R182 and GFC500 STC (finally)

Landing Fees

Landing Fees

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Feb 9, 2018
Messages
387
Display Name
Display name:
Landing Fees
Our R182 "Gertie" had a little plastic surgery over the holidays, a little nip/tuck if you will. Added two G5's and removed the vacuum system. So far I am amazed, the price was right, they integrate nicely with the GMA350/GNS530/GNS430/GTX345. Now we have put parts money down for a GFC500 and the list comes out missing the R182. The Garmin sales rep said "We're still awaiting certification of the R182".

Any other owners contacted Garmin to find out if it was a paperwork oversight or if the Friend Aviation Association denied the STC for our model? I have talked to the owner of two other R182 and he asked me to submit his tail-numbers to Garmin. Talking to our avionics guy, there is the demand.

If you have an R182 and haven't sent a note to aviation.sales@garmin.com to request the addition of our model, would you?

Any ideas?
 
I continue to dig into Garmin’s oversight, not STCing the retract 182’s. It tells like palace intrigue now. Working on it or not no answer because the legal department won’t let anybody talk about it. If there was a better product I would go to it but we got G5’s in anticipation of them working with this autopilot. Guess I will have to corner the reps at SNF.
 
Landing Fees said:
I continue to dig into Garmin’s oversight, not STCing the retract 182’s. It tells like palace intrigue now. Working on it or not no answer because the legal department won’t let anybody talk about it. If there was a better product I would go to it but we got G5’s in anticipation of them working with this autopilot. Guess I will have to corner the reps at SNF.
Click to expand...

IDK how many 182RG drivers are looking at buying the GFC500 but I can tell you S-Tec won't do anything to certify new makes and models until 15 owners send in a PO for the new one they are working on, per the detailed thread on beeechtalk. Just food for thought.

IDK how much of the engineering on the fixed gear 182s will carry over to the 182RG but IMHO they didn't get it approved because they haven't installed it in one. Since they are most concerned about getting the highest demand makes/models done it may simply boil down to demand, priorities, and man power. I would expect each fresh model takes around two or three months to get it approved. The GFC500 was initially approved around December 2017...

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/604257#additional
 
I understand the need for demand. I have submitted three tail numbers (the other two at their owner’s behest). There are at least 10 in the Denver area. I think we will get it installed as proof of concept, making our plane experimental for a bit. Another shop thought it might be software related as here is no gear connection between the AP and the 600, so unlikely that the 500 would care about retractable gear either.
 
Landing Fees said:
I understand the need for demand. I have submitted three tail numbers (the other two at their owner’s behest). There are at least 10 in the Denver area. I think we will get it installed as proof of concept, making our plane experimental for a bit. Another shop thought it might be software related as here is no gear connection between the AP and the 600, so unlikely that the 500 would care about retractable gear either.
Click to expand...

Side note, they are already running into unknows when at dealer sites on the aircraft that were initially approved, so that would hit the top of the priority list. Can't have an STC "approving" customer's aircraft and then the shop finds a big non-conforming issue or need alterante data, effectively grounding the airplane till either the issues are fixed. or the installation is removed to where the airplane can be returned to service with only partial provisions.

Its an ever changing game, seem many times where an STC gets revised over & over as installers work different serial numbers of the same make/model of aircraft.
 
Thank you for your insight. Hoping it is months, not years. Might need to consider selling back my system to the dealer, he has a number of other installs lined up in April.
 
What kind of unknowns are popping up?
 
5QK said:
What kind of unknowns are popping up?
Click to expand...

Cessna 182 elevator bellcranks and feel springs have changed over the years.

Garmin website shows installation approval from 182E (1961) to T182T (started 2001). The issue is they are getting STC approval for models they have never even installed an autopilot on, thats a pitfall to the blanket approval under the AML STC process, and very common.

Example (hypothetical):

First artice may be a Cessna 182M, we get that successfully modified and approved, now we look at the TCDS for the other models and engineering approves A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H based on similarity (by reviewing paper not actual aircraft). Now a shop gets a 182B in for mods and find out that they need more data as the STC doesn't cover ___________ that they found on this 182B.
 
Last edited:
Where are you getting your work done? Crest avionics?
 
We have been going to GXY to AATG. Talked to Freedom about the lack of STC out of curiosity’s sake.
 
I noticed the R182 was missing from the STC... Good thing the club's S-TEC 60-2 is still working fine.

But, having that autopilot available would be nice for any aircraft type, and the R182 is quite possibly the most versatile aircraft around... It'd be a shame if it never got the GFC500.
 
So I think we are now leaning towards the Trio Pro Pilot as I cannot seem to get an answer from Garmin if they have any intentions of working the R182 STC. Since we are flying to SNF it will have to be after that but I am figuring the TPP will be about the same installed as parts (minus STC and install) were for the GFC500. I will beat up the Garmin guys at SNF but this is kind of a crock.
 
I am running into the exact same situation. I have a 1982 R182 and just got all ready to get the dual G5, GTN 750 and the GFC500 to just find out there is no STC for the GFC500. I couldnt be more bummed. Landing Fees have you found out anything else? I called garmin too and they didnt tell me anything.
 
I have called everybody I know. Talked to multiple shops who have the need for the STC as their clients have retracts but nothing. Not even a clue as to if it will ever be STCd. Just got a quote for Trio install, will spend SNF deciding if that is the way we want to go.
 
Please keep me posted. I'm heading over to my local shop today to talk to the avionics guy that gave me the bad news to see if there is any other options.
 
I continue to ask around and here is what I heard today:

“they were working on a software change that would account for the CG change when the gear is raised and lowered...also mentioned that the hump in the belly where the gear goes changes the location of the pitch servo.

It sounds like they are working diligently to get this done but of course no time frame can be given.”
 
Yes, I was very disappointed to see that the R182 was not included in current STC list for GFC500. I have emailed Garmin at address supplied by LF asking for STC plans for this aircraft. Accounting for CG shift on gear movement makes sense for the R182, R172, C210.
 
Moment change due to retracting landing gear: +3152 lb ins. Now I gotta go remember how to do PPL level W&B. I'll be back in a minute.
 
Ok here goes my W&B is 1837.46 x 35.1 x 64490.27

at 3037lbs takeoff weight the CG shifts from 39.38 to 40.42 interestingly enough the gear doesn't affect the flight of the aircraft when offset with 10deg flaps, 17" MP like I configure at the FAF. At this weight (nearly 3110) my acceptable CG range is 40.9-47. As I burn off three hours worth of fuel my CG becomes 38.88 gear down and 39.99 gear up. At this new weight 2821.46 I am allowed 35.5-47. Not seeing a huge change as anybody knows that a 182 can tend to be heavy on the yoke in low power if you don't trim it well.
 
That is a good numbers validation of what we “feel” in pitch change on gear retract and extension. It isn’t much for sure. From FAAs perspective, Garmin has to account for the one inch CG shift to make sure that autopilot doesn’t mishandle the sudden pitch change. By the way, the gear systems on low wing aircraft offer zero CG shift.
 
ShimBob said:
That is a good numbers validation of what we “feel” in pitch change on gear retract and extension. It isn’t much for sure. From FAAs perspective, Garmin has to account for the one inch CG shift to make sure that autopilot doesn’t mishandle the sudden pitch change.
Click to expand...

Interesting, because I feel like in my Mooney, there is more of an aerodynamic effect upon gear extension than a CG effect. There's a definite pitch up immediately upon putting the lever down that goes away by the time the gear is fully extended, so I think the nose gear, when it's at partial extension, is causing a lifting component at the nose... Even though the nose gear door opens sideways, so it must be the leg/wheel.

By the way, the gear systems on low wing aircraft offer zero CG shift.
Click to expand...

Not true. The mains don't shift, but the nose still does. On the R-Cessnas, the mains have a pretty big shift, but doesn't the nose retract forwards and thus cancel out part of it?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Not true. The mains don't shift, but the nose still does. On the R-Cessnas, the mains have a pretty big shift, but doesn't the nose retract forwards and thus cancel out part of it?
Click to expand...

I have found it the mains to produce some drag, hence why pull power and put in 10deg flaps and she just slows down without that much pitch change.

Perhaps after the nose and the mains are down there is a difference of +3152 like it says in the POH and that is the result of the forward moment of the nose - the two mains +3152. It is about a 12" shift forward for the nose and 2.5' for the mains. Of course I could be completely full of it and just bitter that Garmin left my plane off the list.
 
I wasnt thinking about the nose gear, and yes, there would be a slight shift forward. Net would still be a CG shift rearward as the mains are heavier, there are two, and the moment arm is (possibly) longer. Another factor would be the change of the aerodynamic drag along the bottom of the aircraft. With retraction, it would lessen drag along bottom contributing to pitch up. Putting gear down would would increase pitch down. It is also possible the vertical center of pressure would change from retraction to extension. These items (gear aero drag, gear weight moment, center of pressure shift) make this more complicated than first glance. I will pay more attention Thursday to the net pitch moment when I fly down to KCRG.
 
Last edited:
If there is anything I can do as an R182 owner (send an email/letter) to help you guys along I am happy to. We've got a GTN750 and GTX345 with the original Nav-o-matic 300. No plan to upgrade the AP at this time (the 310 needs panel work now... go figure.) but if writing a letter helps just tell me where to send it :)
 
Z06_Mir said:
If there is anything I can do as an R182 owner (send an email/letter) to help you guys along I am happy to. We've got a GTN750 and GTX345 with the original Nav-o-matic 300. No plan to upgrade the AP at this time (the 310 needs panel work now... go figure.) but if writing a letter helps just tell me where to send it :)
Click to expand...

Send them an email and let them know you would like to know when it will be ready for the best all-around plane ever designed on the planet.
 
Landing Fees said:
Send them an email and let them know you would like to know when it will be ready for the best all-around plane ever designed on the planet.
Click to expand...

As much as I adore our 310, the 182RG is still the "favorite" in the family. Fast, efficient, great useful load. I don't have to tell you guys what a great airplane it is, you know!
 
ShimBob said:
I wasnt thinking about the nose gear, and yes, there would be a slight shift forward. Net would still be a CG shift rearward as the mains are heavier, there are two, and the moment arm is (possibly) longer. Another factor would be the change of the aerodynamic drag along the bottom of the aircraft. With retraction, it would lessen drag along bottom contributing to pitch up. Putting gear down would would increase pitch down. It is also possible the vertical center of pressure would change from retraction to extension. These items (gear aero drag, gear weight moment, center of pressure shift) make this more complicated than first glance. I will pay more attention Thursday to the net pitch moment when I fly down to KCRG.
Click to expand...

Moment arm of the mains is definitely longer. While the nose gear is pretty close to the distance the plane sits off the ground, the mains have not only that distance but also the lateral distance from the fuselage to the main gear track. The legs are on that diagonal with the gear down, but when the gear is up it's that distance straight back. If you look at how high they have to get jacked up to do the gear swing at annual, you know why the moment of the mains is so long! :)

There are also some interesting aerodynamic effects. With gear down, there is a bit of drag underneath the fuselage, but it again has a moment about the same distance as the plane sits off the ground plus the distance from the bottom of the fuselage to the vertical CG. When the gear is up, that drag is gone. But during the retraction/extension sequence, there's a LOT of drag underneath because the wheels rotate perpendicular to the relative wind AND they extend way down below the fuselage.

About the only way to measure it start to finish that I can think of is if you have an autopilot with autotrim that can do pitch hold. Mark your trim wheel prior to retraction, retract the gear, and see where the trim wheel ends up. Should be an interesting exercise. :)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
About the only way to measure it start to finish that I can think of is if you have an autopilot with autotrim that can do pitch hold. Mark your trim wheel prior to retraction, retract the gear, and see where the trim wheel ends up. Should be an interesting exercise. :)
Click to expand...

If only I had GFC500 installed instead of collecting dust in a box, I would report the results!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Not true. The mains don't shift, but the nose still does. On the R-Cessnas, the mains have a pretty big shift, but doesn't the nose retract forwards and thus cancel out part of it?
Click to expand...

Depends on the R Cessna. Nosegear...

172RG goes forward for up...

The Cardinal goes rearward for up...

The R182 goes forward for up...

210 goes forward for up... (and i picked the old one because I like watching the gear doors, but they can be problematic)...

And the 337 goes forward for up, but twists the nosewheel in the well... one of the weirdest.

And most of the Cessna twins go forward for down...
https://youtu.be/KO14AJYeD8s

The Cardinal, as always, is the oddball. :)
Or maybe the others are the oddball and the Cardinal does it right. ;)
 
Ah how I love the tha-thunk (like spurs into a horse) of my main gear retracting, instantly she zooms ahead another 10 kias, headed for Rollins Pass climbing straight out of KBJC at 500fpm through 13000.

I think Khan was referring to the as yet un-STC'd GFC500 for the USS Reliant when he said: He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him. I'll chase him round the Moons of Nibia and round the Antares Maelstrom and round Perdition's flames before I give him up!
 
Landing Fees said:
Ah how I love the tha-thunk (like spurs into a horse) of my main gear retracting, instantly she zooms ahead another 10 kias, headed for Rollins Pass climbing straight out of KBJC at 500fpm through 13000.
Click to expand...

Accelerating from 70 to 80 isn’t all that spectacular man. LOL. :)

Just messing with ya. :) :) :)
 
Hey, @LandingFees....you gonna spend some time with Dynon at SnF? Would be good to know what's on the horizon there also, and I'm not sure of getting to SnF this year. Any scoop would be great! Thanks!

Jim
R18202035
 
Jim Rosenow said:
Hey, @LandingFees....you gonna spend some time with Dynon at SnF? Would be good to know what's on the horizon there also, and I'm not sure of getting there. Any scoop would be great! Thanks!

Jim
R18202035
Click to expand...

I will let you know what they say, if me and ShimBob don't get arrested for abusing the Garmin reps.
 
I don’t understand what Garmin executives are doing.
If I was running the company, I would have simply gone to flygarmin team and ask for a breakdown of what aircraft have subscribed to databases. Seems to me that people with Garmin gps units are probably very likely to be Garmin AP customers.
I would then add support starting at most popular aircraft and work my way down the list, excluding aircraft that aren’t illegible.
I would publish this list and state clearly why they were chosen and others excluded.
Instead we have vague press releases on what they are working on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top