G3X Touch Certified

[flyingcheesehead]

2 hours ago, khedrei said:

So I have a question in response to the benefits of the TXi vs the G3X. I am having trouble with my decision on where I might want to go with my upgrade this fall and since I have no experience with either, and you seem to know what you are talking about. You listed the features/benefits that the TXI has over the G3X. Are there any features that the G3X has that the TXI doesnt. Or things that it does better? It will drive the auto pilot for one. Anything else that would be a one up on the TXI besides the lower price? 

The main things are the price, and the fact that losing the G5 will not cause the GFC500 to go dead.

The G3X can directly control the GFC500, while the TXi cannot - The TXi requires the G5 to control the autopilot.

Other than that, the stuff I listed above is what you get for the price difference, along with one more thing I discovered: The TXi can stream engine data to an iPad running Garmin Pilot in real time, while the G3X cannot. (The G3X does log it and can send it at the end of the flight, though.) 

Personally, I think I'm going with the G3X. I had been planning on a TXi + G5 + GFC 500 and an Air Gizmos dock for an iPad Mini to the right of the radio stack (at the top of my 2nd radio stack, above my #2 nav/com and transponder, and to the left of the circuit breaker panel). I was going to use the iPad as an EIS display with the streaming data capability of the TXi when it was just me aboard or non-pilots, and if I had another pilot aboard, do a split-screen in Garmin Pilot with PFD/MFD style display on the iPad. I still don't know what I'm going to do on the right-hand side of the panel, but for the price difference, I'll just leave it blank if I can't figure out something better to do. 

[Bryan]

19 hours ago, Marauder said:

Sounds like reality is starting to happen. Maybe those Don Kaye quotes are legit. Probably will lead to an increase of this when owners start seeing the quotes.

With a TXi on-order, I decided to pass on the G3X because it could not hook up to any legacy autopilot and since mine is working great, I am not planning on replacing it until I have to.  My quote was very similar to Don Kaye's in a shop half way across the country.  It was not worth the $14,000 in extra labor to save $5000 on the display.

[johncuyle]

3 hours ago, khedrei said:

So I have a question in response to the benefits of the TXi vs the G3X. I am having trouble with my decision on where I might want to go with my upgrade this fall and since I have no experience with either, and you seem to know what you are talking about. You listed the features/benefits that the TXI has over the G3X. Are there any features that the G3X has that the TXI doesnt. Or things that it does better? It will drive the auto pilot for one. Anything else that would be a one up on the TXI besides the lower price? 

I see you have a K model.  flyingcheesehead's reply reminded me that, looking at the EIS on the G3X I was glad I went ahead with my CGR install.  The EIS display on the G3X doesn't appear to give me all the information I need to properly set engine power at a glance (since I have a 231 I need MP, EGT, TIT, FF, and CDT - IAT).  If you don't have a decent engine monitor and are planning to go with Garmin's whether you go G3X or TXi, it's worth taking a hard look at the difference in presentation to see if that's a factor for you.  For me, my next planned upgrade was to replace my KFC 200 with a GFC 500.  A TXi seemed like a luxury item that I couldn't justify the price of.  The G3X seems like a luxury, too, but since it'll drive the AP directly and it lets me feed a second nav in, plus provides a VFR GPS for redundancy, it gives me more features that I actually want than the TXi does for less money.

[donkaye]

On 3/28/2019 at 12:27 PM, Niko182 said:

The gfc500 is consoderably less than 30k. Ive checked beechtalk, and people had a 4 servo setup with 2 g5's installed for 23k. Ive gotten qouted 40 hours for a 3 servo setup and 50 for a 4 servo setup. Just because one person made a post of getting expensive qoutes on here doesnt mean those qoutes are accurate to what normal shops would charge.

Parts at just a slight markup are over 15K.  Even the cheapest bid had over 100 hours install time.  At 100/hour that's 10K.  So 25K minimum.  Out of California maybe 80/hour, but then travel costs brings it back up.  I don't think you are going to get a 4 servo installation done for under 25K---even if you are lucky.

[Lee Moore]

I pull all the prices from Sarasota. Over the years I’ve found the prices to line up well with competitive bids in the area. However, the 175 and 375 are available over the counter I believe. 

175 will sell over-the-counter; 375 is dealer-installed only.

[khedrei]

22 hours ago, johncuyle said:

I see you have a K model.  flyingcheesehead's reply reminded me that, looking at the EIS on the G3X I was glad I went ahead with my CGR install.  The EIS display on the G3X doesn't appear to give me all the information I need to properly set engine power at a glance (since I have a 231 I need MP, EGT, TIT, FF, and CDT - IAT).  If you don't have a decent engine monitor and are planning to go with Garmin's whether you go G3X or TXi, it's worth taking a hard look at the difference in presentation to see if that's a factor for you.  For me, my next planned upgrade was to replace my KFC 200 with a GFC 500.  A TXi seemed like a luxury item that I couldn't justify the price of.  The G3X seems like a luxury, too, but since it'll drive the AP directly and it lets me feed a second nav in, plus provides a VFR GPS for redundancy, it gives me more features that I actually want than the TXi does for less money.

Thanks for the response John and thanks flyingcheesehead. You have given lots of info. 

I was told by my avionics guy that the TXI has a couple options when it comes to engine instrument display. For example, if I do the 10 inch, during the cruise phase I can have the full screen mode which will delay basic stuff in a very small bar on the right. Giving me what i need but no major detail. Then there was a full EIS bar which takes about 1/3 of the screen. I dont know what it will be capable of displaying for a 231 but I assume it would give all the important stuff you mentioned like TIT, EGT, FF, CDT, etc. I suppose I will have to do more research. I was planning to do one 10 inch TXI on the pilot side to do PFD and EIS, use my GTN 750 for an MFD and traffic and mount an android or IPAD on the right side in a dock which could also give me EIS or MFD.  Or would it? I think with the FS 510 I can do all that. Another problem with the G3X is that the Flightstream wont work to update it wirelessly but the TXI will.  I'm doing a 750 , a 650 and and spending 2k on FS510 so it would make sense to take advantage of it. Plus if I went with the G3X I had the idea of doing the 10 and 7 inch package and mounting the 7 inch on the right side instead of the IPAD. Which would put me closer to the same price point. He offered me quite the discount on the TXI. but I'd be paying full pop for the G3X.

Does anyone know if an EIS screen can be put on the right side of the radio stack?

Edited March 30, 2019 by khedrei

[flyingcheesehead]

1 hour ago, khedrei said:

I was told by my avionics guy that the TXI has a couple options when it comes to engine instrument display. For example, if I do the 10 inch, during the cruise phase I can have the full screen mode which will delay basic stuff in a very small bar on the right. Giving me what i need but no major detail. Then there was a full EIS bar which takes about 1/3 of the screen. I dont know what it will be capable of displaying for a 231 but I assume it would give all the important stuff you mentioned like TIT, EGT, FF, CDT, etc. I suppose I will have to do more research. I was planning to do one 10 inch TXI on the pilot side to do PFD and EIS, use my GTN 750 for an MFD and traffic and mount an android or IPAD on the right side in a dock which could also give me EIS or MFD.  Or would it? I think with the FS 510 I can do all that. Another problem with the G3X is that the Flightstream wont work to update it wirelessly but the TXI will.  I'm doing a 750 , a 650 and and spending 2k on FS510 so it would make sense to take advantage of it. Plus if I went with the G3X I had the idea of doing the 10 and 7 inch package and mounting the 7 inch on the right side instead of the IPAD. Which would put me closer to the same price point. He offered me quite the discount on the TXI. but I'd be paying full pop for the G3X.

Does anyone know if an EIS screen can be put on the right side of the radio stack?

With the 10", either G3X or TXi, the display can be switched easily between PFD and PFD/MFD, and the MFD has an engine page that shows you everything, not just the "important stuff" that always lives in the EIS strip. The GTN 750 will not display engine information, so I wouldn't plan on using it as an MFD. However, the 10" lets you be all-PFD when you need it, and combined PFD-MFD when you need that. This video shows the G3X Touch switching between full-screen PFD and PFD/MFD combo several times, and you can see the "Full"/"Split" button in the upper right:

As far as putting a 7" screen on the right, you'll pretty much need to do the TXi for that. (This was one of my disappointments with the G3X Touch.) With the G3X Touch, your 10" screen will be PFD-only, with no split functionality like you see above, and the 7" display will be MFD-only.

With the G3X, you could put the 7" display to the right of the radio stack and just leave it on the Engine page. You would at least have the ability to switch it around. With the TXi you can do a dedicated EIS display, but it's EIS-only, not MFD... You might want to check and see if the MFD has an engine page in that sort of installation. It may - In which case the dedicated EIS screen probably just allows you to eliminate the EIS strip on the PFD.

There are many certified configurations of the TXi - With the G3X Touch, there are four:

1. Single 7" PFD+MFD (no EIS)
2. Single 10" PFD+MFD (EIS optional)
3. Dual 7" PFD and MFD (EIS optional)
4. 10+ PFD and 7" MFD (EIS optional)

I'm definitely going to be spending some time playing with this stuff at Oshkosh, and talking to my avionics shop. Probably not going to install until 2020 or 2021, after we're over the ADS-B bubble and I recover from the last panel upgrade!

 

[johncuyle]

5 hours ago, flyingcheesehead said:

With the 10", either G3X or TXi, the display can be switched easily between PFD and PFD/MFD, and the MFD has an engine page that shows you everything, not just the "important stuff" that always lives in the EIS strip. The GTN 750 will not display engine information, so I wouldn't plan on using it as an MFD. However, the 10" lets you be all-PFD when you need it, and combined PFD-MFD when you need that. This video shows the G3X Touch switching between full-screen PFD and PFD/MFD combo several times, and you can see the "Full"/"Split" button in the upper right:

As far as putting a 7" screen on the right, you'll pretty much need to do the TXi for that. (This was one of my disappointments with the G3X Touch.) With the G3X Touch, your 10" screen will be PFD-only, with no split functionality like you see above, and the 7" display will be MFD-only.

With the G3X, you could put the 7" display to the right of the radio stack and just leave it on the Engine page. You would at least have the ability to switch it around. With the TXi you can do a dedicated EIS display, but it's EIS-only, not MFD... You might want to check and see if the MFD has an engine page in that sort of installation. It may - In which case the dedicated EIS screen probably just allows you to eliminate the EIS strip on the PFD.

There are many certified configurations of the TXi - With the G3X Touch, there are four:

1. Single 7" PFD+MFD (no EIS)
2. Single 10" PFD+MFD (EIS optional)
3. Dual 7" PFD and MFD (EIS optional)
4. 10+ PFD and 7" MFD (EIS optional)

I'm definitely going to be spending some time playing with this stuff at Oshkosh, and talking to my avionics shop. Probably not going to install until 2020 or 2021, after we're over the ADS-B bubble and I recover from the last panel upgrade!

 

I was also really disappointed you couldn't do a 10" PFD/MFD + 7" PFD/MFD (no EIS).  I wanted the pilot/copilot setup.  Not enough to spend the extra on a TXi, but it would have been how I'd probably have configured it.  I'm also going to be a while before install due to the ADS-B backup.  Maybe I'll luck out and they'll allow three screen installations or allow dual PFD/MFD displays by the time I get around to it.  

That screenshot helpfully illustrates the concern I had with the "important stuff" display.  No TIT or CDT.  Not sure if it can be configured to add those.  The dedicated 7" EIS didn't seem to show all the stuff I needed on a single page, either.  Garmin will probably have a booth at Arlington this year, or maybe I can hit their open house this summer (fabulous door prizes!) and see just how configurable it is, but I really like my CGR-30 pair and the EIS doesn't seem obviously superior.

[flyingcheesehead]

2 hours ago, johncuyle said:

I was also really disappointed you couldn't do a 10" PFD/MFD + 7" PFD/MFD (no EIS).  I wanted the pilot/copilot setup.  Not enough to spend the extra on a TXi, but it would have been how I'd probably have configured it.  I'm also going to be a while before install due to the ADS-B backup.  Maybe I'll luck out and they'll allow three screen installations or allow dual PFD/MFD displays by the time I get around to it.  

That screenshot helpfully illustrates the concern I had with the "important stuff" display.  No TIT or CDT.  Not sure if it can be configured to add those.  The dedicated 7" EIS didn't seem to show all the stuff I needed on a single page, either.  Garmin will probably have a booth at Arlington this year, or maybe I can hit their open house this summer (fabulous door prizes!) and see just how configurable it is, but I really like my CGR-30 pair and the EIS doesn't seem obviously superior.

Well, if you want the copilot side to be a 7" PFD/MFD type thing and you have a GTX 345, you can put an iPad Mini there running Garmin Pilot or ForeFlight, and have a split screen PFD/MFD type setup running on it with the AHRS feed from the 345. I just wanted the option to ALSO have it interface with the EIS, which it won't on the G3X Touch.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if, when configured for a turbo aircraft, you got TIT in the EIS strip. What is CDT??

[johncuyle]

Well, if you want the copilot side to be a 7" PFD/MFD type thing and you have a GTX 345, you can put an iPad Mini there running Garmin Pilot or ForeFlight, and have a split screen PFD/MFD type setup running on it with the AHRS feed from the 345. I just wanted the option to ALSO have it interface with the EIS, which it won't on the G3X Touch.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if, when configured for a turbo aircraft, you got TIT in the EIS strip. What is CDT??

Compressor discharge temperature. Don't need it with the intercooler. On my CGR it'll spit out the difference between IAT (intake air temp) and CDT, which figures into the power tables.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

For technical engine data oficionados .... more temp data is better than less...

• Power management requires the temp of the air entering the engine....
• Without a turbo that would be OAT...
• without an intercooler that would be the CDT....
• with an intercooler that would be IAT...

The difference of CDT and IAT.... is how well your intercooler is performing.... in cases something is blocking the cooling fins....

Not sure why anyone would want their engine details hidden in menu layers.... More screens is better than less screens.... a pair of G3s, or TXis, and a JPI...

For flight recording... JPI has done some interesting work.... the G1000 was terrible for engine data handling...

Is the EIS ready for prime time?

PP thoughts only...

Best regards,

-a-

[khedrei]

15 hours ago, flyingcheesehead said:

With the 10", either G3X or TXi, the display can be switched easily between PFD and PFD/MFD, and the MFD has an engine page that shows you everything, not just the "important stuff" that always lives in the EIS strip. The GTN 750 will not display engine information, so I wouldn't plan on using it as an MFD. However, the 10" lets you be all-PFD when you need it, and combined PFD-MFD when you need that. This video shows the G3X Touch switching between full-screen PFD and PFD/MFD combo several times, and you can see the "Full"/"Split" button in the upper right:

As far as putting a 7" screen on the right, you'll pretty much need to do the TXi for that. (This was one of my disappointments with the G3X Touch.) With the G3X Touch, your 10" screen will be PFD-only, with no split functionality like you see above, and the 7" display will be MFD-only.

With the G3X, you could put the 7" display to the right of the radio stack and just leave it on the Engine page. You would at least have the ability to switch it around. With the TXi you can do a dedicated EIS display, but it's EIS-only, not MFD... You might want to check and see if the MFD has an engine page in that sort of installation. It may - In which case the dedicated EIS screen probably just allows you to eliminate the EIS strip on the PFD.

There are many certified configurations of the TXi - With the G3X Touch, there are four:

1. Single 7" PFD+MFD (no EIS)
2. Single 10" PFD+MFD (EIS optional)
3. Dual 7" PFD and MFD (EIS optional)
4. 10+ PFD and 7" MFD (EIS optional)

I'm definitely going to be spending some time playing with this stuff at Oshkosh, and talking to my avionics shop. Probably not going to install until 2020 or 2021, after we're over the ADS-B bubble and I recover from the last panel upgrade!

 

Perhaps I'm a bit confused. When I mentioned having a 7 inch on the right side as an MFD I was thinking the MFD would simply display charts, airport info, traffic and weather on a map, etc. I thought that if the screen is configured for EIS then it is the EIS only and nothing else.  So maybe I need a lesson on what the capabilities and limitations of an MFD actually are. I'm quite new to this...That's the reason why I wanted to use the 750 for all that stuff. It will display traffic and charts and whatever else i need. Then I can use a 7 inch screen to dedicate to EIS, no? Also, my question about having the 7 inch screen on the right side displaying EIS was more a legality question. Can the engine instruments be displayed that far away from the pilot and not on an angle like my circle gauges are currently beside the breakers so they face the pilot. My avionics guy wasnt sure about whether that was legal or not and considering every set up I have seen with a dedicated EIS screen whether it be a Garmin or JPI they are all close to the main PFD on the pilot side. 

So could I have the G3X 10 inch on the pilot side set up as PFD with EIS and also have the 7 inch on  the right side set up as MFD/EIS and then I could use my 10 inch in full screen PFD mode and get ride of the engine info strip? Or would it always need to be displayed? 

[M016576]

3 hours ago, carusoam said:

Not sure why anyone would want their engine details hidden in menu layers.... More screens is better than less screens.... a pair of G3s, or TXis, and a JPI...

If the error checking and/or warning annunciation is present/accurate...  then I don’t see why anyone *would* want their engine details displayed all the time.  It would be a waste of real estate.

Heres what I mean:

on the top level PFD/mfd have an engine status button- whether it be HP, or throttle position or whatever.  But have it color coded (green-all is running within parameters, yellow- something is out of parameters, but warrants attention, red- system failure).  Then, if the button turns yellow or red, you hit it (or it auto displays) and up pops your “engine page” with all your engine data, and the suspect parameters hi-lighted.

this kind of AI/functionality, if programmed correctly, could save a ton of real estate on ones panel and actually improve error detection alerting, capability and rates.

of course- this technology doesn’t exist yet in general aviation.  It does exist in most of the major jets out there, though... so it’s a matter of time (and money).

[johncuyle]

41 minutes ago, M016576 said:

If the error checking and/or warning annunciation is present/accurate...  then I don’t see why anyone *would* want their engine details displayed all the time.  It would be a waste of real estate.

Heres what I mean:

on the top level PFD/mfd have an engine status button- whether it be HP, or throttle position or whatever.  But have it color coded (green-all is running within parameters, yellow- something is out of parameters, but warrants attention, red- system failure).  Then, if the button turns yellow or red, you hit it (or it auto displays) and up pops your “engine page” with all your engine data, and the suspect parameters hi-lighted.

this kind of AI/functionality, if programmed correctly, could save a ton of real estate on ones panel and actually improve error detection alerting, capability and rates.

of course- this technology doesn’t exist yet in general aviation.  It does exist in most of the major jets out there, though... so it’s a matter of time (and money).

Spotting a change or trend in flight gives you options.  Oil pressure in cruise is usually something like 55 PSI.  If that number slowly starts ticking down, I want to know about it before it hits the 15 PSI yellow zone so that I have more time to find a place to land.  If you're talking about using ML or something to develop an AI flight engineer that monitors all the parameters (and a bunch of other inputs would be needed, like throttle, mixture, and prop position sensors, a static feed, cowl flap position, and likely some other stuff) so it can highlight the oil temp when it ticks down from 55 to 50 as oil temp increases with no corresponding increase in power, OAT, altitude, airspeed, or cowl flap reconfiguration, I think that would be awesome.  I'm still going to want to see all the parameters all the time, though.  One little square or two 3" slots isn't much panel real estate, and most modernized panels now have acres of unused space even with large format engine displays.

[MIm20c]

53 minutes ago, johncuyle said:

Spotting a change or trend in flight gives you options.  Oil pressure in cruise is usually something like 55 PSI.  If that number slowly starts ticking down, I want to know about it before it hits the 15 PSI yellow zone so that I have more time to find a place to land.  If you're talking about using ML or something to develop an AI flight engineer that monitors all the parameters (and a bunch of other inputs would be needed, like throttle, mixture, and prop position sensors, a static feed, cowl flap position, and likely some other stuff) so it can highlight the oil temp when it ticks down from 55 to 50 as oil temp increases with no corresponding increase in power, OAT, altitude, airspeed, or cowl flap reconfiguration, I think that would be awesome.  I'm still going to want to see all the parameters all the time, though.  One little square or two 3" slots isn't much panel real estate, and most modernized panels now have acres of unused space even with large format engine displays.

This x100. That type of algorithm or more watchful eyes would have saved us 25 amu...it could truly save lives in the future. 

[M016576]

1 hour ago, johncuyle said:

  If you're talking about using ML or something to develop an AI flight engineer that monitors all the parameters

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. And yes- you’d want double redundant inputs and more sensors.

I expect resistance to this idea, and lots of “well, I still want to watch it all the time...” 

but the fact is, that while we (as humans and pilots) believe we are capable of noticing error/erratic behaviors in a system... any system... a computer/AI that is programmed correctly will be/is superior in most all cases. And for the cases where the computer “needs help”- that would be why we have the pilot on board at all. (Inputs disagree or are erroneous, etc)

for those that are still skeptical that this application would be worth anything in aviation- take a look at Mike Busch’s algorithm for uploading engine monitor data.  That’s a very rudimentary display/example of what could be done, and run, in real time.  A pilot could be alerted to problems that they can’t yet see, or know exist (can spalling or valve troubles, in the case of the mike Busch algorithm)

Edited March 31, 2019 by M016576

[johncuyle]

28 minutes ago, M016576 said:

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. And yes- you’d want double redundant inputs and more sensors.

I expect resistance to this idea, and lots of “well, I still want to watch it all the time...” 

but the fact is, that while we (as humans and pilots) believe we are capable of noticing error/erratic behaviors in a system... any system... a computer/AI that is programmed correctly will be/is superior in most all cases. And for the cases where the computer “needs help”- that would be why we have the pilot on board at all. (Inputs disagree or are erroneous, etc)

for those that are still skeptical that this application would be worth anything in aviation- take a look at Mike Busch’s algorithm for uploading engine monitor data.  That’s a very rudimentary display/example of what could be done, and run, in real time.  A pilot could be alerted to problems that they can’t yet see, or know exist (can spalling or valve troubles, in the case of the mike Busch algorithm)

I don't think there's any question that an AI flight engineer would be an incredibly useful tool.  I work with (near, anyway) these technologies at my day job.  I just also don't see much to be gained by having the default display on my CGR-30 be a big green "OK" instead of its current default, which is my power settings.

[M016576]

1 hour ago, johncuyle said:

I don't think there's any question that an AI flight engineer would be an incredibly useful tool.  I work with (near, anyway) these technologies at my day job.  I just also don't see much to be gained by having the default display on my CGR-30 be a big green "OK" instead of its current default, which is my power settings.

Because you have a cgr-30 already installed.  My point was that it would free up a whole bar of space on a G3X touchscreen- and would render a legacy engine monitor obsolete...

for reference, I have a CGR-30P in my panel as well... but I’d rather have a “smart” engine monitor nested in a touch screen display.

[johncuyle]

8 minutes ago, M016576 said:

Because you have a cgr-30 already installed.  My point was that it would free up a whole bar of space on a G3X touchscreen- and would render a legacy engine monitor obsolete...

for reference, I have a CGR-30P in my panel as well... but I’d rather have a “smart” engine monitor nested in a touch screen display.

Ah.  Even with my CGR, 2 G5's, and a dual screen G3X I'd still have half my radio stack and half my panel available for displays.  To the extent that it isn't just clutter and is useful information, I like to have it.  I'd even put a third screen in on the right as a split PFD/MFD (or an iPad to do the same thing.)  Gotta keep it looking overwhelming for the non-pilots that ride along.  Don't want them to get the impression flying wasn't super complicated, right?

[m20kmooney]

On 3/26/2019 at 9:34 PM, Bryan said:

If they added GAD43e support, my direction would be different.

Here’s an idea: what if it was possible to do a KI300 and a G3X touch? The KI300 would be primary for attitude, AS and altimeter and provide attitude reference to the KFC. The G3X touch would provide HSI, gpss, sv, pfd, mfd and everything else. So essentially the AI of the g3x touch would be backup to KI300. 

My logic is this: The G3X interfaces with the KFC150 very similar to the G5. The G3x provides course and heading deviation only, both G3X and the KFC autopilot have their own attitude reference (you will need to retain the KI 256 or put in KI300) and the GS and HSI functionality on the G3X is independent of the autopilot interface, capturing the data from the GTN which is also driving the autopilot. 

Edited March 31, 2019 by m20kmooney

[gsxrpilot]

Unless I'm in IMC... the stuff I'm NOT looking at are the 6 pack instruments. AI, ASI, HSI, VSI, TC, all useless in VMC when the autopilot is doing the flying, which is most of the time when using the Mooney to go A to B. Which is kinda what these planes are best at.

What I AM watching ALL the time, is my engine monitor. Depending on altitude, wind, temperatures, fuel, distance, etc. I'm managing the engine just a little bit differently each time. Getting max speed, max performance, max range, max efficiency, max safety, max engine hours, are all functions of the engine monitor. Therefore this is my primary focus during the vast majority of my time in the air.

[Bryan]

1 minute ago, m20kmooney said:

Here’s an idea: KU300 and G3X touch. The KI300 to provide attitude reference to the KFC, ASI and altimeter. G3X touch for HSI, gpss, sv, pfd, mfd and everything else. So essentially the AI of the g3x touch would be backup to KI300. 

My logic is this: The G3X interfaces with the KFC150 very similar to the G5. The G3x provides course and heading deviation only, both G3X and the KFC autopilot have their own attitude reference (you will need to retain the KI 256 or put in KI300) and the GS and HSI functionality on the G3X is independent of the autopilot interface, capturing the data from the GTN which is also driving the autopilot. 

I might have done this Ki300 if it was available. Since 2015 it has been “coming out” and I have completely lost faith in the product.

For now, I will install the TXi and continue to use my completely functional KFC 150 and when it breaks either install the AeroCruze ( cough, cough) or the GFC 500 - hopefully with a little less demand on shop time. At least with the TXi, I can interface to anything I want.

[MIm20c]

@Bryan make sure your installer is aware that Garmin reduced the price of the SV. No reason to pay more unless you have to. 

[M016576]

On 3/31/2019 at 1:19 PM, gsxrpilot said:

Unless I'm in IMC... the stuff I'm NOT looking at are the 6 pack instruments. AI, ASI, HSI, VSI, TC, all useless in VMC when the autopilot is doing the flying, which is most of the time when using the Mooney to go A to B. Which is kinda what these planes are best at.

What I AM watching ALL the time, is my engine monitor. Depending on altitude, wind, temperatures, fuel, distance, etc. I'm managing the engine just a little bit differently each time. Getting max speed, max performance, max range, max efficiency, max safety, max engine hours, are all functions of the engine monitor. Therefore this is my primary focus during the vast majority of my time in the air.

So you’d rather have raw outputs to stare at on an engine monitor, as opposed to AI / algorithms that could detect problems for you in real time and also automatically ensure you’re getting peak performance out of the system?

yes, I am talking about a FADEC-type software set. I know- the cost to certify something like that would probably be pretty expensive.  But the technology already exists- I just wish we had a fraction of that capability in our displays.  Because basically all we get is a digital display of analogue data with exceptionally rudimentary “warnings” which are just a light flashing when the sensor displays a certain value.  

Here’s one, for example, other than the “mike Busch” algorithm I brought up for engine health checking.  Imagine if your engine monitor, which already has a GPS input/output, would alert you when you achieved your max endurance and max range fuel flow, as you executed a lean find.  Then continued to update that fuel flow display/alert as it received wind data (in the form of ground speed from the GPS).  I’m not talking about what the pilot “estimates” as the max endurance/max range- but the *actual* max endurance/range numbers based on your engine’s performance on that given day due to your lean find.  All GPS’s display range to a ring/time/point at a current power setting based on fuel onboard and available- but why not continuously compute max range/endurance and have those numbers available, too.  

It could be possible to set max endurance, or max range, or max speed  by selection of an auto throttle and autopilot input.  No more tweaking knobs and staring at egt’s and FF’s as they ebb and flow.

I too spend a ton of time eyeballing my CGR-30P.  But my point is, that with modern technologies and practices, we shouldn’t necessarily have to.

Edited April 3, 2019 by M016576

[gsxrpilot]

44 minutes ago, M016576 said:

So you’d rather have raw outputs to stare at on an engine monitor, as opposed to AI / algorithms that could detect problems for you in real time and also automatically ensure you’re getting peak performance out of the system?

yes, I am talking about a FADEC-type software set. I know- the cost to certify something like that would probably be pretty expensive.  But the technology already exists- I just wish we had a fraction of that capability in our displays.  Because basically all we get is a digital display of analogue data with exceptionally rudimentary “warnings” which are just a light flashing when the sensor displays a certain value.  

Here’s one, for example, other than the “mike Busch” algorithm I brought up for engine health checking.  Imagine if your engine monitor, which already has a GPS input/output, would alert you when you achieved your max endurance and max range fuel flow, as you executed a lean find.  Then continued to update that fuel flow display/alert as it received wind data (in the form of ground speed from the GPS).  I’m not talking about what the pilot “estimates” as the max endurance/max range- but the *actual* max endurance/range numbers based on your engine’s performance on that given day due to your lean find.  All GPS’s display range to a ring/time/point at a current power setting based on fuel onboard and available- but why not continuously compute max range/endurance and have those numbers available, too.  

It could be possible to set max endurance, or max range, or max speed  by selection of an auto throttle and autopilot input.  No more tweaking knobs and staring at egt’s and FF’s as they ebb and flow.

I too spend a ton of time eyeballing my CGR-30P.  But my point is, that with modern technologies and practices, we shouldn’t necessarily have to.

All that sounds great! But until we have such systems, I'll have use the best technology available to my cockpit which is the data logging, graphical engine monitor. And even once that tech is available, I'd still like to get the raw numbers until I'm comfortable that the AI knows what it's doing. I'm a fan of AI and it's a big part of how I make my living. So I understand it takes time to build the "I" part of it.

All I was trying to point out is that between the "6-pack" instruments and full primary engine monitor such as my EDM-900, the engine monitor is much more useful during almost all phases of most flights. So having an engine monitor that leaves the screen once I reach the cruise phase of flight, doesn't work for me and doesn't even make sense.