Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Any info on Aspen Avionics EFD 1000 PFD
- Thread starter turbo
- Start date
az_gila
Well Known Member
Certified... comes with a $$$ premium...
The Aspen units look good, and several of my friends with certified planes are eagerly awaiting them....
But, the downside is that you are paying the "certification premium" for the same features that are available from the experimental aircraft EFIS suppliers...
gil A
The Aspen units look good, and several of my friends with certified planes are eagerly awaiting them....
But, the downside is that you are paying the "certification premium" for the same features that are available from the experimental aircraft EFIS suppliers...
gil A
638RS
Well Known Member
I talked to them at OSH
and at that time they told me they were selling only through approved avionics shops and that any items purchased would have to be installed by the shop. I said "I guess you are not interested in the exp market" and the comeback was "not really since we are certified". Things may have changed since last summer. I thought the products would make for a easy panel upgrade but as has been said you are paying a premium.
and at that time they told me they were selling only through approved avionics shops and that any items purchased would have to be installed by the shop. I said "I guess you are not interested in the exp market" and the comeback was "not really since we are certified". Things may have changed since last summer. I thought the products would make for a easy panel upgrade but as has been said you are paying a premium.
The guy who said they weren't interested in the exp market, I bet, is some guy on the payroll with little GA background. Perhaps just a rep that came over from pharmaceutical sales the week before. Or, he realizes they do not stand a chance in the exp market because on price, there is no way they can compete and have chosen to go after the cert market money. They also might want to avoid a non-cert version for exp due to lower margin and the fact that it irks the potential cert buyer when they realize over 50% of the purchase price of the unit is pure BS. They also might not be willing to do an OEM/exp deal for the same reason.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Rough data drives markets...Here's a real high level look at where we are in GA averaged over the last 5 years.
Total GA certificated airplanes in the field: Roughly 300,000
Total EXP/AB airplanes in the field: Roughly 18,000
Total hours flown per year - certificated: Approximately 25 Million
Total hours flown per year - EXP/AB: Approximately 900 thousand
Average hours per a/c for certificted GA: 275/yr
Average hours per a/c for EXP/AB: 52/yr
Most popular EX/AB: RV. Number registered per year: 600+/-
Certificated Piston Singles delivered per year: 3000 +/-
Now, the above numbers are not perfect, but decent. Anyone who has worked in any sort of sales or marketing at all could figure out where you'd focus and who your main demographic would be.
They have spent a veritable fortune developing that thing and to equally compare it to what we're using in experimentals is difficult. Most of our experimental systems (with the exception of a few) couldn't come close to passing many if any of the TSO requirements for Software and/or hardware in the EFISes. This is of course a double edged sword. We get lots of great functionality at a very low price point, but on the other hand some of the systems being sold while attractive are not nearly as robust as their certificated brethren. There are systems out there that are either partially or nearly identical to certificated products, but they are at the mid-to higher price points....so in some aspect those are some of the things you are paying for in the higher priced systems.
I'm sure this will generate some input from various mfgrs stating their stuff is "almost as good as the certified stuff" and in some cases they are right. But, it's more than a small leap to make when it comes right down to it. I can count on one hand (even misssing a finger) the systems that have part or some certificated level components and/or software in their systems, but none of them are the low cost systems.
Like everything it's a compromise as to what you want and are willing to settle for between cost, functionality, reliability, etc.. We sell a lot of experimental EFISes and I love 'em - heck I fly behind them....bit I think perhaps we should cut Aspen a bit of a break. They are going to change the face of aviation insofar as our 172 driving friends are concerned, so I'm happy to see it.
They will be available to experimentals, but not perhaps with the same loose requirements that we've been used to regarding installations - but that's not all bad. Certificated products are tested to very rigid guidelines and installation specs, and to control the overall reliabilty of the systems the mfgr almost has to put some sort of guidelines in place to ensure the product performs as it was designed. As much as we all might want to believe that every builder is capable of installing avionics safely and correctly, the truth of the matter is that there is little control from a mfgr standpoint when they remove all control. Garmin has it with the G900X's and if you put one together or installed one you'd see why. It's not something the average builder should even dream of tackling on their own. Of course the Aspen stuff is not the same, but the basic premise behind it is.
Anyway, I digress. My only point was that I'm excited about Aspen. From what we've played with, it appears to be extremely well made, very nice to use and nice to look at. Overall they hit the mark (I dare say a home-run) on what they wanted to do. Another reason I'm excited for them is because it starts to make GA as a whole start moving into the modern world. Aspen sort of validates the entire "low cost" small glass panels that we've been used to for year - and that's a good thing.
As usual I'm just sort of playing devils advocate and showing another side here. I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, just trying to show another point. Don't think Garmin, Honeywell and others have been asleep at the wheel....there is a lot of new exciting things on the horizon for all of GA, most of all for us exerimental types. If you don't believe me stop by the (Oooops...I can't say that just yet) booths during SnF...I'll guarantee you that you'll see things that are SURE to surprise!
My 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein
Total GA certificated airplanes in the field: Roughly 300,000
Total EXP/AB airplanes in the field: Roughly 18,000
Total hours flown per year - certificated: Approximately 25 Million
Total hours flown per year - EXP/AB: Approximately 900 thousand
Average hours per a/c for certificted GA: 275/yr
Average hours per a/c for EXP/AB: 52/yr
Most popular EX/AB: RV. Number registered per year: 600+/-
Certificated Piston Singles delivered per year: 3000 +/-
Now, the above numbers are not perfect, but decent. Anyone who has worked in any sort of sales or marketing at all could figure out where you'd focus and who your main demographic would be.
They have spent a veritable fortune developing that thing and to equally compare it to what we're using in experimentals is difficult. Most of our experimental systems (with the exception of a few) couldn't come close to passing many if any of the TSO requirements for Software and/or hardware in the EFISes. This is of course a double edged sword. We get lots of great functionality at a very low price point, but on the other hand some of the systems being sold while attractive are not nearly as robust as their certificated brethren. There are systems out there that are either partially or nearly identical to certificated products, but they are at the mid-to higher price points....so in some aspect those are some of the things you are paying for in the higher priced systems.
I'm sure this will generate some input from various mfgrs stating their stuff is "almost as good as the certified stuff" and in some cases they are right. But, it's more than a small leap to make when it comes right down to it. I can count on one hand (even misssing a finger) the systems that have part or some certificated level components and/or software in their systems, but none of them are the low cost systems.
Like everything it's a compromise as to what you want and are willing to settle for between cost, functionality, reliability, etc.. We sell a lot of experimental EFISes and I love 'em - heck I fly behind them....bit I think perhaps we should cut Aspen a bit of a break. They are going to change the face of aviation insofar as our 172 driving friends are concerned, so I'm happy to see it.
They will be available to experimentals, but not perhaps with the same loose requirements that we've been used to regarding installations - but that's not all bad. Certificated products are tested to very rigid guidelines and installation specs, and to control the overall reliabilty of the systems the mfgr almost has to put some sort of guidelines in place to ensure the product performs as it was designed. As much as we all might want to believe that every builder is capable of installing avionics safely and correctly, the truth of the matter is that there is little control from a mfgr standpoint when they remove all control. Garmin has it with the G900X's and if you put one together or installed one you'd see why. It's not something the average builder should even dream of tackling on their own. Of course the Aspen stuff is not the same, but the basic premise behind it is.
Anyway, I digress. My only point was that I'm excited about Aspen. From what we've played with, it appears to be extremely well made, very nice to use and nice to look at. Overall they hit the mark (I dare say a home-run) on what they wanted to do. Another reason I'm excited for them is because it starts to make GA as a whole start moving into the modern world. Aspen sort of validates the entire "low cost" small glass panels that we've been used to for year - and that's a good thing.
As usual I'm just sort of playing devils advocate and showing another side here. I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, just trying to show another point. Don't think Garmin, Honeywell and others have been asleep at the wheel....there is a lot of new exciting things on the horizon for all of GA, most of all for us exerimental types. If you don't believe me stop by the (Oooops...I can't say that just yet) booths during SnF...I'll guarantee you that you'll see things that are SURE to surprise!
My 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein
Last edited:
Geez! I knew RVs were popular but I didn't realize Van owned the market like that. Nearly a third are RVs, that's awesome!
Thanks for your input, Stein.
Others can bad-mouth the certified units for high cost among various and sundry other complaints, but when you need the unit to work, in actual IMC conditons, it will work. I've flown behind a less than robust experimental EFIS unit for the last 3 years in my RV7A and, frankly, I'm tired of it's less than reliable operation. The manufacturer never took the time to adequately design, test, troubleshoot and bring to market a unit that would do what they said it would do. They left testing to the marketplace, us. Now, they've moved on to newer, costlier, "improved" versions and left earlier purchasers "holding the bag." Of course, they suggest buying one of their newer units. Not on your life!!!
I've been eagerly awaiting the Aspen Avionics unit since seeing it at OSH last year. Why would they not want to sell to the experimental market if they introduced it at OSH? Their unit does everything and more that the PFD does on the Beechjet I fly for work.
Anyway, different strokes.................
Mike
Shouldn't be flying a SE prop in hard core actual IMC. If you are flying a Beechjet at work I'm surprised you are doing that. What's your plan for engine failure in IMC when the weather goes all the way to the ground? I see an option in the Cirrus but not a practical one in the RV. If you have buckets of money then the price is a non-issue. Many (not all) on this board are not involved in certified GA because of $. By his actions, Van has remained sensitive to that need from day 1. Aspen is not. That's ok, they are after different group. No harm there. As you say, and I agree, different strokes..............
Last edited:
mgomez
Well Known Member
Aspen is a bargain
On the off chance that the Aspen folks read this...
IT'S A BARGAIN AT $10K!
Yeah, it's more than Dynon, AFS, GRT, or BMA. But it was tested, tested, and then tested some more. It was designed by many people...meaning one guy could check another's work.
Count me in for one! It's a few $K more than a two-screen GRT, but worth every penny in my book. Maybe I'm silly, but when I'm in the clouds trying to keep the fussy little needles centered and hoping the runway will show up...I don't want to wonder about software bugs or bad solder joints.
And yes, I do fly IMC in single-engine airplanes. Call me suicidal.
On the off chance that the Aspen folks read this...
IT'S A BARGAIN AT $10K!
Yeah, it's more than Dynon, AFS, GRT, or BMA. But it was tested, tested, and then tested some more. It was designed by many people...meaning one guy could check another's work.
Count me in for one! It's a few $K more than a two-screen GRT, but worth every penny in my book. Maybe I'm silly, but when I'm in the clouds trying to keep the fussy little needles centered and hoping the runway will show up...I don't want to wonder about software bugs or bad solder joints.
And yes, I do fly IMC in single-engine airplanes. Call me suicidal.
Good. I guess you wouldn't mind paying more for it. Why not send them an extra 10K since you feel that way about it. Must be nice to so much extra money that price is of no concern. I wish we were all able to make decisions and exclude price from consideration. Sarcasm NOT intended.
mgomez
Well Known Member
You get what you pay for
As the saying goes:
"Feeding your horse fresh oats is very expensive. If you want to feed your horse oats that have already been through somebody else's horse, that's a lot cheaper."
Price is of concern. What I get for my money is of even more concern.
As the saying goes:
"Feeding your horse fresh oats is very expensive. If you want to feed your horse oats that have already been through somebody else's horse, that's a lot cheaper."
Price is of concern. What I get for my money is of even more concern.
As builders of experimental airplanes, we can choose to spend money where it's important to each individual.
Constant speed vrs. fixed.
Fuel-injected vrs. carb.
VFR vrs. IFR panel.
Fully painted vrs. mostly unpainted.
Tip-up vrs. slider.
Nosewheel vrs. tailwheel.
Spending less in some areas gives more money for other areas. Make your choices and enjoy, but let's not badmouth another's choices.
mgomez
Well Known Member
Aspen posted their user's manual
You can download the user's manual for the Aspen PFD here:
http://www.aspenavionics.com/pdfs/customerport/EFD1000_PFD_PILOTS_GUIDE_A-01-184-00_REV_A.pdf
Regards,
Martin
You can download the user's manual for the Aspen PFD here:
http://www.aspenavionics.com/pdfs/customerport/EFD1000_PFD_PILOTS_GUIDE_A-01-184-00_REV_A.pdf
Regards,
Martin
I know its been awhile, but has anyone installed on of these yet? I have been looking into these and the biggest concern I have come up with is installing the RSM module somewhere away from ferrous metals. I am trying to figure out also what you all are talking about with it being expensive? It is both an ADI and HSI with dual needle capability, everything is pretty much self contained with an emergency GPS built in. It fits into existing panel holes. Thats alot of stuff that comes in a small package.
Well heres my situation, and maybe you smarter fellas can give me some advise. I have an already built RV-8 with a nice IFR steam guage panel. However I like to do acro and quite frankly have lost faith in vacuum guages, so I would like to get rid of the old gyros in favor of a glass, which I have grown to enjoy flying professionally. I would like to do the mod without completely redoing the whole panel to save me time and keep me in the air more in the summer. When looking at all of the other equipment it appears that they will require more modification than I am wanting to make. The Aspen would provide me with the ability to slide the unit into the existing hole with the only major modifications being to dual redundant gyro ADI and installing the RSM, remote antenna, which I think I have figured out. So that is my thinking why I want to go with the Aspen.
Hi Bob,
Nothing wrong with your reasoning, to tell you the truth - especially if you are really only comfortable with a unit that is acceptable on certified aircraft. (I say it that way, because I'm not really sure if there is such a thing as a "Certified" avionics display by itself - in a certified aircraft, it has to be "certified" for the particular aircraft through it's TC or an STC...the concept of "certified" equipment doesn't really apply in the Experimental world.)
However, you will give up a lot of very useful features, as someone said above, and that is a personal decision based on your risk tolerance. Two Dynon D-10A's, one over the other, would fit pretty well where you'd remove the center column of a six-pack, and might give you a few more features than the Aspen (I haven't recently compared the feature lists, so don't know for sure. The dual-Dynon configuration would give you protection from a box failure (although not from a generic software fault).
I personally prefer the feature sets from a complete, integrated EFIS, but the Dynon's give a pretty neat option for adding in to an existing panel without major structural changes - assuming, of course, that the original gauge spacing was not so tight that you can't put them together.
I'm not going to spend your money for you, and you'll want to fly with what makes you comfortable - just pointing out the reasons why you probably don't see more RV folks jumping on the Aspen. Some are, and I'd like to read first-hand flying reports as well - we all benefit with a broad field of choices.
Paul
az_gila
Well Known Member
Paul - it is pretty well...
...certified.
The STC seems to just be an Approved List of Planes.
The individual TSOs are for the instruments it replaces.
The big one, I believe, is the Software Standard - RTCA DO-178B Level C - that the Experimental guys don't even want to get near...
...and that is why it costs many more $$$ ....
Certification Specifications:
Technical Standard Order
TSO-C2d, TSO-C3d, TSO-C4c, TSO-C6d, TSO-C8d,
TSO-C10b, TSO-C106, TSO-C113
Software
RTCA DO-178B Level C
Environmental
RTCA DO-160E
Categories
See Environmental Qualification Sheet
...certified.
The STC seems to just be an Approved List of Planes.
The individual TSOs are for the instruments it replaces.
The big one, I believe, is the Software Standard - RTCA DO-178B Level C - that the Experimental guys don't even want to get near...
...and that is why it costs many more $$$ ....
Certification Specifications:
Technical Standard Order
TSO-C2d, TSO-C3d, TSO-C4c, TSO-C6d, TSO-C8d,
TSO-C10b, TSO-C106, TSO-C113
Software
RTCA DO-178B Level C
Environmental
RTCA DO-160E
Categories
See Environmental Qualification Sheet
OK, Gil, I'll buy that - certified is certified.
Of course, so is an old Sigma-Tek Horizon and a Vacuum pump...and we know how reliable they are, so I'm not sure that certification, in and of itself, tells us much about reliability. not really the point I was making, but now that I think of it, that's probably what I wanted to say.
Paul
Of course, so is an old Sigma-Tek Horizon and a Vacuum pump...and we know how reliable they are, so I'm not sure that certification, in and of itself, tells us much about reliability. not really the point I was making, but now that I think of it, that's probably what I wanted to say.
Paul
az_gila
Well Known Member
Hopefully...
...some of the problems with the older equipment is taken care of by the little revision letters at the end of each TSO specification....
But, given this is the FAA, who knows?
...some of the problems with the older equipment is taken care of by the little revision letters at the end of each TSO specification....
But, given this is the FAA, who knows?
Thanks guys, yeah the certification part really isn't what is concerning me. It is more of a space issue and major alteration issue. I have looked at the Dynon and the D-10a is definitely my first choice, however upon measuring the six pack they are in fact too close together to put it in without a redo. I have been trying to weight the costs and I keep coming back to the Aspen. Unfortunately the complete panel upgrade is going to require alot of work.
Another thing that has pushed me towards the Aspen is that it really resembles the glass cockpit in the T-6 Texan II that I flew at pilot training, so I kinda dig that.
Another thing that has pushed me towards the Aspen is that it really resembles the glass cockpit in the T-6 Texan II that I flew at pilot training, so I kinda dig that.
Hi Bob,
Normally I'm a huge advocate of the experimental EFISes. I have a Dynon and I like it. But, in this case this is a perfect example of what I tell people repeatedly. There is not one solution that fits every persons needs completely. In this case, the Aspen may be just the ticket for you. Without getting back into the Certified vs. NonCertified debate, to answer your original question. We've found the Aspens to be darned nice units. One of the very few that look and act better in person than the advertising shows. The physical quality of the unit is on par with other certified stuff. The knobs/buttons and overall construction are very, very well done. The backup battery works well, and it fits nicely. It is indeed more expensive, but in your case it might be a fit for your requirements.
Anyway, not knocking anything else. Just answering your question. If you get up near Minneapolis, stop by and play with one before you buy or decide.
My 2 cents as usual.
Cheers,
Stein
Normally I'm a huge advocate of the experimental EFISes. I have a Dynon and I like it. But, in this case this is a perfect example of what I tell people repeatedly. There is not one solution that fits every persons needs completely. In this case, the Aspen may be just the ticket for you. Without getting back into the Certified vs. NonCertified debate, to answer your original question. We've found the Aspens to be darned nice units. One of the very few that look and act better in person than the advertising shows. The physical quality of the unit is on par with other certified stuff. The knobs/buttons and overall construction are very, very well done. The backup battery works well, and it fits nicely. It is indeed more expensive, but in your case it might be a fit for your requirements.
Anyway, not knocking anything else. Just answering your question. If you get up near Minneapolis, stop by and play with one before you buy or decide.
My 2 cents as usual.
Cheers,
Stein
Sticky1
Well Known Member
As mentioned before, the aspen is toooo small. Eyesight and the distance to the panel should be some of the factors driving your purchase. I was L@@King at the aspen and decided to go with the Dynon 10A as a backup primarilly due to room and went with the GRT HX 8.4 due to the above mentioned. Not to mention the SV.
N395V
Well Known Member
Hypothetically I am planning a trip in my RV that I just spent 3 years and $85,000 building. Has a panel full of instruments and gizmos that will allow it to fly IMC in the hands of a rated pilot.
It is winter and I need to get from McComb Mississippi to Fredericksburg Texas, The weather along the entire route is 1800 ft overcast, vis 8 miles with tops reported by pilots at 6000' along the entire route. It is forecast to stay that way for the next 48 hrs.
Winds are more favorable at 6000 than 3000' or below and there is moderate turbulence below 3000'
I know from experience that Houston center will give me a clearance that includes..cleared direct T82, contact___, squawk_____, climb to and MAINTAIN 2,500 feet, void if not off by_____.
On initial contact center will then clear me to my desired altitude. At this point in the flight I will probably have spent 5-10 minutes Hardcore IMC in my single engine RV. Somewhere about 30 miles out of Fredericksburg Austin approach will drop me back in to the cloud deck where I will spend most of the rest of the flight in hardcore IMC.
Are you suggesting that on this given day it is inherently dangerous to fly my RV IMC on this trip?
Are you advocating on this day that I should...
1. Stay home and wax the RV?
or
2. Scud run for 3 hrs in turbulence hoping I do not hit an uncharted tower?
3. Or fly my under powered Apache that flys as well one one engine as an RV does on no engine?
I believe statistically that when considered as a whole you are more likely to survive an engine out in a single than if you lose an engine in a twin.
One could argue a piston powered GA twin has no business flying an approach to minimums because single engine performance is so poor that you just aren't going to be able to do a succesful missed approach.
It is seldom the equipment or the type of aircraft that determines the outcome of any given flight VFR or IFR. It is almost always the pilot and his/her judgement and skill that determines the outcome.
Westwind Driver
I'm New Here
-------------
We installed the Aspen EFD-1000 Pro PFD in our Cessna T210 in Jan 2009 and the first test hop was Feb 2nd 2009. The Aspen unit is coupled to a Garmin 530-W and an STEC autopilot.
Since then we have flown 60.5 hours with the unit. Our average flight hours per year for this airplane is 400-hours. That is not a lot of hours but all the hours are business related and in and out of anything from Chicago O'Hare to some little 3,500-ft strip in the middle of nowhere.
So far I reall like the unit. It presents a lot of information in a very user friendly fashion and the price was less than we would have paid for just an HSI and you get all the HSI functions along with many many other functions for a lot less money.
PROS:
-- Great display.
-- Love the altitude alert (Only wish there was some way to couple the altitude pre-select to the audio to give you a warning in the headsets)
-- The GSS (GPS Stear Function) for the STEC autopilot is fantastic and can save you more money since you need not purchase that capability in a seperate CDI unit.
-- The ability to provide an HSI display with moving map behind it is worth the unit cost.
-- The true-airspeed and winds aloft indication is a great tool especially for those long cross country flights.
CONS:
-- The unit failed after approximately 40-hours of flight time (we had retained all of our original vacumn gauges as backup just incase of this problem), it was an easy fix by the avionics guys (something about an RSI link ???)
-- The temperature indication on the Aspen is approximatel 10-degrees C lower that the aircraft analog gauge and a calibrated gauge used to confirm the aircraft gauge. Aspen provides no way to adjust this but there are rumors of software updates that may help. Obviously this creates an error in the displayed true airspeed and winds aloft.
-- The Aspen altimeter is 100-ft lower than the analog altimeter and 100ft lower than the analog altimeter indication at the local tower facility. Here again Aspen provides no way to correct this problem but we hope the rumor of software upgrade will solve this as well.
WISH LIST:
-- Fully functional altitude pre-select that would couple to the STEC autopilot, or at least a way to feed an audio alert into the headsets.
RECOMENDATIONS:
-- BUY IT!
This is a great unit and they have obviously done a lot of work developing the system. They provide a number of interface capabilities and functionality. If you plan to use this unit in a day to day professional flight department and you are depending on high dispatch reliability I would recomend that you retain all of you original Atitude, Altitude and Directional gyro equipment until Aspen has time to work out the little bugs that still plague the system. However, any instrument can fail including the old "steam-gauge" style equipment. The main difference is if you have a DG fail you still have you altimeter and airspeed indicator. When the Aspen puts that big red "X" on the screen, you have just lost everything it was diaplaynig, altitude, airspeed, VSI and HSI .
Happy to answer any questions, best to email me I don't check the forums very often.
Nice cost/benefit analysis for ROI Stein!
That's at least part of why your business is successful...
I only have a few hours behind one of these now, so I'm still figuring stuff out; but the manual mentions an optional tone generator. I think that's what would make it beep in the headset. It already beeps from the unit when approaching altitudes, but it's hard to hear while flying.
I too would like to have this feature...don't know how much it costs though.
I agree, great unit.
-Jim
Westwind Driver
I'm New Here
Thanks for the info.
I had not seen that in the manual. Unfortunately I have relied on my avionics shop for all the information. Should have known better, I had to show them that by holding the selector knob down for a few seconds the Aspen automatically synchronizes itself.
Guess that should have been a signal to research this myself.
Jamie
Well Known Member
If you simply want to ditch the vacuum system, why not go with the RCA2600?
http://www.kellymfg.com/images/RCA2600 information.pdf
I'm assuming you have a vacuum DG so you would still need to deal with that.
http://www.kellymfg.com/images/RCA2600 information.pdf
I'm assuming you have a vacuum DG so you would still need to deal with that.
ASPEN EXPERIMENTAL
Just received a Chief Aircraft catalog and they have a separate line referring to Experimental ASPEN EFD-500/1000MFD & ATP PFD units. Anybody know if Aspen has a new lower price for EXP market? I'd call Chief but its Saturday morning and they are closed.
Just received a Chief Aircraft catalog and they have a separate line referring to Experimental ASPEN EFD-500/1000MFD & ATP PFD units. Anybody know if Aspen has a new lower price for EXP market? I'd call Chief but its Saturday morning and they are closed.
Also considering Aspen
I too, like TankerBob, am considering an Aspen PFD for my flying RV-8A.
All the same reasons apply -- existing six-pack and I would rather not have to redo the entire panel.
The one factor that may carry the day in favor of the Aspen has to do with autopilot integration. My RV currently is equipped with an STEC 30 2 axis autopilot and the Garmin GNS 430. None of the current experimental EFIS systems will integrate with the STEC. So, if I go for one of the experimental EFIS systems I will either have to also replace the autopilot (more $$), or be satisfied with a stand-alone autopilot that is not very functional (no course interceptions, no following the heading bug, and no flying the approach). The dollars involved tend to even out when the addition of a 4-5K new autopilot is part of the equation.
I spoke with another RV owner, a CFI in the northeast, who uses the Aspen unit in his RV with the STEC 30 autopilot and a Garmin 430. He is thrilled with the Aspen. The Aspen and the 430 enable the STEC to fly the heading bug, intercept courses, fly entire VOR/ILS/GPS procedures including missed approaches, holding patterns, etc.
Also, much like TankerBob, I'm very used to seeing attitude displayed over an HSI after 27 years of flying that configuration in the military.
I too, like TankerBob, am considering an Aspen PFD for my flying RV-8A.
All the same reasons apply -- existing six-pack and I would rather not have to redo the entire panel.
The one factor that may carry the day in favor of the Aspen has to do with autopilot integration. My RV currently is equipped with an STEC 30 2 axis autopilot and the Garmin GNS 430. None of the current experimental EFIS systems will integrate with the STEC. So, if I go for one of the experimental EFIS systems I will either have to also replace the autopilot (more $$), or be satisfied with a stand-alone autopilot that is not very functional (no course interceptions, no following the heading bug, and no flying the approach). The dollars involved tend to even out when the addition of a 4-5K new autopilot is part of the equation.
I spoke with another RV owner, a CFI in the northeast, who uses the Aspen unit in his RV with the STEC 30 autopilot and a Garmin 430. He is thrilled with the Aspen. The Aspen and the 430 enable the STEC to fly the heading bug, intercept courses, fly entire VOR/ILS/GPS procedures including missed approaches, holding patterns, etc.
Also, much like TankerBob, I'm very used to seeing attitude displayed over an HSI after 27 years of flying that configuration in the military.
Garage Guy
Well Known Member
I don't see anything on the Chief or Aspen sites about this. Maybe it just means that Chief won't charge you installation if you can prove it's going in an experimental.
If Aspen does start marketing a non-TSO version of the Pro PFD at a nice discount I bet they would sell a lot of them. Though they seem to be selling a lot of the TSO units already as it is.
--Paul
scarter770
Member
Aspen EFD/MFD 1000
Had the Aspen installed to avoid glitches with other non certified units. Have so far replaced RSM (oat reading high) and now have problems with e6b portion calculating wind speed and direction (always have a head wind) this unit is sunlight readable and very easy to learn but I did not expect to have these problems with a certified unit. We are now waiting for Aspen to step up and fix this before I lose my patience with this unit. The box that talks to the century autopilot is doing well changing digital signals to analog. The features in the unit are great but the problems suck! I surely didn't expect this from a 14000 dollar installation of certified equipment.
Had the Aspen installed to avoid glitches with other non certified units. Have so far replaced RSM (oat reading high) and now have problems with e6b portion calculating wind speed and direction (always have a head wind) this unit is sunlight readable and very easy to learn but I did not expect to have these problems with a certified unit. We are now waiting for Aspen to step up and fix this before I lose my patience with this unit. The box that talks to the century autopilot is doing well changing digital signals to analog. The features in the unit are great but the problems suck! I surely didn't expect this from a 14000 dollar installation of certified equipment.
