So I watched the video, what is new about the G3? Upgrades avionics? Integrated Starlink? I’m taking from this thread there are no increases in performance.

Mostly some upgraded avionics functions as well as some interier refinements and improvements.

An additional seven knots, probably coming from a combination of tweaking the FADEC and a mod of the AC door. CPDLC. Ability to carry 6 adults instead of 5 which are nice upgrades. The rest seem to be upgrades already present in the Piper and the TBM.

And when the G1000 version you have is obsolete, it cost $100,000 to rip out all the boxes and screens and redo it to the new stuff they're selling. And that's if the manufacturer of the airframe is on board with it, they don't have to. They may just want to let them die so you'll buy new ones. People don't realize that G 1000 is certified along with the airframe. These are pistons single costs, can't imagine what it cost to retrofit an obsolete SF50 and 10 to 15 years.

Cirrus just announced that they’re offering an upgrade with Garmin to the latest perspective plus for legacy SR2X, which is the newest generation Nxi suite. Around $30,000 which I think is very reasonable in the airplane world.

Just make sure if you get into integrated avionics, it’s Garmin, and the OEM has a reputation for supporting their legacy customers. As to the integrated Pilatus stuff…. The problem is not the integration, the problem is the avionics they married. Finally, Pilatus woke up and is switching to Garmin. But they would not have done it if it were not for the Denali coming and threatening their golden goose.

Things change.

In 1995, Bendix King was the avionics to have. Then they got lazy with their dominant position and Garmin took it.

I see some of that laziness creeping into Garmin these days. Lack of viable competition eventually makes the incumbent lag behind and start thinking of themselves before the customer.

Mike C.

My mind is blown that there is a discussion that buying an airplane in 2026 is a going to be a problem in 20 years, because it has Garmin or anyone else's avionics.

Intergrated Avionics is here to stay. They work well and pilots vote with their $'s and Garmin was the clear winner. Mike, if you think Garmin is getting lazy, well then the new Garmin will appear, just as Garmin did in 2004 with the G1000.

They didn't let the G1000 fade, they came up with the NXI, and if you don't think Garmin doesn't want that business, I"m sure it's going to be something else to upgrade to. Other avionics have tried to displace Garmin and offer replacements, but not having luck.

I flew the first 172's with Garmin when they came out with the King AP. I flew the upgraded NXi's in Cirrus', and have flown the G3000 in the CJ3+. I'm not saying Garmin won't fail, I'm saying Garmin built the pipeline for pilot loyalty and if they are smart they will ensure it.

If someone else were to come up a better Garmin solution and get it into training airplanes, then Garmin needs to worry.

But, back to the premis that all these older planes with old Avionics are better and just as good as a new TBM980 with the integrated system, come on, that's false.

Garmin is certainly supporting G1000. The Mustang NXi upgrade was $59k parts and labor. That included two new PFD and MFD with higher resolution screens, new processors, and of course software. To Textron credit they assigned the software ownership to Garmin and let Garmin own NXi. That’s why it was $59k instead of $259k, a likely figure if the project was funded and owned by Textron. It was a good business decision because the majority of the fleet has upgraded. Garmin is already working on the next generation.

30 years ago, many said the same thing about the Honeywell Primus 1000 in Bravo Ultra, Encore.

Now those planes are stuck and can't get what I have.

In 20 years, my jet will be far easier to upgrade than the new TBM980 today.

Basically, integrate avionics puts aircraft on the electronic technology obsolescence path, which is far shorter than the airframe is naturally otherwise.

Mike C.

I wouldn’t worry about it, Mike. How many of us are gonna be flying 30 or 40 years from now, when these things are possibly obsolete, which I doubt they will be. Garmin or the OEM will find a way to make money upgrading these systems. And 20 years from now, your plane still won’t be capable of an autonomous landing.

Almost all to members of the Cirrus religion and very few to anyone outside that circle.

Brand loyalty and emotion are powerful airplane selling tools.

Mike C.

30 years ago, many said the same thing about the Honeywell Primus 1000 in Bravo Ultra, Encore.

Now those planes are stuck and can't get what I have.

In 20 years, my jet will be far easier to upgrade than the new TBM980 today.

Basically, integrate avionics puts aircraft on the electronic technology obsolescence path, which is far shorter than the airframe is naturally otherwise.

Mike C.

An interesting feature of the Cirrus Jet is that it will fit in many typical tee hangars.

That would be important to me; larger hangars that would be required for something like a Malibu are hard to get.

I do wonder what the real world runway requirements of a Cirrus Jet might be.

About 15,000 ft if you always want to be able to either land or safely use the chute after an engine failure.

Mike C.

About 15,000 ft if you always want to be able to either land or safely use the chute after an engine failure.

Mike C.