The perception of a huge division between certified and non-certified GA continues to be odd, they’re all airplanes built to do different things for a spectrum of buyers that certainly outside of Europe see no such division of market and technology. Division is not the solution, its the problem.
Tecnam and Game Composites are two additional examples of manufacturers using up to speed composites design in certified aircraft. The Gamebird was certified that way about 5 years ago IIRC. But many buyers don’t want a composite plane, regardless of certification or not.
they’re all airplanes built to do different things
Well not really… or not always. Typical example, an RV (see, I’m not biased at all 
) -4, or -6, or -7, or 8, or -14… all of these are sport planes, 2 seaters, of relatively recent design.
Now, assuming I wanna stick to certified on different grounds, and I’d like to buy a certified 2 seater sport plane, which one will I buy? None, plainly because none is available. There are a couple of certified bush planes, usually based on the more than venerable Cub, but other than that not much choice, and certainly nothing approaching the versatility of the models mentioned above.
Another example, and yet another Vans (repetitive stuff I know ), the RV-10, a real 4 seater, Cirrus competition at a fraction of the price.
The perception of a huge division between certified and non-certified GA continues to be odd
Absolutely, but easily explained by the antiquated IFR legislation used all over Europe, alas.
LeSving wrote:
99% Garmin and 1 % Avidyne/Aspen I think you understand what I mean. In the uncertified world there’s tons and tons of different manufacturers creating stuff that people actually can afford. In the certified world there is Garmin, and installing something else, your plane will be hard to sell.
Actually I don’t understand what you mean. As the “overpriced” Garmin has “99%” while the others have “1%” means that 1) people can afford it and 2) Garmin offers better value for money.
Of course things are cheaper in the uncertified world (even Garmin equipment is) and we all know why.
Now, assuming I wanna stick to certified on different grounds, and I’d like to buy a certified 2 seater sport plane, which one will I buy? None, plainly because none is available.
The Gamebird I mentioned above comes to mind, although it’s tandem seating. The CAP 10C and Decathlon are available new but they aren’t really comparable with an RV for traveling. I happen to own and fly another one but it’s 50 years old and there are the three Frati designs and others like the Globe Swift, also not available new. It’s not a subject I think about a lot because I’m not much interested in buying new planes and (making my point) there is almost no impact in my environment whether an individually owned plane is certified or not – which other than being the overall best of its type is why the RV continues to sell.
gallois wrote:
Empty weight is somewhere between 265 and 285 kg so enough left over with parachute for a useful load of 245kg to 260kg.
Wow. That is very different from the ones I was looking at.
Silvaire wrote:
The perception of a huge division between certified and non-certified GA continues to be odd, they’re all airplanes built to do different things for a spectrum of buyers that certainly outside of Europe see no such division of market and technology. Division is not the solution, its the problem.
Exactly.
I think this thread is moving in circles atm Got nothing more to say in long while
Airborne_Again wrote:
Actually I don’t understand what you mean
What I mean is that Garmin owns the certified GA market. Garmin is not an unpopular choice in the non certified world, but there are lots of other options, and Garmin has a hard time competing. They mostly surf along with premium priced, mediocre products, due to momentum from the certified market and good sales staff alone.
LeSving wrote:
What I mean is that Garmin owns the certified GA market.
Yes, but why do they do that when there are at least two competitors? Because they offer expensive and mediocre products?
Airborne_Again wrote:
Yes, but why do they do that when there are at least two competitors? Because they offer expensive and mediocre products?
Primarily because they are well known and many customers are lazy to shop around. Also of course because quite a few planes come with their goodies and people will not change for “unknowns” without good reason.
Lastly because their integrated cockpits don’t leave any choice.
Avidyne had it’s chance and imho missed out on getting the market share they could have had. Which is a pity seeing that they had a really neat cockpit deal going with Cirrus in the early days of the SR20/22 series. But the G1000 and following series have outdone Avidyne. One reason obviously was that at the time that those Avidyne cockpits came up, they still relied on GNS430’s as nav source, so they never were as integrated as Garmins G1000, particularly after Garmin introduced their 700 AP.
Practically, today, if you want to stay away from Garmin, you got to go great lenghts:
You can buy Aspen Displays with Avidyne Navigators and either the Avidyne AP (if there is an STC) or the venable STEC 55×.
Or you can go the Dynon Skyview way with whatever AP and Navigators that supports.
Garmin has seen to it, that to use their great AP for instance you need to go with G5’s, so integrating with Aspen or Avidyne is not an option.
Even on the non certified side they got a pretty neat set of solutions.
So it is a bit like people snapping at Cirrus: Garmin simply has the best RANGE of products, not just piecework. That is why they own that market. If any of the others came up with integrated solutions or at least a full range of products, they’d have some chances.
(Anecdote: I did talk to the then Mooney development staff about why they would choose the G1000 even for the elusive M10. Wasn’t it more expensive than to make a conventional cockpit? One of their top guys at the time told me, that OEM prices for the G1000 including the GFC700 and so on were very agressively low and installation of a G1000 much less messy=much cheaper to accomplish than doing an old style or mixed avionics cockpit. Mooney chose to go G1000 for all their new airplanes not least because of that. I reckon Cirrus and the others who now do Garmin solutions are not much different in their motivation. )
Mooney_Driver wrote:
You can buy Aspen Displays with Avidyne Navigators and either the Avidyne AP (if there is an STC) or the venable STEC 55×.
Or you can go the Dynon Skyview way with whatever AP and Navigators that supports.
@Mooney_Driver, and if you want the non-Garmin certified solution with an A/P to be RVSM-compatible, then the only choise is an integrated solution – I’m not aware of any option for an a/c with a new TC to be RVSM-certified, unless it is an integrated cockpit. And there aren’t many options there.
Unfortunately, unless the likes of FAA/EASA/… insist on a modular nature of avionics (“it must be a black box with defined inputs and outputs with fully documented protocols”), we will have Garmin forever…
