What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Glass Cockpit Comparison Matrix?

1001001

Well Known Member
There have been innumerable threads on the question of "which glass cockpit should I buy," all of which combine to make the subject more and more confusing for a newbie to the topic. Would the VAF community benefit from a feature comparison matrix across all product offerings? Does some such thing exist that I have been missing?

If you were creating such a matrix from data supplied by manufacturers themselves, what information would you want to see? In other words, if I were creating a questionnaire for vendors to answer, comprised of a combination of simple yes/no questions as well as non "boolean" information, what would you suggest as important information to compare?
 
As you note there have been innumerable threads on this subject. A common response to every thread has been along the lines of no one size fits all.

Glass cockpit decisions need to be made on an individual basis depending on the needs and wants of the individual.

The problems with a matrix are many.

Looking at available info from manufacturers and users one can often be lead astray.
Users tend to over glorify the positives of their particular unit and downplay or not even mention the negatives.

Manufacturers list the features of their unit that are often “to become available in the future” and all too often never actually become available.

Then there are ongoing support issues that are unknown until the units have been in the field for quite a while as evidenced by recent posts about down loading charts. One is a complaint about download speed for a major EFIS model; another is a complaint that Mac users can’t use Macs to download for another major manufacturer.

There are just too many items and issues that would never make it into the matrix.
Another major problem with a matrix is keeping it up to date. The offerings from all the manufacturers are getting updates and enhancements so frequently that it would take an entire IT department to keep the matrix up to date.

Finally how would an individual user “weight” each item in the matrix?

The best advice for decision making I have seen in the many multitude of posts is>>>>>
Do a lot of research on any unit you might be interested.
Get hands on use playing with the buttons of the various units (OSH and S&F). Ride in a plane that has one if you can.

Evaluate them based on your needs and wants.

Keep in mind resale value of the plane when selecting (this is where popularity and brand name count).

Remember your needs and wants will change over time and newer better stuff becomes available every day.

Don’t buy anything till the last possible minute because the next day it will be obsolete.

Over the years I agonized over this very issue on several different aircraft. I have finally come full circle from lots of whiz bang neat do everything efis’s to simple.

If I were to build again I would put in old fashion steam gauges, a couple of Garmin 4XXs for navcoms and an iPad mini with fore flight. But that’s just me.

Short answer, I think building a matrix is an exercise in futility.
 
As you note there have been innumerable threads on this subject. A common response to every thread has been along the lines of no one size fits all.

Glass cockpit decisions need to be made on an individual basis depending on the needs and wants of the individual.

The problems with a matrix are many.

Looking at available info from manufacturers and users one can often be lead astray.
Users tend to over glorify the positives of their particular unit and downplay or not even mention the negatives.

Manufacturers list the features of their unit that are often ?to become available in the future? and all too often never actually become available.

Then there are ongoing support issues that are unknown until the units have been in the field for quite a while as evidenced by recent posts about down loading charts. One is a complaint about download speed for a major EFIS model; another is a complaint that Mac users can?t use Macs to download for another major manufacturer.

There are just too many items and issues that would never make it into the matrix.
Another major problem with a matrix is keeping it up to date. The offerings from all the manufacturers are getting updates and enhancements so frequently that it would take an entire IT department to keep the matrix up to date.

Finally how would an individual user ?weight? each item in the matrix?

The best advice for decision making I have seen in the many multitude of posts is>>>>>
Do a lot of research on any unit you might be interested.
Get hands on use playing with the buttons of the various units (OSH and S&F). Ride in a plane that has one if you can.

Evaluate them based on your needs and wants.

Keep in mind resale value of the plane when selecting (this is where popularity and brand name count).

Remember your needs and wants will change over time and newer better stuff becomes available every day.

Don?t buy anything till the last possible minute because the next day it will be obsolete.

Over the years I agonized over this very issue on several different aircraft. I have finally come full circle from lots of whiz bang neat do everything efis?s to simple.

If I were to build again I would put in old fashion steam gauges, a couple of Garmin 4XXs for navcoms and an iPad mini with fore flight. But that?s just me.

Short answer, I think building a matrix is an exercise in futility.

Thanks for the frank reply. My intention with a matrix would be to try to remove subjective concerns such as individual opinions and the tendency of people to "sell" the system they bought to others. I understand the concerns here, and I recognize the issues you bring up, for sure. I probably wouldn't have had the question if the answer were a simple one.

So, does anyone think that these systems can be boiled down to a matrix of "what's available right now" features, devoid of opinion? Individual builders could look at a matrix of objective facts and determine what's valuable information to each of them.
 
A similar problem with a matrix is that often they all will have "feature X" but they will implement it differently or have a differ user experience.

Not to be disparaging to any vendor and in not way am I making a comparison across industries but consider this:

A MacBook Air and a Dell XPS13 have the same matrix but ask a consumer to compare them and you will leave frustrated.

The best advise is to "see for your self". ... and "buy at the last possible minute" :)
 
I have often recomended to EFIS shoppers that they build their own matrix like you sugest - but the value is not really in the matrix itself, ratehr it is in the BUILDING of the matrix - because in doing that work, you learn not only what you really neeed/want, but how those needs/wants are implemented in each brand's units.

In short, the result is not as important as the homework it takes to get there.

The fact is that five or ten years ago, thre were significant differences in the capabilities of various units. Now, they are all very similar on paper - but how the various functions and features are implented are different - and that is where the choices are to be made.

Stein and myself used to do a forum at OSH on the topic of choosing an EFIS - we stopped this year because frankly, it comes down to making your own list and trying them all out.

Paul
 
And it's still very personal. Some people love touch screens; I like knobs (easier to grab in turbulence).
 
And it's still very personal. Some people love touch screens; I like knobs (easier to grab in turbulence).

I agree with Bob. I can not speak for others, but after years of looking at everything that came and went from the shows we found that it was more of a try and see what works for you and what fits the type of flying you do and the aircraft you select. We thought we would be putting in one type and makers system for a long time, but when it was time to change to the class world and leave the steam one we quickly found that we had a lot of peoples systems that did much the same thing at close to the same cost. And we also found that what we liked was not what others around us liked, but did what we wanted and looked right to us and our needs and flying style. Paul has it, " they are all good boxes these day and the upper 5 makers will all do you a good job. In the end we picked a full system for their reputation and history in aviation, as much the great systems they make. I know this does not or may not help you but it is what most of us go through to find the answer to your question and I don't think the type of Matrix or comparison chart you are hinting at will change this debate any time soon. Yours as always, R.E.A. III #80888
 
Last edited:
And it's still very personal. Some people love touch screens; I like knobs (easier to grab in turbulence).

But the Dynon touch screen also has knobs and buttons. It's the best of both worlds, and is one of those rare things in life where you don't have to trade off one thing for another.

I love the touch screen on SkyView and after 80 hours flying behind it I don't even think about it anymore, but there are times when I revert to the knobs and buttons.

Just another case of personal preference. I also agree with Paul, the value is in building the matrix not in the matrix.
 
But the Dynon touch screen also has knobs and buttons. ix.

A good example of looking deep into the guts of systems. I could have said,
"Some people are accepting of an attitude solution that needs pitot data, with GPS as a back up; some want an AI solution which is independent of both."
 
Back
Top