Saw the Garmin g3x. Wow

[rbridges]

4 hours ago, donkaye said:

Why say something like that?  There are choices out there.  If I'm designing a product,  I'm going to design it around my other products.  Why should I try to help the competition?  Where it makes sense, like the Stormscope interface, yes, and maybe even an autopilot interface.  From my perspective Garmin makes really good products that all work well together.  I'm hearing nothing on MS or BeechTalk but problems people are having with the new Aspen Max both in getting it and the after market display issues.  I'm still glad that where it count I have Garmin.

 

4 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

Quite possibly but look where that got IBM, Microsoft and apple

Don't get me wrong.  I don't think it's a bad business model.  I was replying to Hyett's earlier post.  I just don't think the king of the hill will necessarily be the one with the most open architecture.

[kris_adams]

I saw the same Mooney as Rob when I was dropping mine off...the package looks pretty amazing.  I'm pretty sure the owner is on Mooneyspace so I'll let him tell about his setup and share pics if desired.

[thomas1142]

I’m dropping of my M20J next week for an avionics package similar to the ones discussed in this thread. Is there anything particular that needs to be done in terms of keeping everything straight so there is no misunderstanding and everyone is happy in the end?

[PJClark]

@thomas1142 take a hard look at the EDM 900 setup...what gets put in the Primary column with nice green bars and a digital readout vice the light grey column.  JPI programs that based on their opinion from a reading of the POH for your model and year.  I didn't know this...so my Rocket got oil temp, oil press, and compressor inlet temp...the latter I didn't  have with the old gauges.  No fuel flow in Primary, no TIT either.

The shop guys at AATG have convinced  JPI after the fact though and I now have new config files to load...but either DIYor I pay someone here in OH to do it.

Lesson learned: TELL the shop what you want in that nice Primary column and have them argue it out with JPI  to your satisfaction before you show up to fly it away!

[PJClark]

23 hours ago, Harry Wightman said:

That has been my experience as well. Given its intended use (climb & descent only) there is no need for slavish adherence to the commanded speed- if we had it coupled to autothrust on an approach a high level of accuracy would be required, but not here. VS is quite comfortable.

Way long ago I was a EE student at Auburn and my specialty was control theory.  Based on what Ive  seen so far in IAS mode I think they have a pole in the control laws (a place where they get divergent feedback instead of damped) I suspect they'll figure it out as they get more installs.

Another surprise...flying an LPV approach this afternoon I decided to take Bob Cabe`s advice and use full flaps to make the start down the GP. Don't do that!  I think flap driven nose down pitch change exceeded AP`s ability to compensate.  BIG pitch down. I punched off AP and hand flew rest of the approach.  No more config changes for me until committed to landing!

Edited November 19, 2019 by PJClark
spelling

[PJClark]

Actually...disregard the Bob Cabe bit.  He didn't suggest that move, I was thinking of something else.  But still...don't  do that with a GFC500!

[carusoam]

PJ, check on your details...

War Eagles don’t use full flaps until committed to landing... around 1k’agl or so... (do they?)

Approach flaps, and T/O flaps are somewhere around 15°(?)...

Electric trim is often engineered to work at the same speed as electric flaps... so hold the trim button while the flaps are deploying...

Trim speed = flap speed (for long bodies) lesson learned during TT with Bob Cabe.   
 

PP thoughts only, not a CFI...

Best regards,

-a-