Garmin vs GRT vs MGL

Instead of building, I have decided to buy.
Does anyone have a summary sheet showing the glass cockpit choices and the differences?
For example, differences between a Garmin 900x, vs 3X and GRT hX vs GRT Xi

With so many options, I am trying to normalize the price as much as possible.

Tim

"SEARCH" is your friend! LOTS of discussions here, many asking the same question. Nobody will do all your homework for you, and nobody can know exactly what your personal preferences are. Most systems are now to the point where much of the purchasing decision is not focused on the technology so much as the user interface and support of the products.

Canadian_JOY said:

"SEARCH" is your friend! LOTS of discussions here, many asking the same question. Nobody will do all your homework for you, and nobody can know exactly what your personal preferences are. Most systems are now to the point where much of the purchasing decision is not focused on the technology so much as the user interface and support of the products.

Click to expand...

I have done a number of searches. Re-reading my post, I think I stated it poorly.
I think I need to go back and rethink my approach.
Fundamentally I am trying to determine how best to normalize planes for comparison purposes.

Any suggestions?

Tim

There is no way to "normalize" a comparison when it comes to avionics. The market and products are fluid (changing regularly) and you'll also find rather subjective and fierce positive brand loyalty from owners of each brand/product (which is great, but also makes it even more difficult).

My normal advice is to buy the airplane around the airframe, engine, prop, interior and overall quality of the airplane. You can change the avionics into whatever you like if the plane is priced appropriately. Don't buy the plane based on the panel or paint...those are the two easiest things to change.

Cheers,
Stein

SteinAir said:

There is no way to "normalize" a comparison when it comes to avionics. The market and products are fluid (changing regularly) and you'll also find rather subjective and fierce positive brand loyalty from owners of each brand/product (which is great, but also makes it even more difficult).

My normal advice is to buy the airplane around the airframe, engine, prop, interior and overall quality of the airplane. You can change the avionics into whatever you like if the plane is priced appropriately. Don't buy the plane based on the panel or paint...those are the two easiest things to change.

Cheers,
Stein

Click to expand...

Stein,

I come from the certified space, and I have NO brand loyalty
I am more concerned if the avionics get the job done, and how long before I would replace them. So if I compare a steam gauge plane with a GRT Hx with a Garmin 3X.
My instinct is the steam gauge plane gets knocked for 40K and immediate
upgrade. The GRT would get knocked for 20K, and delay for a couple of years. The Garmin I would not touch for a while....

But yeah, I get your point. This aspect of the effort, I am starting to view as mostly pointless.

Tim

Find the plane first, then call me next with a picture and I can likely tell you!
Anything short of that is almost an impossibility, even within brands... there is such a HUGE variation of products and functionality that it's pretty much impossible to get much of a firm a baseline to use as a datapoint.

tspear said:

Stein,

I come from the certified space, and I have NO brand loyalty
I am more concerned if the avionics get the job done, and how long before I would replace them. So if I compare a steam gauge plane with a GRT Hx with a Garmin 3X.
My instinct is the steam gauge plane gets knocked for 40K and immediate
upgrade. The GRT would get knocked for 20K, and delay for a couple of years. The Garmin I would not touch for a while....

But yeah, I get your point. This aspect of the effort, I am starting to view as mostly pointless.

Tim

Click to expand...

tspear said:

My instinct is the steam gauge plane gets knocked for 40K and immediate
upgrade. The GRT would get knocked for 20K, and delay for a couple of years. The Garmin I would not touch for a while....
Tim

Click to expand...

And there we see some personal bias already expressed. A GRT panel is just as good as a Garmin panel and a Dynon panel, or at least they each can be just as good, depending, as Stein mentioned, on the very exacting details of the equipment and their installation. The combinations and permutations are almost endless.

Figure out your mission, the purpose for the airplane. Buy the airplane that suits your mission from an airframe/engine/prop/performance perspective, then add or subtract avionics as necessary.

if you're coming from the certified world you will have heard lots of stories of how an avionics update is an earth-shattering, cataclysmic bank account emptying event event. Not so in the Experimental world. You'll be amazed what a weekend's work can do to transform a basic steam gauge VFR panel into a glass panel, then another weekend or two to add IFR capability. Careful planning is required, and there's lots of helpful guidance available on this forum to flesh out some of the details you'll need to arrive at a successful installation.

Again, concentrate on getting the airframe at the right value, then build on solid bones.

BTW very few, if any owners of a good steam gauge airplane are going to cut you $40K of slack in the price because their airplane doesn't have glass. Most folks recognize the difference between a modern IFR panel and a dated VFR panel and price accordingly, but nobody is going to pay for your new modern IFR panel if that is what you want - you'll be footing the bill for that either in the selling price of the nicely-equipped airplane or in the purchase price of the new avionics.

Canadian_JOY said:

And there we see some personal bias already expressed. A GRT panel is just as good as a Garmin panel and a Dynon panel, or at least they each can be just as good, depending, as Stein mentioned, on the very exacting details of the equipment and their installation. The combinations and permutations are almost endless.

Figure out your mission, the purpose for the airplane. Buy the airplane that suits your mission from an airframe/engine/prop/performance perspective, then add or subtract avionics as necessary.

if you're coming from the certified world you will have heard lots of stories of how an avionics update is an earth-shattering, cataclysmic bank account emptying event event. Not so in the Experimental world. You'll be amazed what a weekend's work can do to transform a basic steam gauge VFR panel into a glass panel, then another weekend or two to add IFR capability. Careful planning is required, and there's lots of helpful guidance available on this forum to flesh out some of the details you'll need to arrive at a successful installation.

Again, concentrate on getting the airframe at the right value, then build on solid bones.

BTW very few, if any owners of a good steam gauge airplane are going to cut you $40K of slack in the price because their airplane doesn't have glass. Most folks recognize the difference between a modern IFR panel and a dated VFR panel and price accordingly, but nobody is going to pay for your new modern IFR panel if that is what you want - you'll be footing the bill for that either in the selling price of the nicely-equipped airplane or in the purchase price of the new avionics.

Click to expand...

Actually, I could have use the GRT HxR versus the Garmin 900x.
I have done some research
I just picked numbers out of a hat to demonstrate concept.
Yes, I know experimental outside of the nav/com unit is a lot cheaper. And it is part of why I am headed to experimental.

But Stein's point, and yours sort of get to the same basic idea. Avionics are some of the easier aspects to change. So focus on the other areas.

Tim

Canadian_JOY said:

You'll be amazed what a weekend's work can do to transform a basic steam gauge VFR panel into a glass panel, then another weekend or two to add IFR capability.

Click to expand...

Jeez... I'm doing well if I get 3 or 4 connectors wired in a weekend!

It depends on the quality and design of the wiring in the panel to begin with and how accessible it is. Sure, you could stuff a G5 or Mini-GA into a round instrument hole and be on your way quickly. But a full panel is a lot of work, especially if you have to do a lot of wiring upside down while contorted in confined spaces. No thanks!

KatieB said:

Jeez... I'm doing well if I get 3 or 4 connectors wired in a weekend!

It depends on the quality and design of the wiring in the panel to begin with and how accessible it is. Sure, you could stuff a G5 or Mini-GA into a round instrument hole and be on your way quickly. But a full panel is a lot of work, especially if you have to do a lot of wiring upside down while contorted in confined spaces. No thanks!

Click to expand...

Ah Katie, you obviously haven't discovered the joys of a true Plug and Plan panel! Connectorize everything except the big fat power and ground leads. Make your entire panel so it unbolts from the aircraft structure. Avionics mods are a breeze when done this way!

Canadian_JOY said:

Ah Katie, you obviously haven't discovered the joys of a true Plug and Plan panel! Connectorize everything except the big fat power and ground leads. Make your entire panel so it unbolts from the aircraft structure. Avionics mods are a breeze when done this way!

Click to expand...

Sorry, gotta agree with Katie here. 3 weekends for a glass IFR panel! I'd like to see that!

Panel

That's why I love my Approach Fast Stack Pro Hub.
Bob

jthocker said:

Sorry, gotta agree with Katie here. 3 weekends for a glass IFR panel! I'd like to see that!

Click to expand...

Depends how modular you build it, and what you started out with and what you want in the end. Sure, if you want to add the whole shebang including audio panel, a pair of GNS-type navs, three displays etc it's going to take longer. For a basic IFR panel it doesn't take very long if well organized.

Then again there's always the airplane that doesn't have any provisions in it for autopilot servos or even a PTT on the stick - yes, those do take longer. Again, it depends where you start and where you want to finish. Making the panel modular and fully connectorized saves a ton of time when it comes to putting it in the airplane and making things light up (ah, that's the backlights, not the big sparks! LoL)

Canadian_JOY said:

Not so in the Experimental world. You'll be amazed what a weekend's work can do to transform a basic steam gauge VFR panel into a glass panel, then another weekend or two to add IFR capability.

Click to expand...

Sorry but statements like this don't reflect any form of reality, and unfortunately, some folks will read stuff like this and take it as gospel.

Replacing a full panel with a new modern IFR glass cockpit CANNOT possibly be done in a few weekends unless perhaps you are superman. Even if you purchased a complete panel already wired and ready to go (which took more than a few weekends to build) it would take you more time than this to mount all the LRU's, install the panel and run all the associated aircraft wiring to get it all working. Heck it takes me a full day just to do all the setup, testing and calibrating after I'm all done with an installation.

Walt said:

Sorry but statements like this don't reflect any form of reality, and unfortunately, some folks will read stuff like this and take it as gospel.

Replacing a full panel with a new modern IFR glass cockpit CANNOT possibly be done in a few weekends unless perhaps you are superman. Even if you purchased a complete panel already wired and ready to go (which took much more than a few weekends to build) it would take you more time than this to mount all the LRU's, install the panel and run all the associated aircraft wiring to get it all working. Heck it takes me a full day just to do all the setup, testing and calibrating after I'm all done with an installation.

Click to expand...

Thanks Walt!

I have to be very careful these days!

New panel was easy for me -- visit Stein, order from Stein, give airplane to Mutha Thocker and a few months later, a new glass cockpit. Just send $$$.

I think Mutha got lots of grey hair from my Rocket, but it sure rocks now!

Buy the plane, fly as is for a bit. Figure your needs in avionics and fix later based on need, wishes and $$$ available. I flew my round dials 2 years before Mutha ripped out all wires and replaced with all Garmin products. Most planes have more in their avionics then will be used. I have full IFR, but I prefer being in the bar when the WX is bad.

I suspect Jon and Walt missed my point about the power of a modular, connectorized Plug and Play design being able to minimize aircraft down-time. Yes, the actual panel fab time doesn't change very much, but the all-important aircraft down-time really gets a boost from a modular approach to avionics and instrument panels.

In an aircraft designed for modularity, avionics upgrades can be fast and relatively easy. In an aircraft that's already connectorized, a pre-fab panel can be installed very quickly - yes, a weekend is entirely do-able to get the new panel in and lit up. If one applies some forethought, the panel itself can be designed to be modular, with connectors in strategic locations. As an example, when the audio panel was initially installed in a basic VFR panel, all the ins/outs for COMM2 and NAV2 could have been wired to, for instance, inexpensive DB9 connectors - installing a new radio using a pre-wired rack can be done quickly because one no longer has to dive into the audio panel wiring. Similarly, from a mechanical perspective, if the panel is built as a mechanical frame with removable bolt-on inserts, the mechanical installation can be pre-fabbed and ready to bolt into the airplane.

I agree that an airplane that was put together using straight point-to-point wiring is going to take some time to modify to a modular design, but once the aircraft side of the wiring is on connectors future updates can go very, very quickly indeed. If you're not already selling your customers on the value of modularity, now might be a good time to start. The real value is in the way it reduces aircraft down-time when doing future upgrades. With the rate of innovation and change in experimental avionics, the payback cycle for designs built with modularity in mind is short!

Canadian_JOY said:

I suspect Jon and Walt missed my point about the power of a modular, connectorized Plug and Play design being able to minimize aircraft down-time. Yes, the actual panel fab time doesn't change very much, but the all-important aircraft down-time really gets a boost from a modular approach to avionics and instrument panels.

In an aircraft designed for modularity, avionics upgrades can be fast and relatively easy. In an aircraft that's already connectorized, a pre-fab panel can be installed very quickly - yes, a weekend is entirely do-able to get the new panel in and lit up. If one applies some forethought, the panel itself can be designed to be modular, with connectors in strategic locations. As an example, when the audio panel was initially installed in a basic VFR panel, all the ins/outs for COMM2 and NAV2 could have been wired to, for instance, inexpensive DB9 connectors - installing a new radio using a pre-wired rack can be done quickly because one no longer has to dive into the audio panel wiring. Similarly, from a mechanical perspective, if the panel is built as a mechanical frame with removable bolt-on inserts, the mechanical installation can be pre-fabbed and ready to bolt into the airplane.

I agree that an airplane that was put together using straight point-to-point wiring is going to take some time to modify to a modular design, but once the aircraft side of the wiring is on connectors future updates can go very, very quickly indeed. If you're not already selling your customers on the value of modularity, now might be a good time to start. The real value is in the way it reduces aircraft down-time when doing future upgrades. With the rate of innovation and change in experimental avionics, the payback cycle for designs built with modularity in mind is short!

Click to expand...

Mark, with all due respect, I can't tell from your signature or your profile what you have built, building or upgraded. I believe the OP was talking about an upgrade. Your scenario only makes sense if it was incorporated into the original build. As for future upgrades, my customers upgrade path is easy already.
I install Garmin for them!

Jon - likewise, with all due respect, I won't get into a war of credentials. I will, however, state that a retrofit/upgrade that continues with point-to-point wiring doesn't bring as much value over the long run as an upgrade that makes the aircraft wiring and the instrument panel more modular. The modularity is what makes that next Garmin panel go in so quickly and easily as a bolt-on (if it's the Garmin flavor you prefer).

I'm not an avionics person BUT

It appears to me that a bit of a "pixxing contest" is starting to develop here so I'll just add my "two cents."

Avionics upgrades and electrical system mods are definitely not easy for most of us who've not gained professional expertise or training. However, my limited experience of hard wiring (FlightBox) ads-b "IN" to my GRT EFIS, conversion from manual trim to electric trim and installation and wiring of a trim servo hub with two multiple button military style Tosten grips (Coolie hat 4 way trim, transponder ident, PTT, A/P engage/disengage, flaps, comm and freq swap), adding LED landing lights, hunting down occasional sensor problems/faulty connections, and now in the process of changing out a Garmin GTX 330 (non-WAAS) transponder to the GTX 335 transponder; has taught me the "value" of a well designed and built panel that utilizes modular plugs, labeling of wires, and a good schematic that identifies how and what is wired to these modular plugs? Quick and easy weekend projects - NO! Doable over a few weekends - DEFINITELY!

My electrical experience (prior to owning the RV7A that I now have) was basically limited to changing light bulbs, minor lamp repair, and working on my autos. However the SteinAir videos, watching other UTube videos, talking to (pestering) folks like Pat Hatch, Jason Smith, Greg Tomain, Eric, Jeff Defow, and Stein Bruch gave me enough confidence (or stupidity) to tackle these various projects. Sometimes you have to be smart enough to "stop working" and call for help! In all cases, my Aerotronics professionally built panel enabled the accomplishment of my goals.

So I will say "your all correct!" Modularity is key to facilitating reasonable and maybe unreasonable upgrades. But so is good wire labeling practices and updated, well drawn schematics. Both Aerotronics and SteinAir excel at these panels. A good multimeter is also required along with the purchase of the required tools, molex connectors and pins, d-sub connections and pins, etc.

But another caveat is needed. A willingness to go to professionals (often) when you don't understand something and the recognition that some things (parts of an upgrade) are better left to the pros. After all, you are not only paying for their experience but also their willingness to get on their backside and work upside down in tight spaces (or wire up a conversion harness so you don't have to get upside down for as long as it would have been required).

Experimental aircraft are great teaching machines and the RV community is a great sharing group. I've found the advertisers on the VAF Forum are truly special folks who really care about customer service. The RV grin doesn't come from just flying the aircraft, it also comes from the educational experience of owning one.