Garmin G5 Review

[82Mike]

Guys all I can tell you is the director of electronic flight initiative for FAA is not objecting?  I don't pretend not intend to be an expert on the regs, but my avionics shop has been in business for over 25 years is well known in a MAJOR market for general aviation.  They have done this multiple times and are signing my logs.  I for sure don't want to get into a discussion of who is correct or not - mostly because I would loose!  If the avionics shop is wrong they will have to take it out and redo the entire panel their cost.  I have known them for years and they have never sent me wrong.  If they sign it they have legal liability to make sure it conforms as they also do the IFR certification.  I just wanted to provide the logic how they were doing it.

 

mike

[donkaye]

On 6/18/2017 at 4:51 PM, kortopates said:

No, I haven't looked into whether or not the G500 magnetometer is compatible with the ESI-500 inputs. That's an interesting thought. 

The ESI 500 accepts a 429 input from the G500 heading source.  That's how I have mine set up.  In my opinion and after much research in the matter when I updated my panel, there is no comparison between the fully loaded ESI 500 and all the other current backups out there for GA aircraft under 6000 pounds.  Once again, you get what you pay for.  It would be nice if it could interface to the KFC 150, but I doubt that is in the cards.

[StinkBug]

18 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

If there wasn't an internal GPS why would it need any type of antenna? 

It has an internal GPS

 

It might have an internal GPS, it might not. The advertising materials leave out an awful lot of details. When I bought and installed mine I was told in no uncertain terms that a WAAS GPS source was required to make it legal. I can also tell you that when I power down my 430 I lose all heading and ground speed info. 

Edited July 1, 2017 by StinkBug

[StinkBug]

I knew I had seen it somewhere. Here's a screen shot of the installation manual. I think the misunderstanding is that "receiver" is NOT the same as "Antenna" . The receiver cannot receive without an antenna.

 

Edited July 1, 2017 by StinkBug

[N201MKTurbo]

I believe it also has a built in antenna. The certified STC probably requires the use of an external antenna. If you really want to know what this puppy can do get the experimental install and operators manual. We are allowed to use a small portion of its capabilities including a 3 axis autopilot by just adding servos and a control head.

Here is a question that I have yet to get an answer to: Can I use the RS-232 output from the G5 as my altitude encoder for a certified installation? The experimental version supports this.

[donkaye]

5 hours ago, StinkBug said:

It might have an internal GPS, it might not. The advertising materials leave out an awful lot of details. When I bought and installed mine I was told in no uncertain terms that a WAAS GPS source was required to make it legal. I can also tell you that when I power down my 430 I lose all heading and ground speed info. 

So the G5 requires a WAAS GPS source.  It can be the WAAS GPS inside the G5 with the proper antenna.  

[bradp]

There are different levels of waas known as "gamma". A certain gamma is required for LPV approaches and a certain antenna is required for this LPV gamma.  My little 296 has WAAS but can't do LPV.  Same idea for the G5 with the GA-56 antenna.  

[bradp]

Maybe sometimes the devil is in the details... perhaps the announcement will have to wait until Oshkosh.

Now I'm hoping to stave off buyers remorse with additional some hope that the HSI version will drive an autopilot.

We may be looking at 75% of what the aspen does with 8x additional battery at 1/2 the cost with a digital autopilot interface.  

Just have to wait and see.

 

 

 

 

 

[donkaye]

4 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Thanks for that, Brad. Makes sense. I initially thought for some reason that now escapes me that the G5 required a GA-35 antenna when I started acquiring parts in anticipation of my G5 installation and actually went so far as to buy one. It might have been that erroneous Aircraft Spruce marketing posted above come to think of it. Anyway, later when I learned that a GA-56 would suffice I sold the GA-35 on eBay and pocketed the ~ $200 difference. By the way, has anyone noticed that the certified G5 price has dropped to $1995 in the last month or so?

Well, this is a little confusing.  The statement a few posts above says the G5 requires a WAAS GPS, but says you can use the  internal GPS with certain antennas, one of which is not a WAAS antenna.  ???

[bradp]

I can't find anything in the STC / AFMS about what kind of antenna.

I can find in the installation manual what kind of antenna.

Personally I went with a Comant CI-420 I found new on ebay (for like $75) which conforms to the antenna specifications of Table 3-6.  It's not an LPV WAAS antenna but helped me avoid another set of holes in the fuselage skin as it is essentially a XM/non-WAAS GPS antenna in the same footprint as a GA-55 or GA-56 antenna.  That made room for me to consolidate those two antennas and install another GA-35 antenna next door to drive either a 430W when I get around to it, or a GTX-3X5 transponder.  If I don't want to drill new holes for more GPS antennas, I would have to run the G5 off the GPS box or the transponder at that point. 

The benefit of having the G5 on it's own antenna is that if the panel mount GPS goes out, the attitude function does not degrade on the G5.  

[bradp]

@donkaye  Don clear as mud but I think it has to do with the gamma level of the installed antenna.  GA-35 is certified for gamma level 3.

http://txrv10.com/files/GPS WAAS FAQs.htm

Clear as mud, right.

 

[donkaye]

3 hours ago, bradp said:

@donkaye  Don clear as mud but I think it has to do with the gamma level of the installed antenna.  GA-35 is certified for gamma level 3.

http://txrv10.com/files/GPS WAAS FAQs.htm

Clear as mud, right.

 

I posted the question on Beechtalk where a person from the Garmin team hangs out.  Here is his response:

[StinkBug]

interesting response there. Sounds kinda like an antenna is an antenna and if it's good quality it'll pick up whatever there is to pick up and it's the receiver that has to be able to figure out the data. 

[bradp]

Very interesting.  

Finished the annual today without any major surprises.  

I worked on the panel during the inspection. And before the plane was ready to come off jacks we leveled it per the service manual for the G5 calibration.  It was a very long and very hot day and was too tired to do the last part of the calibration which is a vibration test.  

Thr or Fri is static leak down and then should be good to go.  So far the display is bright, quick and intuitive in terms of configuration.  Note the offset is 2.5 degrees nose up when on the ground - that's about correct.  

The learning point yesterday was that moving the AI to the TC position will likely require a new length of vacuum tubing.  The learning for today was that the inverse applies to the power leads for my TC- they would not reach to the AI position.  So a splice was needed. That's why I'm in trouble with the Mrs for staying at the airport late.  Also why I am bringing dinner home.

[Marauder]

Very interesting.  
Finished the annual today without any major surprises.  
I worked on the panel during the inspection. And before the plane was ready to come off jacks we leveled it per the service manual for the G5 calibration.  It was a very long and very hot day and was too tired to do the last part of the calibration which is a vibration test.  
Thr or Fri is static leak down and then should be good to go.  So far the display is bright, quick and intuitive in terms of configuration.  Note the offset is 2.5 degrees nose up when on the ground - that's about correct.  
The learning point yesterday was that moving the AI to the TC position will likely require a new length of vacuum tubing.  The learning for today was that the inverse applies to the power leads for my TC- they would not reach to the AI position.  So a splice was needed. That's why I'm in trouble with the Mrs for staying at the airport late.  Also why I am bringing dinner home.

I thought the certified version couldn't turn into an HSI?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jetdriven]

A few months ago they released that capability. 

[bradp]

Did the engine vibration test and everything is working as expected.  Tomorrow is the static test.  

[LANCECASPER]

On 5/26/2017 at 0:40 AM, LANCECASPER said:

That would be nice and they would sell a ton of them this year if that happens. But I think the odds are much greater that you'll see a little Richard Simmons Jr. running around than for the G5 to be A/P certified by Oshkosh 2017. Ain't gonna happen. I hope I'm wrong.

On 5/26/2017 at 9:05 AM, Godfather said:

Garmin sent out an email about a week ago answering some questions. Basically they said that because the G5 (AI and HSI) is not TSO certified there would be huge headwinds from the FAA for even a heading bug output.  A full AP system is 1-2 years out minimum (my guess). 

Wow, I'm glad we were both wrong . . lol

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

On 5/26/2017 at 0:40 AM, LANCECASPER said:

That would be nice and they would sell a ton of them this year if that happens. But I think the odds are much greater that you'll see a little Richard Simmons Jr. running around than for the G5 to be A/P certified by Oshkosh 2017. Ain't gonna happen. I hope I'm wrong.

Wow, I'm glad we were both wrong . . lol

I heard little Richard Simons will be at Oshkosh flying the Red Bull Extra 300 in an aerobics - I mean aerobatics - routine.

[LANCECASPER]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

I heard little Richard Simons will be at Oshkosh flying the Red Bull Extra 300 in an aerobics - I mean aerobatics - routine.

Probably in shorts that are way too small.

[RobertGary1]

On 5/11/2017 at 7:55 PM, rkellykyle said:

I know the avionics shop installed the aux GPS antenna under the panel, but I determined today that if the G5 boots up before the panel-mounted GPS (it's a CNX80), you get no track info. Since it's wired to the master switch, it comes on with the master. If I turn the G5 off, then start the engine and turn on the avionics master, THEN turn on the G5, I consistently get track info. I'm not sure if the install manual prescribes this setup or if the shop arbitrarily chose it on their own, but I don't consider it ideal.

I'm pretty sure the install manual prohibits this. It requires a mandatory dedicated switch. 

-Robert

[pinerunner]

On 12/5/2016 at 10:44 PM, Marauder said:

 

Shhhhh! Don't you know we have a bunch of guys who think glass panels are the devil's work. I absolutely love what capabilities these devices bring to our class of airplane.

Seemed like only yesterday we were rubbing sticks together to make fire.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Do you realize if you tie a yellow ribbon around the antenna right in front of the windscreen you get an AOA indictaor! 

[Bob - S50]

On 7/2/2017 at 5:56 PM, StinkBug said:

interesting response there. Sounds kinda like an antenna is an antenna and if it's good quality it'll pick up whatever there is to pick up and it's the receiver that has to be able to figure out the data. 

I don't think that is what he is saying.  I don't think the G5 needs a WAAS GPS source, just a GPS source for aiding.  And with the non-WAAS antenna, it still works good enough for the G5.

[bradp]

There are antenna specifications listed in the g5 installation manual.  GA-35 is just one of the acceptable.  There are different levels of WAAS (gamma this and that).  My GPSmap 296 has WAAS too....

[BDPetersen]

I may be missing the point of this part of the thread, but in the case of an AI G5 installation, per my conversation with Garmin, the external antenna is an option ( a good idea) that can be accomplished a simply as using a glare shield type antenna, such as a Garmin GA 26C.