Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Garmin G500 versus G1000 (in a DA40)

Upgrading the G1000 Nav/Com isn’t the difficult part. Upgrading the software is. If the airframe manufacturer doesn’t spend money to (flight test and) certify software updates there is no workaround.

Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:

Upgrading the G1000 Nav/Com isn’t the difficult part. Upgrading the software is.

I thought those two go together in this case and that is the source of the problem. Plus potentially autopilot.

I think there would be a workaround if the product wasn’t built for OEM’s. AFAIK that software is the reason Garmin won’t sell their suites to just anyone. The level of customization possible just makes it too complex. Airframe manufacturer is obviously best equipped to do this in either case.

IMHO Garmin’s G1000 marketing strategy is about creating a tie-in into a unique product pipeline from which there is no practical way out, so they can milk it maximally. That’s why the GFC700 is for this product line only, too. It’s “obvious” to so many people I speak to that a retrofit GFC700 would deliver a lot of value to the countless thousands of people who are stuck with the crappy old 1970s autopilots. But Garmin won’t do it. They make too much from keeping the G1000 line restricted. Permitted G1000 retrofits are 6-figure items (e.g. $400k quoted by Socata for the TBM700).

This is done everywhere. Standard business practice. Car entertainment systems makers make feature-crippled boxes just for specific cars, etc. Try getting one updated… or try getting a speed camera database loaded into it I have given up using the crappy crippled RNS510 in my £25k VW (a £1000 upgrade from IIRC Kenwood was crappy in different ways) because my phone is far better.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

That’s why the GFC700 is for this product line only, too. It’s “obvious” to so many people I speak to that a retrofit GFC700 would deliver a lot of value to the countless thousands of people who are stuck with the crappy old 1970s autopilots. But Garmin won’t do it.

So why Avidyne isn’t certifying their autopilot for one airframe after another? It’s a good product as well. And how open are they to supplying the hardware if you decide to do a retrofit of a yet unsupported airframe? Not to mention they wouldn’t have to support anything but their own G500/ G600 (G950 is G1000 without GFC700 IIRC). The only difference being they would be willing to sell it to you for individual integration. Not that it would make a real difference in this corner of GA since I imagine not many people would be willing to front the cost of an approval. Even Genesys (S-TEC) makes higher end autopilots (fully digital) designed for turboprops and you don’t see people fitting those.

What really ties you in is that there is no other major player in this end of GA and it’s just too expensive (and G1000/ G3000/ G5000 is still cheap compared to e.g. ProLine from what I have seen). Change in certification (both of a product and an installation) could lower costs which could provoke some development. After all, Garmin sells derivative of the GFC700 into non-certified market just fine. IIRC FAA set out to do something about this (certification stifling retrofits of safety enhancing technology like autopilots) so we’ll see.

I have no trouble with updating systems in my cars (normally just firmware). This is something I’m not really concerned with as I don’t keep cars so long it would be a real problem (but yes, it’s a trap, nobody will support it for long). And I’m not expecting to gain new features although I have in the past. I don’t blame you with RNS510, it was crappy even when just released. But Kenwood? You lost me there. These toys are not cheap (it’s usually 3-4k for the top system without the top notch audio) and I’m paying mostly to get a complete package (also, the smaller screens sometimes aren’t as aesthetically pleasing), not because it makes economical sense.

Martin wrote:

G950 is G1000 without GFC700 IIRC

There must be some other difference. Older OEM G1000 installations used the KAP140 instead of the GFC700 and they are still called G1000.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

So why Avidyne isn’t certifying their autopilot for one airframe after another?

Because they clearly haven’t got any money left. They have to be highly focused at developing some cash cows to replace their ageing ones. They really struggled to get the IFD540 out.

I spoke to them at EDNY a couple of years ago and they told me that they are interested only in the pre-G1000 SR22 aircraft, and a few other ones common in the USA.

My Kenwood comment was on a product similar to the RNS510, costing about 1k. I don’t recall the details. I don’t waste my life on IT which doesn’t work (i.e. most of it) My point was that everybody who gets a chance to tie you in will do it. It just doesn’t matter on cars because a phone does it all and does it better, and you always have it with you. On aircraft you can get stuck with the IFR avionics you have.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Well, IIRC the official line from Garmin was that there just isn’t enough money in it for them given the cost/ effort required. I do believe they would do an AML-STC if it was feasible, say with G500/ G600. Just so they could tighten their death grip.

As I said, I think what really ties you in is lack of choice. What is there to buy? You could try procuring R9 but I wouldn’t hold my breath. And after that it’s the fact that Garmin doesn’t want to play ball which makes me dependent on the airframe manufacturer/ (S)TC holder. That is IMHO worse than being tied just to Garmin itself. Off course, once they have you, they can try to leverage that changing the whole system is generally much more expensive than paying for overpriced upgrades. Nothing new or surprising. I just think those two are bigger issues.

Airborne_Again wrote:

There must be some other difference. Older OEM G1000 installations used the KAP140 instead of the GFC700 and they are still called G1000.

AFAIK and IIRC G950 was created after they introduced GFC700 and it’s simply the old product (i.e. G1000 without GFC700 or perhaps it should be G1000 with support of third party autopilots but I don’t know whether G1000 is now tied to GFC700). There might be more to it but i’m not aware of other differences.

So why Avidyne isn’t certifying their autopilot for one airframe after another? It’s a good product as well. And how open are they to supplying the hardware if you decide to do a retrofit of a yet unsupported airframe?

The Avidyne autopilot isn’t a complete system – it’s just a slideIn replacement of an S-Tec computer and a different attitude source from the EXP5000, but otherwise still uses S-Tec servos. S-Tec (Genesys) won’t sell partial kits comprising servos, brackets etc to support an Avidyne installation, and Avidyne would have to do the complete design and certification for each airframe type if they want to expand their coverage.

For the Garmin GFC700, there is no stand-alone autopilot computer, attitude or air data sources, so it’s not a simple matter to install it in non G1000 platforms. However, I suspect we’ll see some new competitive autopilot systems from Garmin in the not-to-distant future for aircraft that don’t have Garmin glass.

Avionics geek.
Somewhere remote in Devon, UK.

Yes – very correct. Avidyne don’t have their own servos. Much written on this previously. They seem to have abandoned their own servo development project, and are facing a “poison letter” from STEC who want to wash their hands of supporting their servos if used with the DFC90. I have refs on this stuff at the end of here

Off topic, but we aren’t like to see much happening with the DFC90 for a while, if ever.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

It was really a rhetorical question (I know the issues and I believe Peter does too). So I tend to believe Garmin that it isn’t worth it. The second one was genuine, I don’t know where Avidyne stands on supplying the hardware (be that DFC90 or whole R9) for individual integration.

Is your suspicion based on that FAA initiative (if indeed successful, I also expect Garmin to join in but it wouldn’t surprise me if they tied it to their other products, they’re IMHO strong enough to handle it – their experimental offering also isn’t stand-alone IIRC) or do you think so for some other reason?

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top