What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-10 IFR panels

P

Paul Bonner

I'm New Here
well we're in the final throes of constructing the tail of our QB 10 kit and as we work, the topic of discussion to which we always return is the panel.

we've settled on going IFR . after all, if you're going to build a plane of this caliber, why not go full up?

now we are playing with epanel builder and coming up with different layouts.

we like the dynon systems but are struggling a bit with interpretting the rules regarding the instrumentation required for IFR cert in an experimental plane. it's that redundancy thing , don'tcha know? do dynon qualify are instruments for IFR flight? if so, what's the minimum steam gauge requiremnt for the neccessary level of redundancy?

we're also looking hard at what's the best way to spend the money required to go IFR.

we feel garmin is the company to go with and that the garmin 430 is a good unit but marketplace wise is already old hat.

and while we fly our 6 with a 196 and love it's simplicity of use, we feel a snap in " panel mount" 296/396, while probably not legal for IFR use, is terribly economical but would be kinda cheesey in a 10. but then we choke on thinking about the expense of putting in a 530.

and once we get the rules for IFR cert figured out and the money questions are answered, it's imperitive that the panel be highly functional and esthetically pleasing.!

who knows what about this better than fellow builders who might be farther down the road than we? so whattyall think?
 
IFR requirements

There are *NO* requirements for redundancy. In fact, all you have to do is meet the required equipment part of the rules. That has been hashed thru a million times, both here and on the EAA website so I won't recount it.

*if* you want to put a panel together with just a Dynon, you can fly it under IFR rules. Would I suggest you fly it in *hard* IFR, no and you'll probably want to read about some of the newer EFIS systems and their "Fast erect" challenges. But beyond that, you can do anything you like.

Now, if you want to be safe, and be able to deal with a failure. I would suggest that if you are going to do an EFIS, that you also put in either 2" or 3" version of an Airspeed indicator, a Attitude indicator (the trutack solid state version or the Sporty's electic AI work just fine), and and altimeter.

You don't need TSO'd instruments, so all you really have to do is come up with what meets the required instrument rules and what backup you'd want. Now I would also suggest that you check with your DAR early on so make sure it will meet his requirements. There are obviously some old fashioned ones that have their own requirements even tho they technically aren't required by rule or regulation.
 
Paul Bonner said:
well we're in the final throes of constructing the tail of our QB 10 kit and as we work, the topic of discussion to which we always return is the panel.

we've settled on going IFR . after all, if you're going to build a plane of this caliber, why not go full up?

now we are playing with epanel builder and coming up with different layouts.

we like the dynon systems but are struggling a bit with interpretting the rules regarding the instrumentation required for IFR cert in an experimental plane. it's that redundancy thing , don'tcha know? do dynon qualify are instruments for IFR flight? if so, what's the minimum steam gauge requiremnt for the neccessary level of redundancy?

Here are the regs
Federal Aviation Regulation




Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

Subpart C--Equipment, Instrument, and Certificate Requirements





Sec. 91.205

Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.

(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) and (e) of this section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation described in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft contains the
instruments and equipment specified in those paragraphs (or FAA-approved equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and items of equipment are in operable condition.
(b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Airspeed indicator.
(2) Altimeter.
(3) Magnetic direction indicator.
(4) Tachometer for each engine.
(5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine using pressure system.
(6) Temperature gauge for each liquid-cooled engine.
(7) Oil temperature gauge for each air-cooled engine.
(8) Manifold pressure gauge for each altitude engine.
(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank.
(10) Landing gear position indicator, if the aircraft has a retractable landing gear.
(11) For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operation of the aircraft may continue to a
location where repairs or replacement can be made.
[ (12) If the aircraft is operated for hire over water and beyond power-off gliding distance from shore, approved flotation gear readily available to each occupant and, unless the aircraft is operating under part 121 of this subchapter, at least one pyrotechnic signaling device. As used in this section, "shore" means that area of the land adjacent to the water which is above the high water mark and excludes land areas which are intermittently under water.]
(13) An approved safety belt with an approved metal-to-metal latching device for each occupant 2 years of age or older.
(14) For small civil airplanes manufactured after July 18, 1978, an approved shoulder harness for each front seat. The shoulder harness must be designed to protect the occupant from serious head injury when the occupant experiences the ultimate inertia forces specified in Sec. 23.561(b)(2) of this chapter. Each shoulder harness installed at a flight crewmember station
must permit the crewmember, when seated and with the safety belt and shoulder harness fastened, to perform all functions necessary for flight operations. For purposes of this paragraph--
(i) The date of manufacture of an airplane is the date the inspection acceptance records reflect that the airplane is complete and meets the FAA-approved type design data; and
(ii) A front seat is a seat located at a flight crewmember station or any seat located alongside such a seat.
(15) An emergency locator transmitter, if required by Sec. 91.207.
(16) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes with a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 9 or less, manufactured after December 12, 1986, a shoulder harness for--
(i) Each front seat that meets the requirements of Sec. 23.785 (g) and (h) of this chapter in effect on December 12, 1985;
(ii) Each additional seat that meets the requirements of Sec. 23.785(g) of this chapter in effect on December 12, 1985.
(17) For rotorcraft manufactured after September 16, 1992, a shoulder harness for each seat that meets the requirements of Sec. 27.2 or Sec. 29.2 of this chapter in effect on September 16, 1991.
(c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) Approved position lights.
(3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system on all U.S.-registered civil aircraft. Anticollision light systems initially installed after August 11, 1971, on aircraft for which a type certificate was issued or applied for before August 11, 1971, must at least meet the
anticollision light standards of part 23, 25, 27, or 29 of this chapter, as applicable, that were in effect on August 10, 1971, except that the color may be either aviation red or aviation white. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operations with the aircraft may be
continued to a stop where repairs or replacement can be made.
(4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light.
(5) An adequate source of electrical energy for all installed electrical and radio equipment.
(6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required, that are accessible to the pilot in flight.
(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.
(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:
(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in Sec. 121.305(j) of this chapter; and
(ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of ?80 degrees of pitch and ?120 degrees of roll and installed in accordance with Sec. 29.1303(g) of this chapter.
(4) Slip-skid indicator.
(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.
(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation.
(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.
(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).
(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).
(e) Flight at and above 24,000 ft. MSL (FL 240). If VOR navigational equipment is required under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft within the 50 states and the District of Columbia at or above FL 240 unless that aircraft is equipped with approved distance measuring equipment (DME). When DME required by this paragraph fails at and above FL 240, the pilot in command of the aircraft shall notify ATC immediately, and then may continue operations at and above FL 240 to the next airport of intended landing at which repairs or replacement of the equipment can be made.
(f) Category II operations. The requirements for Category II operations are the instruments and equipment specified in--
(1) Paragraph (d) of this section; and
(2) Appendix A to this part.
(g) Category III operations. The instruments and equipment required for Category III operations are specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(h) Exclusions. Paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section do not apply to operations conducted by a holder of a certificate issued under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.


Peter
Click to expand...
 
Paul Bonner said:
we feel garmin is the company to go with and that the garmin 430 is a good unit but marketplace wise is already old hat.

and while we fly our 6 with a 196 and love it's simplicity of use, we feel a snap in " panel mount" 296/396, while probably not legal for IFR use, is terribly economical but would be kinda cheesey in a 10. but then we choke on thinking about the expense of putting in a 530.
Click to expand...
Technology wise, there is not that much difference between a 430 and a 530 other than the screen size and some additional I/O ports. As old as the 430/530 is however, its current lack of WAAS are their only shortcoming. For me it is still at the top of my list of GPS and what my panel is designed around. The nice thing about the Garmin handheld is that you can crossfeed data from a Garmin panel mount to them. For this reason, a handheld is, and will continue to be a standard part of my panel.

I would sugges you select any IFR certified panel mount GPS (the handheld alone would not suffice) and then also go with your familiar handheld, tied to it. There are a number of ways to make them look nice in the panel.

This is the plan for my panel.
10Panel06.jpg
 
My suggestion would be to talk to Stein @ Steinair. He sees it all and will offer good ,RELIABLE, advice. We chose Chelton with a SL-30.
Jim #290 slow build, wings painted yesterday, fuselage on Mon. Flying RV-7A.
 
Patience is a virtue

You say you are still working onthe tail------------as am I, and thinking about your panel-------again, as am I.

The best advice I have recieved about the panel setup is--WAIT!!

Things change so fast in the electronics world that what looks good today is old hat tomorrow.

It is O.K. to start planning and making a "wish list" etc, and I am limiting my list to general terms---I want a GPS, I want a stereo/intercom, I want a EFIS, etc., and I will fill in the specific brand/model later, but I would not spent any $$ for big ticket items until you really need to.

Been there, done that on a prior project.

Good luck, Mike S
 
Jim Sinkbeil said:
My suggestion would be to talk to Stein @ Steinair. He sees it all and will offer good ,RELIABLE, advice. We chose Chelton with a SL-30.
Jim #290 slow build, wings painted yesterday, fuselage on Mon. Flying RV-7A.
Click to expand...
Jim,

From your emphasis of the word RELIABLE above, this seems to imply that the advice given by the above posters, is NOT RELIABLE. Can you clarify?

Also, what does a Chelton and an SL-30 have to do with an IFR GPS? The original question was for an IFR legal GPS, the SL-30 is a VHF NAV/COM and the (optional?) GPS in the Chelton is not TSO?d.
 
To be clear (chelton specific)

The Chelton *includes* a GPS, but it is *not* certified. However, they did offer an *option* to a gps from freeflight systems. It, prior to the GNX-480 being approved, was the only other WAAS gps that was certified and approved.
 
Mike S said:
You say you are still working onthe tail------------as am I, and thinking about your panel-------again, as am I.

The best advice I have recieved about the panel setup is--WAIT!!

Things change so fast in the electronics world that what looks good today is old hat tomorrow.

It is O.K. to start planning and making a "wish list" etc, and I am limiting my list to general terms---I want a GPS, I want a stereo/intercom, I want a EFIS, etc., and I will fill in the specific brand/model later, but I would not spent any $$ for big ticket items until you really need to.

Been there, done that on a prior project.

Good luck, Mike S
Click to expand...
This is great and RELIABLE advice Mike. Like most builders I started to think about their panel and avionics early on, however I do not plan on buying ANY avionics until all the major airframe components are done. I'll still put enough thought in the panel however and it has been through a few iterations, but it is best to wait and see.

Imagine sitting on a hunk of expensive avionics while building and then get something like this?
 
No bad decisions with D2A and the Chelton Sport

Imagine sitting on a hunk of expensive avionics while building and then get something like this?
Click to expand...
Ah, wait one second there captain...

As evidenced by the recent recall on the 400 series AHRS. D2A and the Chelton EFIS system have take most of the risk away in thinking ahead. From what I'm hearing, D2A will be offering a *free* swap out to their existing customers to solve the Xbow AHRS problem. With the cost of some of these components, that's no small deal.

I bought my Chelton early, before the plane was done, taking advantage of their OSH special last fall with a free TruTrak. Turns out this has been an excellent decision given the support they continue to provide their customers...

One of the huge advantages, IMHO, of the Chelton system is the ability for it to be upgraded and not obsoleted. Course, it doesn't hurt that it's based upon certified code either :)

No I don't work for D2A, but am an extremely happy customer!
 
Last edited:
What am I missing with the Chelton?

aadamson said:
..I bought my Chelton early, before the plane was done, taking advantage of their OSH special last fall with a free TruTrak. Turns out this has been an excellent decision given the support they continue to provide their customers...

One of the huge advantages, IMHO, of the Chelton system is the ability for it to be upgraded and not obsoleted. Course, it doesn't hurt that it's based upon certified code either :)...
Click to expand...
Alan,

I'm sure the Chelton is a great system, no debate there. However one thing I would question is the wisdom of plunking down $25,000 (or more) for something two years before you need it just to get a *free* autopilot. Even a modest CD would net you ~$100 per month ($2,400) while you pound away rivets (or in your case sand glass) and newer/improved products appear.

Also, this notion of "based on certified" sounds good, but I don't get it. I've dealt with embedded software systems long enough to know that once you touch a "certified" baseline code, all the "certified" controls go out the window. In the real world something like "based on concrete foundation" guarantees a certain understanding. In the software world, I would not make that same extrapolation.

It is great that they are offering free replacements but I would argue that if they want to stay in the business, I don't think they had any choice. Imagine how many more units they would sell if they told users that "oh, there is a problem with you AHRS and you will have to pay us an additional $4-8,000 for a replacement." Their sales would come to a screeching halt.

OK, I've got another year before I buy, so help me understand the benefit of the Chelton. Who knows, in my next panel iteration, a Chelton may be included :) . A dual Chelton system is $25,000, a dual GRT system is $9,000--add another $1,000 to the GRT for things like ARINC 429, Fuel Flow, etc. Aside from HITS and terrain depiction, what else does the Chelton EFIS offer? Look at every panel that has Chelton installed and ask why there have an external CDI? ARINC 429 integration with the GNS-480 (and probably the 430) is currently non-existent, TIS doesnt work. So what am I missing. I figure if people are paying more than twice as much for the Chelton, than for the GRT it must offer something superior, but I'm missing it.
 
My response

w1curtis said:
OK, I've got another year before I buy, so help me understand the benefit of the Chelton. Who knows, in my next panel iteration, a Chelton may be included :) . A dual Chelton system is $25,000, a dual GRT system is $9,000--add another $1,000 to the GRT for things like ARINC 429, Fuel Flow, etc. Aside from HITS and terrain depiction, what else does the Chelton EFIS offer? Look at every panel that has Chelton installed and ask why there have an external CDI? ARINC 429 integration with the GNS-480 (and probably the 430) is currently non-existent, TIS doesnt work. So what am I missing. I figure if people are paying more than twice as much for the Chelton, than for the GRT it must offer something superior, but I'm missing it.
Click to expand...

I went thru some of those questions when I did what I did... First to clear up some facts. My legacy will be done in the next few months. Sanding included :)... So for me it wasn't a multi-year in the future investment.

To make a comparison just on price really isn't fair. Especially to compare the GRT EFIS to the Chelton EFIS. There are just so many differences not the least of which is the screen resolution. 400x240 just doesn't offer the performance that I'm looking for. Now mind you, I fly behind a 1024x768 G1000, so even the Chelton at 640x480 will be a step down :). For me it has to do with intergration, quality, and robustness. HITS, Synthetic Vision, Terrain, Traffic, TIS, Weather, while you can get some of these on the cheaper EFIS systems, you loose out on the quality of display and again the intergration. Flight planning is a good example.

I also played the math game. The magic with the math game is matching a system to your mission profile. I don't think a Chelton is for everyone! In my case, my math was based upon a mission profile suited to x-country flying in a fast airplane and my experience flying behind a G1000 182. I first started looking at a panel with steam gauges, but it was all electric, so the price of the gyro instruments made it expensive. I did the math with the GRT systems and the BMA systems. In all cases, once you put everything together to match apples to apples, the Chelton Sport was more money, but not that much in the great scheme of things. I also looked at the math wholistically. I priced the entire panel. This needed to include engine instrumentation for a 6 cyl, navigation, flight decision information and support for all electric dual busses. It needed to be IFR capable and include an Autopilot. In my case, no question, the OSH special was the deal maker. The Autopilot that I wanted was almost 25% the price of the Chelton and I basically got it for free.

As for the code base, there is one and it's shared between the certified and non-certified product. That does not mean they are *exactly* the same, but it does mean that the non-certifed product will benefit from the higher quality rigors of testing that the certified product gets. Also on the hardware front, simple things like heat tests, cold tests, water/moisture tests, EMI tests (what ultimately doomed the Xbow AHRS), etc all benefit the Chelton product (both sport and certified). When I looked at the other competitive products, none of them performed any of those tests.

As for your comments on TIS, I'm not sure what you mean. I have 3 friends who also have Chelton (actually one is an original Sierra), they also have Garmin 330's and TIS works just fine. ARINC 429 adapters are available so integration with a 480, or 430 isn't a problem. (My freinds also have 430's). You know, I just happened on an RV-10 builder (who is done and flying now). He actually has a 3 screen Chelton Sport, with 480 and 330.

In the end, each will buy based upon what they feel is important, what they can afford, and how they fly. For me, once you put the tangibles and the intangibles together, the Chelton Sport rose to the top of the list. (course, the AP deal helped )...

Hopefully my final layout...
Final%20panel%20(Medium).jpg
 
Last edited:
Alan,

Thanks for the information, I'm learning more about it all the time. I'm also looking at the system holistically, but I'm centering mine around a certified GPS navigator-the GNS-430. All my flight planning will be done there and it will "flow" down to the EFIS, portable, etc. FYI, the estimated price for ALL my avionics depicted above is ~$28,000 -$3,000 more than the Chelton's alone. But I still don't see that I'm giving up anything.

I don't see a GPS on your panel, will you be relying on the Chelton built in GPS?

aadamson said:
As for the code base, there is one and it's shared between the certified and non-certified product. That does not mean they are *exactly* the same, but it does mean that the non-certifed product will benefit from the higher quality rigors of testing that the certified product gets. Also on the hardware front, simple things like heat tests, cold tests, water/moisture tests, EMI tests (what ultimately doomed the Xbow AHRS), etc all benefit the Chelton product (both sport and certified). When I looked at the other competitive products, none of them performed any of those tests.
Click to expand...
Ahh, and there is the rub. The Chelton experimental hardware has NOTHING in common with the certified stuff. Not the AHRS, the display or the system units. If it was the certification testing that doomed the AHRS, then it would have never been shipped. They realized they had a problem when they were failing "in the field." They are still using Xbow for their certified system, however it is the 500GA model.

Certified SV-Pro system: IDU3 Multi Function Displays, 500GA Crossbow AHRS, GP01 GPS Receiver
EFIS-Pro1.jpg


Experimental SV-Sport system: IDU1-G2 Display, NAV425EX Crossbow AHRS w/ WAAS enabled GPS, Air Data Computer (GRT)
EFIS-SV-Sport1.jpg


Now if they would offer that SV-Pro system for $25,000--that would make things real interesting.
 
Last edited:
Followup

w1curtis said:
I don't see a GPS on your panel, will you be relying on the Chelton built in GPS?

Ahh, and there is the rub. The Chelton experimental hardware has NOTHING in common with the certified stuff. Not the AHRS, the display or the system units. If it was the certification testing that doomed the AHRS, then it would have never been shipped. They realized they had a problem when they were failing "in the field." They are still using Xbow for their certified system, however it is the 500GA model.
Click to expand...

Ya didn't see the 396 in the middle of the radio stack? I still just haven't figured out the need for a certified GPS. If I have to go there, I'll remove the 396, but until someone tells me why it's *required* I'm not :).

As for the Sport version, its actually the platform that most of the original testing was done on. That's all the environmental testing and all the reliability testing etc. To be absolutely correct, archictecturally they are similar, but form factor wise, they are different. However, it's nice to know that the Sport has been tested and survived to the certified standards.

On the math, let's see if I have this right...

Your panel, in large building blocks.

a) GRT dual screen - 10K by your submission
b) 430 - last time I looked they were 6.5K for the low power version
b.1) if that were a 480, then add 2-2.5K more
c) autopilot, I'll assume a trutrak - 5K.

So with no backup instrumentation, no engine instrumentation, no audio panel, only a single com/nav, no transponder, and nothing else in the panel, that math above is 22K - 430, 24-25K - 480.

Just the 330 alone is 3K, so I can't seem to get to your math, unless you are talking about a basic VFR type panel.

The pricing I used above was based upon your comment for the GRT and Starks current pricing on the other items.

Prehaps we should just agree we disagree on the price (or should I say value) topic. It's my Butt in the seat if I could afford a certified system.

One thing this topic did do is make me go look at my notes on "survivability due to static and lightning". I'll have to go check buy somewhere in the back of my mind, I believe the Chelton went thru that testing as well. Course being in carbon helps a little, at least at DC current it acts more like metal than fiberglass :)....

Good discussion!
 
aadamson said:
On the math, let's see if I have this right...

Your panel, in large building blocks.

a) GRT dual screen - 10K by your submission
b) 430 - last time I looked they were 6.5K for the low power version
b.1) if that were a 480, then add 2-2.5K more
c) autopilot, I'll assume a trutrak - 5K.
..
Good discussion!
Click to expand...
Definitely good discussion! It is good that we can dis-agree without it becoming a war.

Rather than relying on my memory and your math, here is my updated budget. Scroll down to the Avionics Section.
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/9XOther/RV10Budget.htm

The Grand Rapids Dual Display Package with EIS -- system includes and Engine Information System (EIS). $9,000 +$1,000 in options
Garmin GNS-430 ~$6,500
Garmin GTX-330 ~$3,500
Garmin SL-40 ~$3,500
TrueTrak II VS ~$4,350
PS Eng. 8000B ~$2,000
~$29,850
Add another $1000 for basic flight and backup instruments and I'm all set.
 
Couple of things

William,

We are a little bit apples and oranges as my panel includes steam gauge backup with a Sportys electic AI. I also went with the much more flexible engine monitor, the EI MVP-50. If you net those two things and a few others (I have an AOA in my panel for example), we still are apples and oranges from a feature standpoint, but given the pricing that I've found, it would drive a 5-6K delta is all. Guess that might be the price for confidence in the platform and a higher degree of detail in the instrumentation.

Not trying to change your mind, you'll have a very nice panel. Take the time at SNF or OSH and look at the Chelton display tho, those extra lines of resolution really make a difference. Here are a couple of examples.

GRT with weather
wxla0cy.jpg


GRT with Terrain
terrainjemez8tq.jpg


I think it's gonna be a challenge to have both on the screen at the same time, especially given the limited resolution and color selection.

Chelton with weather
weather.gif


Chelton with Terrain, traffic, obstructions, etc
shadows.gif


I couldn't add another image to this message, but here is the Chelton with dual Nav needles, terrain, airspace, and weather.
Link Here
 
Last edited:
This is a pretty good discussion indeed! I'm in a unique position in that I get to play with both of them every day. We've sold & installed dozens of each so I'm fairly familiar with both systems. Right now we have 4 panels on the bench, 3 with Cheltons in them and 1 with GRT's, more Cheltons, GRT's, Dynons & BMA's coming into the next batch of panels.

I guess my take on this is more of an apples & oranges. I'm just going to randomly reply to some of the things I've seen in this thread. First, when you see an additional CDI with a Chelton system, it's usually because the customer has dual Nav's and uses the Chelton for 1 CDI and the other as the 2nd (remembering that the Chelton will overlay 2 VOR's from the SL-30 Active/Stby on a single display)...not because they don't trust the Chelton. Next, the terrain is more or less important to people depending on their mission. Me, I fly in MN, great lakes & dakotas a lot with little terrain, but some of my customers fly in Alaska to it's more important to them.

Now, without getting into the entire IFR GPS debate, I'll also let you know that a lot of people justify the Cheltons by not buying a 430...some are comfortable with it some are not. I don't even want to get in the middle of that subject.

I know the guys at D2A and GRT all quite well, and I think you'll find that neither of them really considers the other competition. Rather they both serve different needs. Indeed both are great systems, very functional and have their place. There are so many differences between the systems beyond a simple price comparision that it's almost impossible to just do a value judgement on price. Each one has it's own unique things...the GRT can split screens, but doesn't have lit buttons. Chelton has built in cooling fans but no XM weather. GRT uses rear mounted memory sticks, Chelton uses front mounted cards - so on and so forth.

My point is that they both have their place. I'm seeing a LOT of both being bought and installed in RV's. We have a dual screen Chelton going into an RV8 right now and a 3 screen GRT going into an RV10. Last fall we did a FIVE screen GRT system for an RV6 and 3 screen Chelton for RV10. I guess it really depends on personal flight mission, what you like and what YOU decide. Don't make your decision on marketing hype (whether it's by me, the mfgr or anyone), but based on your individual needs.

I guess it's kind of like comparing a Lancair to an RV. Both are GREAT airplanes and have their place for each persons mission. Would I like a Legacy, YOU BET, but I have an RV6 and I love it. Personally, I think both systems have a lot to offer and that's why we work with both and as a whole try to be as unbiased as we can with each specific customers requirements when deciding what he/she decides to purchase. Last Saturday I spent all afternoon with an RV7 driver who is trying to make the exact same decision between Cheltons and GRT's. I fired up both systems for him to play with, and we spent several hours "flying" them all over the country. He hasn't decided for sure yet, but those hours of playing with them made a huge difference in his perception of both systems from what he'd heard, read and seen. He discovered positives and negatives about each system that he hadn't even considered!

Just like Taildraggers vs.nosewheels, I think each is good for the guy who built them, and neither should razz the guy who did the opposite.

Just my 2 cents as usual,
Stein.
 
You guys are having a pretty good discussion. I agree with Stein that it's apples and oranges. Also, Alan brought up some great points too. I can verify that on the Chelton the TIS works beautifully. I had to get the com port settings right and then it worked fine. I'll be activating my WSI weather soon, so I'll finally get to see the pretty weather pictures too. Right now I do get verification of communication...just haven't paid up. I added the CDI not because I didn't trust the chelton, or even because I couldn't display the 480's CDI on screen (I can display BOTH active and standby SL-30 CDI's simultaneously), but I added the CDI so that even if I lost the entire Chelton system, my GNS480 would be useful. I think it would be stupid (well, I guess one man's stupid is another man's normal) to put all of your eggs in ANY basket, so if you want to lose an EFIS, you'll want to have some way to display a 430/480/530 CDI somewhere. It was a hard decision to justify though.

One thing about EFIS's...it seems that the people that bash things the most haven't actually flown with them. I can't and wouldn't bash a GRT system. They're great systems for the money. I also can't say that I'd be happy living with the resolution, and some of the other limitations. Has anyone seen the GRT policy on database updates? There's just LOTS to consider when picking out an EFIS. If you take the time to get Chelton's Training DVD (Free, but not current as the current software is much improved), and take the time to look into them really close, it's much harder to justify NOT buying such quality gear....I mean, the plane is over $100K without the panel for most people....those builders often will want quality and features that are above what the average budget builder will. (Of course, there are RV-10 budget builders too, but that's what Dynon, GRT, and other companies are for) There are tradeoffs with ANY system....but in my opinion the tradeoffs are few with the Chelton system. About the only lacking thing is integrated Jepp charts.

On thing that was mentioned previously was doing all the flight planning on a 430 and having it flow into the GRT. I'd wonder how possible this actually is. Sure, the GRT can be directed by an external GPS, but that's not the same as flowing in flightplan data. I bring that up because I feel that one of the super strong points in the Chelton system is it's integration for Flight planning. It seems to be a fantastic system for planning routes, inserting points, flying approaches, including missed approaches, and everything else related to getting through the IFR flight alive. In my opinion, (it's always opinion, isn't it?) I don't even know if I'll plan flights on the 480...just use the Direct-To functions and basic functions, because if I'm spending my time entering in flight plans into the 480, I'm wasting my time....it's beautiful on the Chelton. I just want to be able to know the GNS480 enough to get me home if the EFIS fails completely...something that's not too likely. (Also, check out
the Chelton testing videos...pretty cool) I even pulled the breaker on my PFD in flight, and immediately my 2nd screen popped into attitude mode and the system kept on flying without missing a beat....so there's inter screen redundancy there.

As far as the AHRS recall goes, that's not a Chelton issue, that's a Crossbow issue. Chelton of course is the responsible party because they bought the dang things. But, it says a lot about a company when they will replace, free of charge, every customers AHRS. I know for a fact that the selling price of the AHRS is well over $10,000. How many small EFIS manufacturers would stand behind their product that well? Also, most of the other manufacturers aren't using the quality of EFIS that even the Crossbow 425EX was. I myself had it not boot up once, but it's been flawless in flight. Crossbow even supplies AHRS for the certified unit and many other vendor's products. Chelton got smart and found a far superior AHRS system and will be giving it to the previous buyers. Considering how good the original AHRS worked (when it worked), I can't see how I'll be disappointed.

As far as Certified Chelton to Chelton Sport comparisons, I don't think I'd WANT the certified Chelton. It's always going to be behind on software revs, it uses a lesser quality AHRS, and requires many more expensive add-on modules to bring the functionalities together. The sport gives the ability to be quicker to market with things such as XM weather, and all the goodies, which I'll bet you see in their units this year.

Like I said, I can't bash anyones stuff. At Sun-N-Fun last year, I hadn't even explored Chelton yet. I had been sold on Blue Mountain before the show, and went to Sun-N-Fun to explore GRT, as I was less than impressed with BMA the more I learned. I was very sold on GRT by the end of the show. I thought they had everything. Well, as time went on, and I looked at what I'd be requiring of my panel, I found that the GRT was nice, but I'd be spending a lot of money on other systems, like an MX-20 w/expanded I/O and GNS480. The weather on the GRT wasn't awful, but the displays are absolutly lacking in the clarity of an MX-20 or Chelton...and I wanted the MX-20 to give the best resolution possible. Then came Stein....man I'll never forgive that guy for making me think. ;) He pointed out that with all the stuff I was buying to get what I wanted, that I could do it all with the Chelton and have a better integrated system. I was skeptical at first. I requested the training DVD, and everything I could get on the system. After going in-depth with it, and doing the add/remove process with my panel components, I realized just like Alan that I wasn't really talking much more money than my GRT panel to have Chelton. Later on, I added more "stuff" to the panel, by not compromising on some minor details (like keeping the GNS480 for full dual-GPS and total WAAS redundancy)...which cost me more money in the end. In my experience so far, the GNS480 and Chelton GPS have tracked 100% perfectly with eachother at all times...except I sometimes get the "loss of integrity" on the GNS480. Do I trust the Chelton GPS, sure, I guess I trust it as much as I'd trust my GNS480. Can I fly a WAAS approach with it? I say....if I fly a WAAS approach, lets see if anyone can tell from outside the plane which GPS I was referring to when I flew down the glideslope. From what I can see so far, it won't make a lick of difference....but since I have the GNS480 installed, I won't have a worry in the world.

The one point I do want to make is this. Before buying any panel component, try to have the whole plan thought thru, and get every bit of info available and read and pay attention to it. Then, be honest about what's a trade-off and what's not. I don't think it's bashing GRT or BMA to say this, but there are absolutely trade-offs that make those a step down from the Cheltons. That doesn't mean they're not worthy of being in someones panel. It's up to the builder to decide what the trade-offs are worth. But, defending the units by calling them equals, in spite of the limitations, is not fairly acknowledging the limitations. They are what they are.

For the record, the current trade-offs of the Chelton's are:

Lack of good integration with GNS480 (being addressed by D2AV)
AHRS issue (Temporary: being replaced by D2AV)
Lack of checklist functions (Can be addressed by using Rob's EIS)
No integrated Jepp Charts (probably never will be...I'm using a tablet PC)

Some may add the lack of ability to split/screen the EFIS. I personally think this is something that shouldn't be done anyway....there are good reasons for keeping the screens in full display...which means there are good reasons for 2 to 3 screens in the panel.

Anyway, I'm loving the flying with the panel. I would offer just about anyone a ride if they come up this way. Your best bet before you buy any EFIS is to get a flight with one. I plan to do lots of demo flights with the Cheltons. I have nothing to gain for it, but I'm very motivated because I'm a happy customer. It's a good thing that you'll find happy customers from all of the vendors....more opportunities for you to check them all out.

Tim
 
Where??

you say you would give a demo ride to folks who come "up this way".

And where is that???

Thanks, Mike
 
Tim,

As we have communicated on this before, I think you know that I'm trying to understand both systems, their features, limitations and such. Also, I think different features and functions will appeal to different people, depending on their flying experiences.

For me I am basing my decision on flying behind a proven certified GPS navigator and everything else is ancillary. In your case you are centering your panel around the Chelton and that's fine too, but if I was doing this, I would just get the cheapest IFR navigator to augment the Chelton. In other words, your are basing you mission on the Chelton and I'm basing my mission on the certified Garmin-apples and oranges.
TimO said:
On thing that was mentioned previously was doing all the flight planning on a 430 and having it flow into the GRT. I'd wonder how possible this actually is. Sure, the GRT can be directed by an external GPS, but that's not the same as flowing in flightplan data. I bring that up because I feel that one of the super strong points in the Chelton system is it's integration for Flight planning. It seems to be a fantastic system for planning routes, inserting points, flying approaches, including missed approaches, and everything else related to getting through the IFR flight alive. In my opinion, (it's always opinion, isn't it?) I don't even know if I'll plan flights on the 480...just use the Direct-To functions and basic functions, because if I'm spending my time entering in flight plans into the 480, I'm wasting my time....it's beautiful on the Chelton. I just want to be able to know the GNS480 enough to get me home if the EFIS fails completely...something that's not too likely. (Also, check out the Chelton testing videos...pretty cool) I even pulled the breaker on my PFD in flight, and immediately my 2nd screen popped into attitude mode and the system kept on flying without missing a beat....so there's inter screen redundancy there.
Click to expand...
This is one of the things you get with the ARINC 429 interface. It looks like the GRT also supports "Aviation" data via the serial port like the portable GPSMAP-396. This is the way my current system operates and I like entering flight plan in only ONE place. If the EFIS can't get the flight plan from my GPS navigator (GNS400/480/500), then it is not for me. Such an EFIS would force you to use it as the flight planner. That may be OK, but I prefer a certified GPS navigator to be my flight planner/director.

I don't know about the flight planning capabilities of the GRT (don't plan to use it) or the Chelton but I like it very much in the 430, and the 480 is supposed to be even better. What I've found in flying in the IFR system in the last few years is that even if you have the capability to fly DIRECT, the airspace system is still very much based on airways and "update to your clearance, advise when ready to copy". I'll rely on the certified panel mount Garmin to take me home and if it fails, I'll rely on portable Garmin which will have the current flight plan information. The EFIS only helps me keep the shiny side up -and if it fails, that is what the backup steam gages are for.
TimO said:
As far as the AHRS recall goes, that's not a Chelton issue, that's a Crossbow issue. Chelton of course is the responsible party because they bought the dang things. But, it says a lot about a company when they will replace, free of charge, every customers AHRS. I know for a fact that the selling price of the AHRS is well over $10,000. How many small EFIS manufacturers would stand behind their product that well? Also, most of the other manufacturers aren't using the quality of EFIS that even the Crossbow 425EX was. I myself had it not boot up once, but it's been flawless in flight. Crossbow even supplies AHRS for the certified unit and many other vendor's products. Chelton got smart and found a far superior AHRS system and will be giving it to the previous buyers. Considering how good the original AHRS worked (when it worked), I can't see how I'll be disappointed.
Click to expand...
That $10,000 is for the 500GA (the certified gyro). Like I said, I don't think they had a choice but replace the failing gyros for free (stand behind). If not, the number of buyers after such an issue was not adequately addressed would be very small indeed-good resolution or not. So now they are using yet another, (non Xbow) gyro which is probably fine, but still not the 500GA.
 
IFR GPS

For an experimental you simply need to have a system which meets the capability of the TSO, in order to fly GPS approaches.

The TSO has two distinct sets of parameters, the first is functional. For example the unit has to be able to store and follow approaches, it has to sequence waypoints according to the process outlined in the TSO.

The Chelton software does all of this, and this is really what sets it appart from the others. You select the approach in the Chelton, verify it against the plate, and fly it in from there. All the sequencing and other procedural requirements of the TSO are met by the Chelton software.

The second part of the TSO for GPS is the accuracy. This measures the accurate resolution of aircraft position by the GPS processor. The GADHRS out there meet this standard for accuracy. Combined with the Chelton software, this would allow you to fly GPS appraoches. The feed of aircraft position into the software can come from the GADHRS, and that feed is accurate enough to meet the standard. This feed can also come from an external GPS which is itself independantly certified, and it can be fed into the software of the Chelton in which case the EFIS would still control the procedural issues of the approach. Or you can use the EFIS as a dumb CDI if you want, programing only the external GPS (480/430), and simply feeding CDI signals into the EFIS which would display the needles.

The only limit on the software and the old AHRS was that unless there was an outside source, the elevation data on the Chelton was barometric. This would only prevent GPS precision vertical approaches from being flown but would allow the system to be used for RNAV/GPS type approaches which comprise the bulk out there.

In fact, without the external GPS feed the Chelton would indicate that altitude was barometric and warn you about that so that you did not attempt a precision vertical WAAS approach.

The only thing missing from the previous AHRS data string for WAAS was the alarm signal if you lost WAAS vertical resolution. Because of this the Chelton NEVER used WAAS for altitude, unless a freeflight box was added.


ADVICE: Get the DVD on the Chelton and watch. It is hard to describe how the Chelton is a complete flight system, unless you have walked through a few approaches using one.

The other systems are really simple instrument replacements and coordinate well with outside, system based GPS like the 430/480. With the Chelton, all the procedures you would follow on the GPS are instead performed and managed within the software of the EFIS itself, and it accepts the same Jepp updates that your 430 would use. The Chelton will also display Marker beacon signals from any normal reciever, and will resolve GS\ILS signals on the screen.

This is Why a Chelton 2 screen with a pair of SL30's is a very powerful flight system, allowing ALL approaches but precision vertical guidance type GPS approaches. This functionality can be inexpensively added if necessay.

The same functionality would Require a 430/480 plus at least two screen GRT, plus and SL30. And you would have to program both the GPS and the GRT at various times in the flight.

You may wonder were I get these ideas, I am sick and bored enough to have read the TSO standards, front to back, in depth and the CFR notes and history including the rulemaking process notes.

CALL STEIN
GET THE DVD
RUN THE NUMBERS
 
Jconard said:
IFR GPS
For an experimental you simply need to have a system which meets the capability of the TSO, in order to fly GPS approaches.

The Chelton software does all of this, and this is really what sets it appart from the others. You select the approach in the Chelton, verify it against the plate, and fly it in from there. All the sequencing and other procedural requirements of the TSO are met by the Chelton software.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good but, to whom does Chelton demonstrate this capability other than themselves? If something actually has a TSO, it was at least demonstrated to the FAA. Now most here are building experimentals so we are making individual decisions as to what we want certified and what we can live without certification. For me, the GPS navigator will be certified and will "drive" the other avionics. The experimental Chelton is not TSO'd. This may not matter to most day/VFR flyer's, but if you are flying approaches to minimums in the soup, you would like some additional assurance (from the FAA) than from just Chelton. Any product can "say" they comply, proving it is a totally different matter.

Jconard said:
This is Why a Chelton 2 screen with a pair of SL30's is a very powerful flight system, allowing ALL approaches but precision vertical guidance type GPS approaches. This functionality can be inexpensively added if necessary.
Click to expand...
Well I can say that about a portable Garmin 396 also, but what does that mean?

Jconard said:
The same functionality would Require a 430/480 plus at least two screen GRT, plus and SL30. And you would have to program both the GPS and the GRT at various times in the flight.
Click to expand...
OK, let's "run the numbers" as you say:
-pair or SL30's $7,000
-dual screen Chelton $25,000
Total $32,000

-Garmin 430 $7,000
-Garmin SL-30 $3,500
-dual GRT $9,000
Total $19,500

An extra $12,500 to spend on Avgas; Priceless!

Jconard said:
And you would have to program both the GPS and the GRT at various times in the flight.
Click to expand...
I've explained why I think this is not so. Can you tell me what programming you would have to do on the GRT if your flight planning is done on the 430?
 
Process and software elements ARE TSO'd, it is the same software.

Do you actually know who Chelton is, and where they fit in the food chain?

Huge organization. Pretty trustworthy.

As to programing, you have to set additional bugs and alarms on the GRT.
 
Last edited:
w1curtis said:
If the EFIS can't get the flight plan from my GPS navigator (GNS400/480/500), then it is not for me.
Click to expand...

Better check, last time I looked only the 430 and 530 supported the flightplan feature to a "remote" gps. and it's a proprietary command set (not on the 429 buss I don't believe, but probably is on the serial buss (232)). Garmin *will not*, I've tried via some inside connections, give out the formats. If GRT "reverse engineered" it, expect Garmin to change something and break that. Around their proprietary stuff, they hold no bars at making it difficult for any sort of competition.

Been 6 mo's since I checked on all of this, so something might have changed, but I highly doubt it.

YMMV
 
Jconard said:
Process and software elements ARE TSO'd, it is the same software.
Click to expand...
Show me the TSO'd paperwork for the Experimental SV-Sport system?

Jconard said:
Do you actually know who Chelton is, and where they fit in the food chain?

Huge organization. Pretty trustworthy.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Enron was also huge! Chelton GA division bought the basic EFIS technology from Sierra (experimental) a few years ago and certified it. Which OEM aircraft manufacturer install the "certified" Chelton EFIS? What else in the "food chain" do I need to understand.

Jconard said:
As to programing, you have to set additional bugs and alarms on the GRT.
Click to expand...
If you mean, heading bug, you also need to do this on the Chelton. Aren't alarms defined on setup?

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=5970&highlight=Chelton+xbow
 
aadamson said:
Better check, last time I looked only the 430 and 530 supported the flightplan feature to a "remote" gps. and it's a proprietary command set (not on the 429 buss I don't believe, but probably is on the serial buss (232)). Garmin *will not*, I've tried via some inside connections, give out the formats. If GRT "reverse engineered" it, expect Garmin to change something and break that. Around their proprietary stuff, they hold no bars at making it difficult for any sort of competition.

Been 6 mo's since I checked on all of this, so something might have changed, but I highly doubt it.

YMMV
Click to expand...
No need to reverse engineer anything and the GRT would not be considered a "remote GPS". All I want the GRT to do is take the current flight plan from the GPS navigator. "Avaition" data (which includes flight plan info) is an industry standard and is understood by even lowly Fuel Flow computers. Did you ever wonder how an EI or JPI fuel flow gage can determine fuel to next waypoint or MPG or fuel to destination? I think you are confusing this with the proprietary crossfill protocol between two Garmin navigators. That is proprietary.
 
Didn't we go here already?

w1curtis said:
No need to reverse engineer anything and the GRT would not be considered a "remote GPS". All I want the GRT to do is take the current flight plan from the GPS navigator. "Avaition" data (which includes flight plan info) is an industry standard and is understood by even lowly Fuel Flow computers. Did you ever wonder how an EI or JPI fuel flow gage can determine fuel to next waypoint or MPG or fuel to destination? I think you are confusing this with the proprietary crossfill protocol between two Garmin navigators. That is proprietary.
Click to expand...

You may very well be right.... One other note and you and I have had this conversation. While *you* may want everything in the airplane to be TSO'd, there is *NO* requirement to have it be such. Thats a personal choice and one that drives a higher dollar value.

I do suppose you know that the GRT is also not TSO'd? For that matter and I know we have had this conversation as well. I fly behind a Garmin G1000 today in a Cessna 182. It is actually certified as "secondary". The primary instrumentation in that airplane is 3 gauges. AS, AI, ALT and the AI is a good ole vacuum steam gauge.

One other comment that I hope isn't missed by others reading this thread.

The most important thing from a "safety" aspect is "system integration". The closer you can get to a concept of "one integrated system", the less the learning curve, the less the workload, the more information available to the pilot, hence providing a safer flight experience. With that said, however, it does require the pilot be able to digest, understand, and make decisions based upon this information.

From a complete integration standpoint, there is no current match, in GA airplanes, to the Garmin G1000. The closest thing at the current time is the Chelton system. Let's not trivialize what I'm saying. The chelton provides *one* interface to flight systems, nav systems, comm systems, situational awareness systems including terrain, obstacles, ground based aviation datum, weather, and traffic. As referenced by the pictures that I posted above, it does this with 640x480 resolution and at least 16 colors. That provides a more rich depiction of the information, making it easier to scan, digest, and understand.

People who buy the Chelton over the other competition, do so specifically because of the above. They want a "Electronic Flight Infomation System" and want no compromises on quality for the dollar.

Let's simplify the entire discussion, if this is entirely a dollars and cents decision, you most likely won't go for a Chelton. If you want a well integrated, rich flight experience and prefer a system thats a heck of a lot closer to a certified system that the rest of the competition, then you most likely will.

The actual problem with trying to compare system features vs. cost is that if you start with a low cost, not well integrated system, it gives you the ability to "leave things out" that keep the cost low. The best thing to do would be to take systems at a feature vs feature standpoint and evauate the costs based upon that. Let's make sure we do assign some value to the fact that the Serria/Chelton experimental design/system went thru all the certification tests for environmental, quality, reliabliity, and flight performance. D2 *does not* sell it as a certified system however, I'm sure due to liablity and cost recovery issues.

As most have said, if you haven't looked at the DVD, pick one up at SNF and do so, watch it and then build your cost vs. benefit matrix with Chelton and the competition.
 
Last edited:
You guys do so well with your replies, it leaves little for me to add....and that's good. ;)

A) I've heard from Chelton people that the AHRS, not the certified unit but
the old crossbow 425EX unit, is in the neighborhood of 12,000-14,000.
I don't know if it's true, or accurate, or if my ears were working properly that day, but that's the understanding I'm under.

B) Up Here is Western Wisconsin, about an hour East of Minneapolis.

C) I really would investigate further with GRT if you really think the 430 will pass flightplan data to the GRT. AFAIK, this isn't at all true. AFAIK, the best you'll get is to set the GRT to fly a NAV or maybe even localizer/gs that's provided by a 430/480/530, and you'd have to do all the work with the 430....but even this I'd question. If you look at how the TruTrak integrates with the units, the GRT or Chelton is what's actually driving the Trutrak...and if you wanted the 430 to drive it, that would be a separately switched item and then the GRT would be out of the loop.

TSO or No TSO, and all money aside, a GRT and a Chelton system, combined with ANY GPS navigator, are not equivalent systems. Yes, the GRT costs less, but there are without a doubt, and absolutely, tradeoffs that you have to get that far, even as far as resolution. Again, find out how often a database upgrade is done on a GRT. I'm not saying anything about it being a bad product. The systems are what they are, and even the manufacturers would acknowledge that there isn't an equality between systems. Lets say they even have 100% equal capabilities, they STILL aren't equal systems, as the resolutions are worlds apart. People buy GRT because it's great bang for the buck. They buy Chelton for ultimate in features and quality. They buy Dynon for an EFIS available at the lowest possible price. They buy Blue Mountain if they like some of the cool features and aren't scared to take the road less traveled when it comes to integrating it....and they like huge screens if they like the EFIS-One. Each product is different, but none are equals, and all serve their purchasers specific requirements. What would really get me upset is having all the features "sold" to me, only to find out that they're very limited...hence my choice to spend more. An all-steam-gauge panel is still not a bad panel option, if that fits the wishes of the buyer.

Not much more to say in the discussion....people make their minds up using their own criteria, and if the discussion thus far isn't convincing enough, then it's just obviously not a viable option at the moment. The manuals and DVD opened my eyes though.

Tim
 
Sv-pilot

I must say that the panel in one of the most bewildering aspects of building an experimental (at least for me). I know that this is an rv10 forum, but we've just ordered a 9a kit. Some of the things posted about the chelton system make it sound awfully appealing, but the 2 panel version costs almost as much as our quickbuild kit. Does anyone have something to say about the 1 panel "pilot" version? $16k is a little easier to swallow than $26k in our smaller project, if we can get good functionality from it.
 
As to the single screen,

It does everything the two screen does, it just does not have two screens, so you have to scroll through displays. Still a heck of a system.

Give Stein a call, and see if they can send you a DVD on the system, I think you will find it really interesting and helpful.
 
One note

TimO said:
AFAIK, this isn't at all true. AFAIK, the best you'll get is to set the GRT to fly a NAV or maybe even localizer/gs that's provided by a 430/480/530, and you'd have to do all the work with the 430....
Click to expand...

Just remember, in case others are reading this list. The 480 *does not* have the ability to drive and external serial (RS232) device be it AutoPilot, EFIS, etc. For some reason, in UPSAT's infinite wisdom, they didn't bring the RS232 port out to any connector. I know of people who have modified it, but I wouldn't suggest it for all kinds of reasons.

While you can get 429 and the low level voltage outputs to drive CDI's and AP's that support ARINC 429, you can't get NMEA strings (marine or aviation).

Too bad too. It also can not talk to the GDL-69/69A XM weather option :(....

I suppose I know why with it being "acquired". This is also why I believe you'll see a new GNS-580 (my numbering) shortly, either this airshow season or next that will be a large display with G1000 like MFD functions, plus nav/comm/gps.... Just guessing but it only makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Why?

w1curtis said:
My last words on this thread are: C.D.

Would have preferred Q.E.D.
Click to expand...


Perhaps I'm not very good at reading between the lines (and yes I did read what C.D. was).

As it relates to my comments, I don't have a 480, but did look at it for awhile until I realized its major shortcomings. From the other perspective, I *do* have a dual chelton and couldn't be happier. No C.D. from my perspective on either topic. But prehaps to the broader audience who have purchased something that wasn't what they expected, I could see where C.D. would come to play....
 
GRT does display GNS-430 flight plan

I've been having some trouble figuring out what you guys are arguing over, but I did extract one item of contention: whether or not the GRT EFIS will display the flight plan you entered into the GNS-430.

I asked GRT, and they said it does.

Note that I don't have a GRT, and have never seen one in action, so I'm just going by what the company told me.

If an actual USER of the GRT system wants to refute that, or explain what the limitations are, I'd be interested.

Cheers,
Martin
 
Sometimes.

I think we are all falling victim of conjecture.

So, until Paul or someone with the GRT and a 430 will jump in, I suppose it will continue.

I believe that what GRT does is take the Aviation format of NMEA. In the Aviation format there are strings for the "next waypoint". Not the entire flight plan. So perhaps the GRT will sequence somewhat manually from way point to waypoint and show you that *next* waypoint on it's moving map, I don't believe it will show the "string of flightplan waypoint" with them connected with segment lines, allow you select any of those wayponts as a "direct to" or edit or change the waypoints, nor will it give you ETA at destination, Fuel for destination, etc.

This is a major difference between some of the "basic" EFIS systems and a fully integrated one. Fuel management, time management, trip management, navigation management, etc are all included in the upper end systems and not in the lower ones. Some do a small subset of the above for 1 or 2 waypoints, but not the entire route.

But until we get an actual user who can clear this matter up, we are all left to speculation on the systems we don't have or have never used.
 
aadamson said:
I think we are all falling victim of conjecture.

So, until Paul or someone with the GRT and a 430 will jump in, I suppose it will continue.

I believe that what GRT does is take the Aviation format of NMEA. In the Aviation format there are strings for the "next waypoint". Not the entire flight plan. So perhaps the GRT will sequence somewhat manually from way point to waypoint and show you that *next* waypoint on it's moving map, I don't believe it will show the "string of flightplan waypoint" with them connected with segment lines, allow you select any of those wayponts as a "direct to" or edit or change the waypoints, nor will it give you ETA at destination, Fuel for destination, etc.

This is a major difference between some of the "basic" EFIS systems and a fully integrated one. Fuel management, time management, trip management, navigation management, etc are all included in the upper end systems and not in the lower ones. Some do a small subset of the above for 1 or 2 waypoints, but not the entire route.

But until we get an actual user who can clear this matter up, we are all left to speculation on the systems we don't have or have never used.
Click to expand...

I have just a minute to comment. I've been reading this thread, and kind of decided that ya'll are in a different league (financially) than most of us - but then, I have been told the same thing by folks that think my -8 is excessively equipped ... ;) Bottom line on that is you fly what you can afford, and make sure that it meets YOUR requirements for safety, operability, etc.

The GRT does take whatever the GNS 430 puts out in NMEA format - this does include the "next" waypoint data. I actually haven't bothered to check if it will show multiple consecutive waypoints, and here is why - I rarely end up putting in more than the next waypoint, because I so frequently just go direct. In fact, even when I do have a multiple-waypoint route, a lot of times, I don't put it in as a route - I get up in the air and hunt and peck my way through. How you operate is very dependent on where you are flying of course, and that is generally how it works here in the middle of the country. (It is also dependent on how you were brought up - I grew up without FMS's, point-to-point navigators, and the like, so I am used to dialing the next VOR, etc...).

Certainly a fully-integrated FMS is really cool, and of course, I have flown with them. They are really neat to have. But think about how you fly in the airspace. My 430 has the capability to fly full approaches from any initial fix - but in general, you get vectors to final in just about every approach environment in the country. Having the capability to couple the autopilot to the full approach (including the holding pattern!) and getting a cup of coffee is admittedly really cool - but not required. ;)

In short, Alan, I think you summarized the way the GRT works with the Garmin properly - but I hardly list that as a shortcoming. I also don't begrudge folks from buying the top-end systems if that is what they can afford. I do like to chime in occasionally so that the vast number of folks who are reading but not chiming in, wondering what they really need, get a full picture. For the vast majority of flying that many folks do, owning a Chelton is like owning a car that will do 200 mph. Really neat, looks great on the road - but hey, there aren't any public roads in this country that I know of where you can use all of it's capability. But sometimes, you want it because you can have it!

My philosphy is to start with your requirements - what do you need the system to do - and then find all the options out there. Pick one with a little more capability than you need (to allow for growth), and don't worry if it is "the best" or not - if it meets your needs, it is good for you. Then - most importantly - learn how to use it, in all it's modes. I am currently flying around doing lots of IFR procedures in VFR conditions at our local fields, making sure that I understand all of the operational modes and procedures of my system. I won't get in the clouds until I do.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that "fully integrated" is the same as "simple to operate"! The more advanced the system, the more nooks and crannies there are to fall in to. As I have said before, the last thing you want to hear on a dark and stormy night is "What's it doing now?... or maybe "I didn't know it could that!" Or, the worst of all...."What do you think it's gonna do Next?! :eek:

Paul
 
I couldn't agree more!

Paul,

Thanks for chiming in, I knew you had the setup that was being discussed and may know how it worked.

You are also *right on* about needs vs. wants. This goes back to a thread that I started related to this topic around "mission profile". Paul, sounds like you are a "hunt and peck-er". Meaning that you probably fly solo most of the time, just for the fun of it and your "trips" are fairly short in distance (perhaps not duration if you are out joy flying).

Me, I"m a "go somewhere" person, and when I go I want *all* the creature comforts and all the *information* - Integrated. That is partially because I'm a relatively new pilot (if getting your ticket in '91 counts as relative). I also learned to fly in one of the busiest airspaces in the country (well, actually 3 of them), San Diego's Montgomery field, LA's - Santa Monica, and Atlanta's PDK. In those environments, you use lots of navigation and communications features that you don't use "in the wild open expances". I've also been flying Glass now for almost 2 years and I use every spec of the information, features and integration that I can. It by far and away lessens the workload.

BUT, that isn't for everyone and it does take staying current with the technology and levels of integration. So for me the Chelton made perfect sense. When I looked at the others, I kept having to add things that were separate in order to provide the same "set of features" that I use everytime I fly.

It's nice to know that there isn't just a Chevy to drive, but that there are lots of other choices that breed advancement and competition within a give space.

Paul, Thanks again for you observations!
 
Last edited:
Grt

Alan and Paul,
Just a few data points.
Yes, the entire flight plan is presented on the GRT EFIS, active leg is magenta, all others are white. Once the approach is activated the entire appraoch is displayed including the hold. If you have the Digiflight IIVSGV the EFIS will comand the AP to fly the entire approach including Glideslope and hold. If you have the serial data running back to the 430 the fuel needed, fuel reserve and ETE from current position or any waypoint is available. (on the 430) Granted you need to get that data off the 430. The EFIS will only show the ETE from current position as far as I know.
You are right about being able to edit or fly direct from any waypoint, I believe this would need to be done from the 430.

I have flown behind the Chelton certified system and was really impressed, just a little out of my reach.

Gary
 
aadamson said:
Paul,



You are also *right on* about needs vs. wants. This goes back to a thread that I started related to this topic around "mission profile". Paul, sounds like you are a "hunt and peck-er". Meaning that you probably fly solo most of the time, just for the fun of it and your "trips" are fairly short in distance (perhaps not duration if you are out joy flying).
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with most of what you wrote, but you might be surprised at some of my mission lengths...different people integrate information in different ways, and use different tools and techniques to do so. I tend to stay pretty current (or slightly ahead of) technology, and use what I can to best advantage. We have observed that if you put too much information capability in front of some folks, it actually slows down their overall performance. Many people ldon't keep current enough with the more complex systems, in whch case they can become more of a hindrance to gettign the job done. It's just something to think about.

Paul
 
Ironflight said:
I don't disagree with most of what you wrote, but you might be surprised at some of my mission lengths...different people integrate information in different ways, and use different tools and techniques to do so. I tend to stay pretty current (or slightly ahead of) technology, and use what I can to best advantage. We have observed that if you put too much information capability in front of some folks, it actually slows down their overall performance. Many people ldon't keep current enough with the more complex systems, in whch case they can become more of a hindrance to gettign the job done. It's just something to think about.

Paul
Click to expand...
Boy, I couldn't agree more. I'm an engineer by training, and am usually working on the cutting edge of something or other, however I'm a technophobe at heart.

That said, if the computer does everything itself, I'm all for tight integration but when the human element is involved, I much prefer having it a bit more loosely integrated and "transparent". In this case, transparent doesn't mean "does it automagically for me". I mean transparent in the sense that I can see the gears turning in the black box and possibly have to turn some myself.

Some ATP's out there may be able to back me up on this, but something commonly heard on cockpit voice recorders is "Okay....NOW what the hell is it doing??".

Once again, though, this is just my preference and my comfort zone. The Chelton system seems really slick, and if it wasn't so darn expensive I might be tempted to give it a go.
 
TimO said:
A) I've heard from Chelton people that the AHRS, not the certified unit but
the old crossbow 425EX unit, is in the neighborhood of 12,000-14,000.
I don't know if it's true, or accurate, or if my ears were working properly that day, but that's the understanding I'm under.
Click to expand...
Guess I found some additional words. If Aircraft Spruce can sell them for $6,800 and make a profit, D2A (Chelton) probably gets them for a whole lot less.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/sierraefis.php
 
Gns-480

Just remember, in case others are reading this list. The 480 *does not* have the ability to drive and external serial (RS232) device be it AutoPilot, EFIS, etc. For some reason, in UPSAT's infinite wisdom, they didn't bring the RS232 port out to any connector. I know of people who have modified it, but I wouldn't suggest it for all kinds of reasons.

While you can get 429 and the low level voltage outputs to drive CDI's and AP's that support ARINC 429, you can't get NMEA strings (marine or aviation).
Click to expand...


I was looking for mounting info for the 480 and saw this thread. I know at least one person flying the GNS-480 with the GRT EFIS (RS-232 serial Mapcom and ARINC 429) along with at Digiflight (RS-232 Mapcom and ARINC). There are 5 bi-directional RS-232 interfaces on the GNS-480. It may not be the NMEA spec but is a MAPCOM protocol and GRT along with TruTrak seem to interface with it ok. I believe the 480 is the only WAAS approach approved unit out there that can do these things along with vertical guidance to the EFIS/Autopilot.

Andy
 
Those are ARINC 429 ports

andyrv said:
I was looking for mounting info for the 480 and saw this thread. I know at least one person flying the GNS-480 with the GRT EFIS (RS-232 serial Mapcom and ARINC 429) along with at Digiflight (RS-232 Mapcom and ARINC). There are 5 bi-directional RS-232 interfaces on the GNS-480. It may not be the NMEA spec but is a MAPCOM protocol and GRT along with TruTrak seem to interface with it ok. I believe the 480 is the only WAAS approach approved unit out there that can do these things along with vertical guidance to the EFIS/Autopilot.

Andy
Click to expand...

The 480 is *not* the only certified WAAS unit. Freeflight Systems (old trimble) was the first to certify a WAAS reciever and it works just fine with the Chelton EFIS system. (BTW, it just a simple module that gives you ARINC or 232 and needs power and antenna, can be mounted anywhere.)

I don't own a 480 and probably never will, but I know that most of the guys trying to interface it to the EFIS systems and the Trutrak systems have a heck of a time as UPSAT didnt' bring enough NMEA capable RS-232 serial ports out of it. While it might have enough ARINC, I do not believe it has 5 RS-232's and I know it does not have enough ports that are capable of NMEA.
 
Xbow update

For those effected, looks like Xbow updated their Service Bulletin info this past week.

http://www.xbow.com/Support/Support_pdf_files/Service_Letter_NAV425-06-02.pdf

However, I'm still hearing mixed reports of the fix working. (There seems to be a huge difference of success between plastic and metal airplanes) As we have discussed, EMI is a very hard thing to resolve (and that's just one of the things that is effecting the 42x series of AHRS). In fact, if you read the update, you'll note that Xbow had to redesign the power supply circuit, and it appears replace a component or two in the Accelerometer section.

One last comment, I wouldn't get too excited from the reference to DO-160 testing. I don't know how many, but there are a whole bunch of individual tests that make up that category. For example, I think there is a "mildew" test, etc. I doubt they have put it thru the entire gamit.

I do hope they get it resolved, unfortunately, I don't think it will be an easy path to resolution and I have friends who have them.... :(
 
Last edited:
The 480 is *not* the only certified WAAS unit. Freeflight Systems (old trimble) was the first to certify a WAAS reciever and it works just fine with the Chelton EFIS system. (BTW, it just a simple module that gives you ARINC or 232 and needs power and antenna, can be mounted anywhere.)

I don't own a 480 and probably never will, but I know that most of the guys trying to interface it to the EFIS systems and the Trutrak systems have a heck of a time as UPSAT didnt' bring enough NMEA capable RS-232 serial ports out of it. While it might have enough ARINC, I do not believe it has 5 RS-232's and I know it does not have enough ports that are capable of NMEA.
Click to expand...

My statement was that the GNS-480 was the only WAAS certified that I know of that interfaces with the GRT and Trutrak and will fly WAAS approach along with vertical guidance of the autopilot (field proven).

The GNS-480 actually has 5 bidirectional RS232 and 2 more receive-only RS232 ports. For the setup mentioned earlier (dual GRT and TT) only two RS232 serial ports w/Mapcom are needed. The first goes to both EFIS 1 and EFIS 2. The second goes to the autopilot but only when the pilot chooses not to have the EFIS drive the autopilot. There are at least 3 RS232 ports capable of MAPCOM which is more than enough for this configuration. The autopilot can be driven by the EFIS (RS232 or ARINC) or by flipping a switch it can be driven directly by the 480 (RS232 or ARINC).


Andy
 
Talking Digiflights

andyrv said:
The autopilot can be driven by the EFIS (RS232 or ARINC) or by flipping a switch it can be driven directly by the 480 (RS232 or ARINC).


Andy
Click to expand...

Andy, might want to give Trurak a call on that. I just did as I was working thru my wiring for my system. NOTE: my comments apply to the Digiflight II models.

The Digiflight models need both ARINC (which it uses for GPSS and GPSV) and it *also* needs RS232 NMEA (which it uses for position information). It *will* not work with only ONE of those. You comment about "RS232 or ARINC", needs to be changed to "RS232 *and* ARINC".

If you are using a 200 series, or a sorcerer, I suppose there are ways to wire it, but the Digiflights need *both*.
 
Waas

The 480 is *not* the only certified WAAS unit. Freeflight Systems (old trimble) was the first to certify a WAAS reciever and it works just fine with the Chelton EFIS system. (BTW, it just a simple module that gives you ARINC or 232 and needs power and antenna, can be mounted anywhere.)
Click to expand...


My mistake here. I meant to say precision approach certified and not just WAAS. The GNS-480 is approved for precision approach (TSO-146a). The Freeflight systems WAAS gps module (1201/1203) is not approved for precision GPS approach.

Andy
 
More information

andyrv said:
My mistake here. I meant to say precision approach certified and not just WAAS. The GNS-480 is approved for precision approach (TSO-146a). The Freeflight systems WAAS gps module (1201/1203) is not approved for precision GPS approach.

Andy
Click to expand...

You are correct, and that's because the 1201/1203 will *never* be approved for precision GPS approaches.... Thet don't have to be, they only have to meet the TSO for WAAS GPS receivers (145a I believe) and they both do that and have from the beginning.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.... As you probably know the Freeflight was what was used during the "Capstone" project and it *is* and *has* been certified to the TSO required for WAAS. There are actually 2 requirements in order to do LPV type approaches. One is that the GPS module be certified for WAAS (145a) and one is that the "navigation system" support the required limits for a precision GPS approach (146a).

As you'll see, the Freeflight met the GPS TSO before the 480, but only because it's a module

http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=0903&file=0903prodfocus.htm

The combination of the Chelton and the freeflight (what the FAA used all during the capstone project and what Chelton ships under their STC) provide the match for a precision approach environment for experimentals using those components. Also the 480 would do the same. But if panel space is limited or your looking for an integrated system, the freeflight fills that bill with the Chelton.
 
Last edited:
Little more Pinpoint GADAHRS info

Seeing as this is the thread that had the info on the new AHRS that D2A will be using with the Chelton EFIS system. I figured, I'd share a couple of snippets that I saw in a recent Pinpoint GADAHRS data sheet.

Meets or exceeds requirements set forth in DO-160E, including testing over temperature and altitude, temperature variation, humidity, operational shocks and crash safety, vibration, waterproofness, sand and dust, fungus esistance, salt fog, magnetic effect, power input, voltage spikes, audio frequency conducted susceptibility power inputs, induced signal susceptibility, radio frequency susceptibility, emission of radio frequency energy, lightning-induced transient susceptibility, electrostatic discharge, and fire flammability.
Click to expand...

Geez, just give it a knife and it will make you sushi as well... I especially liked the "fungus esistance" part (not even sure what that word means :). The bold was added by me.

Looks like it's very robust in all the DO-160 areas, but specifically against the documented weak points of the 42x series AHRS from Xbow. - the EMI, RFI, lightning, and static areas (no the 400 series Xbow is not lightning, or static protected).

This little unit is looking better and better with each passing moment as more information comes out...

And yes, it is important to call it a GADAHRS, it's different from just an AHRS, it's a "GPS, Air Data computer" *and* "Attitude Heading Reference System" in one pretty small box.

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