Cirrus & Garmin
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cirrus & Garmin
It seems Cirrus has finally decided to offer the G1000 option on their aircraft.
What is even more interesting is that they took the G1000 integration a step further, similar to what can be found on some VLJs.
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/perspective/
What is even more interesting is that they took the G1000 integration a step further, similar to what can be found on some VLJs.
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/perspective/
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally an integrated glass cockpit for the cirrus.
All they need to do now is make the wheels tuck away in flight, sort FIKI approval out with the installation of some decent TKS deicing and they may have a half decent aircraft to sell!
It is bound to be covered ad nauseam in the flying press next month... no doubt the Klapmeier press machine gun has already started firing.
Style 10 substance 0
SB
All they need to do now is make the wheels tuck away in flight, sort FIKI approval out with the installation of some decent TKS deicing and they may have a half decent aircraft to sell!
It is bound to be covered ad nauseam in the flying press next month... no doubt the Klapmeier press machine gun has already started firing.
Style 10 substance 0
SB
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If somebody offered to install a G1000 in my TB20GT, free, I would decline.
With the mostly nice "early 2000s" separate kit I have, which does everything VFR and IFR ever likely to be needed in Europe with a big VFR/IFR GPS (exceptions: precision coupled GPS approaches when they are available without ATC into GA fields, and RNAV STARs with transitions flown coupled - none of these are exactly pressing and TBH most 3rd world 747s don't have this capability and never will) I can keep my costs to a minimum by sourcing any required replacements from the USA at a fraction of the UK cost, whereas if I had a G1000 it would be a case of flying the plane to a specialist dealer, with a barrel in the back, putting the barrel in the man's office, and bending over it without him even asking me to.
Avionics integration yields a pretty cockpit but I bet you it will increase operating costs through a severe restriction of maintenance options.
Extra mission capability = 0.
With the mostly nice "early 2000s" separate kit I have, which does everything VFR and IFR ever likely to be needed in Europe with a big VFR/IFR GPS (exceptions: precision coupled GPS approaches when they are available without ATC into GA fields, and RNAV STARs with transitions flown coupled - none of these are exactly pressing and TBH most 3rd world 747s don't have this capability and never will) I can keep my costs to a minimum by sourcing any required replacements from the USA at a fraction of the UK cost, whereas if I had a G1000 it would be a case of flying the plane to a specialist dealer, with a barrel in the back, putting the barrel in the man's office, and bending over it without him even asking me to.
Avionics integration yields a pretty cockpit but I bet you it will increase operating costs through a severe restriction of maintenance options.
Extra mission capability = 0.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow
WOW!
What an amazing implementation. I know not everybody is pro technology but from an avionics point of view, this Cirrus has everything I could dream of. All we need now...
1) Diesel (modern) engine.
2) FIKI
3) Whole Cockpit ANR
I've many hours on the G1000 and wish I could always fly with it. Well done to everyone at Cirrus and Garmin.
VT
What an amazing implementation. I know not everybody is pro technology but from an avionics point of view, this Cirrus has everything I could dream of. All we need now...
1) Diesel (modern) engine.
2) FIKI
3) Whole Cockpit ANR
I've many hours on the G1000 and wish I could always fly with it. Well done to everyone at Cirrus and Garmin.
VT
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can keep my costs to a minimum by sourcing any required replacements from the USA at a fraction of the UK cost, whereas if I had a G1000 it would be a case of flying the plane to a specialist dealer, with a barrel in the back, putting the barrel in the man's office, and bending over it without him even asking me to.
But to be fair to the G1000, it is a modular system. If the AHRS fails (or any other module), you just "hot swap" the module in the rack (pretty much) and you're back in the air in 2 minutes. Could you not order a new module from the USA, delivered on DHL overnight too and just "plug and play" for a third the UK price? (Side note: I just ordered a new weather station from the USA, cost in UK was £900, in USA $800. It was delivered in 7 days, at a cost of $65 and import VAT was £22.49 plus Parcel Force £8.00 handling fee)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540,
You make some valid points, but I don't fully agree.
While naturally you are right stating that there are cheaper options around than the G1000 setup, I honestly don't think it was ever Cirrus' concern to make the avionics package offered on their aircraft any cheaper.
Cirrus' primary concern, however, is making the aircraft - and e.g. its operation under single pilot IFR - accessible to as many pilots as possible, and that's exactly what this G1000 setup achieves.
The small keyboard offers easier access (and thus requires less effort in-flight) to the stored flight plan and the revised mode control panel facilitates the use of the autopilot. While these may all seem trivial changes, together with the G1000 they do contribute to decreasing the work load in single pilot operations and thus lower the entry threshold for inexperienced operators... which results in increased sales.
Their ideas cannot be called innovative, but they do use the available technologies to their benefit.
As for your statement regarding the extra mission capability, you are right as well. But then again, I don't think they had that in mind either since the Avidyne setup - navigationwise - already offered maximum mission capability.
On a different note, other areas of the aircraft could, of course, use some re-thinking.
You make some valid points, but I don't fully agree.
While naturally you are right stating that there are cheaper options around than the G1000 setup, I honestly don't think it was ever Cirrus' concern to make the avionics package offered on their aircraft any cheaper.
Cirrus' primary concern, however, is making the aircraft - and e.g. its operation under single pilot IFR - accessible to as many pilots as possible, and that's exactly what this G1000 setup achieves.
The small keyboard offers easier access (and thus requires less effort in-flight) to the stored flight plan and the revised mode control panel facilitates the use of the autopilot. While these may all seem trivial changes, together with the G1000 they do contribute to decreasing the work load in single pilot operations and thus lower the entry threshold for inexperienced operators... which results in increased sales.
Their ideas cannot be called innovative, but they do use the available technologies to their benefit.
As for your statement regarding the extra mission capability, you are right as well. But then again, I don't think they had that in mind either since the Avidyne setup - navigationwise - already offered maximum mission capability.
On a different note, other areas of the aircraft could, of course, use some re-thinking.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
G-1000 - there are a few positives - adding to the system (ADF, DME, stormscope, traffic etc) is relatively easy in that no re-working of the panel is required. Each of the modules is mounted elsewhere in the aircraft so as long as there is room in the rack not an issue. Moreover everyone who fits a G1000 makes room in the rack because usually these are all options.
The down side however is that all the G1000 components carry a premium at the moment - compare the price of a DME remote for the G1000 with a panel mount DME. That said depending on how easy it is to fit the DME in a given panel the saving may be lost in the additional fitting charges.
The other down side is that in the UK there are very very few avionics shops authorised to work on the G1000 - getting anything fixed or repaired is therefore an issue.
As volumes increase prices may however fall. From the viewpoint of manufacturers I suspect the cost of fitting a G1000 is way less that traditional avionics.
G-1000 - there are a few positives - adding to the system (ADF, DME, stormscope, traffic etc) is relatively easy in that no re-working of the panel is required. Each of the modules is mounted elsewhere in the aircraft so as long as there is room in the rack not an issue. Moreover everyone who fits a G1000 makes room in the rack because usually these are all options.
The down side however is that all the G1000 components carry a premium at the moment - compare the price of a DME remote for the G1000 with a panel mount DME. That said depending on how easy it is to fit the DME in a given panel the saving may be lost in the additional fitting charges.
The other down side is that in the UK there are very very few avionics shops authorised to work on the G1000 - getting anything fixed or repaired is therefore an issue.
As volumes increase prices may however fall. From the viewpoint of manufacturers I suspect the cost of fitting a G1000 is way less that traditional avionics.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with both of you two above 
This is the future on all new planes - we have to live with it if we want to buy new planes. Today, a plane without glass cannot be even given away.
So, all other considerations are moot, and a discussion of pros and cons is pointless
What I keep ranting on is really just a warning to buyers. Don't expect to get the low operating costs which are normally expected on a new plane with piecemeal avionics which - IF you don't let yourself to be ripped off - can be replaced/repaired at a reasonable price and quite often amazingly cheaply. With the G1000 system, nothing is going to be cheap, and you have considerable issues in an AOG (aircraft grounded, either legally or practically) situation. I guess the only worse thing would be an engine failure in a DA40TDi at Luxor
The keypad is a massive help, years overdue for GA, and totally trivial to implement. Its omission in current GA setups is inexcusable and really stupid. Try entering 30 airways waypoints, most of them 5 characters, with a KLN94 / GNSx30 etc.... The Garmin 480 had airways name entry support but Garmin have dropped that product (having bought the company, in the usual American way).
This is the future on all new planes - we have to live with it if we want to buy new planes. Today, a plane without glass cannot be even given away.
So, all other considerations are moot, and a discussion of pros and cons is pointless
What I keep ranting on is really just a warning to buyers. Don't expect to get the low operating costs which are normally expected on a new plane with piecemeal avionics which - IF you don't let yourself to be ripped off - can be replaced/repaired at a reasonable price and quite often amazingly cheaply. With the G1000 system, nothing is going to be cheap, and you have considerable issues in an AOG (aircraft grounded, either legally or practically) situation. I guess the only worse thing would be an engine failure in a DA40TDi at Luxor
The keypad is a massive help, years overdue for GA, and totally trivial to implement. Its omission in current GA setups is inexcusable and really stupid. Try entering 30 airways waypoints, most of them 5 characters, with a KLN94 / GNSx30 etc.... The Garmin 480 had airways name entry support but Garmin have dropped that product (having bought the company, in the usual American way).
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: the air please
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did the math on the site and when i configure one i come at 666k$ for a plane that has a full tanks payload of :
Max gross= 3,400
Empty weight = 2,502
Useful load = 898
Full fuel = 552
898 - 552 = 346!!!!!!!
346 lbs for a 666k$ plane ??? HAHAHAHAHA
Max gross= 3,400
Empty weight = 2,502
Useful load = 898
Full fuel = 552
898 - 552 = 346!!!!!!!
346 lbs for a 666k$ plane ??? HAHAHAHAHA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BartV,
Your obvious flair for acting maturely reminds me of someone here on this forum who was rather fond of Mooneys, so here goes :
Mooney Acclaim type S (only option being the extra tanks and not the full option version upon which you based your weight calculations) :
Max gross weight : 3374 lbs
Usefull load : 1000 lbs
Full fuel : 128usg / 768 lbs
Payload with max fuel : 1000 - 768 = 232 lbs !
Your obvious flair for acting maturely reminds me of someone here on this forum who was rather fond of Mooneys, so here goes :
Mooney Acclaim type S (only option being the extra tanks and not the full option version upon which you based your weight calculations) :
Max gross weight : 3374 lbs
Usefull load : 1000 lbs
Full fuel : 128usg / 768 lbs
Payload with max fuel : 1000 - 768 = 232 lbs !
Last edited by +200 No Flags; 28th May 2008 at 10:06.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TB20
MTOW 1400kg (3086lb)
Empty 900kg (full 2002 GT IFR kit with all factory options i.e. Shadin, JPI, KI229 RMI)
So... Payload = 500kg
Full fuel 240kg (enough for 1100-1200nm zero fuel range)
So... passengers & junk = 260kg i.e. 572lb
This is the problem TB20 owners have. For VFR/IFR, there isn't an obvious other place to go, without chucking out a whole lot of versatility.
MTOW 1400kg (3086lb)
Empty 900kg (full 2002 GT IFR kit with all factory options i.e. Shadin, JPI, KI229 RMI)
So... Payload = 500kg
Full fuel 240kg (enough for 1100-1200nm zero fuel range)
So... passengers & junk = 260kg i.e. 572lb
This is the problem TB20 owners have. For VFR/IFR, there isn't an obvious other place to go, without chucking out a whole lot of versatility.
