Advanced flight vs Dynon

I am getting ready to update my panel to all glass. Now that AFS and Dynon have merged they are more than happy to sell either system and don't offer much of an opinion....which is understandable. Any folks out there very familiar with both and can comment on ease of interface, user friendliness, and unshared features? All recommendations are appreciated. Thanks

I'd suggest that you'll get many opinions, both suggesting the option that the opinionator chose for their airplane - which is understandable, because they went through a selection process and chose what worked bets for them. The truth is, you really should go and try both systems to see which works bets with YOUR brain (not all brains are wired the same way). Take the time to find and fly with each - you are going to spend a lot of money and live with the choice for (hopefully) many flying hours.

Paul

Peter,

How about coming down to X35 to see some first hand?

Actually, they are both great systems. There are benefits to both.

Dynon:
- a little less expensive
- fewer screen size options
- only 10" can be touch screen
- a little easier to wire to accessories with straight forward network system
- more screens in more planes market wide, so more people know how to use them.
- panel-mounted accessories more aesthetically and dimensionally matching to Dynon screens

AFS:
- the best graphics I have seen anywhere
- touch interface is very simple with swipe to change screen options
- 8", 10" & 12" screens, all with touch option
- more buttons and knobs for easier navigation
- compatible with a lot more non-Dynon accessories (XM, ADS-B, etc)

Both:
- work with all Dynon accessories
- very functional and user friendly, you can't go wrong with either system.
- very expandable with the growing list of Dynon accessories

The best advice I ever got on the subject of "A vs B" was to go and get first hand experience. There is no substitute.

Plan a trip to Sun-N-Fun or Oshkosh or find planes with the systems installed.

Ironflight said:

I'd suggest that you'll get many opinions, both suggesting the option that the opinionator chose for their airplane - which is understandable, because they went through a selection process and chose what worked bets for them. The truth is, you really should go and try both systems to see which works bets with YOUR brain (not all brains are wired the same way). Take the time to find and fly with each - you are going to spend a lot of money and live with the choice for (hopefully) many flying hours.

Paul

Click to expand...

I agree, for the most part. However, if you're not used to EFIS flying, you will be training your brain to the system you choose more than choosing the system that matches your brain. Both systems are fantastic. I have flown extensively with both. Neither is hands-down the better.

I do agree that it would be good to fly both with someone who will demonstrate how to fly the type of mission you will be flying. Each system does certain things better than the other or with fewer button-pushes.

Seriously, come to X35 and we can talk about both systems. I am fairly impartial as I have flown both a lot.

Seeum, touchum, feelum...sound like good advice, Jesse at X35. Just a short hop of 70nm. Are you around tomorrow afternoon ?

Thanks...

If you can make it late morning, you might be able to get a 39-minute demo Ina transient AFS 5600, and I have 3 Dynon systems in the house. Call me around 9:00 and we can plan.

First off, a disclaimer that I have AFS 4500s in my RV-10.

I think Jesse hit the nail on the head.

The only other thing I might add is to take a look at the different autopilot options.

While both are great products, my preference is to have an external autopilot head for flying in IMC. With that said, both products can support external autopilot heads. Functionality and integration levels may be slightly different depending on the option selected.

Display instruments differently

The AFS displays seem to be more of a square shape while the Dynons are wider and less high. This lets AFS put the engine instruments at the bottom of the display while Dynon puts the engine instruments vertically on the display.

Dynon:
- a little less expensive
- a little easier to wire to accessories with straight forward network system


AF-5600T 10" Touch Screen $4,200
Skyview 10" Touch Screen $3,995


All of the AF-5000 EFIS systems shipped since 1/1/2014 have the Skyview network and wire the same as the Skyview displays to the network accessories.

We currently have the Dynon Autopilot servos working with the AF-5000 EFIS and plan to start flight testing in about two weeks.

Rob Hickman
Advanced Flight Systems Inc.

pnassar said:

Seeum, touchum, feelum...sound like good advice, Jesse at X35. Just a short hop of 70nm. Are you around tomorrow afternoon ?

Thanks...

Click to expand...

This is the best way to get a real comparison. My airplane is just down the road at Flagler with the DYNON system if you want to look at one.

I find it interesting that people spend lots of time on the 'look and feel' of an EFIS - as they should - but very little time on what's inside the box. Partly because answers are hard to find. Questions like "What does it take to tumble the gyros?" or "What happens to the attitude solution if I have a partial or complete failure of gps, or pitot, or static system?"
If you are only going to fly vfr then it hardly matters; if you contemplate ifr then it does.

BobTurner said:

I find it interesting that people spend lots of time on the 'look and feel' of an EFIS - as they should - but very little time on what's inside the box. Partly because answers are hard to find. Questions like "What does it take to tumble the gyros?" or "What happens to the attitude solution if I have a partial or complete failure of gps, or pitot, or static system?"
If you are only going to fly vfr then it hardly matters; if you contemplate ifr then it does.

Click to expand...

When I made my EFIS decision several years ago, I came to a very similiar solution.

I asked everyone I ran into at Oshkosh, what EFIS decision that they made and what drove their decision. Over ninety percent stated graphics and GUI. Which I found interesting. A friend and I went around all the vendors booths that year. The unit with the flashy graphics was hard to read with out our glasses on. One of the less flashy units we could read both the airspeed and altitude tapes with our glasses off. An nice feature for old farts like me that need bifocals, although mitigated with using glasses. A case where flashy wasn't necessarily better.

I then proceed to ask about the buttonology for flying an IFR approach. I was trying to understand the work load if I was flying single pilot. I usually got a deer in the head light look back. Out of about the thirty people I asked, only one person had a response. None of the vendors could demonstrate an IFR approach in their booths at that time. I found that very little about buttonology and procedures documented in the manuals. Most of the manuals at the time focused on installation.

Fortunately, the technology has advance some and several of the EFIS vendors now have YouTube videos demonstrating flying IFR procedures and several have better demo capabilities.

So what's the moral of this story? If you are buying am well equipped IFR panel, it could cost as much as a third of your budget if you include a certified GPS. People tend to have very biased opinions based on their purchase history. Go fly with somebody that has the avionics that you are considering, even if you have to travel a bit. If you are even thinking about getting an IFR ticket, have the demo pilot do a couple different approaches. Mae the technology in use first hand in the air. You'll make a better decision and you'll be glad you did afterwards. It will assist with minimizing any buyer's remorse on expensive avionics decisions.

These things have changed quite a bit in the last several years. Now, of the big 4 EFIS companies, the stability of the hardware and the software is seldom a concern, IMHO. I have not flown much behind the G3X, but the other 3 I have flown behind a great deal, and flying an IFR approach on all 3 is quite simple, albeit a little different from one to another. They all have good systems for coupling approaches and for going from heading and altitude control to coupling on the Nav and Glideslope. The external control panels for AFS and Dynon (& I assume for the G3X) can make it that much easier. Hangar flying can be very helpful, but learning the actual procedures for flying an approach can really only be done while flying an approach. It's impossible to simulate the approach and coupling in the hangar without a good simlulator. For example, I didn't realize the AFS would level you off at the minimums you specify until I flew an actual approach.

When choosing among the big 4, especially if moving to glass for the first time, your impression of the system from websites, sample panels, trade show displays and reading on here can drive the decision without much touching and feeling, although the touching and feeling can help. Talking to someone who has one system in EIS plane and is only familiar with that system, is not going to help get an unbiased decision. There are few people who have flown all systems and fewer still who can provide an opportunity to sit in a plane and push buttons on multiple systems. Finally, of the big 4, any decision you make will be a good decision, IMHO, and you will be very happy with it. Some systems ar more scalable than others, but they are all good systems. All of the systems have quirks that can be annoying, but they are not show-stoppers.

The OP came to my hangar on Friday and looked at both AFS and Dynon. After looking at the AFS, he was definitely leaning that way. Once he spent a little time looking at the Dynon, he chose to go that direction. I'm not sure what the driving factor was in his decision, and when I asked him, he wasn't sure either. I guess he just somehow felt like Dynon was the way to go, for him.

YMMV, but you won't be disappointed with any of the big 4, and you may even be surprised by MGL as well, if you decide to go that route.

Look & Feel

I get the look & feel focus; that's technology these days - ergonomics.
Look & feel is important and with any platform investing your time in understanding it does at least two things:

1) Locks you in (I chg vendors with great reluctance - e.g., WordPerfect to Word - UGH! - Word to ?? No way!) &
2) Commits to their technology / software path.

Vendor longevity is important, very important. Chose well. The path is littered with vendors that have left or abandoned the market. Garmin's entry into the experimental market puts pressure on the big "FOUR." For one it raises everyone's game - better technology, better software, better testing, better economics, better features ...

Bob Turner raises some excellent issues ... beyond looks & feel, how are these addressed?

What are the backups to these EFIS systems.
? They are seemingly faultless, but this is technology.
What about software bugs?
What about the gyros?
What is the back-up? Steam gauges?

Clearly, a well-integrated EFIS & A/P reduces workload (especially IFR in IMC) & hence, "improves" safety.

I agree with Jesse, flying behind the GPS / EFIS / A/P in CAVU is my most effective means of understanding the nuances of a manual. Hangar flying is the best place to start, but situational awareness coupled with the GPS/EFIS/AP combination is essential to improving skills, managing workload, and developing efficient habits/routines. These's considerable information on the EFIS. For me it's not understandable in a few readings/sittings/practices!

As the EFIS has matured, the combinations & permutations are mind boggling.

Finally, the speed with which technology / software is introduced is staggeringly fast. EFIS vendor regression testing is essential to our safety. At some point we may want to have them deliver papers that outline their development process & their testing process, both automated testing as well as CAVU testing. While we're experimental, this is not the place for experimenting with "well-established" technology platforms & software builds.