Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 23, 2019, 05:24:11 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: G1000 Worth the Money?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All Send this topic Print
Author Topic: G1000 Worth the Money?  (Read 9953 times)
davidsinn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,017
Unit: NW-IN

« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2010, 01:22:12 AM »

I'm more interested to know what CAP's plans are for 100LL going away. This has the potential to ground the entire fleet, not just the G1000-equipped birds.

Why should it? We did away with lead in ground based uses decades ago and the old engines still manage to run.
Report to moderator   Logged
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn
West_Coast_Guy
Member

Posts: 62

« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2010, 01:32:13 AM »

The industry is working the issue of a 100LL replacement:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100624avgas_1.html

Here are a couple of companies that are working on the problem:

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2010/may/feature_fuel.html

http://www.aopa.org/sunnfun/2010/100413swift.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Mustang
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694

« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2010, 01:37:09 AM »

I'm more interested to know what CAP's plans are for 100LL going away. This has the potential to ground the entire fleet, not just the G1000-equipped birds.

Why should it? We did away with lead in ground based uses decades ago and the old engines still manage to run.
Cylinder detonation issues due to insufficient octane level.  Get thee educated on the issue before speaking next time.
Report to moderator   Logged
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "

FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,189

« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2010, 01:38:48 AM »

^1.  GNS 430/530's will have to be upgraded to "W" models.  It is about $3500 for the upgrade per unit.  I just spent the bucks on my personal aircraft.
  2.  G1000 non WAAS units can be upgraded to WAAS units without total   
        replacement
  3.  I wouldn't worry about 100LL going away until a suitable substitute was   
       developed.  Every article I've read on the subject says that any alternative
       which is eventually approved will work in current engines with minimal
       modifications.
Report to moderator   Logged
davidsinn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,017
Unit: NW-IN

« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2010, 01:49:30 AM »

I'm more interested to know what CAP's plans are for 100LL going away. This has the potential to ground the entire fleet, not just the G1000-equipped birds.

Why should it? We did away with lead in ground based uses decades ago and the old engines still manage to run.
Cylinder detonation issues due to insufficient octane level.  Get thee educated on the issue before speaking next time.

There are plenty of ways to up octane without lead. Technology in aviation moves at a pace that makes glaciers look fast.
Report to moderator   Logged
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn
West_Coast_Guy
Member

Posts: 62

« Reply #25 on: July 28, 2010, 02:04:36 AM »

2.  G1000 non WAAS units can be upgraded to WAAS units without total   
        replacement

What happens when those WAAS units become unrepairable due to unavailability of parts? Have the manufacturers committed to providing economically feasible upgrade paths when the G1000 is no longer the latest and greatest?
Report to moderator   Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,712
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #26 on: July 28, 2010, 02:38:07 AM »

As noted in one of the articles linked above, there is the matter of range of operation.

Cars have three grades, planes have one. The same stuff needs to work satisfactorily in engines of widely ranging performance.

Cars operate from zero to 8,000 feet or so, and the gas is regionally adjusted. Planes operate well above 15,000 feet, where fuel needs vary significantly, mixture control not withstanding.

According to one of the articles, cars in the US consume as much gas in a day as piston-powered planes consume in a year. This introduces an economy of scale factor.

Just a few thoughts.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
davidsinn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,017
Unit: NW-IN

« Reply #27 on: July 28, 2010, 02:44:29 AM »

As noted in one of the articles linked above, there is the matter of range of operation.

Cars have three grades, planes have one. The same stuff needs to work satisfactorily in engines of widely ranging performance.

Cars operate from zero to 8,000 feet or so, and the gas is regionally adjusted. Planes operate well above 15,000 feet, where fuel needs vary significantly, mixture control not withstanding.

According to one of the articles, cars in the US consume as much gas in a day as piston-powered planes consume in a year. This introduces an economy of scale factor.

Just a few thoughts.

Those are all valid concerns. Most could be alleviated simply by not using obsolete technology. I can not understand why we are still using normally aspirated engines on airplanes in the 21st century. Heck for that matter why doesn't every engine bigger than a weed whacker have a turbo?
Report to moderator   Logged
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,712
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #28 on: July 28, 2010, 02:52:49 AM »

Those are all valid concerns. Most could be alleviated simply by not using obsolete technology. I can not understand why we are still using normally aspirated engines on airplanes in the 21st century. Heck for that matter why doesn't every engine bigger than a weed whacker have a turbo?
Are you talking about a turbocharger, or a turbine engine?

A turbocharger makes octane concerns even greater. It also adds complexity and expense to engines that may not need the performance advantage. There may also be airframe concern regarding the increased horsepower.

Turbine engines are more expensive in most areas - initial purchase, repair, and, depending on the price of 'Jet A', day-to-day operation.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Mustang
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694

« Reply #29 on: July 28, 2010, 02:57:35 AM »

Quote from: davidsinn link=topic=11053.msg202164#msg202164

Those are all valid concerns. Most could be alleviated simply by not using obsolete technology. I can not understand why we are still using normally aspirated engines on airplanes in the 21st century. Heck for that matter why doesn't every engine bigger than a weed whacker have a turbo?
One man's "obsolete" is another man's antique.  I'd hate to see aviation's heritage grounded simply because someone pointed out the obvious and said "that's obsolete technology".
 
As to why turbochargers are not universal, they add a layer of complexity (read: expense) most pilots will never take full advantage of, and in the hands of a careless operator can seriously damage the engine.  This latter risk can be mitigated through the use of FADEC, but that adds yet another level of complexity and expense.
Report to moderator   Logged
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "

davidsinn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,017
Unit: NW-IN

« Reply #30 on: July 28, 2010, 10:29:53 AM »


One man's "obsolete" is another man's antique.  I'd hate to see aviation's heritage grounded simply because someone pointed out the obvious and said "that's obsolete technology".

My family owns a tractor that my grandfather bought on 1 Mar 1956. I appreciate antiques. However using a carb on a brand new airplane is obsolete tech and makes no sense.

Quote

As to why turbochargers are not universal, they add a layer of complexity (read: expense) most pilots will never take full advantage of, and in the hands of a careless operator can seriously damage the engine.  This latter risk can be mitigated through the use of FADEC, but that adds yet another level of complexity and expense.

That's all true. Sometimes progress comes at a price though. Can anyone tell me why we don't use ethanol based fuel in aircraft? Ethanol is a great octane booster. It's clean and American made to boot.
Report to moderator   Logged
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn
sparks
Seasoned Member

Posts: 270

« Reply #31 on: July 28, 2010, 11:03:32 AM »

When Ethanol was first offered for use in cars and trucks there was a scramble to mitigate the damage it was causing to fuel system components. It also produces lees BTU's than pure gasoline so a performance loss is another consequence and less fuel mileage a few MPG. I believe EAA has cautioned their members to be careful what autofuel is used in aircraft STCed for using auto gas instead of 100LL due to possible Ethanol issues.
As far as antiques are concerned, steam gauges, carburetors etc. as long as someone is willing to pay the price to repair them and scrounge parts they will continue to fly.

If the Air Force funds and CAP continues to replace about 20 aircraft a year with new versions, it will take 17-18 years before the fleet is entirely fuel injected and G1000 equipped.  Of course the numbers are variable and subject to interpretation.

Report to moderator   Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,712
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #32 on: July 28, 2010, 09:48:43 PM »

That's all true. Sometimes progress comes at a price though. Can anyone tell me why we don't use ethanol based fuel in aircraft? Ethanol is a great octane booster. It's clean and American made to boot.

Sure, the fuel tank needs to be twice as big. The stoichiometric ratio for gasoline is 14 air: 1 gas. The same ratio for ethanol is 7:1.

Ethanol is also hygroscopic, and waterlogged fuel is a much greater problem than with gasoline.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Thom
Seasoned Member

Posts: 255
Unit: SWR-LA-010

Louisiana Wing Website
« Reply #33 on: July 28, 2010, 10:03:12 PM »

We've drifted a fair distance from the G1000 Worth the Money thread, but...

I'll summarize a lot of arguments by simply noting that there are a BUNCH of factors involved in replacing 100LL, and if the solution was quick, cheap, and easy it would already be done.

I'd suggest that if we want to debate the merits of the various replacements or just staying on 100LL that someone start a new thread.  It can be an interesting discussion.



Thom
Report to moderator   Logged
davidsinn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,017
Unit: NW-IN

« Reply #34 on: July 28, 2010, 10:21:12 PM »

That's all true. Sometimes progress comes at a price though. Can anyone tell me why we don't use ethanol based fuel in aircraft? Ethanol is a great octane booster. It's clean and American made to boot.

Sure, the fuel tank needs to be twice as big. The stoichiometric ratio for gasoline is 14 air: 1 gas. The same ratio for ethanol is 7:1.

Ethanol is also hygroscopic, and waterlogged fuel is a much greater problem than with gasoline.

I'm not saying go straight alcohol, but merely use it as an octane booster.
Report to moderator   Logged
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn
simon
Seasoned Member

Posts: 246

« Reply #35 on: July 30, 2010, 12:03:33 AM »

With all due respect, why discuss something over which we have no influence?

Let the industry figure it out. Let's get back to flying.
Report to moderator   Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time With Silver Clasp
*
Posts: 30,026

« Reply #36 on: July 30, 2010, 12:32:19 AM »

One man's "obsolete" is another man's antique.  I'd hate to see aviation's heritage grounded simply because someone pointed out the obvious and said "that's obsolete technology".

Yes, a 69 Cutlass 442 Convertible is a "classic" worthy of preserving, a 71 Dodge dart is not, and the 442 isn't used by many as a daily driver.
Report to moderator   Logged


Eclipse
Too Much Free Time With Silver Clasp
*
Posts: 30,026

« Reply #37 on: July 30, 2010, 12:36:02 AM »

With all due respect, why discuss something over which we have no influence?

The "industry" is made up of pilots, manufacturers, parts suppliers, and related businesses and agencies.

Generally pilots have the biggest influence in the GA community because they are the ones spending the money.  While not
all GA pilots are CAP members, all CAP pilots (and aircrew) are members of the GA community, not to mention that CAP maintains the
largest private fleet of Cessna aircraft in the world.

We have more than a foot in this race.
Report to moderator   Logged


simon
Seasoned Member

Posts: 246

« Reply #38 on: July 30, 2010, 05:54:34 AM »

Quote
Generally pilots have the biggest influence in the GA community because they are the ones spending the money.
Eclipse, you are living in fantasy land. It sounds like a nice place. I'd like to visit. Please educate us all on how you reached this conclusion.

The big drivers of GA are manufacturers and business, who together lobby congress for tax breaks that justify the purchase and therefore construction of new aircraft, over, say, buying a four year old one for half the price. Another driver is AOPA, which does have a pretty decent lobby, although it is generally a defensive one, protecting pilot membership, privileges and airports (Loosely tied to your claim) rather than providing monetary benefits like the other players.

Quote
pilots...are the ones spending the money.

Are they? We have, what, 800,000 odd pilots in the US? How many are private pilots? How much are they spending? Do you really know? How many hours a year does the average GA pilot fly? How much do they spend on new equipment, upgrading their aircraft, lobbying? I see a LOT of aircraft that never come out of the hangar. I see most private pilots spending their mandatory $10k a year on tie down, insurance, annual, other maintenance, the rare avionics upgrade and maybe 50 hours of flying. Other than that, maybe they go to one or two aviation shows annually but I bet they don't spend a dime. Owning a plane is a luxury and most owners look after their own plane but as for upgrading they are tire kickers, albeit polite ones. In the piston world, it's mostly hangar flying.

I suggest you spend some time looking at the quarterly production numbers on the GAMA website. In the first quarter of this year, the total number of piston planes shipped was 166. Everything from Citabrias to Barons. Let's say the average price was $300k. This makes $50 million. That is equivalent to a single Gulfstream V. Gulfstream shipped over $1B of jets in the quarter, more than 20 times  that.  Then there's Cessna with their Citations, Bombardier, Beech.

Piston pilots own and fly itsy bitsy piston planes. They rarely own the turboprops and jets, which make up 90% of the annual GA shipments.

AOPA does an outstanding job in GA. I'll say again, in representing it's members, they do an outstanding job. But private pilots are really monkeys in the machine. Do you really think the $1 a gallon (Or whatever it is) that the FBO makes when you get a 20 gallon top up in Monterey pays for the 5 staff in the FBO? No, it's that Citation X parked beside your Cessna 170 where the Net Jets pilot ordered 2000lbs of Jet-A while his customers took a round at Pebble Beach.

Check the special depreciation allowances for the purchase of new jet aircraft over $1.5 million and you'll understand why pilots really have limited influence in these matters.

BTW, I hope you didn't base your forum name on Eclipse Aviation, another fantasy land player, before then landed in Chapter 7.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 06:12:10 AM by simon » Report to moderator   Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time With Silver Clasp
*
Posts: 30,026

« Reply #39 on: July 30, 2010, 06:02:06 AM »

^ This thread and conversation isn't about jets or corporate aircraft, this is about whether the G1000 upgrades are going to cause issues
for the little guy.

Whether the plane is owned by an flight school, club, or single owner - who do you think is flying it?  GA Pilots.  They are the ones who
actually pay for the planes, both directly and through rentals. 

No influence?  You think the amount of money spent on service, parts, upgrades and new airplanes by CAP doesn't have "influence"?
That's 550 some aircraft, most of them Cessna products.  Do you believe that when CAP makes a decision to start phasing out
steam gauge 172's in favor of glass 182's that doesn't have an effect on anything in the "industry", especially if it's as contracted as you
assert?

I don't even know where you think injecting jets into this discussion is relevant, including the reference to the VLJ's.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 06:06:17 AM by Eclipse » Report to moderator   Logged


Pages: 1 [2] 3  All Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: G1000 Worth the Money?
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.084 seconds with 26 queries.