Getting into this thread late so apologies if I am repeating other points made.
On a quick perusal of some of the previous postings there are some factually incorrect statements, but here is my feel for the points on the Avidyne versus Garmin G1000 (Integrated version, as per Columbia 350, 400).
As always, some issues are a matter of opinion and I recognise that. I fly on a regular basis both G1000 (integrated) and Avidyne.
Avidyne
Advantage:
Easier to learn, about two/three days with no prior prep work or glass experience.
Disadvantages:
Not an LRU system (a bit of screen fails the whole lot comes out !).
Avidyne support leaves a lot to be desired.
Avidyne have just lost Eclipse and Javelin contracts !
In flight a screen failure, is that, no data transfer to the other screen.
Non digital autopilot.
Some of the cockpit is Avidyne, some is Garmin some is S-Tec etc
G1000 (Integrated).
Disadvantage:
Four days instruction, - for someone with no glass experience plus approx 10 hours prior home study (from CD).
Advantages:
Integrated cockpit, Transponder, A/P, ADF and DME on the screen.
Digital autopilot is superior.
Screen failure just means the press of a button for a ‘composite screen’, on either side.
The ‘composite mode’ can be used for dual/training.
The digital autopilot can do ‘FL change’, climb at an indicated airspeed.
‘Ready pad’ FMS keypad.
G1000 will not allow the aircraft to be stalled or o/sped with A/P engaged.
Garmin, excellent support
Let me stress this. There is nothing wrong with an Avidyne system, just that I think the Garmin outweighs it by far.
The Columbia comes of course with the option of both G1000 and Avidyne, - your choice.
There is a good section on the Columbia website,
www.flycolumbia.com called “whitepapers” (on the top right of the home page) which, also gives a good insight into the difference between a Turbocharged engine and a turbo-normalised one !!!
