Auto pilot certification?
- Thread starter Tony
- Start date
airguy
Well-Known Member
For which airplane?
Raymo
I love aviation!
It is nice that they now have a progress bar for the models that they are working on, but the thing that gets me is why there's no mention of the PA-28 line, or why the PA-34 is happening before? You would think there would be a larger potential market for the PA-28's than the PA-34's. The lack of any idea on the PA-28's is giving me pause about the system, and I am basically ready to pull the trigger now, especially since my DG has been acting up...
So our current philosophy with that page is that we only list models that we're currently actively working on (or for which we have an airplane in-house on which work is about to start, which is about the current state of the Mooney). We're starting to stop putting out official ordering for which airplanes we might do after those, because time and new information and further research has changed them. All of that said, the PA-28 is still on the short list.
The PA-34 is a bit unique in that it's a project that we did with one of our installation partners. It's actually been going about as long as the C172. So this one has actually taken way longer than we expected because working with an external organization involves additional coordination and lower bandwidth communication than what we can do when everything is under our direct control. So it's been a bit of a floater time-wise, but it's about to hatch.
The PA-34 is a bit unique in that it's a project that we did with one of our installation partners. It's actually been going about as long as the C172. So this one has actually taken way longer than we expected because working with an external organization involves additional coordination and lower bandwidth communication than what we can do when everything is under our direct control. So it's been a bit of a floater time-wise, but it's about to hatch.
MilitaryAV8R
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2020
- Messages
- 3
I know it has been a couple months since any activity on this thread but I have a question for Dynon. I know you were talking about the Mooney in the pipeline to get the autopilot certification, but I am specifically wondering what models of the Mooney M20? I have an M20F and have my fingers crossed for this system. From everything I have seen, this system seems to even beat the Proline 21 cockpit I fly for work. Keep up the great work.
Our hope (but not promise) is that the STC will cover the short and mid-length fuselages, which covers roughly the M20 through the M20K. That's subject to change, though. For what it's worth, we're actually doing work against a J model, which has the same size fuselage as yours.
MilitaryAV8R
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2020
- Messages
- 3
When dealing with the FAA you can never make promises, but we can always hope. If the M20F does not get included then I guess we can talk about if you want to use my "F" for more STC testing. Thanks and looking forward to getting to fly behind that beautiful HDX screen.
The F model is VERY likely to be included with the J, because as you know, it is the same fuselage as the J, only the engine, cowling, windshield and fairings are a bit different. Ditto the K model. I would consider models of 1964 model year and older as unlikely, because they have different ailerons that require more force than the 1965 and newer models.
Flying_Monkey
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2019
- Messages
- 90
For those not wanting to wait or if your model has not been announced on the road map, here is video I made about the Trutrak Autopilot. I hope to eventually install the Dynon AP if it gets approved for the PA32 but until that time, I would rather be with an AP than without...
Flying_Monkey
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2019
- Messages
- 90
If you have it installed make sure the HDX gets wired to it via serial on a switch so it can control the TT...here is a video about that too..
Flying_Monkey
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2019
- Messages
- 90
Definitely stop by the Delta row hangars and say hi!
Bill Putney
Active Member
Not to put too fine a point on the obvious but, the servo mounting for TruTrak is (as far as I can tell) exactly the same as for the Dynon servos. Once you have a TruTrak installed under their STC, the conversion to a Dynon autopilot (once Dynon gets around to adding your aircraft to their AML as having the autopilot) should be a very quick conversion unless Dynon screws it up (like redesigning the mounts and rigging). I am loath suggest someone plagiarize another's design, but there does seem to be some precedent for that. Avidyne sells an autopilot controller that requires that the airplane already has an S-Tec 55 autopilot installed.
Sadly, it doesn't do me any good since my airplane isn't on TruTrak's AML either.
Flying_Monkey
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2019
- Messages
- 90
Thanks for that info! Thats great to know. The STC's for the Dynon AP seem to be moving very slowly. I know it's a difficult and expensive process from what I hear. I wish the PA32 were even on their list. I fear it may never happen or its just going to be a looooooooooooong time.
Bill Putney
Active Member
Thanks for that info! Thats great to know. The STC's for the Dynon AP seem to be moving very slowly. I know it's a difficult and expensive process from what I hear. I wish the PA32 were even on their list. I fear it may never happen or its just going to be a looooooooooooong time.
It's understandable that Dynon is using it's engineering resources to do the design work on the types with the highest numbers of possible sales. The frustrating thing is that the experimental version of the autopilot can be pretty much installed on any thing a builder builds so long as they don't mind making their own mounts and control rigging.
I suppose the FAA is putting Dynon through a lot more hoops than common sense would dictate. As far as I know Dynon's autopilots haven't caused a lot of problems for all the experimental types they've been installed on. Unless the physics works differently for aircraft that fly using experimental certificates vs. type certificates. A lot of time spent doing proofs does not seem to be warranted. There are conceivably type designs that exhibit flight properties that might not be safe to fly with an autopilot. I don't know of any TC'd aircraft that are in that category since they would probably not get TC'd because it would be hard for a human to fly them as well.
The other thing that probably slows Dynon down is that they feel like they need to have all the installation parts (mounts and rigging parts) developed and on the shelf before they add a type to the AML. That isn't an FAA requirement. It's fairly common that low volume STC's installation designs that require the A&P to fabricate sheet metal parts like brackets. Most of the rest of it could be solved by calling out standard AN parts.
The only way Dynon is going to make a significant dent in their backlog is to hire an engineer to collaborate with type clubs or other type owner groups to develop designs and approved data and walk it through the FAA. Dynon could charge the groups for the engineer's time collaborating with the outside groups. As part of the contract for that collaboration, the resulting design and data could be signed over to Dynon.
A side benefit of that to Dynon would be that they would be getting their engineering underwritten by groups of owners that are willing to put their resources (read time and money) into the process and are likely to actually result in system sales. That takes it out of the realm of a market projection committing a lot of company time and money.