Collins Pro Line vs Garmin G1000

[Charles Talleyrand]

I notice that the Citation CJ1s have Collins Pro Line and the Citation
Mustangs have Garmin 1000s. Does the Pro Line have any significant
advantages over the Garmin 1000? Which might be easier for the single
pilot to learn?

-Just Curious
-Charles Talleyrand

[The Visitor]

I wonder about such things also. Then new King Air c90gti is going with
Collins Pro Line, which I am sort of happy about. Very, actually.
Logical since the other King Airs are Collins and the Hawker Jet is also.

John

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> I notice that the Citation CJ1s have Collins Pro Line and the Citation
> Mustangs have Garmin 1000s. Does the Pro Line have any significant
> advantages over the Garmin 1000? Which might be easier for the single
> pilot to learn?
>
> -Just Curious
> -Charles Talleyrand
>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

The Collins Pro Line FMS is WAY more sophisticated than a
G1000............no comparison.

Karl



"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I notice that the Citation CJ1s have Collins Pro Line and the Citation
> Mustangs have Garmin 1000s. Does the Pro Line have any significant
> advantages over the Garmin 1000? Which might be easier for the single
> pilot to learn?
>
> -Just Curious
> -Charles Talleyrand
>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
> The Collins Pro Line FMS is WAY more sophisticated than a
> G1000............no comparison.
>

When WAAS becomes predominant over the next few years, a full blown FMS like
the Collins, Honeywell, or Univesal instruments will be fairly obsolete.
Other than as a reference for backup systems, their accuracy will be pretty
poor compared to what WAAS will offer especially given such things as curved
flight paths, descending turns, etc.


--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Gerry Caron]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The Collins Pro Line FMS is WAY more sophisticated than a
>> G1000............no comparison.
>>
>
> When WAAS becomes predominant over the next few years, a full blown FMS
> like the Collins, Honeywell, or Univesal instruments will be fairly
> obsolete. Other than as a reference for backup systems, their accuracy
> will be pretty poor compared to what WAAS will offer especially given such
> things as curved flight paths, descending turns, etc.
>
>
When WAAS becomes predominant, the full blown FMSes will be using a WAAS
sensor so they will hardly be obsolete. Even today, most FMS units are
operating with the GPS data >90% of the time. Those redundant modes aren't
very important until you need them. It's still possible to get an integrity
alert even with WAAS.

What you get with a real FMS is a whole host of functions that the G1000
can't even contemplate -- sophisticated vertical nav options, take-off and
landing performance calculations, etc. Those features won't be obsoleted by
a new nav sensor.

I agree with Karl, no comparison.

Gerry

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gerry Caron" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The Collins Pro Line FMS is WAY more sophisticated than a
>>> G1000............no comparison.
>>>
>>
>> When WAAS becomes predominant over the next few years, a full blown FMS
>> like the Collins, Honeywell, or Univesal instruments will be fairly
>> obsolete. Other than as a reference for backup systems, their accuracy
>> will be pretty poor compared to what WAAS will offer especially given
>> such things as curved flight paths, descending turns, etc.
>>
>>
> When WAAS becomes predominant, the full blown FMSes will be using a WAAS
> sensor so they will hardly be obsolete.

Yeah...they'll still need those DME's and VOR trangulators.

> Even today, most FMS units are operating with the GPS data >90% of the
> time. Those redundant modes aren't very important until you need them.
> It's still possible to get an integrity alert even with WAAS.
>
> What you get with a real FMS is a whole host of functions that the G1000
> can't even contemplate -- sophisticated vertical nav options, take-off and
> landing performance calculations, etc. Those features won't be obsoleted
> by a new nav sensor.

Just that so much of the FMS's complexity will be overkill...

I suspect the new generation of FMSs will look more like the G100 than
what's out there now.

http://gps.faa.gov/library/Data/waas/40423_Register.doc

[Jay Honeck]

> > What you get with a real FMS is a whole host of functions that the G1000
> > can't even contemplate -- sophisticated vertical nav options, take-off and
> > landing performance calculations, etc. Those features won't be obsoleted
> > by a new nav sensor.
>
> Just that so much of the FMS's complexity will be overkill...

We've toured Collins (their plant is in Cedar Rapids, just 30 miles
north of here) and what they're doing there is absolutely amazing.

Friends of ours work there, and to see what they are developing and
testing -- things like "highway in the sky" and datalinked everything
technology -- just blew us away.

I'm sure Garmin is hot on their heels -- but Collins continues to grow
by leaps and bounds. And the avionics we'll be seeing in the future
will make my 496 look like a stone tablet.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> Friends of ours work there, and to see what they are developing and
> testing -- things like "highway in the sky" and datalinked everything
> technology -- just blew us away.

I saw a demo of HITS - good for IFR I suppose, but would make for
extremely boring flying.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> I saw a demo of HITS - good for IFR I suppose, but would make for
> extremely boring flying.

IMHO, boring is good, when IFR.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

>> I saw a demo of HITS - good for IFR I suppose, but would make for
>> extremely boring flying.
> IMHO, boring is good, when IFR.

Yeah, but look at all the VFR guys with their eyes glued to even
primitive GPS screens. :)

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I saw a demo of HITS - good for IFR I suppose, but would make for
>> extremely boring flying.
>
> IMHO, boring is good, when IFR.

Until the stuff HITS the fan.

[Charles Talleyrand]

> What you get with a real FMS is a whole host of functions that the G1000
> can't even contemplate -- sophisticated vertical nav options, take-off and
> landing performance calculations, etc. Those features won't be obsoleted by
> a new nav sensor.
>
> I agree with Karl, no comparison.


I'm not arguing. I just don't understand.

The takeoff and landing calculations seem nice, but not worth zillions
of dollars.
What sophisticated vertical nav functions does a real FM Shave that a
Garmin does not? What's the "needed feature" that's worth an extra
zillion dollars?

P.S. Anyone know the price difference between a Garmin and a Collins
Pro Line?

-Charles Talleyrand

[Gerry Caron]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> What you get with a real FMS is a whole host of functions that the G1000
>> can't even contemplate -- sophisticated vertical nav options, take-off
>> and
>> landing performance calculations, etc. Those features won't be obsoleted
>> by
>> a new nav sensor.
>>
>> I agree with Karl, no comparison.
>
>
> I'm not arguing. I just don't understand.
>
> The takeoff and landing calculations seem nice, but not worth zillions
> of dollars.
> What sophisticated vertical nav functions does a real FM Shave that a
> Garmin does not? What's the "needed feature" that's worth an extra
> zillion dollars?
>
> P.S. Anyone know the price difference between a Garmin and a Collins
> Pro Line?
>

The T/O and landing calcs may seem like a nicety to a piston driver, but
it's an everyday need in most jets unless every place you fly has 9,000 ft
or more of runway. Add in the fact that fuel and passengers/cargo can be
30 - 50% of your MTOW. Add in temperature and altitude and there can be
significant effort involved in calculating what is essential data. You
really do need to know you can handle an engine failure just before V1 and
still stop on the runway (or continue the takeoff if it fails just after
V1.) Sure, it ain't free, but it's not in the realm of zillions of dollars.

The vnav and other functions add incremental capabilities. What's the
needed feature? That depends on the plane and who's flying it and the type
of flying they do. Do you need RVSM? CAT II autoland? Part 25
certification?

The price question is hard to answer. First, it's buried in the cost of the
plane and I doubt Cessna (or Hawker/Beechcraft, or Bombardier, etc.) is
willing to explain what their costs are. The second is that Collins Pro
Line is a wide ranging line of avionics that can be tailored to the needs of
anything from a Cessna CJ1 up to a Bombardier CRJ700. Although many of the
pieces are the same, what's in a CJ isn't the same as what's in a CRJ. At
the low end, it appears the functionality and cost of the Pro Line in the
CJ1 was more than Cessna felt they needed or could afford to include in the
Mustang. In general, as aircraft get bigger the avionics get more complex;
so a good rule of thumb is that the overall avionics cost is typically about
10% of the manufacturer's cost of the entire plane. (Engines can be 40 -
50%.)

In the end, I think the G1000 will continue to get more features making it
more like the big FMSes. The Collins system will also continue to evolve.

Gerry

[john smith[_2_]]

> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
> > P.S. Anyone know the price difference between a Garmin and a Collins
> > Pro Line?

Prices quoted at AirVenture last year
G900's are $60,000.
G600's are $30,000.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
>> > P.S. Anyone know the price difference between a Garmin and a Collins
>> > Pro Line?
>
> Prices quoted at AirVenture last year
> G900's are $60,000.
> G600's are $30,000.

Those are not G1000's and doesn't answer the question of comparison between
the Garmin 100 and the Collins ProLine.

IIRC, the Collins ProLine and such are well over $250k OTS.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gerry Caron" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>>> What you get with a real FMS is a whole host of functions that the G1000
>>> can't even contemplate -- sophisticated vertical nav options, take-off
>>> and
>>> landing performance calculations, etc. Those features won't be
>>> obsoleted by
>>> a new nav sensor.
>>>
>>> I agree with Karl, no comparison.
>>
>>
>> I'm not arguing. I just don't understand.
>>
>> The takeoff and landing calculations seem nice, but not worth zillions
>> of dollars.
>> What sophisticated vertical nav functions does a real FM Shave that a
>> Garmin does not? What's the "needed feature" that's worth an extra
>> zillion dollars?
>>
>> P.S. Anyone know the price difference between a Garmin and a Collins
>> Pro Line?
>>
>
> The T/O and landing calcs may seem like a nicety to a piston driver, but
> it's an everyday need in most jets unless every place you fly has 9,000 ft
> or more of runway. Add in the fact that fuel and passengers/cargo can be
> 30 - 50% of your MTOW. Add in temperature and altitude and there can be
> significant effort involved in calculating what is essential data. You
> really do need to know you can handle an engine failure just before V1 and
> still stop on the runway (or continue the takeoff if it fails just after
> V1.) Sure, it ain't free, but it's not in the realm of zillions of
> dollars.
>
> The vnav and other functions add incremental capabilities. What's the
> needed feature? That depends on the plane and who's flying it and the
> type of flying they do. Do you need RVSM? CAT II autoland? Part 25
> certification?

Quite true for that context.

>
> The price question is hard to answer. First, it's buried in the cost of
> the plane and I doubt Cessna (or Hawker/Beechcraft, or Bombardier, etc.)
> is willing to explain what their costs are. The second is that Collins
> Pro Line is a wide ranging line of avionics that can be tailored to the
> needs of anything from a Cessna CJ1 up to a Bombardier CRJ700. Although
> many of the pieces are the same, what's in a CJ isn't the same as what's
> in a CRJ. At the low end, it appears the functionality and cost of the
> Pro Line in the CJ1 was more than Cessna felt they needed or could afford
> to include in the Mustang. In general, as aircraft get bigger the
> avionics get more complex; so a good rule of thumb is that the overall
> avionics cost is typically about 10% of the manufacturer's cost of the
> entire plane. (Engines can be 40 - 50%.)

From what that article I linked to (WAAS Benefits Register) in an earlier
post, most of the FMSs out there are not even close to the state-of-the-art
today. Much of the calculation functions will be easily handled by a WAAS
based FMS such as the G1000 (any day now, according to Garmin).

> In the end, I think the G1000 will continue to get more features making it
> more like the big FMSes. The Collins system will also continue to evolve.

Indeed! Each as the requirements dictate.

[Gerry Caron]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> From what that article I linked to (WAAS Benefits Register) in an earlier
> post, most of the FMSs out there are not even close to the
> state-of-the-art today. Much of the calculation functions will be easily
> handled by a WAAS based FMS such as the G1000 (any day now, according to
> Garmin).
>
I would agree that is true for the air transport market (Boeing and Airbus).
The airlines are very cost driven and change costs them money. One of the
reason Airbus made a lot of inroads into Boeing's market was their common
cockpit. There was very little training needed to move from one model to
another. When you consider that the FMS is a big part of the crew training,
small changes can easily drive training costs thru the roof. So the
airlines only accept change when there is a compelling reason to do so.

That's not the case in the business and regional market. There's
competition between aircraft manufacturers and there's competition among
avionics makers to equip those aircraft. Product differentiation is a key
factor in selling those planes. So the competition drives a lot more
innovation into the products. It may not always be state-of-the-art, but
it's definitely closer to it than what the heavy iron guys are using.

Gerry