What's new
Van's Air Force

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

EFIS advice

D

deanflyer

Member
Hi,

Was looking for some advice on lower cost EFIS systems.

I like the Garmin systems but its too expensive for me and I only need a VFR solution. It is to replace existing steam gauges.

The Grand Rapids Sport EX looks good value for money. Also considering the MGL avionics iEFIS Lite.

Depending on cost I would also like to add engine monitoring/fuel flow as well.

Anyone using any of these systems?
 
Garmin

Dean,
If you are looking for a basic VFR setup and like Garmin then consider the following:
Garmin G5 - $1200
If you fly a lot of cross country and considering an autopilot based on the Garmin system then you can hook up your G5 to a Garmin Aera 660, and Autopilot control GMC 305 or GMC 307, add the servos and you have yourself a really solid autopilot that's driven by the 660/G5 Combination.

If you are just looking for the EFIS then the Garmin is a really nice unit that you can build on as your requirements grow.

I like Garmin myself and fought it for many years because of the "Garmin tax" - They are proud of their products and it is very expensive but for a reason. They stepped up in to the Experimental world in a big way a few years ago and have been driving for excellence which pushes the other manufacturers to push even harder. That competitive market is great for us, the consumer.

You certainly have several companies to choose from but if you like Garmin, the G5 is a great place to start.
 
Toobuilder said:
Used D-180. I paid $1350 for mine and it works just great.
Click to expand...
+1

IMHO the DYNON D180 is an awesome VFR bang for the buck unit that has a built in engine monitor. In the future, when $$$ becomes available, add a DYNON Pitot tube and you have AOA indication. Add two DYNON servos and you have a nice autopilot.

flightdek-d180-angle.jpg


:cool:
 
Last edited:
GalinHdz said:
+1

IMHO the DYNON D180 is an awesome VFR bang for the buck unit that has a built in engine monitor. In the future, when $$$ becomes available, add a DYNON Pitot tube and you have AOA indication. Add two DYNON servos and you have a nice autopilot.

flightdek-d180-angle.jpg


:cool:
Click to expand...

The D180 is a great platform for VFR or IFR. I fly a lot of IFR with a D10A in my 182.
 
I used a Grand Rapids Technologies 2 screen WS Horizon system for 8 years and loved it. Several generations later and I just upgraded to the Grand Rapids Sport EX and Horizon EX and am really enjoying it as well, while learning its specifics during instrument training. Grand Rapids offered a really good upgrade path and I took advantage of it. These are fed with engine data from the Grand Rapids Engine Information System or EIS which is one of the longest lived electronic engine monitors available. They've been around forever so the company doesn't seem to be at risk.

That said, I suspect that all of the big manufacturers have really good products and they each specialize in very subtly different markets. Some offering easier future upgrades, others offering all the bells and whistles right out of the gate, others offering IFR redundancies, other offering simpler is better approach...

Each has a market and I think your challenge is to try to define your mission while also allowing for whatever the future may hold. Some want simplicity, others want adaptability...I think you'll find most people like what they have, unless they've been orphaned which is why I mentioned GRT's longevity.

It can be an overwhelming decision, but I would offer that a good starting point would be to simply try to see each one in the flesh. Also, I've never known anyone who regretting getting as big a display as would fit. Deciding what "fits" can be more challenging depending on whether you want one display or redundant displays.

One often overlooked aspect is something that I started recommending many years ago when people agonized over what computer to get. I simply said to identify which friend or friends you are most likely to ask for help from and get what they've got! They are there before you and you can really benefit from their experience. But then again, that's kind of what you're doing, isn't it?:)

It's not an easy decision but agonizing over the abundant choices is half the fun!
 
Deanflyer:

You are getting a lot of recommendations. Just about any of the systems will work. Prices / Costs in the US may be less than in the UK.

My suggestion would be to look at the requirements (what you want the stuff to do), then the costs of the individual pieces from the different manufacturers, the necessary work to install the equipment, and then figure out what 'system' you like the best for the price. Do not forget to add in the engine monitor probes as that may or may not be included in the price.

It gets confusing looking at what boxes are necessary to make the system that you want for your own use.

I am two or three years away from purchasing a system for my RV-8 project. I just went through a vacuum system removal in my 20-year old RV-6 and upgraded to dual G5 and GMU11. (Will be selling vacuum stuff on VAF soon.) In the process of the G5 upgrade, I learned a lot about features that are contained in the G3X system that will save me money by not buying other boxes to do functions that it will do. Dynon and GRT both have similar systems and features. Determining which one suits your needs ends up being a personal decision and preferences on the techniques that the different manufacturers have used.
 
RV6_flyer said:
. Dynon and GRT both have similar systems and features.
d.
Click to expand...

IMHO the above statement is not true. Almost no one seems to 'open the hood and see what's inside', and indeed the manufacturers are not real forthcoming in discussing failure modes. But the Dynon needs airspeed data - or, an automatic switch over to gps data - or its horizon data will become unreliable. GRT does not need either of these to reach an attitude solution. You might think a double failure to be a rare event, but in fact one has been reported here on VAF, where a partial pitot clog was bad enough for the Dynon to lose its mind with regard to the horizon, but not bad enough to do the internal switch over to gps data. If you stick to vfr, this may be acceptable to you. If you fly ifr, you need to decide for yourself if it is acceptable.
 
I have the MGL Xtreme....... I Love it. Easy to wire EMS. Two wires go through the firewall, for everything. Attitude needs nothing..... Uses internal GPS and is very accurate for vfr use.

Connect power, pitot, static source, two wires for engine moniter and go fly!!
 
gasman said:
I have the MGL Xtreme....... I Love it. Easy to wire EMS. Two wires go through the firewall, for everything. Attitude needs nothing..... Uses internal GPS and is very accurate for vfr use.

Connect power, pitot, static source, two wires for engine moniter and go fly!!
Click to expand...

You don't need a magnatometer for heading? It uses gps?
 
BobTurner said:
IMHO the above statement is not true. Almost no one seems to 'open the hood and see what's inside', and indeed the manufacturers are not real forthcoming in discussing failure modes. But the Dynon needs airspeed data - or, an automatic switch over to gps data - or its horizon data will become unreliable. GRT does not need either of these to reach an attitude solution. You might think a double failure to be a rare event, but in fact one has been reported here on VAF, where a partial pitot clog was bad enough for the Dynon to lose its mind with regard to the horizon, but not bad enough to do the internal switch over to gps data. If you stick to vfr, this may be acceptable to you. If you fly ifr, you need to decide for yourself if it is acceptable.
Click to expand...

H'm, and here I was convinced that my Skyview AHARS has a true three-axis magnetometer--no drift in absence of GPS or airspeed data. So does the pocket D2.

Was your comment in reference to the D180 two posts above, and are you sure it uses a GPS-stabilized accelerometer instead of a magnetometer for attitude calculation? Or are you just randomly starting an urban legend with inaccurate data?

Me, I see oodles of posts on teh internetz where folks have to send their Garmin in for expensive repairs every full moon, and pretty much zero posts complaining about Dynon hardware failures (malicious USB sticks notwithstanding). There's a reason Dynon is the market leader by a wide margin, methinks, and one bug-in-the-pitot incidents seems like no reason to bash a highly respected pioneer in aviation instruments.

Can't comment on the reliability of GRT, but my vote goes to Dynon over Garmin for the main flight computer. Always have backup suitable for your mission, of course.
 
I don't think it is bashing or urban legend when you tell the truth.
Back in 2010 the Dynon equipment needed pitot data or the horizon would fail. To 'fix' the possibility of a horizon failure they added gps ground speed as a secondary data source, should the pitot fail.
Someone else on VAF, with Dynon equipment, reported that a partial pitot failure (indicated airspeed obviously low, but not zero) left him with an incorrect horizon display. It appeared that the unit did not detect the abnormal airspeed and switch to gps ground speed.
None of the above is 'urban legend'.
The Dynon software has an obvious benefit - it boots very fast, compared to my GRT (I have both a GRT HX, and a Dynon D6). I always thought my D6 was acceptable, given the gps data backup for airspeed data. The above mentioned post - that the Dynon might fail to detect a partial failure and might not switch data sources - is a possibility I had not considered.
I would certainly welcome Dynon to comment on this, and tell me that I'm wrong.

But the point I was trying to make is this: An amazingly large percentage of builders seem to buy on 'looks' or 'features', without ever asking important questions, like possible failure modes.
 
Last edited:
BobTurner said:
Someone else on VAF, with Dynon equipment, reported that a partial pitot failure (indicated airspeed obviously low, but not zero) left him with an incorrect horizon display. It appeared that the unit did not detect the abnormal airspeed and switch to gps ground speed.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused here...how is a "partial" pitot blockage (not failure) the fault of the EFIS? You're saying that it should determine which of TWO inputs is correct...but based on what? How can it determine which of two different measurements is correct? It's the aviation equivalent of taking two clocks to sea.

The airspeed may have been "obviously low" to a human in the cockpit who can see outside, but it's asking quite a lot of a software system to determine that the air data is "bad" when it's not completely off-scale (or zero). That'd mean it would have to continually evaluate airspeed, power, altitude (Height Above Ground) and perhaps other inputs in order to declare a sensor (pitot) bad.
 
Thanks for all the responses.

I fly planes for a living so get to stare at EFIS screens more than most. I'm not after fancy bells and whistles, just something to provide me with the basic information on one screen.

I really like the Garmin G5 but my aim is to replace the Venturi driven vacuum system so I would need two to replace the AI and DI so that cost starts looking similar to buying a low end EFIS display.

MY mission is to have reliability and get rid of the vacuum instruments. 99% of my flying will be VFR.

My aircraft is a Jodel DR1051-M1, I posted on here as you guys seem to install a lot of EFIS screens in your RVs :)
 
RV7A Flyer said:
I'm a bit confused here...how is a "partial" pitot blockage (not failure) the fault of the EFIS? You're saying that it should determine which of TWO inputs is correct...but based on what? How can it determine which of two different measurements is correct? It's the aviation equivalent of taking two clocks to sea.

The airspeed may have been "obviously low" to a human in the cockpit who can see outside, but it's asking quite a lot of a software system to determine that the air data is "bad" when it's not completely off-scale (or zero). That'd mean it would have to continually evaluate airspeed, power, altitude (Height Above Ground) and perhaps other inputs in order to declare a sensor (pitot) bad.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say. It is not so easy to detect all pitot failures. Failure of pitot data is not the "fault" of the EFIS; it is a failure of a data input which the EFIS software is critically dependent on. Worse, if you have an all-Dynon panel, it represents a single point failure that would affect all of the attitude displays. Individual users should inform themselves, and decide if the risk is acceptable. I for one would like to know if the turn coordinator bars still work properly without airspeed data. I don't know, but if I had a Dynon efis as my primary I would find out.
 
BobTurner said:
Worse, if you have an all-Dynon panel, it represents a single point failure that would affect all of the attitude displays.
Click to expand...

^ This here being the key point, of course! I see many installs where three giant displays are fed by a single AHARS, a single GPS/ADS-B, a single static port, etc.

A wiser path would be one 7" Dynon SkyView with all the fancy input and future upgradeability, then a separate device for every key function. Velcro a D2 next to it for horizon backup (no pitot needed), then make a baggage compartment for wife's purse in place of the other two screens. If you are hard IFR a smaller display makes for easier scan, and the other two screens are just distractions contributing to fatigue. Can't play in-flight movies on them either. ;)
 
Aluminum said:
^ This here being the key point, of course! I see many installs where three giant displays are fed by a single AHARS, a single GPS/ADS-B, a single static port, etc.

A wiser path would be one 7" Dynon SkyView with all the fancy input and future upgradeability, then a separate device for every key function. Velcro a D2 next to it for horizon backup (no pitot needed), then make a baggage compartment for wife's purse in place of the other two screens. If you are hard IFR a smaller display makes for easier scan, and the other two screens are just distractions contributing to fatigue. Can't play in-flight movies on them either. ;)
Click to expand...

And separate pitot source? And static? Because if one pitot or one static source is split to feed each of the separate ADAHRS units (wherever they may be located, internal or external to the display), then all you've done is move your SPF around a bit.
 
sblack said:
You don't need a magnatometer for heading? It uses gps?
Click to expand...

It uses gps. The gps is very quick and very accurate. Use it for VFR only. But it will give you the information needed to get you back to VFR if ever needed. I would trust it over a vacuum pump and gyros.

It will not show heading without a magnetometer, but heading won't get you where you want to go.
 
+1 for MGL.

I have to admit I wasn't really a big fan of their earlier generation stuff - it just kind of looked a bit clunky - but I just had the iEFIS Explorer (which is the 8.4" screen) Lite touchscreen installed in a Pitts. If I did it in an RV I'd go with the "full flavoured" version, the main difference being significant additional connectivity available, multi screens, etc. The processing power and flight software is essentially identical.

The can bus connection and link cables provided by MGL make it almost literally "plug & play" with the exception of serial ports and power/earth connections.

The screens are almost infinitely customisable with their windows design and simulation software, which is great if you're very fussy about the ergonomics of your instrumentation and display layout like me. Then if you decide you don't like it, tweaking it is a fairly simple affair. It takes a bit of self-education at first but if you're ok with a PC and windows file managers it's not a problem.

Bootup time for the flight software is a couple of seconds after the switch is flicked. Software upgrades, screen layout mods because you didn't like your first idea, and mapping updates are all via front mounted sd card slot integral in the display unit and takes about 5 seconds, if that. Changing from one screen to another (PFD to map to engine to whatever else you happen to have designed in there) is also close enough to instantaneous.

Most functions can be accomplished by pushbutton & knob if for some reason it's too bumpy to use the touchscreen. Matt at MGL USA is excellent with support for any installation glitches too. Very contactable by phone or email.

Disclaimer: never worked for MGL or had anything to do with them in my life.
 
Last edited:
The primary thing I get from that video is how to record wind noise effectively.

Have you done further research on whether others have had unsolvable issues, whether it's an inherent problem with the device, and whether MGL has offered a cure, if it's indeed an inherent problem?

No dog in the hunt, but I do know that especially with electronics, 'pilot error' is much more common that device issues.

Charlie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top