A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Question on Aivdyne / Garmin Integrated Avionics Packages



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #13  
Old May 21st 05, 04:47 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Dude wrote:

wrote in message ...


Scott Skylane wrote:

wrote:




That's why I joined "FMS" and "RVSM" with an "and."


Tim,

O.K., I see your original point, now.

As a data point, I fly jets all day that do not have FMS, but are RVSM
equipped and do not lack any other "important" capabilities.



Oh, I know. There are lots of air carrier round dial birds that are RVSM
compliant. But, they had the requiste air data computers to begin with
when they rolled off the assembly lines circa 1970-80, or so.

I don't know for a fact, but it seems that making one of these VLJs
RVSM-compliant won't be an easy task, and may not be done by the OEM at
all.

With a bird coming off the assembly line today without a full-press
FMS/LNAV suite, I would wonder about the other expensive stuff required to
be RVSM-compliant.


The G1000 application in the Mustang has been announced to be RVSM
compliant. I am not sure whether a full FMS is in the cards right now, but
it wouldn't appear to be as tough to add as it is to older a less modern,
less integrated system.

Where, specifically, do you think the challenge will be? I can't figure out
what you think the bugaboo is.


I know FMS's are far less expensive today because they are basically a software
package instead of a clunky box for that express purpose.

The bugaboo I wonder about is air data processing, which is still no small feat.

I also wonder about computed steering and flight guidance, and all such things
that even have issues with the high-end systems, such as EPIC.

And, I wonder most of all about a single-pilot managing all of this. But, I
digress. ;-)

  #14  
Old May 21st 05, 05:06 PM
Dude
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message ...


Dude wrote:

wrote in message
...


Scott Skylane wrote:

wrote:




That's why I joined "FMS" and "RVSM" with an "and."


Tim,

O.K., I see your original point, now.

As a data point, I fly jets all day that do not have FMS, but are RVSM
equipped and do not lack any other "important" capabilities.



Oh, I know. There are lots of air carrier round dial birds that are
RVSM
compliant. But, they had the requiste air data computers to begin with
when they rolled off the assembly lines circa 1970-80, or so.

I don't know for a fact, but it seems that making one of these VLJs
RVSM-compliant won't be an easy task, and may not be done by the OEM at
all.

With a bird coming off the assembly line today without a full-press
FMS/LNAV suite, I would wonder about the other expensive stuff required
to
be RVSM-compliant.


The G1000 application in the Mustang has been announced to be RVSM
compliant. I am not sure whether a full FMS is in the cards right now,
but
it wouldn't appear to be as tough to add as it is to older a less modern,
less integrated system.

Where, specifically, do you think the challenge will be? I can't figure
out
what you think the bugaboo is.


I know FMS's are far less expensive today because they are basically a
software
package instead of a clunky box for that express purpose.

The bugaboo I wonder about is air data processing, which is still no small
feat.

I also wonder about computed steering and flight guidance, and all such
things
that even have issues with the high-end systems, such as EPIC.

And, I wonder most of all about a single-pilot managing all of this. But,
I
digress. ;-)


The way the G1000 system is designed takes a lot of the problems out of FMS.
In the past, there were many integration issues that the G1000 makes much
simpler because you only need to integrate with your own product. Also, you
don't have to build your own custom chip anymore, as many off the shelf
chips will work. The bottom line is that math is no longer a problem. If
your math is too intense for a single box, you add one for your new feature.

When I flew the G1000 I found it easier to manage than seperate boxes once I
learned the system. It does change you from pilot to system manager, but
you can pretty well manage everything by exception because all the faults
show up in one place.








  #15  
Old June 2nd 05, 12:26 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

That's silly. RSVM has nothing to do with the FMS. Every day
thousands of people and millions of boxes fly all over the world in
jets with just two vors and an ILS.

The G1000 includes a flight director and (unlike the Avidyne) can show
attitude information on any of the displays. It has all the same
capablities as other FMS systems. The only it is missing is an
integrated autopilot, but that's coming real soon now.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question on Garmin GNC 250XL Ron Home Built 1 October 24th 04 08:26 AM
Another Garmin 430 question Jim Instrument Flight Rules 11 December 1st 03 11:53 PM
Garmin 430 question smf Instrument Flight Rules 4 December 1st 03 03:03 AM
avionics book reference and question mah Military Aviation 14 October 5th 03 01:17 AM
Garmin 430/530 Questions Steve Coleman Instrument Flight Rules 16 August 28th 03 09:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.