GFC500 Update

[MIm20c]

I think it’s pretty amazing how much testing Garmin is doing for the AP integration. They already have 1000’s of hours racked up on the 700 system, some of which have been in the Ovation and Acclaim.  I’m sure that Garmin's Ovation and J have already had extensive testing done. 

I’m also curious if the software is slightly tweaked between models. 

[McMooney]

are they covering maintenance and giving you a massive discount on the AP?  

[bradp]

Anyone have a sense of how the servos (particularly those in the tail) will be mounted and interfaced with the jack-screw style pitch tube and with the push pulls?  Definitely a deviation from the Cessna and Beech methodology that I've seen pictures of so far. 

[INA201]

I looked on Flight Aware and did not see any other Mooneys that appear to be testing the last few days.  Hopefully other models will get into the line up soon as well.

[INA201]

On 11/7/2018 at 12:51 PM, bradp said:

Anyone have a sense of how the servos (particularly those in the tail) will be mounted and interfaced with the jack-screw style pitch tube and with the push pulls?  Definitely a deviation from the Cessna and Beech methodology that I've seen pictures of so far. 

Wouldn't it mount where the electric trim motor is?  IDK

[wcb]

So, I asked Garmin why not the G and the F when they are the basic same air frame as the J (Fully understand the A-E as short bodies).  Here was the response (Weak in my opinion, but nice to get a response). 1st is my email to them and then the response.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

I know you do not answer most of the emails on this email account.
But, could you explain why the M20F and G which are the same bodies as
the J are excluded from this current STC.  I get why the A-E are
excluded as they are "short bodies".  I would like to be able to post
in the Mooneyspace page as their is a lot of chatter around the
release of yours as well as Trutrack and Trio's autopilots.

Thanks,
Carr

________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Hi Carr!

The issue with certifying multiple airframes under one STC, is the engineering effort to cover more models is not trivial. It may seem like they are the same, but in reality Garmin has much more engineering work to perform to certify each additional airframe we cover. We not only have to prove the mechanical installation (servos, cables, etc.) is compatible with each airframe, but also that each airframe we approve the GFC to be installed into flies that aircraft equally as well as the one we flight test. This leads to having to divide up some models. In this particular case, there could be a significant difference in airframe operating dynamics due to different models. Hope this all makes sense and we appreciate your continued interest and patience.

Kyle Lennemann | Aviation Associate Sales Manager

 

[ArtVandelay]

How many Gs were manufactured?
Fs?
Js?

Pretty sure they have done the math and selected airframes based on projected sales.

[LANCECASPER]

54 minutes ago, wcb said:

So, I asked Garmin why not the G and the F when they are the basic same air frame as the J (Fully understand the A-E as short bodies).  Here was the response (Weak in my opinion, but nice to get a response). 1st is my email to them and then the response.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

I know you do not answer most of the emails on this email account.
But, could you explain why the M20F and G which are the same bodies as
the J are excluded from this current STC.  I get why the A-E are
excluded as they are "short bodies".  I would like to be able to post
in the Mooneyspace page as their is a lot of chatter around the
release of yours as well as Trutrack and Trio's autopilots.

Thanks,
Carr

________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Hi Carr!

The issue with certifying multiple airframes under one STC, is the engineering effort to cover more models is not trivial. It may seem like they are the same, but in reality Garmin has much more engineering work to perform to certify each additional airframe we cover. We not only have to prove the mechanical installation (servos, cables, etc.) is compatible with each airframe, but also that each airframe we approve the GFC to be installed into flies that aircraft equally as well as the one we flight test. This leads to having to divide up some models. In this particular case, there could be a significant difference in airframe operating dynamics due to different models. Hope this all makes sense and we appreciate your continued interest and patience.

Kyle Lennemann | Aviation Associate Sales Manager

 

To me their response makes sense - the F models go all the way back to 1966, eleven years before the J.  I imagine there are some structural changes and where the servos would mount would be different. If other autopilot makers are getting blanket approvals across model lines I would be surprised. Maybe if their design is a lot simpler than the GFC500 they could.

[bob865]

On 11/2/2018 at 1:15 PM, aviatoreb said:

I think Lean of Peak is a myth.  No one could possibly run an engine lean of peak.  Its impossible.

And a touch and go will kill you in an instant!

[carusoam]

wcb gets the MSer of the day award, for contacting a vendor, making a clear point, and getting a logical response...

Getting the STC for the F, G, and J is more work than not getting the STC... true.

Making an STC for all three planes is still required... true.

Making an STC for all three is similar to, but not exactly, making xerox copies... the engineers have to go through the first plane’s documents and explain why this document still applies to the next airframe... so the F, G, and J are very similar in construction, and flight characteristics, and where they vary are... x, y, and z....

Additional flight tests will be required for the differences of x, y, and z...

MS has people that write STCs... I have similar experience for writing STC like docs for validation of equipment in the FDA environment...

If you are confident in your skills, write them a follow-up with your understanding...you want their equipment, now is the time to get them to look closer at the F and G to see if it makes even more sense to include it now while they are going through the effort...

Continue to be friendly... 

Best regards,

-a-

[Marauder]

wcb gets the MSer of the day award, for contacting a vendor, making a clear point, and getting a logical response...
Getting the STC for the F, G, and J is more work than not getting the STC... true.
Making an STC for all three planes is still required... true.
Making an STC for all three is similar to, but not exactly, making xerox copies... the engineers have to go through the first plane’s documents and explain why this document still applies to the next airframe... so the F, G, and J are very similar in construction, and flight characteristics, and where they vary are... x, y, and z....
Additional flight tests will be required for the differences of x, y, and z...
MS has people that write STCs... I have similar experience for writing STC like docs for validation of equipment in the FDA environment...
If you are confident in your skills, write them a follow-up with your understanding...you want their equipment, now is the time to get them to look closer at the F and G to see if it makes even more sense to include it now while they are going through the effort...
Continue to be friendly... 
Best regards,
-a-

The STC process aside, I’m sure those market development people at Garmin are looking at the installed based numbers and the retrofit data to see where the sweet spot is. I wonder how many Js are still flying with their factory equipped King or Century autopilots. And I suspect many of the pre-J models have already been upgraded to some retrofit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[wcb]

5 hours ago, carusoam said:

Getting the STC for the F, G, and J is more work than not getting the STC... true.

Making an STC for all three planes is still required... true.

I am obviously in the market for a new AP.  (going on 3 or 4 years now with no AP)

These three are sooooo similar I am simply trying to highlight how close they are and light a fire under them (maybe they will get on the F and G quicker now). 

In fairness as I said I am glad to have had even a response.  If you may remember I have posted communication between Trutrak and Trio as well.  I even pointed out to Trutrak and Trio the demographic market is bigger for Mooney than the Grumman and some of the other aircraft models.  (On a side note it does not take rocket since to look at some of these demographics and yet sometimes Mooney Models get put behind other models).  Also, as a collective group the more we ask for things the sooner we will get them and I have nothing but very good things to say about working with and contacting all of these vendors (Garmin, Trutrak, Trio, Avidyne or JPI) 

[Jim Peace]

On 9/26/2018 at 9:34 AM, MIm20c said:

Anyone know if the GFC700 has a yaw dampener on new aircraft? 

What is a yaw dampener?

[MIm20c]

1 hour ago, Jim Peace said:

What is a yaw dampener?

Slow day at the office? Not worth my time to go back and change it to damper. However, dampener can mean restrain / subdue the yaw movement so hopefully we can all follow along...

[Jim Peace]

1 minute ago, MIm20c said:

Slow day at the office? 

you have no idea,,,,,

[Aerodon]

I'm finishing off a dual G5 and GFC500 installation in a C172.  For all the guys bitching above, all I can is that I am truly impressed with the overall package, one that can't be compared with the other autopilots.  The quality of the installation kit and servos is extremely high.  The GFC500 controller is nice and big, has well lit buttons and annunciators.  Has the passenger 'fail safe' level button. The setup documentation is detailed, right down to the torque and gain settings for the make and model, and it works properly out the box.   I can see why testing takes time.

Then the integration into the G5's is superb.  Change the HDG bug on the controller, and all the bugs follow along.  The annunciation is displayed right in front of you on the PFD.

It integrates perfectly to my old GNS480.  I have yet to test the VNAV, but fully anticipate the AP flying LNAV or GS approaches.  You get so many more features than the other aftermarket AP's, for essentially the same price.  And if you want. a way of adding electric trim (to the C172).

Once you have flown behind a decent autopilot, there's no turning back.  It makes single pilot flying a lot easier.  There are always times when you need to reach for charts, handbooks, P bottle, sub etc.  

Most importantly, much as we complain about Garmin 'product life cycles', I can see this range of AP's becoming the gold standard and being supported for many many years.  I'm done with  companies like Navworx, Apollo, BendixKing, Sandia and more.  And I don't want to deal with an AP manufactured by one company and the STC provided by another-whose grumpy non-comunicative president told me he doesn't need my business, and told me where I could go.  I was quite willing to be an early adopter of their technology, so glad I didn't.

I know the Garmin setup looks expensive, but you are getting much more.  Just take a look at a price list from the 1980's or 90's, and see what the option prices were back then for an AP, FD, HSI.  It was well over $30k back then, and now those airplanes are faced with $3-5k servo overhauls, FD overhauls, gyro overhauls etc.  Not only do you get all of these features, but a modern display with airspeed and altitude ribbons, vertical speed control, etc.

I know its a lot of money, but just look at the resale value.  I'm pretty sure that if you did the upgrade now, you would get close to 100% back on resale value.  

Aerodon

 

 

[carusoam]

Nice tech pirep, Aerodon!

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

23 minutes ago, Aerodon said:

I'm finishing off a dual G5 and GFC500 installation in a C172.  For all the guys bitching above, all I can is that I am truly impressed with the overall package, one that can't be compared with the other autopilots.  The quality of the installation kit and servos is extremely high.  The GFC500 controller is nice and big, has well lit buttons and annunciators.  Has the passenger 'fail safe' level button. The setup documentation is detailed, right down to the torque and gain settings for the make and model, and it works properly out the box.   I can see why testing takes time.

Then the integration into the G5's is superb.  Change the HDG bug on the controller, and all the bugs follow along.  The annunciation is displayed right in front of you on the PFD.

It integrates perfectly to my old GNS480.  I have yet to test the VNAV, but fully anticipate the AP flying LNAV or GS approaches.  You get so many more features than the other aftermarket AP's, for essentially the same price.  And if you want. a way of adding electric trim (to the C172).

Once you have flown behind a decent autopilot, there's no turning back.  It makes single pilot flying a lot easier.  There are always times when you need to reach for charts, handbooks, P bottle, sub etc.  

Most importantly, much as we complain about Garmin 'product life cycles', I can see this range of AP's becoming the gold standard and being supported for many many years.  I'm done with  companies like Navworx, Apollo, BendixKing, Sandia and more.  And I don't want to deal with an AP manufactured by one company and the STC provided by another-whose grumpy non-comunicative president told me he doesn't need my business, and told me where I could go.  I was quite willing to be an early adopter of their technology, so glad I didn't.

I know the Garmin setup looks expensive, but you are getting much more.  Just take a look at a price list from the 1980's or 90's, and see what the option prices were back then for an AP, FD, HSI.  It was well over $30k back then, and now those airplanes are faced with $3-5k servo overhauls, FD overhauls, gyro overhauls etc.  Not only do you get all of these features, but a modern display with airspeed and altitude ribbons, vertical speed control, etc.

I know its a lot of money, but just look at the resale value.  I'm pretty sure that if you did the upgrade now, you would get close to 100% back on resale value.  

Aerodon

 

 

Thanks for that report aerodon.

can you say anything about what the install complete cost was?  Assuming there is already a gps.

also how much time the install took?

[Aerodon]

Erik,

One guy on another website said there was no way this could be more than 20 hours labour.  Here's my reply:

 

What industry are you in? I would say a shop's first install for the above will be 100 hours, and maybe 50 by the third. It will also vary a lot depending on the current installation, remanufacturing the panel, moving radios around etc. The major tasks are as follows:

1) remove old hardware and vacuum system
2) manufacture new wiring harness
3) install two G5's, maybe with new panel
4) Install GAD29B
5) install roll servo
6) install pitch servo
7) install trim (optional)
8) remove the majority of interior and fish wiring harness through wing and fuselage floor
9) install magnetometer
10) install TOGA and A/P disconnect switches
11) install sonalert in headliner, or interface to audio panel
12) install GAD29B and interface to nav/com/gps
13) Install GMC507 controller
14) setup software, calibrate magnetometer, run vibration tests
15) reinstall interior
16) paperwork.
 

A minimum 1 x G5 install will cost about $9k hardware.  A 3 servo (trim) system with 2xG5's is about $14k.  I would say a minimum install will be about 50 hours, and more realistically 100 hours.  

There are a lot of variables, it took about 2 hours to get the last vacuum pump stud out.  Just because I wanted to retrieve the drive and housing, and use a cover plate without spacers on the studs.  OCD at its best.  Another one is what you do with the panel - hack the old one, or make a new one.  An owner can help a lot by opening all the panels up and removing old parts.

My next one will have electric trim - I assumed we would have to change the trim cable, but they will supply an extension.  The servo should be say to install, but then you have to factor in the curly cord and trim switch.

It is a fun project and very rewarding to see the results.

 

Don

 

 

[81X]

I can ask how much time it took to install the setup- but I'm willing it's significantly over 100 hours.  From the few pictures I was sent it looked intense- we're talking removal of the interior, old equipment, wiring, tidying stuff up, installing 4 servos, a G5, a controller and making sure nothing else broke in the process.  

For timing, what I do know is that there is a small delay due to a redesign of the roll servo integration, and it looks like I'll have the airplane back just around the turn of the year so you can expect my pirep shortly thereafter.  The people at Garmin  really cares and aren't willing to do the bare minimum to get this STC rammed though- they are making sure it's right and it's going to be an awesome setup for the Mooneys.  

It seems like the testing they are doing on @Jetlag's airplane has been a lot more, um, intense than my K!  

 

Edited November 20, 2018 by 81X

[81X]

On 11/2/2018 at 1:49 PM, MIm20c said:

I’m curious how many hours Garmin is flying each aircraft for certification purposes?  For anyone that sent off their plane to Garmin did they give you an estimated number of hours?

Mine is scheduled for up to 25 hours of testing, not including transport time.  

[aviatoreb]

3 minutes ago, 81X said:

Mine is scheduled for up to 25 hours of testing, not including transport time.  

What do you get in return?  Do you get to keep the autopilot?

[Diesel 10]

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"

[hypertech]

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.

[gsxrpilot]

45 minutes 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"

Was there any mention of Short bodies? C/D/E?