All in one EFIS

I know we have talked about the Enigma by MGLAvioincs on threads before. It has a GPS/EMS/EFIS/Moving Map/Terrain all built in to one system. I was curious with all this XM weather talk if they were planning on getting into the mix. It turns out they are. Also, they plan to include a NAV/COM and possible plans for a built in transponder.

Here are the links if you have not seen it:
http://www.sportflyingshop.com/Instr/Stratomaster/Enigma/enigma.html
http://mglavionics.co.za/Enigmapage.html

Obviously with newly developed all in one instruments such as these we can go on for days talking about redunancy and reliability. Only time and real world results will tell. However, I think this is a great step towards making avionics even more affordable and adaptable. Not to mention fewer holes in the panel.

Below is an email with response that I sent the company today:

>Do you plan to offer XM Weather and Radio on the moving map
>display?

Yes, we have signed the various agreements required. It is a little
on the backburner for now as we need to get a few other things
finished first but it is just a matter of time. You will need to buy
the WX receiver (we use the WxWorks one) and you will need to buy the
data subscription from them.


>Also will the ILS/NAV feature support NAV/COMs other that the Garmin SL30?

Here is a big secret: We have our VHF radio nearly done and the
NAV/COM will follow shortly thereafter. They are so cheap, you will
not even want to look at anything else.
Other than that, no radios are currently supported as the SL30 is the
only one that has a serial interface. Other radios have an ARINC
interface that could be supported by Enigma if demand warrants it but
the interface is relatively costly.

>Do you plan to have an "all in one" system eventually to include
>remote mounted (or maybe built in) COMM, Transponder, VOR/ILS
>receivers?

Yes. This goes hand in hand with our RF developments and also a
larger panel called the Odyssey (a 10.4" screen size Enigma if you
will). Transponder is currently a paper project - not sure if we will
attempt it.

Cheers

Rainier


---------------------------------------------------------------
MGL Avionics, MGL Software
Advanced digital flight instrumentation systems
http://www.mglavionics.co.za
The home of the Embedded Pascal development system
http://users.iafrica.com/r/ra/rainier

Physical: 5 Fuchsia Street, Heldervue, Somerset West
Postal: Postnet Suite 325, Private Bag X15, Somerset West 7129
Tel: ++2721-855-1383
Fax: ++2721-855-0528
E-mail: [email protected]


-Mark

Mark:

I have no doubt that your product is a fine example of embedded engineering and I'm always glad to see another player in the EFIS market. I'm downright excited to see someone else offering NAV/COM options.

Just a review here from a random member of the general public -- I think the biggest problem you're going to have with that product out of the gate is with aesthetics -- particularly the industrial-style keypad in bright yellow. Simply making the keys dark gray or just black outlined in white would be a great change. I have no doubt that the hardware is up to snuff and it looks weather resistant which is of course a good thing. But in the end, often times it's looks that drive the decision making process. Just look how many (not all) people here in RV land build a taildragger because they think they look cool or shell out a grand more for an engine w/ horizontal induction just to not have the scoop on the cowl.

Of course, all of this aesthetics stuff is completely subjective so maybe others will have a different perception.

Sorry to sound so blunt (it's really not intentional), just trying to be honest and provide some public feedback.

Have you considered allowing the keypad to be remotely mounted? I think you would really be on to something then -- I would love to have something like that mounted on a center console a la my friend's Beechjet.

Best of luck with your endeavor...

PS: Embedded Pascal? I'm an embedded software engineer and that's a first for me! I guess I learned something new today.

Time will tell

Jamie - I don't think it's Mark's product - he's building an -8 here in Texas, and I believe this product is from a South African company....

To me, the first thing I look at in an EFIS (A true EFIS - one that is designed to integrated almost everything in the cockpit) is reliability behind the scenes - and that means the AHRS design. If that isn't robust and demonstrated - and I want to know the background of the developers as well - then all the aesthetics of the panel, graphics and displays never even come in to play. (By the way, I agree on your comments on this one Jamie!). My bottom line is that I want to know that the design of the AHRS isn't going to leave me stranded in the clouds with only a backup system.

The advancements in EFIS and other glass cockpit hardware and software are coming so fast that when I was building, my primary goal was to be flying before my system was obsolete. For someone like Mark who is working on the Empennnage (and has time to watch the market for the next year or more), I expect that there will be more new developments and time for these and other systems to give us more confidence in their reliability.

As always, just my thoughts...my advice is to watch all the systems as they develop, and look at their track record for reliability as people start putting hours on them.

Paul

Yellow keypad...

I agree with ditching the yellow keypad. Hopefully they will change the color in the newer versions (Odyssey). I am partial to the keypad idea since I use it in the F-16. It makes for an efficient interface.



The company is very open to suggestions. The person I emailed only took about 10 minutes to respond.

Paul is correct regarding my situation. It will probably be at least 3-4 years until I finish my kit. By then, hopefully more all in one packages will be available to choose from.

Mark
RV-8 Emp

I get to watch for several years, too. Since I really don't have the time or interest to learn the constantly changing field of PFM (pure friggen magic!), I put in my request for Plug n Play. One box, connect the inputs, turn it on and get good, reliable output, and I'll be happy.
Building is one thing - I can touch and see what's going on and enjoy it. Electrons just don't give me the same warm, fuzzy feeling...

N674P said:

I get to watch for several years, too. Since I really don't have the time or interest to learn the constantly changing field of PFM (pure friggen magic!), I put in my request for Plug n Play. One box, connect the inputs, turn it on and get good, reliable output, and I'll be happy.
Building is one thing - I can touch and see what's going on and enjoy it. Electrons just don't give me the same warm, fuzzy feeling...

Click to expand...

AMEN

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Just make it big enough to see---------or better yet, one "brain", and various sized screens to fit users needs.

Mike

Ironflight said:

Jamie - I don't think it's Mark's product - he's building an -8 here in Texas, and I believe this product is from a South African company....

Click to expand...

Oops...sorry Mark. I would rather be an RV-16 driver than a pixel pusher any day.

Ironflight said:

To me, the first thing I look at in an EFIS (A true EFIS - one that is designed to integrated almost everything in the cockpit) is reliability behind the scenes - and that means the AHRS design. If that isn't robust and demonstrated - and I want to know the background of the developers as well - then all the aesthetics of the panel, graphics and displays never even come in to play. (By the way, I agree on your comments on this one Jamie!). My bottom line is that I want to know that the design of the AHRS isn't going to leave me stranded in the clouds with only a backup system.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I like to tell people I don't know much of anything, but I feel like I know a little about aviation and a good bit about gizmos and software. I've seen all sorts of stuff in my 10 years in embedded software (I know, not a lot of time but I'm only 30). This is why I like the Dynon guys so much. They're straight-forward and when I talk to them at airshows they're always very open about what their hardware actually is and what it isn't. They're also very open to suggestions. I just wish they were based here in Atlanta.

Ironflight said:

The advancements in EFIS and other glass cockpit hardware and software are coming so fast that when I was building, my primary goal was to be flying before my system was obsolete. For someone like Mark who is working on the Empennnage (and has time to watch the market for the next year or more), I expect that there will be more new developments and time for these and other systems to give us more confidence in their reliability.

Click to expand...

As painful as the decision-making process is, it is indeed one of the more enjoyable parts of building one of these airplanes.

Wouldnt it be nice if--------

After mulling this over for a while, I think I have found the answer to all of this.

All that needs to happen is for ALL of the folks making electronic gizmos to make them all talk to each other, one common style of plug, one common data "language".

Just like your home stereo system for instance. Or the magic box that I am using to send this message----------O.K., so the computer uses different plugs for different devices, but I can plug in a brand X screen into a brand Y, or Z comp and it will work. You know what I am getting at.

Now that I have solved this aviation dilemma, all of the various manufactures should be able to implement it in the next month or so.

Waiting patiently,
Mike

REDUNDANCY

markpsmith said:

Obviously with newly developed all in one instruments such as these we can go on for days talking about redunancy and reliability. -Mark

Click to expand...

Redundancy is available for some of these EFIS systems.
GRT offer a Dual AHRS package and multiple screens which are actually MFDs (Multi Function Displays.)

An All in One display, however, looses the advantage of MFDs.

If the weak link in the system is the display, then a system with MFDs is at an advantage of All in One displays.

Pete.

fodrv7 said:

An All in One display, however, looses the advantage of MFDs.

If the weak link in the system is the display, then a system with MFDs is at an advantage of All in One displays.

Pete.

Click to expand...

Which, in a nutshell, is why I went with a multi-display system Pete - you said it much more succinctly than I ever could!


When we converted the Space Shuttle fleet to glass, we incorporated 7 screens in the front cockpit. Each of those were fed by redundant power busses, and connected in a complex way with our five general purpose computers. At first, I despaired of ever figuring out the redundancy scheme (old brains being less flexible), until I had a sudden realization - the system was so redundant, and essentially so automatic, that I didn't have to figure it out at all! It could take care of itself through about three failures, and if I had more than that, we were exceedingly unlucky (seeing as how it was highly reliable as well....)

Paul

And Or

I imagine some sharp Software guru developed it with a complex and/or program.

Seven screens is cetainly beyond manual selection. For me anyway.
Pete.

I like how this product is coming together...

Mark,

I have been following the development of this product with some interest, myself. There are 2 yahoo groups (Users Group ) and (Developers Group ) with additonal information about the enigma. One is for users, one is for developers. Rainier Lamers (the founder/inventor) regularly posts to the groups.

What I like about his system, is it appears to be very roubust and does a good job of future proofing the product. I've been reading all that is available on the enigma and like what i see, so far. For instance:

1) You can connect up 9 enigmas together, each being a fully self contained AHRS-EFIS/EMS/MFD. They will all get their baro and other info from the primary, but if it goes TU, they each operate independently. I like this as I am planning (wishing) for 2 enigmas in my plane. Having your backup look just like your primary makes contingency flying as simple as normal flying. No complicated switch overs, crossfeeds or partial panels (although I am considering keeping a 2.25 pictorial t&b around as a tie-breaker).

2) I was concerned about the AHRS itself, as he (Rainer) designed and built it himself. But after researching this more, I'm feeling more comfortable with it. As he has stated himself, most of the lower end MEMS and associated parts of the AHRS usually come from the same few suppliers that most other EFIS manufacturers use. This guy has built different AHRS and heading systems (SP1, SP2c,SP3hc,and SP4), and they are being employed in aircraft all around the world. Even though they are rock solid, he readily recommends you dont use them for IFR without backup (the same thing that Dynon says). He is introducing the SP5, which is an AHRS with components made by British Aerospace (the same ones they use in their airliners). You can hook up any one of the AHRS to the Enigma at any time (you can start with a SP3hc and work your way up).

3) You have the ability to layout the screen any way you choose. Your are not limited to preset screen layouts (this can be a good thing, or a bad thing). You can tailor your screens (up to 9) for different phases of flight.

4) You can build maps and charts to meet your mission profile. All the information it uses for building maps, charts and NAV info come from open sources. NO MORE $$$ UPDATES!

5) The processor and memory are on removable, upgradeable circuit boards. What this means is, if in the future, the company uses a newer, faster processor or more memory, you dont have to buy a whole new box. You merely take out the old processor board and replace it with the new one.

Okay, I will quit there. This is getting long and I'm starting to sound like a commerical. I don't know Rainier and I'm not affiliated with MGL in any way shape or form. I just prefer to post from a position of research, facts and value-added contiributions. I thought I would give some information that I have found on the subject (and can provide more links if so desired) so others can make informed decisions and opinions.

I've been following the Enigma pretty closely, and it looks like it has some amazing support from the devloper (Rainier)...

The email from him stating they are developing a COM and a NAV/COM is exciting - based on the rest of the product line they should be great performers for an awesome price...

I'd love to see them come out with a transponder - I don't want 30 year old used gear, but I've got issues shelling out 1400 for a new one... In todays world with software defined radios and DSP there is no reason (other than limited demand for new) that transponders cost what they do... If I wasn't so lazy I'd just design one myself

Updated buttons and remote I/O

Here is a response from Rainier regarding questions asked earlier in this thread...

>Are you planning on changing the color scheme from yellow to a
>different color?

We already have. All currently built Enigmas have silver metallic
buttons (and two blue ones at the bottom). Looks very nice.

>Also, will there be an option to remotely mount the key pad?

Enigma will soon feature an optional I/O extender which can be used
for all sorts of things. One of them are remote, assignable buttons
on a joystick for example.

Mark
RV-8 Emp

Dreaming...

Mike S said:

After mulling this over for a while, I think I have found the answer to all of this.

All that needs to happen is for ALL of the folks making electronic gizmos to make them all talk to each other, one common style of plug, one common data "language".

Mike

Click to expand...

I don't understand why all of the instruments can't be made to talk to one another via an Ethernet interface. Better yet, go wireless. The ideal instruments would only need power and ground for sure. Depending on the instrument, sensors and antennas may also need to be connected.

apatti said:

I don't understand why all of the instruments can't be made to talk to one another via an Ethernet interface. Better yet, go wireless. The ideal instruments would only need power and ground for sure. Depending on the instrument, sensors and antennas may also need to be connected.

Click to expand...

I think the basic answer would be simplicity - ethernet would add additional overhead to the simple processors being used in EFIS systems.

Serial is cheap and easy to implement, and very easy to design a data structure for.

Ethernet would be much faster, but the devices would then have to manage the overhead associated with TCP/IP in a client/server fashion - this involves connections, stacks, and other fun complexities... When you have unlimited processing power (in a PC) its no big deal... It would require the addition of another processor and all its associated bits & pieces to implement.

Here comes a statement that may stir up the pot, but I'm saying it anyway as a generality (not FACT):

All microprocessors have an integrated serial interface - it takes about 4~6 lines of code to implement a FIFO buffer and it can be run via an interrupt on the processor in the background...

I think wireless+aircraft instruments = BAD... there are enough issues with RFI already - forget to turn off your cellphone in your flight bag and the EFIS "loses" its connection to the attitude box when the phone tries to find a tower... That could get interesting (And don't forget the 400w pulse at 1.2Ghz from the transponder)

Feeling electron deprived...

Wow, when this thread first started, I was gonna say something like, "It would be nice to have gph instead of Lph." Now, I think I'll just shrink back under my shell and keep reading...

Ethernet is not a good idea for this sort of thing. There's really no way to insure the timeliness of the communications other than to say "it's really fast so it doesn't matter". That doesn't cut it in the realtime world. Things need to show up reliably at the right time, the same time, everytime. That allows you to create a very tight system, especially when it's safety critical.

Fiber is out just because it's so expensive, and frankly my experience is it's quite flaky until it's up and running (fiber card manufactures can't seem to follow a simple standard for FPDP protocols....no one gets it right. Oddly enough, manufacture's cards are compatible with themselves but can throw fits with other manufacturers products. Hmmmmm.....).

Interesting discussion, though. I'd love to architect an "instrument bus" for general aviation. I think some sort of multi-drop serial bus is the ticket for simplicity, light weight and low cost. Something like RS422 or RS485. Also ease of hookup. Everything could connect via simple RJ25. Or maybe just straight USB (don't know enough about USB to know if it's appropriate).

Hey...neat ideas and possibilities to be realized in the next 10 years

Admittedly, my embedded systems experience is 10-15 years old so what I am about to say may be a bit naive...

The hardware to implement ethernet can't be all that expensive. I just googled "network interface card" and found several for under $10! It is amazing how cheap this stuff is. Economies of scale is a wonderful thing.

As for the CPU overhead... Don't the NIC's do most of the grunt work (i.e. network access layer and internet layer)? Like I said, the systems I worked with didn't involve networking. I just assumed this is the way they worked.

And, there must be overhead associated with serial interfaces as well. ACK'ing, NACK'ing, retries, keeping count of retries before declaring comm errors, etc. So, while in prinicple, it may be only a few lines of code to send and receive something, a fair amount of work is needed for robustness.

If they are currently using serial interfaces, that means that the data rates can't be particularly high. Using ethernet does not mean they have to increase the data rates between devices (thus increasing CPU load). It just means that the data that gets sent will go faster and there will be more dead time on the bus. That lowers the likelihood of data collisions and requires fewer re-transmissions. Of course, once the bus can accommodate faster data rates, sure enough someone will want to watch "Three Stooges" videos on their MFD.

I worry about wireless in the cockpit as well. I just think it would be nice (if they can make it reliable).

I like the idea of ethernet into the cockpit Tony, I like it a lot!

The fact that I work for a company that made its fortune out of the commoditization of ethernet has nothing to do with the thought above...

While on a line of principle the idea would work great, at the higher layers I wonder what kind of mess we would have... taking about TCP/IP and the intricacy of setting things up, for instance, in a small network at home... think DHCP and you've figured out what worries me! Probably some middleware to take care of the basic services would need to be implemented too.

Or maybe we could just run ethernet and send bare frames at layer 2...

Food for networking geeks -er, pilots with networking background- maybe.

Ciao, Luca

jcoloccia said:

Interesting discussion, though. I'd love to architect an "instrument bus" for general aviation. I think some sort of multi-drop serial bus is the ticket for simplicity, light weight and low cost. Something like RS422 or RS485. Also ease of hookup. Everything could connect via simple RJ25. Or maybe just straight USB (don't know enough about USB to know if it's appropriate).

Hey...neat ideas and possibilities to be realized in the next 10 years

Click to expand...

I am not a big fan of proprietary systems. I want everyone to work and play well together. I think it would be easier to get avionics manufacturers to make their systems compatible with an existing standard as opposed to getting them to all agree to a new standard. Plus, the more proprietary the bus design, the lower the economies of scale and the higher the cost to us the consumers.

I like USB idea. Except for the fact that I always try to plug them in upside down, I really like that once they are plugged in, the device is recognized and can be accessed. However, I am not familiar with how USB works either.

I would think that a closed ethernet systems (one that only connects instruments in a single aircraft) would be fast and real time. Certainly, most ethernet implementations in the real world involve many computers all trying to crowd into the limited bandwidth. When this happens collissions go up and retries go up. The extra retries use up even more precious bandwidth. So, communications can be delayed. It seems like ramping up a system that currently uses serial interfaces probably running at less than 19.2K (I don't know what is really used, but with short cable runs you can go faster) to ethernet speeds would allow for real-time communication.

BTW, I don't mean to be pushing ethernet. I am not sure it is the right way to go either. I just want something well-supported and not proprietary. Whether thats ethernet, USB, BlueTooth, ??? doesn't matter to me.

The NICs provide a hardware level interface to the wire - and thats about it... It handles collisions on the local segment and MAC level transport. The ethernet NICs spit out the information they are handed, and everyone listens... Its up to the device with the NIC to interpret the info...

The traffic routing and packet handling are done further up the chain - here's a wiki on the OSI model - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model

The NIC is basically level 1 on the OSI model, and some network devices (switches, bridges, routers) operate on layers 2 and 3 - the rest of the packaging and handling of the data is done on the "networked device" (EFIS, instruments, etc) side.

Please speak English

Or at least American. (As a consolation to the Britts out there)

I know a lot of computer "geeks" (descriptive term here, not an insult) are on this forum, but for the rest of us, mere mortals, please try to speak to us all.

Going back to my original thought on this----------something SIMPLE!!!

Look at the level of technical knowledge it takes to hook up a phone. Then add a fax, caller id, message machine.

Or another example, a stereo. Then add a tape player, CD player, etc.

In both examples, the equipment uses a common interconnect hookup plug, and speaks the same electronic "language".

I think there would be a HUGE market for a system where you could pick the number and size of readout screens, the sensors ---engine stuff, flight stuff, nav stuff, ETC---you want to talk to the screens, and build a system how you want it. You could add to it as needed or desired, upgrade at will, expand to system when you saw something new your buddy has, ETC, ETC.

And best of all, the skill level/knowledge would be same as required to hook up a phone or stereo.

Still waiting.

Mike

apatti said:

I am not a big fan of proprietary systems...

Click to expand...

I 100% agree... Mike S has it right:

Mike S said:

All that needs to happen is for ALL of the folks making electronic gizmos to make them all talk to each other, one common style of plug, one common data "language".

Click to expand...

There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of well documented, open protocols for every medium imagineable (ethernet, RS232, RS485, twinnet, wireless, barb-wire)...

But most manufacturers don't talk to each other, and don't care to... That is where the major hang up is... Rainier (MGL) has (or will) opened airtalk to the world, and is making a great amount of information about his product open and available... free (as in beer)

But the experimental market is small, so everything is basically a one-off... Everyone develops their product on their own, and they don't want to share their work (rightfully so)...

We're at the mercy of the market - when I'm finished with my plane (kit ships jan 17th) I'm likely going with an MGL enigma, but I reserve the right to change my mind as the market changes...

Mike S said:

Or at least American. (As a consolation to the Britts out there)

I know a lot of computer "geeks" (descriptive term here, not an insult) are on this forum, but for the rest of us, mere mortals, please try to speak to us all.

Going back to my original thought on this----------something SIMPLE!!!

Look at the level of technical knowledge it takes to hook up a phone. Then add a fax, caller id, message machine.

Or another example, a stereo. Then add a tape player, CD player, etc.

In both examples, the equipment uses a common interconnect hookup plug, and speaks the same electronic "language".

I think there would be a HUGE market for a system where you could pick the number and size of readout screens, the sensors ---engine stuff, flight stuff, nav stuff, ETC---you want to talk to the screens, and build a system how you want it. You could add to it as needed or desired, upgrade at will, expand to system when you saw something new your buddy has, ETC, ETC.

And best of all, the skill level/knowledge would be same as required to hook up a phone or stereo.

Still waiting.

Mike

Click to expand...

Mike,
I think we agree on what we want. Something simple, scalable (add as little or as much as you want), universal, and easy to use. However, I don't think it can be quite as simple as the examples you cite.

In your phone example, all of the devices attach to a common bus, but they do not work together. The fax machine doesn't transfer data to the phone or vice versa. Same thing with your stereo example. All it does is act as a giant switch. It has several inputs and it routes what you select to its output. There is no "data" being transferred, processed, acted on, and reply data transmitted. In a cockpit avionics systems, these kinds of activities will need to take place and the systems to support them will necessairly be more complex than a telephone or stereo.

Now that does not mean that in the end that complexity has to be passed on to the user. If done properly, the engineering gurus will deal with all the complexities and all we users have to do is plug in our new device to the Avionics Systems Integration Bus (ASIB (tm) (C) ) and off we go.

re: proprietary vs. not. The underlying wires and low level protocol is almost irrelavent. Regardless, though, I agree that using a standard spec (RS422 or 485, as I'd mentioned) is probably the way to go.

That doesn't define the bus, though, anymore than little strips of copper on a board define ISA, PCI etc etc etc. The part that needs designing is the protocol that sits on top of the electrons. How, exactly, do you package up AHRS, VOR, CDI, Radio interface etc etc etc etc. That's what truly defines the architecture.

I don't agree that companies go out of their way to make things like this proprietary. It's counter productive to getting their devices into an aircraft. The market segment is so tiny, though, that it's probably not cost effective to dedicate vast resources to a commitee that's going to design a bus that will force them to then redesign all of their products. What's the end game, here? Will it give them more sales? Probably not. It's a loser.

What COULD happen, though, is for someone (like the EFIS that started this thread) to publish an open "standard' and for others to make their stuff compatible. Things like this tend to grow on their own.

Exciting stuff going on

tysonb said:

I 100% agree... Mike S has it right:

But most manufacturers don't talk to each other, and don't care to... That is where the major hang up is... Rainier (MGL) has (or will) opened airtalk to the world, and is making a great amount of information about his product open and available... free (as in beer)

But the experimental market is small, so everything is basically a one-off... Everyone develops their product on their own, and they don't want to share their work (rightfully so)...

We're at the mercy of the market - when I'm finished with my plane (kit ships jan 17th) I'm likely going with an MGL enigma, but I reserve the right to change my mind as the market changes...

Click to expand...

This is true to some extent. There is no doubt that we as consumers want avionics that more esaily integrate with one another. It will take one or two companies out there to agree some sort of a non-propritary integration scheme that is acceptable to the market and the others will have to follow suit or become dinosaurs. However, MGL making "their" system open will not (in my opinion) be the catalyst. If you are Garmin, why would you adopt the standards of a new entrant. I don't think MGL has the markt power to get any of the other avionics manufacturers to follow them.

Also, I said earlier that I think it will be easier and more likely for the avionics manufacturers to adopt a "neutral" standard like ethernet as opposed to an avionics company driven standard. It is too easy for the "owner" of the standard to make subtle changes with each release that make their competitors' products obsolete and sends them scrambling around trying to release software updates. Adopting a "neutral" standard keeps this from happening.

On buying MGL... I am probably within a year or two of committing to avionics. While functionality, reliability, asthetics, and other dimensions of quality will be an important part of my decision, so will the health and reputation of the company. We are pretty much forced into sole source relationships when it comes to EFIS's. And, it is important to consider whether you will have support for years to come.

I don't know much about MGL (only what I've heard here). It sounds like technically they are very capable. However, it takes more than technical expertise to run a successful business. Remember Stoddard-Hamilton for example. There will be no guarantees with anyone you go with. But, I think it is wise to judge and consider a firm's financial situation and business acumen along with their technical capabilities. Please note!!! I am NOT saying anything negative in this reagard about MGL. I simply don't know at this point. I will be scrutinizing Dynon, GRT, BMA, and others the same way.

I think the standard you guys want is already out there- ARINC 429. It's the exact thing you guys are talking about that the airline companies came up with years ago so they could buy avionics from multiple places and have them play together. Many certified devices have this integrated today. It isn't cheap to implement.

dynonsupport said:

I think the standard you guys want is already out there- ARINC 429. It's the exact thing you guys are talking about that the airline companies came up with years ago so they could buy avionics from multiple places and have them play together. Many certified devices have this integrated today. It isn't cheap to implement.

Click to expand...

Can you briefly explain why it is so expensive? Does everyone have to pay ARINC royalties?

Tony-----

I agree with your statement that the phone only shares a buss------and even though the stereo does actually share info, I was only using these two as examples of how a system could be made for the non geek crowd-----perhaps I should have mentioned MIDI and musical instruments, but I was looking for a really simple, and broad, example.

Bottom line, is that I wanted to start dialog about this, and guess what???

Even Dynon in listening. THANKS.

Hopefully others are as well.

I understand the propriatory issue, if someone develops a program/product it is nice to be able to reap the fruits. And I can see that for some applications it may be simpler to write program/code in "A", when the standard has been agreed to be "B".

As to the issue of market size---------GPS is now swarming the auto market, as well as boating. The technology I am talking about here has applications way beyond just homebuilt A/C.

Still waiting.

Mike

WHY???

dynonsupport said:

I think the standard you guys want is already out there- ARINC 429. It's the exact thing you guys are talking about that the airline companies came up with years ago so they could buy avionics from multiple places and have them play together. Many certified devices have this integrated today. It isn't cheap to implement.

Click to expand...

I wonder how much of the "isn't cheap" is due to Government interference, oops, I meant to say regulation???

Mike

Glass...Vista Nav

Has any one Googled a site, either Mercury systems or Vista Nav?(same company I think)
It looks very good to me, not inexpensive, but not the hi price of a Blue mountain .
Harold, RV9A wishing for all glass, but not there yet, still working on the fuselage

ARINC is royalty free and not required by or regulated by the government.

The expense comes because of the hardware required to run it (+/- 10V differential transmitters and receivers with null detection), and the software, which requires deterministic, real time processing and HUGE interoperability testing.

This isn't anything like a stereo or even MIDI, which deal with simple, known signals that are pretty singular in purpose. You guys are talking about radios, audio, ADAHRS, engine monitors, transponders, intercomms, weather, traffic, GPS, ILS, marker beacons, and who knows what else. Your product gets really, really complex by the time it can deal with all of that, and you have to deal with all of that if you want it to be part of the standard.

Vista Nav is only a mapping / navigation system that runs on windows. They are not an ADAHRS. If you roll upside down the screen still shows you right side up. They can't tell you airspeed. They aren't meant to be installed in a panel. It's a different type of product.

Your product gets really, really complex by the time it can deal with all of that, and you have to deal with all of that if you want it to be part of the standard.

Click to expand...

The wonderful thing about standards is there are so many to choose from.

Thanks

dynonsupport said:

ARINC is royalty free and not required by or regulated by the government.

The expense comes because of the hardware required to run it (+/- 10V differential transmitters and receivers with null detection), and the software, which requires deterministic, real time processing and HUGE interoperability testing.

This isn't anything like a stereo or even MIDI, which deal with simple, known signals that are pretty singular in purpose. You guys are talking about radios, audio, ADAHRS, engine monitors, transponders, intercomms, weather, traffic, GPS, ILS, marker beacons, and who knows what else. Your product gets really, really complex by the time it can deal with all of that, and you have to deal with all of that if you want it to be part of the standard.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info---------I wasnt even considering the radio/audio side of things, just the various instruments and viewing the nav stuff.

Anyway, that is why I keep hitting at everything talking the same "language".

As I see it, pretty much all of the engine sensors are a simple output, based I believe, on variable resistance, which in turn becomes a voltage signal. As to the flight instruments, I have no idea, but sure could imagine that they drive the same way by accelerometers, with a voltage output. Electronic/digital CDI's are common, so no problem there for the basic nav stuff.

But then, I am not an engineer. I only know enough to get myself in trouble, usually.

Mike

Standards have a Half-life....

jsherblon said:

The wonderful thing about standards is there are so many to choose from.

Click to expand...

That's a great quote, and so true....and standards in today's electronics have a half-life of about three months (or so it seems if you go to Best Buy...).

Theoretically, we could define a "standard" Dataword that includes every single piece of data you would ever want to transmit between avionics boxes. (instantaneous airspeed, X,Y,Z position and velocity, the frequency the #1 comm is tuned to...) and this word can be exchange don the common high-speed bus every couple of milliseconds for all the boxes to ponder and act upon as their function dictates. The problem is that as soon as you define this master standard, someone will come along with a better idea, and then everyone will want to modify it. And the aviation market simply isn't that big. Compared to the market for PC's, it is non-existent.

I agree - such an idea is perfect! Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect word...which is why I have boxes of obsolete computer cards in my closet....

Just my thoughts....gloomy, and not necessarily correct....

Paul

Paul

Half Full or Half Empty?

Ironflight said:

Just my thoughts....gloomy, and not necessarily correct....

Click to expand...

I can't argue with anything written, but can only chime in and say...

We are so fortunate!

From one perspective, it is confusing, things are changing rapidly, and nothing is perfect, however from another perspective,

Just look at what we have available to us for our airplanes!

The panel I'll end up with, regardless of what decisions I make, will be so far ahead of what was available when I learned to fly, or when I started thinking about building an airplane, or last year, or last week for that matter, that it boggles the mind.

My first lessons were in a 172 with a microphone and speaker. Headsets and an intercom were a luxury, and I had to buy my own portable intercom soon after.

Almost any panel built today will likely kick serious %&#@ over a whole bunch of commercial planes in the air now and for the forseeable future.

I'm glad things are changing and being improved upon, I'm VERY glad I'm not planning (and saving for) a panel for a certified airplane, and I'm absolutely okay knowing that whatever I put in my panel will be well behind the cutting edge before I fly it bacause of this amazing rapid progress.

When I bought my Decathalon over 8 years ago it had a brand new Garmin 250XL and I thought that was absolutely the coolest thing in the world.

I still do.

It cost close to $10,000 installed. It could be had for a fraction of that today, and there's so much more great stuff out there it is easy to forget just how capable this 'relic' is.

I'm grateful for the discussion, no criticism, just wanted to remind myself and everyone else that we should see the silver lining to the cloud of confusion we face when choosing avionics. Progress is always messy.

I just ordered Tru-Trak aileron and elevator servos from Stein this morning, and am starting my comprehensive wiring plan tonight, so will no doubt be coming in with plenty of questions as I go through these and other archives.

George