Which do you prefer? The good old fashioned analogue panel, or the brand spanking new glass cockpits of the future?Personally, I prefer 'ye olde' analogue panels. There's something more about them. They have more... soul. Just like most other things that are analogue, which have been buried by the digital era. There's something about flying in a glass cockpit that doesn't feel like you're flying a flying machine. To me, personally, it feels more like you're programming a computer... that's just my personal opinion. There doesn't feel like there's the same connection between man and machine, and I think that's what we're losing these days. Compare this - http://www.aviationmarketing.com/images/Ba...n%20Cockpit.jpgto this - http://www.austincollins.com/baron.jpg(links if the image tags don't work)Both are from your good old Beech Baron. I can say with absolute certainty that I prefer the good old fashioned analogue gauges. There's more to look at, it's visually more interesting, and there's also a kind of 'belonging' in the fact that you, as a pilot, know what each thing does, and know it's far simpler than what meets the novice eye.Remember the first time you saw an aircraft panel, and thought "Crikey, look at all that stuff! How can anyone possibly know what all that means?" Think what people would be thinking today? "I wonder what comes up on those screens?" It's just not the same to me...!Of course, glass cockpits are taking over for a reason - they're more functional, more practical, and way easier to read. I assume they're also more reliable too.But like what Digital watches are to Grandfather Clocks, like MP3s to Vinyls, I think glass cockpits don't have anywhere near the 'soul' that analogue ones have.What do you guys think?

I prefer the old steam gauges as well, but also don't mind flying glass in most aircraft. I like the steam gauges because each instrument has a wider area to display its "data" and is easy to read most of the time, but in FS when you try to simulate a 10" glass display on a 19" monitor well then you get my point. Glass panels are great though for situational awareness and also provide extra information but it does not mean the pilot is of the hook for some things such as traffic avoidance, weather avoidance, etc, visually. When I fly airliners though I definitely prefer glass to steam though, because I hate looking at 2,000 different instruments, whereas I can look at 6 screens with data organized neatly and is easily accessible when needed. The only thing is I would prefer a glass cockpit general aviation plane over a steam gauge plane if the steam gauge had no GPS. That I could not live without :(. What scares me today is some students are learning how to fly on glass panels and even though you learn what the gauges are in ground school, I think its essential to learn the older steam gauges first.I get what you mean though about steam gauges and soul. They just have a better feel and visual appeal overall, and I bet any RealAir owner with the 3D gauges can say they would prefer it over glass anyday haha.

I am not going to enumerate virtues of glass cockpits - they are well known. But if we are discussing the 'soul' I actually like many half-glass panels like for example this one in a retrofitted King Air:

I prefer glass myself, with analogue backups.

I perfer the round dials because I've only had it fail once on me. As for the glass it has been in error nearly every flight I've used it.My point from one of my last flights in a glass cockpit:It's hard to stop an aircraft in IMC

I perfer the round dials because I've only had it fail once on me. As for the glass it has been in error nearly every flight I've used it.My point from one of my last flights in a glass cockpit:It's hard to stop an aircraft in IMC

I was told recently of a guy ferrying a new GA aircraft to Europe with glass and the g1000 who was in solid imc. The plane had extra tanks installed for the trip. When the g1000 decided he had run out of fuel the system shut down and was unable to reboot-apparently the programmers had not taken the possibility of non standard extra fuel tanks into account in the programming. http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/inst_...fm?article=5958

I've got that same Garmin GPS that's in the 1st picture. Nice unit but expensive. I like steam better. I do fly the MADDOG but NOT with the FMC.JimCYWG

I am not going to enumerate virtues of glass cockpits - they are well known. But if we are discussing the 'soul' I actually like many half-glass panels like for example this one in a retrofitted King Air:

That's not too bad actually; modern, yet keeps the retro style!

I prefer the old steam gauges as well, but also don't mind flying glass in most aircraft...... When I fly airliners though I definitely prefer glass to steam though, because I hate looking at 2,000 different instruments, whereas I can look at 6 screens with data organized neatly and is easily accessible when needed. The only thing is I would prefer a glass cockpit general aviation plane over a steam gauge plane if the steam gauge had no GPS.

I do agree with you on airliners. I know I prefer a 747-400 to a 747-200 any day of the week, for that exact reason. A glass cockpit in an airliner is essential, because there is simply so much information.Although, I do find it more fun to fly the old fashioned way, without GPS!

I was told recently of a guy ferrying a new GA aircraft to Europe with glass and the g1000 who was in solid imc. The plane had extra tanks installed for the trip. When the g1000 decided he had run out of fuel the system shut down and was unable to reboot-apparently the programmers had not taken the possibility of non standard extra fuel tanks into account in the programming. http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/inst_...fm?article=5958

That was some very stupid programming indeed! There's absolutely no reason whatever why the system should "shut down" at all, much less during a zero fuel event.Avidyne systems will never do that! :(

That was some very stupid programming indeed! There's absolutely no reason whatever why the system should "shut down" at all, much less during a zero fuel event.Avidyne systems will never do that! :(

"Garmin: Ditch the Leader" (No Pun intended :()+1 for Avidyne! I like their systems for glass cockpits because they display their info in an easily viewable format and is uncluttered. Also they make things less complicated because you can manage the MFD & PFD separate from the GPS which can make configuration a lot easier and shorter. They have lots of potential and great simple features. Garmin has so many menus in their G1000 system that it seems like most people that fly them don't even know how to use some critical features! Both have their pros and cons. But at the end of the day, and this may sound very surprising, I would go with Garmin for their reliability and extra features.

Avidyne systems will never do that! :(

I would not be so sure. From what heard from many CFI and pilots who fly both systems - Avidyne hardware is quite unreliable comparing to Garmin's.

Garmin has so many menus in their G1000 system that it seems like most people that fly them don't even know how to use some critical features!

I recently purchased Cirrus Perspective G1000 PC trainer and installed on my PC. Judging by posts similar to yours I was expecting steep learning curve to master the system. I bought Max Trescott's G1000 book and though overwhelmed by rich features I wondered how I am going to remember all these menus and keystrokes. As soon as I started playing with (instead of reading about it) I was surprised how easy and intuitive it was. In a mere few evenings I could shoot complicated approaches and perform the most difficult functions. So yes, perhaps because I was brainwashed how bad G1000 was - it turned out to be a paper tiger.

Avidyne systems will never do that! :(

Haha good joke. Thats because their systems never have the fuel senders operating any way haha!

"Garmin: Ditch the Leader" (No Pun intended :()+1 for Avidyne! I like their systems for glass cockpits because they display their info in an easily viewable format and is uncluttered. Also they make things less complicated because you can manage the MFD & PFD separate from the GPS which can make configuration a lot easier and shorter. They have lots of potential and great simple features. Garmin has so many menus in their G1000 system that it seems like most people that fly them don't even know how to use some critical features! Both have their pros and cons. But at the end of the day, and this may sound very surprising, I would go with Garmin for their reliability and extra features.

Just wait till you fly behind both systems for real. Then it will be easier to make your choice.

I would not be so sure. From what heard from many CFI and pilots who fly both systems - Avidyne hardware is quite unreliable comparing to Garmin's.I recently purchased Cirrus Perspective G1000 PC trainer and installed on my PC. Judging by posts similar to yours I was expecting steep learning curve to master the system. I bought Max Trescott's G1000 book and though overwhelmed by rich features I wondered how I am going to remember all these menus and keystrokes. As soon as I started playing with (instead of reading about it) I was surprised how easy and intuitive it was. In a mere few evenings I could shoot complicated approaches and perform the most difficult functions. So yes, perhaps because I was brainwashed how bad G1000 was - it turned out to be a paper tiger.

This is where the G1000 is so much better. It is completely integrated and you don't have to be going between 4 different boxes to get what you need like in the avidyne system.

Haha good joke. Thats because their systems never have the fuel senders operating any way haha!

??? The SR20/22 acft certainly have their fuel sensors connected!Aside from which, all I said was that Avidynes won't suddenly shut down and refuse to "reboot" if fuel is exhausted, although I suspect by now that the G1000's programming has been corrected to eliminate this bit of silliness. :(Having programmed my own sim version of the G1000, I am rather intimately familiar with its capabilities. I rather like it myself, to be perfectly honest... :(

??? The SR20/22 acft certainly have their fuel sensors connected!Aside from which, all I said was that Avidynes won't suddenly shut down and refuse to "reboot" if fuel is exhausted, although I suspect by now that the G1000's programming has been corrected to eliminate this bit of silliness. :(Having programmed my own sim version of the G1000, I am rather intimately familiar with its capabilities. I rather like it myself, to be perfectly honest... :(

In all the aircraft I have flown they have been horribly inaccurate. Just like any other fuel sensing unit in a GA aircraft, they aren't the best.I much prefer the G1000 system.