Whats the fuss about the g1000

[Morrisman1]

Go on, please tell me. Call me an old fart but personally I don't think they are necessary for most GA operations. I understand they pack a lot more tech than the standard 6-pack but in comparison to a GNS530 or similar alongside the standard IFR equipment they don't look that attractive to me.

I know there will be two camps here, the pro g1000 and the people against it. Well Im in the middle because I've never flown a plane with one but I'm interested to see what people see as the pros and cons of them. I've recently been flying a seneca with a GNS530 and find it a fabulous compliment to the standard IFR equipment (got my multi engine IR today :} ) because it does things like automatically give DME for selected nav station within range and what radial you are on. Thats just one example.

I guess I just don't want to become one of the 'children of the magenta line'. I'm open to discussion and would like to learn a bit more about the equipment rather than having tunnel vision

cheers,
Cameron

[IO540]

I guess I just don't want to become one of the 'children of the magenta line'.In that case you better not use GPS at all :)

And it's hard to see what point you are trying to make.

From a manufacturer's POV one cannot even give away a new plane unless it has a glass cockpit. So that's a done deal. It also weighs a lot less than the separate instruments. I don't know what it costs but prob99 quite a bit less than good quality separate instruments.

Whether a G1000 is "good quality" is another matter; it hasn't been out for long enough to compare with 20- and 30-year old avionics. Some of the old stuff was truly crap (Narco and others) and some of it was very good (Bendix King top end stuff). A G1000 is built like a business-grade laptop and the jury is out on the long term issues.

Also a G1000 cannot be retrofitted (with few exceptions like a King Air or a TBM850) so people are putting in the smaller products like a G500.

Personally I don't like "glass" because one is very restricted as regards who can do any significant work on it. Almost anything is a flight to a Garmin dealer. The old stuff can be worked on or swapped-out by almost anybody but with "glass" the industry has owners over a barrel.

Now that you have your IR, and assuming you actually do some IFR flying around Europe for real, can you seriously avoid the "magenta line"?

[Fuji Abound]

Two words - situational awareness.

The G1000 combines nearly all the information you might want into a relatively intuitive package that is very easy to see.

Why do people buy a 50 inch tv in preference to a 30 inch tv or equivalent computer screens. Simple - display the same film or information on a larger screen and it is easier to take in the detail. Same with a G1000.

Then add in a host of possible features like overlaying instrument approaches and profiles, TAS, weather, etc and you have a powerful set of tools.

As IOs says field maintenance presents its own problems. Personally I think the user interface could be more intuitive - Avidyne 9 is a better example of how it should be done - but all in all it is the way ahead.

[englishal]

It is a lot easier to fly a G1000 IFR. By that I mean, you can keep altitude within 20 feet and heading within 1-2 degrees as the norm. No way can you do that with a G530 and conventional instruments. You have lots of redundancy, lots of useful information to make your flight safer and easier....

Each to their own of course, but once you get au-fait with the G1000 you will never want to turn back!

[julian_storey]

I've flown several aircraft with the G1000 and I am absolutely convinced that it's the nicest thing out there today.

I was interested to read about the recent G1000 retrofit in a King Air - because having flown a nearly new King Air with the factory fit ProLine 21, I much prefer the way the G1000 works. Although it probably does a little less than the ProLine 21, it is far more intuitive to use.

You can't really knock the G1000 until you've tried it - and once you've tried it, unless you could afford something with the top end Honeywell stuff in it (the Epic is mind blowing), you probably wouldn't want anything else :)

[Big Pistons Forever]

Go on, please tell me. Call me an old fart but personally I don't think they are necessary for most GA operations. I understand they pack a lot more tech than the standard 6-pack but in comparison to a GNS530 or similar alongside the standard IFR equipment they don't look that attractive to me.



I think it is overkill for most GA operations because most GA operations are VFR. If you are operating IFR then it is most definitely an improvement over a six pack and Garmin 530 , which is most definitely an improvement over a 6 pack and no moving map GPS. The level of accuracy and the instant and constant situational awareness is simply not possible with a steam gauge cockpit.

However for VFR flying I think it is overkill. A good portable moving map GPS with a paper map backup will handle the Nav and the view out the windscreen will provide all the cues needed to control the aircraft. On an average VFR flight the pilot will use about 10 % of the functionality of the G1000 system

[IO540]

Depends on the "VFR flight". Not all VFR flights are the proverbial $100 burger runs :) In much of Europe, you have complex airspace and nervous ATC.

I flew a TBM850 recently with the G1000 cockpit and compared to an old TBM (with the old but nice EFIS-40 kit and a vast number of switches and gauges all over the panel) it is a vast improvement in information presentation.

As I keep saying, my gripe with these cockpits is that they are a great way to create AOG situations. This is not so much of an issue if you are based at the same airport where the Garmin or Avidyne dealer is based.

I assume the way this issue is dealt with at the upper end of the food chain is by throwing money at the avionics man who jumps into a 737 and sorts you out. A TBM will cost you around £50k/year just in routine maintenance, anyway. But this level of service simply does not happen at the light piston end of things.

[Fuji Abound]

Its not any longer a question of overkill but of economics. In every sense you are asking the wrong question and we are having the wrong debate.

It costs less to fit a G1000 in a new aircraft, so that is what they come with, and its what they are designed to accept.

I dont think anyone would contemplate fitting a G1000 in an existing aircraft and I dont think anyone would buy a new SR22 and ask Cirrus to fit a six pack.

If the salesman had to pitch glass or an optional six pack "upgrade" at +$10,000 I dont think he would get many takers.

In reality the only sensible question is should manufacturers be fitting glass or dials given glass is cheaper. The only reason I can think of is serviceability, in every other aspect glass wins hands down.

Perhaps if you wanted to operate a Cirrus in Outer Mongolia it would make sense to custom design a six pack installation, but then maybe a Cirrus would not be the best aircraft in the first place!

[Ultra long hauler]

I've flown several aircraft with the G1000 and I am absolutely convinced that it's the nicest thing out there today.

You seem to have some experience with glass………..I´m considering this for my LSA:

Dynon Avionics - Technology Preview (http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/news_technology_preview.html)

Any feedback please………anyone……….anyone at all?

Gracias!

###Ultra Long Hauler####

[silverknapper]

Morrisman

Think of it as progress. Things move on. I suggest you fly it in anger then pass judgement. Especially once you have experienced round dials with a gps just out of your scan in the real world, not just on your IR test. The 530 has been about for a long time now, G1000 is a different thing entirely.
It has it's foibles. I hate the Garmin menu system, and I hate inputting flightplans to G1000. It needs the keypad bigger machines have. But it's redundancy is first class. Touch wood I haven't had any issues in my limited experience. Go do a manufacturers course on it and learn it properly. Best time you'll spend.

[IO540]

Basically, what happened is that the old avionics players gradually dropped the ball. Some did it by making crap, and the good ones (Bendix/King/Honeywell) just lost interest in the GA market, becoming very arrogant companies only interested in the top slice of their business (jet avionics).

Garmin hung in there and grew by default, despite selling the same boring basic boxes for a decade or so (GNSx30).

When they saw a threat (Apollo) they bought the company and shut down the threatening products.

Eventually they ended up owning the world.

The G1000 is just a wrap-up of their old software and hardware technology, into one package which is made up of a load of modules. There is nothing new there. Maybe a bit of software... even SV is straight out of a decade old flight sim.

The G1000 costs an aircraft mfg less than the old avionics. I don't know how much less but probably a lot less. Take the list price of a King KI-256 vacuum horizon - $20k+ for some versions. This is a totally mad price. The dealer price would be -25%. The OEM price, 100+, would probably be about $10k. That is a huge pile of cash, and you can multiply that half a dozen times to get a half decent avionics fit. That is considerably more than the mfg is paying for the whole engine and accessories...

The incentive to save costs on avionics is accordingly massive, but no a/c mfg can just go and make their own. Eclipse kind of tried but even they did a JV with Avidyne I think, and despite their heavy Ponzi-style funding even they screwed up and ended up shipping the early jets with Garmin 496s (no kidding).

There aren't enough half decent electronics engineers around to do this from scratch. Most of the good ones are 50+ and have become managers and don't do real work anymore, but they get paid a lot more. Most avionics stuff now is designed by kids with little expertise. You only have to see the circuit diagrams to see the designer was clue-less.

So people like Honeywell (who made mostly very good stuff, in those days) had the mfgs by the g00lies and held them tight and squeezed them hard.

Then Garmin came along and cleaned up.... it was child's play at that point. My guess is that the OEM cost of a G1000 is less than 50% of the old stuff which (assuming there is a nice autopilot in there) will be similar to getting a whole 2nd engine for free... Garmin are making massive profits now because the cost to make a G1000 is only about $500. A GNS430W costs only about $200 to make.

I met a Honeywell exec at some Eurocontrol conference and said to him they should not have handed the market to Garmin on a plate. He just laughed, and agreed...

The glass products are good business for the whole supply pipeline because very few freelance installers can touch them. It's good for price support and all kinds of other restrictive practices which are always good for business.

Even the G1000 installation manuals took about 3 years to leak out onto the internet and that was only through a c0ckup by some Garmin dealer. Without those, Garmin have everybody by the balls.

[Jan Olieslagers]

I´m considering this for my LSA:

Dynon Avionics - Technology Preview (http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/news_technology_preview.html)

Any feedback please………anyone……….anyone at all?I flew several Coyote II's as a beginner student, and at least one had an early Dynon fitted. I have very few memories of it, which is basically a good sign: it did not pose any serious problem or difficulty, and it was not too hard to transition to.

[ei-flyer]

It is a lot easier to fly a G1000 IFR. By that I mean, you can keep altitude within 20 feet and heading within 1-2 degrees as the norm. No way can you do that with a G530 and conventional instruments.

I can.....

[IO540]

Only on autopilot - unless this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond) is you.

[ei-flyer]

Awwww come on - it's not that difficult, if you're paying attention and anticipating instrument lag etc :)

[Floppy Link]

Well done ei-flyer - you're "Skygod of the week." :rolleyes:

Anyway, back on topic...

...because I've never flown a plane with one...

Why don't you go try one out for yourself, decide and let us know what you think.
Have you read this? Avidyne versus Garmin G1000 glass cockpits
a comparison by Philip Greenspun; updated June 2008 (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/avidyne-versus-garmin)

[mad_jock]

It is a lot easier to fly a G1000 IFR. By that I mean, you can keep altitude within 20 feet and heading within 1-2 degrees as the norm. No way can you do that with a G530 and conventional instruments.

I can as well, as can most of the folk I fly with. The width of the zero is the tolerance and abuse and witty comments fly if you step outside it. Same with heading. All that on the standard 6 and a crappy trimble.

In 10 years I have never had a instrument failure of the standard 6 or them to give me spurious readings. Which i really wish was the same on the EFIS aircraft I fly which deals out comparator errors, databus errors, signal generator failures, screens go blank after lightening strikes and all manner of other things to piss you off. Nearly all of which self heal after turning the master switch off and on to reboot the lot.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

From the perspective of a grand total of 1hr35 flying a G1000, most of it in cloud, it really does seem to be, as I suspected, like a video game ... with the difference that if you screw up or get killed there isn't a "reset" button.

One thing I'll have to get used to is the much less obvious rate 1 indication than you get from a turn coordinator ... "c'mon, watch your bank, we don't want to be doing any unusual attitude recovery in real cloud".

The GPS really does make it every so slightly easier to fly NDB procedures :)

Oh well, I'm signed off to fly the thing solo now, so if you never hear from me again I got it wrong.