bottleworks wrote:If the question is:Which is the shortest and cheapest list of instruments you´ll fly with
The question is simply wrong. You shouldn't be choosing anything remotely important purely on choosing the lowest cost option.
If cost is the only consideration, you'll always end up with the worst value-to-cost ratio.
The value of a skyview is insane. They should be charging more considering the vast feature list and constant free updates. If you don't consider a skyview useful - pilot error. You're using it wrong.
I can understand not needing two, or more screens (yes, I've seen some installs with 3 units). That ventures back to the balance of cost vs the additional benefits and needs. Additional screen real estate may not be worth an additional unit. Maybe someone who tends to fly longer distances might consider dual screens more helpful vs a local only flyer.
Point being, money shouldn't be the most important factor.
Money is always a deciding factor. If not we'd each be flying a Citation X with twin jet engines and traveling at Mach 0.90 and never have to touch a thing from takeoff to touchdown.
Besides, the mission dictates the required instrument package. There is no reason to believe that for short distance pleasure flying that a full two screen Skyview system is any safer than a basic or even minimal instrument package. I'd tend to think in those conditions a pilot who is spending all his time looking out the window is safer than one twiddling knobs and buttons the whole time.
I have a Dynon D-100, analog engine instruments, a 496 and an iPad with Garmin Pilot. Are two Skyviews going to make me more capable or safer? Not by much if at all. I have made 400nm flights with no problems, hand flying the whole way.
The heavy glass has its place, even in LSA, but it's not a requirement for every flight. Sometimes all that junk just gets in the way.