Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Comparisons AFS, Dynon, or Garmin?
- Thread starter tdhanson
- Start date
That's a tough question to answer but I'll give it a shot. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy who flies a 30+ year old 172 with a G400 and steam gauges...so take it for what it's worth. I've been reading/studying/dreaming about these avionics for a few years though so I feel like I can offer some insight. The people who are actually flying behind these systems I'm sure will chime in with insight into how they use their systems and why they chose them.
Dynon - focused on the low cost end of the market. They provide a lot of functionality at an impressive price. From what I've gathered from the opinions expressed here on VAF (I'm generalizing) is that it is a system more suited to VFR than IFR. This is mainly due the lack of the ability to integrate with other avionics. For instance, Dynon can not send GPS steering commands to another company auto pilot. Also, in the past (this has been updated in the latest software release) the attitude display was dependent upon having pitot data. If you lost the pitot tube for some reason (icing, debris, etc) you would lose accurate attitude information. The system now uses GPS ground speed data as a backup so the attitude indicator doesn't go TU if you lose the pitot data.
The Skyview system is not reliant on pitot data for attitude solution and if the pitot is lost then reverts to GPS ground speed and the attitude information is still good. They are working on developing GPS steering commands their own autopilot and should be available in a future version of Skyview.
Grand Rapids - Based upon the opinions I've read here this seems to be the preferred avionics for IFR flight. Search for "GRT and Ironflight" in the archives and you'll find some excellent write ups from Paul Dye (aka Ironflight) on his experience with his GRT system.
The GRT system is about double the price (maybe a bit more) than a Dynon. It's advantages are it's ability to integrate with a lot of different boxes from a lot of manufactures. It can take the flight plan and GPS info from a 430 (or even the 39X/69X handhelds) and feed GPS steering commands to your autopilot. It takes traffic information from a Xanon or GTX transponder and can overlay the traffic targets on the moving map. With an XM weather receiver you can dispaly weather info on the moving map.
The attitude information is not dependent on the pitot data for the solution which makes people feel more comfortable about flying it IFR.
Garmin - The highest priced route but you get the comfort of buying from a "major" manufacturer with certified experience. Keep in mind none of these systems from Garmin are certified though.
The G3X stuff - the low end of Garmin's offerings. The price seems to be equivalent (maybe a bit more) than a full GRT system. However this system doesn't have the equivalent level of functionality of a GRT system. I don't think (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that a G3X can provide GPS steering commands to an autopilot. Obviously it does integrate very well with other Garmin products.
The G600 - I don't really see how the G600 is different from the G3X stuff. It appears to have about the same functionality but the price is much higher, about double the G3X. Someone who knows this better can elaborate.
The G900 - in my opinion this is the Cadillac of avionics. Nice big screens and a truly integrated system. You get the radios, transponder and GPS all in one package and it works very well together. The G900 will send the steering commands to an external autopilot as well. However this is very expensive, about $60K from what I can tell (again someone please correct me if I'm wrong). This would be an excellent system for IFR work with as close to certified hardware as you can get (it's basically the same system just without the paperwork) and has been proven as a good IFR platform on literally 1,000's of airplanes.
Last edited:
What do you want it for?
Could I suggest that before making a list of features you think carefully about what want the box to do? All 3 manufacturers are in different price brackets, so will give you different capabilities. VFR or IFR, cruising or aerobatics? What's your attitude to reliability? Do you want a system that's based on certified software & hardware? What kind of autopilot integration?
If you can afford a G900 then why look any further?
If you don't know what you want, then you won't be satisfied with what you get!
Pete
PS Looks like our posts crossed, I'd still suggest you figure out what you want the system to do for you. Also Advanced Flight Systems offers equipment that is equal, and perhaps better than, GRT at comparable prices.
Could I suggest that before making a list of features you think carefully about what want the box to do? All 3 manufacturers are in different price brackets, so will give you different capabilities. VFR or IFR, cruising or aerobatics? What's your attitude to reliability? Do you want a system that's based on certified software & hardware? What kind of autopilot integration?
If you can afford a G900 then why look any further?
If you don't know what you want, then you won't be satisfied with what you get!
Pete
PS Looks like our posts crossed, I'd still suggest you figure out what you want the system to do for you. Also Advanced Flight Systems offers equipment that is equal, and perhaps better than, GRT at comparable prices.
Last edited:
Auburntsts
Well Known Member
Another data point: the G600 is TSOd for certified installations and has SV which is why it costs so much more than the G3X.
Last edited:
Hello Tracy,
I see that you just joined the VAF forums today - welcome aboard!
one of the great
things about the forums is the amount of history they have accumulated in the five years or so they have been around - you can take advantage of them to read hundreds of threads about all of the various systems out thee - just peruse the "Glass Cockpit" area of the forum - settle back and have hours of reading enjoyment.
That might help you to generate a more specific list of questions that haven't yet been addressed. Your question is a bit unfocused right now - sort of like walking up to a group of builders at Oshkosh and asking "what's the best airplane?"
Paul
I see that you just joined the VAF forums today - welcome aboard!
one of the great
things about the forums is the amount of history they have accumulated in the five years or so they have been around - you can take advantage of them to read hundreds of threads about all of the various systems out thee - just peruse the "Glass Cockpit" area of the forum - settle back and have hours of reading enjoyment.That might help you to generate a more specific list of questions that haven't yet been addressed. Your question is a bit unfocused right now - sort of like walking up to a group of builders at Oshkosh and asking "what's the best airplane?"
Paul
rv7boy
Forum Peruser
Observation and Suggestion re: EFIS's
It's interesting to me that Tracy didn't even ask about the GRT and he got a reply. His original request was about AFS, Dynon and Garmin. As Paul said, there's a lot of information in these files. One caution, avionics seem to evolve every 6 months. So if you're reading something in the archives that's over two years old, well, it may be out of date. I was so proud to purchase my 396 at Oshkosh at show price a few years ago, because the 496 had just come out. This last month, I learned the 396 is being discontinued.
My suggestion, if you're interested in seeing how they work, is to either get some rides with some pilots who have the EFIS's (or is it EFI? - my Latin teacher would flunk me now!!!) of the brand names you're interested in or possibly go to a show like Airventure or Sun'n Fun or perhaps a closer one depending upon where you live.
Paul gave me a ride in the Val a couple of years ago, and it was awesome to see his GRT's alive and well while flying over the bay. That was the first time I had seen a living GRT. I was most impressed.
It's interesting to me that Tracy didn't even ask about the GRT and he got a reply. His original request was about AFS, Dynon and Garmin. As Paul said, there's a lot of information in these files. One caution, avionics seem to evolve every 6 months. So if you're reading something in the archives that's over two years old, well, it may be out of date.
I was so proud to purchase my 396 at Oshkosh at show price a few years ago, because the 496 had just come out. This last month, I learned the 396 is being discontinued.My suggestion, if you're interested in seeing how they work, is to either get some rides with some pilots who have the EFIS's (or is it EFI? - my Latin teacher would flunk me now!!!) of the brand names you're interested in or possibly go to a show like Airventure or Sun'n Fun or perhaps a closer one depending upon where you live.
Paul gave me a ride in the Val a couple of years ago, and it was awesome to see his GRT's alive and well while flying over the bay. That was the first time I had seen a living GRT. I was most impressed.
Brantel
Well Known Member
I must correct this piece of out of date information. The current firmware can fail to the GPS even on the Legacy Series of gear.
Last edited:
I must correct this piece of out of date information. The current firmware can fail to the GPS even on the Legacy Series of gear.
I wasn't sure if that was for all their systems, or just Skyview.
Good news, thanks!
AFS is similar to GRT in functionality, features, and price, however there are some differences:
1. AFS uses an essentially certified ARHS.
2. AFS units have purpose built hardware that runs MUCH cooler than all of the others except for the older dynon stuff.
3. AFS has geo-referenced approach plates.
4. AFS advanced deck has joystick controls.
The answer to your question depends on mission and price. If you want full IFR with autopilot that will fly the entire thing then AFS and a TT will work well. If you want to spend less money then dynon fits the bill.
I don't know anything about garmin because I can't afford their stuff.
schu
1. AFS uses an essentially certified ARHS.
2. AFS units have purpose built hardware that runs MUCH cooler than all of the others except for the older dynon stuff.
3. AFS has geo-referenced approach plates.
4. AFS advanced deck has joystick controls.
The answer to your question depends on mission and price. If you want full IFR with autopilot that will fly the entire thing then AFS and a TT will work well. If you want to spend less money then dynon fits the bill.
I don't know anything about garmin because I can't afford their stuff.
schu
Since he asked about SkyView, we have two joysticks on the SkyView screens. Also, since power = heat, the 10" SkyView draws 2.6A @ 12V, while the old AF-3000 series is spec'd at 2.5A. I doubt the AF-4500 draws less. Looks like they are equivalent.
As Brantel says, all of our systems can now use GPS to back up pitot failures.
Last edited:
RudiGreyling
Well Known Member
Ditto, I am also with you, I am also relatively new to the IFR game and don't have to luxury to make a mistake on the wrong panel. There are some good advice above, some good info in the archives, but check if it is still relevant. The best advice is to go fly an integrated system if you can.
Me in South Africa means we don't have that many aeroplanes and opertunities to fly each of those systems. You might have missed MGL on your list. The one thing I like about MGL is they have a simulator for your PC. I battled to get it working right and get the correct files installed etc, but now at least I can play (although at a lower frame rate) with their screens and maps and setup on my PC.
I wish ALL the big 5 would make simulators on the PC for their products to evaluate them. Wishfull thinking???
Regards
Rudi
I agree 100% with you Rudi - a PC-based simulator would be a huge adjunct to any EFIS out there - at the very least, it would save a lot of gas money that gets spent flying around figuring out how all the little details work. And as you say, it would allow folks to make a lot better comparison when shopping.
I've written this before, but the biggest problem with asking people's opinions about "EFIS vs. EFIS" on the internet is that most folks have only flown behind one brand's equipment. It's easy to give the pros and cons of that brand, but hard to compare and contrast it with other brands if you have no direct experience with them...
Paul
rleffler
Well Known Member
I agree with Paul and wanted to add a couple more data points......
Bells and whistles are nice. EFIS vendors, just like electronics vendors, are going to leap frog every few months as new releases are available. I would strongly recommend only taking into consideration features available in the currently shipping product. If you are a year out from installing your EFIS, then you have time to make a decision and review the options down the road. Bells and whistles are important, but I would argue it’s not the most important criteria in making your decision.
Almost every EFIS vendor has had problems with bringing pre-announced features/products to market on time. One vendor has become extremely conservative in announcing new features because of past delivery issues, one is currently going through the pain, and I hope the other won't make the same mistakes their competitors did. Bottom line, if it isn't working today, it isn't working.
Paul Dye wrote an excellent article about a year ago in RVator talking about mission requirements and backups. I highly recommend everyone to read this article before shopping for an EFIS. If you follow Paul's advice, it will allow you to make better decisions about which components your really need and hopefully get you out of the my EFIS is better than your EFIS. The problem is that it's natural for everyone to attempt to justify their personal expenditures and the debate becomes a religious discussion with no correct answer very quickly. You may find out there is a significant differentiator that separates the EFIS vendors.
I did an experiment at Airventure this past summer since I'm shopping for an EFIS too. I asked everyone that had already purchased an EFIS, what drove them to make their decision. I would say that the majority were only able to talk about cosmetic appearances and very few could articulate features or process issues that drove their decisions. From my very unscientific survey, I came to the conclusion that the EFIS Sales and Marketing teams are good at their job. I found very strong product loyalty, but not much depth of knowledge of the products.
The last item that I rarely see discussed is single pilot IFR process. This is a tough subject to compare EFIS vendors with, but probably is the most important. If you are flying IFR, what process must you follow to accomplish the task at hand. For example, what sequence of events do you have to follow or what buttons do you have to push in what order? Is the process intuitive or is it so complex it's hard to learn? I know of one EFIS vendor that made changes to their product when a principal of the company got their IFR rating and made the process easier to manage. I'm sure there are similar stories for some of the other vendors. What makes this the most difficult to compare is you can't get this information off a web forum or in a booth at Airventure. Also, what is intuitive to me, may not be intuitive to you. The only effective way to make the comparison is to fly behind each EFIS under simulated IFR conditions to experience things directly. Unfortunately, most of us don't have that opportunity since the local installed base of EFIS panels doesn't present much diversity. Fortunately, I believe that situation is slowly changing. Before making a purchase decision, I would highly recommend finding and flying with another pilot that has your preferred EFIS installed. You may want to do the same with your second choice just to confirm your decision.
I’ll get off my soap box now. I have specifically not mentioned any vendor’s names, because what’s best for me, may not be best for you. I have made my EFIS decision. Fortunately, a local pilot that just started flying has my second choice EFIS installed. So hopefully, within a few weeks I will have the opportunity to fly behind both products and make a more informed decision. Also, since I don’t need to make the EFIS purchase until the spring, I can also see what happens with both vendors and new features.
Last edited:
kentb
Well Known Member
Bob's post got me to thinking....
Five years ago when I was making choices on what to put in my panel, I was looking for a solid IFR setup. I didn't have much IFR experience, but had my ticket.
At the time the 'best' that I could afford was Blue Mt and the specs. looked good. I talked to Greg (BMA) and worked out the perfect system.
BMA EFIS Sport (it had synthetic vision)
BMA EFIS Lite (gotta have backup)
BMA AP
GNS 430
SL30
Narco AT50 (I already had this, but it never worked right so was replaced with AT165)
PS8000 Audio
AFS 2500 engine monitor
AFS AOA
Plus ASI, ALT, Turn&Bank round gauges (more back up).
I could never get the AP to work correctly. It would hold ALT only to +- 200 ft. Set it to ascend or descend at 300 ft/min and you would see anywhere between 0 and 900 ft/min.
Course would may go off by 30 degree and any time.
The Lite was the best of the 3 BMA products that I purchased, but the Sport gets the 'leans' after about 5 minutes of flight or if you do a 360 turn.
The radio stack has work very well.
I am most happy with the AOA and engine monitor. They have work exactly as they should and are easy to use after being calibrated.
Now that I have divested myself of the BMA equipment, I still want a nice IFR platform to fly. I am going to put AFS EFIS in my plane.
This is not so much based on a feature by feature comparison or price, but on the experience that I have had with AFS and also a little on the Rob Hickman lives close by and I know the type of person that he is.
So I think that the choice (at least for me) is more about the company and the people behind the produce.
I have already replace the AP with AFS's version of TT and it is working great (+- 10 ft, +- 1 degree in heading). Thank you TT for a great product.
Kent
Five years ago when I was making choices on what to put in my panel, I was looking for a solid IFR setup. I didn't have much IFR experience, but had my ticket.
At the time the 'best' that I could afford was Blue Mt and the specs. looked good. I talked to Greg (BMA) and worked out the perfect system.
BMA EFIS Sport (it had synthetic vision)
BMA EFIS Lite (gotta have backup)
BMA AP
GNS 430
SL30
Narco AT50 (I already had this, but it never worked right so was replaced with AT165)
PS8000 Audio
AFS 2500 engine monitor
AFS AOA
Plus ASI, ALT, Turn&Bank round gauges (more back up).
I could never get the AP to work correctly. It would hold ALT only to +- 200 ft. Set it to ascend or descend at 300 ft/min and you would see anywhere between 0 and 900 ft/min.
Course would may go off by 30 degree and any time.
The Lite was the best of the 3 BMA products that I purchased, but the Sport gets the 'leans' after about 5 minutes of flight or if you do a 360 turn.
The radio stack has work very well.
I am most happy with the AOA and engine monitor. They have work exactly as they should and are easy to use after being calibrated.
Now that I have divested myself of the BMA equipment, I still want a nice IFR platform to fly. I am going to put AFS EFIS in my plane.
This is not so much based on a feature by feature comparison or price, but on the experience that I have had with AFS and also a little on the Rob Hickman lives close by and I know the type of person that he is.
So I think that the choice (at least for me) is more about the company and the people behind the produce.
I have already replace the AP with AFS's version of TT and it is working great (+- 10 ft, +- 1 degree in heading). Thank you TT for a great product.
Kent
This topic pops up a couple times a year, and Paul/Bob are pretty much right on target. The mfgrs are very good ar marketing, and henceforth you'll get & see a lot of opinions from people who are basing those opinions on the marketing material, websites, and posts from mfgrs....and many having not flown behind any of them or finished their own plane. I'm not taking anything away from those people because we are all entitled to form our own opinons. But, keep in mind that there are SO many variables that are subjective and given human nature to defend ones own selection it's hard sometimes to sort the wheat from the chaff. As an example, if you're basing your choice based purely on $$'s, then just say you're basing it on $$'s - it's not credible to try and justify a decision based purely on $$'s by using functionality comparisions that probably aren't entirely valid. Like Paul said, it's hard to do an accurate comparision if you've only flown behind the one product you purchased, or researched. It doesn't make your review bad or worthless, it just makes it a bit more subjecctive than objective.
There are so many things about all of these products that are different behind the screens and different than what the sales people will tell you. Naturally each one will tell you theirs is the best value. That's just not the case! Some mfgrs work REAL hard at selling or belittling their competitors (and it's almost directly proportional to the number of posts they make in these forums) and others take a different approach to selling. One thing I can say, is that if someone has to use negative comments or comparisons about their competitors to try and convince you their product is better, then they are not secure with the robustness of their own product and it's own ability to compete. Luckily, most vendors involved in making the IFR level of products are very professional, are RV builders/fliers/owners and know what it's like to be one of us as a builder and also have the first hand experience of testing products in their own planes before they are released to customers. A good lesson is to look back at the Blue Mountain history and see how things developed and how they ended up where they are.
The only real fact is that there is not one single solution that fits every persons needs - period. As I've said many times in threads like this, each person needs to make their own choices based on their own needs, experience, budget, timeline, requirements, etc.. I am lucky in the fact that I get to play with most of them, but in reality I still don't have one company that I consider to the be the panacea for every builder. Some people like/need/afford steam guages while others will want/need/afford a G900X and everything in between. Paul made one pretty good point. Many times I receive calls from people asking "Which EFIS do I need to buy"....and their isn't a universal answer. For example, this week we decided one customer probably fit best with the new Dynon Skyview, another customer fit best with the G3X, some others the AFS, one guy a TruTrak EFIS and one a GRT. Pretty much covers the entire range, and this is typical for our week. Each of those people had different needs, differing budgets, differing life experience, and in the end we steered them to different products based on those many, many variables.
Other than that I don't have much to add (because I usually just say the same thing)!
Cheers,
Stein
There are so many things about all of these products that are different behind the screens and different than what the sales people will tell you. Naturally each one will tell you theirs is the best value. That's just not the case! Some mfgrs work REAL hard at selling or belittling their competitors (and it's almost directly proportional to the number of posts they make in these forums) and others take a different approach to selling. One thing I can say, is that if someone has to use negative comments or comparisons about their competitors to try and convince you their product is better, then they are not secure with the robustness of their own product and it's own ability to compete. Luckily, most vendors involved in making the IFR level of products are very professional, are RV builders/fliers/owners and know what it's like to be one of us as a builder and also have the first hand experience of testing products in their own planes before they are released to customers. A good lesson is to look back at the Blue Mountain history and see how things developed and how they ended up where they are.
The only real fact is that there is not one single solution that fits every persons needs - period. As I've said many times in threads like this, each person needs to make their own choices based on their own needs, experience, budget, timeline, requirements, etc.. I am lucky in the fact that I get to play with most of them, but in reality I still don't have one company that I consider to the be the panacea for every builder. Some people like/need/afford steam guages while others will want/need/afford a G900X and everything in between. Paul made one pretty good point. Many times I receive calls from people asking "Which EFIS do I need to buy"....and their isn't a universal answer. For example, this week we decided one customer probably fit best with the new Dynon Skyview, another customer fit best with the G3X, some others the AFS, one guy a TruTrak EFIS and one a GRT. Pretty much covers the entire range, and this is typical for our week. Each of those people had different needs, differing budgets, differing life experience, and in the end we steered them to different products based on those many, many variables.
Other than that I don't have much to add (because I usually just say the same thing)!
Cheers,
Stein
sbal0906
Well Known Member
Remember you can always mix two different vendors to get what you need.
Exactly! While I'm a long way off from making the purchase decision, from what information I've gathered so far, there's features that would fit my requirements from 2 different manufacturers. Plus, I get the redundancy that comes from using different software. A bug in one most likely won't show up in the other.
Bob,
That is an interesting point you bring up about marketing and subjective decisions regarding EFIS vendors. Some people base their decisions solely on those things, but others base their decisions on pure technical specifications. I tried to have a mix of both when I was looking. First I determined what I want to do then narrowed my decision to the systems that will do it, then I used more subjective things to narrow the list from there.
For example, I want a good IFR platform that just works and has tight integration with a 430w and can do a complete IFR approach using the autopilot. This instantly narrowed my decision to two EFIS vendors. I then called Stein and he told me that both systems will do the job fine and that it's more personal preference. I then put my hands on both systems and did some research. I liked the layout/looks of one system more than the other, but wanted to dig deeper into the hardware.
You see, I do technical work for a living and have build several embedded systems, so I have some insight into the head of the engineer when I look at their design decisions. Anyway, the system that I liked better ran it's own OS on ARM hardware, and the system I liked less ran on intel hardware using linux. When comparing the two systems, one ran really hot, and the other ran very cool. Also, the system I liked more is using a certified AHRS that is manufactured and calibrated in a FAA certified facility.
At that point I knew what I wanted. Not only was I sure I was getting something that would work, but I had a higher level of comfort with the design, hardware, software, and manufacturing tolerances.
All that said, I think we choose the same vendor.
schu
That is an interesting point you bring up about marketing and subjective decisions regarding EFIS vendors. Some people base their decisions solely on those things, but others base their decisions on pure technical specifications. I tried to have a mix of both when I was looking. First I determined what I want to do then narrowed my decision to the systems that will do it, then I used more subjective things to narrow the list from there.
For example, I want a good IFR platform that just works and has tight integration with a 430w and can do a complete IFR approach using the autopilot. This instantly narrowed my decision to two EFIS vendors. I then called Stein and he told me that both systems will do the job fine and that it's more personal preference. I then put my hands on both systems and did some research. I liked the layout/looks of one system more than the other, but wanted to dig deeper into the hardware.
You see, I do technical work for a living and have build several embedded systems, so I have some insight into the head of the engineer when I look at their design decisions. Anyway, the system that I liked better ran it's own OS on ARM hardware, and the system I liked less ran on intel hardware using linux. When comparing the two systems, one ran really hot, and the other ran very cool. Also, the system I liked more is using a certified AHRS that is manufactured and calibrated in a FAA certified facility.
At that point I knew what I wanted. Not only was I sure I was getting something that would work, but I had a higher level of comfort with the design, hardware, software, and manufacturing tolerances.
All that said, I think we choose the same vendor.
schu
Brantel
Well Known Member
There is more than one way to skin a cat...
For example:
You do not need an EFIS that can talk to an AP if you select the correct AP...
A system consisting of an Dynon D100, HS34, 430W and a TT 100 AP is fully integrated and can fly them all.
One more thing, the AFS AHRS is not certified......Please be carefull with words that might mislead someone.
For example:
You do not need an EFIS that can talk to an AP if you select the correct AP...
A system consisting of an Dynon D100, HS34, 430W and a TT 100 AP is fully integrated and can fly them all.
One more thing, the AFS AHRS is not certified......Please be carefull with words that might mislead someone.
Last edited:
That's a very good point Brantel. I have a similar setup (GNS 480; D180/HS34; TT; Garmin 496; hand-held backup comm) blending features to get what I wanted based on the market at the time. That gave me "standard 6 pack"; EMS; FMS; Comm/Nav/ILS/GPS all IFR certified; Terrain; TFRs and Wx (if I subscribe to XM); and one of the top two rated APs available for non-certified aircraft at that time.
So, when I look at what is available today and the system I have already, the only things I don't already have that I might wish for are a full EFB; Synthethic Vision; and traffic. My first option to create additional panel space would be willingness to part with my 496, in which case my "new" system would also need to provide terrain, WX, & TFRs as well as a backup GPS.
A lot of people are looking for their EFIS to do what the GNS 480 already does (although Garmin conveniently stopped producing them) as an FMS (Flight Management System). But that isn't the only way to accomplish that. Coming at the EFB and terrain another way, I might have chosen the Flight Cheetah in-dash sunlight readable unit for $2,195. Add in a few of the extras, and recognize that soon they will support full ADS-B capability (for TFRs, WX, and Traffic) and there you have a lot of features you DON'T need cluttering up your PFD.
The best advice I have been able to give people is, START WITH A BUDGET. Then list every feature you want and prioritize them 1000 down to 1 (or however long the list gets) with the most important feature being 1000 (or, you can have a "must have" list and simply prioritize the non-mandatory features). Now start combining systems and see how many "points" you can get while staying within your budget. If you get two or three answers that are close, factor in your personal preferences or add adjustments based on reports you have heard.
Once you do all that, you will doubtlessly choose something else. Hey, these are labors of love, not science projects!
So, when I look at what is available today and the system I have already, the only things I don't already have that I might wish for are a full EFB; Synthethic Vision; and traffic. My first option to create additional panel space would be willingness to part with my 496, in which case my "new" system would also need to provide terrain, WX, & TFRs as well as a backup GPS.
A lot of people are looking for their EFIS to do what the GNS 480 already does (although Garmin conveniently stopped producing them) as an FMS (Flight Management System). But that isn't the only way to accomplish that. Coming at the EFB and terrain another way, I might have chosen the Flight Cheetah in-dash sunlight readable unit for $2,195. Add in a few of the extras, and recognize that soon they will support full ADS-B capability (for TFRs, WX, and Traffic) and there you have a lot of features you DON'T need cluttering up your PFD.
The best advice I have been able to give people is, START WITH A BUDGET. Then list every feature you want and prioritize them 1000 down to 1 (or however long the list gets) with the most important feature being 1000 (or, you can have a "must have" list and simply prioritize the non-mandatory features). Now start combining systems and see how many "points" you can get while staying within your budget. If you get two or three answers that are close, factor in your personal preferences or add adjustments based on reports you have heard.
Once you do all that, you will doubtlessly choose something else. Hey, these are labors of love, not science projects!
Im curious what those wanting a "GOOD" IFR panel consider "GOOD"?
or is the adage "better is the enemy of good enough" appropriate...
I've flown behind some really, really, really (did I say that enough?) top of line stuff (Lockheed, Raytheon, Honeywell) that have price tags in the millions and meet every milspec ever conceived. I've also flown Dynon, AFS, and GRT. Fortunately for me I'm also a trained test pilot and been lucky enough to evaluate a lot of systems under some pretty dynamic conditions.
I'd fly IFR behind any of the three EFIS's in question. I flew my Dynon D10A IFR in my BD-4 all the time with a standby alt, internal battery and electric turn/rate gyro and a VOR. No way...IFR without redundant everything! YIKES.
My opinion is the marketing folks have done a superb job in convincing everyone that without dual or even triple redundancy in every system you cannot possibly be safe. BUNK. If you spend some of your $$ on gas and actually building proficiency in hand flying your airplane in IMC you'll realize as you did when most of us obtained our IFR tickets on vacuum gauges that you CAN fly safely and all the extra stuff is just nice. Just take a look at the average flight school IFR trainer...steam gauges, vacuum gyro (with a mean time between failures of about 400-500 hours!), VOR, ADF and maybe a first generation approach GPS, maybe.
I'd bet my next two paychecks that more IMC mishaps occur due to poor decisions/planning than failed EFIS's.
IMHO
or is the adage "better is the enemy of good enough" appropriate...
I've flown behind some really, really, really (did I say that enough?) top of line stuff (Lockheed, Raytheon, Honeywell) that have price tags in the millions and meet every milspec ever conceived. I've also flown Dynon, AFS, and GRT. Fortunately for me I'm also a trained test pilot and been lucky enough to evaluate a lot of systems under some pretty dynamic conditions.
I'd fly IFR behind any of the three EFIS's in question. I flew my Dynon D10A IFR in my BD-4 all the time with a standby alt, internal battery and electric turn/rate gyro and a VOR. No way...IFR without redundant everything! YIKES.
My opinion is the marketing folks have done a superb job in convincing everyone that without dual or even triple redundancy in every system you cannot possibly be safe. BUNK. If you spend some of your $$ on gas and actually building proficiency in hand flying your airplane in IMC you'll realize as you did when most of us obtained our IFR tickets on vacuum gauges that you CAN fly safely and all the extra stuff is just nice. Just take a look at the average flight school IFR trainer...steam gauges, vacuum gyro (with a mean time between failures of about 400-500 hours!), VOR, ADF and maybe a first generation approach GPS, maybe.
I'd bet my next two paychecks that more IMC mishaps occur due to poor decisions/planning than failed EFIS's.
IMHO
Yup your right, if you step up to a TT 100 AP then it doesn't need an EFIS. On the flip side you add $1675 to the price which is the difference between a D100 and a AFS3400EF.
As far as the AFS AHRS not being certified, your right, technically speaking it is built in the same facility, using the same components, using the same calibration equipment, and runs the same code, but your correct, it's not certified.
Like I said, I based my decision on features, capabilities, but also on design decisions, and I like the decisions that my EFIS vendor made with their hardware, software, and features.
Brantel
Well Known Member
Yep AFS is a great system when it fits the wants/needs/budget of the builder....I love em!
I also love the price/features/track record of the existing Dynon product.
I don't think there is a bad choice these days with the remaining front runners in the experimental Efis market. Just make sure it fits your wants/needs/budget!
If Dynon ever makes good on the promise to add full vertical AP control to their system, they will be the most bang for the buck by a wide margin... adding a full featured dual axis AP to any system for $1500 bucks gives them a huge advantage before even getting into the pricing on the other parts of the system....The only problem with this seems to be that it will most likely take them at least two more years to get there. By then there will be another gee wiz feature that they are behind on.
I also love the price/features/track record of the existing Dynon product.
I don't think there is a bad choice these days with the remaining front runners in the experimental Efis market. Just make sure it fits your wants/needs/budget!
If Dynon ever makes good on the promise to add full vertical AP control to their system, they will be the most bang for the buck by a wide margin... adding a full featured dual axis AP to any system for $1500 bucks gives them a huge advantage before even getting into the pricing on the other parts of the system....The only problem with this seems to be that it will most likely take them at least two more years to get there. By then there will be another gee wiz feature that they are behind on.
N395V
Well Known Member
As Paul mentions most can only give good advice on the 1 or 2 systems they have flown.
The cost of these systems is significant (even the low budget ones) and putting one in your plane is kind of like getting married. If you ain't happy with it once you start flying you will becomme miserable as time goes on. At this point fixing the problem is really expensive and really miserable.
None of the websites do a really good job in describing the products well nor do the downloadable POHs.
If you are in a position where time is not a big factor then go to SNF or OSH and spend the time necessary to go to every booth and play with evry system you are considering. Taklk to the reps and ask questions. It helps if you have a written list of questions. Then go back to your hotel/tent and go over the days results. This should generate a whole new list of questions. Then do it all again the next day.
Yes it is expensive going to and spending several days at OSH etc. but in the end it will save a lot of grief and maoney.
A less (maybe) expensive alternative is hang around local airports and when you see an RV with an EFIS ask the owner if he can take some time to show you it's features.
This is a BIG decision do not jump into it without a lot of research.
The cost of these systems is significant (even the low budget ones) and putting one in your plane is kind of like getting married. If you ain't happy with it once you start flying you will becomme miserable as time goes on. At this point fixing the problem is really expensive and really miserable.
None of the websites do a really good job in describing the products well nor do the downloadable POHs.
If you are in a position where time is not a big factor then go to SNF or OSH and spend the time necessary to go to every booth and play with evry system you are considering. Taklk to the reps and ask questions. It helps if you have a written list of questions. Then go back to your hotel/tent and go over the days results. This should generate a whole new list of questions. Then do it all again the next day.
Yes it is expensive going to and spending several days at OSH etc. but in the end it will save a lot of grief and maoney.
A less (maybe) expensive alternative is hang around local airports and when you see an RV with an EFIS ask the owner if he can take some time to show you it's features.
This is a BIG decision do not jump into it without a lot of research.
Reputation counts too!
By my count, six companies have been mentioned in this thread. While features are important, the people behind the company are equally important.
AFS is a great family company with Rob available at any time to help.
GRT I have owned and know the staff is knowlegable, friendly and helpful. Two thumbs up.
MGL I have no experience with them, but have not heard anything but positive comments about them
Garmin I like many have owned many of their products. Good stuff, wish I could say the same about their service, especially the Apollo legacy service.
Dynon I will soon start flying behind a D100. I have a good deal of experience with them and they seem to be as knowlegable, friendly and helpful as GRT.
BMA I knew about them the day I met the owner 6 years ago. I am sorry for the guys that drank that koolaid. I have two friends redoing their panels as I write.
Paul's article says it all and the process is straight forward following his advice. Good luck and keep asking questions.
By my count, six companies have been mentioned in this thread. While features are important, the people behind the company are equally important.
AFS is a great family company with Rob available at any time to help.
GRT I have owned and know the staff is knowlegable, friendly and helpful. Two thumbs up.
MGL I have no experience with them, but have not heard anything but positive comments about them
Garmin I like many have owned many of their products. Good stuff, wish I could say the same about their service, especially the Apollo legacy service.
Dynon I will soon start flying behind a D100. I have a good deal of experience with them and they seem to be as knowlegable, friendly and helpful as GRT.
BMA I knew about them the day I met the owner 6 years ago. I am sorry for the guys that drank that koolaid. I have two friends redoing their panels as I write.
Paul's article says it all and the process is straight forward following his advice. Good luck and keep asking questions.
N395V
Well Known Member
There was a post on the aeroelectric connection this AM pointing to a link for 3 articles written by Peter Pengilly.
One is about flying an EFIS the 2nd and 3rd are about selecting an EFIS.
The latter 2 combined with Steins original comaprison article are the best and most welll reseached I have ever read on this subject. In the 3rd article Peter does an excellent in depth review of some of the details of each system that most of us never think of.
http://aeroelectric.com/articles.html#EFIS_Systems
One is about flying an EFIS the 2nd and 3rd are about selecting an EFIS.
The latter 2 combined with Steins original comaprison article are the best and most welll reseached I have ever read on this subject. In the 3rd article Peter does an excellent in depth review of some of the details of each system that most of us never think of.
http://aeroelectric.com/articles.html#EFIS_Systems
Last edited:
Great post. Good in depth articles addressing most of the issues, especially with the experimental EFIS systems.
the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
FWIW, Garmin has a good discussion in the G3X manual about the failure modes of their ADHRS, its use of GPS aiding and its ability to reboot in the air with and without aiding. It's too extensive to post here.
Not advocating that they are better or worse than any other brand, but the discussion of the failure modes is interesting. In particular, if you loose the magnetometer, you loose heading data. They won't substitude GPS track for heading.
TODR
Not advocating that they are better or worse than any other brand, but the discussion of the failure modes is interesting. In particular, if you loose the magnetometer, you loose heading data. They won't substitude GPS track for heading.
TODR
N402RH
Well Known Member
Yes, it’s true that Advanced Flight Systems is a family-owned business. It’s a family owned business that is in its own 7500sf facility and employs ten people, with six of them being full-time engineers. We have extensive experience with both experimental and certified EFIS products and we just finished developing the software for a major certified EFIS manufacturer. We have our own RV-4 and RV-10 that we do flight testing with (often several times daily) and routinely fly our systems IFR. All of the Glasair Two- Weeks- to- Taxi airplanes have our EFIS’s and we have access to their company aircraft for testing, in addition to our own. Glasair demo flights and training are all done using our EFIS units.
Four of our software engineers do nothing but improve software and make our systems better. We are knowledgeable about how our systems compare to others, and I have recently flown the Garmin Perspective, G1000, G600, G3X, and GRT HX.
Since writing the article Peter Pengilly has become our dealer in the UK and is installing one in his personal airplane.
Rob Hickman
Advanced Flight Systems Inc.
.
Four of our software engineers do nothing but improve software and make our systems better. We are knowledgeable about how our systems compare to others, and I have recently flown the Garmin Perspective, G1000, G600, G3X, and GRT HX.
Since writing the article Peter Pengilly has become our dealer in the UK and is installing one in his personal airplane.
Rob Hickman
Advanced Flight Systems Inc.
.
Last edited:
Yep, the article is less than a year old and already nearly obsolete. Perfect example is the Dynon issue with pitot blockage, which has been fixed with a software upgrade (it now will fall back to GPS reference for backup attitude reference, placing it in line with all other vendors).
Also, some of his "analysis" represents a particular engineering mind-set which may be likewise obsolete. For example, clinging to the historical model where the EFIS and AP have been absolutely independent - in some cases it might be considered a blessing to have both fail obviously together, as the visual indication will immediately prompt pilot intervention. If an AP fails "silently," it could be far more dangerous than if the EFIS screen goes blank and the pilot immediately knows to assume the controls and refer to backup instruments. Note, however, that I have a TT AP and consider having it "functionally equivalent" to having an additional attitude reference system.
I personally disagreed with his assessment that the maximum latency in the Dynon (150ms) "fails" some test of suitability for instrument flight. Such latency is virtually imperceptible - and if it were, you would unconsciously compensate for it anyway. It's not like we're using these things to land W0X0F...
Still, some very good food for thought and a worthy read.
Although well written I wouldn't say Peter's articles were all that imformative. As Brantel mentions ...parts are highly subjective in nature.
In part I he starts out with the comment that uncertified equipment is cheaper because "corners were cut during design and manufacter"... really that is the reason? What about liability, the overhead costs of the "certified testing", the certification process itself..all cost TONs of $ and have nothing to do with design or manufacturing. Maybe a small point but when the author begins his discussion with a nearsighted view and a slant it degrades the remainder of his discussion..
In part II he calls out PFD update rates of 150ms as being to slow and may lead toward difficulty in flying the plane in IMC.. Hmmmm totally disagree...
In a typically configured airplane the shortest period response mode is the longitudinal short period mode which is typically measured in the 1-2 Hz range and is really more important to pitch pointing tasks such as putting a gun on target. For IMC flight the Phugoid (Longitudinal Long Period) mode is much more important and is typically measured in fractions of Hz, with periods of 20-30 seconds between cycles. An update rate of 150ms with a phugoid of 20 seconds (worst case) is WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY faster than required and pilots will have no tendency to become out of phase with the airplane causing Pilot Induced Oscillations (PIO). Shoot - if you applied nyquist criteria to the human in the loop you could get away with updates of up to 2/sec and still avoid PIO.
A lot of the points in the article were not analytical but rather parroting the various company representatives = more marketing.
I do think it was interesting and informative but wouldn't use it to help make any decisions.
As was mentioned previously the best way to know is to fly them yourself.
oh one other point - How many of you have had a failure of your Pitot tube due to icing? Isn't that what pitot heat is for? Seems this point comes up an awful lot when discussing the Dynon systems for IMC flight. First - if not equipped for icing don't flying in icing conditions, if you find yourself there anyway (I have) turn on your pitot heat (should be on when flying in any visible moisture anyway)..if that doesn't work get a better pitot heat.
In part I he starts out with the comment that uncertified equipment is cheaper because "corners were cut during design and manufacter"... really that is the reason? What about liability, the overhead costs of the "certified testing", the certification process itself..all cost TONs of $ and have nothing to do with design or manufacturing. Maybe a small point but when the author begins his discussion with a nearsighted view and a slant it degrades the remainder of his discussion..
In part II he calls out PFD update rates of 150ms as being to slow and may lead toward difficulty in flying the plane in IMC.. Hmmmm totally disagree...
In a typically configured airplane the shortest period response mode is the longitudinal short period mode which is typically measured in the 1-2 Hz range and is really more important to pitch pointing tasks such as putting a gun on target. For IMC flight the Phugoid (Longitudinal Long Period) mode is much more important and is typically measured in fractions of Hz, with periods of 20-30 seconds between cycles. An update rate of 150ms with a phugoid of 20 seconds (worst case) is WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY faster than required and pilots will have no tendency to become out of phase with the airplane causing Pilot Induced Oscillations (PIO). Shoot - if you applied nyquist criteria to the human in the loop you could get away with updates of up to 2/sec and still avoid PIO.
A lot of the points in the article were not analytical but rather parroting the various company representatives = more marketing.
I do think it was interesting and informative but wouldn't use it to help make any decisions.
As was mentioned previously the best way to know is to fly them yourself.
oh one other point - How many of you have had a failure of your Pitot tube due to icing? Isn't that what pitot heat is for? Seems this point comes up an awful lot when discussing the Dynon systems for IMC flight. First - if not equipped for icing don't flying in icing conditions, if you find yourself there anyway (I have) turn on your pitot heat (should be on when flying in any visible moisture anyway)..if that doesn't work get a better pitot heat.
Cant comment on TT but I can tell you the Dynon Auto Pilot was very good in my BD-4 and is being installed in my RV8. At this stage of its development it does very well what it was intended to do..ASSIST in reducing pilot workload. It was very reliable, affordable, super easy to install and had all the features a basic auto pilot would be expected to have - or rather that I expected it to have. The only others I've flown have been those installed in military aircraft with a much expanded mission set. Of note - even the Automatic FLight Control System in our newest aicraft has discrepancies and issues of not fully meeting spec...and that system cost over $1,000,000 each!
MauiLvrs
Well Known Member
BTW: Experimental aircraft are prohibited from flight into known icing...
150 ms ... You can't see 60 Hz...
As far as I know, there is no such prohibition in regulation, nor in the standard 8130.2f operating limitions.
rbibb
Well Known Member
I found the articles cited enjoyable but, like almost everything you read in the aviation press, not all that useful in making an informed decision.
This is not a slam on the author who did yeoman's work in attempting to provide a balanced piece. The problem is provide a real useful comparison you would have to basically have a fly-off. Install each system in the same base aircraft configuration and then have a test pilot fly a series of test flights at identical flight profiles. Then analyze and compare the data.
Obviously this sort of thing is expensive, there is no one to pay for it, would take a long time, etc. So the best you can get is a paper analysis based on data provided by the manufacturers laced with opinions of the author as to what is the most important factors. User reviews often aren't much better because, with a few exceptions, most users don't have a good enough basis of comparison having usually one brand in the panel or, if they have multiple, use one as in a primary and the other as backup so apples to oranges often results.
This type of comparison testing is hard to accomplish and so almost anything you read needs a heavy filter. So I'll probably just end up buying whatever I think is the best/most affordable when the times come. Rob and gang have the nicest looking screens (now there is a heavy dollop of opinion for you) so I"m leaning that way. So much for making an unemotional, rational choice. Mr. Spock I ain't.
This is not a slam on the author who did yeoman's work in attempting to provide a balanced piece. The problem is provide a real useful comparison you would have to basically have a fly-off. Install each system in the same base aircraft configuration and then have a test pilot fly a series of test flights at identical flight profiles. Then analyze and compare the data.
Obviously this sort of thing is expensive, there is no one to pay for it, would take a long time, etc. So the best you can get is a paper analysis based on data provided by the manufacturers laced with opinions of the author as to what is the most important factors. User reviews often aren't much better because, with a few exceptions, most users don't have a good enough basis of comparison having usually one brand in the panel or, if they have multiple, use one as in a primary and the other as backup so apples to oranges often results.
This type of comparison testing is hard to accomplish and so almost anything you read needs a heavy filter. So I'll probably just end up buying whatever I think is the best/most affordable when the times come. Rob and gang have the nicest looking screens (now there is a heavy dollop of opinion for you) so I"m leaning that way. So much for making an unemotional, rational choice. Mr. Spock I ain't.
Last edited:
rleffler
Well Known Member
I think you hit the nail on the head. Another element of my very unscientific investigation in the search of the optimal EFIS, were three pilots that all need reading glasses wandering through the AirVenture booths.
We started that day at SteinAir's booth, since it's easy to make visual comparisons when all units are sitting together. One gentleman made an observation that in my several years of ongoing research I hadn't noticed. One EFIS was clearly easier to read without glasses for us “old farts” that need them. Hint: It wasn’t the one that most folks agree has “one of the nicest looking screens”. The fonts of the numbers in the various ribbons were significantly different from one EFIS to another.
We asked the gentleman we were talking to in the SteinAir booth about font customization and configuration. Unfortunately, he didn’t know the answer as to the capability of each EFIS vendor’s products. Stein wasn’t in the booth at the time, so we couldn’t solicit his $0.02.
So we spend the next hour or so going off to each of the vendor’s booths. One EFIS vendor told us that their fonts weren’t able to be changed. This disappointed us very much. However, the next day I noticed that the fonts in the ribbons in their booth were different than the one in the SteinAir booth. I asked another person in that vendor’s booth and got “of course you change the fonts”.
So what’s the point of my rambling? The first is that it is extremely difficult to get accurate facts about the various EFIS. Like rbibb stated, quite a bit being shared is opinion. Additionally, there are very few folks that truly understand all the leading EFIS vendors’ products. This is understandable if even the vendors themselves have employees in their booth that aren’t experts.
The other is who would have put as an EFIS criteria being able to read the screen without needing reading glasses? For those that need them, most of their medicals state to have to the glasses available. They aren’t required to be on. The highest resolution screens may not be easier to read for us “old Farts”.
My suspicion is that very few folks have spent time learning how to customize their EFIS screens prior to purchase to see how they may make them look better. I relate this to attempting to by a HD television at a big box store. There are too many variables and too many sub-optimal configuration options that may impact your opinion (positively or negatively).
The bottom line is to get the one that looks the best to you and is easiest for you to interpret and understand all the information being presented. Then don’t care what others say.
Last edited:
N941WR
Legacy Member
rleffler;376921... [FONT=Calibri said:
And the one that fits your mission.
Don't worry about a future mission such as converting your plane to IFR unless you are going to do that w/in 12 months as everything will change by then.
There are a lot of IFR equiped RV's out there that have never flown in the rain.
kentb
Well Known Member
Fonts....
I wouldn't put to much value in the owner of the EFIS being able to change the fonts. It would then be too easy to screw up the display so that you couldn't read important information.
Now that not to say that the manufacture of the EFIS should take care to make then as readable as possible.
I too look for a screen that is easy on my eyes as they don't focus as well as they used to.
Kent
I wouldn't put to much value in the owner of the EFIS being able to change the fonts. It would then be too easy to screw up the display so that you couldn't read important information.
Now that not to say that the manufacture of the EFIS should take care to make then as readable as possible.
I too look for a screen that is easy on my eyes as they don't focus as well as they used to.
Kent
