Certified vs experimental avionics

[helitim]

Some of you are probably much more aware of the difference between certified vs exp avionics.  I have only a limited knowledge of such and was pleasantly surprised at the capabilities of experimental products for the price.  An experimental plane I am considering buying has a Garmin G3X touch system.  Researching the components, I am very impressed at the capabilities and the much lower costs associated with them.  I am very impressed with the G3X system based on online research.  My Mooney has the GTN 750 with other Garmin items and it does not seem to be near as capable as the 3X.  Anyone here have firsthand experience?  Are they as good as I am lead to believe?

(This topic should have been listed in the avionics forum instead of here. My bad)

[aviatoreb]

G3x is the ultimate.  If all goes well there may be one in my mooney rocket by a year from now.

[bradp]

My take is that that certified avionics are essentially the same hardware components with certification and the price jacked up accordingly.   The experimental avionics are a godsend for the legacy fleet. 

[Skates97]

7 minutes ago, bradp said:

My take is that that certified avionics are essentially the same hardware components with certification and the price jacked up accordingly.   The experimental avionics are a godsend for the legacy fleet. 

Am I missing something here? I thought that you couldn't put experimental avionics in our planes, how are they a godsend?

[MIm20c]

Just now, Skates97 said:

Am I missing something here? I thought that you couldn't put experimental avionics in our planes, how are they a godsend?

The general consensus is Garmin will certify the g3x like they did on the g5. 

[RLCarter]

I've never understood how an electronic box knows the difference between Experimental & Certified,  at least with the re-write of part 23 us certified guys are getting better options and pricing

[helitim]

One option Garmin pointed out in a tutorial video was installing the G3X and letting a GTN6xx/7xx be the certified data source for navigation and approaches.  While this may not be cost effective for the average aircraft owner, there may be a time in the future where this is feasible to certified aircraft and some owners now with deeper pockets.

[Piloto]

Although certified and non certified may perform similarly the certified units have to go through extensive testing. Such as working at a wide temperature range, vibration, altitude, power glitches and others. Each air transport equipment is subject to environmental testing before is shipped. This eliminates infant mortality on the field. Unlike a tablet that operates on Windows the certified units operate on a dedicated operating system that is faster and less prone to corruption. If you are considering a non certified unit buy it from a manufacturer of certified units such as Garmin. The same engineers work on both.

José

[HRM]

Certification is a beyotch, but the FAA is loosening a bit especially when all the experiments have already been done in the experimentals 

Just a waiting game for us cheap basterds. Every so often I hear the siren call of the EAA fleet. I go and browse the homebuilt sites, take a look at the quickbuild kits (getting too old for a multiyear project), and then I conclude that to get the equivalent of my E in safety and performance I'd wind up not flying for too long and have north of $100K when all the smoke cleared.

[markejackson02]

Way back in the day I was installing one of the first 406 Mhz ELT's.  I got to follow along through the certification testing.  It took a couple years of expensive testing using private labs, government labs, and outside consultants.  If you are only producing a few thousand units, it could easily add several thousand dollars to the price of a unit.

I'm sure the G3 units are built just like the 696 units but not having to certify them probably cuts the cost in half.

 

[Hank]

1 hour ago, HRM said:

Every so often I hear the siren call of the EAA fleet. I go and browse the homebuilt sites, take a look at the quickbuild kits (getting too old for a multiyear project), and then I conclude that to get the equivalent of my E in safety and performance I'd wind up not flying for too long and have north of $100K when all the smoke cleared.

If I go that way, it will be a fun (second) plane. I've got my eye on a company in St. Loius that makes WWI reproduction kits, with a 2-week-to-taxi program . . . The wife insists on a 2 place, which drive kit cost up to 15 AMU . . . But I don't know how often she would fly in an open cockpit.

[RLCarter]

1 hour ago, HRM said:

Certification is a beyotch, but the FAA is loosening a bit especially when all the experiments have already been done in the experimentals 

I can build an "Experimental" get an airworthy certificate, load it up with experimental avionics, an auto pilot, ADS-B in/out and fly IFR anywhere my Mooney can fly for 60% the cost....why would the FAA allow it one way but not the other, when most everything would add to safety

[Cyril Gibb]

Does anyone know as a fact and not just assumption:

Does a Garmin experimental G5 come off the same assembly line using exactly the same components as a Garmin certified (twice the price) G5?

If it's so, why does the FAA care about which has a piece of paper stuck in the box or not?  Identical is identical.

[HRM]

11 minutes ago, Cyril Gibb said:

Does a Garmin experimental G5 come off the same assembly line using exactly the same components as a Garmin certified (twice the price) G5?

 

I don't know and that is a damn good question. I am guessing that the cert G5 is identical to the experimental, except for two things:

     1) Tighter QC and tracking. Maybe the rejects from the cert line get packaged for experimentals 

     2) Tighter warranty and s/n tracking. Also, a bit more for the lawsuit war chest.

I frankly cannot imagine that it is just a sticker or paper.

[steingar]

The problem with the experiments is, as I understand it, if you want your aircraft for IFR you have to put in IFR certificated boxes.  If you're just going to fly VFR why do you need a bunch of fancy electronics?  Most of those things have a great view out the canopy.  

[RLCarter]

15 minutes ago, steingar said:

The problem with the experiments is, as I understand it, if you want your aircraft for IFR you have to put in IFR certificated boxes.  If you're just going to fly VFR why do you need a bunch of fancy electronics?  Most of those things have a great view out the canopy.  

The aircraft has to pass the IFR cert, Dynon SkyView (Experimental) legal for IFR in Exp aircraft. It's paper work and firmware. I think it's the G5 that is certified as "Primary" but not certified as "Backup",  the technology is moving faster than the FAA can handle

[Cyril Gibb]

next question:

I'n not picking on the G5, but just using it as an example... Why is the G5 STC approved for various airframes? What difference is it between a C150 and an M20 from a G5 perspective?  Wouldn't it be more logical to have the certification STC be based on other connected avionics?

 

[1964-M20E]

Well I've only heard this but supposedly the PMA wheel bearings we use and pay more for come off the same assembly line.  The bearings that pass the tighter tolerance requirement go in the PMA box. 

It might just the same for electronics.  I know if I were Garmin I would not have 2 lines running to produce the same device.  

Also aren't there some software features are not turned on for the G5 versus the G5X?

 

 

[N201MKTurbo]

I believe the PMA process has very little to do with the actual act of manufacturing a part and more to do with the quality system involved. The PMA parts need material tracking from birth to delivery. This is mostly to make sure the parts are not counterfeit. You should literally be able to find out where the iron ore was mined that was used in your wheel bearings. That paper trail costs money. I have been doing a lot of work lately with government contractors for space stuff. All the parts we use have to be certified. A certified washer costs 10 times as much as a commercial washer and If I put them both on a table you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. They could have possibly came from the same production line. What you are paying for is the quality system that can guarantee the materials and how the part was made.

I doubt that Garmin has two quality systems or two production lines for the G5. What I do think is that they had to spend a lot of money to get the G5 certified and they are amortizing those costs over the certified sales. I'm happy they did it. It may be twice as much as the experimental version but it is cheaper by a long shot then what was available just a year ago. 

[mike_elliott]

4 hours ago, RLCarter said:

the technology is moving faster than the FAA can handle

so is continental drift

[aviatoreb]

29 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

so is continental drift

What about the Lycoming drift?

 

[mike_elliott]

12 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

What about the Lycoming drift?

 

limited to small end rod bushings currently, other parts to be identified soon, Im sure.

[aviatoreb]

45 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

limited to small end rod bushings currently, other parts to be identified soon, Im sure.

So the super continent Pangea could have been held together with a few small end rod bushings of modern design?

http://geology.com/pangea.htm

[N201MKTurbo]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

So the super continent Pangea could have been held together with a few small end rod bushings of modern design?

http://geology.com/pangea.htm

If the FAA was in charge of continental separation, we would be able to fly to Europe today without survival suits.

[aviatoreb]

12 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

If the FAA was in charge of continental separation, we would be able to fly to Europe today without survival suits.

We wouldn't even need an airplane since the gap would be rather small: