Mustang Miss » 1970 Ford Mustang » Question on Aivdyne / Garmin Integrated Avionics Packages
Question on Aivdyne / Garmin Integrated Avionics Packages
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That’s why I joined "FMS" and "RVSM" with an "and." Tim, O.K., I see your original point, now. As a data point, I fly jets all day that do not have FMS, but are RVSM equipped and do not lack any other "important" capabilities. Oh, I know. There are lots of air carrier round dial birds that are RVSM compliant. But, they had the requiste air data computers to begin with when they rolled off the assembly lines circa 1970-80, or so. I don’t know for a fact, but it seems that making one of these VLJs RVSM-compliant won’t be an easy task, and may not be done by the OEM at all. With a bird coming off the assembly line today without a full-press FMS/LNAV suite, I would wonder about the other expensive stuff required to be RVSM-compliant.
The G1000 application in the Mustang has been announced to be RVSM compliant. I am not sure whether a full FMS is in the cards right now, but it wouldn’t appear to be as tough to add as it is to older a less modern, less integrated system. Where, specifically, do you think the challenge will be? I can’t figure out what you think the bugaboo is.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That’s why I joined "FMS" and "RVSM" with an "and." Tim, O.K., I see your original point, now. As a data point, I fly jets all day that do not have FMS, but are RVSM equipped and do not lack any other "important" capabilities. Oh, I know. There are lots of air carrier round dial birds that are RVSM compliant. But, they had the requiste air data computers to begin with when they rolled off the assembly lines circa 1970-80, or so. I don’t know for a fact, but it seems that making one of these VLJs RVSM-compliant won’t be an easy task, and may not be done by the OEM at all. With a bird coming off the assembly line today without a full-press FMS/LNAV suite, I would wonder about the other expensive stuff required to be RVSM-compliant. The G1000 application in the Mustang has been announced to be RVSM compliant. I am not sure whether a full FMS is in the cards right now, but it wouldn’t appear to be as tough to add as it is to older a less modern, less integrated system. Where, specifically, do you think the challenge will be? I can’t figure out what you think the bugaboo is.
I know FMS’s are far less expensive today because they are basically a software package instead of a clunky box for that express purpose. The bugaboo I wonder about is air data processing, which is still no small feat. I also wonder about computed steering and flight guidance, and all such things that even have issues with the high-end systems, such as EPIC. And, I wonder most of all about a single-pilot managing all of this. But, I digress. 
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That’s why I joined "FMS" and "RVSM" with an "and." Tim, O.K., I see your original point, now. As a data point, I fly jets all day that do not have FMS, but are RVSM equipped and do not lack any other "important" capabilities. Oh, I know. There are lots of air carrier round dial birds that are RVSM compliant. But, they had the requiste air data computers to begin with when they rolled off the assembly lines circa 1970-80, or so. I don’t know for a fact, but it seems that making one of these VLJs RVSM-compliant won’t be an easy task, and may not be done by the OEM at all. With a bird coming off the assembly line today without a full-press FMS/LNAV suite, I would wonder about the other expensive stuff required to be RVSM-compliant. The G1000 application in the Mustang has been announced to be RVSM compliant. I am not sure whether a full FMS is in the cards right now, but it wouldn’t appear to be as tough to add as it is to older a less modern, less integrated system. Where, specifically, do you think the challenge will be? I can’t figure out what you think the bugaboo is. I know FMS’s are far less expensive today because they are basically a software package instead of a clunky box for that express purpose. The bugaboo I wonder about is air data processing, which is still no small feat. I also wonder about computed steering and flight guidance, and all such things that even have issues with the high-end systems, such as EPIC. And, I wonder most of all about a single-pilot managing all of this. But, I digress.
The way the G1000 system is designed takes a lot of the problems out of FMS. In the past, there were many integration issues that the G1000 makes much simpler because you only need to integrate with your own product. Also, you don’t have to build your own custom chip anymore, as many off the shelf chips will work. The bottom line is that math is no longer a problem. If your math is too intense for a single box, you add one for your new feature. When I flew the G1000 I found it easier to manage than seperate boxes once I learned the system. It does change you from pilot to system manager, but you can pretty well manage everything by exception because all the faults show up in one place.
Response:
That’s silly. RSVM has nothing to do with the FMS. Every day thousands of people and millions of boxes fly all over the world in jets with just two vors and an ILS. The G1000 includes a flight director and (unlike the Avidyne) can show attitude information on any of the displays. It has all the same capablities as other FMS systems. The only it is missing is an integrated autopilot, but that’s coming real soon now.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m trying to understand how capable the new breed of integrated avionics suites are (Aviyne Eclipse, Garmin G1000), and read somewhere that although these systems are very capable, they don’t have the "mission capabilities" of a Proline 21. I.e., the Eclipse and Garmin systems are ok for recreational flights but can’t ever be used for regular commercial service. After looking at the functions of these systems, I can’t understand why this would be so? Would appreciate any input on what the Proline 21 offers that the less expensive systems don’t…. Thanks in advance, Jon The current installations of the G1000 and Avidyne systemes only have a single AHRS. You could still likely use them for charter though a redundant AHRS, as planned for the Mustang, would be a good idea.
Any equippage for jets less than at least a single Flight Management System (FMS) is rudimentary and probably lacks RSVM and other important capabilities. A G-1000 is great in a Cessna 182, but not so red hot in a jet that goes to flight levels.
Response:
The current installations of the G1000 and Avidyne systemes only have a single AHRS. You could still likely use them for charter though a redundant AHRS, as planned for the Mustang, would be a good idea. Any equippage for jets less than at least a single Flight Management System (FMS) is rudimentary and probably lacks RSVM and other important capabilities. A G-1000 is great in a Cessna 182, but not so red hot in a jet that goes to flight levels.
I don’t think you are comparing apples to apples. The Mustang G1000 system will not be as limited as the 182’s. I have a lot to say about Cessna that is negative, but I haven’t yet seen anything that would lead me to believe that they are going to produce an unsafe jet.
Response:
Any equippage for jets less than at least a single Flight Management System (FMS) is rudimentary and probably lacks RSVM and other important capabilities. A G-1000 is great in a Cessna 182, but not so red hot in a jet that goes to flight levels.
Tim, An FMS has absolutely nothing to do with *RVSM* capability. I fly around in the flight levels all day in jets that have nothing more than dual VOR’s and a very rudimentary IFR GPS. Happy Flying! Scott Skylane
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Any equippage for jets less than at least a single Flight Management System (FMS) is rudimentary and probably lacks RSVM and other important capabilities. A G-1000 is great in a Cessna 182, but not so red hot in a jet that goes to flight levels. Tim, An FMS has absolutely nothing to do with *RVSM* capability. I fly around in the flight levels all day in jets that have nothing more than dual VOR’s and a very rudimentary IFR GPS.
That’s why I joined "FMS" and "RVSM" with an "and."
Response:
That’s why I joined "FMS" and "RVSM" with an "and."
Tim, O.K., I see your original point, now. As a data point, I fly jets all day that do not have FMS, but are RVSM equipped and do not lack any other "important" capabilities. Happy Flying! Scott Skylane
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That’s why I joined "FMS" and "RVSM" with an "and." Tim, O.K., I see your original point, now. As a data point, I fly jets all day that do not have FMS, but are RVSM equipped and do not lack any other "important" capabilities.
Oh, I know. There are lots of air carrier round dial birds that are RVSM compliant. But, they had the requiste air data computers to begin with when they rolled off the assembly lines circa 1970-80, or so. I don’t know for a fact, but it seems that making one of these VLJs RVSM-compliant won’t be an easy task, and may not be done by the OEM at all. With a bird coming off the assembly line today without a full-press FMS/LNAV suite, I would wonder about the other expensive stuff required to be RVSM-compliant.
Response:
Jon, I’m trying to understand how capable the new breed of integrated avionics suites are (Aviyne Eclipse, Garmin G1000), and read somewhere that although these systems are very capable, they don’t have the "mission capabilities" of a Proline 21. I.e., the Eclipse and Garmin systems are ok for recreational flights but can’t ever be used for regular commercial service. After looking at the functions of these systems, I can’t understand why this would be so? Would appreciate any input on what the Proline 21 offers that the less expensive systems don’t….
May be Autothrottle, VNAV, real FMC’s (able of computing optimized climb, cruise and descent based on cost indexes) and these kind of things? Proline is a very sophisticated, integrated package consisting of far more than what’s visible to the eye Perhaps one day Garmin, Avidyne et al will be on par, but today they are not. I don’t think they intend to be. Best Regards Kai
Response:
I’m trying to understand how capable the new breed of integrated avionics suites are (Aviyne Eclipse, Garmin G1000), and read somewhere that although these systems are very capable, they don’t have the "mission capabilities" of a Proline 21. I.e., the Eclipse and Garmin systems are ok for recreational flights but can’t ever be used for regular commercial service. After looking at the functions of these systems, I can’t understand why this would be so? Would appreciate any input on what the Proline 21 offers that the less expensive systems don’t…. Thanks in advance, Jon
The current installations of the G1000 and Avidyne systemes only have a single AHRS. You could still likely use them for charter though a redundant AHRS, as planned for the Mustang, would be a good idea.
Response:
I’m trying to understand how capable the new breed of integrated avionics suites are (Aviyne Eclipse, Garmin G1000), and read somewhere that although these systems are very capable, they don’t have the "mission capabilities" of a Proline 21. I.e., the Eclipse and Garmin systems are ok for recreational flights but can’t ever be used for regular commercial service. After looking at the functions of these systems, I can’t understand why this would be so? Would appreciate any input on what the Proline 21 offers that the less expensive systems don’t….
In the versions for single piston engine planes, both the Avidyne Entegra and Garmin G1000 are lacking the full FMS and aircraft systems monitoring. The versions for the Eclipse and Mustang will be as capable as those in any other small business jet. What do you think you mean by ‘regular commercial service’ ? Neither of these systems are marketed at part 121 aircraft.
Response:
I’m trying to understand how capable the new breed of integrated avionics suites are (Aviyne Eclipse, Garmin G1000), and read somewhere that although these systems are very capable, they don’t have the "mission capabilities" of a Proline 21.
How much is the Proline? I.e., the Eclipse and Garmin systems are ok for recreational flights but can’t ever be used for regular commercial service.
Where in hell did you get that? After looking at the functions of these systems, I can’t understand why this would be so? Would appreciate any input on what the Proline 21 offers that the less expensive systems don’t….
I think someone is jerking your chain.
Response:
I’m trying to understand how capable the new breed of integrated avionics suites are (Aviyne Eclipse, Garmin G1000), and read somewhere that although these systems are very capable, they don’t have the "mission capabilities" of a Proline 21. I.e., the Eclipse and Garmin systems are ok for recreational flights but can’t ever be used for regular commercial service. After looking at the functions of these systems, I can’t understand why this would be so? Would appreciate any input on what the Proline 21 offers that the less expensive systems don’t…. Thanks in advance, Jon