BeechTalk - BT - How I set out to buy an MU-2 and ended up in a 441

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2016, 00:24

Username Protected wrote:

I'm at 220 hours already this year.

Another factor is that 200 hours of an MU2 would replace 220 hours of a PC12. So when you do it on a per mile basis, things change that way, too.

Quote:

3.2MM to lose, surely you jest...

More money in, more money at risk.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2016, 00:25

Username Protected wrote:

A Mits flying 100 hours a year? How does one stay current?

Spend more than 2 minutes off autopilot on each flight.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2016, 09:31

Username Protected wrote:

Where I really encountered challenges was with the avionics. If you look at 441’s for sale, they either have a completely upgraded panel or a very old panel, nothing in between. There aren’t many 441’s for sale with 530’s or 430’s. I thought this seemed odd but didn’t give it much thought as I casually perused the listings. My only “gotta-have” is a GTN750, so when I started speaking to shops about adding a GTN750 here is what I learned.

The original Cessna autopilot is not approved for WAAS approaches. It will fly WAAS approaches, but it is not certified to do so. This blew my mind. It can be certified for WAAS approaches, but needs special approval from an ACO and adds about $20k and 4 weeks to the GTN750 install. That’s why there aren’t many (if any) 441’s with 530W/430W’s – it just didn’t help that much unless you were willing to go through the extra hoops. Or if you were willing to fly it WAAS without technically being WAAS-certified (which I am not).

Fine, upgrade the AP, right? Here’s the rub - there is really only one WAAS AP upgrade available for the 441, the S-TEC 2100. Guess what – that AP requires dual G600’s. It’s a cascade of upgrades, one thing requiring another. It’s basically an all or nothing proposition because if you want WAAS capabilities the panel needs upgrading. Either leave the plane as is or upgrade to dual G600’s, STEC-2100, and GTN750.

This is why every time I go look at Conquests on Controller I quickly walk away. After you've flown with G600, G1000 or other integrated system looking at the hodge podge antique panels in most of these airplanes there isn't much appeal. I've wondered why, given the very high prices post SID planes command, especially in comparison to King Airs, more of them haven't been upgraded. Now I know why. It is certainly a testament to the versatility, speed and efficiency of these planes that pilots like yourself are willing to spend the money and step backwards in cockpit capability in order to fly them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2016, 15:43

Username Protected wrote:

Where I really encountered challenges was with the avionics. If you look at 441’s for sale, they either have a completely upgraded panel or a very old panel, nothing in between. There aren’t many 441’s for sale with 530’s or 430’s. I thought this seemed odd but didn’t give it much thought as I casually perused the listings. My only “gotta-have” is a GTN750, so when I started speaking to shops about adding a GTN750 here is what I learned.

The original Cessna autopilot is not approved for WAAS approaches. It will fly WAAS approaches, but it is not certified to do so. This blew my mind. It can be certified for WAAS approaches, but needs special approval from an ACO and adds about $20k and 4 weeks to the GTN750 install. That’s why there aren’t many (if any) 441’s with 530W/430W’s – it just didn’t help that much unless you were willing to go through the extra hoops. Or if you were willing to fly it WAAS without technically being WAAS-certified (which I am not).

Fine, upgrade the AP, right? Here’s the rub - there is really only one WAAS AP upgrade available for the 441, the S-TEC 2100. Guess what – that AP requires dual G600’s. It’s a cascade of upgrades, one thing requiring another. It’s basically an all or nothing proposition because if you want WAAS capabilities the panel needs upgrading. Either leave the plane as is or upgrade to dual G600’s, STEC-2100, and GTN750.

This is why every time I go look at Conquests on Controller I quickly walk away. After you've flown with G600, G1000 or other integrated system looking at the hodge podge antique panels in most of these airplanes there isn't much appeal. I've wondered why, given the very high prices post SID planes command, especially in comparison to King Airs, more of them haven't been upgraded. Now I know why. It is certainly a testament to the versatility, speed and efficiency of these planes that pilots like yourself are willing to spend the money and step backwards in cockpit capability in order to fly them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2016, 17:21

Username Protected wrote:

Having flown (260hrs) behind a G1000 and now behind steam I think many people on BT put way too much influence on avionics. And maybe too much dependence?

Sam,

I don't know who you might be referring to. I don't see that as I read the posts here. Recently, there was a post by one of our most respected members, Stan Musick, averring that glass does in his opinion give greater SA than steam. And saying he wants it again.

I agree with Stan.

Not trying to turn this thread into a steam vs. glass debate. Each to his own as far as I'm concerned. But, even though I can, and have, flown both, I think glass offers many benefits that I want to maintain moving forward. So, when I see chopped up, half measure panels, as I usually do in Conquests I move on. If there were enough price variance to allow a panel retrofit I'd reconsider. But knowing that I'm looking for a 3-4 year ownership period that really isn't very attractive to me as I would be the one taking the bath.

So, "way too much influence on avionics"? That's a judgement call on preference like blondes or brunettes. "Maybe too much dependence" is something I don't think you can reasonably state based on the postings here. If you can then please back it up.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2016, 17:53

Username Protected wrote:

Having flown (260hrs) behind a G1000 and now behind steam I think many people on BT put way too much influence on avionics. And maybe too much dependence?

Sam,

I don't know who you might be referring to. I don't see that as I read the posts here. Recently, there was a post by one of our most respected members, Stan Musick, averring that glass does in his opinion give greater SA than steam. And saying he wants it again.

I agree with Stan.

Not trying to turn this thread into a steam vs. glass debate. Each to his own as far as I'm concerned. But, even though I can, and have, flown both, I think glass offers many benefits that I want to maintain moving forward. So, when I see chopped up, half measure panels, as I usually do in Conquests I move on. If there were enough price variance to allow a panel retrofit I'd reconsider. But knowing that I'm looking for a 3-4 year ownership period that really isn't very attractive to me as I would be the one taking the bath.

So, "way too much influence on avionics"? That's a judgement call on preference like blondes or brunettes. "Maybe too much dependence" is something I don't think you can reasonably state based on the postings here. If you can then please back it up.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jun 2016, 09:00

Username Protected wrote:

Recently, there was a post by one of our most respected members, Stan Musick, averring that glass does in his opinion give greater SA than steam.

Steam instruments doesn't mean no glass. You can have many moving maps on navigators, tablets, portable GPS units that give you excellent SA, including synth viz.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jun 2016, 13:24

Username Protected wrote:

Recently, there was a post by one of our most respected members, Stan Musick, averring that glass does in his opinion give greater SA than steam.

Steam instruments doesn't mean no glass. You can have many moving maps on navigators, tablets, portable GPS units that give you excellent SA, including synth viz.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jun 2016, 15:12

Username Protected wrote:

The value of glass comes in the form of much improved reliability and redundancy by eliminating mechanical and/or old components that are prone to crap out at the worst possible moment.

It isn't yet clear to me that mechanical fails more often, but even if it does, it doesn't fail as deeply. An AI out doesn't take out airspeed, VSI, heading, etc, yet this often happens in glass.

Quote:

Cessna believes the reliability improvement of Glass on the 525 is worth money and provides a substantial discount on the ProParts program if you upgrade a CJ to the G1000 or a CJ2+ to the G3000.

That's a cost of operation argument, not a safety one, and I wonder how that will look 15 years from now when all the parts the glass is based on are long gone and can't be made any more. The chips keep getting more complex, and also having much shorter market lifetimes, so finding good stock for those is archeology more than manufacturing.

Quote:

The weight savings and UI ease of use are also factors to consider.

Yes, this is a real and meaningful benefit.

Quote:

I have been given successive changes in STAR instructions with altitude restrictions and crossing points that are a radial/distance from a fix - easy to program on my gee-whiz flight deck vs trying to do it on an old Universal FMS box that is on its last leg and is not ADS-B upgradeable.

Which means you either want newer than the Universal age, or you want OLDER, where you can upgrade it with common avionics.

In 15 years, people will complain about today's stuff being hard to upgrade.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jun 2016, 19:13

Username Protected wrote:

I have been given successive changes in STAR instructions with altitude restrictions and crossing points that are a radial/distance from a fix - easy to program on my gee-whiz flight deck vs trying to do it on an old Universal FMS box that is on its last leg and is not ADS-B upgradeable.

Which means you either want newer than the Universal age, or you want OLDER, where you can upgrade it with common avionics.

In 15 years, people will complain about today's stuff being hard to upgrade.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jun 2016, 19:59

Username Protected wrote:

I've heard the horror stories on the Eclipse and maybe on that system the AI would take out the VSI, Heading, Altitude, Engines and everything in between, however, that's just not the way a "normal" integrated glass cockpit works these days.

If the display backlight goes out, takes the whole panel. There are many more connected failures with all the instruments in one box.

Quote:

Give me an example where this has "often" happened with a business aircraft type glass system like the Garmin 1000/3000/5000, RC Fusion or HW Apex flight deck. I just don't know what information you have to back this claim with.

Read the SDR reports, quite a number of panel failures out there.

Quote:

You are not going to tell me that you believe a mechanical system is more reliable than modern electronics, are you?

In some cases, yes, particularly if you consider a full panel failure versus partial. The steam panel has redundancy to compensate for the loss of any one instrument, so an overall failure is unlikely even if one element fails.

Quote:

Also - what are common avionics? Can you be more specific.

GNS, GTN, G500/600, etc.

Quote:

You can't just go slap whatever you want onto a C441

Sure, the same box in a 172 can go in the 441.

Why do you think that isn't true?

Here is the G600 STC AML. Lists both 172 and 441 (and MU2, Commander, King Air, ...).

http://www.seabee.info/pdf/STC_SA02153LA_AML.pdf

There are STCs to put G600 in Citations, too.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jun 2016, 21:55

Username Protected wrote:

Also - what are common avionics? Can you be more specific.

GNS, GTN, G500/600, etc.
Here is the G600 STC AML. Lists both 172 and 441 (and MU2, Commander, King Air, ...).

http://www.seabee.info/pdf/STC_SA02153LA_AML.pdf

There are STCs to put G600 in Citations, too.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Jun 2016, 01:15

Username Protected wrote:

Point me to these SDRs you cite

The FAA SDR database web site:

http://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/Query.aspx

Searching for part type "DISPLAY" returns 1154 hits.

Example entries:

PILOTS REPORTED THE CAPTAINS EHSI WENT OUT FOLLOWED BY SMOKE IN THE COCKPIT. TURNING THE PILOTS SIDE SCREENS OFF STOPPED THE SMOKE.

APPROXIMATELY 1.5 HOURS INTO FLIGHT THE MULTI-FUNCTION DISPLAY WENT BLANK, FOLLOWED BY ELEC SMELL.

CREW NOTICED SMOKE COMING FROM BEHIND INSTRUMENT PANEL WHILE PREFORMING PREFLIGHT WITH ELEC & AVIONIC POWERED ON. CREW TURNED OFF BATTERIES & DISCOUNTED APU. DETERMINED RT FLIGHT DISPLAY WAS SMOKING.

PILOT REPORTED, DURING FLIGHT, THE MULTIFUNCTION DISPLAY FAILED CAUSING SMOKE IN CABIN.

INFLIGHT THE NR1 PFD WENT BLANK, ALONG WITH A CHECK PFD 1 ANNUNCIATOR.

THE INSTRUMENT DISPLAY UNIT (IDU) PRIMARY FLIGHT DISPLAY INSTALLED AS PART OF FLIGHT SYSTEM, INC EFIS-SV SYSTEM FAILED. DURING BOOT-UP, THE DISPLAY SHOWED VERTICAL LINES ACROSS THE SCREEN.

DEPARTED AND ABOUT 10 MINUTES INTO THE FLIGHT, WHILE CLIMBING THROUGH 14,500 FEET THE PILOT'S PRIMARY FLIGHT DISPLAY (PFD) AND THE UPPER MULTIFUNCTION DISPLAY (MFD) WENT BLACK WITH NO RED "X'S". ABOUT 2 SECONDS LATER THE COPILOT PFD AND LOWER MFD WENT BLACK WITH NO RED "X'S". ALL 4 SCREENS WERE BLACK

I found those in the first page of hits. I'd be typing all day if I put in every PFD/EFIS/MFD failure I could find in the SDR database. In some cases, multiple screens went out, note the last entry, 4 screens failed (that was a PC12, BTW, Honeywell Primus Apex). If the MTBFs were as advertised, and the systems as disjoint and redundant as intended, how did 4 panels go dark at the same time? By odds, that should not happen in a million years.

And it isn't just displays, but also ADHRS, avionics busses, power supplies, etc, that can take out what the pilot sees.

Quote:

A full panel failure.... such as?

A display fails, takes everything on that display.

A mechanical airspeed gauge doesn't affect an HSI.

The mechanical parts are disjoint, don't depend on each other. The electronic display has connected dependencies on the data it displays.

Quote:

A G600 will be infinitely more reliable than any mechanical gyro.

Let's see if that holds true in 20 years. The actual field experience for glass is not as good as the advertised MTBFs in the brochures, and the displays are not as independent as one expects.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Jun 2016, 03:05

As everyone here knows I am a big proponent of Garmin. My 310 panel is all glass. No gyros...no expense spared.

When I think of jet acquisition I have always said first order of business...glass.

400 hours in Citations I lease or contract pilot...meh...be nice but with my 796, SiriusXM service , the GDL 39D, the iPad and the Iridium Go...I doubt I would upgrade. It's just a different kind of flying. If I was down low juking and dodging then maybe but from the last 18 months I'd say Glass is no longer job 1

Ymmv.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Jun 2016, 05:29

Username Protected wrote:

As everyone here knows I am a big proponent of Garmin. My 310 panel is all glass. No gyros...no expense spared.

When I think of jet acquisition I have always said first order of business...glass.

400 hours in Citations I lease or contract pilot...meh...be nice but with my 796, SiriusXM service , the GDL 39D, the iPad and the Iridium Go...I doubt I would upgrade. It's just a different kind of flying. If I was down low juking and dodging then maybe but from the last 18 months I'd say Glass is no longer job 1

Ymmv.

This is what I have been told by experienced jet and turboprop pilots. With my GWX68 radar/GMX200/430W/540W and reliable SPZ500 system, I just do not find that my panel setup is a limiting factor for me.

For me speed, comfort and range are what I look at in an aircraft.