banner
banner

26 Jul 2017, 00:41 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 102 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Dynon EFIS Approval
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 14:43 
Offline


 WWW  Profile

Joined: 03/22/12
Posts: 45
Company: Garmin AT
Location: Salem Oregon
From AC 23.1311-1C
8.0 Flight Displays.
8.1 Instrument Requirements.
a. Sections 23.1303, 23.1305, 23.1311, and 23.1321, with the applicable operating rules
(14 CFR parts 91, 121, and 135), incorporate flight and powerplant instrument requirements for part
23 airplanes. The navigation equipment requirements are given in operational rules specified in
§§ 91.205, 121.303, 121.305, 121.307, 135.143, 135.149, 135.159, 135.161, and 135.165. Display
requirements for navigation information are dependent on the navigation system installed in the
aircraft. Instruments and equipment required for flights under parts 91, 121, and 135 may be
affected by the electronic display installation. These instruments and equipment include:
gyroscopic bank and pitch, gyroscopic direction, gyroscopic rate-of-turn, slip-skid instruments, and
other required communication and navigational equipment.
b. There have been applications to install equipment, such as flight and navigation
displays, as non-required. These applications request approval for these installations as situation
awareness (SA) only. It is not acceptable to label a display as “SA-Only” and assume that its
failure condition is acceptable. Installing displays that provide PFI that are more compelling than the required primary PFI displays, but they do not meet the appropriate operational and
airworthiness requirements, and labeling them as “Supplemental” or “SA-Only" is not acceptable.
Section 13.6 provides more guidance.
c. The basis for certification has been that the equipment should perform its intended
function and not present a hazard. Instruments that aid situation awareness should be certified
under the part 23 requirements, including § 23.1301 and § 23.1309. These displays could provide
hazardous misleading information. PFI is essential for safe operation. An instrument that provides
PFI should meet the minimum standards of applicable TSOs or an equivalent standard. It also
should meet the guidance in AC 23.1309-1E, AC 23-17C, and the guidance in this AC.

Seems pretty clear to me. Not Acceptable


Top

 Post subject: Re: Dynon EFIS Approval
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 15:10 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 03/23/11
Posts: 5726
Post Likes: +278
Location: Frederick, MD
Aircraft: V35A TC
....and the PTS requires pilots to operate with a failed primary AI and not ball it up too. :beechslap:


Stupid policy/rule for a backup box...... :crazy:

_________________
Views represented here are my own.....and do not in anyway reflect my employer's position.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Dynon EFIS Approval
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 15:43 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 11/01/08
Posts: 3127
Post Likes: +292
Location: Tucson, KAVQ - WI, KHYR
Aircraft: A36
:deadhorse: aargh


Top

 Post subject: Re: Dynon EFIS Approval
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 16:05 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: 10/26/08
Posts: 4824
Post Likes: +962
Company: WS, Inc.
Location: Pinehurst, NC (KSOP)
Aircraft: 1965 Bonanza S35
At the end of the day, it's just to damned complicated, burdensome and difficult to accomplish what should, by all intents and purposes, be relatively simple.

If it's good enough for the experimental class aircraft it should be ok with ours. Before you get all up in arms... Here me out.

I've stated here before, on other threads, that I personally think it would be a shot in the arm for GA if we could update our panels in a more affordable manner.

There are members here @ BT that fly airplanes that were originally certified, that are now experimental. Because of this they have the Dynon PFD, MFD and autopilot. From first hand accounts , one of them has dual Dynon's and flies his aircraft all of the eastern seabord. Total installation of the dual system (1 autopilot) was around 20 AMU$. One can reasonably expect to do a single system for somewhere in the $15K range.

So, if it's OK to do this in a Harpoon conversion, that flies higher and faster than my lil ol bo, or a Yak that does aerobatic performances at airshows, thereby flying in much more unusual attitudes than my little ol bo, why then, for the love of Pete, can't we simply cut through the red tape and do it on ours.

I'd be perfectly fine putting the "Danger Danger Will Robinson" sticker (Experimental) in my bo, if I could then put in the glass cockpit and associated autopilot.

As it stands now, it costs more to put in a basic S-tec autopilot (or whatever its called now) than to do the entire Dynon upgrade.

Wondering out loud here.... How much would it cost Dynon to get FAA approval for their products into our "certified aircraft"?. One would think that, given all the hours of trouble free operation under their belt, that getting this done would be not nearly as difficult as it would be for one of us to create something from scratch.


Alas, I guess it's time to wake up from my afternoon nap here and get back to work...

1 + 1 = 3

2 legs bad, 4 legs good.




blue skies

_________________
dino

"TRUTH is AUTHORITY..... Authority is not Truth"


Top

 Post subject: Re: Dynon EFIS Approval
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 16:29 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 4323
Post Likes: +1456
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
How about you cut a nice panel hole, put Dynon into it, and then stick a black <easily removable> plastic cover with fake screw heads on top of it?

Dynon? What Dynon? ;)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Dynon EFIS Approval
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 17:36 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 03/08/10
Posts: 2195
Post Likes: +138
Location: San Jose, CA (KRHV)
Aircraft: 1959 Bonanza K35
Username Protected wrote:
At the end of the day, it's just to damned complicated, burdensome and difficult to accomplish what should, by all intents and purposes, be relatively simple.

If it's good enough for the experimental class aircraft it should be ok with ours. Before you get all up in arms... Here me out.

I've stated here before, on other threads, that I personally think it would be a shot in the arm for GA if we could update our panels in a more affordable manner.

There are members here @ BT that fly airplanes that were originally certified, that are now experimental. Because of this they have the Dynon PFD, MFD and autopilot. From first hand accounts , one of them has dual Dynon's and flies his aircraft all of the eastern seabord. Total installation of the dual system (1 autopilot) was around 20 AMU$. One can reasonably expect to do a single system for somewhere in the $15K range.

So, if it's OK to do this in a Harpoon conversion, that flies higher and faster than my lil ol bo, or a Yak that does aerobatic performances at airshows, thereby flying in much more unusual attitudes than my little ol bo, why then, for the love of Pete, can't we simply cut through the red tape and do it on ours.

I'd be perfectly fine putting the "Danger Danger Will Robinson" sticker (Experimental) in my bo, if I could then put in the glass cockpit and associated autopilot.

As it stands now, it costs more to put in a basic S-tec autopilot (or whatever its called now) than to do the entire Dynon upgrade.

Wondering out loud here.... How much would it cost Dynon to get FAA approval for their products into our "certified aircraft"?. One would think that, given all the hours of trouble free operation under their belt, that getting this done would be not nearly as difficult as it would be for one of us to create something from scratch.


Alas, I guess it's time to wake up from my afternoon nap here and get back to work...

1 + 1 = 3

2 legs bad, 4 legs good.




blue skies


I'm sure it's been said before, but there's at least one 800 lb gorilla in that equation. Garmin with their deep pockets. I'm sure they have their own paid member of the FAA to prevent that from happening...

_________________
Todd
N6005E "G00SE"
San Jose, CA KRHV


Top

 Post subject: Re: Dynon EFIS Approval
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 17:45 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 03/02/10
Posts: 110
Post Likes: +1
Location: Wrightwood, CA
Aircraft: G35
Read 8900.1 Chapter Nine, Figure 4-68, Item K under Normal/Utility, etc
k) Electronic flight instrument systems (EFIS). = STC

Says nothing about primary or secondary. It's not minor because they are requiring an STC.

1) Changes or relocation of systems (including hydraulic, oil, and fuel systems) and equipment that affect structural integrity, flight, ground handling characteristics, or noise/acoustics of the aircraft. = STC

It is called a "Pitot/Static System". However I guess your argument that is if you can prove that it doesn't affect those things, then you're okay. You have to be able to prove that it doesn't affect it. But with the Dynon not being TSO how can you prove that it won't affect your system 100 hours down the road? The dynon starts leaking, induces a pressure, failure, etc etc. That's what needs to be proved. I don't have AC43.13 available to me, but I assume thats what you mean in terms of approved data for breaking into the pitot/static system. Can you point me to the specific area that includes this information?

_________________
A&P/IA
Inland Empire, CA


Top

 Post subject: Re: Dynon EFIS Approval
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 17:51 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 09/12/11
Posts: 2543
Post Likes: +139
Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: Mooney 201, B737
Username Protected wrote:
At the end of the day, it's just to damned complicated, burdensome and difficult to accomplish what should, by all intents and purposes, be relatively simple.

If it's good enough for the experimental class aircraft it should be ok with ours. Before you get all up in arms... Here me out.

I've stated here before, on other threads, that I personally think it would be a shot in the arm for GA if we could update our panels in a more affordable manner.

There are members here @ BT that fly airplanes that were originally certified, that are now experimental. Because of this they have the Dynon PFD, MFD and autopilot. From first hand accounts , one of them has dual Dynon's and flies his aircraft all of the eastern seabord. Total installation of the dual system (1 autopilot) was around 20 AMU$. One can reasonably expect to do a single system for somewhere in the $15K range.

So, if it's OK to do this in a Harpoon conversion, that flies higher and faster than my lil ol bo, or a Yak that does aerobatic performances at airshows, thereby flying in much more unusual attitudes than my little ol bo, why then, for the love of Pete, can't we simply cut through the red tape and do it on ours.

I'd be perfectly fine putting the "Danger Danger Will Robinson" sticker (Experimental) in my bo, if I could then put in the glass cockpit and associated autopilot.

As it stands now, it costs more to put in a basic S-tec autopilot (or whatever its called now) than to do the entire Dynon upgrade.

Wondering out loud here.... How much would it cost Dynon to get FAA approval for their products into our "certified aircraft"?. One would think that, given all the hours of trouble free operation under their belt, that getting this done would be not nearly as difficult as it would be for one of us to create something from scratch.


Alas, I guess it's time to wake up from my afternoon nap here and get back to work...

1 + 1 = 3

2 legs bad, 4 legs good.




blue skies


I'm sure it's been said before, but there's at least one 800 lb gorilla in that equation. Garmin with their deep pockets. I'm sure they have their own paid member of the FAA to prevent that from happening...


The D10 EFIS is, what 3K installed? The Garmin G3X was around ten grand. Pretty impressive units. This Garmin rep was trying to sell us on the G600 and a slew of Garmin radios and GPS too. Of course its 7 or 8 times the G3X price. Ridiculous. Meanwhile, we still have people getting killed by the dozens per year with vacuum failures and the like...

To the FAA influence, sure it must be happening. Lately the FAA specifically named HID landing lights as prohibited under a field approval. Someone was working on an STC and you have to get it from them. Now it appears the same thing with used VFR GPS approvals. And the whole electronic charting thing.

Last edited on 14 Jun 2012, 17:53, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Dynon EFIS Approval
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 17:52 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 03/02/10
Posts: 110
Post Likes: +1
Location: Wrightwood, CA
Aircraft: G35
Username Protected wrote:
From AC 23.1311-1C
8.0 Flight Displays.
8.1 Instrument Requirements.
a. Sections 23.1303, 23.1305, 23.1311, and 23.1321, with the applicable operating rules
(14 CFR parts 91, 121, and 135), incorporate flight and powerplant instrument requirements for part
23 airplanes. The navigation equipment requirements are given in operational rules specified in
§§ 91.205, 121.303, 121.305, 121.307, 135.143, 135.149, 135.159, 135.161, and 135.165. Display
requirements for navigation information are dependent on the navigation system installed in the
aircraft. Instruments and equipment required for flights under parts 91, 121, and 135 may be
affected by the electronic display installation. These instruments and equipment include:
gyroscopic bank and pitch, gyroscopic direction, gyroscopic rate-of-turn, slip-skid instruments, and
other required communication and navigational equipment.
b. There have been applications to install equipment, such as flight and navigation
displays, as non-required. These applications request approval for these installations as situation
awareness (SA) only. It is not acceptable to label a display as “SA-Only” and assume that its
failure condition is acceptable. Installing displays that provide PFI that are more compelling than the required primary PFI displays, but they do not meet the appropriate operational and
airworthiness requirements, and labeling them as “Supplemental” or “SA-Only" is not acceptable.
Section 13.6 provides more guidance.
c. The basis for certification has been that the equipment should perform its intended
function and not present a hazard. Instruments that aid situation awareness should be certified
under the part 23 requirements, including § 23.1301 and § 23.1309. These displays could provide
hazardous misleading information. PFI is essential for safe operation. An instrument that provides
PFI should meet the minimum standards of applicable TSOs or an equivalent standard. It also
should meet the guidance in AC 23.1309-1E, AC 23-17C, and the guidance in this AC.

Seems pretty clear to me. Not Acceptable


That's pretty definitive. It's amazing how hard it is to find these sort of explanations!

I think having the big players with money in the game is why we won't see non TSO avionics in the aircraft. Otherwise within a week, everyone would be putting in Dynons. I love the things and would put one in tomorrow if it was allowed with full confidence. And I think you can get a dual setup for much less then $20AMU.

_________________
A&P/IA
Inland Empire, CA


Top

 Post subject: Re: Dynon EFIS Approval
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 19:03 
Offline


 WWW  Profile

Joined: 03/22/12
Posts: 45
Company: Garmin AT
Location: Salem Oregon
Username Protected wrote:

Wondering out loud here.... How much would it cost Dynon to get FAA approval for their products into our "certified aircraft"?. One would think that, given all the hours of trouble free operation under their belt, that getting this done would be not nearly as difficult as it would be for one of us to create something from scratch.



Anywhere from 200-450K$ depending on target audience (part 23 or part 25). That's assuming the unit can even qualify for a TSO. Now figure out how many units Dynon has to sell to recoup those development costs and it all starts to come into focus.

I won't even speculate whom Garmin might or might not have in their pocket.

As for putting a certificated aircraft into experimental category, which one would you choose.
Market Survey
R&D
good luck with Home Built. And Show Compliance is clearly inappropriate.
Did I miss any?

Why don't you just go ASPEN since they already spent the big bucks to get their product certified.

FYI, a few years back I was building experimental, 4 place, high performance aircraft in conjunction with a builder assist program. We could deliver a custom built aircraft that would run circles around any bonanza in the sky for about 250K$ and it only took the builder 8 weeks of his time. Being an experimental, the builder could alter it in any way he saw fit at any time and never have to go hat in hand to the FAA or an IA for approval. It was a happy time for me.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Dynon EFIS Approval
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 21:36 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: 05/29/09
Posts: 3468
Post Likes: +1674
Company: Craft Air Services, LLC
Location: Hertford, NC
Aircraft: Baron 58
Username Protected wrote:
How about you cut a nice panel hole, put Dynon into it, and then stick a black <easily removable> plastic cover with fake screw heads on top of it?

Dynon? What Dynon? ;)


I like the way you think! :thumbup:
Of course I would NEVER do something like that... :whistle:

What a guy needs is an approved instrument panel that includes an entire shelf for portable electronics with the necessary 12v cigarette lighter "bus bar". You put your Garmin, Dynon, Zaon, and whatever the next genius invents for our aircraft on it. This shelf would allow the aforementioned electronics to be mounted with velcro or a temporary clamp of some sort and the power provided through a standard cigarette plug. It's just a resting place for portable electronics and no certification is necessary. It would look like a yard sale, but you would have some really nice capabilities on the cheap. It would also allow you to upgrade as new technology is developed with no installation costs. OK, enough of the daydreaming, back to reality.....NO YOU CAN"T PUT ANYTHING COOL IN YOUR AIRPLANE WITHOUT SPENDING A KING"S RANSOME.

_________________
Who is John Galt?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Dynon EFIS Approval
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 22:07 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 11/02/10
Posts: 3493
Post Likes: +117
Company: T303, T210, Citabria
Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: 1968 Bonanza E33
Username Protected wrote:
How about you cut a nice panel hole, put Dynon into it, and then stick a black <easily removable> plastic cover with fake screw heads on top of it?

Dynon? What Dynon? ;)
:bugeye:
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
And you can even do it yourself, as it is interior decoration and falls under owner maintenance privileges. :D

_________________
無為而治 世界大同
individual sovereignty universal harmony


Top

 Post subject: Re: Dynon EFIS Approval
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 22:17 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 11/02/10
Posts: 3493
Post Likes: +117
Company: T303, T210, Citabria
Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: 1968 Bonanza E33
Username Protected wrote:
From AC 23.1311-1C
8.0 Flight Displays.
8.1 Instrument Requirements.
a. Sections 23.1303, 23.1305, 23.1311, and 23.1321, with the applicable operating rules
(14 CFR parts 91, 121, and 135), incorporate flight and powerplant instrument requirements for part
23 airplanes. The navigation equipment requirements are given in operational rules specified in
§§ 91.205, 121.303, 121.305, 121.307, 135.143, 135.149, 135.159, 135.161, and 135.165. Display
requirements for navigation information are dependent on the navigation system installed in the
aircraft. Instruments and equipment required for flights under parts 91, 121, and 135 may be
affected by the electronic display installation. These instruments and equipment include:
gyroscopic bank and pitch, gyroscopic direction, gyroscopic rate-of-turn, slip-skid instruments, and
other required communication and navigational equipment.
b. There have been applications to install equipment, such as flight and navigation
displays, as non-required. These applications request approval for these installations as situation
awareness (SA) only. It is not acceptable to label a display as “SA-Only” and assume that its
failure condition is acceptable. Installing displays that provide PFI that are more compelling than the required primary PFI displays, but they do not meet the appropriate operational and
airworthiness requirements, and labeling them as “Supplemental” or “SA-Only" is not acceptable.
Section 13.6 provides more guidance.
c. The basis for certification has been that the equipment should perform its intended
function and not present a hazard. Instruments that aid situation awareness should be certified
under the part 23 requirements, including § 23.1301 and § 23.1309. These displays could provide
hazardous misleading information. PFI is essential for safe operation. An instrument that provides
PFI should meet the minimum standards of applicable TSOs or an equivalent standard. It also
should meet the guidance in AC 23.1309-1E, AC 23-17C, and the guidance in this AC.

Seems pretty clear to me. Not Acceptable


That's pretty definitive. It's amazing how hard it is to find these sort of explanations!

I think having the big players with money in the game is why we won't see non TSO avionics in the aircraft. Otherwise within a week, everyone would be putting in Dynons. I love the things and would put one in tomorrow if it was allowed with full confidence. And I think you can get a dual setup for much less then $20AMU.

Most of our airplanes luckily are not Part23, but CAR3.... Part23 killed the piston airplane industry, making airplanes about 3-4 times more expensive than they were under CAR3 in inflation corrected money. If there were only Part23 around, I only could afford the 24G seat, not the other stuff around it. Did it improve safety? No. Reliability? No. Performance? No way.
And the big player(s) have to be careful, as I believe they are leaving the market behind. It will be very interesting how the competition in between the old and the 2 new touch screen GPS/NAV/COM manufacturers plays out: An iPad for 800$ makes sense. A smaller touch screen with a lot less functionality for 20 times that amount does not. The avionics industry may be at a turning point like the computer industry when the PC revolution took place: "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. That is the equipment I learned Fortran programming on.... :whiteflag: Megabucks for Megaflops....
_________________
無為而治 世界大同
individual sovereignty universal harmony


Top

 Post subject: Re: Dynon EFIS Approval
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 23:23 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 06/11/09
Posts: 402
Post Likes: +23
Location: Fargo, ND
At the end of the day, it all comes down to the fact that the Dynon is not TSO'd. You cannot install a non-TSO'd piece of equipment in a certified airframe, no matter what the intended use is. Does it suck? Sure. My sales would go thru the roof if I could sell a $1500 EFIS, but this is not a new thing. There is an article online from the late 50's / early 60's about the newfangled transponder. Part of the complaint back then was the TSO - the FAA's time tested way to quadruple the price. It is what it has been.

If you want a "certified" airplane, you have to play by the rules no matter how f-ed up you think they are. If you want a Dynon EFIS or anything else the vendors at Oshkosh have on display for experimental aircraft, then buy an experimental aircraft and have at it.

I understand that the underlying theme of this thread is that one should be able to install a Dynon EFIS as a back-up in their certified airplane. Right now, no matter how much it sucks, that is not an option. The rules need to be changed. Maybe if enough people got together...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Dynon EFIS Approval
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 23:38 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 09/12/11
Posts: 2543
Post Likes: +139
Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: Mooney 201, B737
Username Protected wrote:
At the end of the day, it all comes down to the fact that the Dynon is not TSO'd. You cannot install a non-TSO'd piece of equipment in a certified airframe, no matter what the intended use is. Does it suck? Sure. My sales would go thru the roof if I could sell a $1500 EFIS, but this is not a new thing. There is an article online from the late 50's / early 60's about the newfangled transponder. Part of the complaint back then was the TSO - the FAA's time tested way to quadruple the price. It is what it has been.

If you want a "certified" airplane, you have to play by the rules no matter how f-ed up you think they are. If you want a Dynon EFIS or anything else the vendors at Oshkosh have on display for experimental aircraft, then buy an experimental aircraft and have at it.

I understand that the underlying theme of this thread is that one should be able to install a Dynon EFIS as a back-up in their certified airplane. Right now, no matter how much it sucks, that is not an option. The rules need to be changed. Maybe if enough people got together...


Is that GE landing light TSO'd?


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 102 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2017

.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.wilco.jpg.
.sureflight-85x50.jpg.
.jetacquisitions-85x50.png.
.hpair-85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.Contour.jpg.
.avfab-85x50.jpg.
.instar.jpg.
.accuchem-85x50.jpg.
.truecourse.jpg.
.ps_engineering.gif.
.FASTAviation.jpg.
.Showalter.jpg.
.dshannon.jpg.
.brucescustomcovers-85x100-2.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.jaair-85x100.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.heartlandsm.jpg.
.WaypointLighting.jpg.
.pwi-85x50.jpg.
.AMS.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.squawk-85x50.jpg.
.goodrich-85x150-2017-07-04.jpg.
.bkool-85x50-2014-08-04.jpg.
.flightbox.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.globalparts-85x50.jpg.
.garmin-85x200-2017-07-07.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.EagleFuelCellsTriple.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.aps-85x150.jpg.
.ForeFlight.jpeg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.jetfuelx-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.fliteelectronics.jpg.
.Trace.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.avidyne-ifd-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.whelen-85x50-2.png.
.westsky.jpg.
.cmi-85x200-2017-06-23.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.Electroair.jpg.
.JacksonAssociates.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.wealthserve-85x50-2015-02-16.jpg.
.carpenter-85x50.png.
.tulsair-85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.jlosborne-85x50.jpg.
.airpowerred.jpg.
.wholesalepowertools.jpg.
.texasgyro.jpg.
.Outright_85_50.png.
.cubcrafters.jpg.
.americanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.selectairparts-85x100.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50-2015-03-17.png.
.ffc-85x100.jpg.
.mccauley-2017-06-01-carbon.jpg.
.Nexus.jpg.