[apatti]

Alright, time for you guys at KOSH to have pity on the rest of us... What's the news from the glass cockpit vendors? New features, products, services, pricing, etc. Those of us stuck at home would love to hear from you.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

I'm not at OSH, but ....

Garmin's announcement:

G3X - PFD/MFD. Combination of GDU 375/370 displays, ADAHRS and engine interface. "Starting at 10k", but a lack of specific pricing probably means it's not really for sale yet.

G500 - Stripped down version of the G600. Certified for most piston and turbine singles and piston twins. No autopilot or radar interface. Synthetic vision is optional. $17k

G600 - Synthetic vision and autopilot interface are now standard. $30k

TODR

 

[Bill Dicus]

Glass @ OSH

As an AFS 3400 owner (not yet flying) was happy to find that Rob is offering full upgrade path to the latest capabilites for both 3400 and 3500. Involves a new board with faster processer, more memory and ? more. He's also showing synthetic vision, to be ready before end of year. Both this and georeferenced approaches will play on upgraded 3400 and 3500. The board is $1200 and the SV another $500. Nice to know those with earlier units are not left behind. Bill

 

[w1curtis]

G500 - Stripped down version of the G600. Certified for most piston and turbine singles and piston twins. No autopilot or radar interface. Synthetic vision is optional. $17k

To be specific--No "attitude" based autopilot interface--neither does the G600 without the GAD-43. Heading output to rate based autopilot (S-Tec) is and always was supported. They will now throw in the GAD-43 attitude autopilot (Century, King, Chelton) adapter with the G600 but is optional with the G500.

The G500 (or G600) does not have any form or engine monitoring but for those that want "certified" piece of mind, at $15,995 is only about a 2X premium over some un-certified units once you add in the cost of engine monitoring.

If it was not for the Aspen Avionics EFD-1000, there would be no G500. The EFD-1000 was eating Garmin's lunch in the market that was intended for the G600. The G500 is effectively the old G600 with the price reduced. The new G600 now includes, synthetic vision and attitude autopilot interface.

The consequences of all this is that even the un-certified vendors may have to adjust their prices or add even more features to keep competitive with the Garmin certified offerings.

 

[rwtalbot]

The consequences of all this is that even the un-certified vendors may have to adjust their prices or add even more features to keep competitive with the Garmin certified offerings.

Perhaps, but the certified unit is no longer certified once installed in an Experimental. Also, the certification comes with its own problems. The experimental vendors will be free to add features and change firmware while Garmin and other certified vendors will not be. Also, would you prefer to deal with a huge vendor or a small team of people that are experimental aircraft owners themselves?

To me the jury is out on this one still. Garmin are releasing product which will benefit the industry by raising the bar and reducing pricing, but I haven?t seen enough that I would run out and buy the current offering yet. In my mind the best display and most usable interface wins. So many people compare feature by feature against $. When you finally get flying - will added features help if the thing is a pig to drive?

My hanger mate has a new C182 with G1000. He is not as young as he once was and since he bought the new plane I've only seen him fly it a handful of times. The truth is it is too complex for him to fly and stay current in. Added to that, the cost of the avionics is now a huge percentage of the cost of the aircraft. What happens when Garmin release the G2000? His plane is worth half what it was... and as an aircraft owner that is the double edged sword of ?progress?.

Cheers
Richard

 

[w1curtis]

Perhaps, but the certified unit is no longer certified once installed in an Experimental. Also, the certification comes with its own problems. The experimental vendors will be free to add features and change firmware while Garmin and other certified vendors will not be. Also, would you prefer to deal with a huge vendor or a small team of people that are experimental aircraft owners themselves?

Maybe you are thinking about engines or the rules may be different in Australia. But in the US, if you install certified avionics (a GNS430W for example) in an experimental IAW the manufacturers instructions for the TSO (antenna, encoder, etc) then it meets all the requirements of the TSO and remains a certified product. If you then remove that unit, you can install it in a certified aircraft without any issues. Since avionics do not typically have logbooks, I don't even see how you would enforce such a statement.

To answer your questions, remember Blue Mountain? A product from company large or small without release and quality controls, is not a product I want to be flying behind. Certification documents those controls. I think we know Garmin has to have those controls, what about the experimental companies? I've had to deal with Garmin and YES, I would rather deal with them then say Blue Mountain or some (though not all) of the other experimental vendors.

To me the jury is out on this one still. Garmin are releasing product which will benefit the industry by raising the bar and reducing pricing, but I haven?t seen enough that I would run out and buy the current offering yet. In my mind the best display and most usable interface wins. So many people compare feature by feature against $. When you finally get flying - will added features help if the thing is a pig to drive?

Jury not out for me. For better or worse (I think better) Garmin is the state of the art. All other vendors, experimental and certified will be measured against them. That doesn't mean I will be installing everything that Garmin makes. The point I was trying to make is that for certain pieces of equipment, some will pay the premium for the certified product because they at least have documented hardware and software controls. For others, features will override stability and controls--again remember Blue Mountain?

My hanger mate has a new C182 with G1000. He is not as young as he once was and since he bought the new plane I've only seen him fly it a handful of times. The truth is it is too complex for him to fly and stay current in. Added to that, the cost of the avionics is now a huge percentage of the cost of the aircraft. What happens when Garmin release the G2000? His plane is worth half what it was... and as an aircraft owner that is the double edged sword of ?progress?.

This is a spurious statement against what? --against glass cockpit? --against advanced technology? or against bad decisions? Are you suggesting Garmin is to blame for this pilot not flying? Should manufacturers not come out with new products to protect buyers investments? How much should a manufacturer dumb down a product? I'm a little confused by this paragraph.

For your hangar mate, the only suggestions I would make is that; he should have bought a steam gauge C182 or should give up flying entirely if he is not willing to invest the time in training.

 

[rwtalbot]

G'day William,

I don't disagree with much of what you say. As an Experimental owner you have the option to choose non-certified equipment if you wish. Some will have reasons to go one way or another. Certification is often the mark of a "quality" product - i.e. repeatable. It does not always indicate a good product.

The vendor you mention is perhaps not a good example of a satisfactory business model - certified or not. Three years ago when I was at Oshkosh it was fairly well known amongst the avionics vendors there that some of their stuff "did not work" to the point that some would not sell or recommend them. The recent events with that company are not really a surprise to many of us.

To me it is about selecting a vendor that treats their customers well and delivers a superior product. What that means is in the eye of the beholder. My personal experiences with Garmin have been OK ? but not as good as some of my other dealings.

Garmin is the state of the art. All other vendors, experimental and certified will be measured against them.

That is a pretty subjective statement. Do you mean they are the best, have the most capability, the best user interface? They definitely cannot claim to be the first. In many ways that is smart - they have allowed others to feel out the market and develop it for them.

This is a spurious statement against what? --against glass cockpit? --against advanced technology? or against bad decisions? Are you suggesting Garmin is to blame for this pilot not flying? Should manufacturers not come out with new products to protect buyers investments? How much should a manufacturer dumb down a product? I'm a little confused by this paragraph.

For your hangar mate, the only suggestions I would make is that; he should have bought a steam gauge C182 or should give up flying entirely if he is not willing to invest the time in training.

It is a statement that for a significant cross section of the pilots out there, technology and glass cockpits is not what it is all about. Having 50% of the value of the aircraft tied up in avionics is a concern if those components are obsolete as quickly as the average desktop PC.

As an owner of some of this technology I still get excited when I see new product released, but part of me cannot help wondering if the next announcement is going to see the investment in my own panel reduced even more than it has already or have me reaching for my cheque book again.

Some are simply not able to transition to glass cockpits or do not want to and yes I agree my hanger mate may have been wise to stick with his previous aircraft. However, in his defence, he got swept up in the idea of owning a technically superior aircraft/glass cockpit. He is certainly not alone in that.

Richard

 

[loopfuzz]

true

It is a statement that for a significant cross section of the pilots out there, technology and glass cockpits is not what it is all about. Having 50% of the value of the aircraft tied up in avionics is a concern if those components are obsolete as quickly as the average desktop PC.
...
Richard

I 100% agree with you Richard. I can guarantee that the technology for avionics (certified or not) in 5 years will be much better and cheaper then what we are seeing today. Compare those costs to the other parts of the planes we are building. There is always going to be faster processors, more memory, faster graphics, bigger screens, less power consumption...

It's still exciting when companies come out with new toys though.

I think the future will be the User Interfaces in which we interact with these new avionics. Lot's of companies have shown they can make these devices, but who is giving us the user interface of the future. ?? ?

Christopher.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

The G500 (or G600) does not have any form or engine monitoring but for those that want "certified" piece of mind, at $15,995 is only about a 2X premium over some un-certified units once you add in the cost of engine monitoring.

If it was not for the Aspen Avionics EFD-1000, there would be no G500.

I agree on both points. For experimentals, the G3X makes much more sense in the Garmin line, particularly if the price is really $10k for a single display + AHRS + EIS. The G500's real market is, IMHO, spam-can and glass ship (older Cirri and Diamonds) retrofit, just like the Aspen 1000 - applications where you need TSOed equipment.

TODR