I don't disagree with you Jim. I'm a tightwad too, but I like simplicity and
also like to reduce my workload. I was thinking along the lines of the G1000
which I have been enjoying a lot since getting used to it. Don't know what's
behind the integrated displays, whether the components are line replacable
modules or not. But I love the integrated approach.

For example on the G1000 the transponder takes up less than half the size of
a postage stamp and is controlled by soft keys that perform multiple
functions (and it automatically changes mode when you leave the ground, so
on a VFR flight you never have to touch it, don't even have to turn it on).
That type of thing would be so much better for homebuilts where panel space
is limited.

But I agree, such a system would need to be economically repairable.

Mal


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"kmh1" wrote

With the good availability of boxes to do flight/engine/nav display, the
last remaining cause of untidyness on the panel is the avionics. At the
compact end of the scale many com radio's have low output and the
intercoms are awful. At the other end of the scale the units are large
and heavy.

We need a compact avionics box, to match our other boxes, that
incorporates audio control, intercom, com (with listen on sby frq), and
transponder.

Unless there's some technical reason they can't go together?

I don't know about you, but in choices of home electronics, I have found
it to be a big mistake to get too many units all combined into one box.

When one part of it goes tits up, there is the problem of what to do with
all of the other stuff that still works.

I know with home electronics nowadays, they are not economical to fix,
where with avionics, they usually are worth repairing.

When one part of an "all inclusive avionics box" finally is not economical
to repair, that means you have a bunch of other functioning items that
have suddenly become useless, and will all have to be replaced to get the
one broken item replaced, which means a lot of value gets tossed out, and
a lot of money will have to be spent to get all of the previously working
items replaced.

I'm basically a tightwad, and hate to toss out a bunch of functioning
stuff, just because one part of it is broken. I would rather stick to
keeping items separate.

It _would_ be nice to see an economical package that is compact and light,
and modular in design, so that you could add functions as desired, and
replace items as needed, and still keep it all neat, easy to read, and
easy to replace.
--
Jim in NC