Jump to content

GFC 500:: coming to your Mooney


Recommended Posts

Since playing around with the GFC500 autopilot, I have become enamored with it. I really want that G1000-like experience in my old Mooney. So I wrote Garmin asking why it still wasn’t certified in anything pre-J. 

They responded:

Hi John,

I am reaching out to you regarding some info that you submitted via the Garmin autopilot website.

We will be looking for a Mooney M20F / G to conduct installation, certification and flight testing on in 2020. We would need the aircraft for around 6 months starting in mid-January.

We show that you currently have a GTN 650 or 750 installed along with at least one G5 instrument. These are pre-requisites for our program.

If you are interested in this program, feel free to email me back and provide some pictures of your aircraft. I am particularly interested in your panel / radio stack / left and right yokes.

If we end up needing it, we might need some pictures looking aft down the tail as well.

Thanks for showing interest!

—-

Would you do it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume it’s free installation, saves you around 10K. If yes, I would add the G3X, tell them you’ll pay for the hardware, if they do the entire installation for free, saves you $20K. Don’t be surprised if they use your plane as a demo in an air show.
You can spend the 6 months getting your commercial or multi engine.


Tom

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LunkenPilot said:

Since playing around with the GFC500 autopilot, I have become enamored with it. I really want that G1000-like experience in my old Mooney. So I wrote Garmin asking why it still wasn’t certified in anything pre-J. 

They responded:

Hi John,

I am reaching out to you regarding some info that you submitted via the Garmin autopilot website.

We will be looking for a Mooney M20F / G to conduct installation, certification and flight testing on in 2020. We would need the aircraft for around 6 months starting in mid-January.

We show that you currently have a GTN 650 or 750 installed along with at least one G5 instrument. These are pre-requisites for our program.

If you are interested in this program, feel free to email me back and provide some pictures of your aircraft. I am particularly interested in your panel / radio stack / left and right yokes.

If we end up needing it, we might need some pictures looking aft down the tail as well.

Thanks for showing interest!

—-

Would you do it?

Yes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is good news.  Here is what I emailed them on Wednesday of this week.  I have dual G5's but not the 750 or 650.  I am glad it is getting going.

______________

I am wanting to see an update for the M20F and here is a quote from
the nations leading Mooney expert.

"The M20F airframe is virtually no different from a 1977 M20J, with
the exception of a sloped windshield, a new cowling design and a few
other minor changes. In fact, the 77 J was built on the exact same
frame as this plane."

So, I am sooooo curious why the J is approved and it is soooooo long for the F.

 

_____________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just need an autopilot now :)

But I think I'll like it. Discovered yesterday that the original AS indicator is in knots only, but the speeds marked are in mph. Could have eliminated it, but I'm uncomfortable with electrons an 0's and 01's being my only AS reference. Call me old fashioned....

So I opted fro a new one, another week in the shop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare the experience of the Bravo owner who had the same experience put in front of him...

Somebody has to be first...

The situation has to be win/win for all involved...

The risk of failure is pretty low... it’s not the first plane to get the AP... not even the first Mooney...

Typical things to try and negotiate... sometimes corporate management can’t discount the hardware any... but there are so many other things that they can add to ease the pain...

  • hardware cost...
  • install cost...
  • free options...
  • removal of the old system...
     

Could be low risk, high reward...

Worst case... something damages the plane while out of your hands... be insured.

Second worst case... the system doesn’t work... requiring removal of the system.

Third worst case... a long time wait while G goes on holiday for a workers strike.

No different than paying full price at a nearby shop... :)

PP thinking out loud...

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make them fix the servo installation!   It's ridiculous, imho.   I cancelled an existing order for a GFC500 once I saw how they were installed.   That's just me, but it might be a way to get some feedback to them, to make the Garmin installation more sensible for a pushrod control system and more consistent with previous systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, EricJ said:

Make them fix the servo installation!   It's ridiculous, imho.   I cancelled an existing order for a GFC500 once I saw how they were installed.   That's just me, but it might be a way to get some feedback to them, to make the Garmin installation more sensible for a pushrod control system and more consistent with previous systems.

What didn't you like about the installation?  You're really missing out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, donkaye said:

What didn't you like about the installation?  You're really missing out.

In my airplane there are factory brackets that allow servos to be installed with short, maybe 8", pushrods that connect to the roll bellcrank in the wing, and the elevator pushrod in the tail.   These installations are simple, and use the factory brackets and connecting hardware interfaces.   My Century installation utilizes these and it's simple and clean and minimizes the number of involved parts as well as their reach.   This is good engineering.

Garmin installed a control cable system, which is entirely appropriate in an airframe that uses control cables, in a pushrod airplane that has no other flight control cables, and, imho, it's a cluster.   A large, unnecessary shelf was added in the tail, and a lot of additional, also unnecessary, bracketry and pulleys and cables were added in the wing.   The pitch cables in the tail run the length of the elevator pushrod in order to connect at each end, so the cable goes all the way back nearly to the elevator control horn.   Why not just use the pushrod like most installations?

Adding a lot of unnecessary hardware and parts decreases reliability and adds weight, for no benefit that I can see.  Running cable along the length of a pushrod, in order to move the pushrod, doesn't seem to be good engineering to me, especially when previous systems used a much simpler approach for which the hardware interface already exists in the airplane from the factory.   The roll servo is moved to a different compartment, where it needs new (additional) mounting brackets, and also a bunch of new brackets to hold the new pulleys to route the cabling to the compartment (where the servo is usually) where the bellcrank is.   Previous installations just mounted the servo next to the bellcrank on the factory bracket and connected them with a short pushrod.

I suspect maybe whoever came up with it had only ever worked on cable-controlled aircraft before, or Garmin's control-arm servo, which does exist, hasn't been fully certified, or something along those lines.  Regardless, I'd like something that's not a step backwards in complexity and doesn't unnecessarily clutter up the spaces.
 

Edited by EricJ
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, EricJ said:

In my airplane there are factory brackets that allow servos to be installed with short, maybe 8", pushrods that connect to the roll bellcrank in the wing, and the elevator pushrod in the tail.   These installations are simple, and use the factory brackets and connecting hardware interfaces.   My Century installation utilizes these and it's simple and clean and minimizes the number of involved parts as well as their reach.   This is good engineering.

Garmin installed a control cable system, which is entirely appropriate in an airframe that uses control cables, in a pushrod airplane that has no other flight control cables, and, imho, it's a cluster.   A large, unnecessary shelf was added in the tail, and a lot of additional, also unnecessary, bracketry and pulleys and cables were added in the wing.   The pitch cables in the tail run the length of the elevator pushrod in order to connect at each end, so the cable goes all the way back nearly to the elevator control horn.   Why not just use the pushrod like most installations?

Adding a lot of unnecessary hardware and parts decreases reliability and adds weight, for no benefit that I can see.  Running cable along the length of a pushrod, in order to move the pushrod, doesn't seem to be good engineering to me, especially when previous systems used a much simpler approach for which the hardware interface already exists in the airplane from the factory.   The roll servo is moved to a different compartment, where it needs new (additional) mounting brackets, and also a bunch of new brackets to hold the new pulleys to route the cabling to the compartment (where the servo is usually) where the bellcrank is.   Previous installations just mounted the servo next to the bellcrank on the factory bracket and connected them with a short pushrod.

I suspect maybe whoever came up with it had only ever worked on cable-controlled aircraft before, or Garmin's control-arm servo, which does exist, hasn't been fully certified, or something along those lines.  Regardless, I'd like something that's not a step backwards in complexity and doesn't unnecessarily clutter up the spaces.
 

I don't know but my previous KFC 150 installation had all cables except the pitch trim servo, same as the Garmin GFC 500.  The GSA 28 servo, a brushless DC motor "smart" servo is 40% lighter than the weight of the BK servos and cost $1,500 compared to the BK Servo which cost twice that much just to repair. Reliability, when compared to most other autopilots should be much better in spite of what you say regarding cabling.  Add envelope protection both with the AP on and off,  the LVL button for someone having a very bad day, IAS climbs and descents, auto VNAV descents, and you're left with a pretty amazing autopilot.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, donkaye said:

Reliability, when compared to most other autopilots should be much better in spite of what you say regarding cabling.

The reliability of a short mechanical pushrod with a spherical bearing rod end on each end is greater than a cable winding through a bunch of pulleys with clevis yokes on the ends, just due to part count and the number of moving contact surfaces.    My issue is with the installation, not the servos themselves or the system.    A friend is putting a GFC500 in an experimental aircraft with cable flight controls and it's awesome.    Round peg in a round hole.   Imho the installation got fubared in the Mooney.

I was totally sold on installing a GFC500 as it would integrate nicely with my existing avionics and I like the functionality and had placed an order with a local vendor.   I dislike the installation enough that I cancelled that order.   I didn't do that lightly, but it's just my personal distaste for how the installation is configured in Mooneys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The installation in my Mooney is done exactly like my former KFC 200. So it looks like they simply used a proven installation design.

 

If your are using a pushrod design you are very limited in travel and also get a non linear force/travel distance distribution.

 

So I think the design might not be as bad as you are thinking. Also from all I read about AP the Kings performed better than the Centurys. Not to talk about the GFC which is way ahead of the KFC200 and 150...

 

I think you are missing a lot by cancelling your installation, but of course that is your decision.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Emmet said:

If your are using a pushrod design you are very limited in travel and also get a non linear force/travel distance distribution.

The non-linearity is favorable, though, as the force required increases due to deflection the mechanical advantage increases with it.

I may come back to the GFC500 if other options don't pan out, but I'm not a fan of the Garmin/King methodology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2019 at 5:33 PM, EricJ said:

In my airplane there are factory brackets that allow servos to be installed with short, maybe 8", pushrods that connect to the roll bellcrank in the wing, and the elevator pushrod in the tail.   These installations are simple, and use the factory brackets and connecting hardware interfaces.   My Century installation utilizes these and it's simple and clean and minimizes the number of involved parts as well as their reach.   This is good engineering.

Garmin installed a control cable system, which is entirely appropriate in an airframe that uses control cables, in a pushrod airplane that has no other flight control cables, and, imho, it's a cluster.   A large, unnecessary shelf was added in the tail, and a lot of additional, also unnecessary, bracketry and pulleys and cables were added in the wing.   The pitch cables in the tail run the length of the elevator pushrod in order to connect at each end, so the cable goes all the way back nearly to the elevator control horn.   Why not just use the pushrod like most installations?

Adding a lot of unnecessary hardware and parts decreases reliability and adds weight, for no benefit that I can see.  Running cable along the length of a pushrod, in order to move the pushrod, doesn't seem to be good engineering to me, especially when previous systems used a much simpler approach for which the hardware interface already exists in the airplane from the factory.   The roll servo is moved to a different compartment, where it needs new (additional) mounting brackets, and also a bunch of new brackets to hold the new pulleys to route the cabling to the compartment (where the servo is usually) where the bellcrank is.   Previous installations just mounted the servo next to the bellcrank on the factory bracket and connected them with a short pushrod.

I suspect maybe whoever came up with it had only ever worked on cable-controlled aircraft before, or Garmin's control-arm servo, which does exist, hasn't been fully certified, or something along those lines.  Regardless, I'd like something that's not a step backwards in complexity and doesn't unnecessarily clutter up the spaces.
 

First of all Garmin isn't going to certify an autopilot based on the installation of optional equipment installed in a particular model (and neither is any other manufacture). They are going to find a solution that works for the overall model regardless of what may have been installed previously. 

Second, the Mooney is not the only aircraft that uses pushrods to control flight controls that Garmin has their servos installed in. We have a fleet of Diamond aircraft that all use pushrods for the ailerons and the elevator. They all have Garmin equipment and they all have cables attached to pushrods on the servo drum. It works just fine. Almost 30,000 hours on the fleet and with all the problems we do have to fix, the autopilot is not one of them. 

I think you may see a potential problem where there just isn't one. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JimB said:

I think you may see a potential problem where there just isn't one. 

It's just a preference between what I see as a clean and elegant solution to one that is unnecessarily more complex without any corresponding benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2019 at 8:40 AM, LunkenPilot said:

Since playing around with the GFC500 autopilot, I have become enamored with it. I really want that G1000-like experience in my old Mooney. So I wrote Garmin asking why it still wasn’t certified in anything pre-J. 

They responded:

Hi John,

I am reaching out to you regarding some info that you submitted via the Garmin autopilot website.

We will be looking for a Mooney M20F / G to conduct installation, certification and flight testing on in 2020. We would need the aircraft for around 6 months starting in mid-January.

We show that you currently have a GTN 650 or 750 installed along with at least one G5 instrument. These are pre-requisites for our program.

If you are interested in this program, feel free to email me back and provide some pictures of your aircraft. I am particularly interested in your panel / radio stack / left and right yokes.

If we end up needing it, we might need some pictures looking aft down the tail as well.

Thanks for showing interest!

—-

Would you do it?

I was offered something similar by Genesis AeroSystems for certification of the 3100 series in the Piper Comanche.  If they were able to use a 400 all models below would be approved.  They needed my plane in Texas for 3 months and all they offered was a modest discount.

I declined the offer.

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was offered something similar by Genesis AeroSystems for certification of the 3100 series in the Piper Comanche.  If they were able to use a 400 all models below would be approved.  They needed my plane in Texas for 3 months and all they offered was a modest discount.
I declined the offer.
Clarence


I’m pretty disappointed with STEC. They really botched the handling of the 3100 upgrade path for the Mooney population.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2019 at 8:40 AM, LunkenPilot said:

Since playing around with the GFC500 autopilot, I have become enamored with it. I really want that G1000-like experience in my old Mooney. So I wrote Garmin asking why it still wasn’t certified in anything pre-J. 

They responded:

Hi John,

I am reaching out to you regarding some info that you submitted via the Garmin autopilot website.

We will be looking for a Mooney M20F / G to conduct installation, certification and flight testing on in 2020. We would need the aircraft for around 6 months starting in mid-January.

We show that you currently have a GTN 650 or 750 installed along with at least one G5 instrument. These are pre-requisites for our program.

If you are interested in this program, feel free to email me back and provide some pictures of your aircraft. I am particularly interested in your panel / radio stack / left and right yokes.

If we end up needing it, we might need some pictures looking aft down the tail as well.

Thanks for showing interest!

—-

Would you do it?

 

I loaned Garmin my M20K 231 for the mid-body certification of the GFC500.  My first hand experience was largely positive.  The communication, workmanship, fairness to the owner throughout the process is exactly what you would expect from a top shelf organization.  Being a 231 that requires close engine monitoring during operation, they even humored me and adhered to my crazy operating instructions on watching CHT's, power settings, etc.  

My M20K was in at the same time as the Bravo, so there were a couple of minor redesigns and tuning that needed to be had, so the time frame was a little longer than anticipated.  This tuning is what yielded a rock solid, stable, comfortable ride in all phases of flight.  

What I will say is that if you're going to go forward, you need to have an airplane that has basically no squawks, complete, accurate logs for all AD's, upgrades, modifications, everything.  I was very fortunate that the ownership and maintenance chain of my airplane were and continue to be very clean and complete.  I even had to put tire pressure placards on my gear doors since they were replaced before I owned it; that's how detailed their inspections get.  (it's a required placard FWIW).

My first coupled approach in actual conditions after the install was into CHO down to 200 and 1/2; no joke.  The workmanship, performance and overall setup made me confident that I'd see a runway at the end, which happened right when it should have, and I wouldn't have some random disconnect at a terrible time.   

Would I do it again?  Absolutely.  Besides, the cross country from SC to Oregon was absolutely breathtaking.  Also, I was able to fly with my hangar mate a bunch in his Bellanca Super Viking to stay current while my airplane was at Garmin- a cool experience in and of itself.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.