My assumption is your two G5s were installed first and the GI 275 was installed somewhat later?
On that assumption, my question:
Given the current choices of G5 and GI 275 would you install GI 275s in the ADI and HSI instrument positions (instead of the G5s) if you were to do the upgrade today?
@Ryan F. has indicated on this thread and prior that he would not want to have a GI 275 in either of the two primary gyro instrument positions - ADI & HSI. This is primarily due to preference for the larger "real estate" of the square shape of the G5s.
I ask because I am being driven towards the GI 275 to replace mine because of its ability to work with my Piper/Century autopilot. But
@Ryan F. makes a valid point. I do note, however, despite the smaller screen the
primary instrument symbols appear to be larger on the GI 275 compared to the G5? And that screen resolution on the GI 275 is impressive!
I think for me the presentation is the "swing vote" but the cost is what keeps me in the G5s more than anything else. The GI275 is a really impressive piece of tech, but the delta between dual G5s and dual GI275s is pretty significant. I don't think there's any question that what the GI275s can do on paper far outstrip the G5s. Question is, do you need it? Can you
use it? Especially for two of the most important displays in the aircraft?
There's a lot of subjectivity in all of this of course, especially when it comes to presentation. Personally, I've never cared for cluttered displays. I have comparatively massive displays in work aircraft which are infinitely configurable, practically... and I tend to leave my HSI decluttered and put everything else of note on the MFD. I'd say most if not all of the pilots I work with are the same way; we like a simple PFD presentation. We have synthetic vision but I usually don't use it. When the Sandel EHSIs were new in the early 00s I was really fascinated by them. My intro to EHSIs came from teaching a client in his PA30 with a brand new SN3308 installed. Right away I looked for ways to remove information from the display rather than add anything. Doesn't make me right or wrong, it's just how I fly -- simple primary instrumentation displays, and let the information "flow down" elsewhere, such as MFDs, Navigators, iPads, etc. I'm a UI and Human Factors guy so if anything I think through these things to the extremes. Checklist design, flight deck configuration, where I hold an iPad on my lap and how I write on it... the sum of all these details make up the whole of the man-machine "interface" and these instruments are right in the center of the whole shebang. Not a small decision!
Without calling anyone right or wrong, I'd venture to guess that most "GA grade" avionics are designed for what pilots think they want rather than what they really need.
Garmin must have done the market research and determined that owners place very high value on keeping the 3.25" form factor, not having to cut up or redesign their panels. I understand it from a marketing perspective especially considering the many ways the display can be used, i.e. CDI, MFD, other configurable "pages" which would be in a non-primary flight instrument application. The majority of us would just as soon drop one of these instruments into the old "hole." But I wish they'd done a "square" GI275... I'd have been all over that.
If you're comparing presentation the real question is what you can interpret at a glance, not the display size itself, not the screen resolution, etc. In my world, it only takes a quick glance at both displays to favor the G5, especially with the G5's "zoomed display" option which finally came about in a recent software upgrade. They're not calling it arc view, but that's pretty much what it is.
I think the GI275 is a great piece of equipment, and I wouldn't turn one down for the right price. Mainly for the AP integration options. But don't forget to compare apples to apples in terms of the display. The unit itself is a touchscreen, which could be a positive or a negative in different situations. That means some of the display is eaten up by the interface. And the price to pay for this is information which is inevitably "layered." You don't get a full view of the compass rose -- all kinds of information sits on top of that. You don't get a full view of the primary HSI area, either... configuration buttons appear there. The vertical path display also rides inside the compass rose. None of these things are individually a deal-breaker, and for that matter maybe all of them combined aren't either. I think keeping the 3.25" round display factor is a major design compromise. The question is how much you get vs. how much you lose... and that is in the eye of the beholder.
