GFC500 Update

[MIm20c]

53 minutes ago, gsengle said:

Put another way, an inoperable approach autopilot would make flight illegal single pilot if it were a commercial operation.

Fine, smooth out things when you have GPS signal. But to disconnect totally when you lose it? I’ll take a little bit of figuring out the winds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I’m not disagreeing that the software should be updated in the future for the gfc500.  They could easily put a warning symbol on the g5 and keep the AP connected. 

I think combining the data is a great idea and will provide unparalleled precision (in small aircraft) during ILS approaches. 

I know one of the top rebuilders of BK equipment will not allow AP usage in their own aircraft (BK 150 AP) under 700 agl. This was after multiple failures that resulted in full pitch deviation malfunctions. 

Im not upgrading to the 230...with a touch screen etc the maintenance will eat you alive. Currently THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS to just bench test a AP head unit.  If you think the BK unit will save you money in the long run you’re crazy. 

[smccray]

1 hour ago, Bob - S50 said:

That may be.  But with the GFC500, when you hit the go around button the autopilot will pitch up and switch to roll and pitch mode.  That should give you a go around attitude and wings level.  No need for the CWS.  Once you have executed the go around (cowl flaps, mixture, prop, throttle, climb, gear, flaps, etc) push the nav or heading button and the IAS or VS button and away you go.

I agree. It’s very easy to fly in VS or IAS mode reducing the need to use control wheel steering. When I press the go around button and open the throttle, the autopilot stays fully coupled. 

1 hour ago, gsengle said:

Again my current 25 year old king does it just fine. Not like the sloppy S-TEC. It’s a reduction in capability and if you fly hard single pilot IFR its an unacceptable one.

 

I agree that it’s less than desirable to loose the ability to fly an ILS without a GPS signal.  Let’s recognize the improvement that’s there- STEC 30 and 50 systems were sold for more than the price of the GFC500. The STEC 55x is available as well, albeit for a higher price tag.

The GFC500 is a dramatic step forward in capability for the price in the retrofit market. It’s not perfect, but it’s an attractive option. 

[gsengle]

I agree that it’s less than desirable to loose the ability to fly an ILS without a GPS signal.  Let’s recognize the improvement that’s there- STEC 30 and 50 systems were sold for more than the price of the GFC500. The STEC 55x is available as well, albeit for a higher price tag.
The GFC500 is a dramatic step forward in capability for the price in the retrofit market. It’s not perfect, but it’s an attractive option. 

Sure, but it could be the thing that would make me select the King over the Garmin if the king doesn’t have that issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[donkaye]

FWIW, in 26 years, I've had 3 issues with the KFC 150, not including replacing some lights in the KC 192 computer. One was a pitch servo in 2001 (repaired), the trim servo in 2003 (repaired), and finally the trim servo in 2014 (exchanged) that I didn't know wasn't operating up to par.  On landing I always manually set the trim back to takeoff trim so as not to work the servo and it seems to have paid off.  Also, since I can fly the airplane smoother than an autopilot when turbulence gets to a certain level, clicking the AP off at that time also saves on overworking the serves.

If the KFC 230 becomes real next year, I would seriously consider it as an economical and less time consuming install option (especially since my plane has been out of commission for 3 months this year).  As the above shows, the KFC 150 had been pretty bullet proof over 26 years, and with everything staying the same except the computer and another interface part, looks to be a promising, reliable alternative to the GFC500.  The 2 year warranty on the servos would be a bonus.

[smccray]

1 hour ago, gsengle said:

 

Sure, but it could be the thing that would make me select the King over the Garmin if the king doesn’t have that issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don’t think anyone would blame you for that decision. There are down sides to both choices. Garmin is limited, although they don’t signal their development plans. Bendix is expensive, but a more robust solution compared to the Garmin.

my biggest concern with BK is what comes next. I believe that’s a real concern, although others may disagree. That’s what makes a market. 

[Niko182]

If you want trim on the GFC500 do you need to use the Garmin trip or can I keep the Electric trim I have from the Stec? I have an STEC30
right now. Really simple and does the trick for my IFR Training, but more capabilities would be nice. How does the  3100 compare to the GFC500?

[LANCECASPER]

No doubt Bendix King abandoned small GA for a number of years. But farther up the food chain their AeroVue in the Honeywell Primus is pretty nice and they are bringing the AeroVue Touch & XVue Touch down to small GA . If they are serious about competing again in small GA the AeroCruze 230 is a smart way to get back in since they have so many King Autopilots that are ripe for upgrades.

 

 

[LANCECASPER]

17 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

If you want trim on the GFC500 do you need to use the Garmin trip or can I keep the Electric trim I have from the Stec? I have an STEC30
right now. Really simple and does the trick for my IFR Training, but more capabilities would be nice. How does the  3100 compare to the GFC500?

The STEC 3100 is comparable to the GFC600 - very nice autopilot and let's you re-use your STEC servos

[MIm20c]

18 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

The STEC 3100 is comparable to the GFC600 - very nice autopilot and let's you re-use your STEC servos

The 3100 requires an external air data computer. It also utilizes an installed Aspen pfd (or equivalent) for all the pitch info (unless one is not available).  This combined with decades old servo technology puts it in the same category of the gfc500 IMO. 

The 3100 will probably be my choice to upgrade my stec 50 w/ Aspen but I don’t feel MSRP alone qualifies a unit as “high end” or not.  I will also say that warranties that are not lifetime are worth $0 to me. The companies providing this extended warranty are first testing the current servos and will charge you for a full rebuild (after your committed to their system) if they do not work as new. I want an AP system that will last 20+ years...a two year warranty is like guaranteeing a new car to the end of the dealers parking lot. 

[gsengle]

FWIW, in 26 years, I've had 3 issues with the KFC 150, not including replacing some lights in the KC 192 computer. One was a pitch servo in 2001 (repaired), the trim servo in 2003 (repaired), and finally the trim servo in 2014 (exchanged) that I didn't know wasn't operating up to par.  On landing I always manually set the trim back to takeoff trim so as not to work the servo and it seems to have paid off.  Also, since I can fly the airplane smoother than an autopilot when turbulence gets to a certain level, clicking the AP off at that time also saves on overworking the serves.
If the KFC 230 becomes real next year, I would seriously consider it as an economical and less time consuming install option (especially since my plane has been out of commission for 3 months this year).  As the above shows, the KFC 150 had been pretty bullet proof over 26 years, and with everything staying the same except the computer and another interface part, looks to be a promising, reliable alternative to the GFC500.  The 2 year warranty on the servos would be a bonus.

I concur, mine has been very reliable. Of the autopilots I fly at work, the king is also my favorite, except for the lack of roll steering. It performs better than the S-TECs and Cessna autopilots. That said the Garmin is excellent too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Niko182]

So if the GFC500 is the path that's taken whats the cost of the GFC500 plus the yaw damper? Do I need to replace the electric trim, or can the one i currently have be used?

[MIm20c]

14 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

So if the GFC500 is the path that's taken whats the cost of the GFC500 plus the yaw damper? Do I need to replace the electric trim, or can the one i currently have be used?

Personally I think with your system the 3100 is a great choice. Especially with relatively new wiring, servos, and connections.  The Garmin with brushless servos etc will have a hard time playing nicely with the current hardware. I posted a price list on another thread but the trim servo etc are 1500-2000 each. 

[gsxrpilot]

If I had an STEC now, I'd be going 3100 in a minute. I sat through the webinar they gave last week and was quite impressed. I'd take it over the GFC500 any day and agree with Lance that it's comparable to and in the same category as the GFC600... that will never be available for our Mooneys.

But since I have a KFC150, I'll likely upgrade to the AeroCruz if it shows up in a timely fashion.

I want Altitude Pre-Select and Vertical Speed select without having to use my steam gauge altimeter.

[Niko182]

Does the 3100 have the same vnav capabilities that the gfc500?

[MICKEY]

1 hour ago, Niko182 said:

Does the 3100 have the same vnav capabilities that the gfc500?

I posed this question a month ago and answer I received was.... not with the dual G5’s.  My understanding is the aspen is doing a similar AP  interface that they have with 55x which will allow vertical guidance and selection via the off 1000.  

[LANCECASPER]

14 minutes ago, MICKEY said:

I posed this question a month ago and answer I received was.... not with the dual G5’s.  My understanding is the aspen is doing a similar AP  interface that they have with 55x which will allow vertical guidance and selection via the off 1000.  

Yes.

[Niko182]

Let me rephrase my question. If i have a g500 Txi or dual G5's, can I have VNAV in cruise flight. Not asking about an approach. 

[Bob - S50]

7 hours ago, gsengle said:

 

Put another way, an inoperable approach autopilot would make flight illegal single pilot if it were a commercial operation.

Fine, smooth out things when you have GPS signal. But to disconnect totally when you lose it? I’ll take a little bit of figuring out the winds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well it's a good thing I'm not flying commercially.

Again, to each their own.  We can all look at the different systems that are available.  They all have their capabilities and limitations.  Those capabilities and limitations have to be weighed against the cost and our personal needs.  For my needs, the Garmin system is the best option.

It doesn't do anybody any good to berate any of the systems for their shortcomings.  Point them out so that we can all make an informed decision, but don't call the system useless just because it has a shortcoming that you consider a deal breaker.  Just don't buy it.  A deal breaker for one of us may not even be a factor for somebody else.

I want electric trim.  Others won't care.  You want a system that will track the ILS if the GPS fails.  I don't care because I set my personal minimums high enough that I feel comfortable hand flying the approach.  Somebody else might want the least expensive system they can get that will ease their load while enroute.

[bradp]

Is this a limitation imposed just for the STC'd version of the GFC 500?

There are bunch of these autopilots flying around in RVs and such.

Wonder if the same GPS-aiding is required for coupled nav approaches in their software versioning?

 

[gsxrpilot]

50 minutes ago, bradp said:

Is this a limitation imposed just for the STC'd version of the GFC 500?

There are bunch of these autopilots flying around in RVs and such.

Wonder if the same GPS-aiding is required for coupled nav approaches in their software versioning?

 

I'd bet that it is.

[Steve W]

1 hour ago, bradp said:

Is this a limitation imposed just for the STC'd version of the GFC 500?

There are bunch of these autopilots flying around in RVs and such.

Wonder if the same GPS-aiding is required for coupled nav approaches in their software versioning?

 

The Pilots Guide for the G3x autopilot says the same: NOTE:  VOR,  LOC,  and GS modes are all GPS-aided.   You must have a GPS position to use  VOR,  LOC,  or GS modes.

[EricJ]

33 minutes ago, Steve W said:

The Pilots Guide for the G3x autopilot says the same: NOTE:  VOR,  LOC,  and GS modes are all GPS-aided.   You must have a GPS position to use  VOR,  LOC,  or GS modes.

That suggests to me that their autopilot isn't very good and needs the additional information.

[81X]

On 12/22/2018 at 4:25 PM, Niko182 said:

So if the GFC500 is the path that's taken whats the cost of the GFC500 plus the yaw damper? Do I need to replace the electric trim, or can the one i currently have be used?

I think that if you have a BK AP and remove it, you will need to add the GFC500 trim option. 

For cost, it all depends on what’s coming out and what you already have (G5, etc.). 

[khedrei]

I felt I should weigh in here and ask if it's just me, or are people complaining about nothing?

First of all, how many people here would regularly go IFR flying in hard IMC without GPS?  I know it's possible, but if you knew GPS was down and had a trip planned, would you still go?  Next part of the question would be, how often do you fly ground based approaches?  This is a legitimate question because most of the airports in Canada that I would fly into are fairly small and do not have ILS or LOC approaches.  That leaves me with RNAV which almost every airport has.  If GPS was down in low IMC I would be on my way to my alternate anyway.

I was a bit taken back when I started reading this thread as I was also surprised that Garmin would allow this lack of capability.  And I will agree that it certainly is a lack of capability.  But the more I thought about it the more I realized that it really wouldn't matter 99.9% of the time.  Possibly 99.9999% of the time.

It seems that there are some that are confused about what happens if you lose GPS.  The auto pilot will still function in HDG and VS mode.  Meaning you use that approach plate and get the heading that it tells you to fly on final.  Use that little chart on the side of the approach plate that tells you what VS to descend at based on your GS.  Then, just fly to the IF and intercept the LOC and Glidslope and plug those numbers into the A/P.  Watch the needles and adjust a couple degrees right or left as needed for wind and 100ft/m up or down accordingly to stay on the glideslope.  Am I missing something here?  Or are there lots of people who can't do that?  That's a legitimate question by the way.

The way I see it, I wouldn't be flying in IMC without having done at least a few approaches completely by hand in the last couple months, nevermind with an A/P in manual mode.  In my opinion, if you can't HAND FLY an ILS down to absolute minimums and execute a safe landing you should never be leaving and planning to arrive when the ceiling at your destination is forecast that low.  Remember, forgetting about GPS, your auto pilot can fail at any time and you would be stuck hand flying it, so you better know how.  In fact, (I'm just speculating from common sense here) I would venture to guess that the likelihood of your A/P malfunctioning AT SOME POINT during your flight is more likely than you losing GPS signal WHILE you are on an ILS approach.  In response to one of the posts above regarding figuring out the winds if GPS failed during the approach; you would have to do that anyway if your A/P failed.  That's what an overshoot is for and that's why you flight planned enough fuel for it.  And yes, good thing we are not flying commercially.  I doubt there are many Mooney pilots flying their Mooney for hire, and if they are, they have other auto pilot options.  Or, they could use this one and just not be able to depart if GPS is down that day.

While I agree it's a bit disappointing that we won't be getting THE WHOLE PACKAGE with capability to revert back to a more primitive system if the new state of the art one fails.  BUT, I would offer a bet that out of all the people who install one of these systems, if I came back in 10 years to ask how many people were affected negatively by this I wouldn't even need to take off my mittens to count them.  It's almost like we are more concerned that this A/P doesn't have absolutely all capabilities than we are with the likelihood that we may have to struggle to shoot an approach in manual mode because of a GPS outage.  It's like an EGO thing rather than an actual problem.

There are comedians that talk about this sort of thing...  "In America they don't have real problems so they make ones up".  First world problems I say.

Just my two cents.  Not trying to step on anyone.

Edited January 18, 2019 by khedrei
spelling

[Bob - S50]

Agree.  I am not the least bit concerned about the limitation.