A_and_C wrote:
these units should just be seen as a control head for a large ND such as the G500.
Is this another dogma without backup, like “if it isn’t boeing I aint going”?
I find the single 650 plus traditional sixpack perfectly adequate.
Sure, a G500 with dual 750 has more posing power, I’d use that too if somebody else paid for it.
Tomjnx.
The GTN650 is a unit that is too powerful to display even a few of its functions without becoming too cluttered, with all the navigation graphics moved to another display things become much easier to read.
I don’t do dogma without back up, I’m currently working on a double GTN650 + G500 fit for my aircraft, as for the Boeing bit you will have to read the other thread !
A_and_C wrote:
The GTN650 is a unit that is too powerful to display even a few of its functions without becoming too cluttered, with all the navigation graphics moved to another display things become much easier to read.
All very subjective. I have no problems reading the display or operating the device. Of course a small screen is a compromise, but I find the 650 a pretty good and functional compromise. I personally prefer bigger windows over bigger screens (and thus bigger panels).
Are you getting any significant additional mission capability out of 2*650+500 compared to a single 650? I can’t really see any…
Strictly you are right Tom (a nice GPS doesn’t make a plane go any faster) but one could say the same about 1 × KLN94
Apart from LPV, it does everything needed in the European IFR environment and actually it probably does everything needed for navigation and GPS approaches anywhere in the world.
It’s moving map is completely useless but who needs a moving map when you have a plog and a printout of your route?
tomjnx wrote:
I can’t really see any…
Would you really want to look at an approach plate or airport diagram on a GTN-650? How about displaying a map with weather overlay? At least one decent sized MFD would be nice, IMO. If it has to be one unit, 750 would do (or 540).
Martin wrote:
Would you really want to look at an approach plate or airport diagram on a GTN-650? How about displaying a map with weather overlay?
Why should that be on a super expensive and old tech MFD instead of a cheap and modern tablet?
Because you cannot display any of this on the iPad:
- EGPWS
- Stormscope
- Trip Page from GPS
- Engine Instruments
- Traffic
The MFD might be “old technology”, but who cares as long as it does what is needed. Agree though that the prices for MFDs are ridiculous. I have the advantage that the airplane comes with an MFD …
The fully integrated flightdecks like G1000 and Avidyne R9 are a bit different. They are only available from aircraft vendors.
Today you can do most of the things you mentioned with the tablet. The retrofit MFDs that we’re talking about here don’t offer all the features either. This makes add on MFDs a pretty weak value proposition in my view. Garmin’s FlightStream amplifies this trend (to be fair: Aspen was actually the first).
There are some non-retrofit MFDs which can display Jepp terminal charts but they are all getting a bit old… and there is no way to reduce the cost of the data without sharing out the whole aircraft. Whereas with terminal charts displayed on a tablet you have various options. That is IMHO the one argument for tablets in the cockpit.
Copied. Are there remote sensors (Air Data, Engine data, EGPWS…) for UL or Experimental aircraft that could be used with a tablet?
