AP options for an early J?

[BlueSky247]

Apologies if this has come up before. My search fu only came back with snippets. 
 

I am looking at an early J with a wing leveller. Are there any reasonable options for new equipment short of writing a big check on brand G? Something with at least course and altitude options?

[EricJ]

59 minutes ago, BlueSky247 said:

Apologies if this has come up before. My search fu only came back with snippets. 
 

I am looking at an early J with a wing leveller. Are there any reasonable options for new equipment short of writing a big check on brand G? Something with at least course and altitude options?

The BK Aerocruz 100 was released for a short while, several got installed, and then went back into recertification due to an apparent issue with differences in the required bracketry across different serial numbers of the same model Mooneys.    They're good autopilots and are available in quite a few other aircraft.

There seems to be rumblings in another thread that Dynon may be imminently about to release theirs as well.

[KSMooniac]

Dynon owns an M20J and has an active project for their autopilot that integrates with their system. It would be nice and not surprising if they make a big announcement at OSH in a few weeks...

Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk

[BlueSky247]

Thanks guys. Looks like the BK is back on the market again. Dynon's option would be amazing if it actually happens. I'd be a while before doing this install, so it might be an option by then. 

 

I noticed s-tec has come up and watched some videos on it. Seems to be on the lazy side?

 

I gotta admit, what really started me wondering about this was seeing a really impressive video last week where a guy had a 3 axis gfc500 in a mooney flying an ifr approach in serious turbulence. It was very aggressively reacting and keeping the plane squared up. That was really something to watch and would be nice to have when you find yourself in the soup.

[Pinecone]

The GFC-500 is the gold standard in retrofit to a Mooney right now.  GFC-700 (in some G-1000 planes) is even better.

I would not install BK.  Too many promises and not delivering.

[BlueSky247]

Thank you. I can see how that would end up driving the choices on the rest of the panel. 

[MikeOH]

I've been very happy with my STEC-30/GPSS/ALT system. Tracks course with zero wandering, never overshoots turns, holds altitude within 40 feet during turns.

Not sure if they are still available and how much.

[Mooney in Oz]

5 hours ago, BlueSky247 said:

I noticed s-tec has come up and watched some videos on it. Seems to be on the lazy side?

If you’re considering a S-Tec 3100, forget about it. Mooney is not on the AML and Genesys failed dismally to get it there with their hopeless sales team.

[toto]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

The GFC-500 is the gold standard in retrofit to a Mooney right now.  GFC-700 (in some G-1000 planes) is even better.

I would not install BK.  Too many promises and not delivering.

I think if you want a Garmin AP for a J model, the GFC-500 is the only option.  

The big advantage with the Aerocruze (nee TruTrak) is that the installation time is about half the GFC time, because they install all of the servos under the seats in the passenger compartment.  But as @Pinecone said, there's a lot of unknowns.  So unless you're wanting a bottom-dollar installation, the Garmin is your best bet.

And if you want bottom dollar, there's always this thing

https://www.portapilot.com/

(Not yet available for the Mooney)
(And that was mostly a joke)
(Even though it's kind of an interesting idea)

[jetdriven]

16 hours ago, KSMooniac said:

Dynon owns an M20J and has an active project for their autopilot that integrates with their system. It would be nice and not surprising if they make a big announcement at OSH in a few weeks...

Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk
 

we've been hearing this for 5 years now. ....

[PT20J]

I think it depends on how long you are willing to wait and how much pain you want to endure. Autopilots have proven very difficult to certify (I'm guessing that's why there are no NORSEE autopilots). All manufacturers have struggled to get it right and then after one gets certified it seems to take years to get all the bugs out in the field. This means that Garmin is years ahead of B-K and Dynon in terms of having a reliable autopilot you can bet your life on. If you can afford to wait, or go through the pain a lot of owners have gone through while Garmin tried to figure out why some Mooney's hunt in pitch, then go for an alternative. Many of us threw in the towel and bought a GFC 500 and the vast majority are happy campers. Five or six years from now, there may well be other options that are just as good and just as reliable. And, yes, the GFC 500 does drive other choices because most of the AP software is in the G3X/G5/GI 275.

[Larry]

This one is probably the cheapest, but reviews indicate that it leaks.

Otto Pilot

[201Steve]

This is a dead horse that’s been beaten to a a pulp. There is only one new option. Garmin. 
 

By far the best money spent on the AC and resale, it’s the golden cherry in any search. 
 

I think just about the only other actual option is to buy an old system removed from someone who upgraded but that sounds like a nightmare, after you install it your spending a lot of money and then you have a 50 year old autopilot that may or may not last. 

[EricJ]

FWIW, I have an order in for the BK Aerocruz 100, because there are a number of things I don't like about the GFC500, particularly as it is installed in Mooneys.    It is not a slam-dunk selection.    I had an order in for a GFC500 for some time when they were coming available, but cancelled it as soon as I saw an installation and have not regretted that decision.

The GFC500 is a fine autopilot that many like, but it isn't for everybody.   It's definitely an option, but so are others.

[jetdriven]

What are some of the things  you don’t like about it ? 

[EricJ]

20 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

What are some of the things  you don’t like about it ? 

1.   Garmin says it has to be installed by a dealer.   I can install the BK, and so can any competent avionics tech or shop.   

2.  The BK Mooney installations that have been have been done have been reportedly quite straightforward and relatively simple.   In other words, much less labor than the Garmin.

3.  I like the pushrod servos like S-Tec, Century, BK Aerocruz, and (IIRC) Dynon use.   Garmin elected to use cable servos in a pushrod airplane (like King).   The GFC installation in the wing strikes me as a Rube Goldberg arrangement of brackets and pulleys, none of which appear to need to be there, and the contraption that they add to the tail is, to me, worse.

4. The installed base doesn't have a great history so far for servo longevity, which kind of continues the Garmin servo reputation.   And when they fail they're expensive if they're out of warranty.

5. There still seems to be a lingering issue with pitch stability for the GFC500 in the Mooney.    I haven't heard any similar issues with the installed Aerocruz, but the installed base is still small.   I've asked everyone I've run across that got one installed and have yet to hear anything negative.

 

 

[PT20J]

Garmin directly copied the KFC/KAP servo installation. In fact some dealers cut cost by reusing the BK brackets when replacing a KAP/KFC with a GFC. Garmin did have some mechanical issues with the GFC 500 servos, but that seems to be behind them and they have an offer out to replace all the potentially bad ones in the field for free including an installation labor allowance even if they are operating well. The GFC 500 FD uses a combination of attitude and rate based inputs for controlling the autopilot. For some reason, this doesn't work well in some airframes. It's not just Mooney: Cirrus and Bonanzas have had some pitch issues also. Garmin has issued alternate gain settings for J/K and presumably will issue them for other models as well which seems to fix the problem by dialing back the rate based component in the control loop.

Although, Garmin's communication with customers often leaves much to be desired, it's clear that Garmin has  continuously improved it's products and fixes problems that occur. My biggest concern with B-K is that I just don't see that Honeywell has nearly that level of commitment.

[LANCECASPER]

22 hours ago, EricJ said:

1.   Garmin says it has to be installed by a dealer.   I can install the BK, and so can any competent avionics tech or shop.   

2.  The BK Mooney installations that have been have been done have been reportedly quite straightforward and relatively simple.   In other words, much less labor than the Garmin.

3.  I like the pushrod servos like S-Tec, Century, BK Aerocruz, and (IIRC) Dynon use.   Garmin elected to use cable servos in a pushrod airplane (like King).   The GFC installation in the wing strikes me as a Rube Goldberg arrangement of brackets and pulleys, none of which appear to need to be there, and the contraption that they add to the tail is, to me, worse.

4. The installed base doesn't have a great history so far for servo longevity, which kind of continues the Garmin servo reputation.   And when they fail they're expensive if they're out of warranty.

5. There still seems to be a lingering issue with pitch stability for the GFC500 in the Mooney.    I haven't heard any similar issues with the installed Aerocruz, but the installed base is still small.   I've asked everyone I've run across that got one installed and have yet to hear anything negative.

 

6. If the GPS signal is lost, for whatever reason, obviously a coupled GPS approach can't be flown with any autopilot. But on the GFC500 even a coupled ILS approach isn't possible with loss of GPS signal.  While I agree that no competent IFR pilot should need to fly a coupled approach, a coupled alternate approach is nice option after a long cross country flight in IFR. This is a design limitation that is not understood by many people looking to buy this autopilot, and by some people who already own this autopilot. I wouldn't want to be in the soup at a minimum IFR fuel reserve discovering this. 

[PT20J]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

6. If the GPS signal is lost, for whatever reason, obviously a coupled GPS approach can't be flown with any autopilot. But on the GC500 even a coupled ILS approach isn't possible with loss of GPS signal.  While I agree that no competent IFR pilot should need to fly a coupled approach, a coupled alternate approach is nice option after a long cross country flight in IFR. This is a design limitation that is not understood by many people looking to buy this autopilot, and by some people who already own this autopilot. I wouldn't want to be in the soup at a minimum IFR fuel reserve discovering this. 

That is clearly described in the AFMS. (Everybody reads that before buying, right?) The G3X VFR GPS will provide sufficient GPS position to the autopilot in the event my GTN fails (Garmin confirmed it and I verified it in flight). So, it’s only interference or failure of the GPS constellation that would be an issue. 

[LANCECASPER]

1 minute ago, PT20J said:

That is clearly described in the AFMS. (Everybody reads that before buying, right?) The G3X VFR GPS will provide sufficient GPS position to the autopilot in the event my GTN fails (Garmin confirmed it and I verified it in flight). So, it’s only interference or failure of the GPS constellation that would be an issue. 

The panel boxes themselves are very reliable and a lot of panels have more than one. 

For me the biggest concern is the GPS testing, jamming and interference (cell and otherwise). Most of the times these aren’t in the NOTAMS.

[BlueSky247]

Forgive the stupid question, but are you saying an stec or other non-gfc AP’s would possibly be a better idea in the absence of gps data?

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, BlueSky247 said:

Forgive the stupid question, but are you saying an stec or other non-gfc AP’s would possibly be a better idea in the absence of gps data?

They all have their limitations. I was just pointing out one limitation that some may not be aware of.

[Ragsf15e]

1 hour ago, BlueSky247 said:

Forgive the stupid question, but are you saying an stec or other non-gfc AP’s would possibly be a better idea in the absence of gps data?

Stec has a 30 year old analog option (I have an stec 30a) which nobody installs now.  The newer digital stec is not approved for Mooney.  If the stec30a works as mine does, it’s great but it doesn’t fly a “coupled” approach with or without gps.  So sure, the autopilot will work without gps but it’s not a good comparison.  The gfc-500 is head and shoulders above any of the older autopilots and likely much better than the other new ones (doesn’t the Aerocruze have a pretty high minimum altitude on approaches?).

[PT20J]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

For me the biggest concern is the GPS testing, jamming and interference (cell and otherwise). Most of the times these aren’t in the NOTAMS

It’s a valid concern. It irks me that the Government is saving money (well, OK, it’s my money, but still…) by decommissioning legacy navaids and thus making us dependent on GPS while at the same time regularly making GPS unusable in large areas. 

[toto]

19 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

doesn’t the Aerocruze have a pretty high minimum altitude on approaches?

I don’t think the Aerocruze has been approved for coupled approaches. So the AP will *fly* a coupled approach, but it’s prohibited by the AFMS.