I have done some flying with GI275 – about 50hrs in a couple of different Cessnas. One had 2x GI275 and one had 2x GI275 and the EIS275.
Both planes had GTN750 as well.
In person, the display is not cluttered in my opinion. I expected this to be the case also but it simply wasn’t a problem. The display is much higher resolution and contrast than the Sandel projection system so information can be small but still clearly read.
The EIS was good too, easy to use and simple to navigate between pages.
Of course the integration with the GTN was also seamless.
The G5 has a bigger display but for some reason the GI275 doesn’t seem small, they managed to use just about every bit of space in that standard size hole. Being such a high resolution display Vs the G5 does make it clearer, but for sure the G5 is still an excellent bit of kit.
Synthetic vision and the flight path vector is also really nice to have. This is one of the reasons I’ve gone all in on the G3X.
I would say that synthetic vision is just nice looking, but absolutely useless on VFR. For IFR, the GTN series has a GPWS function that is “at least something”, but I still wonder what you can do with synthetic vision.
The only case I think of would be an engine failure while flying on top of a cloud layer over the mountain, but not high enough to plan a managed descent. Second case would be emergency descend following a pressurization failure, but TBs are not TBMs :D
Useless yes, but it looks cool :)
Something that would be useful however is airspace depicted in the synthetic vision. Does anyone know of a system which facilitates this?
It’s pretty good for flying approaches. You just point the end of the syn vis tunnel at the runway and keep it pointed there. No need for anything else. (Only used it for one flight, in a G1000 equipped C182).
The display is much higher resolution and contrast than the Sandel projection system so information can be small but still clearly read.
Maybe at your age 
Would having different sw versions on two GI275s be a) legal and b) a way to possibly mitigate a bug? Probably not worth it and having a separate G5 or a AV20 as backup/for redundancy makes more sense.
Why the 275? Because it will drive a KFC200, which a G5 will not.
uAvionix have been promising an autopilot interface ever since I can remeber, that would be awesome if it ever materializes.
Or if Dynon could drive the old King AP…
johnh wrote:
johnh24-Oct-23 17:1044
It’s pretty good for flying approaches. You just point the end of the syn vis tunnel at the runway and keep it pointed there. No need for anything else. (Only used it for one flight, in a G1000 equipped C182).
In reality, this is correct, but of course no a legal approach, without the “official” navigations systems.
tmo wrote:
Would having different sw versions on two GI275s be a) legal and b) a way to possibly mitigate a bug? Probably not worth it and having a separate G5 or a AV20 as backup/for redundancy makes more sense.
I would not do that – from the law of Murphy, nothing good can follow an unaligned sw version…
tmo wrote:
Why the 275? Because it will drive a KFC200, which a G5 will not.
Yes actually there is 2 GI275 version, one that can drive a garmin autopilot, and one that is able to drive old AP such as KAP/KFC.
tmo wrote:
Or if Dynon could drive the old King AP…
There is just 5 planes STC’d for this AP, whenevr good or bad.
greg_mp wrote:
You can have a DME without having it to display on the MFD, but only on its instrument box. It’s not the best, but requirement are fulfilled?
To me that actually IS the best. There is no need to integrate DME into anything. You would never confuse the reading of a separate DME unit with a GPS-based distance. Also the frequency selection (or remote frq selector) is instantly available without searching for a softkey or working a menu.
