G1000 vs Steam guages initial thoughts...

Looks like a good application, the system drives what type
of display, a mechanical or electronic?


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:6mVJg.6550$SZ3.5989@dukeread04...
| The G1000 is less expensive for a airframe manufacturer
to
| install. The big screens and moving maps are easy to
| interpret and getting lost in the middle of an approach
will
| be hard to do. [As long as it works]. But when you
learn to
| navigate with no dials or steam gauges, you train your
mind
| to act as a "moving map" and you know the situation.
| ...
| The solid state gyros are the best thing IMHO, the
weakness
| in the small GA airplanes is the poor sensitivity and
| accuracy of the gyros and the small size of the
displays.
|
| Something like this might be more better!
| http://www.xbow.com/Products/product...ls.aspx?sid=59
|
|
|
|

Probably microsoft under the covers.

Jim Macklin wrote:
Looks like a good application, the system drives what type
of display, a mechanical or electronic?


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:6mVJg.6550$SZ3.5989@dukeread04...
| The G1000 is less expensive for a airframe manufacturer
to
| install. The big screens and moving maps are easy to
| interpret and getting lost in the middle of an approach
will
| be hard to do. [As long as it works]. But when you
learn to
| navigate with no dials or steam gauges, you train your
mind
| to act as a "moving map" and you know the situation.
| ...
| The solid state gyros are the best thing IMHO, the
weakness
| in the small GA airplanes is the poor sensitivity and
| accuracy of the gyros and the small size of the
displays.
|
| Something like this might be more better!
| http://www.xbow.com/Products/product...ls.aspx?sid=59
|
|
|
|

More likely Linux or a machine code.


"Robert Chambers" wrote in
message
om...
| Probably microsoft under the covers.
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| Looks like a good application, the system drives what
type
| of display, a mechanical or electronic?
|
|
| "Matt Barrow" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "Jim Macklin"
wrote
| in message
| | news:6mVJg.6550$SZ3.5989@dukeread04...
| | The G1000 is less expensive for a airframe
manufacturer
| to
| | install. The big screens and moving maps are easy
to
| | interpret and getting lost in the middle of an
approach
| will
| | be hard to do. [As long as it works]. But when you
| learn to
| | navigate with no dials or steam gauges, you train
your
| mind
| | to act as a "moving map" and you know the situation.
| | ...
| | The solid state gyros are the best thing IMHO, the
| weakness
| | in the small GA airplanes is the poor sensitivity
and
| | accuracy of the gyros and the small size of the
| displays.
| |
| | Something like this might be more better!
| |
http://www.xbow.com/Products/product...ls.aspx?sid=59
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|

The G-1000 probably works best when you either use it exclusively or
have a lot of total time and experience in going back and forth.

Your idea of upgrading an airplance with a good autopilot, big screen
GPS with traffic and terrain, and HSI is a good option. But, the HSI
should be an electronic, slewable display, otherwise you have lost a lot
of the real benefit of the G-1000's nav data situational awareness.

And, those standalone electronic HSIs are expensive puppies.

I think I would still opt for the new G600, with the Garmin autopilot.
The AHRS alone is so much better than the lousy gyros light aircraft
have been using for years.

The Garmin autopilot is truly integrated with the avionics and will be
ready to do RF legs when they come along in a couple of years, or so.

wrote:

I have just finished two concurent aircraft learning programs

1)Getting my instrument currency back.
doing some paractice, taking a IPC.
All done in a round dial 172.

2)Getting checked out in a G1000 182.
I've finished the King G1000 VFR and IFR course and spent about
6 hours in the G1000, I've also finished theG1000 182 VFR checkout.


Today we went up and did some IFR work in the G1000 182.
My prior three flights were doing some instrument practice in the
round dial 172.

I'd been doing quite well at mastering the G1000, but putting the
hood on at 700 ft in the G1000 was really hard after flying my IPC
yesterday in a round dial 172.

Holding altitude is hard the Altitude bug is too small and the rate of
climb indicator is such a different presentaion tha tI find it hard to
track.

I t feels like transitioning back and froth from G1000 to round dials
is going to be hard.

When one uses the autopilot in the G1000 182, everything is easier,
one has lots of time to think and the situational awareness is
awesome.

I'm begining to believe that 90% of this is the autopilot and that the
super G1000 integration is not that big of a benift.

The things I really like:
1)Rock solid autopilot.
2)The terrain display.
3)The big map situational awareness.
4)Traffic.

If one upgraded an airplane to

1)Good autopilot
2)Big screen GPS with traffic and terrain
3)HSI

I believe that you will have gaind 90% of the benifit of a G1000 at a
fraction of the cost

One could probably get 75% of the way there with an Autopilot S mode
xponder and Garmin 496.

Sam Spade wrote:
The G-1000 probably works best when you either use it exclusively or
have a lot of total time and experience in going back and forth.

Amen! The procedural training required for the G1000 is much more
complex than for round dials. If you don't fly it regularly its very
easy to accidentally miss a step or do things in the wrong order.
Especially when setting up an approach or programming the autopilot.
Can't tell you home many times students have set the VS in the
autopilot and set the target altitude and forgotten to arm the altitude
and flown right through it.
Unfortunately the Cessna implementation of the G1000 and the KAP 150
does not integrate altitude so the altitude you set in the G1000 is not
used by the autopilot. Mooney did a better job with the G1000 driving
the autopilot target altitude so your bug and the autopilot are in
agreement.

-Robert, G1000 CFII

I want to fly a G36 and G59 Beech. No corner or cost limits.



"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Sam Spade wrote:
| The G-1000 probably works best when you either use it
exclusively or
| have a lot of total time and experience in going back
and forth.
|
| Amen! The procedural training required for the G1000 is
much more
| complex than for round dials. If you don't fly it
regularly its very
| easy to accidentally miss a step or do things in the wrong
order.
| Especially when setting up an approach or programming the
autopilot.
| Can't tell you home many times students have set the VS in
the
| autopilot and set the target altitude and forgotten to arm
the altitude
| and flown right through it.
| Unfortunately the Cessna implementation of the G1000 and
the KAP 150
| does not integrate altitude so the altitude you set in the
G1000 is not
| used by the autopilot. Mooney did a better job with the
G1000 driving
| the autopilot target altitude so your bug and the
autopilot are in
| agreement.
|
| -Robert, G1000 CFII
|

Sorry, G58 typo.
"Jim Macklin" wrote
in message news:Jo_Jg.6567$SZ3.5312@dukeread04...
|I want to fly a G36 and G59 Beech. No corner or cost
limits.
|
|
|
| "Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
|
oups.com...
||
|| Sam Spade wrote:
|| The G-1000 probably works best when you either use it
| exclusively or
|| have a lot of total time and experience in going back
| and forth.
||
|| Amen! The procedural training required for the G1000 is
| much more
|| complex than for round dials. If you don't fly it
| regularly its very
|| easy to accidentally miss a step or do things in the
wrong
| order.
|| Especially when setting up an approach or programming the
| autopilot.
|| Can't tell you home many times students have set the VS
in
| the
|| autopilot and set the target altitude and forgotten to
arm
| the altitude
|| and flown right through it.
|| Unfortunately the Cessna implementation of the G1000 and
| the KAP 150
|| does not integrate altitude so the altitude you set in
the
| G1000 is not
|| used by the autopilot. Mooney did a better job with the
| G1000 driving
|| the autopilot target altitude so your bug and the
| autopilot are in
|| agreement.
||
|| -Robert, G1000 CFII
||
|
|

wrote:
ration is not that big of a benift.

The things I really like:
1)Rock solid autopilot.
2)The terrain display.
3)The big map situational awareness.
4)Traffic.

Traffic isn't an effective option unless you have TCAS. That is a long
ways off for light birds.

Sam Spade wrote:
wrote:
ration is not that big of a benift.

The things I really like:
1)Rock solid autopilot.
2)The terrain display.
3)The big map situational awareness.
4)Traffic.

Traffic isn't an effective option unless you have TCAS. That is a long
ways off for light birds.

The integrated TIS in the G1000 works 100% as well as TCAS when you are
flying in major metro areas. However, the coverage area is limited.
Personally, as a pilot I cannot tell the difference between TIS and
TCAS from looking at the display.

-Robert, CFII G1000 instructor

Robert M. Gary wrote:




The integrated TIS in the G1000 works 100% as well as TCAS when you are
flying in major metro areas. However, the coverage area is limited.
Personally, as a pilot I cannot tell the difference between TIS and
TCAS from looking at the display.

-Robert, CFII G1000 instructor

I've never used TIS, but I heard before what you state. Problem is the
limited coverage and I understand the feds can turn it off if the need
arises. They can't fiddle with TCAS.