AI as a repair tool

[JZLAJeep]

With the challenges I've run into while working on my CJ-7 in the past week I've discovered that AI, specifically Google Gemini, is a particularly helpful tool in pointing me in the right direction. The AI scours various forums and YouTube videos and synthesizes the information. After a few positive experiences I'm quickly finding myself going there first when I get stuck. What has been the experience of others?

 

[Smokeyyank]

I've used it more than a few times with jeep stuff. Does help me get info quickly or at least headed in the right direction at times. I mainly use gpt and claude but have used them all. 

[White_Comanche]

I've used it nearly exclusively on my ongoing Replicating MJ Bumper Caps project.

 

...its helped a lot on abstract math.

 

If you know how to feed and guide it, these tools can be quite nice.

[AeroNautical]

I used it to diagnose a high RPM engine roughness issue on a Piper Twin Comanche (still a Comanche, it counts). I knew my own troubleshooting would get me there, but I was surprised at how effective its answers were. I've also seen cases where it may feed bad information, and it convinces itself its correct when its not. Just be careful with it. 

[Porquer]

6 hours ago, AeroNautical said:

I used it to diagnose a high RPM engine roughness issue on a Piper Twin Comanche (still a Comanche, it counts). I knew my own troubleshooting would get me there, but I was surprised at how effective its answers were. I've also seen cases where it may feed bad information, and it convinces itself its correct when its not. Just be careful with it. 

I’ve used it on aircraft to help me track down service bulletins that I know exist, but can’t find. I like using it to locate original sources of info.

[AeroNautical]

20 hours ago, Porquer said:

I’ve used it on aircraft to help me track down service bulletins that I know exist, but can’t find. I like using it to locate original sources of info.

That's a great use I hadn't thought of. It's getting harder to track down information on these aging airframes, for sure. 

[ComancheX2]

On 10/25/2026 at 10:48 AM, AeroNautical said:

I used it to diagnose a high RPM engine roughness issue on a Piper Twin Comanche (still a Comanche, it counts).

Another (former) Twinkie owner...  

[AeroNautical]

5 hours ago, ComancheX2 said:

Another (former) Twinkie owner...  

Oh, I wish I owned a Twinkie, but I did almost buy a Comanche 250. In fact, I was planning a photo shoot with the Piper and the MJ. Would have been kinda cool. Why did you sell?

[ComancheX2]

Didn't sell it.  Long story, I'll just say Garmin, their dealers, & A&P's aren't what they used to be.

[derf]

My dad owned a share of a Comanche way back in the day.  We flew all over the Midwest in that plane.  He let me do a few basic maneuvers one afternoon when he was doing touch-and-gos to stay current.  I learned a lot about avionics and even went into designing cockpit electronics after college.  But never got the bug to get my license.

[Sarah Walker]

Interesting that the avionics path came out of those Midwest flights rather than the stick time. I've always thought the panel is where the real learning curve lives, so it makes sense that tinkering alongside your dad stuck with you more than the maneuvers did. The comment about Garmin and dealers is a common refrain too—seems like the support side has gotten harder to navigate for a lot of owners. Was there a particular avionics project that pushed you toward cockpit electronics, or did it build up gradually over those years?

[derf]

So, dad was an engineer working on avionics too.  He was fully instrument rated.  I remember a flight one day taking off into the clouds with zero visibility the whole way.  He used the NAV radios with DME and charts, knowing exactly where we were the whole time.  I had learned enough to follow along.  This was back well before civilian GPS.  We did a full instrument approach and dropped out of the clouds with the runway right in front of us.  The technology was what I got interested in.

[Sarah Walker]

The detail about following along on the NAV radios and DME is what stands out to me. That sense of knowing exactly where you are without GPS, just from the instruments and the chart, sounds like the kind of thing that would make a lasting impression on a kid. It also explains why the technology pulled you in more than the flying itself. My question is whether that early exposure made modern glass panels feel like a big leap, or whether the underlying logic of the instruments felt familiar once you got into designing them.

[derf]

I spent a good portion of my career working on glass panels for several aircraft.  And, for what it's worth, my father worked on the first civilian digital cockpit systems starting in the late 70s.

 

So not a big leap for me.

[ComancheX2]

Sorry if I hijacked this thread! 

 

And Derf, sounds like you worked on 121 category aircraft?

 

I got into aviation flying with my Dad as well.  I soloed at 16, (I was at the World Boy Scout Jamboree on my birthday so I had to wait until I got back to solo) and got my private at 17.  Took my instrument checkride with a dual Nav, single glideslope, and ADF.  (And with the ADF you could still listen to the ball games enroute!)  Much different than today's 'children of the blue line'.  Somewhat of a tangent being we're talking IFR here, but the last private student I had was fixated on looking inside to determine the attitude of the aircraft.  After trying a couple other things, eventually I had to take a towel to completely cover the panel and say 'pitch the airplane to Best Rate of Climb and tell me when you think you're there'. A couple of times doing that brought some balance into his scan. 

 

But to keep it MJ related, the PA-30 is similar.  Not the best at one specific thing, but good at most things.  The Ford Lightning is faster (Barron), the F-250/2500 will haul more (Aztec), but the MJ (PA-30) is very useful and good at just about anything. My Twin Comanche was almost as fast and could haul 4 people and luggage while still having 6 hours worth of fuel at 15 gallons per hour.

[derf]

I did work on commercial airline cockpit systems.  And a couple of military planes.

[ComancheX2]

Ah, no 121 for me, but I worked on a few DoD systems as well.  So I share the proud of what I worked on.

[quietrudder]

 

JZLAJeep said:

With the challenges I've run into while working on my CJ-7 in the past week I've discovered that AI, specifically Google Gemini, is a particularly helpful tool in pointing me in the right direction. The AI scours various forums and YouTube videos and synthesizes the information. After a few positive experiences I'm quickly finding myself going there first when I get stuck. What has been the experience of others?

 

AI can sound very sure while mixing up years and trims.