What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Choosing an EFIS?? - Dynon, GRT, Advanced, MGL?

Mike D

Well Known Member
Choosing an EFIS??

Oh, the endless debate over which EFIS. And with all the great systems out there, the manufactures aren?t making it easy on us homebuilders. :)

Just for background; I have read many of the posts here at VAF and other sites on EFIS?s. I have seen each system in action at Oshkosh and in planes, but I have only flown behind the GRT, and for only less than 5 hours.

Noting the date on the articles I am reading has become very important because things are changing very rapidly in the EFIS world. All Dynon comparisons have to be noted as pre and post Skyview. And I believe Dynon has now included GPS and pitot data in the attitude calculations which has made some posts (and opinions) invalid. (or am I wrong here?)

With all that out of the way, I have noted a few opinions as to how to choose an EFIS. (Paul had a good post on this.
(http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=26133&highlight=Iron+flight)
Given that all the systems are reliable, and that the companies show no signs of disappearing, Some of the differences in the systems I have seen are (read as deciding factors):

  1. The mission - Buy the one that fits YOUR mission and be honest with yourself what that mission is. (Are you really IFR? I?m not now but plan to be by next year. Do you need an auto pilot?)
  2. IFR or VFR - GRT = IFR/VFR mission. Dynon, Advanced, and MGL = VFR missions. My understanding is that this is due to the way each system determines attitude and corrects for errors.
  3. Budget
I have asked many pilots, ?What was the determining factor in why you chose the system you have?? What this has revealed is that many pilots go with their gut and that I don?t know much about EFIS?s. Both make it hard for me to choose.

I have heard the lite IFR/Hard IFR comments. But I am of the mindset that either you are in it or not. BUT, There were many pilots flying IFR way before EFIS?s ever came into being. So, I am still a little confused as to why GRT is IFR and why Dynon is not. (especially the Skyview)

Price is always a factor, and that is why I would never even consider a Garmin.

So, on to the questions I have;
  1. Why is a system considered to be IFR, or why not? Please compare the latest data. I am hoping Dynon Support can chime in here as well as others. Are we holding on to old opinions or over equipping our needs?
  2. Synthetic vision is a $1K or more option, is it worth it?
  3. Is there a way to pigon hole the systems (Dynon, GRT, Advanced, MGL) into a mission? - Stein? Paul? DFlyer? Rainier? Anybody?
Given I will drop $5K to $8K for an EFIS, this is no light decision.

It is very hard to overlook all the great features in each system but if pushed, what I personally don?t like about some systems are the membrane switches of the MGL (don?t mind the connectors but locking connectors would be better), the looks and integration of the EMS on the GRT, the proprietary and completely integrated auto pilot of Dynon, and I have to admit I just know much about the Advanced.

Some of the best things are the trade in program for GRT and the Dynon value.

BTW, My mission is long X-country 3-4 times a year, burger runs every weekend, and some lite acro whenever the wife is not in the right seat.

Enough rambling for me. Any thoughts or answers?
 
My suggestion...

...is that the EFIS and Engine Monitor solution should be from the same vendor. Not that you can't mix-n-match, but when it comes times for the s/w updates, it is much easier to just have one company to deal with.
 
You are exactly correct in being confused by the IFR/VFR debate..

Considering all you need to fly IFR (what is hard IFR anyway?) is to be rated (i dont think three is a hard IFR rating yet?) and have all the equipment listed in Part 91 installed and tested. That is ALL. Each of manufacturers listed have systems suitable for IFR. The pitot debate with respect to Dynon is ridiculous considering the very low probability of a PITOT failure (but they've fixed this anyway with GPS b/u).

What I think most are getting wrapped around the axle with doesn't have anything to do with IFR but rather IMC which are not synonymous. I'd fly anytime, anywhere IFR under VMC without a lot of redundancies. For IMC flight (which requires you to fly IFR..except at sea out of the ADIZ :) ) I'd like to have at least a B/U attitude reference. In my case I have both Skyview and a D10A. All the other EFIS are equally suitable but the choice is personal more than technical IMHO.
 
Michael...i am still building my 7a so I have quite a way before I have to decide.....but as a pilot who likes to fly hard IFR...here are my thoughts;

Nothing is more important than a good auto pilot....altitude hold a must....capable of vertical nav.... with a 430 or 530 WAAS.

WAAS.....

Redundancy ....if your going to have a battery back up...have two. AHARDS...two. if you can have two complete separate circuits (I think they call that dual Buss) DO!!!

All I can say is that when your in the clouds....Situational awareness, being able to keep the blue side up...has no price tag.

I will probably use stein....considering AFS & GRT (not Dynon because every time I call them I have to get a call back) and service is everything.
 
TruTrak EFIS?

Mike keep in mind that in order to fly any IFR you will need navigation radios proper for the flight intended. SL30 if only wanting to do ILS or vor approaches or a 430W if you want all the bells like LNAV/VNAV and GPS approaches. That is to be legal. Also I got tired of having to program three GPS's.

I noticed you did not include the TruTrak EFIS in your searches. I consider it a formidable player in the EFIS Autopilot game. I have been flying behind one for several months now and I am extremely happy with the performance. The EFIS does not have a moving map like the others you mentioned but what sets it apart is the Rock solid performance of the Autopilot and really well design screen. For me the map was not an issue as my 430W provides that and I also have a 396 mounted in my panel for additional mapping and XM weather.

Before I had the Trutrak efis I had a Blue Mountain G4. It had synthetic display, flight planing and other features. The synthetic was cool at first but soon found I had less of a need for it over the meat and potatoes items needed for IFR. For that it was unreliable and not safe.

I looked at the GRT, Advanced, Dynon and Trutrak. GRT was at the top of my list but I did not want an EFIS that has sub menus and was pretty complicated. Advanced was a really nice system as well but still more complicated to operate in IFR than I wanted. Both of them have the ability to interconnect to the 430W for approaches. I found Dynon to be too much of an entry level system with an AP that is still needs time to mature. Even the SkyView is pretty much eye candy and probably never will be regarded as a top notch IFR platform. Talk to anyone that has an IFR ticket and ask if they would fly behind a Dynon AP. GRT and Advanced both use servos from Trutrak I think.

Anyway I ended up choosing the Trutrak EFIS because I found the design to be logical. No sub menus, Super clean screen with just the right amount of data displayed. It is designed to be a flight director that partners with the pilot to control and enhance all types of flying you will do. It operates with almost artificial intelligence that anticipates what commands you might need next and offering that to be selected with the buttons so you will never need to hunt through a bunch of sub menus. The screen layout allows for instant interpretation the info. There is a very nice female voice annunciation that inform you of anything that is important for safety. Like when you lose GPS signal, when you arrive at your assigned alt, low airspeed, all approach modes and any improper situations while on the approach if you might be looking some where else. Just to name a few.
The auto pilot is on par with their top of the line Sorcerer. Provides GPSS steering, LPV vertical guidance, Altitude preselect, Vertical speed, Auto pitch trim. Everything that the Sorcerer does including fully coupled ILS approaches. It even does a nice job of flying the missed approach procedure. It has a separate button that when pressed will engage the AP in pitch and roll. If you find yourself in the clouds and need help you just press this button and relax. Even if the plane is not level. Simply twist the heading knob 180 deg and the plane will fly out. Very cool feature!

The EFIS AP/4 now has full integration with the GNS430W. It displays the ILS/LOC and VOR needles using the new AIRINC converter and as of this week and personally flown several times FULLY coupled ILS capability. Their web site is soon to be reflecting this.

So it depend on what you want out of an EFIS. Day time VFR and no 430 or SL30 I would choose the SkyView. Day and night and a couple Xcountry with occasional IFR with pretty high personal minimums and a 430W/ SL30 I have no problem with GRT or Advance.
Looking for a EFIS with an AP that you would bet your mothers life on then it would be the Trutrak.
Also for what is is worth. The Trutrak EFIS is fully mature with all the proposed, promised, slated, expected features working now. Who else can say that?
 
  1. The mission - Buy the one that fits YOUR mission and be honest with yourself what that mission is. (Are you really IFR? I’m not now but plan to be by next year. Do you need an auto pilot?)
  2. IFR or VFR - GRT = IFR/VFR mission. Dynon, Advanced, and MGL = VFR missions. My understanding is that this is due to the way each system determines attitude and corrects for errors.
  3. Budget


I haven't heard it said explicitly, but i'm pretty sure Rob Hickman says he flys IFR behind his panel with all AFS stuff.
edit- thread link : http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=51435

first post in the AFS synthetic vision thread.
 
Last edited:
Mike,

I think that you have gotten most of the considerations into your head, and a couple of important points especially - the fat that the market is dynamic, with new features and equipment all the time, and the recognition that what constitutes IFR and VFR is fuzzy - period!

I used to be happy flying six-pack low-end singles with vacuum pumps in the clouds, because that is what we had - and ALL we had. That was light GA IFR 20 years ago. Just about anything out there today for the experimental market is better than that!

The fact that the market is dynamic makes it incorrect to simply refer to "Dynon" - they are bringing out an entirely new generation of equipment, and while I think it still has to prove itself in the field for a period of time, if we simply refer to "Dynon" in threads, we'll confuse the next generation. When I refer to their new stuff, it will be "Skyview", to differentiate.

One thing I am not sure I agree with in your original post is the statement "Assume that they are all equally reliable..." My experience is that some systems are more reliable than others - still. You can level the playing field with dis-similar redundancy, and I personally design systems that way.

Everyone is going to have their own opinions on what constitutes a system's readiness for IFR - personally, I think that I look at the amount of pre-processed information the system gives th pilot - in other words, how much burden does it take off the Organic CPU in the cockpit? Information integration is important - I like a system that gives me all the answers before I have to speak the questions. And the questions I frequently have asked over the years are things like "What are the winds doing to my ability to make my destination with the fuel available? What are my reasonable alternatives if the weather goes to poo? where am I relative to all of the relative navigation points that are important to my right now?" I like systems that make me a smarter and better informed pilot, because it allows me to monitor the flight rather than just keep things upright and pointed in the right direction.

If getting the "Right Answer" to the question "what is the best IFR EFIS" was as simple as posting the question here, we'd all be flying the same thing. Unfortunately, every pilot and situation is different. I have helped a lot of people choose panel equipment, and the answers are frequently different. Know your questions, read everything you can find, answer your questions and make an informed decision right for you.

Paul
 
Last edited:
Proper Radios

Actually, you don't need 'proper' radios for the flight. The AIM allows the use of RNAV systems instead of VOR, DME, ADF, and combinations thereof. If you are using RNAV because the ground stations or your airborne receivers are inop it's called "substitute means of navigation". If all the ground stations and your airborne receivers a working, it's called "alternate means of navigation". You are not required to monitor the ground stations.

Please note that if you are navigating with a localizer facility you must use the LOC. RNAV is not an acceptable substitute.

We sold our last iron gyro airplane in 1992 and I doubt that I've flown a VOR radial more than a couple of times since then.

If I were building a new airplane intended for real world IFR I would install only GPS. Our new bizjets have VOR receivers, but we haven't used them in years. ADF? Never again!

Regards
 
Good info

Thanks everyone!

What I really want out of an EFIS/engine monitor is;
-Do I know where I am?
-Do I know where I am going?
-Do I know if I can get there?
-Do I know if my engine is going to make it there?

I think all the systems will do that. Everything else is a plus to help lighten my workload.

I have a KX-125 nav/comm now. An sl30 would be great, as most of the systems seem to have a way to integrate with them. A GNS530 would be great but $11K buys a whole lot of avgas.

I am not really looking for ?What is the best EFIS out there?? That is a personal choice based upon mission and ability to accept risk.

One of the questions I was hoping for clarification on is, What makes one system good for IFR/IMC and one not so good? And What are the critical differences that would make one system better for a particular mission (like IMC or acro)? Are any of the EFIS?s legal for IMC?

I have flown on a cloudless night that I would consider IFR, thankfully with an instructor. But because my family lives in the San Francisco area, which is famous for their marine layer. I would like to drop through that layer. Other than that I don?t PLAN on doing IMC. But I am sure no pilot plans on crashing, but sometimes it happens. I am trying to keep that from happing to me.

Battery backups are great but my personal opinion is that sometimes it can be overdone. 12 hours of battery life with an additional 3 hours on the EFIF is overdone. (I have seen it) If something is going wrong, I land. But I need to know when something is going wrong.

This leads to, When is enough, enough? When does the ?feature? go in the column of gadget? Is synthetic a gadget?

I know I am trying to pigeon hole the EFIS?s. But it helps me feel good about my choice made on my gut feeling. :)
 
Michael....it is easy to say if something goes wrong....I will just land. That is the point....sometimes in hard IFR you have to go missed, having the extra "batteries" or what ever back up system and make a big...BIG difference in getting to another airport or re-shooting the approach.

What is the old saying.....if something can go wrong....it will usually do it when your in the clouds>
 
It hurts to even read this thread. There is so much POO in here that it makes your head hurt. One could spend an hour correcting all the incorrectness listed here already.

If someone reads this thread in the future, do yourself a favor and do your own research into what is available right then and not what was available last week or what is promised for the future. Look at the track record for the manufacturers, look at how long they have been around, where they came from and where they are going and look at the installed base of satisfied customers. That will tell you a ton.

Do not take a few individuals opinions and let them slew you to their brand that they bought into just because they are trying to justify their purchase.

Fact is that any of the GRT, AFS, DYNON, MGL, and TT systems could be integrated into a good solid IFR panel that can handle IMC.
 
Last edited:
This leads to, When is enough, enough? When does the ?feature? go in the column of gadget? Is synthetic a gadget?

No! As far as I'm concerned, synthetic vision is going to be one of the best "pilot/passenger savers" to come along............in a long time. I've read the whys and wherefores of every U.S. and numerous foreign country flight into terrain accident for many years. Going back to the early fifties actually. Became highly interested when a DC-8 cargo jet crashed into a mountain very close to home in IMC.

My son who is in the US Air Force just attended a class in which the topic was loss of situational awareness. Everything from flying into rising terrain, to allowing the aircraft to pitch up & stall in IMC conditions. I have personally lost three pilot friends/ acquaintances along with their friends and spouses due to IMC or darkness, during flight which was suppose to be VFR. Fog/sudden whiteouts, and the black of dark is what got them. In fact, around the state of Utah, where I live, we were experiencing an average of three flight into terrain accidents a year!

While the new generations of GPS with terrain/obstacle databases go a long way as an aid for pointing out problems ahead, the synthetic vision is right in your face.... so to speak. You see a mountain, you pull up. And with probably no more control forces than you would looking out the wind screen, since it's a 3D representation. This is going to be just great for actual IFR/IMC operations!

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Fact is that any of the GRT, AFS, DYNON, MGL, and TT systems could be integrated into a good solid IFR panel that can handle IMC.__________________
Brian Chesteen

Amen..............................
 
Where the heck did you get this idea from???

i reckon it was a straightforward way of saying the dynon ADAHRS gets it's primary info through airspeed,(through the pitot system)

here's the quotes directly from the dynon webpage:

Outside Reference for Attitude: An ADAHRS requires an outside reference in order to quickly find and maintain its reference horizon. Dynon ADAHRSs use air speed derived from the pitot and static ports as their primary outside reference. Airspeed is the best reference to enable a fast attitude capture; Dynon units can typically find the horizon in under 10 seconds, even in flight. Units that do not use air speed can often take several minutes to find the horizon, and often require straight and level flight or to be stationary on the ground. In order to have a backup in the unlikely event of loss of pitot or static data, all Dynon ADAHRS revert to GPS ground track if a GPS is connected.


Connections: Each ADAHRS contains:
3 - Pneumatic ports for Pitot, Static, and Angle of Attack



sometimes it is easier to try and get the idea behind the words typed than to fight out what exactly the words meant.


It hurts to even read this thread. There is so much *kitty litter in here that it makes your head hurt. One could spend an hour correcting all the incorrectness listed here already.

if there is so much "incorrectness" in here maybe it would be good for you to point it out specifically, politely and with references. You've got Paul posting in this thread, is his posting full of "incorrectness"? the original poster has posted several times, he was asking for help and clarification. If he posted something wrong i'm sure he'd appreciate being shown the proper facts. I posted something short and sweet, sure hope it was "correct". If it isn't, please point it out. Tconroy had a post, backed up most of it with the EXPERIENCE of 30 hours of IFR on his system. The pitot thing is easily misunderstood, i think. I don't think he was saying it was actually IN the pitot tube, but like i quoted from dynons web page, it bases most of its info on the pitot system. ( with gps backup if hooked up). there are several other posters, i don't get which one is so far off to fill this thread up with "incorrectness".

'course, i don't have any IFR time, only a couple hours of simulated, and i don't look at every spec of the available EFIS' out there. If this is a foolish post that's fine. I'll get over it in a couple days :) I don't see how random claims of "incorrectness" are beneficial though.
 
If you plan to add the SL30 then you will not find a better IFR platform than TruTrak. TruTrak has been doing it for a long time and some of the other EFIS guys are using Trutrack's stuff. I would not consider Dynon right now as it is only just a fancy moving map. Will not help you get to where you want to go and has no autopilot software working. It will be a long time before it is mature enough to be considered as a IFR device if ever. Besides I would never again buy into the idea of buying a piece of hardware until it is fully functional. Remember Blue Mountain? GRT, AFS, and MGL are contenders. MGL is hard at work and is a newcomer but I find it to be the most complicated device on the planet. Even the sales reps at Oshkosh could not show how it works. Not something you want to use in a pinch if you find yourself in IMC unexpected. Way over engineered.
Now down to GRT and AFS. Both have internal GPS with data base. Both play very well with separate autopilots and have the ability to communicate with the SL30 and 430 in the future.
My suggestion is decide on how complex of an EFIS you want and play with both of them at Sun and Fun. Just make sure that the units you are playing with are current shipping products. Vaporware will aggravate you to no end waiting for the updates to come out and worrying that it may never be complete before the manufacturer decides to release another better EFIS and leaves you out in the cold.

Keep one thing in mind. It is easy to be enamored by the glitzy wizbang features of the current crop of EFIS's. Lots of fun to play with at first but after time you will end up using a fraction of stuff especially if it is hard to operate. In IMC the simpler the better and it better work just as you expect.
It becomes your copilot and you have to trust it with your life. Pick the one you will trust.
 
Without getting to details, the best way for YOU to figure out which EFIS is best for YOU is to start making a list.

Back in the dark ages when I selected my Dynons I put together a simple list of what features each EFIS (and EMS) system had to offer. Don't rely on what you read on the internet forums, even this one. (Sorry Doug) Then when you have it narrowed down, call the companies and talk to someone there about what you view as a short coming.

You might just come away with a better feeling about a system you had originally nixed.

One friend who has probably over 10K hours in everything from his RV to fighters, to airlines, and more once told me he didn't understand why everyone is pumping out big bucks to buy synthetic vision. As he said, "It is not like you are going to use it to fly up a mountain valley in the clouds and when you are in the system who cares what's below you?"
 
... I would not consider Dynon right now as it is only just a fancy moving map. Will not help you get to where you want to go and has no autopilot software working. It will be a long time before it is mature enough to be considered as a IFR device if ever...
As a Dynon Beta Tester, I would submit you simply don't know what you are talking about.

The Dynon AP has some safety features that just blow away the competition. Having the AP driven by the EFIS allows for all types of intelligence that you don't get with other AP's. That's all I'll say about this subject right now. If Dynon wants to elaborate, great, but I will add, the Dynon AP can be a life saver and perform in ways others, including TT can't.
 
Last edited:
I will probably use stein....considering AFS & GRT (not Dynon because every time I call them I have to get a call back) and service is everything.

That is odd, I've never had difficulty reaching a person during business hours. They also generally answer posts on their forum within a few hours, even on Sundays.
 
[QUOTE
One friend who has probably over 10K hours in everything from his RV to fighters, to airlines, and more once told me he didn't understand why everyone is pumping out big bucks to buy synthetic vision. As he said, "It is not like you are going to use it to fly up a mountain valley in the clouds and when you are in the system who cares what's below you?"[/QUOTE]

Exactly!!! Milt and I both have experience with synthetic vision planes. I find I have exactly no use for them now. If I am in the clouds I am in the system and I have situational awareness. If VFR I am looking out the window. If doing Acro I am looking out the window. I thought synthetic was great but now it looks to me more of a feeding frenzy with little regard to user ergonomics. But it sure looks pretty.
 
As a Dynon Beta Tester, I would submit you simply don't know what you are talking about.

The Dynon AP has some safety features that just blow away the competition. Having the AP driven by the EFIS allows for all types of intelligence that you don't get with other AP's. That's all I'll say about this subject right now. If Dynon wants to elaborate, great, but I will add, the Dynon AP can be a life saver and perform in ways others, including TT can't.

I am sure you are right that the AP can be a life saver but as I understand the SkyView is presently not able to fly any kind of approaches. As it has no ability to communicate with certified NAV/GPS receivers. Even Dynon's site says that there is no AP software right now. No HSI. How could that be considered a IFR platform? The stuff you are flying right now might have it but I was talking about current production products that can be used for IFR use.
 
Last edited:
i reckon it was a straightforward way of saying the dynon ADAHRS gets it's primary info through airspeed,(through the pitot system)

For the record, this was fixed two software releases ago. They now use GPS to backup the pitot-static sources, just like the Garmin 1000 series does.

That is part of the problem with EFIS technology, it is changing so fast it is hard to keep up.

FWIW, I am an IFR pilot with over 2,500 hours, most of it in pointy jets. The Dynon's are fine for IFR/IMC. If you plan to fly regularly in IMC you should always have a backup (I have vaccuum attitude and a TT autopilot that will keep me right-side-up if both my EFIS and backup fail).

Any of the products available are fine now; it really comes down to the features you want. You can find a "flaw" in any of the solutions if you look hard enough. For example, to the gentleman who said that the TT EFIS plus GNS430W does everything better than any other combination - try to load a Victor Airway in your flightplan! Nothing personal, I use a TT product as part of my solution too. Well, that's not a "fault" of the EFIS, because that particular EFIS isn't providing the flight plan / moving map "features." Yet other EFIS solutions DO provide that functionality. Too, couple that same TT EFIS with a GNS 480 and programming an airway in your flightplan would be a snap. To poke a little more fun at that person's choice, all of the pride in being able to fly an ILS will one day be irrelevant as MOST of the ILS approaches are being abandoned in lieu of GPSV (the ILS costs money to maintain, and airports want to cut their budgets). Ok, enough fun poking - the point is that it is a personal decision and that each person's "requirements" may be different depending on where they live and the type of flying they do.

Which brings me to my advice for the seeker - consider your entire avionics stack as a "system" rather than looking specifically at a particular EFIS. Just like with home entertainment systems, you can get your features all in one "super system" or purchase them ala carte. Determine all of your needs and establish a budget, along with your personal tolerance for fail-over. Truth is, a hand-held GPS and a Dynon D6 (or vaccuum instruments) would be plenty to get you down safely under almost any circumstances.

Good luck!
 
Jeff,
SkyView isn't really a competitor to the TT products. As you mention, the TT is "complete" and will never, ever do a moving map, synthetic vision.

We already sell an EFIS that does artificial horizon, HSI, and autopilot for under 1/2 the price of a TruTrak EFIS. We've been selling these for years and it's just as complete and solid as any other product on the market. To act as if the only product Dynon sells is the SkyView is selling us a bit short.

We have no plans to cancel the current line of products in any way, shape or forum so they are just as "current" as SkyView is. If all you want out of an EFIS is artificial horizon, HSI, and an AP, we would never suggest SkyView.
 
Last edited:
Wow! Not quite sure what to say about this discussion anymore. Hope we can all be nice and provide a thread that others, and myself, can learn from. Things are moving quickly, and that is why I have some questions that are not answered, or no longer valid, in other posts.

I am all for safety, but I am a little worried that all this electronics may give some a since of safety that is a little unfounded and go beyond their capabilities. Kind of like people driving way too fast in an SUV because they have a lot of metal and airbags to ?keep them safe?.

I am all for redundancy when it is critical. But I am just a poor pilot skipping cable, huge cell bills, and extravagant nights out to afford a hobby I love. So, a GNS530 connected to a TT auto pilot and the best wiz bang EFIS is not in the cards for me any time soon. But not sure I would do that even if I had the money. Just need to know which way is up, where I am, and that the engine is okay. Glass is cheaper than steam now. But, as Paul had mentioned in his post, ?If you save $500 - $1000 and settle for less features than you want, you will probably be disappointed once you?re flying.? But I will not be scared into buying more than is useful.

I kind of take the demos at SNF and Osh like I take the demos of the 3D modeling software salesmen are always trying to get me to buy. They have some great features and put on a good show, but when it comes down to it, most of the features are just fluff and, although nice, don?t help me do my job any better. Candy is good, but you need some real food first.

This is kind of like the PC vs. Mac debate. Both have their good points, but it depends on what is important to you. I wish I knew what made each EFIS system special, then I could better decide which one fit my mission. I guess the experimental EFIS market is just too young to have such a good division of brands.

So, If anyone can point to a reason to chose an EFIS that more suited to a particular mission than another, and give a reason not based on opinion, I am all ears.

Looks like AFS is more suited to acro because of the speed of the attitude instrument and the screen of steam gauges that they mention that acro pilots use. Am I wrong? Plus they have some nice weight and balance screens to let me calculate my envelope.

Looks like GRT is more suited to IFR/IMC due to the way it calculates the attitude. But others may have the same ability now? Can someone help me understand how each system calculates for errors in attitude?

Looks like Dynon (non Skyview) are more tuned to the VFR value buyer. Skyview is beautiful, but unproven and without many of its features that would allow it to be compared to the AFS and GRT.

Am I trying to simplify this too much?

One more question, Does it matter where I buy the system? ACS?, Stein?, local dealer?
 
You kinda helped make a point here.....

For an EFIS to be an EFIS, it does not have to fly any approaches, does not have to have the ability to talk to certified receivers, does not have to be an autopilot, and does not have to have a HSI.

All of those things can come from third party integration.

That does not mean that the EFIS system is not suitable as an IFR platform.

Granted all of those things add value and are sweeeeet when they are a part of the solution......

I am sure you are right that the AP can be a life saver but as I understand the SkyView is presently not able to fly any kind of approaches. As it has no ability to communicate with certified NAV/GPS receivers. Even Dynon's site says that there is no AP software right now. No HSI. How could that be considered a IFR platform? The stuff you are flying right now might have it but I was talking about current production products that can be used for IFR use.
 
This is kind of like the PC vs. Mac debate.

If that's the case, can someone who has extensive experience working with both Macs and PCs give some perspective on which EFIS system has the most intuitive interface. Nothing is more annoying than having to think like an engineer to figure out how to navigate a system (no offense to the many engineers here ;-)
 
=jeff beckley;388405][QUOTE
One friend who has probably over 10K hours in everything from his RV to fighters, to airlines, and more once told me he didn't understand why everyone is pumping out big bucks to buy synthetic vision. As he said, "It is not like you are going to use it to fly up a mountain valley in the clouds and when you are in the system who cares what's below you?"

Exactly!!! Milt and I both have experience with synthetic vision planes. I find I have exactly no use for them now. If I am in the clouds I am in the system and I have situational awareness. If VFR I am looking out the window. If doing Acro I am looking out the window. I thought synthetic was great but now it looks to me more of a feeding frenzy with little regard to user ergonomics. But it sure looks pretty.

And just who/what is in the accident statistics? Fighters, and airlines, as well as GA and other government, commercial operations.

Here is one from earilier this year. These guys were not in the "system", but did try to fly up a mountain valley. Just a few years ago, a GA pilot who was in the system cancelled his IFR flight to land at his local airport, which he had done many times. Thanks to night time whiteout conditions, he became disoriented, flew low over a foothill subdivision, and right into the rising mountainous terrain. Both of these accidents are within 30 miles of my home...too.
--------------------------------------------------------------



NTSB Identification: WPR09GA216
14 CFR Public Use
Accident occurred Saturday, April 25, 2009 in Stockton, UT
Aircraft: LOCKHEED P2V-7, registration: N442NA
Injuries: 3 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On April 25, 2009, about 1005 mountain daylight time, a Lockheed P2V-7 Neptune, N442NA, impacted the terrain about one and one-half miles north of Stockton, Utah. The two airline transport pilots and their passenger were killed in the accident sequence, and the airplane, which was owned by Neptune Aviation Services, and under the operational control of the United States Forest Service, was destroyed by the impact. The 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 Public Use repositioning flight, which departed Missoula, Montana, about two hours prior to the accident, was en route to Alamogordo, New Mexico. At that time of the accident, the airplane was flying in an area of low ceilings and restricted visibility. No flight plan had been filed.

According to two individuals who were near the crash site, the airplane could be heard proceeding in a southeasterly direction, and although to them it sounded low, it could not be seen because of the low clouds. In a matter of seconds after the airplane passed their location, they heard what sounded like the airplane impacting the terrain.

The wreckage was eventually located about 250 feet below the top of a ridge on the eastern side of Stockton Pass. The point of initial impact was located about 5,630 feet above sea level, on the northwestern slope of the ridge.

L.Adamson
 
Two quite cogent comments from the posts above.

This is kind of like the PC vs. Mac debate.

You can find a "flaw" in any of the solutions if you look hard enough.

I am not a 30 gazillion hour airline ex fighter jock(not that that matters) but have spent a good bit of time in the clouds staring at one of those dreaded BMA units and also one of the "legacy Dynons" in planes with adequate backup instrumentation.

Never had a problem. I did, back in the old days, once suffer a gyro failure, so from my experience ifr the EFIS has a better track record.

I think synthetic vision is cool but do not find it essential and actually feel it is more difficult to fly in IMC, but that is just me.


There are many on this board that have a lot of hours in IMC behind Dynons. BMA's, Tru Trak's, Grand Rapids, AFS's, and MGL's. None of these guys are dead.

I think it not unreasonable to say that GR, Tru Trak, Dynon, MGL. AFS are all reasonable systems to fly in the clag.

So in my mind it gets back to the two quoted comments above.

Take your time, decide what you want, need, and can afford, then wait to the last minute to buy it in case something new and reallly cool comes along.
 
Jeff,
SkyView isn't really a competitor to the TT products. As you mention, the TT is "complete" and will never, ever do a moving map, synthetic vision.

We already sell an EFIS that does artificial horizon, HSI, and autopilot for under 1/2 the price of a TruTrak EFIS. We've been selling these for years and it's just as complete and solid as any other product on the market. To act as if the only product Dynon sells is the SkyView is selling us a bit short.

We have no plans to cancel the current line of products in any way, shape or forum so they are just as "current" as SkyView is. If all you want out of an EFIS is artificial horizon, HSI, and an AP, we would never suggest SkyView.

You are right I was not including your legacy products but be careful when you say complete. AP76? Also you are correct the TT and SkyView are apples and oranges apart. Completely different missions. I like your stuff and the price point is excellent but I guess that I have a little old school in me. Most new comers are having an increasingly difficult time determining the difference in the current crop of products out there right now.
I think the term EFIS no longer stands for one type of devise. Kind of like a customer asking what kind of panel to buy.

It looks like Mike D's best choice for a display given his most current refinement if the mission he needs is the D180. Good price and value.
 
Looks like Dynon (non Skyview) are more tuned to the VFR value buyer. Skyview is beautiful, but unproven and without many of its features that would allow it to be compared to the AFS and GRT.

Am I trying to simplify this too much?

Hi Mike,

Can't answer many of your other questions, but will say that the first generation Dynons are just fine for IFR, giving you far more than the traditional 6-pack. I fly with a Garmin GNS 480; Dynon D180 + HS34; and a TT II VSGV AP. This combination gives me EVERYTHING I need to fly solid IFR (and the flight director features of the 480 are superior to virtually any other system that drives an autopilot). As backups I have a hand-held radio; a 496; and my old vaccuum gages installed on the co-pilot side.

An EFIS is never your entire system (at least not yet today), and your entire system should be considered when you purchase an EFIS. Make a list of the features YOU want and prioritize them. Optimize those features across your entire panel, not just the EFIS. Set a budget and make some hard choices - and then consider expanding the budget only if you absolutely have to have some feature you simply cannot get using any combination of equipment available.

Happy shopping!
 
For those with Plane Jane EFIi that just must have synthetic vision and HITS the Flight Cheetah FL150 with that program is a great backup moving map.

10.jpg


9.jpg
 
I guess it's gonna be time for another EFIS article in Kitplanes! :)

Far too much for me to list here in regards to all the posts...some good, and some not so good. There are also many pages worth of info on these subjects in the archives somewhere, but it's pretty hard to sort the wheat from the chaff sometimes. I wish I had the time to put it all down here right now, but I don't so watch for a new article at some point this next year.


I'm sitting back enjoying some of the posts! As I said, some pretty good and spot on, some not so much....

Cheers,
Stein
 
Choosing an EFIS??

Oh, the endless debate over which EFIS. And with all the great systems out there, the manufactures aren’t making it easy on us homebuilders. :)

Just for background; I have read many of the posts here at VAF and other sites on EFIS’s. I have seen each system in action at Oshkosh and in planes, but I have only flown behind the GRT, and for only less than 5 hours.

Noting the date on the articles I am reading has become very important because things are changing very rapidly in the EFIS world. All Dynon comparisons have to be noted as pre and post Skyview. And I believe Dynon has now included GPS and pitot data in the attitude calculations which has made some posts (and opinions) invalid. (or am I wrong here?)

With all that out of the way, I have noted a few opinions as to how to choose an EFIS. (Paul had a good post on this.
(http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=26133&highlight=Iron+flight)
Given that all the systems are reliable, and that the companies show no signs of disappearing, Some of the differences in the systems I have seen are (read as deciding factors):

  1. The mission - Buy the one that fits YOUR mission and be honest with yourself what that mission is. (Are you really IFR? I’m not now but plan to be by next year. Do you need an auto pilot?)
  2. IFR or VFR - GRT = IFR/VFR mission. Dynon, Advanced, and MGL = VFR missions. My understanding is that this is due to the way each system determines attitude and corrects for errors.
  3. Budget
I have asked many pilots, “What was the determining factor in why you chose the system you have?” What this has revealed is that many pilots go with their gut and that I don’t know much about EFIS’s. Both make it hard for me to choose.

I have heard the lite IFR/Hard IFR comments. But I am of the mindset that either you are in it or not. BUT, There were many pilots flying IFR way before EFIS’s ever came into being. So, I am still a little confused as to why GRT is IFR and why Dynon is not. (especially the Skyview)

Price is always a factor, and that is why I would never even consider a Garmin.

So, on to the questions I have;
  1. Why is a system considered to be IFR, or why not? Please compare the latest data. I am hoping Dynon Support can chime in here as well as others. Are we holding on to old opinions or over equipping our needs?
  2. Synthetic vision is a $1K or more option, is it worth it?
  3. Is there a way to pigon hole the systems (Dynon, GRT, Advanced, MGL) into a mission? - Stein? Paul? DFlyer? Rainier? Anybody?
Given I will drop $5K to $8K for an EFIS, this is no light decision.

It is very hard to overlook all the great features in each system but if pushed, what I personally don’t like about some systems are the membrane switches of the MGL (don’t mind the connectors but locking connectors would be better), the looks and integration of the EMS on the GRT, the proprietary and completely integrated auto pilot of Dynon, and I have to admit I just know much about the Advanced.

Some of the best things are the trade in program for GRT and the Dynon value.

BTW, My mission is long X-country 3-4 times a year, burger runs every weekend, and some lite acro whenever the wife is not in the right seat.

Enough rambling for me. Any thoughts or answers?

I went through this process and as an avionics engineer myself it was torturous fun. Almost went with Blue Mountain based on impulsive Eye Candy. Then did real analysis when I realized this was going to add up to $eriou$ $$$ and came away most impressed with GRT from every possible angle. Never had buyers regret. I am an avionics engineer by trade and they have my respect. AHRS is fundamentally sound and philosophically as rock solid as you are going to get right now at this price point which is what won me over. I couldn't use the eye candy technique since I didn't know anyone around here that had GRT back then (pre Sport days). Now they are everywhere around me, kind of like RVs in general, so there's no shortage of folks to compare notes with or go visit if someone has new bells and whistles to look at from GRT. All software of any type has always been free from them as well and pretty well tested for obvious bugs in typical use scenarios. When they are found they don't hide or pretend they've never heard about them. You get great support and you never get the feeling there's any internal company turnover, strife, or that they are struggling to make ends meet. The steady product improvement pace and upgradeable trade in allowance have been outstanding, amazing, and the first I can remember in this market niche.

I've long stopped doing these 'side by side' comparisons as my original gut instinct has proven to be true. GRT continues to keep their products up to date, relevant and competitive so if it comes time to sell, GRT will be a very positive selling point. Whatever anyone else is doing now, GRT probably already did it. If someone comes out with something Amazing today, GRT is probably also already working on it and it will be out 'tomorrow'. It's a privilege doing business with them. I think it takes a lot of guts to start a business like they have and they have my professional respect, sincerely.
 
Last edited:
consider the cost

Before you buy ANY EFIS, think about whether you can afford to replace it in 5-8 years. If not, rethink your plans.

The pace of innovation is fast right now, and the long-term reliability of ALL are still unproven. Even if your EFIS is still working in 8 years, are you still going to want to fly behind it or will there be something else you're lusting after? (it will be worth nothing at that point too)

Consider separating the flight, engine, and navigation components so you don't end up replacing the entire thing at once. Think about the day you WILL need to replace it when you're installing it. Good planning now will save a LOT of time/trouble later.

NEVER buy an efis until you can clearly see the light at the end of your build process. You don't want it to grow old in your garage. Use a replacable blank in your panel to mount the EFIS so it doesn't require major surgery to replace later. (and you can also delay your decision to purchase until the last possible moment) Use an empty shell from the manufacturer for the install, and only BUY when you can't wait any longer.

On my 2nd EFIS in 4.5 years.... Been there, done that.

-Clay
 
Choosing an EFIS

If you plan to add the SL30 then you will not find a better IFR platform than TruTrak. TruTrak has been doing it for a long time and some of the other EFIS guys are using Trutrack's stuff. I would not consider Dynon right now as it is only just a fancy moving map. Will not help you get to where you want to go and has no autopilot software working. It will be a long time before it is mature enough to be considered as a IFR device if ever. Besides I would never again buy into the idea of buying a piece of hardware until it is fully functional. Remember Blue Mountain? GRT, AFS, and MGL are contenders.
MGL is hard at work and is a newcomer but I find it to be the most complicated device on the planet. Even the sales reps at Oshkosh could not show how it works. Not something you want to use in a pinch if you find yourself in IMC unexpected. Way over engineered
.
Now down to GRT and AFS. Both have internal GPS with data base. Both play very well with separate autopilots and have the ability to communicate with the SL30 and 430 in the future.
My suggestion is decide on how complex of an EFIS you want and play with both of them at Sun and Fun. Just make sure that the units you are playing with are current shipping products. Vaporware will aggravate you to no end waiting for the updates to come out and worrying that it may never be complete before the manufacturer decides to release another better EFIS and leaves you out in the cold.

Keep one thing in mind. It is easy to be enamored by the glitzy wizbang features of the current crop of EFIS's. Lots of fun to play with at first but after time you will end up using a fraction of stuff especially if it is hard to operate. In IMC the simpler the better and it better work just as you expect.
It becomes your copilot and you have to trust it with your life. Pick the one you will trust.


I couldn't agree more with your advice to choose wisely the features you need. However, I must disagree with your comments about MGL. I too spent time with them at Oshkosh, as well as the others, Dynon, GRT, etc. and found them to be very informed about their product. One thing I found refreshing was they did not run down their competition. I did not find that to be true with the others. Before flying IFR with any device, one needs to be educated on the use of it. If you read the NTSB accident reports you will find that a number of very costly aircraft with full glass panels have crashed due to pilot error in managing (and understanding) the glass panel. One accident I remember happened to a Cirrus near San Jose under Oakland center and the guy flew it into a hill side in the dark. I think a fairer statement of MGL would be that the EFIS's have a lot of features that are tailorable to your needs and requires your active involvement to set up the various screens and pages on your display.

Lastly, for those who like to attack a problem from the highest possible level, MGL is using their own OS and designing their own boards, so the firm ware requires the minimum in current so heating is never an issue. Nor are they living in a Linux world as is one of the other EFIS manufacturers. Also they have built and certified in the US a comm radio. Hum, if they can do the same with Nav and package it with an EFIS.....!!

Tom
 
Choosing an EFIS

are you implying there is something wrong with Linux?
or are you stating there is something wrong with Linux?

or are you inferring "own OS" is superior to others'?

I am pointing out a major difference. I am NOT saying that Linux has any problems.

Not am I saying that writing an OS is a good idea. BUT if you can do what MGL has been able to do, there is a big advantages as the EFIS system becomes more complex "IF" your code and hardware are matched to each other for the task at hand.

Tom
 
Thanks everyone for all the good information. Stein, I am looking forward to a new article from you.

Seems like my trying to assign a mission to each brand is a futile attempt. I guess this is a complement to the marketing and development teams at each manufacturer.

This is sort of like the time I wanted to fix a leaky faucet and it ended up with me tearing out the wall to replace some bad piping.:)

To explain, I started this whole endive because I have the standard Vans gauges taking up the whole right side of the panel. The issue here is that they are hard to see and even harder to notice when something is going wrong. (Yes, I need to learn scan my panel better.) But as a product designer, I find most problems like this not to be the fault of the user, but rather the fault of the system. So I want to fix my system.

So, I start off looking for an EMS. But this leads the EFIS question which leads to the AP question, which leads to the huge puzzle we have now.

The real issue is that the EFIS market is moving so quickly, that by the time I pick something that sets me on a path, the path becomes invalid after a year. Frustration.:( Why, oh why, cant I be a millionaire?:)

Without really getting into my profession, there is a common problem with the ?paradox of choice? with markets like this. Too much choice leads to buyer?s remorse and/or very strong opinions to justify ones purchase. Here is not the place to explain the concept, but in the end what happens is the consumer ends up making no choice or being very unhappy with their choice. This always ends up being very bad for the manufactures as R&D/marketing costs go up and profit goes down. Just a warning to the manufactures out there to pick a stance and stick with it. You can?t be everything to everyone. But you know this.

So, with the encouragement of you all, I set out to find some answers to a few questions I had.
  1. Are the available EFIS capable of IFR/IMC?
    • a. Yes, TT, Dynon, AFS, GRT, MGL are all capable given the correct setup. Dynon, AFS, and GRT all have GPS as well as pitot data to error correct the attitude. Could not positively identify if MGL or TT do this also, but my guess would be yes.
    • b. All will give you warning if something is gone wrong, (like no GPS data)
    • c. All are more capable, take up less space, and cost less than their steam gauge equivalents.
    • d. All should have some sort of back up.
  2. Integration of nav/comm.
    • a. GRT, Dynon (skyview), and AFS have some sort of integration. Some require an additional module (ARINC 429 Converter), but they can do it with the appropriate nav/comm.
  3. Integration of AP
    • a. GRT can use TT, Trio, and Nav-aid
    • b. Dynon can use dynon only
    • c. AFS has their own version of TT being developed but can use TT now.
Please, Please correct me if I am wrong.

So in the end, all are within +/- $1.5K of each other, and all are capable if IFR.

Right now, I am leaning toward GRT sport for several reasons (my reasons)
  1. I can start with the EMS and solve my immediate issue, then add on as money allows.
  2. GRT has their system features working now.
  3. GRT has a great trade up program.
  4. I personally don?t like having the AP, and EFIS in one system. I want to use the AP as a back up to the EFIS.
  5. I don?t need synthetic vision as I am not an X-wing fighter going in to kill the death star.
  6. HITS is a nice to have, and it is on the GRT Sport.
  7. I don?t have, nor will have a GNS530. But If I do I can upgrade to the HX.
If Skyview gets some more functions working (moving map, EMS) and allows for the integrated use of a TT AP, I might sway back to Skyview and just prove it out in VFR conditions. So, this is not over yet.:)
 
Mike,
I think that you may not be comparing apples to apples on autopilot function so the conclusion that cost is within $1500 may not be right. For example, I think the Dynon Efis will drive its own proprietary servos, so the cost of a two axis Dynon autopilot solution is the cost of the servos. GRT offers "autopilot integration" , but I don't think that means that all you need to add are two servos. The cost of a separate two servo autopilot seems to be in the $4000 range.

I agree with you that the decision is a difficult one. In another thread, Rainier Lamers offered that his (MGL) system and others were aimed at different markets:
"Our respective products are very different in concept and so they don't directly compete with each other."
Subsequent postings didn't really flesh out what that meant, and no vendor piped up on the forum to identify what they considered their target market to be, or why. I think many prospective purchasers are facing the same "paradox of choice".
Bill Brooks
Ottawa, Canada
RV-6A finishing kit
(EFIS/autopilot not yet bought)
 
I have been overthinking this for a long time. It finally came down to a three step process: (1) Call Stein. (2) Tell him what you have now and what your proposed mission is, and (3) write a check. The check is in the mail...

Bob Kelly

BTW, it is 430 plus GRT. YMMV.
 
I suppose I'll chime in here even though I should know better :rolleyes:

The idea of one brand doing IFR and not another is bogus. All of the EFIS's can do what steam gages did years ago and that worked just fine for a lot of people. Because of this the question isn't which brands can do IFR, rather, how well do they do IFR.

I feel that a good autopilot is critical to a well rounded IFR platform for a number of reasons. It can act as the backup source of attitude in a pinch, it frees the pilot of to think about navigating instead of flying, and if it's designed well it can add a bit of safety since it is less likely to make a mistake than you are.

Given those things I don't think that the MGL and Dynon autopilots are good IFR platforms since you can't get a fully coupled approach with them, and because neither are as mature (known to work in many different types) as the TT autopilot. In other words buying a TT autopilot was pretty much a requirement in my panel. For me this meant buying an EFIS that integrated well that provided the features I wanted. The only two on the market at that time that could do this where the AFS and GRT. I picked the one that I liked better.

So for me AFS/GRT with a TT are good for IFR, while the Dynon and MGL are not so great.
 
Yeah,

Then when you add the fact that some EFIS's can transfigure data sources to look like other data sources and allow you to use an AP with less capabilities to do some things that more expensive AP's can do.

For instance...Some EFIS's allow you to input VOR/LOC/GS(NAV) data over an ARINC interface and the EFIS transfigures this data into GPSS and GPSV streams allowing an AP that does not support VOR/LOC/GS(NAV) to emulate flying these sources.

Then you have the hybrid units like the Dynon legacy units that can drive their AP with any source that their HSI can use which is pretty much everything with the exception of the vertical component. The AP76 was to deliver this capability but that is on hold....We hope that product will be released someday.

Whatever you decide to do, be sure you fully understand that the system you have dreamed up will come together in a system that will truly do what you think it will. It is easy to miss a detail here and there and find out later that your system will not work as you planned.

The other thing is think about the features and what the pilot workload is to enable and use those features. For a company to have a feature list a mile long means nothing if it takes three PHD's to know how to use it all.

wow... thanks...

that's a lot to consider.
 
Last edited:
What about customer service?

One thing I'd care about if I were choosing a system is "how will I be treated when I have a problem"? In my case, I have an AFS-3500EE system, and had a self-induced problem right before my DAR inspection/first flight (bummer!). Although not under warranty any more, I called AFS, and Rob Hickman (the owner) told me what was causing the problem in the box.

After explaining the problem, he said I could ship the unit back and they'd fix it (even though I caused the problem). When I mentioned my disappointment with my inspection/first flight schedule, he offered to build a brand new unit the next morning, ship it UPS overnight so I could stay on schedule, and I could return the original unit via snail mail. So I called him from Texas on Wednesday, and had a new unit in the plane by Friday! Inspected Saturday! To me this confirmed my good choice of going with AFS. It even showed up set up for an RV-4 on all the screens, which is what I have.

Hope this helps!

Rick
 
I think for the most part, Dynon, AFS and GRT share a great history of superb customer service. I don't think you can go wrong with either of them in that regard. Can't say for sure with MGL but from the post that the owner of MGL makes here, I can guess they are customer oriented as well but I am not clear on who supports MGL, the factory or the importer/distributor??

Granted there are exceptions.....but sometimes we don't always get the rest of or the complete story!!!
 
Last edited:
Six pages and no mention of the Garmin 3X.

I like the point made by the poster explaining the issue of how many units a plane will go through in an 8-10 year period. He stated he had used two units in a 4.5 year period. I want to do this once. I want it work.

Garmin is not going out of business. And Garmin is what every other manufacter copies in one form or another.

So why follow when you can go with a leader?
 
Last edited:
Six pages and no mention of the Garmin 3X.

I like the point made by the poster explaining the issue of how many units a plane will go through in an 8-10 year period. He stated he had used two units in a 4.5 year period. I want to do this once. I want it work.

Garmin is not going out of business. And Garmin is what every other manufacter copies in one form or another.

So why follow when you can go with a leader?

The G3X is so new to the market there is not a lot of experience with it yet for folks to post about. As such we do not yet know it is the best and as mentioned above it is mucho deniro comparatively speaking.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top