Would have to be N-reg, currently, no?
Probably Peter but I can tell you, I’m only installing one Garmin G5 this year – the second one planned for 2018 is now cancelled!
In due course, if things go well,I will move the G5 to the co-pilot’s side and hopefully my EASA reg PA-28 will have the option of a Dynon Skyview HDX (Let’s hope these posts are being read by Garmin who might price things accordingly)
Some interesting detail on the certification test flying: https://newsline.kitplanes.com/2017/07/26/why-does-this-baron-have-an-experimental-sticker-on-it/
If anyone out there is listening, I can offer a TB10 in the Uk for the same task…
Indeed, same was done for e.g testing the pre-TSOd IFD540s in some certified plane.
Initially, the Baron was re-licensed as Experimental-Research and Development
That is an option on an N-reg. There may be an EASA version…
Peter wrote:
That is an option on an N-reg. There may be an EASA version…
Not without at least a dozen “approved design organisations” getting involved I’m sure 
I would think given today’s abundance of computing power one shouldn’t even have to test these in flight – I’m willing to bet that testing avionics and autopilots on a test rig where the flight envelope is coded in should be cheaper by a factor of ten as compared to flying the box around.
Somebody would have to develop the equations for each aircraft.
X-plane.
Things like IFDs don’t need type specific testing, they come with AMLs for every model that Google found when they filled out the FAA application form.
For autopilots, the FAA certification standards are way too strict. They used to be lax which explains how S-TEC managed to get dozens of STCs for a very sub-standard product but now they are overly strict. The FAA does not allow to certify an AP for both NA piston and turbo piston which explains why until today the Avidyne DFC90 is not available on turbo Cirrus and not even on airplanes where the turbo version has the same service ceiling as the NA version.
They should require certification on one test plane and then rather simple airframe specific flight tests to demonstrate performance, performed by either the manufacturer or a third party that could also “develop” (what a word for a bit of metal work!) the servo mounting brackets.
This whole story about what an involved process it is to adjust autopilot parameters to an airframe is BS. I’ve flown with a Piper S-TEC transplanted into a Cessna without adjustments and it performed equally bad as in the Piper but not worse. The sheer fact that S-TEC exists as a universally STC’ed option tells you how ridiculous the certification process was in the past and how wrong the current regime is.
