Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Garmin G5 (merged thread)

The unit is certified for VFR and IFR operations “as a primary source for aircraft attitude or turn coordination information and secondary source for altitude, airspeed and vertical speed in a single instrument" says Garmin.

At 2.5k it even sounds reasonable in aviation terms. Plus the advantage of dripping the vac pump, stand by vac pump and assorted piping.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/general-aviation/2016-07-24/garmin-g5-efis-stcd-certified-aircraft

The N-reg folks on r/flying are hoping that they will be able to pair the G5 with a GMC 307 autopilot control panel under the proposed (?) NORSEE provisions.

tmo
EPKP - Kraków, Poland, Poland

The certified version doesn’t have autopilot output (yet).

Am I wrong, or does this look like a simple and cheap STC’d alternative to the repair of a mechanical vacuum-driven AI? Or instead, a swap out of a working vacuum AI to give better resilience and more info too?

Am I missing something here?

Howard

Flying a TB20 out of EGTR
Elstree (EGTR), United Kingdom

I’m thinking the same as you Howard. There’s a picture on Garmin’s web site of a G5 displaying an HSI too, but I don’t see any detail about that in the text on Garmin’s site.

How long do we have to wait for an EASA STC? Or are these automatic now? I find this a shade confusing.

EGTT, The London FIR

The only thing that is missing now is autopilot capacity so if your current autopilot needs input from the AI…

Bye-bye standby instruments!

Mock-up with SIA340:

Last Edited by chrisparker at 26 Jul 14:03
Spending too long online
EGTF Fairoaks, EGLL Heathrow, United Kingdom

@Finners depends if VFR or IFR and if Aircraft is below 2750kg MTOM.

mh
Inside the sky.
EDXE, EDXF, Germany

Is it not a case of putting all your eggs in one basket? If you have an alternator failure (or other electrical failure) then you lose both primary and backup instruments.

The only technial failures that I’ve had while PIC, have been alternator failures!

If I remember correctly, when the SR22 was being designed, it too placed a lot of reliance on electrical instrumentation, and as a result it needed two alternators, and two electrical busses. Though my memory might be wrong there, and I’ve never gotten an closer to an SR than looking from outside ;)

EIWT Weston

mh wrote:

2750kg

Probably not important but shouldn’t it be 2730 kg?

This looks really good and is definitely needed, with a fresh panel and avionics a lot of the garbage that is flying around would get a revival. Does anyone know more about the validity of this STC in EASA?

Sweden
261 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top