Waiex-B G3X Aeromomentum Panel

[lakespookie]

You are accurate that the GNC 355 would not fit, based on your measurements The GNX 375 would be a tight fit but it should fit worst case I can buy some extra depth with a spacer for the navigator to bring it out from the panel just a hair or as you mentioned bottom mount it so that it potentially clears the bottom of the tank. The alternative is moving it to the top of the stack and extending upwards. Not sure where everyone got the idea that i want a GNC 355 or plan on using one i dont. I want to install the Transponder Navigator combo which is bit shorter than the GNC355, Coms will most likley be MGL Nav/Coms Remote mounted.

[n307tw]

Yeah the GNC355 and GNX375 look very very similar. I agree you may have a tight clearance and may get away with putting it lower in the panel. Don't waste your time with MGL radios if you're going a full G3X system. It will be advantageous to go ahead and use the GTR20R as your radio or GNC255 as your Nav/Com. Everything would be on the CANbus making it less susceptible to integration problems. You could go with the GTX45R as your transponder as your ads-b in and out and save a ton of money. Seems the GNX375 is overly redundant since you have the large 10" screen and can remote mount the GPS20A and transponder and just use the screen. Your call though and that's the beauty of it. I am excited to see what you decide and implement.

[lakespookie]

I actually intend to wire the MGL radios to the can bus they are supposed to be garmin compatible with the control heads, The main reason for the GNX 375 is that I am based in southern California and the morning/ afternoon marine layer is a real issue in flying in this area, I have no intention of doing hard ifr work or getting anywhere near any convective activity but I would like the option to shoot an approach down to get under the layer and also to stay IFR current once I get that ticket. If I don't put any nav radios in then the GTR20's would be the next option although if I go single panel I like the idea of having a backup tuning method that I get by having the MGL heads that are needed for interfacing with the G3X and there really isn't much panel space for an in panel radio unless I ditch the navigator or the audio panel, GNC255's seem insane to me as I can get 2 nav/coms with radio heads for the cost of a GNC255 Granted non-garmin

[builderflyer]

I am based in southern California and the morning/ afternoon marine layer is a real issue in flying in this area, I have no intention of doing hard ifr work or getting anywhere near any convective activity but I would like the option to shoot an approach down to get under the layer and also to stay IFR current once I get that ticket

Having lived in southern California for many years in the past, and having obtained an instrument rating and having used it as you describe, you may find as I did that it's very difficult to maintain "currency", or at least where you continue to feel proficient in using the rating. For the non-professional pilot (and the professional pilot as well), there are two areas in which to maintain instrument currency......... (1)flying your aircraft solely by reference to instruments without using an autopilot (this would take a near super-human pilot in an aircraft with neutral stability), and (2) using the "system". Not saying it can't be done, but you'll really have to work at it and it won't be very easy. My opinion based on personal experience (and not flying a Sonex at the time).

Art,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Sonex taildragger #95,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Jabiru 3300 #261

[lakespookie]

You are not wrong. Although currency is less of a concern I have access to a few sims for that and plan on staying a member of the flying club i am a part of primarily for when i get visitors and what not so that i have more than 2 seats lol, But you make a very valid point and i would not want to fly IFR in a sonex with no AP and/or for any other purpose than for getting under/over a thin layer and nothing near minimums. My no go list for the mission of the aircraft includes the AP/Convective Activity/ nothing near minimums especially for minimums under 1000 feet among a few other items which includes high winds from certain directions due to the mountain wave turbulance and how light this plane is. At least thats what i have written down as of now as far as the intended mission/operation of the plane but i am always open to new ideas and thoughts.

[AstroAussie]

Updated design for single screen

Panel2.jpg

I guess I have some time to simmer on it this would be less work overall and reduce the amount of panel overhang I would have the G3x is still slightly off center but I anticipate I will do a lot of 2 person flying at least that's my intended mission so the fact its offset left I think is better than being centered. The offset is also small enough that center seating will still be fairly reasonable to execute. the switch guards were used to space the intended USB Charging ports there just is not anything in the database for the panel designer in the right dimensions and those switch guards are slightly larger than the dimentions of the intended charging ports. the grey cutouts are for the air vents originally I was planning to toss them on a top lip like another builder but if I am not going up as far then there it does not make sense to reduce visibility.

The guarded switch is a hard switch to disable the garmin envelope protection for flying light acro

have you considered the amp draw? what engine. or alternator are you using?

[lakespookie]

Power budget would not work on an aerovee unless you add a custom alternator solution i have a seen one or two really nice solutions on this forum but they are still not ideal. At the time of this panel design i was leaning towards an aeromomentum powerplant with a 50 amp alternator much more than enough but after pricing out the total FWF cost of the aeromomentum i am torn between it and the jabiru, the jabiru has a 30 amp alternator is sufficient but not ideal for the power budget i would prefer to have more margin than what it provides

Total power draw with all lights and bells and whistles was right around 27 amps although nominal usage was around 22. Note that radio transmission spikes power a good amount. To around 30+ amps if i recall correctly of course this also assumes worst case for a heated pitot among other things and i am planning on the regulated pitot to alleviate some of that concern.

In general it wont be anywhere near that high as you dont fly around with your wig wags on all the time and the transmit button on the radio keyed. and your AP servos are not drawing max current all the time.

I would give you more solid numbers but i have my power estimation spreadsheets on a diffrent computer than this one.

[N190YX]

Rotec has a 45 amp alternator upgrade for the Jabiru engine. See: https://www.rotecaerosport.com/alternatorupgrade

[lakespookie]

Nice find thanks for that link that would make my margines much better.

I looked back over my power budget and the average power draw is 18.52 Amps and Peak Power was right at 28.51 This is with an unheated pitot,

If you include any of the heated pitot tubes they are related to the temp of the probe relative to the current draw typical power when the pitot heat is on and hot is right around 4.36 Amps and at -40 degrees the current draw is 12 amps.

That pushes the power budget up to 22.88 and 40.51 respectively which is why i was not happy with the 30 amp alternator in the jabiru and def out of range of the standard charging system in the aerovee. That being said i would expect typical power draw to be much lower in practice as this analysis is looking at worst case, with everything all the way up and both radios transmiting which is not a realistic use case. All data was pulled form the garmin and related vendor manuals for power usage and peak power. but keep in mind this power budget was calculated a while ago and newer versions of the hardware may be more efficient.

[Bryan Cotton]

Heated pitot? That's serious stuff.