E-35 Bonanza. New dynon panel
- Thread starter Brent Dana
- Start date
Brent Dana
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2020
- Messages
- 86
Spert
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2020
- Messages
- 48
That looks great!
Brent Dana
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2020
- Messages
- 86
It was an ars panel, and i just put my own design over it. One thing i figured out last night. Landing lights and wing fuel pumps should be reverse position. Other than that happy with it.
I wanted it like an airline, knowing how hard it is to get under that dash, if there is an issue down the road. By doung seperate panels, it allows me to handle any issue, sitting in the seat, within 5 mins, the back of the instrument is in my lap. All goes back in, in 14 mins.
I wanted it like an airline, knowing how hard it is to get under that dash, if there is an issue down the road. By doung seperate panels, it allows me to handle any issue, sitting in the seat, within 5 mins, the back of the instrument is in my lap. All goes back in, in 14 mins.
Attachments
Last edited:
I was thinking about putting a Dynon HDX into my panel. I have an IFD550 GPS. How do you get approval to connect them together? My IFD550 STC says it can only be connected to devices listed in their installation manual.
haha, Never mind, I see you got a Garmin…
haha, Never mind, I see you got a Garmin…
Brent Dana
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2020
- Messages
- 86
You do not need an approval you need a technician to do it, otherwise any product made after yours would not be in the manual. Cannot be the case. You can ask Dynon if you’re ISD can talk to the Dynon system, which I’m sure it can
Rhino
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,506
It can, though there may be limitations. These guys have reportedly installed several 550s with Dynons, so they might be able to answer questions as well.
www.flyvolar.com
Avionics Shop | Volar Avionics
At Volar Avionics we treat your aircraft as our own and take a tremendous amount of pride in our work. Each aircraft has its own story… just like each pilot.
www.flyvolar.com
constantspeed
New Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2021
- Messages
- 7
I have one of those cool blank autopilot placeholders in my J35 Bonanza panel too! I began my journey down the rabbit hole in Oct. 2019. Promises, promises, the autopilot was going to be approved by the end of that year, I was told by Dynon, then the next quarter, and the next... they kept telling me all the work, engineering, testing/flying had been done, and it was with the FAA, waiting for approval. But Dynon kept kicking the can down the road. Then it was suppose to be approved along with the A36 , and while the A36 did finally get approved, the older 35's were separated from that approval, and now apparently dropped altogether! You cannot make me believe it was done and just waiting for FAA paperwork, only to now have it drop off the radar entirely. The only reason I went with Dynon for the full new panel build was because Garmin didn't even have the older Bonanza on their list for future autopilot certification. Here we are, three years later, and no autopilot from Dynon, and no guidance. Meanwhile, Garmin has the GFC500 approved for all of our older V-Tails... and everyone who swallowed the Dynon Kool Aid, like me, have an orphaned system, and a blank placeholder. I guess I can turn it into a nice placard for my N-number. At best I am now hoping to retro-fit a Garmin GFC500 together with a G5, connected to my Avidyne IFD540 to fill the autopilot void. Great, back to having a patch-work system of add-ons. While I like my Dynon Skyview HDX, I am very, very disappointed in Dynon as a company, their practices, and their willingness to take my money, but seemingly no interest in making this right, and no communication. It would be nice to have a full alternative to "Big G," but Dynon is not it.
Attachments
Rhino
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,506
So it was waiting for FAA approval, and you think Dynon was kicking the can down the road? You think Dynon controls the FAA? Seriously?
constantspeed
New Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2021
- Messages
- 7
No, of course not, what I am saying is that Dynon was not being truthful about the status of their V-Tail autopilot situation. If it was really done and just waiting for FAA approval, why has it now been dropped from their list? They go through all of that, and now there is no effort to see it through? Dynon just announced the Cessna 182 is approved, and the same day a Beech Debonair C333A gets added in early stages of the upcoming autopilot approvals list. Still nothing about the older V-Tails? Dynon is not being truthful or transparent with their customers. They are not communicating or offering guidance to the fleet of V-Tail owners, and especially to those owners who have already invested dearly in Dynon systems. No respect, no honor. This thread holds but two examples of customers who have taken the deep dive to fully upgrade their Bonanza panels and invest their trust, dollars, and faith with Dynon, and how have they been rewarded? What message does this send to those who are contemplating an upgrade to their own panels? What reason would they have to choose Dynon? I cannot count the number of people considering panel upgrades who have asked me about my panel, about Dynon, and why not Garmin? Where do you think their $$$ will go?
Rhino
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,506
I've seen Dynon tell customers on numerous occasions, here and elsewhere, not to base their panel decisions on presumed future approvals. While there have been some past issues with overzealous sales reps predicting approvals, I've never seen Dynon themselves make any such claim. And many of the reps making the claims were not Dynon employees. Quite the opposite of all this, Dynon has repeatedly warned against making such assumptions or predictions as regards approval dates. There were sometimes delays with development or additional actions Dynon had to take at the request of the FAA in some of the approval processes, but Dynon was very up front and honest about all those as far as I've seen. If you can give me some examples where Dynon themselves have made any such predictions of approvals or expected approval times, please post them here. So far, no one making these claims against Dynon has provided any evidence they've done any such thing. I'm not saying it can't have happened, mind you. I've just never seen any hard evidence that it has. I have no doubt even Dynon didn't initially expect approvals to take this long, especially when approvals handled by other FAA offices seem to happen much quicker. Unfortunately, they don't get to pick which office handles their approvals. Yet, none of that seems to stop people coming here and other places to blame Dynon for delays caused by the FAA. Dynon is just as frustrated with those delays as anyone else is. You, like many others, seem to be the victim of false or insufficient information, neither of which is the fault of Dynon. Nor is it their fault if people ignore their advice not to assume approvals will come in a timely manner. Yes, people may decide to go elsewhere. Many already have, and many more probably will. But there isn't anything Dynon can do about that, and it isn't fair to blame them for the problems at the FAA.
constantspeed
New Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2021
- Messages
- 7
From what I can tell, I think @BrentDana and I began our Bonanza panel upgrades at a similar time, in the fall of 2019. I wrote an initial rant on the frustration with the AP approval process back on May 2, 2021, to which @BrentDana replied in part, "My whole mission was the auto pilot." I could not have said it better. I came to Dynon for the prospect of a nice glass panel upgrade with seamless integration of features and function. Throughout my pre-purchase conversations by phone with Dynon sales (Fall, 2019), the AP approval was only a matter of when, not if. After receiving my Dynon system, and beginning the upgrade process, I found reason to call Dynon on numerous occasions with questions on the install. They were all very helpful, and with each phone conversation I also inquired regarding AP status. It was always just around the corner. There was never any doubt that it would happen, only uncertainty as to when. These were all phone conversations, so nothing I have in writing to post here. Dynon didn't publish official promises on their website publicly, but direct conversations seemed more revealing. Do I think they lied? No, I believe they were genuine in their belief that the AP approval was just a matter of time. I understand that if they were truly just waiting for the FAA approval, well that is a fickle beast, and it was in the middle of the COVID fiasco too. So I understand how the schedule slips. The crux of the issue here is not that it was delayed, but that it was dropped entirely, and without sufficient explanation or guidance, especially to those of us who already invested significant sums of money, based on very reasonable expectations provided by Dynon. Dynon themselves posted a rather lengthy mea culpa of sorts here in the forums on June 29, 2021, almost 1-1/2 years ago now, falling on their sword and saying sorry. As part of that post they give credence to the concept that Dynon changed their message to potential customers, but only after the 35 AP was dropped:
"Finally, know that ever since the Bonanza autopilot applicability narrowed, our team has been actively discouraging potential customers from buying in advance of actual autopilot availability if an autopilot is important to their project. We’ve strengthened the language on the website similarly. But we know that some of your panels predate that shift in expectations. Some Bonanza 33, 35 and other customers have bought and installed our products, expecting an autopilot that hasn’t yet been approved. We’re really sorry, and we are working to deliver on our original plans."
And that is the last we have heard on the subject. My criticism stands. No guidance, no explanation, no communication beyond this generalization almost 1-1/2 years ago. We shouldn't be hearing about this only in some general forum discussion either. To those of us who put serious time and money into our aircraft based on expectations from Dynon, they should be reaching out to each of us directly, and publishing specific details here in the forums as well.
Why was the 35 AP dropped from the A36 approval? I assume it was because of the FAA, but why specifically?
What were the issues with the 35 AP approval, specifically? Applicable to all older 35 models or some?
Why drop this entirely? Is there no work being done at all on solving whatever the problem is for the 35 AP?
How can they be "working to deliver on our original plans" when they provide no further information?
Garmin announced approval of their GFC500 for early 35 models on July 8, 2021 (a week after the long Dynon apology post)... and they began the certification process well after Dynon, and finished last year! So it is possible. Why can't Dynon finish it?
If Dynon truly wants to be transparent and forthcoming, then communicate. Talk to me Goose!
Last edited:
Rhino
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,506
I do not in any way claim that there haven't been lapses in communication. I think they've improved somewhat in that regard, but there still should be more done in that direction. My main beef has been the number of times Dynon has been blamed for the delays, when they are not the cause at all. You also highlight something else. I don’t think Dynon initially had any idea how long this stuff would be delayed either. And those delays started before covid. I think they fell into the same trap that many others did in assuming they'd get approvals as quickly as the 'Big G' folks do, without realizing a different FAA approval authority would operate on a different timeline. Your frustration is completely understandable, and in many ways justified. Your questions are also quite valid. I just wanted any blame laid where it truly belonged. And I apologize that I've somewhat diverted this thread into a political discussion of sorts. That’s not really what this forum is for. So.... back to our regularly scheduled program.
Please try not to read this as a point-by-point rebuttal. I'm going to answer your questions as best I can.
You have it exactly right. Early on, we thought we were getting the whole 35 line with the first approval. We were wrong.
Fair. Even now, we thought we'd have more velocity on approvals than we've had over the past few years. We've made some changes in the way we approach projects and our interactions with FAA to help speed this up. That's kind of a forward looking statement, obviously. We do still intend to return to the 35 models that fell off of that first approval.
We can't pin this on the FAA.
"In the old days" (ie before 2021ish), we would do a reasonable but not an exhaustive deep-dive evaluation of an airplane family, the market, how similar airframes are to each other, and then pick a representative airplane, get it in-house, get to work, and based on that early analysis transmit what models we thought we can approve to help let customers know what's coming. Communicating our early expectations was a mistake (that we try not to make anymore...see below).
Now this isn't going to help, and it's going to sound defensive, but the early 35s weren't definitively included in the 36 project. BUT, per the above, we certainly did set an expectation (see early messaging on the A36 here) that it was perhaps possible. It was based on the earnest hope and early analysis that the models were similar enough - more on that below - but we were wrong. We've learned that setting any expectations that we're not certain about is a mistake. We've also realized and internalized that a typical buying criteria is that "the whole mission is the autopilot", which we didn't place enough importance on early on. That's why today, we only publish current order of airplanes, and only for airplanes that we have in house (everything else is subject to change). We don't make predictions about model families until we're certain - ie, very close to the approval - and actively discourage people from buying a system if autopilot is the key for them like it was for you. That doesn't help you though, admittedly.
I'm going to simplify here, but to take an installation that is installed in an individual aircraft (in our case, a V35B and an A36) and apply it to other models, there has to be similarities on many dimensions, including (obviously) the installation hardware, flight characteristics, and another bunch of ways I won't enumerate. Every time we thought we had an airframe that was similar enough to include the early 35s, we were wrong, both with the original V35 series and the 36 series. You'd be surprised how small of a mechanical or other change across models/years can make the difference between "it works!" and "nope". Sometimes it's fitment, and sometimes it's more complex. In both of those programs, we discovered incompatibilities later in the engineering process (remember, we only have one R&D airplane on-hand).
We really are trying to make this right. It's going to take longer than we thought. Some evidence that we're making progress that won't apply to you, but does apply to the Beech family more broadly: Our early guidance also included the 33 series / Debonairs, and we currently have a Beechcraft 35-C33A Debonair (this is a 33 series, despite the confusing name) in-house to try to make good on that. It may not cover all of the 33s, but I I think of it as a down payment on making good on that early guidance. Why that airplane and not an early 35? At juuuust the right moment, one became available to us. (Before any of you ask whether you can lend us your airplane, realize you'd need to make an open-ended commitment. These days, we try to acquire an airplane that doesn't have a time limit on it).
Anyway, that's the whole story. “It’s The Only One I Got.”
Michael Schofield
Dynon
You have it exactly right. Early on, we thought we were getting the whole 35 line with the first approval. We were wrong.
Fair. Even now, we thought we'd have more velocity on approvals than we've had over the past few years. We've made some changes in the way we approach projects and our interactions with FAA to help speed this up. That's kind of a forward looking statement, obviously. We do still intend to return to the 35 models that fell off of that first approval.
We can't pin this on the FAA.
"In the old days" (ie before 2021ish), we would do a reasonable but not an exhaustive deep-dive evaluation of an airplane family, the market, how similar airframes are to each other, and then pick a representative airplane, get it in-house, get to work, and based on that early analysis transmit what models we thought we can approve to help let customers know what's coming. Communicating our early expectations was a mistake (that we try not to make anymore...see below).
Now this isn't going to help, and it's going to sound defensive, but the early 35s weren't definitively included in the 36 project. BUT, per the above, we certainly did set an expectation (see early messaging on the A36 here) that it was perhaps possible. It was based on the earnest hope and early analysis that the models were similar enough - more on that below - but we were wrong. We've learned that setting any expectations that we're not certain about is a mistake. We've also realized and internalized that a typical buying criteria is that "the whole mission is the autopilot", which we didn't place enough importance on early on. That's why today, we only publish current order of airplanes, and only for airplanes that we have in house (everything else is subject to change). We don't make predictions about model families until we're certain - ie, very close to the approval - and actively discourage people from buying a system if autopilot is the key for them like it was for you. That doesn't help you though, admittedly.
I'm going to simplify here, but to take an installation that is installed in an individual aircraft (in our case, a V35B and an A36) and apply it to other models, there has to be similarities on many dimensions, including (obviously) the installation hardware, flight characteristics, and another bunch of ways I won't enumerate. Every time we thought we had an airframe that was similar enough to include the early 35s, we were wrong, both with the original V35 series and the 36 series. You'd be surprised how small of a mechanical or other change across models/years can make the difference between "it works!" and "nope". Sometimes it's fitment, and sometimes it's more complex. In both of those programs, we discovered incompatibilities later in the engineering process (remember, we only have one R&D airplane on-hand).
We really are trying to make this right. It's going to take longer than we thought. Some evidence that we're making progress that won't apply to you, but does apply to the Beech family more broadly: Our early guidance also included the 33 series / Debonairs, and we currently have a Beechcraft 35-C33A Debonair (this is a 33 series, despite the confusing name) in-house to try to make good on that. It may not cover all of the 33s, but I I think of it as a down payment on making good on that early guidance. Why that airplane and not an early 35? At juuuust the right moment, one became available to us. (Before any of you ask whether you can lend us your airplane, realize you'd need to make an open-ended commitment. These days, we try to acquire an airplane that doesn't have a time limit on it).
Anyway, that's the whole story. “It’s The Only One I Got.”
Michael Schofield
Dynon
constantspeed
New Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2021
- Messages
- 7
Michael,
Thank you. I applaud the response and earnest tone, and think it provides a bit more clarity to the process and situation. I think Dynon should make an appeal for more model-35 specific aircraft to collaborate on A/P certification. You won't know, if you don't try. I fear at this rate with the process and single-model test-bed approach you describe, it will be many more years before my J-model finds approval. How did Garmin do this? (I think I know) Your customers can be allies and partners who want you to succeed. Please harness the talent, knowledge, resources, and skills of your customer base. We will all be rewarded.