Garmin 600

[Dico]

Hello,

Does anyone have any more information about this new product from
Garmin? Price or any reviews that may be out already?

http://www.garmin.com/products/g600/#

Thanks,

-dr

[[email protected]]

There is a brief article on the G600 in the "Airways" section of the
September issue of Flying Magazine. No prices, though.


-Elliott Drucker

[Dico]

I suppose if I have to ask.... I can't afford it!

-dr


wrote:
> There is a brief article on the G600 in the "Airways" section of the
> September issue of Flying Magazine. No prices, though.
>
>
> -Elliott Drucker

[No Spam]

On 9/13/06 19:28, "Dico" > wrote:

> I suppose if I have to ask.... I can't afford it!
>
> -dr
>
>
> wrote:
>> There is a brief article on the G600 in the "Airways" section of the
>> September issue of Flying Magazine. No prices, though.
>>
>>
>> -Elliott Drucker
>

I thought I saw $27,000 (uninstalled) somewhere.

-> Don
Any nation that does not honor its heroes will not long endure
- A. Lincoln

[Mike Rapoport]

MSRP $29,772

http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/072306a.html


"No Spam" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/13/06 19:28, "Dico" > wrote:
>
>> I suppose if I have to ask.... I can't afford it!
>>
>> -dr
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>> There is a brief article on the G600 in the "Airways" section of the
>>> September issue of Flying Magazine. No prices, though.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Elliott Drucker
>>
>
> I thought I saw $27,000 (uninstalled) somewhere.
>
> -> Don
> Any nation that does not honor its heroes will not long endure
> - A. Lincoln
>
>

[Dico]

Wow... that is quite the price! I think i'll wait a while. ;-)

-dr


Mike Rapoport wrote:
> MSRP $29,772
>
> http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/072306a.html
>
>
> "No Spam" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 9/13/06 19:28, "Dico" > wrote:
> >
> >> I suppose if I have to ask.... I can't afford it!
> >>
> >> -dr
> >>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>> There is a brief article on the G600 in the "Airways" section of the
> >>> September issue of Flying Magazine. No prices, though.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -Elliott Drucker
> >>
> >
> > I thought I saw $27,000 (uninstalled) somewhere.
> >
> > -> Don
> > Any nation that does not honor its heroes will not long endure
> > - A. Lincoln
> >
> >

[Robert M. Gary]

That's actually an amazing deal when you consider all it replaces. It
would probably cost you more than that just to replace all your gyros,
radio, GPS, etc. I fly a G1000 and love it. For the computer savy
pilot, it just makes everything easier.

-Robert


Mike Rapoport wrote:
> MSRP $29,772
>
> http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/072306a.html

[[email protected]]

On 14-Sep-2006, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> That's actually an amazing deal when you consider all it replaces. It
> would probably cost you more than that just to replace all your gyros,
> radio, GPS, etc


Except that (as I read the article in Flying Magazine) the G600 does not
actually include a GPS. It requires inputs from a "compatible navigator"
which would typically be a GNS 430 or -530 (and might include others -- I
don't know). If you don't already have one of these you can add another
$7-8K to the price to make the G600 fully functional. It also does not
appear to include any com or nav radios, or a transponder. Of course, the
numbers quoted in this thread may include the navigator and other radios,
but I kind of doubt it. In any case, the G600 is intended for aftermarket
retrofit, and existing planes that are candidates for this high-end goody
most likely already have a full compliment of avionics.

-Elliott Drucker

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
news:3ShOg.59594$OI1.34406@trnddc05...
>
> On 14-Sep-2006, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>> That's actually an amazing deal when you consider all it replaces. It
>> would probably cost you more than that just to replace all your gyros,
>> radio, GPS, etc
>
>
> Except that (as I read the article in Flying Magazine) the G600 does not
> actually include a GPS. It requires inputs from a "compatible navigator"
> which would typically be a GNS 430 or -530 (and might include others -- I
> don't know). If you don't already have one of these you can add another
> $7-8K to the price to make the G600 fully functional. It also does not
> appear to include any com or nav radios, or a transponder. Of course, the
> numbers quoted in this thread may include the navigator and other radios,
> but I kind of doubt it. In any case, the G600 is intended for aftermarket
> retrofit, and existing planes that are candidates for this high-end goody
> most likely already have a full compliment of avionics.
>
They may have a full complement, but they're dated.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> > but I kind of doubt it. In any case, the G600 is intended for aftermarket
> > retrofit, and existing planes that are candidates for this high-end goody
> > most likely already have a full compliment of avionics.
> >
> They may have a full complement, but they're dated.

If you are someone who wants to have the latest "stylish" panel, then
perhaps glass is the way to go. For most of us, glass gives us no
capability that "dated" panels do not, except that the "dated" panels
have worked for decades, and that glass panel you put it today likely
will not.

Given my mission of non-revenue flights, I don't think I would opt for
glass (where I would have a choice) even if buying a brand-new airplane
today.



JKG

[Matt Barrow]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>> > but I kind of doubt it. In any case, the G600 is intended for
>> > aftermarket
>> > retrofit, and existing planes that are candidates for this high-end
>> > goody
>> > most likely already have a full compliment of avionics.
>> >
>> They may have a full complement, but they're dated.
>
> If you are someone who wants to have the latest "stylish" panel, then
> perhaps glass is the way to go. For most of us, glass gives us no
> capability that "dated" panels do not, except that the "dated" panels
> have worked for decades, and that glass panel you put it today likely
> will not.

I'm talking about those who's panels are ready for refurbishment for one, or
those who see the advatages of a glass panel. "Style" might be one factor,
but I doubt it's an overriding issue.
>
> Given my mission of non-revenue flights, I don't think I would opt for
> glass (where I would have a choice) even if buying a brand-new airplane
> today.

That's nice. YMMV.

Those whose aircraft are tools rather than "playthings" often want every
edge we can get when they are use for making money. For many, it's a much
cheaper alternative to a whole newer airplane.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> Those whose aircraft are tools rather than "playthings" often want every
> edge we can get when they are use for making money. For many, it's a much
> cheaper alternative to a whole newer airplane.

What capabilities would you have with glass in a typical light airplane
that you don't have without?

Short answer: there aren't any. Sure, glass may be nicer, reduce
workload, and provide non-essential services such as terrain and
weather, but the reality is that you're still flying to the same
airports, with the same approaches, using the same minimums, and flying
the same routes. If you are flying revenue-generating missions, the
glass may well be worth it, but I don't see the value for general
business or pleasure flyers over the long term.



JKG

[Maule Driver]

Non-essential services such as weather... and enclosed cockpits, and
gyros, etc. Guess it depends on your perspective on where you draw the
line for nicer, reduced workloads and non-essential services. I want a
head...

Some people prefer new Cessnas, some Lancairs, a few Staggerwings. How
old are you anyway?

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>>Those whose aircraft are tools rather than "playthings" often want every
>>edge we can get when they are use for making money. For many, it's a much
>>cheaper alternative to a whole newer airplane.
>
>
> What capabilities would you have with glass in a typical light airplane
> that you don't have without?
>
> Short answer: there aren't any. Sure, glass may be nicer, reduce
> workload, and provide non-essential services such as terrain and
> weather, but the reality is that you're still flying to the same
> airports, with the same approaches, using the same minimums, and flying
> the same routes. If you are flying revenue-generating missions, the
> glass may well be worth it, but I don't see the value for general
> business or pleasure flyers over the long term.
>
>
>
> JKG

[Matt Barrow]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>> Those whose aircraft are tools rather than "playthings" often want every
>> edge we can get when they are use for making money. For many, it's a much
>> cheaper alternative to a whole newer airplane.
>
> What capabilities would you have with glass in a typical light airplane
> that you don't have without?

Much better situational awareness, plus higher reliability.
>
> Short answer: there aren't any. Sure, glass may be nicer, reduce
> workload, and provide non-essential services such as terrain and
> weather,

You think those are "non-essential"? HooooooBoy!!

> but the reality is that you're still flying to the same
> airports, with the same approaches, using the same minimums, and flying
> the same routes. If you are flying revenue-generating missions, the
> glass may well be worth it, but I don't see the value for general
> business or pleasure flyers over the long term.

Have you ever flown for business? Regularly? (I'm addressing business
flying, not corporate aviation here, which is even more exacting)

The gap between business and pleasure flying make the Grand Canyon look like
a narrow ditch.

Here's my situation, offered as an example, though I suspect it's common:
I'm kicking back today because on Wednesday afternoon, I took the best
building contractor in the area we're looking to build to dinner, conducted
final negotiations, and inked a contract worth $2.1 million. This guy is
highly sought after and I was not going to let him slip away. This is a
common facet of my business (getting the best guy available and getting to
them before someone else does).

I'm in a highly competitive field and every edge matters. The stuff we build
is inexpensive, but not cheap. Thus, this is not a sight-seeing trip or a
trip to Grandma's. We're a damn long way from "pleasure flying" and I
seriously doubt that the latter is what Garmin is targeting any more than
what the heavy iron boys are targeting.

In this example, one slip might have cost me several times the cost of the
Garmin unit. Can you grasp the differences here?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Margy Natalie]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >,
>>"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>>
>>>Those whose aircraft are tools rather than "playthings" often want every
>>>edge we can get when they are use for making money. For many, it's a much
>>>cheaper alternative to a whole newer airplane.
>>
>>What capabilities would you have with glass in a typical light airplane
>>that you don't have without?
>
>
> Much better situational awareness, plus higher reliability.
>
>>Short answer: there aren't any. Sure, glass may be nicer, reduce
>>workload, and provide non-essential services such as terrain and
>>weather,
>
>
> You think those are "non-essential"? HooooooBoy!!
>
>
>>but the reality is that you're still flying to the same
>>airports, with the same approaches, using the same minimums, and flying
>>the same routes. If you are flying revenue-generating missions, the
>>glass may well be worth it, but I don't see the value for general
>>business or pleasure flyers over the long term.
>
>
> Have you ever flown for business? Regularly? (I'm addressing business
> flying, not corporate aviation here, which is even more exacting)
>
> The gap between business and pleasure flying make the Grand Canyon look like
> a narrow ditch.
>
> Here's my situation, offered as an example, though I suspect it's common:

Stuff deleted

> In this example, one slip might have cost me several times the cost of the
> Garmin unit. Can you grasp the differences here?
>
>

Our "non-essential" XM weather made what could have been a way to
exciting flight rather comfortable and it's no less important for
pleasure flying. Without it our Sunday flight home might not have
happened and that doesn't sit too well with the office "Sorry, weather
isn't good, I won't be in for a few days".

Margy

[Matt Barrow]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> In this example, one slip might have cost me several times the cost of
>> the Garmin unit. Can you grasp the differences here?
>>
>>
>
> Our "non-essential" XM weather made what could have been a way to exciting
> flight rather comfortable and it's no less important for pleasure flying.
> Without it our Sunday flight home might not have happened and that doesn't
> sit too well with the office "Sorry, weather isn't good, I won't be in for
> a few days".
>
Quite so. In your case, you take a sick day or a vacation day.

Not quite so easy when that's not an option.

Take a gander at any issue of "Professional Pilot" magazine and notice how
much the big boys speak to "Situational Awareness". Probably even more so
than handling emergencies, which they typically do endlessly in the
simulators. Their safety record is, what?, six or seven times the " $1000
Hamburger" (adjusted for current 100LL prices) crowd?

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Matt Barrow]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
m...
> Non-essential services such as weather... and enclosed cockpits, and
> gyros, etc. Guess it depends on your perspective on where you draw the
> line for nicer, reduced workloads and non-essential services. I want a
> head...
>
> Some people prefer new Cessnas, some Lancairs, a few Staggerwings. How
> old are you anyway?

I'd love one of these http://www.wacoclassic.com/index.htm for fun runs,
such as heading out to some old airport an hour or so from home, where the
old guys can tell stories for hours on end.

I sure wouldn't use it if I really HAD to be somewhere, like 600 miles away.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> >> Those whose aircraft are tools rather than "playthings" often want every
> >> edge we can get when they are use for making money. For many, it's a much
> >> cheaper alternative to a whole newer airplane.
> >
> > What capabilities would you have with glass in a typical light airplane
> > that you don't have without?
>
> Much better situational awareness, plus higher reliability.
> >
> > Short answer: there aren't any. Sure, glass may be nicer, reduce
> > workload, and provide non-essential services such as terrain and
> > weather,
>
> You think those are "non-essential"? HooooooBoy!!

Yes, I do. But even if I didn't, I can buy those capabilities for
$2,700 in a Garmin 496 as opposed to $30k+ radios and installation for
the Garmin 600.

The reality is that flying for business where revenue is at risk is a
completely different situation than what most of us face when we pull
our single-engine airplanes out of the hangar. The productivity gains
permitted by glass cockpit technology may very well justify the costs
involved for business aviation, but not so for the pleasure flyer.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Margy Natalie > wrote:
> Our "non-essential" XM weather made what could have been a way to
> exciting flight rather comfortable and it's no less important for
> pleasure flying. Without it our Sunday flight home might not have
> happened and that doesn't sit too well with the office "Sorry, weather
> isn't good, I won't be in for a few days".


Your non-essential weather didn't require $30k worth of avionics, or a
glass cockpit. All it required was a $2k or less investment in portable
technology.

Since you deem XM weather so essential, I'm curious as to what you ever
did without it? While I have XM weather in my airplane, I certainly
don't consider it essential, and don't use it as an excuse to take risks
that I otherwise would not take.


JKG

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 23:29:06 -0400, Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> Your non-essential weather didn't require $30k worth of avionics, or a
> glass cockpit. All it required was a $2k or less investment in portable
> technology.

More, there are advantages to portable technology.

The first, and most obvious, is the freedom from the certification process
for built-in avionics. This has two direct consequences: more advanced
technology and a lower price.

A second advantage is the ease with which one upgrades. A purchase at
Oshkosh, a sale on Ebay, and the upgrade is complete.

A third is the independent power supply on portable devices.

A forth is related to upgrading: the ease with which a device is fixed.
Instead of taking the aircraft to the local avionics shop, the device is
packed and shipped for repair.

There are also disadvantages to portable technology. The largest is the
limited "space" for these portable devices combined with the need for
cabling. Bluetooth, or any other wireless communication, helps. But
until we can move power wirelessly - or have significantly enhanced
batteries - we're still be dealing with some cables.

Devices like RAM Mounts may help address this; I've yet to try this
approach. But from what I've read, it could be a good way to eliminate
this disadvantage.

In some cases, the utility of the technology is limited by the lack of
certification. The only example of which I can think for this is WAAS,
but there may be others I'm missing. Will there be portable ADS-B devices?

- Andrew