What do you hate about your plane?

Dav8or said:
I hate my Garmin 430, but it is what it is. I can't afford an upgrade and I do like what it can do. I just hate, hate, hate the user interface.
Click to expand...

Dude.... Carefull, they'll pull your IFR card for saying that nonsense :yesnod:

Play enough with the Garmins and you'll be able to navigate it off touch without ever looking at it.

I love my 430/530, no desire to "upgrade" em
 
Henning said:
Don't they have an electric pump for that?
Click to expand...
No, the electric boost pump assists the main ejector pump to get fuel from the reservoir to the engine driven fuel pump at ~30psi. But from there to the fuel nozzles is done solely by the engine driven at 950psi.
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
I hate piston engines and all the cr*p that comes with them.
Click to expand...

I hate how much turbine engines cost to operate and their fuel burn.
 
I LOVE my plane....

I just hate the fact that snow /ice storms keep me from flying it every day..

Damn....:mad2:

Ps.... I would be nice if it was about 400 mph faster though...;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I hate how much turbine engines cost to operate and their fuel burn.
Click to expand...


They are less expensive if you have the initial nut to swing one.

We can go FL230+ TAS 240, pressurized, AC and Heat, TBO beyond any piston.

Find me a piston that can transport the same weight for less dollars per lb per mile, forgedaboutit
 
My RV-6 can be a real beeyotch to land in gusty crosswinds.

...and I have to slow down way into the green arc of the airspeed indicator when flying in turbulence or it'll beat the snot out of me and the plane.
 
James331 said:
They are less expensive if you have the initial nut to swing one.
Click to expand...

I have to to see anyone who's made that claim actually show me numbers to back it up for GA.

We can go FL230+ TAS 240, pressurized, AC and Heat, TBO beyond any piston.

Find me a piston that can transport the same weight for less dollars per lb per mile, forgedaboutit
Click to expand...
Having a bigger plane doesn't mean I need to carry more stuff. For a 240 KTAS turboprop I'm assuming you're burning 60-80 GPH. So, for 25% more speed, you're burning anywhere from 125-250% more fuel. Your windshield will cost $20k+ to replace when it breaks, and even though the TBO is much longer, overhaul cost on turboprops is around $250k each, with ~$50k hot sections at about the TBO of piston engines.

Please show me how the turboprop you fly will be cheaper to operate than the 310 I fly? Because the 310 fits my mission just fine.
 
That I didn't buy into my co-ownership sooner? That's the best I can come up with.

The plane needs stuff but it's a machine. It doesn't rise to the level of "hate".

Whiners. Sheesh.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'm not sure what you dislike so much about the 430 - it really is a pretty good unit. Is there anything specific you have issues with on it?
Click to expand...

The user interface. It's garbage. It was no doubt pretty cool for 1998, but for this day and age it's garbage and it will kill you if you try to use it in a cloud without many, many hours of training. I don't like DOS operating systems either. Cool in their day I guess, but time to move on.

A piece of navigation equipment shouldn't require hours and hours of dual instruction, or hours on a simulator, an expensive power supply to train yourself on the device in the plane without the engine running, or an ap on your iPad to help you navigate the thing. People have made lucrative side businesses developing training aids for this thing because people struggle with it. The interface is garbage.

Hot starting an injected Lycoming (or cold starting) is also pretty simple once you learn the right technique. Sometimes, a weak ignition system can also be a contributor.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know the tricks. I have never not gotten the engine to start. It just sucks that there are "tricks" just to get it to run. In this day and age, that really isn't acceptable. My particular engine is not consistent at all. Sometimes it really balks at starting and leaves you second guessing yourself. "Did I just flood it, or does it need more??" It always needs more gas it seems.

I may very well have a weak ignition, but there's another thing to hate. ****ty 1930's tractor ignition. I can't remember any car I've ever owned since the '70s that suffered from "weak" ignition. I have to do the 500 hour inspection just to see if it's about fail and it is due now.

It is what it is. I accept it as does everyone else who loves to fly. The point of this thread I think, was to point out downsides of the typical GA plane, not everything is A-OK and as good as it can be. Coming from an engineering background, I calls 'em as I see 'em and only because I was asked.
 
Dav8or said:
The user interface. It's garbage. It was no doubt pretty cool for 1998, but for this day and age it's garbage and it will kill you if you try to use it in a cloud without many, many hours of training. I don't like DOS operating systems either. Cool in their day I guess, but time to move on.

A piece of navigation equipment shouldn't require hours and hours of dual instruction, or hours on a simulator, an expensive power supply to train yourself on the device in the plane without the engine running, or an ap on your iPad to help you navigate the thing. People have made lucrative side businesses developing training aids for this thing because people struggle with it. The interface is garbage.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your assessment. The amount of functionality that exists in a 430 or 530 is not going to be something that will be fully useable without some sort of experience. Please show me what you consider a good interface?

FWIW, I never took a course on a 430 or 530.

Oh, I know the tricks. I have never not gotten the engine to start. It just sucks that there are "tricks" just to get it to run. In this day and age, that really isn't acceptable. My particular engine is not consistent at all. Sometimes it really balks at starting and leaves you second guessing yourself. "Did I just flood it, or does it need more??" It always needs more gas it seems.

I may very well have a weak ignition, but there's another thing to hate. ****ty 1930's tractor ignition. I can't remember any car I've ever owned since the '70s that suffered from "weak" ignition. I have to do the 500 hour inspection just to see if it's about fail and it is due now.

It is what it is. I accept it as does everyone else who loves to fly. The point of this thread I think, was to point out downsides of the typical GA plane, not everything is A-OK and as good as it can be. Coming from an engineering background, I calls 'em as I see 'em and only because I was asked.
Click to expand...

The electronic ignition I agree should be commonplace (and it will be if people don't cheap out and buy the STCs now available). However, you mention cars and 70s - when was your plane made? Mine was made in the 60s and designed in the 50s. So, the technology of the day was... crappy ignition and carburetors. Hey! We have an improvement!

As for why you don't see electronic fuel injection for easier starts, well, I doubt you'd want to pay 2X for your engine overhaul.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
:yeahthat: Go shoot some approaches with an 89B; You'll cherish the 430 after a day of RNAVs with the King...
Click to expand...

Not a great reason to like a piece of equipment. "It's better than the total POS that was before it." I realize it is what it is, but that doesn't prevent me from calling it out as crap where I see crap. Like I said above, it was cool for 1998 I suppose, but technology moved on.

In today's world, the 430 is crappy, but it is what it is. It was a minimum requirement for purchase of the planes I was looking at because it is useful. However, I would love to ditch it, but can't afford it.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I hate that to own/operate a true 4 adult person plus luggage aircraft, capable of mild weather, reasonably fast, with creature comforts like A/C and heat that works, will cost at least $30K per year to operate and a couple of hundred thousand to buy. New pilots face some deep water.
Click to expand...

Drop the requirement for AC and there are plenty of choices that move the decimal point in your costs. Sounds to me like you've decided not to own an airplane and now need to justify that choice. Heck, if you have 30k per year to spend you can get a piper comanche and just replace it instead of annualing it.
 
I agree with Ted on the 530/430 interface... Never took a course or had dual with 'em; just read the books and played with them in flight. I'll tell ya what, if you hate it so much, how 'bout we do an even trade? KLN 94 for your 430...
 
Boy, this is tough. I've finally got the type of plane I always dreamed of having, as a kid, so my gripes are few...but here goes:

1. The back hole of the RV-8 is not fun for my 6', 200-pound, 56 year old frame to navigate. Once I'm in, it's fine, with plenty of room, but getting in and out just sucks.

2. Differential steering isn't as nice as a steerable nosewheel.

3. The heater doesn't pump enough heat to the back cockpit in the RV-8. At this time of year, it can be chilly at 10,000', even on the Gulf coast.

4. The control stick is about an inch too short, and it's a ginormous PIA to swap out, thanks to all the buttons on it, so I've gotten used to it.

5. 170 knots is too slow. (Just like 100 knots was in the 'Coupe, then 112 in the Warrior, then 140 in the Pathfinder, and now 170 in the -8A. Now I want 200 knots -- and if I had it, THAT would be too slow!) ;)
 
JHW said:
Drop the requirement for AC and there are plenty of choices that move the decimal point in your costs. Sounds to me like you've decided not to own an airplane and now need to justify that choice. Heck, if you have 30k per year to spend you can get a piper comanche and just replace it instead of annualing it.
Click to expand...

Ummm. I do own an airplane and have owned several. I really don't want to get into the whole I can operate a twin or large single for some small hourly rate. If you can, great, what can I say, I'm just not as smart as a lot of guys around here.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I disagree with your assessment. The amount of functionality that exists in a 430 or 530 is not going to be something that will be fully useable without some sort of experience. Please show me what you consider a good interface?

FWIW, I never took a course on a 430 or 530.
Click to expand...


If you haven't had the opportunity, you should really play with one of the new touch-screens and force yourself not to twist the knob. Just follow the touch UI. It makes far more intuitive sense than the knob spinning of the past.
 
I dislike how much runway it eats on warm days.
I dislike not being to throw three other people in it and go flying.
Useful load is my biggest gripe about these planes. And the ones that can carry the weight don't really have the interior room for it. (speaking of most common single GA planes)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I have to to see anyone who's made that claim actually show me numbers to back it up for GA.

Having a bigger plane doesn't mean I need to carry more stuff. For a 240 KTAS turboprop I'm assuming you're burning 60-80 GPH. So, for 25% more speed, you're burning anywhere from 125-250% more fuel. Your windshield will cost $20k+ to replace when it breaks, and even though the TBO is much longer, overhaul cost on turboprops is around $250k each, with ~$50k hot sections at about the TBO of piston engines.

Please show me how the turboprop you fly will be cheaper to operate than the 310 I fly? Because the 310 fits my mission just fine.
Click to expand...

I was talkin about working planes. Having bleed air, the ceiling, lower failure rate and easier engine management sells it.

There is a reasons you don't see many 1000hp piston planes anymore.


denverpilot said:
If you haven't had the opportunity, you should really play with one of the new touch-screens and force yourself not to twist the knob. Just follow the touch UI. It makes far more intuitive sense than the knob spinning of the past.
Click to expand...

I've played with the GTNs, when you are current and fly a bunch you really don't need or want to follow a UI. Most GNS series guys can navigate the unit without even looking at it, also for flying in chop having a knob works better for be than that little finger shelf thing on the GTNs.

But saying your plane has a touch screen is good for one upping the other snobs at the country club :goofy:
 
Last edited:
I can spend six hours or more cruising just shy of 150kts on < $2 UL with the auto pilot in control if I like. The vis out that windshield is excellent. VERY comfy ride.
- something like sitting on a couch watching an airplane movie...

Oh, yea, it has taken me two months to find / install a prop... Yea, that's a downer to an otherwise excellent airplane...
 
I hate that I don't have any time to fly it. Our 172 has been a great airplane and the kids would like to fly when they come to visit. I'll get the annual done someday. At least it's a great place to keep cars.
 
Dav8or said:
The user interface. It's garbage. It was no doubt pretty cool for 1998, but for this day and age it's garbage and it will kill you if you try to use it in a cloud without many, many hours of training. I don't like DOS operating systems either. Cool in their day I guess, but time to move on.

A piece of navigation equipment shouldn't require hours and hours of dual instruction, or hours on a simulator, an expensive power supply to train yourself on the device in the plane without the engine running, or an ap on your iPad to help you navigate the thing. People have made lucrative side businesses developing training aids for this thing because people struggle with it. The interface is garbage.



Oh, I know the tricks. I have never not gotten the engine to start. It just sucks that there are "tricks" just to get it to run. In this day and age, that really isn't acceptable. My particular engine is not consistent at all. Sometimes it really balks at starting and leaves you second guessing yourself. "Did I just flood it, or does it need more??" It always needs more gas it seems.

I may very well have a weak ignition, but there's another thing to hate. ****ty 1930's tractor ignition. I can't remember any car I've ever owned since the '70s that suffered from "weak" ignition. I have to do the 500 hour inspection just to see if it's about fail and it is due now.

It is what it is. I accept it as does everyone else who loves to fly. The point of this thread I think, was to point out downsides of the typical GA plane, not everything is A-OK and as good as it can be. Coming from an engineering background, I calls 'em as I see 'em and only because I was asked.
Click to expand...

I agree completely, however, there is now a reasonable cost way to update the interface. With the Bluetooth link, you can program the 430/530 series boxes using a tablet and Garmin Pilot. This basically gets you the 650/750 interface architecture for a 430.

Aircraft engines love fuel, it is next to impossible to actually flood one. Most people who think they have flooded it typically still don't have fuel to the cylinders. A 4 count of full fuel flow (wait for the needle to top out before counting, before then it's all air) with the electric pump on (throttle and mixture full), then set the mixture for normal lean idle and the throttle up to a fast idle/1200rpm position and crank. If it's really cold, you may need more fuel. Normally I get an injected engine to catch in 3 blades with this method whether Lycoming or Continental, hot or cold. The key is that you have to get solid fuel to the injector nozzles and a shot of prime before you start cranking.
 
Last edited:
HighFlyingA380 said:
I agree with Ted on the 530/430 interface... Never took a course or had dual with 'em; just read the books and played with them in flight. I'll tell ya what, if you hate it so much, how 'bout we do an even trade? KLN 94 for your 430...
Click to expand...

You're super smart and an amazing pilot. I mean look at your picture! However, instead of a fantastic trade that I don't thiiiiink is in my favor :)rolleyes:) , how about you go back and read the original post of this thread and get back to me what you think, in your words, this thread is all about?
 
Ken Ibold said:
I hate that it crashed and burned, taking my partners and their wives with it.



:(
Click to expand...


Sigh. Now that's a reason to hate a plane, that I'd actually be willing to join in on.

(Have seen your story on that Ken, and it sucks...)
 
The only thing that I even moderately dislike is the effort it takes to land it when it's light and weather conditions are hot and gusty.
 
James331 said:
I've played with the GTNs, when you are current and fly a bunch you really don't need or want to follow a UI. Most GNS series guys can navigate the unit without even looking at it, also for flying in chop having a knob works better for be than that little finger shelf thing on the GTNs.



But saying your plane has a touch screen is good for one upping the other snobs at the country club :goofy:
Click to expand...


That's the neat part about the GTN. Garmin retained the knob twisting in the new UI. Most of what someone learned cranking away on a GNS like its a damned coffee grinder, still works on the GTN.

The Garmin guy at the demo booth at OSH was pretty funny. He joked, "not much time on a 430, huh?" when I started playing the demo units. I asked how he knew...

He explained that pilots with large amounts of 430 and 530 time walk up and immediately grab the coffee grinder knob. Pilots without that experience type on the touch screen and get the same stuff accomplished.

He said pilots with tons of G1000 time would actively avoid touching the screen at all, just like they'd been trained, so as not to "damage" the screen.

Understand the problem with the shelf and the lack of a good grabby place to poke at the screen. Agreed. Always a problem with touch screens.

But Garmin does seem to "get it" that they trained thousands and thousands to push and crank, and push and crank, and push, and crank. And they kept the silly interface for those who want it.

Some stuff lends to push and crank. One area the GTN excels was in frequency entry. It either knew it from the data card, or the large pop up button display on the touch screen was way smarter than push and crank. At least on the bigger model. The small one, the touch screen is a little less useful.

I hear ya on the country club prices. But that's just Garmin. The 430 and 530 were sell-the-kids-into-slavery priced when they first came out, too. LOL.
 
Avionics pricing, that's one of the things I hate the most about GA. Even the new IFD pricing has been disappointing. Same thing with AHRS PFDs. I guarantee ya if Aspen got nudged off the certified monopoly by the part 23 re-write they'd price down the evolution so fast it'd make your head spin. As it is, they already price their non-EHSI software version of the evolution a cool 5AMUs below their flagship software version. Same hardware. Gimme a break; I ain't paying 5AMU for a chunk of magnetic zeros and ones in the age of cheap telecomm.

I suppose if i had to encapsulate everything I hate about my airplane, it would all eventually fall into the same root reason: I hate that it's certified. It's a shame too, because I think my airplane has the potential to be a much more capable traveling machine were I allowed to operate under experimental rules.
 
jordane93 said:
First world problems. I hate that i don't own an airplane.
Click to expand...

Then move your @ss overseas and enjoy real third world problems. Me, I like it here and deal with my problems as they arise. Yep, this here is the First World, and we have different problems than Third World countries.
 
jordane93 said:
First world problems. I hate that i don't own an airplane.
Click to expand...

Haha true enough though I figure most every post on here could be described that way. Plus, I'm sure there is a sultan out there or two that could relate. :D
 
Hank S said:
Then move your @ss overseas and enjoy real third world problems. Me, I like it here and deal with my problems as they arise. Yep, this here is the First World, and we have different problems than Third World countries.
Click to expand...

Not for long, BTW, malnutrition is a US problem as well.
 
I hate that Fearless has a Waco. Why didn't I know that and can I bum a ride when I ago to Norfolk to visit my son. That would make me hate things less.
 
Hank S said:
Then move your @ss overseas and enjoy real third world problems. Me, I like it here and deal with my problems as they arise. Yep, this here is the First World, and we have different problems than Third World countries.
Click to expand...
Settle down Captain Happy. It was a joke.
 
The fact that it's not experimental. I am tired of paying for parts that are virtually identical to non-certified at four times the price.
 
I wish it was faster. Then again, if it was much faster it wouldn't qualify for Light Sport.
 
ateamer said:
The fact that it's not experimental. I am tired of paying for parts that are virtually identical to non-certified at four times the price.
Click to expand...

Glad you used 'virtually' because the differences while minute often create a big difference in the failure mode. When you design aircraft parts, you can't only think about how they work, you also have to think about how they fail. One of our regulars had an automotive charging system (virtually identical to an aircraft system) burn up his avionics suite when it failed into an over volt condition.
 
tmyers said:
I hate that Fearless has a Waco. Why didn't I know that and can I bum a ride when I ago to Norfolk to visit my son. That would make me hate things less.
Click to expand...

Don't feel bad. It just kind of happened in the last week. I don't exactly 'have' it yet....I'm waiting for the weather and schedules to align so that o can bring it here. But once I do get it, I'll take you up. Might even make it up to your neck of the woods when they have the big Waco club gathering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top