aviatoreb Posted November 20, 2018 Report Posted November 20, 2018 1 hour ago, hypertech said: From what I understand, any solution for the FIKI long bodies would be maybe next summer. I don't know if they are considering a solution whereby the G5 limitation on FIKI is removed with or without some other concession like retaining other instruments, the G500 can directly provide the attitude information to the GFC500, or if they are considering expanding the STC to include the GFC600. I've been bothering them quite a bit about finding a solution for us as many long bodies and other manufacturers FIKI planes have basically been boxed out of the new autopilots. There's got to be a pretty good size market they are missing out on because of that FIKI limitation. The important thing for this kind of investment they are making into an STC for expensive avionics, is that yes while the FIKI airplanes may be a fraction of the airframes out there, they represent however probably a large fraction of those owners who are willing to spend on the $ on expensive upgrades by nature that they are the same people who spent extra for FIKI airframes in the first place. 2 Quote
aviatoreb Posted November 20, 2018 Report Posted November 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Diesel 10 said: A shop I am talking to about a quote got the following update from Garmin yesterday "Mooney M20M/R/S (Long body) may be complete before the EOY, but M20F/G/J/K (medium body) is scheduled for completion in Q1" I am VERY interested to hear what is the quote you get. Quote
NJMac Posted November 20, 2018 Report Posted November 20, 2018 Was there any mention of Short bodies? C/D/E? I would really rather have the GFC500 than the trutrac but they are making the decision easy Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk 1 Quote
khedrei Posted November 21, 2018 Report Posted November 21, 2018 22 hours ago, Diesel 10 said: A shop I am talking to about a quote got the following update from Garmin yesterday "Mooney M20M/R/S (Long body) may be complete before the EOY, but M20F/G/J/K (medium body) is scheduled for completion in Q1" This is awfully disappointing news. I have my upgrade scheduled for March. G5s, audio, xponder and GPS. Was hoping to be able to do the a/p at the same time. Boy... these first world problems... Quote
jonhop Posted November 21, 2018 Report Posted November 21, 2018 21 hours ago, aviatoreb said: 22 hours ago, Diesel 10 said: A shop I am talking to about a quote got the following update from Garmin yesterday "Mooney M20M/R/S (Long body) may be complete before the EOY, but M20F/G/J/K (medium body) is scheduled for completion in Q1" I am VERY interested to hear what is the quote you get. +1 @Diesel 10 Quote
Bob - S50 Posted November 21, 2018 Report Posted November 21, 2018 47 minutes ago, khedrei said: This is awfully disappointing news. I have my upgrade scheduled for March. G5s, audio, xponder and GPS. Was hoping to be able to do the a/p at the same time. Boy... these first world problems... Me too. Have the dual G5's scheduled for mid February and wanted the GFC500 at the same time. Quote
LANCECASPER Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 Did everyone know that the GFC 500 needs a GPS signal or it cannot fly a coupled NAV approach? They don't bother to mention that on the Garmin sales website. Quote
gsxrpilot Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 10 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said: Did everyone know that the GFC 500 needs a GPS signal or it cannot fly a coupled NAV approach? They don't bother to mention that on the Garmin sales website. WOW! I wonder how many other autopilots are the same way? While I've never been interested in the GFC500, this seems like a deal breaker. Quote
kpaul Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said: WOW! I wonder how many other autopilots are the same way? While I've never been interested in the GFC500, this seems like a deal breaker. When was the last time you flew without a GPS signal? So worst case, you have to hand fly the approach... Quote
gsengle Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 When was the last time you flew without a GPS signal? So worst case, you have to hand fly the approach... It’s a deal breaker for meSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1 Quote
Steve W Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said: WOW! I wonder how many other autopilots are the same way? While I've never been interested in the GFC500, this seems like a deal breaker. Well, the TruTrak can't currently fly a coupled approach legally... So I'm not sure there's much of a problem. Edited December 21, 2018 by Steve W Quote
gsengle Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 Well, the TruTrak can't currently fly a coupled approach legally... So I'm not sure there's much of a problem. That’s another reason to wait. I suspect one day my fiki long body will either get a g5/gfc500, or a ki300/kfc230.Luckily the ki256/kfc150 are working well at the moment.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote
LANCECASPER Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 I almost offered my M20M for the testing - definitely glad I didn't. They even sent me all of the paperwork to look over. If I had and I just found out now that they hadn't told me about this, I would insist that they re-install the King KFC150 and reimburse for the hours flown. Why do they do this on the GFC500, but not the GFC600 or GFC700? 1 Quote
gsxrpilot Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 22 minutes ago, kpaul said: When was the last time you flew without a GPS signal? So worst case, you have to hand fly the approach... Granted, not very often. But this last summer I flew IFR from Charleston to Savannah without GPS. The outage was only over Charleston and so I was able to pick up the signal in flight before getting to Savannah. The tower asked if we were having GPS issues before we took off. I said we were and they said they'd had reports of GPS being out in the area. I took off using radio navigation until we picked up GPS later in the flight. But it was nice that my KFC150 didn't seem to care what Nav signal I asked it to follow, it just worked. I realize that the KFC-150 is getting long in the tooth and will be expensive to repair when it starts failing. But I'm not the least bit interested in downgrading to an autopilot with LESS capability or functionality than I have now. And as far as I can tell, the GFC500 will be a step down from my KFC150. 2 Quote
Steve W Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 15 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said: I almost offered my M20M for the testing - definitely glad I didn't. They even sent me all of the paperwork to look over. If I had and I just found out now that they hadn't told me about this, I would insist that they re-install the King KFC150 and reimburse for the hours flown. Why do they do this on the GFC500, but not the GFC600 or GFC700? All of the new low cost autopilots are coming up from the experimental side and they all have various limitations from that heritage, lack of heading mode, lack of approach capabilities, requirements for GPS data, lack of legacy connections or navigation(depending on the models), You want to upgrade from a KFC150 autopilot and don't want any of those kind of limitations, you're starting with the GFC600/KFC 230/STEC 3100 and the resulting price tags. For many of us the limitations of the GFC500 or some of the others beats trying to keep a legacy King or other autopilot working or paying the expected prices for the King or other 'high end' models. Quote
LANCECASPER Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 7 minutes ago, Steve W said: All of the new low cost autopilots are coming up from the experimental side and they all have various limitations from that heritage, lack of heading mode, lack of approach capabilities, requirements for GPS data, lack of legacy connections or navigation(depending on the models), I agree when it comes to Trio or Trutrak, but that's not the way Garmin is marketing the GFC500. I asked Garmin what the GFC600 would do that the GFC500 wouldn't and they never mentioned this limitation, only that the GFC600 was much more expensive but didn't need a G5. They can sell any product they like, but how about disclosing in their marketing materials that it needs GPS to fly a NAV approach? 1 1 Quote
gsxrpilot Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 13 minutes ago, Steve W said: You want to upgrade from a KFC150 autopilot and don't want any of those kind of limitations, you're starting with the GFC600/KFC 230/STEC 3100 and the resulting price tags. And of those, the only one that isn't on the list for any of our Mooneys is the GFC600. Quote
ArtVandelay Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 Well the G5s drive the GFC500, and they require GPS also, they will operate without GPS, but accuracy will be reduced, so since approaches require accuracy, I guess I can understand this. GFC600 doesn’t require G5, so it has it’s own smarts. 1 Quote
LANCECASPER Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 I venture to say that most of the people that are having these installed in Cessnas and Beechcraft and Pipers don't realize this limitation until the installation is complete and they read their AMFS, if they ever do that. If any person ever crashes a GFC500 airplane in a GPS outage Garmin will be sued for millions whether it's their fault or not. Quote
toto Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 20 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said: I venture to say that most of the people that are having these installed in Cessnas and Beechcraft don't realize this limitation until the installation is complete and they read their AMFS, if they ever do that. If any person ever crashes a GFC500 airplane in a GPS outage Garmin will be sued for millions whether it's their fault or not. FWIW, I have a Piper in the shop right now getting a GFC500 installed, and I didn't know about this limitation. I've read the flight manual supplement, but the above section didn't jump out at me. Given that there are increasingly few approaches using ground-based nav sources, and increasingly many approaches using satellite-based sources, it doesn't seem like a deal-killer, but they certainly could make the limitation more obvious. 1 Quote
carusoam Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 Wait a minute... Weren’t we just discussing a while back that the G5s need a GPS connected for improved accuracy? Sounds like Big G is having difficulty stating clearly, that it makes sense to integrate, GPS, display, magnetometer, servos, Pitot/Static, and an AP all together... The prior discussions circled around what happens to the HSI and attitude indicators, if they lose the GPS connection... They probably revert back to the old style AIs with accel/decel errors... a C150 doesn’t have acceleration error like a 310hp Mooney does... and even then it only lasts for a few dozen seconds mostly while level on the ground, in VMC.... BK has been doing this type of integration since the early 90s... with their digital evolution... The sales brochure is clear about what is connected to what. They visually make it obvious why everything is connected. Recently it came to light (around MS) that the BK APs are also connected to the static line... making setting a climb rate or descent rate a push button affair...I had no idea that’s what allowed it to work... I assumed it was connected by a wire to the altimeter... Some of these wicked smart boxes have sensors, some have intelligence, and others are just pretty smart displays... Being an educated consumer of this stuff isn’t very easy... Remembering how all this stuff is connected a decade later doesn’t get any easier... Big G has some pretty intelligent people working there... They just don’t want to hang out here at MS to explain what they have. Ask Trek, he is probably over at BT explaining this to somebody for some reason... Best regards, -a- 1 Quote
gsengle Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 FWIW, I have a Piper in the shop right now getting a GFC500 installed, and I didn't know about this limitation. I've read the flight manual supplement, but the above section didn't jump out at me. Given that there are increasingly few approaches using ground-based nav sources, and increasingly many approaches using satellite-based sources, it doesn't seem like a deal-killer, but they certainly could make the limitation more obvious. It means now every ILS requires GPS, think about that...Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1 Quote
toto Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 1 hour ago, gsengle said: It means now every ILS requires GPS, think about that... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Well, it means that flying a coupled ILS approach requires GPS. Admittedly, this is reduced AP functionality, but you can still fly the approach. (I'm actually now really curious how one might simulate loss of GPS signal during a practice approach without compromising the equipment.) Quote
Bob - S50 Posted December 21, 2018 Report Posted December 21, 2018 And not only will I be able to fly an ILS by hand using the GTN/G5 combination, I can still fly the ILS using my trusty old KNS80. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.