G3X Touch Certified

[flyingcheesehead]

I figured that would get @m20kmooney's attention.

But I really am curious, @m20kmooney, on what your thoughts are here, and didn't want to hijack anyone else's thread. You said: "The TXi is TSO’d and it was developed prior to the lower cost STC approach. A certified G3X touch is a no brainer."

I'm trying to understand this thinking from the perspective of Garmin as a business, and I just can't see any upside for them. The G500 TXi *just* came out! Garmin's major gear generally lasts about a dozen years in the market, and they need that time to sell enough of them to recoup their R&D and certification costs. So why would they undercut their own product just a year after its launch?

At Oshkosh 2017, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. Dynon made a big splash with their SkyView HDX, and it seemed like Garmin really needed to respond... And CubCrafters was showing off the XCub with the G3X Touch in a certified airplane! I thought for sure a certified G3X Touch was right around the corner. And then, in October of 2017, they announced it - Except it was called the G500 TXi.

The two systems, as far as I can tell, offer almost identical functionality. I'm very much in the market for a G500 TXi, and if there were a G3X Touch for a lower price, I'd certainly be all over it. But all that has really changed there is that Garmin wouldn't be making as much money off of me, and they wouldn't be recouping their investment in the G500 TXi.

And what market segment are they going to be filling with it? They've got the G5 at the low end for both price and functionality. Aspen fills a slightly higher-end hole than the G5. One Aspen is slightly better than two G5s, and one G500 TXi is slightly better than two Aspens. So, if there's a market segment to fill, it's the one in between dual G5s (~$5,000) and the full 10" G500 TXi with EIS and autopilot interface (~$28,000). But what does that look like? It would have to offer more functionality than dual G5s, yet significantly less functionality than the G500 TXi. The major things that Aspen has that are missing from a dual G5 setup are the ability to send attitude to an attitude-based autopilot like my KFC150, and the ability to have dual nav sources. Showing TAS on the screen, too. It would need to have a smaller screen than the 10" TXi, and offer less functionality - So, let's say, no engine gauges, and no MFD - you'd have to use a GTN 750 as your MFD. OK, so now we're looking at a 7" PFD that can control 3rd-party attitude-based autopilots, connect to dual nav sources, doesn't have engine gauges, and costs about $15K-$18K... But wait! They DO have that already, it's the 7" TXi PFD, which checks exactly those boxes at about $17K.

So why would they bother to certify yet another device, even if it's "easy certification", when all it can do is cannibalize their own sales?

At this point, I expect the TXi to remain Garmin's flagship retrofit glass until 2029-ish, although at this point I can't envision what the next thing will be other than updating the hardware to faster/more modern screens, CPUs, etc.

 

[Niko182]

This is exactly what ive been trying to say, and a lot of others have been saying. I think the only person that believes the g3x would be certified was m20kmooney. When i look at garmin, no where does it say non profit org. They are a business to make cash. G3x wouldnt make any cash. Why sell something for 12k when you can sell it for 20 to 30k. The g3x and the txi probably cost exactly the same to make, offer exactly the same things, and are practically the same models, except one has 4 buttons. Also the G3X setup being used in certified aircraft arent ifr approved. A limited vfr only mooney kind of beats the pupose of owning probably one of the best ifr XC machines. Not saying you need to fly it in ifr, but stating that you wouldnt be able to ever cirtify it for IFR.

[ArtVandelay]

I can see it only if they reduced the functionality. Like they did with G5s (example certified G5 can only handle 1 nav source).

If they eliminated all functionality but 6 pack instruments and a single navigation source, would you still buy it at say $5000?

Remember the certified G5s run twice the price of experimental versions.

I’m sure they would only support GFC 500, after all, they have to make up lost of revenue on TXI.

 

Tom

 

[m20kmooney]

5 hours ago, flyingcheesehead said:

But I really am curious, @m20kmooney, on what your thoughts are here

My thoughts are based on these premises:

1. The certification shift from TSO to STC is a monumental step forward for the retrofit market

2. The glass retrofit market is in a state of flux. I'm speaking strictly about pfd/mfd boxes, not AI/HSI as in G5 or AI/DG as in Aspen. 

3.  Major players have not stepped forward with stc boxes. I see Garmin and BK as the two major players.

4. BK announced, as they have a pattern of doing, an STC’d Aerovue Touch. But no product yet. Garmin has not committed with the G3X touch.

5. Dynon imo missed the mark. They severely limited their market in a couple of ways but that's a different discussion. As a result I don't think they're going anywhere.

So as I see it right now the only player left is the G3X touch. And it has a lot going for it: it's a proven and mature product and it's Garmin. There will always be a market for the txi in higher value airframes that can justify it. But in my mind I see a huge market in airframes that cannot justify txi. And that segment expects lower cost pfd/mfd. None is available right now. I'm sure Garmin is watching and even though they have not committed, I think it's a matter of time. 

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by m20kmooney

[Marauder]

6 hours ago, flyingcheesehead said:

I figured that would get @m20kmooney's attention.

But I really am curious, @m20kmooney, on what your thoughts are here, and didn't want to hijack anyone else's thread. You said: "The TXi is TSO’d and it was developed prior to the lower cost STC approach. A certified G3X touch is a no brainer."

I'm trying to understand this thinking from the perspective of Garmin as a business, and I just can't see any upside for them. The G500 TXi *just* came out! Garmin's major gear generally lasts about a dozen years in the market, and they need that time to sell enough of them to recoup their R&D and certification costs. So why would they undercut their own product just a year after its launch?

At Oshkosh 2017, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. Dynon made a big splash with their SkyView HDX, and it seemed like Garmin really needed to respond... And CubCrafters was showing off the XCub with the G3X Touch in a certified airplane! I thought for sure a certified G3X Touch was right around the corner. And then, in October of 2017, they announced it - Except it was called the G500 TXi.

The two systems, as far as I can tell, offer almost identical functionality. I'm very much in the market for a G500 TXi, and if there were a G3X Touch for a lower price, I'd certainly be all over it. But all that has really changed there is that Garmin wouldn't be making as much money off of me, and they wouldn't be recouping their investment in the G500 TXi.

And what market segment are they going to be filling with it? They've got the G5 at the low end for both price and functionality. Aspen fills a slightly higher-end hole than the G5. One Aspen is slightly better than two G5s, and one G500 TXi is slightly better than two Aspens. So, if there's a market segment to fill, it's the one in between dual G5s (~$5,000) and the full 10" G500 TXi with EIS and autopilot interface (~$28,000). But what does that look like? It would have to offer more functionality than dual G5s, yet significantly less functionality than the G500 TXi. The major things that Aspen has that are missing from a dual G5 setup are the ability to send attitude to an attitude-based autopilot like my KFC150, and the ability to have dual nav sources. Showing TAS on the screen, too. It would need to have a smaller screen than the 10" TXi, and offer less functionality - So, let's say, no engine gauges, and no MFD - you'd have to use a GTN 750 as your MFD. OK, so now we're looking at a 7" PFD that can control 3rd-party attitude-based autopilots, connect to dual nav sources, doesn't have engine gauges, and costs about $15K-$18K... But wait! They DO have that already, it's the 7" TXi PFD, which checks exactly those boxes at about $17K.

So why would they bother to certify yet another device, even if it's "easy certification", when all it can do is cannibalize their own sales?

At this point, I expect the TXi to remain Garmin's flagship retrofit glass until 2029-ish, although at this point I can't envision what the next thing will be other than updating the hardware to faster/more modern screens, CPUs, etc.

 

I am convinced the name you referenced in your post is actually Peter Garmin in disguise. Peter Garmin, aka PTK is a well known Garmin junkie on this site who would spew all things Garmin. He was also a big BK fan for the KI-300/310. We suspected he was sitting in front of the BK warehouse waiting for the KI-256 gizmo to roll out the door until this m20k guy starting filling the Garmin junkie void. 

I ABSOLUTELY agree with you on the G3X Touch. Garmin clearly has a two fanged approach. The TXi for the deep pockets in the certified market and the G5 series to combat Aspen on the single PFD front. And as you suggested a single 7" could also be substituted to compete with the Aspen PFD. Introducing a midpoint product would cannibalize their TXi sales and it is doubtful would be enough of an incentive to move G5 owners up to it.

[smccray]

6 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

I can see it only if they reduced the functionality. Like they did with G5s (example certified G5 can only handle 1 nav source).

If they eliminated all functionality but 6 pack instruments and a single navigation source, would you still buy it at say $5000?

Remember the certified G5s run twice the price of experimental versions.

I’m sure they would only support GFC 500, after all, they have to make up lost of revenue on TXI.

 

Tom

 

My guess is that the G3X doesn't get certified, but there's something new coming down the path that will replace the G3X.  My guess is that the new system will end up with a closed Garmin architecture that in effect ties the airplane to Garmin equipment.  In other words Garmin PFD, G5 backup, GFC500 autopilot only, and the big one- it's only compatible with Garmin navigators- I believe using the MapMX data format would do the trick.

[m20kmooney]

48 minutes ago, smccray said:

My guess is that the G3X doesn't get certified, but there's something new coming down the path that will replace the G3X.  My guess is that the new system will end up with a closed Garmin architecture that in effect ties the airplane to Garmin equipment.  In other words Garmin PFD, G5 backup, GFC500 autopilot only, and the big one- it's only compatible with Garmin navigators- I believe using the MapMX data format would do the trick.

And that's the strength and beauty of staying with one vendor. The equipment works together.

Edited March 21, 2019 by m20kmooney

[johncuyle]

11 hours ago, flyingcheesehead said:

I figured that would get @m20kmooney's attention.

The major things that Aspen has that are missing from a dual G5 setup are the ability to send attitude to an attitude-based autopilot like my KFC150, and the ability to have dual nav sources. 

That's an STC limitation, pretty sure.  The G5 actually supports it and early versions of the pilot guide still had instructions for switching between nav sources.  I believe you can configure it for two nav sources in experimental installs as well.  It's a really weird limitation since it essentially tells buyers, "Don't spend a lot of money on your second nav.  Instead of going with a GTN 650 as backup, maybe just have a second com and no second nav at all."  Presumably Garmin can eliminate this limitation relatively easily.  I know I've given that feedback that they should whenever the opportunity came up.  At that point the only advantage to the Aspen is that it can drive a variety of autopilots that most owners probably wish they could replace with something newer anyway, and at that point you're (most likely) buying a pair of G5 with your GFC 500.

A hypothetical certified G3X will almost certainly have some limitations that won't completely undermine the G500TXi market, like it'll probably not be allowed in FIKI aircraft (like the G5 and GFC 500.)  I agree that the only compelling reason for Garmin to offer something in between G5 and G500 is if Dynon manages to start getting Skyview certified for lots of airframes and Garmin determines the best way to maximize profits is to offer such a product (as opposed to increasing the capabilities of the G5 or discounting the G500TXi, though cheaper G500TXi would still be a win for us skinflints.)

One other note:  Dynon really missed their best market window.  My ADS-B upgrade (GTX-345R) and engine monitor were a significant chunk of the cost of Skyview HDX.  If I could have installed SkyView instead of those it would have been a no-brainer.  With 2020 fast approaching, I felt that it made sense to beat the rush a bit and do it last year.  A lot of the cost/value prop of Skyview is now gone for me.  G500 TXi doesn't look so bad price-wise if I add it at the same time as a GFC 500 next year or 2021.

[KSMooniac]

I fully expect Garmin to keep selling TXi at the current price until there is a viable cheaper competitor actually being delivered, such as Dynon or BK AeroVue. At that point, they'll likely dump a G3X or its replacement, or cut the price of TXi to continue sales. I wish they would offer the 7" TXi at a cheaper price today as a PFD only without EIS or other functionality as that is what I think I want (+ GFC 500).

I can't wait for OSH this year, and I expect we'll get some exciting developments

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[LANCECASPER]

Garmin simply having the G3X for experimentals keeps other companies from jumping in and spending the money to certify a competing solution.

IMHO Garmin will never certify the G3X since it would cannibalize the TXI sales, however, everyone knows that if some game-changing, market disrupting thing gets announced from a competitor, Garmin  has the resources to get things certified quickly.

[aviatoreb]

18 hours ago, Niko182 said:

This is exactly what ive been trying to say, and a lot of others have been saying. I think the only person that believes the g3x would be certified was m20kmooney. When i look at garmin, no where does it say non profit org. They are a business to make cash. G3x wouldnt make any cash. Why sell something for 12k when you can sell it for 20 to 30k. The g3x and the txi probably cost exactly the same to make, offer exactly the same things, and are practically the same models, except one has 4 buttons. Also the G3X setup being used in certified aircraft arent ifr approved. A limited vfr only mooney kind of beats the pupose of owning probably one of the best ifr XC machines. Not saying you need to fly it in ifr, but stating that you wouldnt be able to ever cirtify it for IFR.

Because it may be they can't sell it for 30k to many people.  Yes they can to some - but There may be a massive market of people willing to pay 12k but not 30k.

[smccray]

21 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Garmin simply having the G3X for experimentals keeps other companies from jumping in and spending the money to certify a competing solution.

IMHO Garmin will never certify the G3X since it would cannibalize the TXI sales, however, everyone knows that if some game-changing, market disrupting thing gets announced from a competitor, Garmin  has the resources to get things certified quickly.

It’s my understanding, from posts in web forums only (i.e. no real knowledge), that Garmin is able to work in house to develop new STCs without waiting on the FAA.  From news reports, it sound like Boeing has a similar capability that Boeing used for the 737 Max.

We’ll see if the investigations change these arrangements with the FAA and slow the progression of development. I can’t blame the FAA for making changes and slowing down progress in light of the accidents of the 737 Max, but I hope the loosening of regulations for GA don’t change based on what Boeing appears to have done with the Max.

[KSMooniac]

The good news is that Garmin's stuff (aftermarket, anyway) isn't being used to make up for flight control deficiencies or bad behavior like Boeing's MCAS was... perhaps the background envelope protection might get some additional scrutiny, but at least it has always been disclosed, and can be turned off!

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[Marcopolo]

20 hours ago, m20kmooney said:

And that's the strength and beauty of staying with one vendor. The equipment works together.

Let's ask the folks that stayed with Bendix King about their thoughts on this statement!   Peter?

 

Ron

[smccray]

9 hours ago, KSMooniac said:

The good news is that Garmin's stuff (aftermarket, anyway) isn't being used to make up for flight control deficiencies or bad behavior like Boeing's MCAS was... perhaps the background envelope protection might get some additional scrutiny, but at least it has always been disclosed, and can be turned off!

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk


I agree.  I put an engineer hat on and I agree with you.  When I put a politician's hat on...

[LANCECASPER]

Hey, you never know . . . 

[Steve W]

9 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Hey, you never know . . . 

 

I was expecting it to be their new Aviation watch, but they already announced that... Interesting that they're doing it pre SUN 'n FUN.

[MIm20c]

26 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Hey, you never know . . . 

Probably a new 450 to replace my 430w and a 665 because I own a yet to be installed 660. 

[LANCECASPER]

It wouldn't surprise me if they updated the 796 . .  maybe an 896.

[smccray]

“Low” end glass panel that works with a GFC500. Closed system architecture. 

[flyingcheesehead]

On 3/21/2019 at 5:16 AM, m20kmooney said:

My thoughts are based on these premises:

1. The certification shift from TSO to STC is a monumental step forward for the retrofit market

2. The glass retrofit market is in a state of flux. I'm speaking strictly about pfd/mfd boxes, not AI/HSI as in G5 or AI/DG as in Aspen. 

3.  Major players have not stepped forward with stc boxes. I see Garmin and BK as the two major players.

4. BK announced, as they have a pattern of doing, an STC’d Aerovue Touch. But no product yet. Garmin has not committed with the G3X touch.

5. Dynon imo missed the mark. They severely limited their market in a couple of ways but that's a different discussion. As a result I don't think they're going anywhere.

So as I see it right now the only player left is the G3X touch. And it has a lot going for it: it's a proven and mature product and it's Garmin. There will always be a market for the txi in higher value airframes that can justify it. But in my mind I see a huge market in airframes that cannot justify txi. And that segment expects lower cost pfd/mfd. None is available right now. I'm sure Garmin is watching and even though they have not committed, I think it's a matter of time. 

 

OK, one at a time:

1) Agreed - But that doesn't mean that Garmin has to come out with something. There isn't any incentive for them to do so, since they just had to go through the effort of doing it for the TXi and need to recoup those costs via TXi sales, which would be cannibalized.

2) Also agreed - Lots of flux, but it seems that we know who the competitors will be: Garmin (TXi), Dynon (SkyView HDX), King (AeroVue Touch), and Aspen (MAX). Really, none of the non-Garmin competitors here are really holding a candle to Garmin. Aspen is just an updated version of their out-of-date stuff that runs faster, King will probably never sell a single system, and Dynon has been way too slow at getting the HDX certified on more airframes. So, Garmin really doesn't have much competition for the TXi here... So again, no incentive to certify the G3X Touch.

3) Pretty much covered that alraedy.

4) BK is terrible at actually delivering product. They will not represent any competition to Garmin.

5) Do you think they limited themselves in other ways besides not expanding the STC to more aircraft types?

I think Garmin *could* certify the G3X Touch in short order, if they wanted to. But, there's currently no reason why they would want to. They already serve the markets that all of their competitors do, via the G5s on the low end, the 7" TXi PFD in the midrange, and the full 10" TXi at the high end. I just don't see a place in their current product lineup where a certified G3X Touch does anything other than hurt them.

9 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Hey, you never know . . . 

Ooo... I need to go register, as I'm expecting something very interesting for me: The ability for the G5, or a G5-like display, that can drive third-party autopilots. It might be something new, it might be the G5 with a new interface box (or the GAD 43e), I'm not sure the form it'll take, but...

It should be an option for me to ditch the KI-256 and keep the KFC150 without going to the full TXi. I still haven't completely made up my mind what I'm going to do, or if there'll be an intermediate step between where I am now and the full TXi/G5/GFC500 system.

[lclyons]

Looks like the original poster knew something...

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/682215/pn/G3X-TCERT-03#specs

[johncuyle]

And suddenly everyone EXCEPT @m20kmooney looks silly.  I'm going to see myself out.  It's going to be a busy day finding funds to buy my Mooney G3X Certified.

[Stryker]

Is there a list of models are available for the STC?

[Bryan]

Yep, myself included... about to install a TXi. Luckily nothing is intalled yet, in fact, the plane is not yet in avioncs.