aviatoreb

That is exactly correct.

Here's some practice for you folks in the South who may not have seen some of these METAR codings since you passed your PPL. Arm chair flying.... and the picture out my office window to prove it. What do you have for us regarding unfriendly flying weather? METAR KPTD 071855Z AUTO 06005KT M1/4SM +SN OVC002 M08/M09 A3005 RMK AO2 P0001 KMSS 16nm N 071853Z AUTO 06009KT 1/4SM SN FZFG VV008 M09/M11 A3011 RMK AO2 SLP205 P0002 T10941106 TAF KMSS 16nm N 071738Z 0718/0818 05010KT 1/2SM SN FZFG VV008 FM072300 04008KT 2SM -SN BR OVC015 FM080100 33006KT 5SM -SN BR OVC020 FM080300 32006KT P6SM VCSH OVC030 FM080800 29007KT P6SM BKN040

As far as I can tell - over the counter - as in installed at avionics shops of your choice like any other garmin device. Sarasota I cited is offering it that way.

Huh? Someone is getting a Dynon skyview in a certified by field approval? What kind of airplane?

Probably right! At 11k for equipment (plus wires and stuff?) it looks attractive. But the big unknown - install. At $2500 to $3000 a pop to overhaul one of the two main gyro instruments for the KFC200 as an ongoing cost, it makes sense to get something new. Whatever it might be.

Its about 2k cheaper at actual vendors, as for now, so it seems: http://sarasotaavionics.com/avionics/gfc500-with-g5-attitude-indicator-and-g5-hsi but one also needs the GA29 (about $500) to communicate with your gps-nav box. Then it will do all the GPSS stuff. I was figuring then 15k-16k? So with the choices in front of me as of now - 1. As an autopilot only ... GFC500 looks like the best one. It has straight and level and ESP which are two features which alone seem like they may win the day for me as major safety enhancements. Esp the second. Comes in at ??16k?? So no more KI256, or mechanical HSI to maintain, but otherwise a very familiar presentation. 2. As a complete system, the Dynon looks best over all - esp if you have a relic panel, then in one shot you get everything. I think this will cost upper 20s when it is available. The autopilot loks excellent, but no ESP. Still best display, best integration, etc. But as I already have a digital engine monitor, ADSB, etc, then it may not be worth almost 15k more for the integration, and the svt. In fact, there is something to be said for no integration, since if something fails, then it can be repaired separately. Some of the nicety of an all of one is cosmetic, (looks cooler) and some is real. 3. Trutrek and (what was the other one?) look super and cheaper still, but less features. Still super nice. I have a good working KFC200 (knock on wood), so I will wait and see - but as of now, I like option #1 more (for the ESP) and it is cheaper. But there is a lot I like about 2 more - it looks cooler, etc. I wonder if Garmin will come out with a G6? I.e., a G5 with synthetic vision built in? That would close the gap between the options 1 and 2 a bit more. There is something to be said for staying out of the Garmin "evil empire" as they are so big sometimes they make things more expensive than they need to be - so I like the idea of voting for Dynon with my dollars. ... but I wish they had ESP! I DO like that now it seems to me that the unit can also serve as a backup nav gps for emergency.

I hear you. Not looking at the price - but what it is GFC500+ dual G5 is an amazing piece of avionics way beyond anything available for install today. (but competitors tomorrow....).

G3X is sometime off. I am sort of on the fence of a complete panel remake for 30k when I already have mostly what I want - only the autopilot ...and I love the ESP of the Garmin system. And the straight and level. Dynon does not have the ESP. Anyway it is a much less invasive install I would think. Anyway when actual options are available.... G3X is not available so its not in the mix. MAYBE something will be announced at Oshkosh?

It’s the internet....

I wouldn’t say the g5 is low rent. Big jump from the ki256. price is good - http://sarasotaavionics.com/avionics/gfc500-with-g5-attitude-indicator-and-g5-hsi

.... I want it in Jan 19!

Right - so it will begin in 12 months. Ready when? Like 18 mos? This is the one I want but I wish I could know if m20k will be on the list.

So looking at GFC500 it says "these airplanes will begin certification in 12 months" and presumably receive stc sometime after that. Although they do now have C172 and 182. https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/604257#additional Price looks good. http://sarasotaavionics.com/avionics/gfc500-with-g5-attitude-indicator-and-g5-hsi (parts - not installed).

HuH! That is a fantastic system... Darn - but I REALLY like the ESP feature only found on the garmin system. A major safety enhancement. https://www.garmin.com/en-US/blog/aviation/understanding-garmin-electronic-stability-protection-esp/

Huh - still that is VERY interesting - so is that built in GPS entirely approach capable - even if it is not legal? I am thinking in terms of redundancy - suppose you (I) have just one approach legal gps box and ...it goes TU, then I can keep happily following my RNAV with this Dynon thing? So in some ways - it is like having your second GPS Nav box built in - although for legal reasons not your first GPS Nav box built in. Is that right?

That is interesting - he is setting flight plans and choosing approaches inside the dynon display - does that mean it is pushing and pulling nav points into the navigator gps? Or is this thing also serving as its own certified nav gps?

I am very curious how expensive is the GFC500 + dual G5 install. That is currently my favorite system. Dynon looks fantastic but if you already have a lot of the extras, then the price is not as good after all. I like very much the ESP feature on GFC500 that is not available in any of the other systems coming up.

Sweet! How many HP was that one? So ...how fast did it go - and why didn't;t they produce it?!! I bet it went a million.

Anti-gravity is good for balloons. But not speedy Comanche' 400reds. Oh. I didn't realize there was an STC! Mine is on a field approval and I figured yours was too - in which case I figured there was some leeway. With 400hp I bet that baby could run a 5 blade if you wanted. Anyone ever soup-up a Comanche' 400red to more than 400hp? Like 500 or 600? I mean heck if a 6 cylinder can go 350 in some versions why not 500 hp out of an over tweaked 8 cylinder?

I'm curious - and not to ask why is your airplane hanging upsidown from the ceiling. Why did you go 3 blades with that big 8 cylinder - why not 4 blades - or even 5?

I'm not a real CFI, but I play one on TV.

Did you look at what I said earlier and the wiki link to observability-controllability? You are observing a measurement and trying to control a dynamic process based on indirect measurements of I nferred measurements of state That is the duality problem of observability and controllability. At the heart of control theory. You are doing math wether you know it or not as surely as you are doing math when you toss a ball in the air and catch it after a parabolic arc whether you understand that or not.

...did I say I want that? I was saying that what Yetti was saying a) was indeed math which you declared it was not. Fact is, yes it is math. Fact. b very reasonable. Your "might as well have it fly itself" could be applied as an argument to keep all sorts of old school tech to counter that new fangled stuff: autopilot, hsi, synthetic vision, electronic engine monitor, AOA, backup AI because after all real pilots fly partial panel and they like it, and on and on. Full disclosure I have all the above except for svt. Anyway, in terms of asking if something is a good idea it probably is for some and available to go old school for others. I have your opinion on this issue for other devices - for example, the auto lean -"autopilot" stc, which I think is too much trouble for an easy to handle work load. But I think it is a nice and very creative idea. And I can see some wanting it.

Sometimes you speak like a grumpy old man - geesh I wonder what you will be like when you actually are an old man! Yes of course a standard AOA on one wing plus a slip-ball are sufficient. OTOH two AOA indicators one on each wing would be sufficient. OF COURSE there is math. :-) We are going around and around here about two classic topics in control theory - controllability and observability. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Control_Systems/Controllability_and_Observability In a nut shell the idea is if you are observing enough independent variables to specify the state of the system so that then a controller can be built with enough actuators to steer the system system to a desired state. This is a VERY well developed engineering/mathematics area because it is the heart of standard control theory used by engineers across multiple disciplines in a myriad of areas. Technologies you use and love daily but you may be unaware of the algorithms built into your favorite devices. Electronics, biomedical devices, car systems (engine, breaks, cooling), and on and on and on. I'm with Yetti. He is in sort of a policy-intelligence officer sort of way calling out that there could be a computer placed in the loop so that the feedback control plant can be built to easy the strain on our poor human brain which currently must serve the role of monitoring the input observed variables to compute control actions on the available actuators (the yoke position, pedal positions, the throttle positions are the actuators that we manipulate by moving our arms and feet). Instead of seeing ball is too far left out of center and then computing in our feeble brains that what we need to do is something with our feet that will then do something with the rudder - it would be reasonable to ask if that computation could be done by a computer - ball is too far left and the computer speaks to us in english and says push your left foot on the left rudder because your in a slip condition. It's a good idea - computers can help improve situational awareness and improve decision making in areas that computers are really good at - and this is an area that is easy-squeezy to imagine someone building.

Yes yes you are right. A helmet and an airbag would be better than an airbag alone. An airbag alone is pretty good better than a standard seatbelt alone. Very few people are flying mooney's when full face helmets on but if they did then yes I agree it would improve crash statistics. This guy seems to be carrying on just fine with no head.