Garmin 600

On 14-Sep-2006, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

That's actually an amazing deal when you consider all it replaces. It
would probably cost you more than that just to replace all your gyros,
radio, GPS, etc


Except that (as I read the article in Flying Magazine) the G600 does not
actually include a GPS. It requires inputs from a "compatible navigator"
which would typically be a GNS 430 or -530 (and might include others -- I
don't know). If you don't already have one of these you can add another
$7-8K to the price to make the G600 fully functional. It also does not
appear to include any com or nav radios, or a transponder. Of course, the
numbers quoted in this thread may include the navigator and other radios,
but I kind of doubt it. In any case, the G600 is intended for aftermarket
retrofit, and existing planes that are candidates for this high-end goody
most likely already have a full compliment of avionics.

-Elliott Drucker

wrote in message
news:3ShOg.59594$OI1.34406@trnddc05...

On 14-Sep-2006, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

That's actually an amazing deal when you consider all it replaces. It
would probably cost you more than that just to replace all your gyros,
radio, GPS, etc


Except that (as I read the article in Flying Magazine) the G600 does not
actually include a GPS. It requires inputs from a "compatible navigator"
which would typically be a GNS 430 or -530 (and might include others -- I
don't know). If you don't already have one of these you can add another
$7-8K to the price to make the G600 fully functional. It also does not
appear to include any com or nav radios, or a transponder. Of course, the
numbers quoted in this thread may include the navigator and other radios,
but I kind of doubt it. In any case, the G600 is intended for aftermarket
retrofit, and existing planes that are candidates for this high-end goody
most likely already have a full compliment of avionics.

They may have a full complement, but they're dated.

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:
but I kind of doubt it. In any case, the G600 is intended for aftermarket
retrofit, and existing planes that are candidates for this high-end goody
most likely already have a full compliment of avionics.

They may have a full complement, but they're dated.

If you are someone who wants to have the latest "stylish" panel, then
perhaps glass is the way to go. For most of us, glass gives us no
capability that "dated" panels do not, except that the "dated" panels
have worked for decades, and that glass panel you put it today likely
will not.

Given my mission of non-revenue flights, I don't think I would opt for
glass (where I would have a choice) even if buying a brand-new airplane
today.



JKG

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:
but I kind of doubt it. In any case, the G600 is intended for
aftermarket
retrofit, and existing planes that are candidates for this high-end
goody
most likely already have a full compliment of avionics.

They may have a full complement, but they're dated.

If you are someone who wants to have the latest "stylish" panel, then
perhaps glass is the way to go. For most of us, glass gives us no
capability that "dated" panels do not, except that the "dated" panels
have worked for decades, and that glass panel you put it today likely
will not.

I'm talking about those who's panels are ready for refurbishment for one, or
those who see the advatages of a glass panel. "Style" might be one factor,
but I doubt it's an overriding issue.

Given my mission of non-revenue flights, I don't think I would opt for
glass (where I would have a choice) even if buying a brand-new airplane
today.

That's nice. YMMV.

Those whose aircraft are tools rather than "playthings" often want every
edge we can get when they are use for making money. For many, it's a much
cheaper alternative to a whole newer airplane.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:
Those whose aircraft are tools rather than "playthings" often want every
edge we can get when they are use for making money. For many, it's a much
cheaper alternative to a whole newer airplane.

What capabilities would you have with glass in a typical light airplane
that you don't have without?

Short answer: there aren't any. Sure, glass may be nicer, reduce
workload, and provide non-essential services such as terrain and
weather, but the reality is that you're still flying to the same
airports, with the same approaches, using the same minimums, and flying
the same routes. If you are flying revenue-generating missions, the
glass may well be worth it, but I don't see the value for general
business or pleasure flyers over the long term.



JKG

Non-essential services such as weather... and enclosed cockpits, and
gyros, etc. Guess it depends on your perspective on where you draw the
line for nicer, reduced workloads and non-essential services. I want a
head...

Some people prefer new Cessnas, some Lancairs, a few Staggerwings. How
old are you anyway?

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Those whose aircraft are tools rather than "playthings" often want every
edge we can get when they are use for making money. For many, it's a much
cheaper alternative to a whole newer airplane.


What capabilities would you have with glass in a typical light airplane
that you don't have without?

Short answer: there aren't any. Sure, glass may be nicer, reduce
workload, and provide non-essential services such as terrain and
weather, but the reality is that you're still flying to the same
airports, with the same approaches, using the same minimums, and flying
the same routes. If you are flying revenue-generating missions, the
glass may well be worth it, but I don't see the value for general
business or pleasure flyers over the long term.



JKG

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
m...
Non-essential services such as weather... and enclosed cockpits, and
gyros, etc. Guess it depends on your perspective on where you draw the
line for nicer, reduced workloads and non-essential services. I want a
head...

Some people prefer new Cessnas, some Lancairs, a few Staggerwings. How
old are you anyway?

I'd love one of these http://www.wacoclassic.com/index.htm for fun runs,
such as heading out to some old airport an hour or so from home, where the
old guys can tell stories for hours on end.

I sure wouldn't use it if I really HAD to be somewhere, like 600 miles away.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:
Those whose aircraft are tools rather than "playthings" often want every
edge we can get when they are use for making money. For many, it's a much
cheaper alternative to a whole newer airplane.

What capabilities would you have with glass in a typical light airplane
that you don't have without?

Much better situational awareness, plus higher reliability.

Short answer: there aren't any. Sure, glass may be nicer, reduce
workload, and provide non-essential services such as terrain and
weather,

You think those are "non-essential"? HooooooBoy!!

but the reality is that you're still flying to the same
airports, with the same approaches, using the same minimums, and flying
the same routes. If you are flying revenue-generating missions, the
glass may well be worth it, but I don't see the value for general
business or pleasure flyers over the long term.

Have you ever flown for business? Regularly? (I'm addressing business
flying, not corporate aviation here, which is even more exacting)

The gap between business and pleasure flying make the Grand Canyon look like
a narrow ditch.

Here's my situation, offered as an example, though I suspect it's common:
I'm kicking back today because on Wednesday afternoon, I took the best
building contractor in the area we're looking to build to dinner, conducted
final negotiations, and inked a contract worth $2.1 million. This guy is
highly sought after and I was not going to let him slip away. This is a
common facet of my business (getting the best guy available and getting to
them before someone else does).

I'm in a highly competitive field and every edge matters. The stuff we build
is inexpensive, but not cheap. Thus, this is not a sight-seeing trip or a
trip to Grandma's. We're a damn long way from "pleasure flying" and I
seriously doubt that the latter is what Garmin is targeting any more than
what the heavy iron boys are targeting.

In this example, one slip might have cost me several times the cost of the
Garmin unit. Can you grasp the differences here?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Those whose aircraft are tools rather than "playthings" often want every
edge we can get when they are use for making money. For many, it's a much
cheaper alternative to a whole newer airplane.

What capabilities would you have with glass in a typical light airplane
that you don't have without?


Much better situational awareness, plus higher reliability.

Short answer: there aren't any. Sure, glass may be nicer, reduce
workload, and provide non-essential services such as terrain and
weather,


You think those are "non-essential"? HooooooBoy!!


but the reality is that you're still flying to the same
airports, with the same approaches, using the same minimums, and flying
the same routes. If you are flying revenue-generating missions, the
glass may well be worth it, but I don't see the value for general
business or pleasure flyers over the long term.


Have you ever flown for business? Regularly? (I'm addressing business
flying, not corporate aviation here, which is even more exacting)

The gap between business and pleasure flying make the Grand Canyon look like
a narrow ditch.

Here's my situation, offered as an example, though I suspect it's common:

Stuff deleted

In this example, one slip might have cost me several times the cost of the
Garmin unit. Can you grasp the differences here?



Our "non-essential" XM weather made what could have been a way to
exciting flight rather comfortable and it's no less important for
pleasure flying. Without it our Sunday flight home might not have
happened and that doesn't sit too well with the office "Sorry, weather
isn't good, I won't be in for a few days".

Margy

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:
"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:
Those whose aircraft are tools rather than "playthings" often want every
edge we can get when they are use for making money. For many, it's a much
cheaper alternative to a whole newer airplane.

What capabilities would you have with glass in a typical light airplane
that you don't have without?

Much better situational awareness, plus higher reliability.

Short answer: there aren't any. Sure, glass may be nicer, reduce
workload, and provide non-essential services such as terrain and
weather,

You think those are "non-essential"? HooooooBoy!!

Yes, I do. But even if I didn't, I can buy those capabilities for
$2,700 in a Garmin 496 as opposed to $30k+ radios and installation for
the Garmin 600.

The reality is that flying for business where revenue is at risk is a
completely different situation than what most of us face when we pull
our single-engine airplanes out of the hangar. The productivity gains
permitted by glass cockpit technology may very well justify the costs
involved for business aviation, but not so for the pleasure flyer.



JKG