reason why we still have 3 levers per engine on a plane when FADEC technology has been around for so long.
Interesting and exciting stuff coming out of Garmin. That was an impressive, albeit simple, demonstration.
Wow!
You're so right.
The age of GA planes - and pilots too! - totally needs new avionics and systems.
To help the young guns!
I did wonder if the lad was falling asleep in the back!
Another neat watch Josh.
50 yrs ago, flying IMC on "steam gauges" & VOR's I wondered greatly of coming advances in aeronautical capabilities. Some Old Line Pilots were washing out of transition training to 737's, and I grew very curious as to why. A newly hired Southwest FIrst Officer friend of mine sympathetic to my wondering gifted me a 737 Operating Manual. After months of study, it became apparent that the cause for such a high attrition rate in Transition Training was the older pilot's inability to "interface" with the highly automated aircraft and its FMS. The necessity to complete all the steps to "program" the FMS & manage systems without a flight engineer led directly to the concept of "Crew Management" & shared command responsibilities. By the way, not being a jet pilot, it took me almost four yrs of a couple of hours every night or so before a working knowledge of that plane dawned on me. I still can quote the required hydrolic pressures for specific control surfaces. Oy vey! PS. Back then, almost all airline pilots held A/P Licenses.
I agree. I noticed this as well when ForeFlight became mainstream. I have several friends who just couldn't adapt.
That's the best layout Ive seen to date and he engine management panel is AMAZING. So visible, wow
This channel is highly underrated for what it is
yes it is !! 300K subscribers, 7103 views and 597 likes? Way off balance.
Nice i saw Jessica on citation Max this week.
Enjoyed the segment on the Wx radar. To manage ground clutter at lower altitudes, you need to know where the bottom of the radar beam is. Start with the diameter of the radar antenna to give you the width of the beam in degrees. Most radar beams are conical, so it is the same width vertically as well as horizontally. For example, a 10 inch antenna will give you a 10 degree wide beam (12 inch = 8 degrees, 18 inch = 6 degrees, etc.). Half of that width is 5 degrees. Knowing the tilt angle (which represents the center of the beam), draw an imaginary line out from the nose (or wing) 5 degrees below that tilt number and there is the bottom of your beam. If the tilt is set to 5 degrees up, the bottom of your 10 degree wide beam is roughly parallel to the longitudinal axis of the airplane. Put another way, if you were on the runway for takeoff and you set the tilt to +5 degrees, the bottom of the beam is roughly parallel to the ground. With stabilization, the bottom of the beam will remain parallel to the ground after takeoff.
Now, use this as the basis for tilt management. At low altitudes, you don't want ground clutter. So, the bottom of your beam should be at least parallel to the ground to keep the beam off the ground and not producing any ground clutter returns on your screen. When you start getting above the mid teens in altitude, you can start to use ground clutter to give extra clues as to what you are looking at on your screen. There is much more to this technique than I am providing here. There are books and manuals that describe this. Beware of the instructor who warns you to eliminate ground clutter. Down low, yes. Up high, ground clutter is useful. If your instructor doesn't understand this, seek other guidance.
This is the tip of the radar iceberg, so to speak. I use to teach how to use Wx radar. Retired now, but this seemed like a good place to throw out my 2 cents. Of course, modern automation is helping pilots get useful information from their radar without having to know some of the basics. However, I always thought it was good to have a handle on some of the basics to better understand the automation.
5:12 I find it excellent that Justin does not miss an opportunity for a good burn, LOL. My friends & I are like that.
lol I can’t help myself 😂
Well Josh, I agree with you 100+% that everything Garmin brings to the table is amazing! Compared to even 20 years ago it's leaps and bounds better! So much so it goes a long way in saving lives! Now, the proverbial "but", It's so expensive!! I would bet that all the glass on the panel of that Baron cost 50% of the price of the plane itself! I would also bet that if we poled all the Baron owners we could find, the percentage that could afford to, and would do it, is very low! Just GA owners in general, here's all this stuff that could save your life, sorry, can't afford it for one reason or another. All that is NOT a hit on Garmin! It's expensive to develop, test, certify and market all that technology. It's just somehow we need to find a way to do that. It's not luxury items, they are tools to make flying safer and save lives. Sorry, didn't intend to rant. 8( Peace --gary
I think that her panel is aimed at the corporate market, not the flight schools or the Mom and Pop market.
I hate to say this but the price will come down once Garmin has the STC's for other aircraft and has more installations done and used.
Right now you need a certain units interfacing other certain units. Did you notice the G-125 on the left side was centered? I think it's working off the autopilot. Do more research on that and other G-125's and you might be able to install in light twins. At less cost.
A 172 may satisfy your flight regime requirements, but it seems to me a 182 might be a better fit. It would, for slightly higher operational costs, provide vastly expanded performance capabilities and subsequent margins of safety.
I agree with you on that one. I’ve been looking at what would be the perfect airplane for my mission. Which is to find an airplane that can carry four full sized adults, has over 200 horsepower, has a high useful load, high service ceiling, and is easy on maintenance.
As far as I’m concerned, the Cessna 182 is the perfect airplane for my mission. It has on average 230 horsepower, some have 250 horsepower if you have a modified O-470. It has a useful load of 1252 pounds. Cruise speed of 135 knots, which isn’t incredibly fast, but good enough for me. Service ceiling of 14,900 pounds, not that I need to fly that high. It can comfortably seat four full sized adults. And biggest perk for me is it’s easy on maintenance. I know this because I work on one at the flying club that I’ve been working at as an A&P apprentice for more than a year now.
As far as I’m concerned, the 182 is the perfect airplane for anyone if they’re looking at owning an airplane, which I’m looking to do further up the road of my career. People say it’s a true jack of all trades airplane, because it can to anything, and do anything well. And like the saying goes, “jack of all trades, master of none, but better than the master of one”.
hello from Singapore josh . Always enjoyed your video
Enjoying another of your great videos Josh and the way you explain avionics. I think you need a Baron. From Olive Branch, MS
Excellent episode!
$$$ That avionics package and install costs as much as the plane (not for Garmin ofc). I upgraded my Piper Lance with Garmin screens incl ap , GFC 500.
It was a no brainer to me, absolutely enhances safety, better situational awareness, no vacuum system anymore and an ap that has become my co-pilot.
The ESP system really helps you from getting into low speed conditions, unusual attitudes etc.
Hi western KY hope you guys had a great Thanksgiving
The Garmin rep said that the rudder bias system uses manifold pressure to sense a loss of engine power. I hope that’s incorrect because in a real engine failure (where the throttle is not pulled back) the manifold pressure will not change if the engine continues windmilling at the same speed. The engine rpm may not change either, because the propeller governor continues to function even if the engine is not producing power. On the Garmin website they don’t go into any detail about how the system detects a loss of engine power, but given the number of parameters that the system has access to it’s probably looking at more than just manifold pressure.
Nonetheless it’s great to see tech like this available for piston twins. I’d be interested to see how this works during a more critical engine failure scenario, a sudden loss of power 30 feet off the ground at Vyse.
Good video, Josh. I would like to see glass cockpits more over in a lot of the older planes, but it’s not cheap to update. On another note, though, what was that square cut out in the middle of the front windscreen? I know it has some kind of use.
I know its not a 172 😂 but here's an idea for a new series...locate and purchase a late 20th century Baron and upgrade/ refurbish with your new beau...including all new (Tricked out) Garmin avionics...and then take us on new adventures (faster). I bet you would be on display at the Garmin tent at air venture again...and I would definitely be there to check it out in person.
Those garmins are fantastic instruments for navigating the weather. However, if a pilot doesn't have the common sense of rock and flys into weather anyway because he has to "get there".....useless. Good jab by Justin on going fast lol. Jessica is one smart young lady and a great pilot.
Took my first lessons at this airport and pumped fuel at the FBO while working in college. Former Navy training base in the middle of Kansas LOL
Did you and Citation Max compare notes or something 🤔
The auto-feather and rudder boost on the King Air 250 series is a life saver!
I love the multi engine beechcraft baron g58 so please make some videos on it please thanks
I see the old school C0 detector. Is that a backup? With all that technology I was expecting the detector to be included.
Hi Josh, are you happy with the DC DX one headset? No lightspeed ?
A great panel. An older airframe (ashtray in armrest).
Wow, I want this setup!! I wonder what it would cost me for a conversion on an ‘84 P58
how do you sense turbulence?
I flew the E175 that only had manual tilt and gain. On the 737 it’s all auto like it’s shown here. So much simpler and better this way.
I think these panels are amazing but something has to be done to lower the costs. We know it doesn't cost 30k to put those units together but yet they charge it. I know it has to do with aviation laws etc but something has to be done. Aviation is such a rich man hobby anymore. I'm still rocking my 430w as spending that sorta money is far out of the budget and my plane is down for an engine overhaul which to me is far more important. I just wish they could cut the price down for people!
Hi Josh, just noticed you flying 916TS in the intro at 0:48. I'm in build-assist for my Sling right now and finally had the chance to fly 916TS in Torrance a few weeks back! Did I miss a previous video of you flying the Sling or is there one coming out later?
more Chelsea.
How much does this cost?
I'm curious too
Bringing aging GA aircraft into the modern age, 1 tens of thousands for a single unit, a time :) Maybe of these aging GA aircraft are not worth what it would cost to put a single glass screen in the craft. :)
Isn’t rudder bias just a marketing term for expanded yaw damper capability?
I’m not a pilot so I have no idea, but what does it cost to add these safety features to an air plane?
That was amazing and likely a lifesaver. It seems like most, if not all, of the crashes for piston twins is due to an engine out.
I have a quick thumbs up for Garmin. It's for a non-Aviation related Garmin product. Garmin makes the Xero C1 Pro. It's a radar chronograph and it is used for recording the velocity of a fired bullet, arrow, etc. One of the buttons on mine stopped working. I contacted Garmin, they asked me to do a reset, which I couldn't do because the button that didn't work was used to reset it. I let them know, and they emailed a return shipping label to me. I had it boxed up and shipped to them that day, I received a ship notice the following morning. A few days later a new Xero C1 arrived. All of that happened in 4 days for less. I was and am still impressed with their customer service.
I wonder why it is that airplane manufacturers seem to only put emphasis on the panel when it comes to making improvements. All this new instrumentation technology is great, but that's only half of the package. Considering how old GA airplane engine technology is, engine technology also has to get with the times. There is no reason why we still have 3 levers per engine on a plane when FADEC technology has been around for so long.
Save up for a Longitude. You won’t regret it.
Josh, I think it is time for you to buy a NEW airplane!....Get a LEAR JET!!
I quit flying for the complexity that grew too much. I fly ultralights just for the sensation of flight.
She's super cute.