Louise and I had a wonderful opportunity to fly Doug Reeve?s airplane (?Flash?) from Oshkosh to Minnesota, then on down to Texas. This gave us a chance to try out the new G3X panel he recently installed ? a rare treat and glimpse into this new EFIS design. Anyone who attended the Oshkosh forum that Stein Bruch (with some side comments from me) did on EFIS selection knows that there are a number of good EFIS choices out there, that there is no one answer that will fit everyone?s needs, and that two guys can talk for an hour and a half without ever ACTUALLY making a recommendation! 
Bottom line ? it is always fun to try something new and see what the expanding world of Experimental aviation has coming.
We were especially excited to fly Doug?s airplane because we have decided to try the G3X in the RV-3 that we are currently building. Partly because it fits so well into the small panel, partly because it is a very light solutions, and partly because I was looking to have something new and different to evaluate and help develop ? we made the decision at Oshkosh and have some hardware on the way to Texas for installation. I played with the system in the Garmin tent quite a bit over the week of the show, and had gotten comfortable with the basic design of the software and hardware. In any EFIS, I demand solid hardware ? something that has proven itself in the harsh environment of the cockpit to be solid, reliable, accurate, and have trouble-free communication between devices. Since Garmin is re-using a lot of hardware form their big systems and the 696, I have few worries in regard to it?s robust nature.
Once you have solid hardware, all the rest is software. And the beauty of the EFIS market today is that as soon as someone dreams up a feature that pilot?s like, you can bet that everyone else will add it to their own software fairly soon. They don?t have a choice ? many people shop on features (it is all about the bling, as one programmer told me), so you can?t afford to fall behind. As long as the hardware has the processor capability to support the necessary computational and graphics functions, expanding the feature set is just a matter of writing the code. So far, all of the manufacturers have been good about upgrading software for free (mostly), and Garmin has been doing that with their portables as well. Since the G3X is from the Experimental side of Garmin, I hope this will continue ? they guys all cut their teeth on the X96?s, and still think that way.
So how is the G3X in flight? Quite good, actually! The displays are bright and very smooth, as you?d expect if you have flown with a 696. The user interface is also very familiar to those with 696 experience. I will be the first to admit that experience with the 430 or the 496 might actually make it a little more difficult to learn when to push the ?Enter? key versus the end of the joystick, but after awhile, you get used to it. The joystick is neat, but you do have to think a little bit about if you are pushing it in, left, right, up, or down ? or when you should twist it. The edge keys are nice if you have learned to use them. Most importantly, recognizing that a flashing, highlighted field will be responding when you do something with the joystick is vital. Just like learning a new computer syntax, you have to apply yourself a little up front to make it reflexive. All of the 696 navigation functions have been transported to the G3X, and to those are added the engine monitoring interface and the Synthetic Vision PFD. The PFD has been designed for a vertical aspect ratio, and a ?semi-transparent? HSI is located below the horizon. Terrain flows from in front of you, down the screen and ?behind? in a natural manner. (We were flying in the middle of the country, so commenting on terrain is hardly fair ? watching towers and other obstacles go by was about as much as I could see across Iowa). It is a little different than the other ?wide screen? EFIS?s like GRT and AFS. They seem to give you a little more ?peripheral vision?.
One thing I liked about the Synthetic Vision was the texturing of the ground and the grid lines that gave a little more depth perception to the picture. I look forward to flying it in the mountains to see how it compares to other SV systems in real life. The moving map on the second screen was, just like the one on the 696, outstanding. No one seems to do mapping as well as Garmin. Of course, they have an army of people doing the maps! Engine monitoring has a good start, and I look forward to seeing more use made of the data with more advanced computations and display modes. Once the data is in the box, you can do amazing things with it. One thing I hope to see soon is a Percent Horsepower display ? I am so used to it now that I was sort of lost trying to set power with RPM and MAP only.
When hooked up to the 430W in Doug?s plane, the G3X would follow whatever flight plan (even a simple ?direct to?) was being run in the 430. I knew this from a preflight briefing, but hadn?t had enough coffee for the early morning departure, and spent about 5 minutes trying to ?rubber-band? the course line around some weather like I would have done on my 696 before I remembered this little tidbit. Having the ability to run a flight plan in the G3X and another in the 430, then switch (with CLEAR annunciation!) between the two would be a big plus, and I?d think is doable.
XM Weather looked great on the moving map ? again, just like it does on the 696. Avoiding weather (or Special Use Airspace) is one of the areas where I would really like to be able to ?rubber band? the course line on the MFD so that the new course would automatically go in to the Flight Plan, and the autopilot would follow it. I know that you wouldn?t be able to send a flight plan IN to the 430W, so being able to switch to the G3X internal fight plan for deviations like this would be a huge plus.
Overall, I have a very positive impression of the system at this stage of development after a couple hours of flying. Since we?re are still quite a ways from flying our -3 with the G3X, there is plenty of time for more software features to be incorporated, and I expect that the capabilities will advance quite a bit between now and then. With a reliable AHRS and display platform, this is going to be a good system. Now we just have to convince the Garmin Marketing folks that to be successful in the Experimental world, they are going to have to be competitive when it comes to database updates. Sure, I expect to pay for a subscription to the Jepp data for IFR charts and approaches (I expect it ? I don?t LIKE it!), but for terrain, obstacles, info, etc?.well, the other EFIS guys are giving that away. That is a pretty significant disadvantage for Garmin when you look at the annual cost. I?m hoping that they will discover that our market is ?different? in that regard (If we could afford to not worry about such things, we?d all own G1000?s?..).
But like I said ? they?ve got some time to work that out before we are flying regularly. There?s this prop and engine thing we have to buy first.
Paul
Bottom line ? it is always fun to try something new and see what the expanding world of Experimental aviation has coming.We were especially excited to fly Doug?s airplane because we have decided to try the G3X in the RV-3 that we are currently building. Partly because it fits so well into the small panel, partly because it is a very light solutions, and partly because I was looking to have something new and different to evaluate and help develop ? we made the decision at Oshkosh and have some hardware on the way to Texas for installation. I played with the system in the Garmin tent quite a bit over the week of the show, and had gotten comfortable with the basic design of the software and hardware. In any EFIS, I demand solid hardware ? something that has proven itself in the harsh environment of the cockpit to be solid, reliable, accurate, and have trouble-free communication between devices. Since Garmin is re-using a lot of hardware form their big systems and the 696, I have few worries in regard to it?s robust nature.
Once you have solid hardware, all the rest is software. And the beauty of the EFIS market today is that as soon as someone dreams up a feature that pilot?s like, you can bet that everyone else will add it to their own software fairly soon. They don?t have a choice ? many people shop on features (it is all about the bling, as one programmer told me), so you can?t afford to fall behind. As long as the hardware has the processor capability to support the necessary computational and graphics functions, expanding the feature set is just a matter of writing the code. So far, all of the manufacturers have been good about upgrading software for free (mostly), and Garmin has been doing that with their portables as well. Since the G3X is from the Experimental side of Garmin, I hope this will continue ? they guys all cut their teeth on the X96?s, and still think that way.
So how is the G3X in flight? Quite good, actually! The displays are bright and very smooth, as you?d expect if you have flown with a 696. The user interface is also very familiar to those with 696 experience. I will be the first to admit that experience with the 430 or the 496 might actually make it a little more difficult to learn when to push the ?Enter? key versus the end of the joystick, but after awhile, you get used to it. The joystick is neat, but you do have to think a little bit about if you are pushing it in, left, right, up, or down ? or when you should twist it. The edge keys are nice if you have learned to use them. Most importantly, recognizing that a flashing, highlighted field will be responding when you do something with the joystick is vital. Just like learning a new computer syntax, you have to apply yourself a little up front to make it reflexive. All of the 696 navigation functions have been transported to the G3X, and to those are added the engine monitoring interface and the Synthetic Vision PFD. The PFD has been designed for a vertical aspect ratio, and a ?semi-transparent? HSI is located below the horizon. Terrain flows from in front of you, down the screen and ?behind? in a natural manner. (We were flying in the middle of the country, so commenting on terrain is hardly fair ? watching towers and other obstacles go by was about as much as I could see across Iowa). It is a little different than the other ?wide screen? EFIS?s like GRT and AFS. They seem to give you a little more ?peripheral vision?.
One thing I liked about the Synthetic Vision was the texturing of the ground and the grid lines that gave a little more depth perception to the picture. I look forward to flying it in the mountains to see how it compares to other SV systems in real life. The moving map on the second screen was, just like the one on the 696, outstanding. No one seems to do mapping as well as Garmin. Of course, they have an army of people doing the maps! Engine monitoring has a good start, and I look forward to seeing more use made of the data with more advanced computations and display modes. Once the data is in the box, you can do amazing things with it. One thing I hope to see soon is a Percent Horsepower display ? I am so used to it now that I was sort of lost trying to set power with RPM and MAP only.
When hooked up to the 430W in Doug?s plane, the G3X would follow whatever flight plan (even a simple ?direct to?) was being run in the 430. I knew this from a preflight briefing, but hadn?t had enough coffee for the early morning departure, and spent about 5 minutes trying to ?rubber-band? the course line around some weather like I would have done on my 696 before I remembered this little tidbit. Having the ability to run a flight plan in the G3X and another in the 430, then switch (with CLEAR annunciation!) between the two would be a big plus, and I?d think is doable.
XM Weather looked great on the moving map ? again, just like it does on the 696. Avoiding weather (or Special Use Airspace) is one of the areas where I would really like to be able to ?rubber band? the course line on the MFD so that the new course would automatically go in to the Flight Plan, and the autopilot would follow it. I know that you wouldn?t be able to send a flight plan IN to the 430W, so being able to switch to the G3X internal fight plan for deviations like this would be a huge plus.
Overall, I have a very positive impression of the system at this stage of development after a couple hours of flying. Since we?re are still quite a ways from flying our -3 with the G3X, there is plenty of time for more software features to be incorporated, and I expect that the capabilities will advance quite a bit between now and then. With a reliable AHRS and display platform, this is going to be a good system. Now we just have to convince the Garmin Marketing folks that to be successful in the Experimental world, they are going to have to be competitive when it comes to database updates. Sure, I expect to pay for a subscription to the Jepp data for IFR charts and approaches (I expect it ? I don?t LIKE it!), but for terrain, obstacles, info, etc?.well, the other EFIS guys are giving that away. That is a pretty significant disadvantage for Garmin when you look at the annual cost. I?m hoping that they will discover that our market is ?different? in that regard (If we could afford to not worry about such things, we?d all own G1000?s?..).
But like I said ? they?ve got some time to work that out before we are flying regularly. There?s this prop and engine thing we have to buy first.
Paul
