BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jul 2014, 09:20

Im sure Hartzell is working on it.

Username Protected wrote:

Very nice, you need a 5 blade on this puppy.

I would consider a 5 blade hartzell if it was available. I don't like the 5 blade MT because if it needs work it has to go to Germany. To much downtime.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2014, 06:00

Username Protected wrote:

But the G1000 in the Phenom and Cirrus are light years ahead of PL21.

The G1000 is light years ahead in some respects - screens, colours, maps, charts, displays. Its more modern and lighter and more convenient (updates etc) and much much cheaper to own/run/upgrade.

But in terms of the hard-core function as an FMS in the traditional definition, it is behind.

A lot of the G1000 "FMS" function is simply carried over from the 1990s light plane Garmin 530 and the first G1000 implementation in Cessna singles. As a result, the Phenom/Cirrus G1000 can't:

- calculate v-speeds or runway performance
- fuel plan except on a crude algorithm of involving Ground Speed and flight plan distance to destination
- don't link dep/dest airport elevation to pressurisation control
- accept ad hoc user defined holds
- revert to rho-theta nav in case of a GPS LoI
- provide Baro VNAV or approach guidance to any runway
- fully manage VNAV on SIDs and STARs
I am no expert but I think there is more.

The post above with the trekking GPS has a real point to it.
Garmin's flight plan management logic in the original 430 was basic and more like the marine/auto/hiking 'list of waypoints' than "true" FMS logic. That basic DNA continued in the 530 and the G1000. It was only with the Mustang that Garmin had to accept that airways existed as route records in ARINC and not just lists of waypoints and actually take the trouble to implement airways. (My personal view is they had to buy Apollo because the CNX80 was so far ahead of the 530 and G1000 that it was an embarrassment.)

People who have generally flown Garmin prefer Garmin. No surprise. People who fly both, and who fly full-blown SID-Airway-STAR-Approach IFR all the time tend to have more of a mix of views.

On balance, I think I'd prefer Garmin, but I do think the G1000 wins over more on modern eye-candy than hard IFR FMS capability. The breakthrough is the GTN and G3000 user interface, which overcomes the horrible menu nesting/scrolling of the 530 and softkey confusion of the G1000.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2014, 06:03

Username Protected wrote:

Picture of the new bird.

Having diverted the thread on avionics minutiae....congratulations, looks fantastic!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2014, 08:48

Username Protected wrote:

People who have generally flown Garmin prefer Garmin. No surprise. People who fly both, and who fly full-blown SID-Airway-STAR-Approach IFR all the time tend to have more of a mix of views.

Then why aren't manufacturers building with PL21 anymore?

I don't think you've seen the latest Garmin stuff.

Also, it's not just about how it functions while flying. It shouldn't take 10 minutes for the avionics in my airplane to boot up. A data upload shouldn't take an hour and require being able to write code.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2014, 09:00

Username Protected wrote:

The breakthrough is the GTN and G3000 user interface, which overcomes the horrible menu nesting/scrolling of the 530 and softkey confusion of the G1000.

I don't think you've seen the latest Garmin stuff.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2014, 09:07

Username Protected wrote:

I think he has

Then maybe he will be the one to answer the question I've asked 5 times.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2014, 09:09

I see our guys calculate their various speeds on the g1000 all the time in our phenom....

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2014, 09:51

A C182 with G1000 and GFC700 will fly all the constraints of a SID/STAR.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2014, 10:03

Username Protected wrote:

I think he has

Then maybe he will be the one to answer the question I've asked 5 times.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2014, 10:22

Yeah, the "phase inspection" thing is a deal killer for me also when it comes to comparing Phenom with CJ.

Phenom - Garmin and no phase inspections

CJ - Proline with phase inspections

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2014, 10:25

Username Protected wrote:

I see our guys calculate their various speeds on the g1000 all the time in our phenom....

Also I seem to remember the pressurisation being worked into the G1000 in the Phenom.

The g1000 in the Phenom is very integrated.

As far as I know it cannot build/fly a hold at a waypoint. But easy enough to do and fly manually.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2014, 10:43

Username Protected wrote:

I see our guys calculate their various speeds on the g1000 all the time in our phenom....

Also I seem to remember the pressurisation being worked into the G1000 in the Phenom.

The g1000 in the Phenom is very integrated.

As far as I know it cannot build/fly a hold at a waypoint. But easy enough to do and fly manually.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2014, 10:54

Well my G58 didn't get it. I think manufacturers have to be involved in any upgrades.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2014, 10:56

Gorgeous new airplane, Luke!
I really do need to come out one day before summer is over to meet and look over the toys!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jul 2014, 10:59

Username Protected wrote:

Then why aren't manufacturers building with PL21 anymore?

Cost. The PL stuff just costs too much and makes the retail price of the airplane too high.

However, Collins could easily change that, if they simply change their pricing. But apparently they won't, so, as seems to be the pattern of things, Garmin will continue to eat their lunch, they will go out of business as a viable option, then not too long after the Garmin equipment will begin to cost more too.

Pilatus understands supply and demand