Collins Pro Line vs Garmin G1000

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
I saw a demo of HITS - good for IFR I suppose, but would make for
extremely boring flying.

IMHO, boring is good, when IFR.

Until the stuff HITS the fan.

What you get with a real FMS is a whole host of functions that the G1000
can't even contemplate -- sophisticated vertical nav options, take-off and
landing performance calculations, etc. Those features won't be obsoleted by
a new nav sensor.

I agree with Karl, no comparison.


I'm not arguing. I just don't understand.

The takeoff and landing calculations seem nice, but not worth zillions
of dollars.
What sophisticated vertical nav functions does a real FM Shave that a
Garmin does not? What's the "needed feature" that's worth an extra
zillion dollars?

P.S. Anyone know the price difference between a Garmin and a Collins
Pro Line?

-Charles Talleyrand

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
oups.com...

What you get with a real FMS is a whole host of functions that the G1000
can't even contemplate -- sophisticated vertical nav options, take-off
and
landing performance calculations, etc. Those features won't be obsoleted
by
a new nav sensor.

I agree with Karl, no comparison.


I'm not arguing. I just don't understand.

The takeoff and landing calculations seem nice, but not worth zillions
of dollars.
What sophisticated vertical nav functions does a real FM Shave that a
Garmin does not? What's the "needed feature" that's worth an extra
zillion dollars?

P.S. Anyone know the price difference between a Garmin and a Collins
Pro Line?


The T/O and landing calcs may seem like a nicety to a piston driver, but
it's an everyday need in most jets unless every place you fly has 9,000 ft
or more of runway. Add in the fact that fuel and passengers/cargo can be
30 - 50% of your MTOW. Add in temperature and altitude and there can be
significant effort involved in calculating what is essential data. You
really do need to know you can handle an engine failure just before V1 and
still stop on the runway (or continue the takeoff if it fails just after
V1.) Sure, it ain't free, but it's not in the realm of zillions of dollars.

The vnav and other functions add incremental capabilities. What's the
needed feature? That depends on the plane and who's flying it and the type
of flying they do. Do you need RVSM? CAT II autoland? Part 25
certification?

The price question is hard to answer. First, it's buried in the cost of the
plane and I doubt Cessna (or Hawker/Beechcraft, or Bombardier, etc.) is
willing to explain what their costs are. The second is that Collins Pro
Line is a wide ranging line of avionics that can be tailored to the needs of
anything from a Cessna CJ1 up to a Bombardier CRJ700. Although many of the
pieces are the same, what's in a CJ isn't the same as what's in a CRJ. At
the low end, it appears the functionality and cost of the Pro Line in the
CJ1 was more than Cessna felt they needed or could afford to include in the
Mustang. In general, as aircraft get bigger the avionics get more complex;
so a good rule of thumb is that the overall avionics cost is typically about
10% of the manufacturer's cost of the entire plane. (Engines can be 40 -
50%.)

In the end, I think the G1000 will continue to get more features making it
more like the big FMSes. The Collins system will also continue to evolve.

Gerry

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
P.S. Anyone know the price difference between a Garmin and a Collins
Pro Line?

Prices quoted at AirVenture last year
G900's are $60,000.
G600's are $30,000.

"john smith" wrote in message
...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
P.S. Anyone know the price difference between a Garmin and a Collins
Pro Line?

Prices quoted at AirVenture last year
G900's are $60,000.
G600's are $30,000.

Those are not G1000's and doesn't answer the question of comparison between
the Garmin 100 and the Collins ProLine.

IIRC, the Collins ProLine and such are well over $250k OTS.

"Gerry Caron" wrote in message
...

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
oups.com...

What you get with a real FMS is a whole host of functions that the G1000
can't even contemplate -- sophisticated vertical nav options, take-off
and
landing performance calculations, etc. Those features won't be
obsoleted by
a new nav sensor.

I agree with Karl, no comparison.


I'm not arguing. I just don't understand.

The takeoff and landing calculations seem nice, but not worth zillions
of dollars.
What sophisticated vertical nav functions does a real FM Shave that a
Garmin does not? What's the "needed feature" that's worth an extra
zillion dollars?

P.S. Anyone know the price difference between a Garmin and a Collins
Pro Line?


The T/O and landing calcs may seem like a nicety to a piston driver, but
it's an everyday need in most jets unless every place you fly has 9,000 ft
or more of runway. Add in the fact that fuel and passengers/cargo can be
30 - 50% of your MTOW. Add in temperature and altitude and there can be
significant effort involved in calculating what is essential data. You
really do need to know you can handle an engine failure just before V1 and
still stop on the runway (or continue the takeoff if it fails just after
V1.) Sure, it ain't free, but it's not in the realm of zillions of
dollars.

The vnav and other functions add incremental capabilities. What's the
needed feature? That depends on the plane and who's flying it and the
type of flying they do. Do you need RVSM? CAT II autoland? Part 25
certification?

Quite true for that context.


The price question is hard to answer. First, it's buried in the cost of
the plane and I doubt Cessna (or Hawker/Beechcraft, or Bombardier, etc.)
is willing to explain what their costs are. The second is that Collins
Pro Line is a wide ranging line of avionics that can be tailored to the
needs of anything from a Cessna CJ1 up to a Bombardier CRJ700. Although
many of the pieces are the same, what's in a CJ isn't the same as what's
in a CRJ. At the low end, it appears the functionality and cost of the
Pro Line in the CJ1 was more than Cessna felt they needed or could afford
to include in the Mustang. In general, as aircraft get bigger the
avionics get more complex; so a good rule of thumb is that the overall
avionics cost is typically about 10% of the manufacturer's cost of the
entire plane. (Engines can be 40 - 50%.)

From what that article I linked to (WAAS Benefits Register) in an earlier
post, most of the FMSs out there are not even close to the state-of-the-art
today. Much of the calculation functions will be easily handled by a WAAS
based FMS such as the G1000 (any day now, according to Garmin).

In the end, I think the G1000 will continue to get more features making it
more like the big FMSes. The Collins system will also continue to evolve.

Indeed! Each as the requirements dictate.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


From what that article I linked to (WAAS Benefits Register) in an earlier
post, most of the FMSs out there are not even close to the
state-of-the-art today. Much of the calculation functions will be easily
handled by a WAAS based FMS such as the G1000 (any day now, according to
Garmin).

I would agree that is true for the air transport market (Boeing and Airbus).
The airlines are very cost driven and change costs them money. One of the
reason Airbus made a lot of inroads into Boeing's market was their common
cockpit. There was very little training needed to move from one model to
another. When you consider that the FMS is a big part of the crew training,
small changes can easily drive training costs thru the roof. So the
airlines only accept change when there is a compelling reason to do so.

That's not the case in the business and regional market. There's
competition between aircraft manufacturers and there's competition among
avionics makers to equip those aircraft. Product differentiation is a key
factor in selling those planes. So the competition drives a lot more
innovation into the products. It may not always be state-of-the-art, but
it's definitely closer to it than what the heavy iron guys are using.

Gerry