Garmin 375 with G5 Hsi installation costs?

[hindsight2020]

Excellent points about the timing not being great. And, no, I'm not in the situation where I can just light money on fire. Any recommendations then on something higher performance (maybe greater load) for the same money with the same avionics as I'm looking for? I really do appreciate all the advice!

My goodness, everything out there in 3-seater land. Arrows, cherokee 180s, early 182s, pre-C33 debonairs, comanche 250s, comanche 180s, I could go on. Anything is a better dollar-normalized value than 172s in present circumstances.

 

[Deelee]

Ok. Looking at those too now. Arrows are nice - complex though. I saw one for $72, but the maintenance scares me on that to start out as a first plane. Plus it needed probably 10k upgrades to get it where I want it, avionics-wise. I was looking at 182s, but they all seem to be in the 100k+ range with lower time on the engines. And not much in the way of avionics. Nicely equipped ones for maybe $140. That's out of my range. Comanche 180 - I don't know much about them, but I couldn't find any descent ones for less than $60k and even those needed upgraded avionics.

I hear what you are saying about the inflated prices, but this one seemed to be at least a rational value (not a bargain, but not too overpriced): https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...ng_id=2373596&s-type=aircraft&s-seq=1&s-lvl=4

Higher airframe time, but lots of time left on the engine, good interior. Then adding on the avionics I want I figure I could fly it for five years or more (getting my IR in the process) and then consider something bigger then. And with the way they hold value, I could probably get $70 out of it after the upgrades. So not all the money back, but still something to go toward an upgraded plane.

Not arguing at all and I am surely not jumping in to anything without full research and prebuy. And if it isn't right - I'm not doing it. But appreciate the help and opinions.

 

[nauga]

Our G5 is configured to primarily serve as HSI, not AI. Although you can press a button and bring up an AI on it. But neither the G5 nor the 375 is getting barometric pressure from anywhere, is my understanding, so any altitude displayed there is GPS altitude. The G5 is connected to a magnetometer in the wing. Meanwhile, the Aera660 talks to the 375 over bluetooth.

My GNX375 will be my sole Mode-C transponder so needs pressure altitude or static pressure data from another source (like an encoder). I'm planning to use the G5 configured as an HSI but plumbed with pitot & static pressures as that source. I'm interested to hear people's experience with that setup.
I'm debating between hardwiring the 660 or Bluetooth - how's BT working for you? Are you able to transfer flight plans back and forth and any issues with ADS-B data displaying on the 660?

He says there's a different model of G5 that's for using as AI as primary, and that's not the one we got.

On the experimental side there's only one model, and it's reconfigurable between PFD and HSI...and roughly half the prices of either certified model (sorry!).

It seems that installing and operating Garmin stuff comes with the expectation of familiarity with their way of doing both. I can read the install manuals (and they *do* provide them to homebuilders) but talking to people who've actually installed and used them is always really informative. Thanks!

Nauga,
and a big bottle of glass cleaner

 

[flyer770]

In general, higher performance/gross generally means either older airframes or higher prices. Though if you’re really intending to hold it for ten years, sinking money into it is a helluva lot better than having to sell in a year or two. Ten years from now, they’re gonna come out with something better than what’s available now and you’re going to have gotten ten years of use out of it.

 

[asicer]

I'm debating between hardwiring the 660 or Bluetooth

Yeah, @bnt83 and I were kibitzing about this over in another thread...
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...entation-look-good.123791/page-3#post-2861720

 

[kath]

Ahh, ok... I think we kept the old encoder and hooked the 375 into that. The details are shrouded in mystery to me...

Bluetooth:
Anytime you change the flight plan on the 375, the Aera will ask "wanna update it here too?" (And I always say yes, otherwise things can get confusing) And I've had no trouble displaying ADSB-in traffic and WX on it.

For some reason, it doesn't connect automatically on startup, and I've been to lazy to investigate why. So making sure they're connected is part of my pre-takeoff checklist.

The 375 will not accept flight plans from the Aera, only the other way around. It knows it's the IFR-certified Boss Of The Panel and will not be led astray.

The Aera does NOT know about approach procedures, so it'll get confused when you load an approach on the 375 and it doesn't have all those waypoints in its database. It won't know about holds and procedure turns either, and can't do arcs. So the two "flight plans" can get mismatched if you're doing something complicated; I've learned to just ignore the 660 completely when practicing IFR.

 

[Fracpilot]

Ahh, ok... I think we kept the old encoder and hooked the 375 into that. The details are shrouded in mystery to me...

Bluetooth:
For some reason, it doesn't connect automatically on startup, and I've been to lazy to investigate why. So making sure they're connected is part of my pre-takeoff checklist.

Under the BT settings in the Aera 660, select the 375 and then select “automatically connect”. Then you shouldn’t have to manually connect it every time.

 

[chemgeek]

I'm leaning toward just one G5 for now, installed as an HSI coupled with the GNX 375. We will keep the existing nav/coms and indicators and AI, and have the G5 dedicated to the 375. Down the road, we might swap out the vacuum driven AI for a second G5. I think we can use the HSI as a back up AI if the the vacuum driven AI fails, correct? Roughly 15 k to get ADSB and to add GPS navigation and approaches while preserving VOR and ILS/LOC capabilites. Crazy?

Once you fly behind one G5, you will want two of them. The incremental installation cost is almost negligible if you do them both at once. It's really mostly just the extra $2.5k for the device. And you have the option of removing the vacuum system if you go with 2 G5s, which will gain about 10 lb or so of useful load, as well as no more worries about vacuum pump failures.

 

[bradg33]

Ok. Looking at those too now. Arrows are nice - complex though. I saw one for $72, but the maintenance scares me on that to start out as a first plane. Plus it needed probably 10k upgrades to get it where I want it, avionics-wise. I was looking at 182s, but they all seem to be in the 100k+ range with lower time on the engines. And not much in the way of avionics. Nicely equipped ones for maybe $140. That's out of my range. Comanche 180 - I don't know much about them, but I couldn't find any descent ones for less than $60k and even those needed upgraded avionics.

I hear what you are saying about the inflated prices, but this one seemed to be at least a rational value (not a bargain, but not too overpriced): https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...ng_id=2373596&s-type=aircraft&s-seq=1&s-lvl=4

Higher airframe time, but lots of time left on the engine, good interior. Then adding on the avionics I want I figure I could fly it for five years or more (getting my IR in the process) and then consider something bigger then. And with the way they hold value, I could probably get $70 out of it after the upgrades. So not all the money back, but still something to go toward an upgraded plane.

Not arguing at all and I am surely not jumping in to anything without full research and prebuy. And if it isn't right - I'm not doing it. But appreciate the help and opinions.

Let's start with this basic idea: a 172 is a trainer. It was built to be a trainer, they're bought and sold as trainers. They're not good cross-country airplanes. They're not good load haulers. They don't handle well. But they do one thing really well: train pilots. They carry a premium because (1) flight schools want them and (2) people who don't venture outside their comfort zones buy them because it's all they know and they don't have good mentors to guide them to an appropriate aircraft. Both of those things keep the values high; you see 172s sell for more than Bonanzas.

If you want a real cross country airplane, the following is a good list to start from:

1) Beechcraft Bonanza/Debonair
2) Piper Dakota/Saratoga/Cherokee 6/Comanche
3) Mooney (any)
4) Cessna 177/182/210
5) Countless other "off brand" airplanes, like Socata, Bellanca, etc.

Don't buy a 172 just because it's all you know.

 

[PPC1052]

Once you fly behind one G5, you will want two of them. The incremental installation cost is almost negligible if you do them both at once. It's really mostly just the extra $2.5k for the device. And you have the option of removing the vacuum system if you go with 2 G5s, which will gain about 10 lb or so of useful load, as well as no more worries about vacuum pump failures.

That was an old post of mine. Since then, my AI started showing signs of giving it up. So we have decided for two. Still waiting for the shop to get us in. They had given us a general time frame before, but pushed us twice. At least this time we have an actual date, though.

 

[Salty]

Also consider an RV-10. They're pricy, but experimental has its benefits.

 

[kath]

Let's start with this basic idea: a 172 is a trainer. It was built to be a trainer, they're bought and sold as trainers. They're not good cross-country airplanes. They're not good load haulers. They don't handle well. But they do one thing really well: train pilots. They carry a premium because (1) flight schools want them and (2) people who don't venture outside their comfort zones buy them because it's all they know and they don't have good mentors to guide them to an appropriate aircraft.

Let's not.

The 172 can be a great cross-country airplane. Ours has taken me from Anchorage to Georgia over about 8500 miles over the past six months alone, carrying a year's worth of stuff including a folding bike and camping and survival gear. She handles great, and has been easy to maintain on the road. Before coming into our family, she was a Part 135 hauler in Alaska, and I'm sure has tales to tell. An airplane can "be" all kinds of things, to one pilot or another.

"Comfort zone...": The 172 has let me explore and expand mine in all kinds of ways: gravel, grass, short strips, rainy weather, snowy weather, mountains, Class Bravos, IFR, Canada, CFI training... the list goes on and is going on still, and I have never had a mentor that I respect suggest that the humble "Toyota Corolla of the skies" is inappropriate for anything I want to do, crossing continents included.

Now, what Deelee wants to do may be different, and a 172 may not be sufficient for the mission, I don't know. But geez!... It's like meeting your golden retriever and saying "Oh, that's just a dog. Y'know, the kind you'd get for a *child*. You can do better."

 

[Deelee]

Basically I want to finish my instrument rating and travel some up and down the east coast and maybe inland a bit for weekend trips with my son and daughter. Maybe with my wife some times if I can convince her to fly with me. But hardly ever with more than me and two passengers. Honestly with my kids' schedules the way they are, we never do weekend trips anywhere even in the car. So will probably be used to fly to the beach from the DC area for day trips (think Ocean City and maybe outer banks for an overnight). Trips in the the 300 mile or shorter range. Some trips to Reading PA to see my folks. Maybe up to the Poconos (Scranton area). Anything more than 3 hours and I need to stop to... well, I drink a lot of coffee let's just say...

So I thought the 172 would meet this mission ok.

I have considered an Arrow, but I'm not sure what the transition from flying solely in a 172 to flying a high performance retract would be.

 

[bnt83]

The 150 horse 177 I fly (basically a 150 horse 172 but bigger fuel tanks) has been a great cross county machine for me but all my flights are east of the Rockies. I really enjoy the bigger fuel tanks (48 usable). A few springs ago a friend and I flew from Lincoln NE to Destin FL area. Topped the tanks and took off at gross with two people, a dog and a pile of luggage. Was a nice cool morning, climbed to about 7500 MSL where it was even cooler and flew 5 hours straight and landed with 10-13 gallons remaining IIRC in time for lunch and fuel, was about 3 hours to Destin from there IIRC.

One of these days I'm gonna take it to Panama City area then on to West Palm Beach. Wouldn't mind going to Houston with it either. Columbus Ohio too, see the USAF museum.

 

[idahoflier]

I have considered an Arrow, but I'm not sure what the transition from flying solely in a 172 to flying a high performance retract would be.

It would really be a non-event. I really think people make too much of a big deal out of a Complex or High Performance endorsement. Most, not all, but most of the GA aircraft you're likely to find yourself owning or piloting are really not that much more challenging than the C172 you're used too. After all, you're not strapping into a P-51... ;-)

I agree with others that C172 prices are a bit high at this point in time. I just had my engine overhauled and almost fell out of my chair when I ran the vref on it (C172N). But if you like the C172, by all means look for a nice one.

If I was in your shoes I would first decide whether I like high wings or low wings. They both have their +/-. Next I would really consider how much you will be flying IFR, if at all. Then you can start deciding on what aircraft fits your mission. Try and get rides in different air frames to see what you like.

I went through the ownership process almost three years ago, feel free to PM me if you have further questions...

 

[Deelee]

@idahoflier thanks! It's a tough call. I am not opposed to low wing - just have never flown one. I am currently getting my IR, so I could probably roll some of that training with my CFII into a bit of transition training and be good to go pretty quickly.

I am looking at an Arrow... but not sure the load is much better than a 172... faster yes. Hauling more... not so sure.

 

[Quentin Kimbrell]

Hello all, this is my first post here but I have been lurking and reading for a while. I am new to aviation, I bought my first plane back in October 2017. I was a zero time student and had never taken a lesson. I have my own business so I could be very flexible on training schedule, I started the first week of January 2018 and got my ppl May 5th 2018. The plane I bought was a 1964 C172. With me being new into aviation I didnt really know much about planes or what to look for. I did have a prebuy done though. I have had a ton of compliments on my plane from shops to instructors to random pilots. Everyone says its in awesome shape for its age and you can tell that it has been very cared for.

After getting my ppl I have done a few cross countries in it, I am in MO and have traveled down to Houston, up to Chicago, over to Indianapolis, and Marathon in the Florida Keys a few times. I went back and forth many many times on keeping this old bird and upgrading it to what I wanted or buying a "more capable" plane. I was looking at 182s, 206s and Mooneys mostly. After over a year of going back and forth on my decision I have finally decided I am keeping the 172 and putting money into it to make it what I want. I know that goes against the popular advise given here but I just cant justify it for the same reasons that Deelee stated: If I was to buy a larger faster plane it cost more and it still dont have everything that I want on it so would still need upgraded. What makes a "more capable" plane more capable anyways? Faster? Carry more weight? Longer legs between fuel? The limitations of the 172 do not bother me enough to spend exponentially more money to get those qualities. I want a nice avionics stack with auto pilot to make the plane more IFR friendly. I havent started IFR training yet, I have been waiting to get the new equipment installed. So while it may cost the same to put the avionics that I want into my inexpensive 172 that I own or a $150k 206, in the end my 172 is going to be cheaper to own.

I dont understand why people think the 172 is not a good platform for some peoples missions. Those people seem to think that they only thing they are good for is flight schools as trainers.

 

[charbonn]

In my case, for my C177RG 1971, cost installation 375 and Trutrak autopilot was around 15K. Amazing fun now. Had to install a new radio to resolve problems of interference, new antenna... Be aware about these consequences. The mechanic is not always going to predict them and tell you in advance.

 

[5MikeCharlie]

Hello all, this is my first post here but I have been lurking and reading for a while. I am new to aviation, I bought my first plane back in October 2017. I was a zero time student and had never taken a lesson. I have my own business so I could be very flexible on training schedule, I started the first week of January 2018 and got my ppl May 5th 2018. The plane I bought was a 1964 C172. With me being new into aviation I didnt really know much about planes or what to look for. I did have a prebuy done though. I have had a ton of compliments on my plane from shops to instructors to random pilots. Everyone says its in awesome shape for its age and you can tell that it has been very cared for.

After getting my ppl I have done a few cross countries in it, I am in MO and have traveled down to Houston, up to Chicago, over to Indianapolis, and Marathon in the Florida Keys a few times. I went back and forth many many times on keeping this old bird and upgrading it to what I wanted or buying a "more capable" plane. I was looking at 182s, 206s and Mooneys mostly. After over a year of going back and forth on my decision I have finally decided I am keeping the 172 and putting money into it to make it what I want. I know that goes against the popular advise given here but I just cant justify it for the same reasons that Deelee stated: If I was to buy a larger faster plane it cost more and it still dont have everything that I want on it so would still need upgraded. What makes a "more capable" plane more capable anyways? Faster? Carry more weight? Longer legs between fuel? The limitations of the 172 do not bother me enough to spend exponentially more money to get those qualities. I want a nice avionics stack with auto pilot to make the plane more IFR friendly. I havent started IFR training yet, I have been waiting to get the new equipment installed. So while it may cost the same to put the avionics that I want into my inexpensive 172 that I own or a $150k 206, in the end my 172 is going to be cheaper to own.

I dont understand why people think the 172 is not a good platform for some peoples missions. Those people seem to think that they only thing they are good for is flight schools as trainers.

I agree. Buy what makes you happy and fulfills your mission. I do find it funny sometimes when people that go through the trouble and expense of earning their pilot certificate because they love to fly then go out and buy a plane that will get them to their destination and back on the ground as quickly as possible.