An Idea For Expanding the Autopilot List

Bill Putney

Active Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
101
Location
Hillsboro, OR (KHIO)
The Problem

Full disclosure: I haven't spoken to Dynon about this issue.

I'm wondering if what keeps the Dynon's Certified Autopilot list from expanding more quickly is a matter of having the engineering resources to design the servo brackets and control linkages and the logistical and cost implications of stocking parts for the 600-ish different types on their AML. Certainly the autopilots that Dynon currently produce fly in a wide variety of experimental aircraft and they only have bracket and linkage kits for a very few of them. Their setups are clearly detailed in easy to follow documentation and could be applied to Certificated types. Dynon has certified their servos and that is the hard to do side of the project.

Some types that have a lot of aircraft flying will come up on Dynon's to do list fairly quickly. Those types near the bottom of the list my have to wait a very long time or may never see an autopilot for their type. As is the case with any tech company Dynon's engineering resources are finite. If Dynon has to develop 600 installation kits, get FAA PMA for those parts and ultimatly stock them, it could be a while for some types. Personally, I'd rather have the Dynon engineers working on fixes, upgrades and features than designing brackets. It's a resource vs. return issue for Dynon. It's a functionality issue for us, no matter how low the volume of sales we might represent.

Is Type Club participation the answer?

If, as I suspect, the brackets and control linkages is the issue, the type clubs could certainly help out. If the type clubs or a group of owners collaborate to design the prototypes and work with the FAA ACOs to approve the data used to fabricate the parts, that could be licensed, at no cost, to Dynon to include in their STC.

It's quite common for some relatively low volume STCs to call out parts to be made rather than supplying a parts kit with the STC. Frequently these parts are made by owners under the owner produced parts rules or by a mechanic but the data is under the control of the STC holder. Some well organized type clubs already have PMA to make parts that have become unobtainium over the years and supply these to their owners. Those clubs might want to get a PMA to make the bracket and linkage kits for their owners. That could be part of the arrangement with Dynon.

Am I crazy?

I'd like to hear from people. Kick it around at a type club meeting or on a type forum. Repost it here please.

Thanks,

Bill
 

Dynon

Dynon Staff
Staff member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
14,217
Location
Woodinville, WA
You're not crazy :). We definitely appreciate the enthusiasm and would love to be able to leverage any resources and passion to bring our products to more aircraft quicker. Right now, this isn't a path that we're able to entertain. That's not a "never", of course. We change our minds all the time. And we've actually been doing some of this already.

By the time you have a set of brackets and control linkages, there have been probably man-years of engineering into the design. Think details loads analysis, safety considerations, flying qualities testing, iteration on all of the previous, some regulatory stuff, and more. It's not as simple as finding a place to mount the servos and cutting metal.

Both the Baron and Seneca projects are ones that are happening partially outside of Dynon, but with our cooperation, leadership, and support. Both of those partners are people that we know and like, they know our systems extremely well, and they are well aligned in our with our goals. That said, both of those projects have taken a lot longer than we anticipated. Some of those are technical. Some are logistical. If you've paid attention to our estimated ship dates, you've probably noticed that both of these projects have slipped considerably from our original estimates. For context, they both started around the time as the C172's development.

So far, we've found that the most efficient way for us to design these installations is in-house. We expect that our pace will continue to quicken (it already has), but you've correctly identified that we have limited resources.

All that said, we don't mean to discourage the discussion. But that's where we are in our thinking.
 

Bill Putney

Active Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
101
Location
Hillsboro, OR (KHIO)
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Luckily for the Navion type, there are lots of scholarly papers that detail the aircraft's behavior. Navion's were retrofitted as remotely piloted target drones at one time and have been retrofitted by NASA to test fly by wire to simulate flight characteristics of various aircraft. There are probably man decades of data available in the public domain. But I suspect that when it gets right down to it, someone is going to cut some sheet metal, bend it and rivet it in place and use a fish scale to see if the structure bends.

I am a real safety conscious guy. I respect the system and I think the system is there to protect people. I sometimes think there are cross purposes at work within the system that can needlessly perpetuate real threats to flight safety. These autopilots have been flying a long time in the experimental market. Dynon only makes install kits for a very few of the experimental types that have these autopilots installed in them. That I am aware of, these autopilots haven't caused fatal accidents despite the fact that the level of engineering review in some cases is the possible use of a fish scale after the install is accomplished. Meanwhile, fatalities due to loss of control in General Aviation is a statistic that is real and a real concern to the FAA. A modern autopilot that is affordable could have a real positive impact on that statistic and on the lives of owner/pilots, their families and the public.

Respectfully, it is a little disheartening to imagine how long it may take Dynon to
  • Find 600 aircraft of different types with owners willing to donate their use.
  • Put them in "Experimental - Developmental".
  • Somehow manage to find flight test data for aircraft designs (a lot of them CAR3) decades old or to reproduce that data by exhaustive flight testing.
  • And finally designing, manufacturing and stocking installation kits that, in some cases, could never recover the engineering costs.
Your engineers will get to fly in a lot of really cool airplanes but I don't see a lot of flight safety payback. At some point it's a decision something like "This is a nice stable design that can handle being flown by an autopilot." or "How did this design ever get certified? No way is this safe. Let's not compound the problem." At that point we're back to the Cut, Bend, Rivet, Fish Scale, Fly regime. I'm not recommending plagiarism (it is public record) but, looking at existing autopilot AMLs would give some strong hints about the efficacy of applying an autopilot to a type.

Meanwhile, the type clubs are very familiar with their individual aircraft. In most cases they have decades of hands on experience and already know what works and what doesn't. They have the incentive to keep their owners safe and their types flying. And, they may be willing to make the financial investment in doing the front end work to get a safety enhancement into their types. Respectfully, recreating that knowledge within the Dynon engineering group may not be the best use of their time or the best use of Dynon's financial resources.

I love Dynon. You folks really have your head on right. You know your business and your customers. I know this will be carefully considered and I will trust that Dynon will come to the right conclusion.

I've been waiting years for this to all come together. I put my order in days after the AML expansion was announced and I took my new water jet cut panel to the powder coat paint shop yesterday.
N5413K.jpg

Keep up the good work!

Best Regards,

Bill
 
Last edited:
Top