Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

The ramblings of our community of aviators.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
Doug Tellef
1 Diamond Member
1 Diamond Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:04 pm
First Name: Doug
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: None
Airports: KMWL
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by Doug Tellef »

Hello all, this is Doug Tellef from Genesys Aerosystems. I have been in contact with several of the members from this forum in the past week about autopilot solutions for your aircraft. As was mentioned earlier in this post it may be possible to certify the 3100 for the diamond series, however there may be some interface limitations with the G1000 suite. The interface with the G1000 is something that we have looked into before with other potential airframe STC projects, however the G1000 software is designed specifically for each airframe so functions that may work with one aircraft model may not necessarily work with another. This is certainly something that we can look into if we were to go forward with the STC project. As far as a potential STC project for the 3100 and diamond aircraft I wanted to jump in, explain the standard path that the process takes and answer any questions that anyone may have.

This is the general process for beginning an STC project for any aircraft such as the DA40 (the DA42 would be a separate project)

The first phase would be gathering names of owners who are interested, which we have been doing the last few days. Typically we like to have about 30-40 names as that realistically turns into about 15 confirmed PO’s. When beginning a new STC project we need to be able to show that there is enough demand to justify the cost and time of the project as it is typically about a 3 month project with design, engineering, software, flight testing, and FAA certification involved it can be a costly process.

The second phase is getting the owners to submit confirmed purchase orders to their S-TEC dealers. We will put the airframe on the STC project schedule typically once we get 15-20 confirmed PO’s. To submit a confirmed PO the customer will place the order through an authorized S-TEC Dealer. The dealer will complete an order verification form with you which gives us the necessary configuration info regarding your specific aircraft so the 3100 will be configured correctly (heading system, other STC’d equipment, etc.) At this time the dealer will typically ask for a deposit, usually around 20% as that is the restocking fee that would apply if we do the STC then owners cancel their orders. This is why we do phase 1, to ensure that the demand is there. I would not want people to start putting in deposits through their dealers, then end up with only 8-10 orders which would not meet the threshold to begin the project. If we do not begin the STC project then obviously there would not be a re-stocking fee assessed for canceled orders, however then people would have to go back to the dealers to get their money back, that is never fun for anyone.

Once we have the necessary amount of confirmed orders we will need to find a donor aircraft to use for the STC project. Once we find an owner with an aircraft that will work we can discuss pricing and timelines with them. Typically they can expect to leave the aircraft with us for approximately 2-3 months while we install the system, do company flight testing and tuning, FAA flight testing, and certification. Once all that is discussed and agreed upon we will get a contract signed and get the aircraft on the STC schedule for the next available slot.
User avatar
salim
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:05 am
First Name: Salim
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: FHVES
Airports: LFPN
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by salim »

Doug,

Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain the process in depth.

Do you think you could :
- provide a preliminary overview of the functionalities and limitations of the stec 3100 on a DA42 (based on what you’ve seen on other G1000 platforms)
- give a rough estimate of the cost of the system and of the installation ?

Based on that, we could start collecting interest for the project. I am quite confident we could find 30-40 names.

Best,

Salim
User avatar
Doug Tellef
1 Diamond Member
1 Diamond Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:04 pm
First Name: Doug
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: None
Airports: KMWL
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by Doug Tellef »

Salim,

I have attached a .pdf file which is the outline from Tech when we last looked at the Mooney G1000 possibility, hopefully that helps bring about some clarity, again though that was created based upon reviewing the paperwork on the mooney specific G1000 application.

As far as pricing, the 3100 pricing is standard across the board with the 2 axis system (pitch, roll, and automatic trim) being $19,995 and the 3 axis system (includes an integrated yaw damper) being $24,995. This pricing includes the computer, servos, hardware kit, install and paperwork kits. You would need to get a quote from a dealer to include the labor.

As always if anyone has any questions or if i can be of any assistance please let me know.

Best Regards,

Doug Tellef
Inside Sales Representative
P: (817) 215-7628
Email: Doug.Tellef@genesys-aerosystems.com
Website: www.genesys-aerosystems.com

Genesys Aerosystems
Precise Performance, Proven Experience, Personalized Attention
Attachments
Below is a description of the proposed interface between the Garmin G1000 system and the S (2).pdf
(121.15 KiB) Downloaded 125 times
User avatar
blsewardjr
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:19 pm
First Name: Bernie
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N377DS
Airports: KCHO
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 146 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by blsewardjr »

Doug- If done, would the STC for the DA40 apply to both G1000 and steam gauge DA40s, or are they separate projects? Thanks. Bernie
Bernie Seward, IR, AGI
2003 DA40 N377DS
KCHO Charlottesville, VA
User avatar
Doug Tellef
1 Diamond Member
1 Diamond Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:04 pm
First Name: Doug
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: None
Airports: KMWL
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by Doug Tellef »

We would likely be able to cover DA40's with G1000, analog, G5, Aspen, G500/600 TXi on the same STC as long as we used a G1000 for the STC certification aircraft, if the certification was not done on a G1000 equiped aircraft then specifically the G1000 would not be included, at least initially.
User avatar
TwinStarScott
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 3:13 am
First Name: Scott
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: N189Y
Airports: WN53
Has thanked: 884 times
Been thanked: 224 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by TwinStarScott »

Didn’t have time yesterday to dive back into this thread. So, for starters, I’d like to thank our tireless and globe-trotting forum moderator Chris for granting access to DAN for Doug Tellef of Genesys Aerosystems. And, of course, to Doug for his wiliness to join the conversation.
None of us is expecting to get anything for free. But the upgrades have already been developed (NXi, GFC700, GIA63W) with corresponding software. What we ask is to not being overcharged (i.e. to see transparent parts & labor prices) and DAI to allow other certified Diamond/Garmin shops to perform the upgrades.
Agreed Emir. Yet realistically will Garmin ever lower prices out of pressure alone from owners, given the monopoly status they currently enjoy over the integrated avionics market? And historically, doesn’t competition always benefit the consumer?

The question then becomes how best to accomplish this?

My suggestion is for KAP140 owners to explore as many options as possible - now. It also seems the September 17th letter has given us all ample reason to start right away with this process, rather than continue to wait for the pending response out of the London factory.

In terms of Genesys and the STEC 3100 A/P, couldn’t this upgrade be viewed as a great, cost effective alternative to the GFC700? And I would imagine others would be willing to accept less A/P integration with their G1000, in exchange for potentially significant savings. And a big enough savings that could make the difference between an owner being able to upgrade or not. And after all, KAP140 owners are used to this lack of integration anyway, yet we’d be gaining envelope protection at a relatively attractive price.

One of the next steps would then be to formally request Diamond support this alternative A/P. Yet this would be an opportune time for Diamond to step forward and announce that they are genuinely concerned about the long-term viability of the fleet. Which could be done by stating something like:

“We, at Diamond, are standing at the ready to work with Genesys, with the goal of providing a truly cost-effective option* to our legacy owners (that is not limited to only A/P’s).”

As it sure seems DAN members are long overdue for some good news that squarely addresses our cost concerns over being future limited to only one and astronomically priced product offering.

PS - There has been frequent speculation on DAN about the life expectancy of the legacy G1000, but I can’t ever recall reading any estimates about the same for the KAP140. One question therefore is: does any DAN member have an idea of how many more years the KAP140 parts inventory will last and realistically be supported in the field by avionics shops?

*since Garmin managed to have the KAP140 interface with the legacy G1000 and have stated they could re-engineer the NXi to do the same, then it’s an almost certain bet Garmin could do the same with the STEC 3100. All that would need to happen is for DAI to issue the request (to Garmin).
User avatar
ememic99
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:31 am
First Name: Emir
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: SEMAD
Airports: LDZA LDVA
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 390 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by ememic99 »

TwinStarScott wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:46 am
None of us is expecting to get anything for free. But the upgrades have already been developed (NXi, GFC700, GIA63W) with corresponding software. What we ask is to not being overcharged (i.e. to see transparent parts & labor prices) and DAI to allow other certified Diamond/Garmin shops to perform the upgrades.
Agreed Emir. Yet realistically will Garmin ever lower prices out of pressure alone from owners, given the monopoly status they currently enjoy over the integrated avionics market? And historically, doesn’t competition always benefit the consumer?
I don't mean that Garmin should lower the prices. I mean DAI shouldn't make additional margin on parts. If GFC600 retails for $20k (for Bonanza) or $24k (for Baron) and we don't have the reason to think that GFC700 costs more (same technology, same HW & SW, no buttons and display), how can installing GFC700 can cost $80k (plus tax which in Europe ranges from 18% to 25%)?
TwinStarScott wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:46 am In terms of Genesys and the STEC 3100 A/P, couldn’t this upgrade be viewed as a great, cost effective alternative to the GFC700? And I would imagine others would be willing to accept less A/P integration with their G1000, in exchange for potentially significant savings. And a big enough savings that could make the difference between an owner being able to upgrade or not. And after all, KAP140 owners are used to this lack of integration anyway, yet we’d be gaining envelope protection at a relatively attractive price.
I agree that this is great alternative and I'm ready to support it. The lack of full integration definitely is not a problem. But somehow I'm not optimistic, at least for DA42. Plus there's issue of EASA certification after completing FAA one.
TwinStarScott wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:46 am One of the next steps would then be to formally request Diamond support this alternative A/P. Yet this would be an opportune time for Diamond to step forward and announce that they are genuinely concerned about the long-term viability of the fleet. Which could be done by stating something like:

“We, at Diamond, are standing at the ready to work with Genesys, with the goal of providing a truly cost-effective option* to our legacy owners (that is not limited to only A/P’s).”
Unfortunately, this won't happen, at least not for DA42. Not because Diamond is not willing to help but because for them it will make a situation even more complex than it's today. Integrated avionics which is part of TC would get another variable in equation and they would have to release complete new POH and have additional combination of airframe and avionics (plus WAAS and non-WAAS variation).

This is from current POH (DA42 AFM for KAP140 equipped aircraft): "This airplane flight manual is valid for DA42 airplanes with a KAP 140 or no autopilot system installed. Refer to the airplane flight manual “DA42 with Garmin GFC 700 (OÄM 42-102)”, Doc. No. 7.01.06-E for airplanes with a Garmin Autopilot system installed."

For DA40 the situation might be less complex.
User avatar
Steve
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1953
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:23 am
First Name: Steve
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N432SC
Airports: 1T7
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 493 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by Steve »

TwinStarScott wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:46 amPS - There has been frequent speculation on DAN about the life expectancy of the legacy G1000, but I can’t ever recall reading any estimates about the same for the KAP140. One question therefore is: does any DAN member have an idea of how many more years the KAP140 parts inventory will last and realistically be supported in the field by avionics shops?
There are a lot of KAP140s in service, so parts availability should be OK in the relative near-term (10 years). You can still get new and rebuilt servos (although they are quite expensive), which are the most common component to fail. KFC140 computers are also available. I actually bought one on eBay to have as a spare, but other than testing it, have not used it.

I am happy with my KAP140, and don't anticipate changing it out while it is still FMC. It is actually fairly user-friendly for maintenance and system diagnosis. You can make a cable harness that connects your laptop to the diagnostic port on the AP, and pretty much figure out what is wrong with the system. I was able to diagnose an intermittent AP disengage switch that way, and probably saved myself $1K.

If the situation arises where I have a couple of bad servos, and it would cost $6-9K to replace them with overhauled units, then I would seriously consider installation of a new system.

Steve
User avatar
TwinStarScott
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 3:13 am
First Name: Scott
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: N189Y
Airports: WN53
Has thanked: 884 times
Been thanked: 224 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by TwinStarScott »

Thanks Steve, that was very helpful information about the KAP140!

It also seems this could be the perfect time for the non-G1000 DA-40 owners to have an extended conversation about exploring the STEC 3100 in greater detail, because of the 3100’s improved capabilities and attractive price point.
If the situation arises where I have a couple of bad servos, and it would cost $6-9K to replace them with overhauled units, then I would seriously consider installation of a new system.
And given the long lead times for FAA approval, the best window to start this process is well before a KAP140 servo fails, rather than after the fact.

Another question comes to mind since starting this thread is:

Why is the estimated installation time for a STEC 3100 only around 100 hours (x $100 = ~ $10,000) versus 300 hours for a GFC700 / ~$40,000 at the London factory. Is there anyone that can please help me understand why the GFC700 is three times more labor intensive than an STEC (that also has envelope protection) and four times more costly in labor (only)?

Is it the composite airframe, more complicated wiring, a combination of both or other unrelated factors?
“We, at Diamond, are standing at the ready to work with Genesys, with the goal of providing a truly cost-effective option to our legacy owners (that is not limited to only A/P’s).” (me)

Unfortunately, this won't happen, at least not for DA42. Not because Diamond is not willing to help but because for them it will make a situation even more complex than it's today. Integrated avionics which is part of TC would get another variable in equation and they would have to release complete new POH and have additional combination of airframe and avionics (plus WAAS and non-WAAS variation). (Emir)
Your insightful comments, Emir, are well taken and certainly give Diamond the opportunity to provide some valuable assistance with supporting the non-G1000 segment of their fleet, by endorsing a cost-effective A/P* that also enhances safety.

Granted, finding an affordable A/P replacement for DA42 TDI’s / DA40 IO-360’s / Legacy G1000 / KAP140 aircraft is a much tougher nut to crack, and even more so when taking a compartmentalized approach with third party solutions.

*among many other exciting panel options.
Current AML for the GFC500. Note the absence of the DA40 on even the "In-progress" and "planned to begin in the next 12-months" list.
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/604257#additional
User avatar
ememic99
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:31 am
First Name: Emir
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: SEMAD
Airports: LDZA LDVA
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 390 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by ememic99 »

TwinStarScott wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:37 am *among many other exciting panel options.
Current AML for the GFC500. Note the absence of the DA40 on even the "In-progress" and "planned to begin in the next 12-months" list.
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/604257#additional
That’s because DAI doesn’t think about replacement AP. For them the issue of AP doesn’t exist, AP topic has been closed with GFC700, simply because they are interested in new aircrafts production/sales. Just remember the Thielert vs Austro engines - once DAI had AE ready and certified, Thielert equipped aircraft became forgotten. Then Thielert/Technify/CD released CD-155 and independent STC (Crosby) pushed DAI to obtain their own STC for the same engine for DA42, although at the beginning they were totally opposed to that idea. Another proof that only competition can ensure some benefits for the customers.
Post Reply