What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

MGL or GRT ?

bearcatkm

I'm New Here
I am down to two EFIS
The MGL voyager/odyssey or GRT HX series ?
with autopilot
can anybody give me a idea, of the two to chuse from?
 
My vote

OK, let's take the case of someone in Michigan where GRT is made. That is a service & support factor. Let's further assume that a proven track record matters. No offense to the excellent work done by MGL, much of which we should hope is "emulated" by others, too, but you are sinking a lot of money into something that could actually keep you alive in some circumstances. I guess you can tell how I vote.
 
Last edited:
No way to answer your question unless you first tell us what you want to do with your airplane, and what you want your EFIS to do. Shopping by brand is for consumers - not airplane system designers....which we all are!

Paul
 
Last edited:
You're asking the wrong question.

Paul Dye wrote an excellant article in a recent RVator about requirements and the amount of resilence that needs to be designed into your panel. A longer version was published in our EAA 9 Chapter newsletter. It talks about what equipment you need to meet your mission requirements.

While both MGL and GRT make good products, their target audiences are different. Are even more so depending on which of their products you are talking about.

For example, MGL uses lower resolution screens. This enables MGL to offer a product at a lower price. You want to compare that to the GRT HX, which is GRT's high resolution more expensive solution. I would think that the Sport or HS from GRT may be a closer comparison, specifically in price and screen quality. I'm sure that there are many other differences, with each vendor having their strengh and/or weakness.

Read Paul's article, then document your requirements. Then determine which EFIS mets your requirements. If it becomes a flip of a coin on technical merit, then factor in quality of support and price.

For me, because screen resolution and refresh rate is important to me, my final two are AFS Advanced Deck and the GRT HX.

At the moment, I'm leaning towards the GRT HX. Fortunately, I have at least six months before I have to make a final decision. I do like some of Rob's recent improvements at AFS.

Two other requirements that I've taken into account in making my EFIS decisions are:

A very non-scientific and very subjective process. I took my wife to Stein's booth last year at OSH. He had one of every major EFIS vendor's product in his booth. I simply asked my wife, which one she liked the best. She's not a pilot and has no clue as to what an EFIS is or how it works. She liked the GRT HX over the AFS and MGL units. Once she found out how much the Garmin unit was, that quickly was eliminated.

The other is based upon first hand knowledge of friends that are currently flying. Most of the folks that I know are flying with GRT products and are pleased with their decision. I do have friends with the AFS product, but it's about a 10 to 1 ratio at the moment.

Now that I've shared some of my bias, it really doesn't mean anything. What's important to you and which vendor can meet your requirements at the best price is all the matters. If price doesn't matter, then I'm sure Stein will be more than happy to sell you one of his nice Garmin panels. :D
 
My inflation adjusted two cents...

In a rapidly changing environment such as EFIS's I think you also have to take into account the upgrade path provided by each company you consider. Keep in mind, once you buy, you are sole sourced. You have to be careful just comparing current features. You know once one company comes out with a popular feature or performance improvement, the others are going to match it. The question is, will the current hardware be able to support it without major modification.

So, one question you have to ask yourself is, which system will I be able to upgrade with new features as they come out? Is one of the systems likely to run out of processer speed, screen resoution, or anything else soon?
 
Bob makes a good point...you should compare two EFIS systems that are closer functionality, but only after you figure out what your mission is (Paul's advice).

I've got 2 MGL Voyagers and think they're great...and the support is fantastic. It's clear to me that the MGL people really know their stuff. Also, their products appear to be modularized so upgrading is a given. For example, this summer they're supposed to have a replacement CPU board that has a separate graphics processor to allow high-res terrain. I'm planning on buying it!

The only thing I haven't done yet is buy the comm extender to run the autopilot servos I have installed (~$175).

I do have one small complaint about my Voyagers, however...they really do take a lot of setup & config before using them. That very well could be the case with other systems, too...I don't know. But configuring each probe for the engine with high, low and warning parameters was time consuming. And you have to do it for air-data, too. I'm sure you will have to do most of this for other systems, as well...but I would think any manufacturer could have a handful of "typical" parameters pre-loaded to minimize this. Maybe that's wishfull thinking! ;)

So far, I have nothing but great things to say about MGL. Your decision won't be easy, but I'm betting you'll be happy with whatever system you decide to go with.
 
Upgrade service

First you should know that my comments are extremely biased. I installed a three screen GRT system in my RV-10 in 2006 (Duel Horizon I and signel Sport Hz). I have no experiece with MGL so I cannot compare upgrade support or service between the two.

In 2008 I upgraded my Sport HZ to the new higher resolution Sport 6.8"" screen and GRT credited me with my original purchase price of the Sport HZ against the upgrade. The price difference was -0-.

After the HX came out in 2009 I also upgraded my Duel Horzizon screens to the Duel HX 8.4" and GRT again credited me with my original purchase price against the current price of the Duel HX 8.4" system. This after flying the duel Horizon system for three years. What a deal.

The customer service GRT has provided me both in install and programing has been wonderful and their upgrade policy of giving full dollar credit for your original purchase is impossible to beat. Being able to buy something now to fly and then as improvements come about being able to upgrade for full dollar credit is a no brainer. One thing I know is that in the avionics world changes are going to happen and the question is whether or not 2-5 years from now you are going to look back and say I wished I had waited until that system came out. With GRT you don't have to, just upgrade.

I just hope GRT doesn't come out with bigger screens than their 8.4" My panel doesn't have room for anymore size upgrades. However it is nice to know that if GRT comes up with a new 8.4" platform that gives me more functions that I can pull my existing system out, mail it back and upgrade for full credit of my original purchase price. I know personally that you can't do that with Garmin or AFS, I have no idea what MGL's policy might be in the future.

Remember to go back and read the first line and take my comments for what they are worth.
 
For example, MGL uses lower resolution screens.

What resolution are the GRT panels? I'm not finding a number on the horizon page. Their pricing page shows they have a paid upgrade to get you to 600x480.

The MGL Odyssey and Voyager are 640x480. The Enigma is much older, and is 320x240. When I saw the Odyssey last year at Osh it looked gorgeous.
 
Ditto on everyone who said "let your requirements drive the decision," and also consider your technology comfort zone.

I intend to fly IFR a bunch, and my first decision was a GNS 480 for nav and a 496 for WX & terrain. Once those decisions were firm, I really only needed flight instruments and engine instruments - so I went with a vendor whose product is solid and was chosen by Burt Rutan for his spaceship which provided better bang for the buck for the features I needed then (I chose Dynon D-180 when it was brand new). That, along with the track record of Dynon as a "simple appliance" were deciding factors for me. Might my decision be different today? Certainly, particularly since the GNS 480 has been discontinued.

So in addition to all of the features, you might want to download simulators if available or get behind someone you knows' units to see how "intuitive" you find it to operate that piece of equipment. First time down the chute in hard IFR is NOT the time to find out that you are overwhelmed with buttons!

:D
 
I agree that MGL has come a long way. Now they must just lose the plastic bank machine buttons and put something out that looks a little more aviation level. Also the engine module looks very cheap. Its plastic with a decal.
Im not running their stuff down, I actually think its good stuff, just would be nice if they listened. A lot of people I speak to feel the same.
 
Last edited:
Differn't Strokes-----

I agree that MGL has come a long way. Now they must just loose the plastic bank machine buttons and ----

The buttons are one of the things I find most interesting/appealing about the MGL stuff------I like the idea of direct input/control they offer.
 
I think that MGL started off producing affordable avionics for the microlight aircraft. They came a long way and are producing a product of a very high standard. I have to agree with RV72004 that the overall aesthetics/design of the unit's casings (and buttons) still needs a bit of work. Come on MGL, design us a unit that would fit in nicely with my Garmin 696 ;).
(Have 2x Voyagers in my plane - works like a dream)
 
The buttons are one of the things I find most interesting/appealing about the MGL stuff------I like the idea of direct input/control they offer.

I also like the control they offer. I have flown with them and they work great ,I would just have preffered rubberised buttons like most avionics have. This is just personal choice. Actually what do others think?
Also a nice anodized black CNC'd aluminium bezel would look real good. Once again we are talking astetics here not functionality.
 
You will change your mind 100 times before you decide on something different then what we are talking about. When one is ready to purchase there is always something new that will sway you in a different direction. I did a lot of looking before I purchased. They all basically do the same thing so whats next..? How much do you really need..? I had an issue with the membrain keypads, yellow, size, and other then positive connector locking when I was ready to purchase. Need I say more.......
 
Going for MGL Odyssey

Initially I thought I would get a GRT solution, but then was sold on the size and value of the MGL Odyssey. I can get a full EFIS and EIS with AHRS, magnetometer, all engine probes and bus, plus autopilot control for the gold Trio servo (sold separately) for around $6000.

Doug.
 
I also like the control they offer. I have flown with them and they work great ,I would just have preffered rubberised buttons like most avionics have. This is just personal choice. Actually what do others think?
Also a nice anodized black CNC'd aluminium bezel would look real good. Once again we are talking astetics here not functionality.

I'm all for stuff looking good...but you have to admit that what you're saying is very subjective. I like all the buttons, and never even thought about an anodized aluminum bezel (the bezel they have is fine). The buttons are extremely useful because you can push one button to get to the screen you want. Once their EFIS is configured, it works great and is easy to use.
 
Buttons and things...

Nice thread.
OK, I was going to stay out of it but there are some things that need answers from the "horses" mouth.
First, I'm not commenting on GRT in this post, except: I for one like GRT and I will tell this to anybody that bothers listening. If you buy a GRT system you will not have made a bad decision. GRT is a good company with good people.

"Bank machine buttons". Well, this is actually a good thing. Those buttons have to be tough. Our keypads are specialy made by a company that specializes in this technology for military applications and our keypads are made to the same high standards. They have proven themselves to be extremely reliable. But that is not the real reason. Have you ever tried to use a "rubber" keypad in turbulence ? - if yes then you know what I am talking about. Our keypads are different. You can firmly rest your finger on them and press when you are ready - try that with a rubber button. Then there are other advantages - water and dust proof, easy to clean, durable etc.

Plastic casing. This is quite expensive - the tooling for a piece of plastic this size is not cheap. It offers many advantages - the best one is low weight. These housings are coated with a tough epoxy paint that is put on using a vaccum deposition method.
However, for those willing to spend a bit more, I have good news - we are indeed thinking about a "luxury" range of instruments with machined aluminium bezels. These are the same as the current range (but with the new CPU board as standard) - we may also group all of the connectors on the back into one or two big ones (not decided yet - panel installers prefer few connectors with big harnesses, most home builders prefer the flexibility of many connectors grouped by function. It's a difficult decision).

Enigine monitors:
You will be pleased to learn that we have a real humdinger of a new RDAC standing on the bench. All fancy and resplendent in black aluminium with everything that opens and shuts. Should be out later this year.

Do we listen ?
You bet we do. Out instruments are living proof of that. They have not been designed by us. We just put the ideas togther. These instruments have been created by our users and this will continue in this way until I snuff it.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
Last edited:
Screen resolution

I have posted something to this effect before but I will repeat it here.
There have been some comment about our systems having less resolution compared to others. This is not really the case (Like us, most use VGA 640x480 or the equivalent depending on screen format, read below and you know why).

Resolution for an EFIS is not that important. Pixel SIZE is !!!
Consider the typical environment an EFIS is used in. Wide range of ambient light, viewing distance typically about an arms length, sometimes need for very wide viewing angle (Pilot wants to look at the EFIS on the pax side), good to excellent performance of the display in sunlight conditions (consider bubble canopies with midday dessert sun right on the panel). Extreme temperature range...
Now, with contempory LCD panels there is a little issue - higher resolution means smaller pixels - and here is the clincher - pixels get smaller faster than the resolution goes up - this is due to the driver electronics on the glass which can't shrink much. The net effect is less light transmission plus a few other effects. The opposite of this is a large LCD TV - BIG pixels and beautiful performance even with modest backlight intensity (when compared with smaller panels)!

Right now, a pixel size of around 0.25-0.3mm square gives about the best possible compromise for our EFIS application with 0.18 just around the corner (that results in about an 800x600 ideal resolution, our next level).

As EFIS maker, we need to look at everything a panel does before deciding. Our panels are certainly not cheap (they cost a good 70-80% of the total cost of the unit) and guess what - higher resolution panels in the current range are cheaper. Yes, you read right. They are considerably cheaper as they get made in higher numbers for indoor applications (or shaded outdoors).

So, in a nutshell, things are never that simple. Don't take higher resolution to mean automatically a better picture - it does not allways work like that. For an EFIS you need to select what works best considering a challenging environment. Do you have a nice laptop with a high res display (XGA or more) ? - Take it out into sun and see what happens - would you want to fly behind that ?

Our Enigma uses a QVA display. That is 320x240. But - keeping the much smaller screen size in mind - the pixel size is not much different than what you would have on an Odyssey. That is not just a coincidence...

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
Rainier ,
It is very nice to see a company stand by its product and explain in detail the systems and functionality.
Top marks in my book.
 
Screen Resolution

Very interesting Rainier.
I was at Arlington and met one of the Dynon Programmers and he really talked bad about the MGL Screen Resolution. He didn't have details, just talked trash. I tried to search the net to get more information about this but didn't find much. I hope the Dynon programmer sees this thread.

Ranier, thanks for giving us this information. Very interesting.
 
Ed,

As the old saying goes, trust what you are told, but verify it's correct. While some will argue pixel size, others claim pixel density, but what really matters is what your eyes perceive.

The best test you can perform is to go to Stein's booth at Airventure. Last year he had units from all the leading EFIS vendors (AFS, GRT, MGL, DYNON, Trutrack, and Garmin. The one that looks the best wins (at least from the resolution perspective). You can also see how intuituve the menus are without the vendor looking over your shoulder. Also you'll see how responsive each vendor's units may be compared each other. It's next to impossible to compare them walking from one vendor's booth to another. The value that Stein provides is that he sells them all. His only bias is that whatever your decision may be, that you'll buy from him. Hopefully he will have them all again this year too.

bob
 
GRT

I believe in

GRT
Lycoming
Van's Aircraft
wooden baseball bats
college overtime vs NFL sudden death
college football playoff system vs bowls/BCS malarky
AirVenture vacation vs. hanging out at a beach for a week doing nothing
 
How does the GRT EFIS compare with the other EFIS's?

MGL seems like a great company, those radios are very appealing to me, and their EFIS seems like a tremendous value. My only concern is: Do they have a large enough installed base of users to really know how good they really are yet? I was thinking Blue Mountain for my project but got steered away by someone who had problems that should not have been present in a $20,000 box. (glad I dodged that bullet)

I have GRT EFIS's because they have a stellar reputation of just working right; period-the-end. I like the fact that they maintain stability if you loose your pitot, gps, etc.

There are EFIS's out there that go blank for a few minutes with a little as three rolls in a row! (Not MGL that I know of) I don't think this is appropriate for anything but day VFR, what about recovery from unusual attitudes?

I urge you to actually fly behind what you want to buy before you buy... I find the GRT to be very ergonomic, the soft key pop up which just what you need when you need it. I would characterize it as about a hundred times easier to use than the Garmin 430W... The GRT does a lot more, has fewer button and is much easier to use.

I offer the following which is overly-buried on the GRT website:


How does the GRT EFIS compare with the other EFIS?


There are 3 “levels” of differences.

The First Level

The obvious differences are the size and functionality.

This size of the display unit is large enough to allow the artificial horizon to look "natural", that is, like a synthetic view of the outside world (complete with airports and obstructions), and still have room for both tapes and large digital displays of airspeed and altitude.

At the same time, the size is small enough to allow multiple displays on small instrument panels. Since each Horizon display unit can display any data (primary flight data, moving map, graphical engine data, or a split screen of any 2), the use of 2 display units provide twice as much viewable data, while at the same time, adding redundancy. This also allows for a simple means to expand your system to meet future avionics needs.

Our EFIS has an extensive set of features, including integrated navigation/attitude displays on the wide-format primary flight display, graphical engine monitoring, moving map, and also include interfaces to the autopilot, localizer and glideslope inputs, weather and traffic.

The difference in architecture, that is, the ability to use multiple display units independently, vastly distinguishes us from single screen EFIS concepts. Those familiar with commercial jets will notice similarities in architecture (and functionality) with our equipment, and this is no accident.

This first level; the built-in functionality that makes the automated cockpit a safe, effective, and efficient environment.

The Second Level

These differences are more subtle. Our specification includes a wide operational temperature range, direct sunlight readability, and hardware designed specifically for aircraft use. The hardware design is based on the design principles and lessons learned developing our industry's premier Engine Information System (EIS), and more than 20 years of aerospace experience. Our design is robust, tolerant, and ready for real-world exposure to wiring errors, radio and electromagnetic fields, etc.

This second level; quality is designed in.

The Third Level

These details are usually unseen, but are what distinguishes aviation equipment from non-aviation equipment. It includes the selection of components suitable for use in an aircraft environment, and also relies on a failure modes and effects analysis. This analysis results in features and functionality (built-in diagnostics and self interrogation) that add integrity. High integrity means a low probability of an undetected failure of any of the flight critical data provided to the pilot.

This third level; safety is designed in.
 
Compare EFIS's at Stainair Booth

I agree with Bob Leffler (post below). If you really want to compare what one EFIS vs. Another looks like visit Steinair at his shop or his booth. Then ask Stein or his guys (they are all great) all your questions. They Buy from Stein, not only will you get great service but he will also treat you right in the pocket book.

I still remember back in the day when the Chelton distributor went belly up and Stein made good with all his customers when everybody else that bought Chelton's direct got shafted. I wasn't one of them because I had already bought a three screen EFIS, and all the rest of the panel instruments from Stein (who made me a deal that blew me away). I have only been to Airventure twice but both times I have spent many hours at the SteinAir booth promoting their service and prices because those guys are as good as they come.
 
MGL seems like a great company, those radios are very appealing to me, and their EFIS seems like a tremendous value. My only concern is: Do they have a large enough installed base of users to really know how good they really are yet?

Well, you seem to think we are an outfit that kind of popped up yesterday.
Not so at all.
We have been building aircraft instruments longer than Dynon has, we have the World's largest range of instruments on sale and we have the largest amount of instruments in current development (which bodes well for the future).
How many are installed - I can't tell but I can tell you how many have been sold: somewhere between 20 and 30 thousand at current counts. This figure includes our singles range. Looking at pure EFIS units (all of them - there are more models than just Enigma, Voyager and Odyssey that are not currently sold in the U.S.) - the total would be around 4-5 thousand, perhaps a little more depending what you consider to be an EFIS.

We started long ago (in about 1998 to be exact) - but not as official company that makes electronic flight systems, that happened early in 2001 when my Wife and I both quit our jobs (she was financial manager at a company that makes aluminium cans for cool drinks and I was a somewhat bored designer at a company that did all sorts of boring things you don't want to know about).

We have tried our level best to keep the lid on our company, supplying mainly to microlight and ultralights where effectively you can say we own at least 80% of the instrument market now. Looking at "bigger" aircraft started perhaps some three years ago and this blew the lid off our company. We have increased our staff complement by 50% in the last three months alone and are desperately looking to move into larger premisses (we are currently working from two sites about 2 miles apart with a whole bunch of sub-contractors in other facilities) - we need to combine everything under one roof to ease logistics and increase our production. Currently most of our products are on lead limes of around 3 months as demand far outstrips our production capability (some of our distributors reduce this by significant local stock keeping). We have not allowed any new distributors for at least four years now despite many, regular applications in order to reduce demand.
Yes, we even recommend competitors products for those that can't wait.
As you may have noticed, we recommend GRT.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
Last edited:
Very interesting Rainier.
I was at Arlington and met one of the Dynon Programmers and he really talked bad about the MGL Screen Resolution. He didn't have details, just talked trash. I tried to search the net to get more information about this but didn't find much. I hope the Dynon programmer sees this thread.

Ranier, thanks for giving us this information. Very interesting.

Well, unfortunately it seems some Employees of Dynon have a long history of not liking us very much. I wonder why ? I think we have been nothing but courteous and even complimentary to them in the past. I suppose this is something I can't do anything about...
I can state that the owner of Dynon is not in that league and we sometimes exchange friendly e-mails so the above is likely not true for all of Dynon.

Anyway, I suppose it's not that bad - can't really shoot a guy down for enthusiastically supporting his companies products. Just would be nice to do that on merit rather than trashing the competitors.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
Just thinking out loud...

MGL seems like a great company, those radios are very appealing to me, and their EFIS seems like a tremendous value. My only concern is: Do they have a large enough installed base of users to really know how good they really are yet?

Guess one could solve that problem by talking to some of the 778 members on the Yahoo Group?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stratomaster_users_group/

Just a thought.
 
The best test you can perform is to go to Stein's booth at Airventure.
bob

This allows you to view the instruments and press the buttons but it does not show the display where you need to see it - in the cockpit of an aircraft with a bubble canopy while bright sunlight is shining right on the panel.
Indoors (nearly) all displays look good.
Don't underestimate the brightness of sunlight when compared to the inside of an exibition hall.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
... it does not show the display where you need to see it - in the cockpit of an aircraft with a bubble canopy while bright sunlight is shining right on the panel.

This is extremely important. Try to take your laptop outside and see the screen under bright sunshine! With most laptops you won't be ale to read anything. Readability under bright sunshine would be more important to me than screen resolution (within limits, of course - I'm not talking of using 320x240 resolution either).
 
This allows you to view the instruments and press the buttons but it does not show the display where you need to see it - in the cockpit of an aircraft with a bubble canopy while bright sunlight is shining right on the panel.
Indoors (nearly) all displays look good.
Don't underestimate the brightness of sunlight when compared to the inside of an exibition hall.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics


So does that mean we can expect to see MGL's booth at OSH outside this year? :D

The issue with purchasing an EFIS, is that it's a rather complex process. Usability (as in process, intuitiveness, user interface) is equally important as visibility, support, and vendor [FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']stability[/FONT]. Having one without the others and you'll most likely regret your decision.

Fortunately, one size doesn't fit all and there are plenty of good vendors to choose from. I know in my case, I'll make sure that all the features/functions meet my requirements and I'll search out an installation in a flying aircraft to test fly.
 
So does that mean we can expect to see MGL's booth at OSH outside this year? :D

The issue with purchasing an EFIS, is that it's a rather complex process. Usability (as in process, intuitiveness, user interface) is equally important as visibility, support, and vendor [FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']stability[/FONT]. Having one without the others and you'll most likely regret your decision.

Fortunately, one size doesn't fit all and there are plenty of good vendors to choose from. I know in my case, I'll make sure that all the features/functions meet my requirements and I'll search out an installation in a flying aircraft to test fly.

Yes you are quite right (again).
The decision would be easy if all EFIS's would be quite similar - but they are not yet - in future they will get closer but right now there are still considerable differences.
So, the conclusion is that the decision is quite easy right now.
The way to select your EFIS is quite simple (I'm leaving out nuances here to keep things sane):

a) Step 1
What class of flying do you need - IFR or VFR (there is no such thing as occasional IFR in my opinion). Are you a builder-flyer or a flyer-builder ? Occasional private use ? Professional/commercial use ?
b) Step 2
How much panel space would you want to dedicate to the EFIS(s) - how much space do you have behind the panel ? Is there a weight/power limitation ?
c) Step 3
Are you looking for a fixed panel or a flexible panel - i.e. do you want to be able to customise the panel to you exact needs (effectively taking the building inside the panel) or do you prefer a "switch on and go" solution and will be happy with a fixed function system.
d) Step 4
Do you want something with integrated navigation system or are you looking for a primary flight panel only ?
e) Step 5
Are you looking for something that can do engine monitoring as well ?
f) Step 6
Are you looking for any special functionality (HITS, Synthetic vision, TAWS, traffic, weather, video, autopilot, special monitoring like door latches, gear positions etc) ?
g) Step 7
Single, dual, triple panels ? How would you like to partition them ? What should happen when a panel goes down ?.
h) Step 8
How much money do you want to spend ?
i) Step 9
What do others say about your chosen panel ? What kind of returns do you get when you type the panel name or company name into Google ?

The above sums it up quite well (yes, I am sure you can add to that list). The good thing is that right now, no matter what you are after - you will be able to find a solution that closely matches your needs.

Between a D10 and a G1000 you have a wealth of choices, each as unique as the guys that design these things, each with strong and weak points. As a panel buyer - you never had it better...

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
Sometime after OSH I plan on redoing the panel in the T 28. I have been struggling with the decision of either replacing the inop steam guages to keep the classic military look for resale value or upgrading to more of a Star Trek look with an EFIS. While I really like Blue Mountain there current status is too unstable even for me.

As such I have been looking at Tru Trak, Grand Rapids and Dynon. Like someone earlier mentioned MGL form my experience was an ultralight oriented company but this thread has given me pause to look a little deeper.

MGL has truly come a long way since the first monochrome unit. Their website has answered most of the questions I had about the unit (Odyssey) I am looking at,. The video of the unit was invaluable.

Dynon's, GR's and Tru Trak's websites left me with lots of unanswered questions.

I have also recently had opportunity to talk to MGL owners and lay hands on a color unit and am impressed.

One of the real attractions of the MGL unit to me is the ability to customize the unit for personal preferences which is a feature I really enjoyed with the early Blue Mountains.

I am still waiting for more info on Garmins 3x but at Osh this year I plan on spending a lot of time at MGLs booth. It appears to me that they have really done their homework.
 
Seeing the MGL units in person last year was very important for me. I really like their simulator, but it doesn't seem to update as fast as the real thing. It could just be my computer.... If anyone has nixed the MGL stuff based on the simulator refresh you might want to take a look at the real thing.

I plan to make my final decision and place my orders at Osh this year. I'll be looking for the GDU 3XX and the Odyssey. If the new MGL computer board is ready to go then that will probably cinch the deal for me.
 
I went with MGL, very happy.

Way back when in 2001, when I was planning my panel for the very first time, I saw the BM advertisements and thought "WOW, that is what I want".

Fast forward 6 years to finishing the plane. By that time I was "ready to fly" and BM prices had gone very high. There were other vendors, I especially liked the Dynon and GRT units. AFS also looked nice. But, Dynon was pretty limited, GRT was still a good chunk of change and AFS about the same. Very fine products, mind you.

So I finished my panel with a traditional six-pack (minus the vacuum stuff) and simply got flying.

The bird got hurt a while back and I began thinking about the upgrade again. By this time, the Enigma had made the scene and I considered it, but it was a bit small for my taste. However I liked the architecture, flexibility and price. Then MGL announced the big brother. I got a look at one and I knew that it would fill the bill nicely.

I have not been disappointed. While there have been challenges getting everything hooked up, the actual unit(s) have performed flawlessly. I have about 70 hours of flight time using the Odyssey and it is very easy to read in bright sunlight, boots in only a few seconds does all that has been said about it.

My greatest frustration was cabling and mostly that was my fault. I had to remake the transponder cable about 5 times, because apparently I cannot read. :(

I have custom configured my screens exactly as I want them, my eyes do not have to move to do a complete engine scan. I have added fields to the moving map and other displays to show some information I find useful, including next waypoint and distance.

I even created an "old guy" screen with large analog flight instruments and HSI.

I have the autopilot servos and will be installing them shortly. I'll report back when it's done.

My panel
  • Odyssey,
  • Enigma
  • SL30
  • King Digital Transponder
  • SL15 audio panel.
  • Garmin 196 (interfaced to autopilot)
  • Controlvision EXP BUS with indicator panel
  • Affordable panels modular panel.
  • Navaid autopilot (soon to be replaced).
  • ACK ELT with remote

The entire thing, with all probes, SP2 (magnetometer), SP4 (gyro unit), RDAC (engine pod) set me back under $12K (that is for everything pictured). Prices have risen a bit since I made my purchases, but it's still very reasonable for all the functionality you get.

Check it out at http://new.baron.com/rvpics/DSC00363.JPG

Hats off to MGL.

Just MHO
 
The entire thing, with all probes, SP2 (magnetometer), SP4 (gyro unit), RDAC (engine pod) set me back under $12K (that is for everything pictured). Prices have risen a bit since I made my purchases, but it's still very reasonable for all the functionality you get.

Check it out at http://new.baron.com/rvpics/DSC00363.JPG

Hats off to MGL.

Just MHO

Hey Joe, it's amazing what you get for such a small amount of money, isn't it? I just ordered the Comm Extender so I can get my autopilot working...I can't wait to try it since I've never used one!

One thing I really want to follow your lead on is making my own screens. I'm very happy with the default screens, but I would like to change a couple things. For example, I don't have a fuel flow meter, so I want to remove that gauge from the Engine Monitoring section. I think it would be great if someone, someday compiled a bunch of configuration screens for others to download. The setup is the hardest part of the MGL system (and it's not really that hard...just takes a little time).
 
Seeing the MGL units in person last year was very important for me. I really like their simulator, but it doesn't seem to update as fast as the real thing. It could just be my computer.... If anyone has nixed the MGL stuff based on the simulator refresh you might want to take a look at the real thing.

Yes this is quite correct - the simulator has a much slower screen refresh rate - in part this has to do with the fact that it is using actual firmware that is also running in the EFIS - but of course the PC's way of doing stuff on the screen is just different to the real hardware so a lot of translation has to take place. This takes a bit of processing time.

I plan to make my final decision and place my orders at Osh this year. I'll be looking for the GDU 3XX and the Odyssey. If the new MGL computer board is ready to go then that will probably cinch the deal for me.

Trust me (no I'm not a care sales man), I'm working hard on this board right now. Making some great progress and it's very exciting for me to get this thing going (as right now I'm busy with the exciting bits). The board hardware is fine and operating as it should and we will have a few at Osh so we can show off the new graphics and features. The FlightOps operating system has been ported to the new board and is working fine, the EFIS application which has been partially developed using a new Odyssey simulator is now being ported to the board. It is mostly running at this stage but there are still a few challenging graphics ports to do which I will likely start on tomorrow (Today is reserved to get the new 8 GIG solid state disk which forms part of this system to run under the application (it is allready running in FlightOps).
This version of FlightOps includes a new file system for the internal disk which we desiged to be able to handle large disks (up to one Terra-byte) with the same bullet proof robustness as is used in our other systems (which are limited to 2 GIG maximum).

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
Back
Top