 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
rkaplan
Administrator
|
Posted: Sat Feb 11th, 2006 03:49 pm |
|
AJS wrote: Here is another persons comparative evaluation between the Avidyne and the Garmin. http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/avidyne-versus-garmin I will let the reader draw their own conclusions regarding which is the more reliable and safe system.
That is an interesting evaluation but honestly I need to question his credibility inasmuch as he is so dramatically negative about the Garmin 430/530. The Garmin 430/530 is virtually an industry standard now with over 50,000 units sold and it usually gets rave reviews for its ease of use.
Not only that, but the Entegra also runs on a Garmin 430 and the Garmin G1000 is largely based on the Garmin 530 interface.
I do agree with him that the Chelton EFIS is superior to the G1000 and Entegra by a large margin.
____________________
Richard Kaplan, CFII
rkaplan@flyimc.com
http://www.flyimc.com
|
AJS
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 12th, 2006 12:17 am |
|
That is an interesting evaluation but honestly I need to question his credibility inasmuch as he is so dramatically negative about the Garmin 430/530. The Garmin 430/530 is virtually an industry standard now with over 50,000 units sold and it usually gets rave reviews for its ease of use.
Not following you Re: dramatically negative. He does reference a review of the 430/530 which I didn't think was too far off base. He also mentions the annoying number of airspace messages that the 430/530 put out. I would have to agree with that criticism and I think you would too. Other than that where was he negative on Garmin 430/530? I think his comments were saying it is not a spectacularly better GPS than the KLN's (that seems fair) and that it suffers from lack of vertical guidance and therefore needs approach plates to be operated properly. (again I think that is correct) In general he seemed positive about Gamin pointing out that in his experience the Garmin never had a failure where as the Avidyne system failed many times.
Lets fact it, Garmin is the standard because there are lots of them and there are lots of them because they have a marginally better interface and superior marketing. Garmin's use of the GPS technology is not inspired and it is a standard because no one with any imagination has made a competitive product.
I think lots of folks agree that the Chelton system is far superior technically. However, if you had to invest your life savings in one which would you choose? Unless they can get more of a piece of the OEM market Chelton is doomed to be at best a catalyst that forces Gamin to adopt the HITS paradigm. (at least in the GA marketplace) At $100K per pop there is no market for them as GA pannel upgrades. The money is in being the avionics horse that new aircraft ride.
My bottom line is that the author's G1000 vs Avidyne evaluation seemed to be consistent with the general experience expressed on the LOPA site.
Last edited on Sun Feb 12th, 2006 12:36 am by AJS
|
rkaplan
Administrator
|
Posted: Sun Feb 12th, 2006 12:27 am |
|
AJS wrote: Not following you Re: dramatically negative. He does mention the annoying number of airspace messages that the 430/530 put out
Well I think an unfair quote of his was:
One of the best things about the G1000 is that you don't have to use the Garmin 430 and 530 anymore. These relics of 1998 had a terribly cumbersome user interface because there were no soft keysOne of the best things about the G1000 is that you don't have to use the Garmin 430 and 530 anymore. These relics of 1998 had a terribly cumbersome user interface
I think most pilots agree the 430/530 have a very well-designed interface. Not only that but the G1000 is based on the 430/530 interface.
My bottom line is that the author's evaluation seemed to be consistent with the general experience regarding Avidyne expressed on the LOPA site.
Well I agree that is an interesting area to discuss. I could not locate many Avidyne criticisms on the LOPA site... could you perhaps point us to some specific threads in this regard? Thanks.
____________________
Richard Kaplan, CFII
rkaplan@flyimc.com
http://www.flyimc.com
|
AJS
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 12th, 2006 02:39 am |
|
Some current threads that seem to me to reflect some of the problems are below. (gotta read every post in the thread) Note that these are unusually large threads which implies that lots of folks have interest/experience in the issues. As I read them they are not good experiences and the problems pretty much remain unaddressed after a year. In my mind there are lots more examples elsewhere on the board. If you are interested in a more comprehensive listing use the search feature.
http://www.lancairpilots.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=1370
http://www.lancairpilots.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=1221
http://www.lancairpilots.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=1459
As to Garmin 430/530 being relics of 1998, it seems correct to me. The units have a great deal of capability but the use of nested menus makes it difficult to use that capability smoothly especially if you are not totally proficient on all the features. This especially shows itself during times of high stress when ATC is changing things on you. I like them better than the KLNs I have used (and now pretty much forgotten how to operate). I only used a G1000 once and therefore can’t comment on it.
I think the comments on the interface are correct. For example: file from KUNV (University Park) to KLOM (Wings) via RAV PTW Direct. Generally you will be given a change just before RAV to V170, V210, BUNTS, Direct. Now while you are hand flying set that up real quick on the Garmin The easy solution is to use the radio and request RAV direct BUNTS – always granted. Even going direct BUNTS requires that you pull up the flight plan, position the cursor, dial in Bunts, highlight PTW, delete PTW, highlight BUNTS, direct enter enter. Can’t we all agree that that isn’t exactly a simple, intuititve, easiy to use interface? Dialing all that in while flying and talking on the radio can be a bit of a chore no?
If you can’t get the direct routing then you can’t easily set up the NAV without the pilot referencing a chart and NAV aid info. (while flying the aircraft and talking to ATC) At least I don’t know how to do it without those items. (Ah do we have a new question for the forum?) Even if you can do it without referencing a chart the fact that I don’t know how after 150 hours of flying Garmin 430/530’s is an indication that a) I am a dolt b)the interface is not as easy as it could be or c) both a and b. Two out of three of those choices involve weaknesses in the interface. (alright so 33% indicate weakness in the pilot get over it)
I remain of the opinion that the article has merit and the authors comments are worthy of consideration (as opposed to outright rejection). LOPA folk seem to agree (see thread #3) BTW I did not seek out this article it appeared on the LOPA web site and was posted by one of the Columbia sales people. (that thread is the third one I listed) I also get the impression that the Cirrus folks have had numerous problems as well. They have a web site too and if you are interested in Avidyne experience might want to check that out to see if a similar theme appears there. Unlike Garmin I don’t use Avidyne, I just read about it and I have read very little that complements it.(other than fluff pieces in AOPA and Flying magazine)
Remember we got into this discussion because of your original question regarding why I thought Avidyne was flawed. Now you know.
I have some questions for you. (and anyone else who cares to opine). What do you think of the Mooney Bravo? Is Mooney a viable corporation?
|
rkaplan
Administrator
|
Posted: Sun Feb 12th, 2006 02:55 am |
|
As for your comments on the Avidyne and the LOPA site, thanks for the references:
I think the issues brought up there can be summarized in general by saying the fact that the Entegra or G1000 are part of the type certificate for the airplane means essentially that software is an integral part of everything the airplane does. This means the owners are quite literally wedded to Avidyne for the life of the airplane. Ironically, if Lancair went out of business the owners could manage to fabricate replacement parts. Yet if Avidyne went out of business, there is no way anyone could fix a software bug or add new software features without access to the source code (which is unlikely to ever be released publicly). I think this raises major question re: the long-term viability of a G1000 or Entegra airplane -- will they be supported 30 or 40 years from now? 10 years from now? Do not Garmin and Avidyne have the ability to charge basically whatever they want for future parts and upgrades?
Note the Chelton system does NOT face this dilemma because Chelton is not part of the entire aircraft systems the way that Entegra and G1000 are.
______________________________________
As for your comments on the Garmin 430/530 interface:
I can see your points but what alternative is there? I think the 430/530 is the best avionics interface ever made for GA except the Chelton system, which as you note is priced too high for most GA airplanes.
______________________________________
As for your question on the Mooney Bravo:
I have always admired Mooneys - I used to own one before my P210. Not only are they aerodynamically well-engineered, but their TKS known-ice capability adds enormously to their capability. I have been puzzled for quite some time as to why someone would buy a $500,000 Lancair 400 without known-ice capability when a Mooney can be purchased for less money with known-ice capability. How can someone fly a twin-turbocharged Lancair 400 into the flight levels without known-ice capability?
As for their finances, Mooney has had lots of ups and downs but they have nonetheless consistentely provided service/support without skipping a beat throughout all of their prior reorganizations. Even if Mooney were to stop making airplanes, the fleet of Mooneys is so large that it seems inconceivable to me that maintenance and parts would not remain available. Note that while Cirrus seems to have also crossed this threshold of having a critical-mass of airplanes to assure long-term support, I am not sure that Lancair is there yet.
____________________
Richard Kaplan, CFII
rkaplan@flyimc.com
http://www.flyimc.com
|
Chuck Clark
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 23rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 7th, 2006 06:08 pm |
|
You can install the EX5000 as an after-market MFD unit with a field approval. I just put one in my King Air B200. Avidyne has recently released their v 6.0 software which, for the EX5000 at least, allows display of XM-WX winds aloft, freezing levels, NEXRAD cell movement vectors, and hail alerts. Unfortunately, unlike the EX500, the only on-board radar supported by the EX5000 is Bendix King's RDR-2000/1. A nice radar with vertical profiling, but expensive if you have a perfectly functional Collins WXR 270 as I did. I decided the larger EX5000 would be worth the extra radar swap cost.
I installed a 2-tube Chelton on the pilot's side as well. Unfortunately, for now, the Chelton MFD can't display any on-board radar and thus necessitates another MFD.
One frustration with the EX5000 in combination with the Chelton System: it requires 'Arinc 429 Gamma graphics' input to display curved flight paths - which the Chelton does NOT provide. Very disappointing.
Regarding size, I like the current Chelton PFD screen size. It might be nice if Chelton had a larger MFD, particularly if they add on-board radar display. Then you could skip the extra MFD (e.g. EX5000) that I deemed necessary.
Regarding WAAS, it's important to note that the Chelton/Free Flight GPS is NOT certified for LPV approaches. Although certified to TSO-C146a standards, it does not meet the additional requirement of the equivalent of 'Gamma 3' certification for separate GPS/display systems. Chelton has told me that they're expecting Free Flight to obtain this certification (but I'm not holding my breath).
I've found the most useful elements of the Chelton FlightLogic System, in order of importance, to be
1) flight path indicator on PFD/AI (especially when combined with HITS guidance)
2) conformal runway depiction on PFD (both for IFR & VFR approaches, not to mention 'gear down' indicator)
3) HITS GPS flight plan course guidance with roll-steer autopilot coupling (including DPS, STARS, IAPS, missed approaches, hold entries, & patterns)
4) flight plan VNAV waypoint altitude specification and HITS climb/descent guidance (automatic for published DPS, STARS, IAPS, and selectable for enroute climbs/descents and glideslope angles for non-precision and 'VFR' approaches)
5) MFD display of predicted top-of-climb, bottom-of-descent, and ground-track turn radius
6) automated Victor/Jet Route waypoint entries
And too many other features and capabilities unmatched by any similar GA systems with which I'm familiar.
|
rkaplan
Administrator
|
Posted: Tue Mar 7th, 2006 06:13 pm |
|
| All excellent observations... which raise the ongoing question of why the avation media has so clearly missed the boat by raving about G1000 and Entegra and almost ignoring Chelton's clear advantages which you noted.
____________________
Richard Kaplan, CFII
rkaplan@flyimc.com
http://www.flyimc.com
|
Current time is 06:32 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
|
