Rmag

@eman1200 is correct. The Garmin Pilot app has the exact screen you are asking for. Black background with concentric range circles.

Yes can display on map page

The 345 does not do flight plan transfer. You need a 510 for that. You can use the 510 like a standard SD card, plugging it into the computer instead of using Datbase Concierge. Not sure about the Mac question... I have read some issues about using a Mac on forums for some things, but I did not pay close enough attention as I am a PC user. Someone else will have to chime in on that. Without the 510 you cannot do database transfer or flight plan transfer.

Jim: I found myself in the same situation as you a year ago,when we finished my Garmin panel. I was a ForeFlight user for years before the Garmin panel, so Garmin Pilot was new to me. I purposely decided to give Garmin Pilot a shot. After using both apps for about a year, I find things that I like about both. I would say both ForeFlight and Garmin Pilot generally do the same things. You can plan and build a flight plan, graphically edit, or type in, etc. Some of the things that I like about Garmin Pilot is that it is the same user interface as the GTN navigators, and the new TXi flight decks. I like how Garmin Pilot integrates weight and balance and fuel loads with your flight plan. I also like how Garmin Pilot has quick fuel loads in the Weight and Balance section. If you load up your plane with people, you can quickly select max fuel and it will give you the maximum amount of fuel without going over max weight. ForeFlight makes you figure it out yourself and manually put your fuel loads in. Garmin Pilot has a dedicated traffic page with the black background and concentric range rings, ForeFlight does not. I like how ForeFlight has audible call outs for ATIS or AWOS etc as you approach your destination airport. The runway incursion call outs, etc. I like how you can put N numbers into ForeFlight and get aircraft info. I like ForeFlight’s METAR and TAF layout better than Garmin Pilot. I also like that ForeFlight provides MOS weather forecasts, Garmin Pilot does not. ForeFlight lets you use its vector based aeronautical maps over top of a VFR sectional. Garmin Pilot does not, it’s either or. These are just a couple quick examples of a few things that one does better than the other, certainly not an exhaustive review. For me, I find myself going back to ForeFlight I think in part because of my years of working with it, I am still more comfortable with it. I still give an edge to ForeFlight personally. That being said, if I was forced to give up ForeFlight and only use Garmin Pilot, I could get along fine with that. Both programs will receive traffic and weather, and flight plan transfer, but ONLY Garmin Pilot will do the the WIFI database transfer, so you will at least need to have Garmin Pilot for that. One thing to be aware of: You get a free year subscription for Garmin Pilot when you buy a Flightstream 510. So you have a year to use it and decide for yourself what you think of it. On the other end of the spectrum: My Dad exclusively uses ForeFlight for planning and in cockpit use. He has zero interest to learn another flight app. So he has Garmin Pilot solely for database concierge. He does not even update the Garmin Pilot app data other than to download databases to transfer to the GTN 750. So for him it is just a $75 yearly fee in order to use database concierge. View it as a yearly fee for the convenience of WIFI database transfer. It is much more convenient than pulling SD cards and updating on a PC. Once you use it, going back to pulling cards is just clunky. Dan

On my M20J 205 SE, Down low 50° ROP 24 squared which is about 10.5 to 11.2 depending on temp I can see 155 kts true. At a cruise altitude same settings at whatever manifold pressure I can attain, I’ve seen 160 kts true. Never seen 165 kts true.

That’s because I’ve never listed mine Nice meeting you Sat btw.

We got paid. And he liked us and let us use his aircraft in advertising which was cool. He reminded us of this fact on the next paint job

Some guys like the nostalgia of the original factory paint schemes of its era. In the corporate world we find some conservative paint schemes as well. Even Donald Trump's S-76 helicopters we painted. We originally provided him some pretty tricked out contemporary designs. I talked to him on the phone when he was trying to pick out his paint schemes. He asked which one I would pick, and I preferred the more modern contemporary schemes. But he ultimately went with a more conservative black and white with a couple red stripes that he had before. One thing about it was that everyone recognized his aircraft and he didn't want to change it. @201er made a statement to me at last weekend's fly in that when we put the new fancy paint jobs on Mooneys like mine, you lose visual reference of what era aircraft was from. He said you can normally pick out the model year by looking at the paint job.

Ball park if you were doing Aspen PFD/MFD, GTN 750,650, GTX330ES, GMA35C, Stec 60pss, JPI EDM 730, new paint, new interior today would be at minimum $100 AMUs. Even more depending on how extensive of a paint job and interior he did. This doesn't account for the engine reman costs either.

If it is squawk free, low time engine reman, lower time airframe, newer paint and interior, with a modern panel, I can see some people buying around his price. I'd ask for a little more info on the autopilot. Although he needs his airspeed indicator or fuel flow overhauled. Its providing faulty readings...

Where did you hear this?

The video does show me selecting it, but I did not zoom in. Essentially a touchscreen button shows up in the bottom left corner that says "Visual Approach" as you get close to your airport. You touch it, it gives you a list of all your runways at the airport. You select which runway you are landing on and you get some CYA language that it is for VISUAL APPROACH ONLY that it may not provide adequate clearance from terrain or obstacles. You acknowledge it. Then it throws a magenta line out from the runway that provides both horizontal and vertical guidance. From a pilot perspective it flies just like a GPS or ILS approach. If your autopilot supports it, you can even fly the visual approach fully coupled.

@Marauder sorry you weren’t able to make it I think I speak for everyone in attendance however thanking you for not sharing the phlegm with the rest of us! Regarding the Visual Approach, you did see the video I posted with the Visual approach guidance into KWWD right?

Some further recommend not to do any Post Flight cleanup until exiting the runway. If I have a quick turn off often I’ll just wait to do anything. But if I have a bit of a roll out I start to cleanup. I don’t lean enough on my pull to starve the engine. I’ve never in my entire history ever killed an engine inadvertently, but I can see the logic not wanting to risk it in an active runway. Thanks for the thought... I think I may just wait for cleanups now. No rush right?

Above is the YouTube Video of my flight to KRDG. I was the first to arrive. I took some video of Mooneys arriving and a shorter video of my flight home. You can hear the radio chatter of several of us leaving on the second flight. For the first flight I tried to talk my way through what I was doing and demo some of the features of the avionics package.

I videoed my flight and also some other Moonies (is that the plural for Mooney?) arriving. I'll post when I get it edited, working on it now...

Paint job looks beautiful!

@xcrmckenna Most welcome. I learned a bit myself on this exercise.

Answering @xcrmckenna's question about the legality of using automotive paint, let me first start by saying I am not an FAA Attorney so I am not going to make a definitive statement about the legality of it. I will offer my opinion on it below. What I can provide you is some information about what the FAA has to say about it and you can make your own conclusion. I own a part 145 Repair Station. The FAA has direct oversight of our operations and processes as it pertains to working on FAA certified aircraft. The FAA requires us to use aviation paint because it is specifically formulated for aviation, and it meets the expiration and traceability requirements that we have to adhere to as a Repair Station. As I wrote in my prior responses, automotive paint is not formulated to be resistant to the solvents, fuels, hydraulic fluids, etc. found in an aviation environment. Relatively thinner automotive paint does not provide the same corrosion protection in an aircraft environment that an aviation paint has. Paint is not just to make your plane look pretty, but it also serves as corrosion protection for the aircraft. Putting the FAA aside, as a business, we warrant our paint work. It does not make sense to put another paint that is not specifically formulated and tested for our specific application and industry on your airplane and then warrant it. If the paint fails, the manufacturer surely will not warrant using non-aviation paint on an airplane. They make aviation paint for a reason… Keep in mind, the harsh environment that aviation paint is tested to. A Jet at 40,000 feet experiences -60 degrees C and descends to the hot Arizona ramp at 120 deg F. The pressure changes require flexibility. This is a good article here from the Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) regarding, “FAA APPROVAL OF CONSUMABLE MATERIALS FOR TYPE CERTIFICATED AIRCRAFT” www.pmamarpa.com/pdf/MARPAMaterials.pdf You can find in the last two paragraphs of the introduction, the following, “The second category of consumable materials consists of those materials that become part of the aircraft, engine or propeller. Example of these items can include hydraulic fluids, lubricating oils, greases, sealants, adhesives, room temperature vulcanizing silicone compounds, paints, lock-wire, and high temperature tapes. These materials are all consumable items that become part of the aircraft, engine or propeller, and they were part of the type certificated product when the FAA approved the product. Under current regulations, materials that are reasonably likely to be installed on a type certificated product (those that become part of the aircraft, engine or propeller) must be produced under FAA-approval, or they must fit within one of the regulatory exceptions to the approval paradigm.” The FAA views paint as a consumable that is applied to an article. If it stays on the article (your aircraft), then the FAA has something to say about it. Basically, the PMA rules state that if the material is reasonable likely to be installed on a type certificated product then it needs to be FAA approved or fit into a recognized FAA exception. One exception is the MIL-spec that aviation paint is approved to. Materials that are produced in compliance with a government or established industry specification (i.e. standard materials; e.g. materials produced to AMS, ASTM or MIL standards); From the FAA maintenance Airframe Mechanic manual… https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_airframe_handbook/media/ama_Ch08.pdf Page 8-2 first paragraph: “Paint is more than aesthetics; it affects the weight of the aircraft and protects the integrity of the airframe. The topcoat finish is applied to protect the exposed surfaces from corrosion and deterioration. Also, a properly painted aircraft is easier to clean and maintain because the exposed surfaces are more resistant to corrosion and dirt, and oil does not adhere as readily to the surface. A wide variety of materials and finishes are used to protect and provide the desired appearance of the aircraft. The term “paint” is used in a general sense and includes primers, enamels, lacquers, and the various multipart finishing formulas. Paint has three components: resin as coating material, pigment for color, and solvents to reduce the mix to a workable viscosity. Internal structure and unexposed components are finished to protect them from corrosion and deterioration. All exposed surfaces and components are finished to provide protection and to present a pleasing appearance. Decorative finishing includes trim striping, the addition of company logos and emblems, and the application of decals, identification numbers, and letters.” Page 8-10 under “Primer and Paint”: Purchase aircraft paint for the aviation painting project. Paint manufacturers use different formulas for aircraft and automobiles because of the environments they operate in. The aviation coatings are formulated to have more flexibility and chemical resistance than the automotive paint. And finally, in many cases the aircraft Maintenance Manual will spell out at a minimum a MIL spec for the paint to use. At a maximum, it will spell out a specific paint manufacturers product AND color. The Cirrus is an example of the latter. Your aircraft maintenance manual or structural repair manual will have the requirements of paint and is what any paint shop must adhere to. Certainly, painting an aircraft in violation of what is specifically stated in the maintenance manual or structural repair manual would not be legal. As to a Mooney… The older aircraft maintenance manuals are not concrete in their requirements. I have not looked at one of the newer aircraft manuals. In the case where it is not spelled out in specific detail I would argue it is still best practice to put aviation paint on an aircraft. In my opinion, there is no logical reason to not use aviation paint on your airplane, other than car paint might be cheaper and more convenient to use. Aircraft paint is made for aircraft. The FAA requires us as a repair station to use it, based on that I think one can infer what the FAA thinks about it… An A&P painting your airplane may not have the same FAA oversight that a repair station has and may have no problem using car paint. Do I think the FAA is going to be knocking down your door in the middle of the night due to automotive paint on your plane? No. Does the FAA endorse car paint on your plane? Certainly not. Do I personally think using car paint is legal? For whatever my opinion is worth and in light of what I presented above, no. Dan

@mooneyman started a thread about his airplane being painted here: https://mooneyspace.com/topic/25226-mooney-n94mr-paint-project/ On page 3 of his thread people started asking various questions about automotive paint versus aircraft paint, to which I responded to in his original thread. @xcrmckenna asked the follow up question, “Would automotive paint on an airplane be legal? Or is it just not going to hold up as well as aviation paint? As to not further hijack mooneyman’s thread that should be for admiring his new paint job. I felt that it would be best to take this conversation into a separate thread. The original post I made was this: Lots of questions about aviation paint. As a paint shop owner (SureFlight at KMQS), I thought I would chime in and answer some of the questions. The aviation market is miniscule compared to the automotive market. There will always be more innovation in the automotive market to due its size and volume. Automotive paint is easier to use. It lays out flatter with less defects. Its easier to make a nice-looking finish. xcrmckenna is correct, a less experienced painter can make automotive paint look good. Aircraft paint is more finicky and more opt to have defects such as sags, runs, dry spots, reactions, orange peel, etc. It is more difficult to apply. With rare exception, you can’t just take an automotive painter and have him paint an aircraft with aviation paint and have it turn out well. You really want to check to see if they put automotive paint on your aircraft. If you go to their website and read their processes, step 12 regarding paint they use Jet Glo or Acry Glo which is Sherwin Williams Aviation Paint. They might have had you look at automotive colors to get a better sampling than Sherwin Williams samples. You can match aviation paint colors to automotive colors. We have a mixing room with all of the tints, metallics, pearlescent, etc. We have a special camera that takes a picture of the paint finish and produces a formula to mix any color we want in aviation paint. You don’t want car paint on your aircraft. See why below… The FAA does regulate paint shops. We are an FAA Part 145 Repair Station paint shop. The FAA audits us at least annually to make sure we are following regulations. They pull a sample of our paint work orders to make sure we are following aircraft maintenance manuals. Some manuals not only specify paint process, but also which paint has to be used. Cirrus aircraft for example specifies a specific Axalta (used to be DuPont) paint. Older Cirrus specified PPG. They are also checking what kind of paint we are using. See why below… Aircraft paint is more expensive. Its boutique compared to automotive paint. Aviation paint is specifically formulated for the aviation environment. Some of this is not as important on a single engine piston like we are flying, but aviation paint has to withstand 400-500 knot jet aircraft airspeeds in weather without it coming off. It is formulated so that aviation fuels do not stain the finish. It is resistant to hydraulic fluids like Skydrol that is used in some helicopters and jets. Skydrol would strip automotive paint right off the aircraft. Every can of aviation paint is also labeled with an expiration date and batch numbers for FAA traceability. Just like anything that is permanently installed or applied to a certified aircraft, you can’t just install whatever you want. You can’t go to Home Depot and buy a bunch of nuts, bolts, and screws and use them in your aircraft. You can’t go to Radio Shack and buy a bunch of wires and wire up some avionics. If something materially fails with a paint that causes a problem, the FAA wants to be able to trace the paint back to its date, and batch. It can use this information to see if any other aircraft may be affected and determine failure root causes. So yes, there is a downside to using car paint on an aircraft. Automotive paints are superior in their ease of use and ability to make look good, but they are not formulated for the aviation environment, and they lack any traceability. Frankly, I don’t know how someone can do a proper logbook sign off using car paint. The FAA specifically looks at this when they audit us. They also go through our paint cabinets. If there is any expired paint or paint without traceability labels, we get a write-up. This is exactly how paint is applied. We have a paint booth/hangar, we apply the paint, and then bake it on. A paint booth moves the air while you are spraying so that you don’t have overspray settling on your paint job. It also heats the air so that you are spraying in a warm temperature. After it is sprayed, it is baked for proper curing. Our booth can heat the air to 170 degrees F and it exchanges the entire volume of air in the entire hangar every 48 seconds. If you don’t have a paint booth and are painting in a regular hangar, you have much more chance of dirt and debris getting in your paint, overspray, etc. because there is not as clean of an environment and doesn’t have sufficient air movement. If you are not baking the paint, some painters will kick the accelerant to make it dry faster which can kill the gloss of the paint. Or you can just wait a couple days for the paint to dry. Which also extends the amount of time dirt or debris can settle into the paint. Actually, car paint would be thinner and lighter. It's water based.

Lots of questions about aviation paint. As a paint shop owner (SureFlight at KMQS), I thought I would chime in and answer some of the questions. The aviation market is miniscule compared to the automotive market. There will always be more innovation in the automotive market to due its size and volume. Automotive paint is easier to use. It lays out flatter with less defects. Its easier to make a nice-looking finish. xcrmckenna is correct, a less experienced painter can make automotive paint look good. Aircraft paint is more finicky and more opt to have defects such as sags, runs, dry spots, reactions, orange peel, etc. It is more difficult to apply. With rare exception, you can’t just take an automotive painter and have him paint an aircraft with aviation paint and have it turn out well. You really want to check to see if they put automotive paint on your aircraft. If you go to their website and read their processes, step 12 regarding paint they use Jet Glo or Acry Glo which is Sherwin Williams Aviation Paint. They might have had you look at automotive colors to get a better sampling than Sherwin Williams samples. You can match aviation paint colors to automotive colors. We have a mixing room with all of the tints, metallics, pearlescent, etc. We have a special camera that takes a picture of the paint finish and produces a formula to mix any color we want in aviation paint. You don’t want car paint on your aircraft. See why below… The FAA does regulate paint shops. We are an FAA Part 145 Repair Station paint shop. The FAA audits us at least annually to make sure we are following regulations. They pull a sample of our paint work orders to make sure we are following aircraft maintenance manuals. Some manuals not only specify paint process, but also which paint has to be used. Cirrus aircraft for example specifies a specific Axalta (used to be DuPont) paint. Older Cirrus specified PPG. They are also checking what kind of paint we are using. See why below… Aircraft paint is more expensive. Its boutique compared to automotive paint. Aviation paint is specifically formulated for the aviation environment. Some of this is not as important on a single engine piston like we are flying, but aviation paint has to withstand 400-500 knot jet aircraft airspeeds in weather without it coming off. It is formulated so that aviation fuels do not stain the finish. It is resistant to hydraulic fluids like Skydrol that is used in some helicopters and jets. Skydrol would strip automotive paint right off the aircraft. Every can of aviation paint is also labeled with an expiration date and batch numbers for FAA traceability. Just like anything that is permanently installed or applied to a certified aircraft, you can’t just install whatever you want. You can’t go to Home Depot and buy a bunch of nuts, bolts, and screws and use them in your aircraft. You can’t go to Radio Shack and buy a bunch of wires and wire up some avionics. If something materially fails with a paint that causes a problem, the FAA wants to be able to trace the paint back to its date, and batch. It can use this information to see if any other aircraft may be affected and determine failure root causes. So yes, there is a downside to using car paint on an aircraft. Automotive paints are superior in their ease of use and ability to make look good, but they are not formulated for the aviation environment, and they lack any traceability. Frankly, I don’t know how someone can do a proper logbook sign off using car paint. The FAA specifically looks at this when they audit us. They also go through our paint cabinets. If there is any expired paint or paint without traceability labels, we get a write-up. This is exactly how paint is applied. We have a paint booth/hangar, we apply the paint, and then bake it on. A paint booth moves the air while you are spraying so that you don’t have overspray settling on your paint job. It also heats the air so that you are spraying in a warm temperature. After it is sprayed, it is baked for proper curing. Our booth can heat the air to 170 degrees F and it exchanges the entire volume of air in the entire hangar every 48 seconds. If you don’t have a paint booth and are painting in a regular hangar, you have much more chance of dirt and debris getting in your paint, overspray, etc. because there is not as clean of an environment and doesn’t have sufficient air movement. If you are not baking the paint, some painters will kick the accelerant to make it dry faster which can kill the gloss of the paint. Or you can just wait a couple days for the paint to dry. Which also extends the amount of time dirt or debris can settle into the paint. Actually, car paint would be thinner and lighter. It's water based.

From Trek Lawler on the Beechtalk forum: Hello everyone, I'm sorry this keeps popping up like this, but I can assure you there is no truth to the comment "soon to be unsupported". When and if this day ever comes Garmin will be the first to provide detailed information about this. I keep in very close discussions with our equipment and details like this since it is me and my team who answers these questions on a daily basis and I can assure you the GNS support is still as strong as ever. please contact me directly either by PM, email to my attention at avionics@garmin.com or by phone at 888-606-5482 and ask for me and I'll be happy to help answer or squelch any rumors like this. _________________ Trek A. Lawler Supervisor, Garmin Aviation Field Service Engineering Aviation Product Support

Is there any customization? For example recog lite?

Odd. For me my post shows as a hyperlink, but your reply shows embedded.

Yes it provides Vertical guidance. I crossed KIMBA waypoint at 1,000 ft and flew the visual approach down to just below 500 ft before disengaging the AP and hand flying. How do I make my link show as an embedded video like your reply had?