Collins Pro Line vs Garmin G1000

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

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

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

"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

"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

"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

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"

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

"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