Aspen Evolution vs Dual Garmin G5's

I fly an Arrow with an Aspen in it sometimes. I can't stand the thing. Way too cluttered. Too much information in too small of a space. Too many buttons that you're unsure what they do. And, personally, I can't stand the way they look in a panel. That long, slender vertical install, with obligatory panel cut-out looks god awful.

Even if you mount two G5's vertically, at least you can make a nice little gap between them to break it up a bit. Feng shui and all that, but seriously, two G5's just look nicer than that odd box of an Aspen.

The G5's are intuitive, simpler, they just make sense.
 
Ryan F. said:
Thanks for the response. Well, if you want to get into the details, let's get detailed -- and watch the picture worsen for Aspen. The Aspen PFD gets really expensive when you dive in.

  • For attitude-based APs relying on the legacy ADI (both the Aspen and the G5 example would be the same in your scenario), sure, as you said the units are equal, in that both units would simply rely on pre-existing hardware.
  • For HSI, the GAD29B provides a significant advantage in that older autopilots are granted GPSS via "heading" mode right out of the box - score one for the G5s. That's a big-time upgrade for legacy autopilots. That's an impressive upgrade for $700 plus installation.
  • So let's try upgrading the Evolution VFR to Pro (total: $10,995) and then add in the following:
    • Synthetic Vision: $2995
    • AOA: $1995
    • Hazard Awareness: $895 (this is just a software interface kit for WX-500 and etc... the capability is already there, but as is normal for Aspen, you have to pay to unlock it!)
    • S-TEC autopilot integration kit - $1995 (so your statement that any autopilot will work is partially correct, but to truly 'unlock' the capability of the S-TEC line, you have to buy this software upgrade) or...
    • S-TEC 55X autopilot integration kit - $2995 (!!)
    • XM weather receiver - $2495 (this still requires the Hazard Awareness software upgrade for $895, or you can buy a bundle for $2995 for a small savings)
    • EA100 adapter for autopilots is $2795 (price is higher than I thought, previously I recall it being $2495)
    • Altitude preselect system - $1495 (for KFC200 only)
Now, my point isn't to drag the Aspen down with all of these upgrades, because there's more there than most would bother with or even possibly be able to use, but it only takes one or two of them to make the Aspen's total cost skyrocket. Certainly to make the Aspen function as a reasonable "control head" ala the G5 with the GFC500 you'd need the integration kit for the 55X which is $2995 or the EA100 for other APs. The price becomes totally unmanageable very quickly as the upgrade path gets more involved and labrynthine.

Meanwhile, the G5s are very simple: buy two G5s. Buy a GAD29B if you need it. Hook it up to a GTN or GNS series Navigator, which are the most popular IFR Navigators on the market, and you've got GPSS with most legacy autopilots. When the GFC500 comes out, you have half the costs of the system already covered and all you need to buy is the $6k autopilot itself. Boom... you're done.

And by the way, Garmin has steadily been software upgrading the G5s since they came out... free of charge.

Aspen can only compete if they make radical price cuts, but they seem unwilling to do that. Until that happens, the G5s are going to cut deeply into Aspen's bottom line.
Click to expand...

Again, trying to be factual, the GPSS comes standard with the Aspen Pro, so one is not paying extra for that. It works amazingly well with my G430W. Of all the extras that you mentioned, I got the hazard package that you listed @$895. It was free with my install, and it does work beautifully with my WX500.

Other packages were not necessary for me, YMMV. It does not mean they could not be useful. 'Not trying to drag the G5 down,' but I don't think any of those things are G5 options.

Autopilots are another thing and if your putting in the GFC500, easy compatibility. But most of these units, like the Aspen, are going in Legacy aircraft with Legacy autopilots. If that autopilot works, consider whether the G5 is even a option for your set-up. And for all those others that are not, Aspen likely has a path for you. GPSS will transform your old autopilot into something magical. However, if you need Altitude functionality in the autopilot, and your legacy doesn't have it, then upgrade. It's your money.

There are compromises to everything. The real difference in costs with install may or may not be substantial, when you consider the real options/capabilities you need, not the kitchen sink you don't.

You are very fortunate to have options. When I installed 8 years ago, there were few. So good luck on your choices.
 
Last edited:
Ryan F. said:
Thanks for the response. Well, if you want to get into the details, let's get detailed -- and watch the picture worsen for Aspen. The Aspen PFD gets really expensive when you dive in.

  • For attitude-based APs relying on the legacy ADI (both the Aspen and the G5 example would be the same in your scenario), sure, as you said the units are equal, in that both units would simply rely on pre-existing hardware.
  • For HSI, the GAD29B provides a significant advantage in that older autopilots are granted GPSS via "heading" mode right out of the box - score one for the G5s. That's a big-time upgrade for legacy autopilots. That's an impressive upgrade for $700 plus installation.
  • So let's try upgrading the Evolution VFR to Pro (total: $10,995) and then add in the following:
    • Synthetic Vision: $2995
    • AOA: $1995
    • Hazard Awareness: $895 (this is just a software interface kit for WX-500 and etc... the capability is already there, but as is normal for Aspen, you have to pay to unlock it!)
    • S-TEC autopilot integration kit - $1995 (so your statement that any autopilot will work is partially correct, but to truly 'unlock' the capability of the S-TEC line, you have to buy this software upgrade) or...
    • S-TEC 55X autopilot integration kit - $2995 (!!)
    • XM weather receiver - $2495 (this still requires the Hazard Awareness software upgrade for $895, or you can buy a bundle for $2995 for a small savings)
    • EA100 adapter for autopilots is $2795 (price is higher than I thought, previously I recall it being $2495)
    • Altitude preselect system - $1495 (for KFC200 only)
Now, my point isn't to drag the Aspen down with all of these upgrades, because there's more there than most would bother with or even possibly be able to use, but it only takes one or two of them to make the Aspen's total cost skyrocket. Certainly to make the Aspen function as a reasonable "control head" ala the G5 with the GFC500 you'd need the integration kit for the 55X which is $2995 or the EA100 for other APs. The price becomes totally unmanageable very quickly as the upgrade path gets more involved and labrynthine.

Meanwhile, the G5s are very simple: buy two G5s. Buy a GAD29B if you need it. Hook it up to a GTN or GNS series Navigator, which are the most popular IFR Navigators on the market, and you've got GPSS with most legacy autopilots. When the GFC500 comes out, you have half the costs of the system already covered and all you need to buy is the $6k autopilot itself. Boom... you're done.

And by the way, Garmin has steadily been software upgrading the G5s since they came out... free of charge.

Aspen can only compete if they make radical price cuts, but they seem unwilling to do that. Until that happens, the G5s are going to cut deeply into Aspen's bottom line.
Click to expand...
That isn’t a rational response to maj turbs point that the EA100 is not needed for an Aspen installation to interface with a legacy autopilot. It was a good politician response though so congratulations on your ability to use smoke and mirrors to obfuscate when facts don’t support your agenda.

You chose G5 instead of Aspen. Fine. It’s not a bad choice. It’s also no reason to make up crap. On the other hand if you want to compare an Aspen with G5 and G500 autopilot then you’d better include the autopilot cost.
 
One thing that does drive me crazy about the G5 is the difference between the EA/LSA price versus the STC price. The EA version is $1200 and the STC version is $2150 on the Aircraft Spruce site and that's for the primary AI version, the DG/HSI one is $2450. Furthermore, the EA version has more functionality than the STC'ed one. I totally understand that there is cost to Garmin to get the G5's STC'ed but $1000 just seems over the top. I also understand the free market system with competition and Garmin pricing the product for what the market will bear to maximize their profits, but to see a price difference that extreme still gets me. If the STC was a couple hundred that would seem more than reasonable to me, but what do I know. I would think with a lower STC cost they would almost eliminate Aspen and Dynon from the equation. I keep hoping that continued competition between Garmin, Avidyne, Dynon and Aspen will drive down electronics where it will be much more affordable for us spam can owners. At some point I would really like to upgrade my old steam gauges to glass but I don't think we are quite there yet.
 
Clark1961 said:
That isn’t a rational response to maj turbs point that the EA100 is not needed for an Aspen installation to interface with a legacy autopilot. It was a good politician response though so congratulations on your ability to use smoke and mirrors to obfuscate when facts don’t support your agenda.

You chose G5 instead of Aspen. Fine. It’s not a bad choice. It’s also no reason to make up crap. On the other hand if you want to compare an Aspen with G5 and G500 autopilot then you’d better include the autopilot cost.
Click to expand...

Easy, there, Clark! Nothing made up, no obfuscation (good word, always one of my favorites.) But thank you for commenting nonetheless.

I made it clear that an EA100 is needed with the Aspen to achieve functionality which approaches (but doesn't match) what a GFC500 + G5 setup will do. Heck, my "legacy autopilot" does everything right now with the G5 that it will do with an Aspen, with no extra cost for either unit, because it's an attitude-based autopilot. Also clearly described in my analysis. But G5s + GFC500 puts you into a flight director, a modern autopilot with envelope protection, vertical nav, GPSS of course, and all the trimmings. There's no comparison there, and we're not even including the value of the "legacy" autopilot interfacing with the Aspen on that.

I'm not anti-Aspen, neither the product nor the company. I just think their business model stopped making sense about the time the G5 HSI's AP integration was announced. It was a great product for its time, and still has life left in its bones, but time is running out. Deep price cuts are needed, or a new product needs to be released, because the market is making a big shift to Garmin. It's happening right now, and it's rather obvious, so it's not like I'm shouting conspiracy theories over here.

I'm guessing by your somewhat histrionic response you're an Aspen user/owner?
 
MickYoumans said:
One thing that does drive me crazy about the G5 is the difference between the EA/LSA price versus the STC price. The EA version is $1200 and the STC version is $2150 on the Aircraft Spruce site and that's for the primary AI version, the DG/HSI one is $2450. Furthermore, the EA version has more functionality than the STC'ed one. I totally understand that there is cost to Garmin to get the G5's STC'ed but $1000 just seems over the top. I also understand the free market system with competition and Garmin pricing the product for what the market will bear to maximize their profits, but to see a price difference that extreme still gets me. If the STC was a couple hundred that would seem more than reasonable to me, but what do I know. I would think with a lower STC cost they would almost eliminate Aspen and Dynon from the equation. I keep hoping that continued competition between Garmin, Avidyne, Dynon and Aspen will drive down electronics where it will be much more affordable for us spam can owners. At some point I would really like to upgrade my old steam gauges to glass but I don't think we are quite there yet.
Click to expand...

I hear you. But look on the bright side -- we've come a long way.

A few years ago I couldn't have even fathomed buying and installing an EADI (really a mini PFD) and EHSI, not to mention upgrading my old Century III autopilot to GPSS capability, for under $5500 in hardware costs.

Same goes for the autopilot. The GFC500 at $6k, though it has yet to materialize, is a total gamechanger. Sure, it's still not "cheap," but it's within the realm of possibility now for owners of older light piston aircraft.

Things are moving in the right direction. Very exciting time!
 
Other packages were not necessary for me, YMMV. It does not mean they could not be useful. 'Not trying to drag the G5 down,' but I don't think any of those things are G5 options.
Click to expand...

Not yet... but the units have been steadily upgraded since their release. Wouldn't surprise me to see terrain, weather, map format displays, etc. appear at some point in the future. I don't really need those features, frankly, but I know they're well-liked by some people. We'll see.

You are very fortunate to have options. When I installed 8 years ago, there were few. So good luck on your choices.
Click to expand...

Amen to that. Even three years ago, Aspen would have been the obvious -- and pretty much only -- choice in this price range. It's a great, and capable unit that only a decade later is facing its first serious competition. Kudos to Aspen for that. They led the charge on this.
 
Last edited:
Clark1961 said:
On the other hand if you want to compare an Aspen with G5 and G500 autopilot then you’d better include the autopilot cost.
Click to expand...

That would be another bad comparison for Aspen. What's the cost of an STEC 55X or equivalent, installed, vs. a GFC500?

You can practically equal out the costs for a maxed out G5 setup + GFC500 with the cost of a mildly well-fitted Aspen EFD1000 at its current price point. Yikes.
 
MickYoumans said:
One thing that does drive me crazy about the G5 is the difference between the EA/LSA price versus the STC price. The EA version is $1200 and the STC version is $2150 on the Aircraft Spruce site and that's for the primary AI version, the DG/HSI one is $2450. Furthermore, the EA version has more functionality than the STC'ed one. I totally understand that there is cost to Garmin to get the G5's STC'ed but $1000 just seems over the top. I also understand the free market system with competition and Garmin pricing the product for what the market will bear to maximize their profits, but to see a price difference that extreme still gets me. If the STC was a couple hundred that would seem more than reasonable to me, but what do I know. I would think with a lower STC cost they would almost eliminate Aspen and Dynon from the equation. I keep hoping that continued competition between Garmin, Avidyne, Dynon and Aspen will drive down electronics where it will be much more affordable for us spam can owners. At some point I would really like to upgrade my old steam gauges to glass but I don't think we are quite there yet.
Click to expand...

The certified process probably involves at least 1 lawyer, a couple of engineers, a test pilot, several aircraft, hundreds of 100s hours of testing, a writer for the documents, project manager, a sacrificial test units, etc etc
What’s that? A $1,000,000, so Garmin recovers it’s cost after a 1,000 certified units are sold. These aren’t iPhones, so the volume is very small. And when they do a new release, for free, that’s more testing and money.
I think you underestimate the work involved and overestimate the volume of sales.
 
Ryan F. said:
That would be another bad comparison for Aspen. What's the cost of an STEC 55X or equivalent, installed, vs. a GFC500?

You can practically equal out the costs for a maxed out G5 setup + GFC500 with the cost of a mildly well-fitted Aspen EFD1000 at its current price point. Yikes.
Click to expand...
You don’t get it. That’s okay. The Aspen interfaces with existing autopilots and provides the functionality of the G5, GFC500 combo.

In shorter words you are making things up in order to make unfair comparisons.
 
Ryan F. said:
Easy, there, Clark! Nothing made up, no obfuscation (good word, always one of my favorites.) But thank you for commenting nonetheless.

I made it clear that an EA100 is needed with the Aspen to achieve functionality which approaches (but doesn't match) what a GFC500 + G5 setup will do. Heck, my "legacy autopilot" does everything right now with the G5 that it will do with an Aspen, with no extra cost for either unit, because it's an attitude-based autopilot. Also clearly described in my analysis. But G5s + GFC500 puts you into a flight director, a modern autopilot with envelope protection, vertical nav, GPSS of course, and all the trimmings. There's no comparison there, and we're not even including the value of the "legacy" autopilot interfacing with the Aspen on that.

I'm not anti-Aspen, neither the product nor the company. I just think their business model stopped making sense about the time the G5 HSI's AP integration was announced. It was a great product for its time, and still has life left in its bones, but time is running out. Deep price cuts are needed, or a new product needs to be released, because the market is making a big shift to Garmin. It's happening right now, and it's rather obvious, so it's not like I'm shouting conspiracy theories over here.

I'm guessing by your somewhat histrionic response you're an Aspen user/owner?
Click to expand...
You continue making statements that aren’t supported by facts. You insist components are required for Aspen installation and they just aren’t. You want to compare Aspen with a G5 and GFC500 installation without including GFC 500 cost. You have repeatedly insisted that The EA100 is required when it isn’t. You claimed in your response to maj turb that optional Aspen items drive cost up without acknowledging they offer function beyond the capability of the G5. Since you include the cost of optional items and claim they make the cost look bad you are deliberately exaggerating Aspen cost I order to ‘sell’ your opinion. In short you want to compare a Cadillac to a Yugo then claim the Cadillac costs too much. Frankly that is smoke and mirrors work of a politician.

Your response has been and continues to be irrational. I am not supporting Aspen. I am debunking your statements.
 
Ryan F. said:
That would be another bad comparison for Aspen. What's the cost of an STEC 55X or equivalent, installed, vs. a GFC500?

You can practically equal out the costs for a maxed out G5 setup + GFC500 with the cost of a mildly well-fitted Aspen EFD1000 at its current price point. Yikes.
Click to expand...

The GFC500 is a reality only for certain Model 172 & 182 owners at this point. Presumably the fixed gear, 4-cyl Cherokees and just two series (S & V) of the 35 Bo will join that cohort in due course. I'm not optimistic that list is going to expand very quickly beyond that.

If you fly a 36 straight tail, Garmin is forcing you into the much more expensive GFC600, as they did with the short body B55/55A Baron. That makes my legacy Century IIIC look like a bargain to keep servicing as long as Autopilot Central will maintain it.

The shop in the hangar attached to my office is busy installing dual G5s in flight training school 172s. Getting rid of the vacuum system on a mass market airplane, popular in training fleets seems the real market Garmin is targeting for the G5, with the GFC500 a nice upsell option to put on the menu for IFR trainers. A lot of private 172s and 182s will get new life with the same combo treatment. If you fly a 4-banger, fixed gear Cherkokee or a short body Bo there may be grounds for optimism. Beyond that, a G5/GFC500 comparison to the Aspen is specious imo.

The Aspen competes with the Garmin G500, not the G5. And I can't see Garmin cannibalizing their potential G500 sales by making the G5 "too capable". But Aspen and Garmin (G500) both need to do something about upgrading their screen resolutions, as they both look pretty poor by current standards.
 
Last edited:
IIRC Ted had an Aspen Failure flying to Mexico. I think he was over the gulf. I'd hope he'd chime in but now that he works for Garmin not sure he can.
 
AdamZ said:
IIRC Ted had an Aspen Failure flying to Mexico. I think he was over the gulf. I'd hope he'd chime in but now that he works for Garmin not sure he can.
Click to expand...

why would that be the case?
 
GRG55 said:
The Aspen competes with the Garmin G500, not the G5. And I can't see Garmin cannibalizing their potential G500 sales by making the G5 "too capable". But Aspen and Garmin (G500) both need to do something about upgrading their screen resolutions, as they both look pretty poor by current standards.
Click to expand...
Garmin already has: TXi 500
 
I've been debating G500 TXi vs dual G5s. I plan to put in a GTN750 and GTX345, and already have an STec 30 with alt hold and GPSS (currently connected to 430W).

Apart from the sexiness factor, would I really gain any significant capability with the G500 TXi that I wouldn't get with the G5s plus Garmin Pilot on a tablet..? I'd still have the 750 either way.
 
Katamarino said:
I've been debating G500 TXi vs dual G5s. I plan to put in a GTN750 and GTX345, and already have an STec 30 with alt hold and GPSS (currently connected to 430W).

Apart from the sexiness factor, would I really gain any significant capability with the G500 TXi that I wouldn't get with the G5s plus Garmin Pilot on a tablet..? I'd still have the 750 either way.
Click to expand...

Integrated engine monitor, optional AOA, etc.
If I were you and thinking about it, I would go to upcoming airshow, and you might get a airshow discount
 
Clark1961 said:
You don’t get it. That’s okay. The Aspen interfaces with existing autopilots and provides the functionality of the G5, GFC500 combo.

In shorter words you are making things up in order to make unfair comparisons.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Not even close. You really need to do actual research before piping up on these matters.

It's painfully obvious that you are completely oblivious when it comes to the differences between an Aspen interfacing with a legacy AP such as a Century III (my AP) vs. a G5 interfacing with a GFC500. The former does not mirror the latter in any way, shape or form -- with or without an EA100, which, by the way, is not the only equipment need to drive the Century III, you also need this transformer (http://deklintech.com/ea100-interface-unit.html). The Aspen + legacy AP doesn't magically grant superpowers to the legacy AP. For example, if you don't already have altitude preselect, you will not gain altitude preselect. From the Aspen Pilot Guide: "The PFD does not currently provide vertical coupling to barometric references, such as altitude hold, vertical speed, or altitude capture."

Those are all features which the G5+GFC500 combo is capable of, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Envelope protection, advanced vertical navigation features, the "return to level" function, etc. are all further examples of the differences.

Again, please read up before commenting further. Unlike you I've actually done painstaking research in the comparison before committing to the G5 route.
 
GRG55 said:
The GFC500 is a reality only for certain Model 172 & 182 owners at this point. Presumably the fixed gear, 4-cyl Cherokees and just two series (S & V) of the 35 Bo will join that cohort in due course. I'm not optimistic that list is going to expand very quickly beyond that.

If you fly a 36 straight tail, Garmin is forcing you into the much more expensive GFC600, as they did with the short body B55/55A Baron. That makes my legacy Century IIIC look like a bargain to keep servicing as long as Autopilot Central will maintain it.

The shop in the hangar attached to my office is busy installing dual G5s in flight training school 172s. Getting rid of the vacuum system on a mass market airplane, popular in training fleets seems the real market Garmin is targeting for the G5, with the GFC500 a nice upsell option to put on the menu for IFR trainers. A lot of private 172s and 182s will get new life with the same combo treatment. If you fly a 4-banger, fixed gear Cherkokee or a short body Bo there may be grounds for optimism. Beyond that, a G5/GFC500 comparison to the Aspen is specious imo.

The Aspen competes with the Garmin G500, not the G5. And I can't see Garmin cannibalizing their potential G500 sales by making the G5 "too capable". But Aspen and Garmin (G500) both need to do something about upgrading their screen resolutions, as they both look pretty poor by current standards.
Click to expand...

Your statements about the AML have merit. There is no guaranteed path for any particular aircraft not already on the AML to be added on any sort of schedule. We're all just "hoping" at this point, but I think the odds of my aircraft (the PA-30) being added to are reasonably good. It's a gamble, of course, but if I'm wrong there will be other options in time. In the meantime I do have a pretty capable legacy AP, and for a mere $700 it's getting upgraded to GPSS thanks to the GAD29B.

Regarding the comparison between the Aspen and the G5, calling it specious is quite a stretch indeed, at least in my opinion... especially given it is the most common comparison everyone is making right now, from avionics reviews to aircraft owners looking to install new panels. Whether Aspen (or you) want the EFD1000 to compete with the G5 is irrevelant -- there are no two ways about it, they are competing. Price point, ease of install, autopilot integration, featureset, future growth... all of these categories nod to these two products moreso than Aspen vs. the G500/TXi.

Dual G5s is a budget buy, but the bang for the buck factor is off the charts.
 
Ryan F. said:
Sigh. Not even close. You really need to do actual research before piping up on these matters.

It's painfully obvious that you are completely oblivious when it comes to the differences between an Aspen interfacing with a legacy AP such as a Century III (my AP) vs. a G5 interfacing with a GFC500. The former does not mirror the latter in any way, shape or form -- with or without an EA100, which, by the way, is not the only equipment need to drive the Century III, you also need this transformer (http://deklintech.com/ea100-interface-unit.html). The Aspen + legacy AP doesn't magically grant superpowers to the legacy AP. For example, if you don't already have altitude preselect, you will not gain altitude preselect. From the Aspen Pilot Guide: "The PFD does not currently provide vertical coupling to barometric references, such as altitude hold, vertical speed, or altitude capture."

Those are all features which the G5+GFC500 combo is capable of, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Envelope protection, advanced vertical navigation features, the "return to level" function, etc. are all further examples of the differences.

Again, please read up before commenting further. Unlike you I've actually done painstaking research in the comparison before committing to the G5 route.
Click to expand...
Lmao. Again you try to dodge the fact that the new garmin autopilot is a significant cost. You want it to magically appear in an aircraft and provide some benefit for free.

Come on back when you are ready to deal with reality rather than spout make believe free benefit from a new autopilot.
 
Clark1961 said:
Lmao. Again you try to dodge the fact that the new garmin autopilot is a significant cost. You want it to magically appear in an aircraft and provide some benefit for free.

Come on back when you are ready to deal with reality rather than spout make believe free benefit from a new autopilot.
Click to expand...

Nonsense much? LOL.

Of course the autopilot costs money! (Sigh.)

This is non-productive; educate yourself on the products and I'd be happy to discuss further. Until then, all the best.
 
I have only recently flown a few planes with G5’s and tried and Aspen display today. I have found the G5 AH kind of ho hum, it has some nice features, is great as a backup being a self contained unit, and has some nice bells and whistles that I don’t really use. but I find the fine lines on it require a bit more concentration to see and interpret to do acruate banks, like steep turns, than a plan old Vacuum AH.
The also seem to consistently have an issue with being very dim at night, this can be turned up, but the default seems almost unreadable at night. I am still looking to find the configuration setting to turn the default night brightness up.

The G5 HSI I really like, with a couple exceptions. If I were only going to buy one G5 it would be the HSI. My only complaints are the same brightness issue as the AH, and it really needs a 2nd knob, one that defaults to the OBS, and one that defaults to the Heading Bug. I find the Push, twist, push, twist to just change the OBS setting annoying and distracting.

I found the Aspen to be much easier to read especially the AH portion, with more defined marks, I still think they could do better, but it is better the the G5. I also really liked the dual knobs that default to the OBS and the other to the heading bug.

Both the Aspen and the G5 have a lot on nice features and I haven’t flown with either of them enough to learn them all or even get to the point that I think any of the features, like Altimeter, ASI an such or really very important for anything other than backup information in case the primary instruments fail. I think especially with the AH, I think they both could do better at displaying basic AH information.
 
brcase said:
I have only recently flown a few planes with G5’s and tried and Aspen display today. I have found the G5 AH kind of ho hum, it has some nice features, is great as a backup being a self contained unit, and has some nice bells and whistles that I don’t really use. but I find the fine lines on it require a bit more concentration to see and interpret to do acruate banks, like steep turns, than a plan old Vacuum AH.
The also seem to consistently have an issue with being very dim at night, this can be turned up, but the default seems almost unreadable at night. I am still looking to find the configuration setting to turn the default night brightness up.

The G5 HSI I really like, with a couple exceptions. If I were only going to buy one G5 it would be the HSI. My only complaints are the same brightness issue as the AH, and it really needs a 2nd knob, one that defaults to the OBS, and one that defaults to the Heading Bug. I find the Push, twist, push, twist to just change the OBS setting annoying and distracting.
Click to expand...

Look for backlight setting, can set initial values and how much the sensor affects it, it’s a bit complicated, may take a few tries to get it right, do it in low light conditions so you can test it , the default settings make the AI too bright and HSI too dim IMO.
 
brcase said:
I have only recently flown a few planes with G5’s and tried and Aspen display today. I have found the G5 AH kind of ho hum, it has some nice features, is great as a backup being a self contained unit, and has some nice bells and whistles that I don’t really use. but I find the fine lines on it require a bit more concentration to see and interpret to do acruate banks, like steep turns, than a plan old Vacuum AH.
The also seem to consistently have an issue with being very dim at night, this can be turned up, but the default seems almost unreadable at night. I am still looking to find the configuration setting to turn the default night brightness up.

The G5 HSI I really like, with a couple exceptions. If I were only going to buy one G5 it would be the HSI. My only complaints are the same brightness issue as the AH, and it really needs a 2nd knob, one that defaults to the OBS, and one that defaults to the Heading Bug. I find the Push, twist, push, twist to just change the OBS setting annoying and distracting.

I found the Aspen to be much easier to read especially the AH portion, with more defined marks, I still think they could do better, but it is better the the G5. I also really liked the dual knobs that default to the OBS and the other to the heading bug.

Both the Aspen and the G5 have a lot on nice features and I haven’t flown with either of them enough to learn them all or even get to the point that I think any of the features, like Altimeter, ASI an such or really very important for anything other than backup information in case the primary instruments fail. I think especially with the AH, I think they both could do better at displaying basic AH information.
Click to expand...

Fair enough re: your observations. Everyone will have their own subjective reaction to the interface. Personally, I think the G5s look substantially sharper in terms of screen resolution and brightness, but, just as you did, I would have preferred two knobs ala the Aspen. (Shrug) And it is certainly true that the Aspen simply "does" more with its display, although it comes at a cost.

Just remember that the G5 "flexes into" a competitive role vs. the Aspen, but "dual G5s" as an installation option wasn't designed by Garmin to be a PFD replacement. If you go with dual G5s, you'll have a smaller featureset but a more robust failure mode. It's designed to replace individual instruments -- the ADI and the HSI. It just so happens in the ADI mode you also get a bunch of freebies - ASI, altimeter, VSI, inclinometer, and some other stuff. But it's really designed to just be an ADI replacement. The HSI? Same - a fairly basic but still fully-integrated HSI which can drive an AP via GPSS and also completely revert into ADI in the event an ADI fails. That comes at a street price of $5000 or so before installation, vs. $10,000+ for the EFD1000. The installation costs for the Aspen are also significantly higher.

The GFC500 autopilot will significantly extend the capability of the G5 with flight director, advanced vertical nav, altitude capture, and so on. But that's an extra cost of course.

So really what you're comparing is not what you "miss" with the G5, it's what you get in terms of bang for the buck. That's how I look at it. When you add that up and consider how long in the tooth the EFD1000 is at this point, and the fact that there are likely still some pretty substantial software enhancements coming for the G5 (overlays? Map mode? Weather? Who knows), I felt the G5s were far too compelling to dismiss in favor of the Aspen product line.
 
Ryan F. said:
Sigh. Not even close. You really need to do actual research before piping up on these matters.

It's painfully obvious that you are completely oblivious when it comes to the differences between an Aspen interfacing with a legacy AP such as a Century III (my AP) vs. a G5 interfacing with a GFC500. The former does not mirror the latter in any way, shape or form -- with or without an EA100, which, by the way, is not the only equipment need to drive the Century III, you also need this transformer (http://deklintech.com/ea100-interface-unit.html). The Aspen + legacy AP doesn't magically grant superpowers to the legacy AP. For example, if you don't already have altitude preselect, you will not gain altitude preselect. From the Aspen Pilot Guide: "The PFD does not currently provide vertical coupling to barometric references, such as altitude hold, vertical speed, or altitude capture."

Those are all features which the G5+GFC500 combo is capable of, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Envelope protection, advanced vertical navigation features, the "return to level" function, etc. are all further examples of the differences.

Again, please read up before commenting further. Unlike you I've actually done painstaking research in the comparison before committing to the G5 route.
Click to expand...

Another point: I don't know why you imply an added expense to installing the EA100, above and beyond the $2500+ and labor, if one was to elect to add this module. I read the link you supplied (http://deklintech.com/ea100-interface-unit.html) and the TR1/TR2 unit seems to be available as shortcuts for the Aspen installer, instead of the installer having to fabricate this conduit for a Century autopilot from scratch. In my own (Century) Piper Autocontrol 3B, there is an installer fabricated circuit board for the "Fine tune excitation input " to adjust the gain of the autopilot. I did not know beforehand that this was to be part of the install, but this was incorporated into the estimated install cost beforehand. Similarly, if you got an estimate from an installer, the cost to connect the EA100 would have been incorporated. If anything, that estimate would have been less expensive if the installer used this deklintech connect module.

There are enough differences, options, and compatible autopilots/aircraft between the Aspen and G5, some of which have been discussed in this thread, that would allow owners to have a legitimate choice, cost obviously among them.

I know that issues that trouble the altitude coupling circuits in legacy autopilots are a problem for not just you, if I've surmised from your posts. Some in this thread have spent their money on a new autopilot. I have no information on the advanced altitude functionality from the GFC500, but for those that want it, many others, I would think, would be happy with increased reliability from their existing autopilot. YMMV
 
Last edited:
Ryan F. said:
Nonsense much? LOL.

Of course the autopilot costs money! (Sigh.)

This is non-productive; educate yourself on the products and I'd be happy to discuss further. Until then, all the best.
Click to expand...
Lmao again. Include the cost and then I won’t have to hold your nose in the crap to force you to admit it.

Once you square up and be honest in the comparison I’ll stop pointing out the BS in your posts. It really is that simple.
 
Love me a nice heated PoA debate on a Monday night. Better than watching sporty ball.

Can I get an amen?!
 
images
 
CC268 said:
Love me a nice heated PoA debate on a Monday night. Better than watching sporty ball.

Can I get an amen?!
Click to expand...

An amen is no substitute when what's needed is a hallelujah chorus...
 
Initial post:
"Coming back from the east coast after Christmas, getting departure climb/turn vectors and while being bounced around in turbulence (typical blustery conditions, moderate but not terrible), the G5 went into an "aligning" mode. After finishing that, it showed wildly incorrect pitch & roll indications, then it went back to "aligning"... rinse and repeat this cycle a couple times."

Another reply:
"I had the exact same issue. During my recent check ride, in a recovery from unusual attitudes, the "aligning" message appeared and the G5 self calibrated to a significantly incorrect attitude."
 
have we figured out which is better, aspen or G5?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top