Before I got my PPL, I was in awe of how modern exp planes had advanced way beyond was was available in the certified aviation market. Then working on my PPL, and in the same time keeping tabs on various site, BT being a main one - I pretty much figured the exp market was just "not enough mainstream" for me to even consider.

Not that my opinion of Bo's has dropped - but - this thread reminds me why I was impressed with the exp aviation market in general.

Love your plane Todd.

I only hope that in a few years some of these panel upgrades will be available for some of us in the old-school certified market.

Unless I gravitate to a Glasair.

Gary, my first airplane was an rv-7. They are about as mainstream as a Cessna. It's the low volume experimentals that you need to be careful with.

My next plane will be an experimental. Todd's experience with his Glasair as well as a hangar neighbors puts it on the shortlist with an RV.

I've got an RV7 and the Lancair, as mainstream as you can get indeed. That last statement is the real key-

If you want a no-nonsense basic airplane that performs well in just about all phases of flight buy the RV. If you want an aerobatic plane that is stronger than anything else built and don't mind stupid high wing loading, buy the Glasair III. If you want something in between, buy the Glasair III with the extended wing tips. With the extended tips you get another 200 miles of range, 58 knot stall speed, tamer roll rate (still rolls faster than just about anything else,) better high altitude performance, and a safer engine out glide speed of 100 knots instead of 120 knots. It also comes across the fence nicely at 90 knots if needed.

The support for the Glasair is good with the factory supplying everything needed. There are also many of them flying with thousands of hours on the meter with much of that time doing high-G aerobatics.

The Lancair also has exceptional support.

The Questair Venture and the like are cool, but just not enough of them flying.

Come fly my Glasair sometime if you are on the fence. There is nothing that handles like it.

Seriously.... If we can have the pilot medical requirement re-evaluated, why can't we have the FAA open up the avionics certification requirement? How would aviation not be safer by reducing the cost of glass panel, gps/nav/comms and ADS-B units by two-thirds?

This truly makes no sense to me, at least for private aircraft. I can understand the need for certification in commercial aviation, but...

which PAC do we contribute to, to get this on someone's agenda?

Tim,

There is a lot of truth to what you just said. Think about for a minute with a dual G3X package provides:

1. Dual ADAHRS units
2. Dual screens with all information available on either screen
3. Engine monitor with preprogrammed limit (adjustable to what you feel is the correct limit) warnings if those limits are reached.
4. Synthetic vision and terrain with visual and audio warnings for not only terrain, but unusual attitude.
5. An autopilot with altitude pre-select as a standard feature along with a straight & level button, vnav feature, indicated airspeed climb & descent, along with the ability to adjust gain and torque of a servo while you are flying! This autopilot can be used through the screen on either side or by the dedicated panel. Futhermore, this autopilot can be configured to ANY airframe with simple on-screen programming that literally takes 5 minutes to make perfect for your plane. No need to send back to the factory or have an autopilot that is only good for your airframe.
6. A built-in WAAS GPS that you can use for navigation along with flight plan and use the autopilot with it as well.
7. Touchscreen to quickly enter data such as headings, altitudes, squawk codes, airways, intersections, etc. While some people dismiss the touchscreen, until you use it you have no idea what you are missing.
8. ADS-B in/out

There is much more I am not covering.

Furthermore, this system (if allowed by the FAA) would be 100% capable by itself to fly any IFR approach or enroute segment WITHOUT a GTN or other "certified" GPS. In fact, the G3X is MORE capable than the GTN in the fact that it will allow VNAV profiles to be part of the flight plan just like a G1000 system. It is ridiculous that this system is not allowed to have the full approach capability that the GTN is allowed to have.

I shot two approaches the other day - one with the GTN and one with the G3X as the source. Both units gave the exact same performance shooting an LPV approach into my home field.

Now, for pricing - This whole package installed in your plane is roughly $30k. That is the whole shooting match - Engine monitor, autopilot, dual screens, backup battery, transponder, ADS-B equipment, wiring, etc. What would a high end autopilot such as the DFC-90 cost as a new install? And this is my point - you will pay more for a new autopilot (that has less capability and safety) in a certified plane that you will for a whole new panel that exceeds the capability of dual G500s, DFC-90, Xerion engine monitor, GDL-88, etc. You would spend over $150k installed for certified equipment and still not get the capability.

This is why I only bought the GTN-650 instead of the 750. The G3X does far more than the 750 and does it much easier. I only needed the 650/750 to *legally* shoot approaches, so that is all I do with that box. It would be nice if we could not only install the G3X in any airplane, but expand it's use to IFR operations as well to get away from these overpriced certified boxes that are not needed.

Many will disagree, but technology will bring a lot of new pilots into the field, but only if they can afford it! There is no reason to deny that technology is the replacement for most regulations in aviation anymore. Garmin, Avidyne, and others have proven that their experimental hardware is as reliable, if not more reliable, than "certified" equipment. We need to start pushing for a re-write of the regs.

Todd, I really admire the work you've done on your bird. I didn't mean to defocus your thread. I'm just so fed up with govt irrationality.

I was ranting about the issue to my wife today, and she simply asked, "who benefits from it being the way it is?" Who indeed?

Todd, check your pm. I'd like to learn more about your Glasair.

I'll beat Todd to posting this, but a simple software update will bring this to his new panel (and mine!)

http://garmin.blogs.com/my_weblog/2015/ ... -that.html

Very very cool stuff, and will be available for the non experimental crowd too

That is a nice feature - and the price is right - free!

I love the G3X. It really does change the aircraft capability.

Did I miss it? Have you taken it up in the teens yet to see if you got any more TAS from the new prop?

I wanted to wait until the GAMIs were installed and prop balanced to do all the testing at once. We now have the prop down to .02 IPS from .09 IPS. The GAMIs are installed as well. While it was being worked on I decided to replace all the hydraulic lines for the gear and the brake lines as well. I ordered some parts for one of the brake cylinders and hopefully will be flying Friday. I will do the GAMI lean test along with higher altitude TAS test to see what I get.

Very cool! Waiting impatiently.

Todd, did you see the v3.50 release also? The glide range ring and Best Airport are very cool features that are new