Aerocruz 100 autopilot

[Chet]

Bendix King has a great deal going on the Aerocruz 100 autopilot for experimentals. Does anyone have any experience with this installation or with something similar? Thanks

[zkelley2]

Most people that are going to have an autopilot have an efis. And to my knowledge all of the efis options come with a built in autopilot.

[noema]

Efis also enables you to fly a track and/or a flight plan with the autopilot. This means you don't need to constantly adjust the course in changing winds. It also reduces the situation of missing a turn. Not a big deal but useful in the mountains with lots of changing winds and in complex airspaces.

[BravoGolf]

I am pretty certain you can connect the Aerocruz to a GPS like a Garmin 430W and have the autopilot follow an entered flight plan. It also has altitude hold, but I’m not sure if it has altitude capture. If you are building a VFR aircraft and don’t want an EFIS, it would be a good choice

[zkelley2]

Not really. At $2100 it's more than a basic VFR efis with autopilot.

[schu]

It's just the old trutrak stuff after Bendix bought/rebranded it.

Any of the EFIS vendors can provide AP these days, but from what I understand GRT doesn't support a yaw axis if you want that.

The Dynon and GRT use standard stepper motors with gearboxes, like what you would find on a low end CNC router or mill.

The garmin uses a brushless DC motor with a clutch. The garmin is much lighter.

[BravoGolf]

If you are building an IFR capable aircraft an EFIS with an autopilot brings many more features than just an autopilot; mapping, approach plates and coupled approaches to name just a few. If the goal is an autopilot that reduces workload on a long VFR flight in a VFR aircraft a stand alone autopilot makes sense. But it should get navigation data from some source.

In a VFR aircraft the trutrack / autocruz might be a good choice for your aircraft. Of course there is a whole cost comparison analysis that not is part of the thread. In the Patrol I’m building I plan on a VFR aircraft with simple instrumentation but some form of GPS navigation. If I decide to install an autopilot I will consider the autocruz.

[zkelley2]

If you are building an IFR capable aircraft an EFIS with an autopilot brings many more features than just an autopilot; mapping, approach plates and coupled approaches to name just a few. If the goal is an autopilot that reduces workload on a long VFR flight in a VFR aircraft a stand alone autopilot makes sense. But it should get navigation data from some source.

In a VFR aircraft the trutrack / autocruz might be a good choice for your aircraft. Of course there is a whole cost comparison analysis that not is part of the thread. In the Patrol I’m building I plan on a VFR aircraft with simple instrumentation but some form of GPS navigation. If I decide to install an autopilot I will consider the autocruz.

And that's the whole thing. Do you want to spend somewhere in the $5k neighborhood for a vfr autopilot with gps nav source or $1.5k for the same things but with all of the avionics you can possibly need(vfr) built in and weighs half as much?

I'm actually confused as to how Bendix/King still exists.

[Bcone1381]

IFR or VFR, ditch the autopilot and flight director. Go basic; for the human nature default setting is lazy. So we let our skills erode to where we are not safe when it fails or we fail to push the proper button. In addition, when we go basic, we gain useful load, and save money, will fly sooner, and have more $ to spend on fuel/flying and a hangar.

[zkelley2]

Ya, I opted to not put the autopilot in when I realized there was no way it could control the airplane without the yaw axis as well. The flight director weighs exactly nothing though, but I've used it 0 times.
If I really wanted basic, you could fly the airplane without any instruments at all, not that it complies with the reg, but it's plenty easy to feel and hear what it's doing.
But my efis weighs less than a round airspeed and a tach, costs less than a 6 pack, so the weight and money saving option is not round dials anymore.

[Chet]

Thanks guys. It will couple to my Garmin 496. I do long cross country flights and my bearhawk does not rim out very well (like my Piper Dakota trims).

I really wanted to know about tips on where and how to mount the thing. Thanks

[500AGL]

The differing opinion is that an A/P is one of the most useful things to have on board. Plenty of flying to have without using it, and on trips it cuts the workload in half or 2/3’rds. After flying a 7-8 hr day you feel like you could still fly another leg.

Compare a G3X with EIS and a GFC500 A/P to any other complete system, including all the required boxes and accessories and you’ll find pricing quite close. Pick them up in your hand and examine them, and fly a GFC500 autopilot, and Garmin is the clear winner by far.

Dynon is the only other player in the market. It’s just my opinion, but everything else marketed towards experimental builders is not worth installing. At that point grab a couple round gauges and have at it. But your flight experience and resale will suffer.

pb

[JimParker256]

GRT offers a couple of nice "budget" alternatives to Garmin or Dynon. It comes in at a significantly lower price than either of the two "name" brands. I'm not saying GRT is "the same" as Garmin or Dynon, because each is slightly different from the others. But GRT is definitely a lower-cost option for those of us on limited budgets.

Heck, I'm even planning to put a Mini in my RANS S-6ES (E-LSA) that currently has only ASI, VSI, and ALT for gauges...

[500AGL]

Thanks guys. It will couple to my Garmin 496. I do long cross country flights and my bearhawk does not rim out very well (like my Piper Dakota trims).

I really wanted to know about tips on where and how to mount the thing. Thanks

As a side note here, if your aircraft really doesn’t trim out well before installing any A/P I would address this. Hands free straight and level is the product of proper rigging and weight/balance. If you’re C.G. is out, or typically on an edge, bring it back into a center point.

(Adding weight to address a C.G. Issue will make the plane land slower, and handle much much better, even though it’s heavier)

If you have a heavy wing and your flight controls are rigged well, Bob has a very good way to add washers to shim ailerons rather than adding trim tabs.

I’m rambling now but like houses whose roof lines depend on the level and square of the foundation, your aircraft handling depends on the straightness and rigging of your fuselage and wings. Take your time and address the basics. 💪

pb