Jump to content

Dynon Certified Marketing Survey


Recommended Posts

Hello Mooney Owners, 

I represent Dynon, makers of the Dynon SkyView HDX integrated glass cockpit flight information system that is approved for nearly 600 Part 23 certified aircraft. SkyView HDX provides flight information, engine information, moving map navigation, ADS-B Traffic and Weather, integrated COM, integrated autopilot (for the aircraft that have been certified), and much much more.

We are considering the next airplanes to pursue for the certification of SkyView’s integrated autopilot, and wish to enlist your input. 

If you have any interest in updating your certified airplane with the SkyView HDX system either with or without an autopilot, we’d like to ask for a few minutes of your time to complete this survey: 

http://dynon.aero/certifymyplane

Thank you for your participation in this discussion. Your opinions matter greatly to us.

Sincerely,

Rick Ludtke 

Marketing Product Analyst

Dynon

425-402-0433 Main 

www.dynon.aero

Dynon Certified | Affordable Avionics For Certified Aircraft

Edited by Rick Ludtke
Replaced existing link with link to new survey.
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thank you Carusom, I appreciate the offer for help. We may need it going forward.  I want to mention that we currently have a 1979 M20J 201 in the shop for development of the Mooney autopilot ins

You deliver a scolding so eloquently. 

Welcome aboard Rick, I’m glad you are here... We have at least four known users of Dynon large color screens in their Mooneys, and many more with small Dynon color screens...   Let me

Posted Images

Done! Go Mooney! Get 'er done, you'll likely sell a bunch of 'em if the STC is broad and pricing with install is reasonable.

Full panel redo? Likely with AP, less likely without. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome aboard Rick,

I’m glad you are here...

We have at least four known users of Dynon large color screens in their Mooneys, and many more with small Dynon color screens...
 

Let me invite two guys to the conversation that like their Dynon equipment so much... I would think they worked directly for Dynon...   :)

@chriscalandro @PilotFun101

They have blank spaces in their panels already... marked Dynon AP goes right here... X  :)
 

It would be greatly helpful... if you could share the likely schedule of this being available for the various Mooney airframes...   Around here we have everything from M20A to V...

Let us know if you need a hand getting to know Mooneys better...

We have three airframe sizes, generally...

  • Short body
  • Mid body
  • Long body

With power plants ranging... from 180 to 350hp that can be...

  • Normally aspirated
  • Turbo charged
  • Turbo normalized 

We have a spreadsheet that covers deeper details if interested...

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic...

Best regards,

-a-

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rick Ludtke said:

Hello Mooney Owners, 

I represent Dynon, makers of the Dynon SkyView HDX integrated glass cockpit flight information system that is approved for nearly 600 Part 23 certified aircraft. SkyView HDX provides flight information, engine information, moving map navigation, ADS-B Traffic and Weather, integrated COM, integrated autopilot (for the aircraft that have been certified), and much much more.

We are considering the next airplanes to pursue for the certification of SkyView’s integrated autopilot, and wish to enlist your input. 

If you have any interest in updating your certified airplane with the SkyView HDX system either with or without an autopilot, we’d like to ask for a few minutes of your time to complete this survey: 

Dynon Certified Marketing Survey

Thank you for your participation in this discussion. Your opinions matter greatly to us.

Sincerely,

Rick Ludtke 

Marketing Product Analyst

Dynon

425-402-0433 Main 

www.dynon.aero

Dynon Certified | Affordable Avionics For Certified Aircraft

I’m ready to upgrade my panel and I’m simply waiting on a rumored D10A replacement to be released.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I replied to the survey. One things that I don’t like about today’s avionics market is the lack of compatibility from one manufacturer to the other. Add-on and upgrade avionics should aim for a greater audience and be compatible with a range of EFIS and FMS. My 2 cents!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, carusoam said:

Welcome aboard Rick,

I’m glad you are here...

We have at least four known users of Dynon large color screens in their Mooneys, and many more with small Dynon color screens...
 

Let me invite two guys to the conversation that like their Dynon equipment so much... I would think they worked directly for Dynon...   :)

@chriscalandro @PilotFun101

They have blank spaces in their panels already... marked Dynon AP goes right here... X  :)
 

It would be greatly helpful... if you could share the likely schedule of this being available for the various Mooney airframes...   Around here we have everything from M20A to V...

Let us know if you need a hand getting to know Mooneys better...

We have three airframe sizes, generally...

  • Short body
  • Mid body
  • Long body

With power plants ranging... from 180 to 350hp that can be...

  • Normally aspirated
  • Turbo charged
  • Turbo normalized 

We have a spreadsheet that covers deeper details if interested...

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic...

Best regards,

-a-

 

Thank you Carusom, I appreciate the offer for help. We may need it going forward. 

I want to mention that we currently have a 1979 M20J 201 in the shop for development of the Mooney autopilot installation. We picked this airframe because we believe we can substantiate with the FAA that the short- and mid- fuselage Mooney's fly more or less the same, as the cg ranges are similar, cruise speeds are similar, limit speeds are similar, and so are stall speeds. I gathered data that indicates the greatest number of M20's produced and still registered are the short- and mid-fuselage models. I will share it here as I think all of you may find it interesting:

image.png.e9ea7f0a30aca8e0bc72230f4df0c26b.png

image.png.a6cead770c4be3fcd8bac52e80a48f37.png

The mid-fuselage airplanes therefore represent the logical first group of Mooney airframes to certify, because they are the largest registered group. If we are lucky, the FAA will agree with us the our mid-fuselage M20K will satisfactorily represent the short-fuselage airplanes as well, allowing us to certify autopilots in both using one demonstrator airplane.  

The long-fuselage airframes all had heavier and more powerful engines, broader cg ranges, faster cruise and limit speeds, and probably faster stall speeds (although my research resulted in data indicating very similar stall speeds, for which I can't explain, as the long-fuselage airplanes have the same wing and weigh more). 

This chart shows demonstrated cruise speeds for models representing the different fuselage groups using data from Evaluation Reports published by Mooney Pilots.com:

image.png.0395b5e6f65250b7a18ffc4efb273ff5.png

This chart provides the limits speeds and horsepower found in the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheets: 

image.png.1d78605701241b83553312646eec5c29.png

The speed charts demonstrate fairly similar speeds for the short- and mid-fuselage airplanes. 

The next series of charts demonstrates how different the long-fuselage airplanes are from the rest:

image.png.6cb917f91cd2c2a3a8a4b63badbba40b.png

image.png.2a72ea0571004db3deaf01cdef00cbba.png

image.png.7a43a48305a5a1fbc722d231ee2fad1e.png

 All of this is just to say that we believe the short- and mid- fuselage models are the airplanes to focus on first. This belief was bolstered by the results of data collected in the past from Mooney owners interest in the SkyView HDX. These chart summarizes our findings at that time:

image.png.48801199cb62add07271864a2f296e09.png

image.png.e9941afa007303d0742b62ba92c61c03.png

But, we also believe that our previous attempts to gather airplane-owner interest data may not have been penetrating the communities of airplane owners well enough to provide strong guidance. This is why I am here now. 

If you feel that our earlier conclusions do not adequately represent the wants and needs of the Mooney owners, let us know by completing the survey, and by providing feedback directly to me in this discussion or in private messages.  

And thank you all for so warmly receiving me and my company into this community!

All the best,

Rick

Edited by Rick Ludtke
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Welcome aboard Fast Truck...


2) Great detailed response, Rick..!

Thank you for sharing it on MS... :)

Some of the things people on your team may want to be on the look out for....
 

  • When it comes to the weight and balance envelope... For all Mooneys, the reference for 0.0“ is a very noticeable bolt on the nose gear hardware.  Cg and Cl stretch with the length of the body...
  • The differences from short to Long Body are interesting... because the basic design has been an evolution each time a new airframe went through the design stages... the controls look the same, but the tubes are different down to the nuts and bolts and locations that were used... Close attention to where servos will mount may be helpful...
  • Use caution when comparing the short bodies through long bodies... somewhere in the middle all the limits That were expressed in MIAS got changed over to KIAS...  they can show very similar numbers, but there is a 15% difference between MIAS and KIAS...
  • Lots of performance data has been digitized in the POHs and owners manuals, by the factory... it may be possible to pick up various official versions of these documents for not a lot of Money....  the most recent POH of each model will be most representative, except the parts related to engine size, for those models that have changed their output...
     

3) For anyone interested in pointing out any errors in the data supplied by Rick... Weekend Rules may be in affect... 

Please use extra caution with your wording... Rick is a new guest... We want to learn as much as we can from him about his company and his products...

 

4) I encourage everyone to fill out the survey, probably takes a whole five minutes...  :)

 

PP thoughts only...

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

@Rick Ludtke  You got some explaining to do.

If the C is not to be included as promised, and not this year, I know of at least one dual screen system that's getting sent back to Dynon.  I've been a pretty significant advocate of this system in the older Mooneys and this is a pretty big kick in the ass.

 

Explain.

image.thumb.png.9342ccebff30c4160d09776c2e716c75.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let’s see if that is going to work?  
 

We haven’t seen a full frontal attack using social media work just yet, but there is room for a first time... :)

In case it doesn’t work, we can find out where Greg @Baker Avionics is at...  he has had direct contact with Dynon recently... and has been quite helpful communicating the plan...

The last thing you want is to be threatening... it becomes a sport on how to ignore certain potential customers...

PP thoughts only...

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, carusoam said:

 

Let’s see if that is going to work?  
 

We haven’t seen a full frontal attack using social media work just yet, but there is room for a first time... :)

In case it doesn’t work, we can find out where Greg @Baker Avionics is at...  he has had direct contact with Dynon recently... and has been quite helpful communicating the plan...

The last thing you want is to be threatening... it becomes a sport on how to ignore certain potential customers...

PP thoughts only...

Best regards,

-a-

That’s the thing. I’m not a potential customer. I’m an existing customer that was sold on the basis of an upcoming autopilot. 
 

I have contacts as well, who I spoke to last week and there was no mention of this recent turn of events. 
 

a major selling point of this system was the autopilot. And now that feature, arguably the most desirable feature, seemingly just vanished. 
The graphic shared in this thread showed nearly 50% of the current interest was in the pre J models, and as far as I’m aware, the majority of the Mooney installations currently existing are Pre J. Hell, the graphic shows the vast majority of interest is in the 65-68 C and E models. 
 

Hell, there’s nearly 120k worth of equipment sales parked next to me waiting on the autopilot certification for pre J models. I promise you, if the above is true, those sales are gone. 
 

Nobody in their right mind is going to do a full panel replacement with no path to autopilot. I certainly wouldn’t have. 

Edited by chriscalandro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

I clearly understand your situation...

 A coordinated effort is probably going to be important...

Mom was right... you will catch more flies with honey, than a gallon of vinegar... - Ben Franklin

It’s going to be important to approach this disaster the right way...

Find out how you got misled...  you are not the only one...

Take it seriously...

-a-

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh. The autopilot will only be for F, J and K models??? :angry:

Guess I'll look to Garmin to replace my Brittain, which will force me into G5 / G600 / Gi275 instead. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh. The autopilot will only be for F, J and K models??? :angry:
Guess I'll look to Garmin to replace my Brittain, which will force me into G5 / G600 / Gi275 instead. 

Even then, the AP for the mid body won’t be available till next year...maybe.
Autopilots require the full installation, which I think will be $30K minimum (Skyview, 10A, etc). I wonder if they have doubts that owners of short bodies will spend that much. It’s one thing to fill out a survey and another to write a $35,000 check for avionics on a $35,000 plane.
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:


 It’s one thing to fill out a survey and another to write a $35,000 check for avionics on a $35,000 plane.

I think STEC went down this road.  Lots of people signed up, but very few were willing to plunk down the cash when the time came.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rbridges said:

I think STEC went down this road.  Lots of people signed up, but very few were willing to plunk down the cash when the time came.

The difference here is several already did, a lot more were waiting for the autopilot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely see Chris's frustration here. I am waiting on Dynon to replace just the D10A before moving forward. I figured I can wait on the AP but if they just kicked the short body and long body guys to the curb would mid body guys be next? Do I need to get a promise in writing that they will certify the AP for mid body guys before plopping down $35,000? 
 

This really has me second guessing Dynon. I literally have the money in the bank ready to go and how I have to start looking at Garmin, ugh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mention this before, the price of the Dynon vs G3X is basically the same ...10” full functionality (magnetometer, autopilot, etc) with 130 hours of labor (Dynon estimates are 90-150 hours) is $37,000 assuming $90/hr labor rate.
The G3X with G5 and 3 servo GFC 500 would be about the same.

You’re not going to save any money unless you can do installation yourself, which is more likely possible with the Dynon.

So it’s not a question of price it’s more of a question of which functionality you prefer. Of course if there is no autopilot, that question is easy to answer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously we need to get more information from people with direct communication to Dynon, but if my memory is correct I think they had a J model for testing. This change could be that the FAA is saying they will only approve mid-bodies because they chose a mid-body as the test platform.  I was already thinking that it was VERY optimistic that the FAA would approve all Mooney models at once based on flight testing just the J.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MoonFlyer68 said:

I was already thinking that it was VERY optimistic that the FAA would approve all Mooney models at once based on flight testing just the J.

Ditto... It's one thing to get an AML STC that shotguns across 600+ aircraft types for an EFIS or GPS navigator, but my experiences with ACO's and FSDO's is that they become much much more conservative once the subject matter pertains to something that interfaces with the aircraft flight controls. This is ESPECIALLY true in light of the 737MAX debacle that put the FAA under a microscope ever since.

That said, this is incredibly frustrating for the short-body Mooney gang. At least some sort of follow-up or one-paragraph explanation on a blog post would have been appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are differences in the J wing that required Garmin to modify the installation based on serial number. So I gotta believe that a blanket approval for entire Mooney model line was/is not in the cards.

Link to post
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.


*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*



×
×
  • 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.