g600 vs g500

[panther1400]

What are the differences or benifits of one over the other except it looks like one costs 10k more?   Also is there benifits in the long run over years and years of ownership compared to mechaical instruments?

[Parker_Woodruff]

<snip>

Kind of funny, it shows the post by Parker but this is really Docket.  But we both have a G500 unless Parker has sold out already.

[docket]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

They are essentially the same because the G500 is basically a decontented G600.  With the G500 you have to add synthetic vision if you want it.  Also you have to add a GAD 43 if you need it.  My STEC autopilot did not need the GAD 43 so the G600 offers nothing extra.  As for maintainence differences between the G500 and the six pack I'll bet you can maintain the 6 pack all you need and come out way ahead even if you have to buy a HSI every decade.  Remember you will still have to maintain a "three pack" anyway so the economics are really not there.  Nevertheless, I have a G500 in mine and love it, the synthetic vision is awesome and with the G500 I now have a flight director and altitude preselect.

 

Kind of funny, it shows the post by Parker but this is really Docket.  But we both have a G500 unless Parker has sold out already.

[panther1400]

So the only benefit is to bring all the guages together and have the virtual terrain so more luxury than trying to find a way to justify it by savings in the long run?

[PTK]

If you presently have a KFC 150 (or KAP 150) with the HSI it makes no sense whatsoever to give this up for some glass.  Some try to make the ridiculous argument that you can have a vacuum failure. Yes you can have a vacuum failure.  But remember you can be proactive and spend  ~ $300 every 500 hours and replace your vacuum pump, and ~$2000 every 1000 hours to overhaul the AI AND HSI.  I'm assuming that you do have the CV1J4 Clear view inline filter installed to protect the instruments from carbon dust.  This is standard equipment on all Mooneys since 1994.  Doing the math you will budget $2500 every 10 years which is ~$250 a year!!!  

I personally like the appearance of the AI and HSI in my KFC 150. They are serious precision instruments which look like they belong in my Mooney if you know what I mean.  They complement the machine.

Incidentally a vacuum failure is only an issue in hardcore IFR.  In anything less than that it's a non issue. The HSI is electric.  Also if you really want to be proactive and you fly hard IFR all the time, in addition to what I mentioned,  you can install an electric BU AI for a few hundred bucks. 

Just my opinion.

 

[docket]

Quote: allsmiles

If you presently have a KFC 150 (or KAP 150) with the HSI it makes no sense whatsoever to give this up for some glass.  Some try to make the ridiculous argument that you can have a vacuum failure. Yes you can have a vacuum failure.  But remember you can be proactive and spend  ~ $300 every 500 hours and replace your vacuum pump, and ~$2000 every 1000 hours to overhaul the AI AND HSI.  I'm assuming that you do have the CV1J4 Clear view inline filter installed to protect the instruments from carbon dust.  This is standard equipment on all Mooneys since 1994.  Doing the math you will budget $2500 every 10 years which is ~$250 a year!!!  

I personally like the appearance of the AI and HSI in my KFC 150. They are serious precision instruments which look like they belong in my Mooney if you know what I mean.  They complement the machine.

Incidentally a vacuum failure is only an issue in hardcore IFR.  In anything less than that it's a non issue. The HSI is electric.  Also if you really want to be proactive and you fly hard IFR all the time, in addition to what I mentioned,  you can install an electric BU AI for a few hundred bucks. 

Just my opinion.

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: docket

 allsmiles is right.  dont do a g500 for any reason other than you want the latest gizmo.  I like it but there is no economic justification.

[mikefox]

I second Parker's comments.  We just installed a G500 and GNS430W in our bird and I absolutely love it.  I was a skeptic of glass in the past (have been teaching instrument students for 10 years) but am a convert now.

As for precision, I can now easily maintain a desired pitch attitude within 2 degrees with the G500.  The bar on our AI was twice that wide.

And there is no substitute for having the track and waypoint info right in front of you at all times.  Yes, I grew up on ADF and VORs, and I can still shoot a pretty decent NDB approach, but, except for practice and bragging rights, why?

 

[jezzie]

This discussion is very timely, as I am close to adding the G500 to the 530, and other Garmin I'm adding. Then I thought a 696 would be nice.  My rebuild has become more involved than I would have wanted. Consider however my 77 J sat out in the elements for over 5 years and the rodent damage to wires was substantial, so I was going to do a lot of work on the panel regardless. The benefit for me is that I will truly have a modern up to date panel that an IFR pilot would appreciate. I am a VFR pilot and used to flying with my attention being more outside the cockpit rather than inside. I have heard some reports that new glass pilots may have developed some bad habits cause they spend more time admiring the new toy almost to a fault. By not having to buy a 696 the extra investment for me is reasonable.

Any and all advise or opinions is appreciated.

 

Eldon

[PTK]

The decision to install glass or not is a classic case of needs vs wants.  Do we need glass? No of course not!! The answer is an unequivocal NO.  It does not add to safety more than doing what I already mentioned above. Absolutely NOT.  If money is not an issue then I guess the sky is the limit. (no pun intended!)  Anyone can do whatever they want.  But we all know that an owner adding expensive avionics to his airplane today makes no fiscal sense because that money will not be recaptured at sale time, if decides to sell.  No sensible buyer is going to pay new cost for used glass or anything else for that matter.  The only thing left, then, driving the decisuion is WANT. Some people WANT glass because they think it looks cool.  Is this WANT worth thousands and thousands of $. My opinion is no.   I personally disagree with that thinking for the reasons I mentioned.  

It's only my opinion and my way of thinking.  Analyze the decision very carefully before jumping onto the bandwagon. Garmin or Aspen or anyone else.

[jezzie]

Quote: allsmiles

The decision to install glass or not is a classic case of needs vs wants.  Do we need glass? No of course not!! The answer is an unequivocal NO.  It does not add to safety more than doing what I already mentioned above. Absolutely NOT.  If money is not an issue then I guess the sky is the limit. (no pun intended!)  Anyone can do whatever they want.  But we all know that an owner adding expensive avionics to his airplane today makes no fiscal sense because that money will not be recaptured at sale time, if decides to sell.  No sensible buyer is going to pay new cost for used glass or anything else for that matter.  The only thing left, then, driving the decisuion is WANT. Some people WANT glass because they think it looks cool.  Is this WANT worth thousands and thousands of $. My opinion is no.   I personally disagree with that thinking for the reasons I mentioned.  

It's only my opinion and my way of thinking.  Analyze the decision very carefully before jumping onto the bandwagon. Garmin or Aspen or anyone else.

[PTK]

You will definitely not get your investment back!  I'm not sure I agree with the home analogy. A home is real estate and appreciates in value. You can expect to recoup more than your initial investment.  Airplanes and avionics do not depreciate and lose value.  We are in better shape than most because Mooney is not making airplanes so ours should appreciate in theory.  This is not true with avionics.  A buyer will not pay new cost for used equipment.  You are right it may make a potential buyer look twice.  But in all honesty if I was a buyer today and all else being equal I was choosing between a glass vs a KFC (KAP) 150 system with HSI I would pick the latter.  I'm not fond of glass.  Garmin is essentially a monopoly because the G500 will not play with non Garmin boxes. And Aspen works some of the time and is in the shop the rest of the time.  This according to avionics shops.  

PK 

[peter]

Quote: allsmiles

The decision to install glass or not is a classic case of needs vs wants.  Do we need glass? No of course not!! The answer is an unequivocal NO.  It does not add to safety more than doing what I already mentioned above.

[Vref]

This discussion is already long history in the airlines. I used to be a maintenance avionics instructor teaching good old 737's with flux valves and the new avionics on  airbus32, 33 and 340's 

 

If I would have the budget I surely would go glass though the A/P-FD coupling is a subject I would like to see discussed in detail on this forum... Garmin, Aspen and Bendix

Btw in europe we still use a lot ADF's (there is even a rennaisance in using them (mainly centra/eatern)l europe what about this.crucial information during and NDB approach.? Can theabove packages represent this info....the Airbuses and Boeing's can..

Gyro's fail, mechanics fail (I know, I started my career as Instrument Technician repairing ADI's and Mach Airspeed Indicators on DC-10's.etc. and ended up lin 94 testing symbol generators SGU on the A310..

IMHO mtbf between mechanical stuff and electronics is BIG. One point to concider on Mechanical Gyro's and Instruments everything depends on the quality of the repair or overhaul and honestly that process can be much bettter controlled with electronics.The number of quality technicians capable of performing a good overhaul on a classical HSI, ATT etc...is slowly fading out...

My M20J needs still to be fired up to check if all avionics are working after the major overhaul I am doing on the airframe. I bet my Garmin 430 and Bendix king radios' and NAV are still working, I am already having nightmares and getting stressed when I start thinking of sticking HSI and FD bars not popping up...

let's cross fingers...

The only downside of too many displays that all information is based on visual cues....information overload or too much automation without feedback

[M016576]

For those that want "glass" HSI functionality (ie courselines, waypoints, map view, airspace, etc) but don't want to pay the G500 pricetag, take a look at the Sandel SN3308 or SN3500.  I picked one up on ebay for just over 3k, had it installed for a few k more, and it is a VERY capable unit.  I have it tied into my Garmin 430W, KNS-80, ADF and my century 41 A/P.  Don't need a GPSS and the A/P tracks nice and smooth! 

BREAK BREAK-

I wrote my Master's capstone on this very subject:  Safety in General Aviation with glass cockpits.  The NTSB released a study from the past 10 years on safety and fatality rates in general aviation aircraft equipped with glass vs. conventional.

Turns out that while the overall mishap rates dropped in glass cockpit equipped aircraft, fatality rates went up significantly.  The report is on the NTSB website (about 80 pages of information, broken down by age, aircraft type, IMC vs VMC, etc).  I highly recommend checking it out.  The conclusions of the report state that the FAA should consider more training or qualifications for part 91 pilots prior to using glass.

-Job

[PTK]

We must not lose sight of the issue at hand which is safety of IFR flight.  The issue is that we must fly the airplane in the clouds and terminate the IFR flight safely.  The notion that somehow getting a glass panel will magically increase our safety margin in performing this task is laughable!  To the extent that some actually fall for this is attributable to great marketing by the avionics manufacturers.  I submit to you that glass cockpits are very dangerous in GA aircraft.  A lot of pilots think that this shiny glass will keep them safe.  The fact of the matter is that there is too much button pushing and too much information that can potentially easily distract the pilot to starring at the pretty glass while the airplane gets out of control.   I agree that glass does offer a certain level of "progress" and with it the potential for increased safety.  An air force pilot explains it like this:  "...with an analog gauge you'd learn where the needle is supposed to be pointed.  Then while flying you scan down and see about where the indicator was.  With a digital instrument you had to focus to read it which took your eyesight off what was going on outside.".

[peter]

Quote: M016576

BREAK BREAK-

I wrote my Master's capstone on this very subject:  Safety in General Aviation with glass cockpits.  The NTSB released a study from the past 10 years on safety and fatality rates in general aviation aircraft equipped with glass vs. conventional.

Turns out that while the overall mishap rates dropped in glass cockpit equipped aircraft, fatality rates went up significantly.  The report is on the NTSB website (about 80 pages of information, broken down by age, aircraft type, IMC vs VMC, etc).  I highly recommend checking it out.  The conclusions of the report state that the FAA should consider more training or qualifications for part 91 pilots prior to using glass.

-Job

[M016576]

Quote: peter

There are many who believe that the NTSB fell short in their analysis, primarily because their conclusions did not consider the mission profile differences between glass and non-glass aircraft. 

See Max Trescott's excellent analysis of the NTSB study for additional insight.

In his analysis, Trescott compared the accident statistics of the NTSB cohort aircraft to those of the broader general aviation population, as documented in the Nall report, and he concluded that the data suggested that "glass cockpit aircraft, when matched against aircraft used for a similar purpose, are actually safer than the overall GA fleet, which is predominantly non-glass"

[peter]

Agreed, it is hard to argue against the NTSB recommendations to improve training requirements since this will help pilots keep pace with the changing technological landscape.

Yes, there are disagreements between ASF and the NTSB on the methods used in Nall.  However, Nall’s conclusions about relative accident rates between different flight profiles are not affected by this disagreement.

The historical accident data for GA predicts that accidents during IFR cross country flight will have the highest fatality rates, and that accidents flying around the pattern with an instructor will have the lowest.  

It turns out that in the NTSB study the glass aircraft were used mainly on IFR cross country flights, and the non-glass aircraft were used mostly for local training flights.  

My opinion is that it would have been more meaningful for the NTSB to evaluate the fatality rate of the glass equipped aircraft on an IFR cross country flight versus non-glass equipped aircraft operated the same way, but the NTSB stopped short and did not do that analysis.

The bottom line is that their observations that the glass equipped aircraft had a higher fatality rate doesn’t tell the whole story since it didn’t consider differing mission profiles among the accident aircraft.   

[M016576]

Quote: peter

Agreed, it is hard to argue against the NTSB recommendations to improve training requirements since this will help pilots keep pace with the changing technological landscape.

Yes, there are disagreements between ASF and the NTSB on the methods used in Nall.  However, Nall’s conclusions about relative accident rates between different flight profiles are not affected by this disagreement.

The historical accident data for GA predicts that accidents during IFR cross country flight will have the highest fatality rates, and that accidents flying around the pattern with an instructor will have the lowest.  

It turns out that in the NTSB study the glass aircraft were used mainly on IFR cross country flights, and the non-glass aircraft were used mostly for local training flights.  

My opinion is that it would have been more meaningful for the NTSB to evaluate the fatality rate of the glass equipped aircraft on an IFR cross country flight versus non-glass equipped aircraft operated the same way, but the NTSB stopped short and did not do that analysis.

The bottom line is that their observations that the glass equipped aircraft had a higher fatality rate doesn’t tell the whole story since it didn’t consider differing mission profiles among the accident aircraft.   

[PTK]

Quote: 

 All in all-> I think we all agree that it's not the panel/gauges in your aircraft: it's how well you know them, how well you can fly them, and the decisions that you make in your aircraft that will ultimately determine how safe of a pilot you are (not necessarily some statistic in an NTSB report).  However... the numbers are out there as a warning: installing glass displays won't make you a safer pilot... only you can do that.  

[MooneyMitch]

Job, '80 M20J, 3891H

You are in Lemoore now?  We do fly through the Lemoore A and B areas quite a bit, so we'll be on the lookout for you and please, be on the lookout for us too!  How't that beautiful new paint job?  Take care. 

[mikefox]

Having taught several students in glass-equipped aircraft and many more in traditional panel aircraft, and now flying glass myself,  a few comments:

1. With glass, as with steam gages, there is no substitute for proficiency and currency!

2. With the glass, there is much greater situational awareness but the pilot must not spend too much time getting distracted by all the goodies.  Likewise, some tasks take a bit more time than turning an OBS knob, and this must be considered, since most of us are single pilot operations.

I have found that students starting in glass learn faster in the beginning but need more time at the end for complex procedures - no surprise, as the cockpit capabilities increase, there is simply more to learn!

[M016576]

Quote: Mitch

Job, '80 M20J, 3891H

You are in Lemoore now?  We do fly through the Lemoore A and B areas quite a bit, so we'll be on the lookout for you and please, be on the lookout for us too!  How't that beautiful new paint job?  Take care. 

[Vref]

Quote: M016576

I have it tied into my Garmin 430W, KNS-80, ADF and my century 41 A/P.  Don't need a GPSS and the A/P tracks nice and smooth!