G1000 vs ANALOG
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Surrey
Age: 67
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steam or glass
I own and operate skydiving aircraft with steam gauges and fly a two seater with full glass. I would always go for the glass instruments but I don't think you would get your money back if you changed from analog. They will both work for you. I think long term glass will be less likely to let you down in my mind electronics tend to fail early or not at all. Good luck with your choice just remember for skydiving keep it simple.
Pete
Pete
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gizmo 1000 for a skydive aircraft? Stick with steam gauges. Lighter, simpler, no pricey updates required, less time to get going, etc. The Gizmo benefit is mainly in cross country flying.
If you want a geo referenced moving map get an iPad. Cheaper and more versatile.
If you want a geo referenced moving map get an iPad. Cheaper and more versatile.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Poland
Age: 32
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do agree with you. The problem is, that there are 2 aircrafts in our interest: one with G1000 and one with Analog. I am just thinking, which avionic package will be better for skydyving operations, with reference to the maintenance and faultless. :-)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is resale value of any concern?
If so the G1000 may be more attractive.
In terms of your ops you will gain nothing from the G1000 unless you repositioning the aircraft - the G1000 comes into its own with respect to navigation and instrument flying in IMC.
As to reliability I have found the G1000 system reliable BUT the places where they can be repaired should they go wrong are far more limited and the cost greater. For a service critical operation that could well be a factor. Also I am inclined to think they tolerate damp conditions less well than traditional avionics. If the aircraft is left outside with lots of "damp" folk getting in an out (muddy boots etc) this might also be a consideration.
If so the G1000 may be more attractive.
In terms of your ops you will gain nothing from the G1000 unless you repositioning the aircraft - the G1000 comes into its own with respect to navigation and instrument flying in IMC.
As to reliability I have found the G1000 system reliable BUT the places where they can be repaired should they go wrong are far more limited and the cost greater. For a service critical operation that could well be a factor. Also I am inclined to think they tolerate damp conditions less well than traditional avionics. If the aircraft is left outside with lots of "damp" folk getting in an out (muddy boots etc) this might also be a consideration.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: EU
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I genuinely think G1000 would be wasted on an aircraft that rarely leaves a 15nm radius of the field. All it's going to benefit (apart from resale perhaps) is something for the pilot to amuse himself with in the climb.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am an instrument fitter by trade, but I used to do commercial stuff, not aviation so the comparison may not be valid. BUT, in my experience, analog instruments fail more frequently than electronic. No moving parts in most electronic stuff, so no wear. Failure tends to come from other sources, like spikes (ie the reason you turn avionics switch on/off when starting and stopping) and lighting.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Poland
Age: 32
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am considering to buy Comp Air CA8 or Comp Air CA10 for skydyving operations. CA8 i tailwheel, CA10 i three gear. Do you have any experience with that aircrafts? It is going to be usead as a paradrop aircraft.
If one of my steam gauges fails (rarely happens - they are simple) I can pull it from the panel, ship it off to be repaired and keep flying.
If my expensive, complicated, likely to fail wizzo screen fails then likely as not I can't fly until an expensive man comes and fixes it.
I'm sure the time will come when wizzo screens don't fail very often in rough GA service .... but we are not there yet.
If my expensive, complicated, likely to fail wizzo screen fails then likely as not I can't fly until an expensive man comes and fixes it.
I'm sure the time will come when wizzo screens don't fail very often in rough GA service .... but we are not there yet.
Having flown my Bulldog with steam gauges and my Cirrus with full glass I can categorically state that I fly far more accurately with analogue. Glass is good for the amount of data it can display. Steam is good for rate. And consequently accuracy. I also totally agree with the comment re redundancy, lose a screen and you lose the lot. Steam is more reliable IMHO.
FWIW I was told by a school operating the G 1000 C 172 SP, that all "repairs" involve pulling one of the 4 LRU's and sending it to GARMIN. If you don't want to wait your only option is an exchange unit which cost $ 5000 + 
.
.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of redundancy these systems have progressed. The earlier versions had a single solid state gyro, they now have two, there has always been the ability to transfer data between screens, so a complete systems failure is less likely. Check which version is fitted. I assume your operations are strictly VFR? If so I cant imagine why you need any of the frills of a G1000? They are pretty, they are brilliant for IFR (IMO), they may help the resale value because that is the way things are going, but they are definitely not need for VFR work, can only be more costly to maintain and more complex. Changing anything in a six pack is really straight forward, a range of parts are available off the shelf, new and over hauled, any avionics engineer can make the repairs and do the write up and the reliability is now days really good. Pretty six packs may not be, but they do the job very well be in no doubt.
So you say your concern is maintenance and faults - if that is your sole concern without doubt I think it must be analogue instruments.
So you say your concern is maintenance and faults - if that is your sole concern without doubt I think it must be analogue instruments.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew the Gizmo 1000 when I was with CAP. If a sensor failed, a red X would appear indicating that feature inop. The MEL wouldn't allow much, so the airplane was grounded. Too fragile and complicated for an airplane required for daily, reliable ops, at least when I flew it.
We have a Honeywell glass conversion in one of the airplanes I fly and always seem to have one problem or another. The steam gauge airplane just presses on and on. Guess I'm biased, but I'll take steam gauges, a Universal FMS and an iPad for what we do with the one airplane over the pretty, Honeywell glass airplane.
We have a Honeywell glass conversion in one of the airplanes I fly and always seem to have one problem or another. The steam gauge airplane just presses on and on. Guess I'm biased, but I'll take steam gauges, a Universal FMS and an iPad for what we do with the one airplane over the pretty, Honeywell glass airplane.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever
So what happens when you get a fault in one of the engine indications ? You going to fly the airplane with no MAP or RPM or oil pressure ?
What happens if the MAP , RPM or oil pressure fails in your analogue flight deck? There is no redundancy. The g1000 does have redundancy. And if both displays fail in flight, you still have enough backup instruments to fly a plane.
Like I said, I am hardly qualified to comment on aviation gear, but I am an instrument fitter by trade, and I do understand how all this stuff works. All my work has been industrial, and I did my trade working with old school analogue instruments. I have repaired many thousands of these things in my lifetime and I can assure you that there is less failure in modern electronic equipment than the old analogue gear. FWIW, the electronic stuff stays in calibration a lot longer than mechanical instruments too.
BTW, As a sailor I distrust electronic instruments!! Go figure. Problem is they always get wet and fail.
Oh, and one last thing. Full tanks on a Cessna 172 with G1000, the fuel gauges show a big red cross through them!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
BTW, As a sailor I distrust electronic instruments!!
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Lancashire & Florida
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly two C172SP's, one Analogue the other is G1000 equipped.
The steam panel was like putting on a pair of comfortable old shoes, and I was reluctant to make the transition to the G1000 panel, in fact it used to intimidate me a little, but the more hours I flew the G1000 the more I began to appreciate it's value, I now feel comfortable with either, but if on a x/c trip I usually opt for the Glass now even though I still don't use lots of the functions available.
The steam panel was like putting on a pair of comfortable old shoes, and I was reluctant to make the transition to the G1000 panel, in fact it used to intimidate me a little, but the more hours I flew the G1000 the more I began to appreciate it's value, I now feel comfortable with either, but if on a x/c trip I usually opt for the Glass now even though I still don't use lots of the functions available.
