New Cessna Single
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Finland
Age: 51
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mercenary Pilot
I fly coupled to a bendix/king auto-pilot (which is pretty good and works quite well) but Garmin are developing their own autopilot which, when coupled to the G-1000 will offer so many new features including auto throttles.
) use the Garmin autopilot/G1000 combo. The new Bonanza/Baron models with glass panels came a bit later to the glass game, probably because they wanted to have the better integrated Garmin autopilot in the setup. This avoids things like having two separate altitude preselects: one in the G1000 that doesnt get communicated to the bendix/king autopilot, and another in the autopilot itself. So one has to set the altitude in two places (or ignore the other one altogether) - as far as I remember, the all-garmin setup does not have this problem. I would guess there might be other benefits too to have the units working more tightly together.
One can see the difference when comparing the panels: The Garmin autopilot has the autopilot mode selectors on the left sidepanel of the "map screen", instead of being in a separate unit. On G1000-equipped Cessnas etc that part of the G1000 is empty, and they have the Bendix/King unit separately.
Seen here (requires flash plugin): http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/beec...kpit_tour.aspx
Compare to the G1000 on Diamond DA40: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0641145/L/ - and on a Cessna: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1004252/L/ and you see the difference in the G1000 units.
Last edited by whiskeytangofoxtrot; 27th Jul 2006 at 07:37.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its got terrain warning, traffic alert (when mode 'S' is implemented across europe), contoured moving map, auto ILS alignment and storm scope to name a few features I would call extra functionality over a standard modern IFR fit.
You can have all of this if you have a big GPS or an MFD.
The question is the cost.
Honeywell GPWS was £13k when I looked at it a few months ago; I believe Garmin are doing something (in the form of a "certified" obstacle database) on the GNS530 for a lot less but I don't think it is a comparable product since it doesn't deliver avoidance warnings with aircraft performance accounted for. (It's a ripoff price of course; the function could be incorporated in a £200 GPS from a camping shop).
The full installed TCAD can be had from about £12k, last time I looked. The installation cost is significant; the plane has to be nearly taken apart to fit the various aerials and cabling (I've seen it done).
A WX500 stormscope is relatively cheap, about £2000.
None of the above are new in any way, and plenty of pilots have all of it. Just turn up at any moderately competent avionics shop (if you can find one...) and they will be Absolutely Delighted SIR to help you
The question is whether a G1000 delivers the functionality for a much lower installed cost.
Remember you also need an ADF and DME - with the G1000 these need to be remote reading units, to do it properly.
I don't think we are there yet, in both integration and evidence of long term reliability (both hardware and software). A few years to go, IMHO.
You can have all of this if you have a big GPS or an MFD.
The question is the cost.
Honeywell GPWS was £13k when I looked at it a few months ago; I believe Garmin are doing something (in the form of a "certified" obstacle database) on the GNS530 for a lot less but I don't think it is a comparable product since it doesn't deliver avoidance warnings with aircraft performance accounted for. (It's a ripoff price of course; the function could be incorporated in a £200 GPS from a camping shop).
The full installed TCAD can be had from about £12k, last time I looked. The installation cost is significant; the plane has to be nearly taken apart to fit the various aerials and cabling (I've seen it done).
A WX500 stormscope is relatively cheap, about £2000.
None of the above are new in any way, and plenty of pilots have all of it. Just turn up at any moderately competent avionics shop (if you can find one...) and they will be Absolutely Delighted SIR to help you
The question is whether a G1000 delivers the functionality for a much lower installed cost.Remember you also need an ADF and DME - with the G1000 these need to be remote reading units, to do it properly.
I don't think we are there yet, in both integration and evidence of long term reliability (both hardware and software). A few years to go, IMHO.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me the love of glass stems from one thing...and that is the innaccuracy and mechanical efficiency of steam driven guages.
Take for example the common D.I. It's a complete joke.
Take for example the common D.I. It's a complete joke.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The common DI is a complete joke because it works off a primitive internal gyro.
Any half decent plane will have a DI which a) uses a much more stable remotely mounted heading gyro (cost £5000 or so) and b) the heading is continually corrected with a heading signal from a fluxgate magnetometer (basically a solid state compass) mounted in a wingtip (cost another £5000 or so).
This technology, called a "slaved" DI or HSI, is decades old but works very well.
A glass panel will need the above remotely mounted equipment too. Today, one can avoid the remote gyro with a fibre optic reference system, but it isn't any cheaper.
Any half decent plane will have a DI which a) uses a much more stable remotely mounted heading gyro (cost £5000 or so) and b) the heading is continually corrected with a heading signal from a fluxgate magnetometer (basically a solid state compass) mounted in a wingtip (cost another £5000 or so).
This technology, called a "slaved" DI or HSI, is decades old but works very well.
A glass panel will need the above remotely mounted equipment too. Today, one can avoid the remote gyro with a fibre optic reference system, but it isn't any cheaper.
at least with mechanical systems, the pilot knows they are error prone and usually has a bunch of cross-checks up his (or her!) sleeve.
When electronics are feeding you a dose of pork pies, the tendency is to assume everything's ok. Because the black box says it is, therefore it must be so! How many training organisations will elaborate the procedures for dealing with glass instrument failure?
A (who develops electronic engine control systems for a living!)
When electronics are feeding you a dose of pork pies, the tendency is to assume everything's ok. Because the black box says it is, therefore it must be so! How many training organisations will elaborate the procedures for dealing with glass instrument failure?
A (who develops electronic engine control systems for a living!)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't seem likely that anyone will put mechanical devices into the panel of any new designs in this class of aeroplane. It is about as silly as sticking a 1940s engine in them... Oh, I guess they're still doing that...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 .
The Columbia i (integrated) has the autopilot integrated into the G1000. Also has of course the FMS type "readypad" on the arm rest - to take away a lot of the 'fiddley bits' we associate with the G1000. The Columbia fit also allws ref speeds into the G1000/Autopilot interface so that aircraft cannot be stalled or oversped with A/P engaged.
The Columbia i (integrated) has the autopilot integrated into the G1000. Also has of course the FMS type "readypad" on the arm rest - to take away a lot of the 'fiddley bits' we associate with the G1000. The Columbia fit also allws ref speeds into the G1000/Autopilot interface so that aircraft cannot be stalled or oversped with A/P engaged.
