VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   Glass Cockpit (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=35)
-   -   Lifespan of an EFIS system? (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=118406)

rleffler 10-10-2014 06:17 AM

I think that EFIS are falling into the same lifecycle as personal computers.

Unfortunately, that life span is pretty short. It's been awhile since I was procuring PCs in significant quantities, but then the life span was only about eighteen months from start of design to the end of production manufacturing. It may be different today, but I suspect it may even be shorter.

As software goes through a phenomenon called "creeping featurism" it gets to a point, where it needs more cpu and better video processors to run. This also takes advantage of the hardware gains of Moore's Law.

So I think the demand for new features/functions will force the replacement of current glass as oppose to a component failure causing them to be replaced.

bob

Brantel 10-10-2014 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian_JOY (Post 923806)
One of the biggest drivers in lifespan of cockpit displays is the cold cathode fluorescent tubes used in the display backlights. They have a tough life, and from the day they leave the factory they are burning up their finite lifespan. The more power cycles we put the displays through, the more quickly we burn up that lifespan. How many years will they last? Depends on a lot of factors outside the control of the pilot/user.

LED's are replacing these fast which is a good thing!

RVDan 10-10-2014 07:15 AM

Some of the "original" EFIS systems, Collins EFIS 84 for example which is CRT based, are still in useful service. It was just last year, Collins announced end of support. IIRC EFIS 84 was introduced circa 1984, so a 30 yr life (someone who really know please chime in).

Most modern avionics have MTBF's in the 10,000 to 20,000 hour range, which means that for small airplanes the desire to have perhaps reduced weight and the new features or looks will likely outweigh reliability with respect to driving upgrades.

Clearly, modern avionics are also caught up in the electronics industry part obsolence issues. Many avionics manufacturers that I work with are always predicting part needs past 3 yrs so that they can purchase suffient key parts that might go obsolete, to support production through EOL.

tommylewis 10-10-2014 07:19 AM

autopilots also
 
The gyros in our "fancy" autopilots also have a useful life as demonstrated by our recent (last week) failure of the gyros in our Trutrak DII VSVG. It was installed in our RV7a seven years ago and has had 1250 flight hours. It is in for repair so we flew our RV10 to NH last week. We upgraded the EFIS three years ago but the wiring is now 7+ years old. Scott, would you share more details about your failure?

We are flying the granddaughters out for lunch today so will upgrade our GRT HXs with the new software.

scard 10-10-2014 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommylewis (Post 923910)
Scott, would you share more details about your failure?

In another thread somewhere. Display wouldn't paint an image. Repair was "Replaced display cable."

KatieB 10-10-2014 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scard (Post 923935)
In another thread somewhere. Display wouldn't paint an image. Repair was "Replaced display cable."

I think a good corollary to the EFIS lifespan question is the quality and cost of continued factory support. Your display was built 8 years ago and the internal cable repair cost you $125 to fix. In the world of consumer electronics, the low repair price, availability of parts and factory support for discontinued equipment seems like a really good deal to me.

Reliability issues are bound to crop up with aging systems, and this is where you need to make sure you have independent back up instruments if you fly in IMC. But that goes for any system, analog or electrical, certified or experimental. I've talked to hundreds of people at air shows for 2 years (and even before working at GRT) and the cost of replacing bad mechanical gyros always creeps into the conversation. Weight and maintenance cost of the mechanical analog stuff seems to lead to many decisions to install glass.

When I flew some of the first G1000 Diamond aircraft in 2006, we wondered the same thing-- How are these going to stand the test of time? They cost nearly $80,000 and are wired into the bowels of the airframe and engine--Will the screens last longer than a personal computer? Will I get the "blue screen of death"? How will we replace them and at what cost? I'm curious to see what those panels look like now after 9 years of hard service in a flight school parked outside in the Tennessee sun.

I think over the past decade, GRT has answered the replacement/upgrade question for our customers by supporting our older units and making our new display units compatible with the wiring, AHRS and EIS of our old systems. As longtime customers like Gary point out, they are often reluctant to replace their original WS systems because "If it ain't broke don't fix it!" But many have upgraded to newer displays fairly easily to get new features, better graphics, fresh hardware, and more processing power.

Bavafa 10-10-2014 09:16 AM

I think the only down side with the ?EIFS? route is that you are locked in with one specific manufacture/model in terms of wiring and space on your panel. I love my GRT system and in over 5 years I have not had a single issue with them but I can?t help thinking/worring what will it happen if the company is not around to support it or simply have the ability to buy another one of the same system to replace it if it ever breaks.

But I would add that the commitment and support that I have seen from GRT eases my mind a great deal in that regard.

Snowflake 10-10-2014 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KatieB (Post 923943)
I think over the past decade, GRT has answered the replacement/upgrade question for our customers by supporting our older units and making our new display units compatible with the wiring, AHRS and EIS of our old systems. As longtime customers like Gary point out, they are often reluctant to replace their original WS systems because "If it ain't broke don't fix it!" But many have upgraded to newer displays fairly easily to get new features, better graphics, fresh hardware, and more processing power.

I hope this is where we're headed in the long run, with all the manufacturers. Modular systems that allow for replacing components to upgrade to newer technology as it arrives. Screen independent of computer independent of AHARS. I'll stop short of suggesting that they be interchangeable between manufacturers... While there's no technical reason they couldn't be, the marketing departments at each company would have fits if you could replace your Garmin computer with a GRT computer and continue on.

It wouldn't be much different than steam gauges, really... Airspeed from one manufacturer, Altitude from another, Horizon from another, G-Meter from another. You never hear of compatibility issues between steam gauges. :)

I still think that making use of the screens we already carry (iOS/Android devices) would make more sense. We're more likely to upgrade them on a shorter schedule, and stay more current with technology. If we could leverage that to keep our aircraft up-to-date that would be excellent. The iLevil guys seem to think that way as well.

My short-term upgrade plan is to build a new modular panel for my -6 that would allow me to replace sub-panels to change from steam gauges to a Tablet/iLevil combination to a Dynon/GRT/Garmin system as time goes on. The only thing it wouldn't allow for is the 36" wide whole-panel capacitive touchscreen that i'm waiting for someone to design... :)

humptybump 10-10-2014 09:54 AM

The question I ask myself is "support".

Katie makes their point. Scott's unit was 8 years old (from MFG date) and still had support. Some of our equipment may get EOL'd in less than 8 years. Some may get EOL'd before it fails. Some may get EOL'd before it ceases being useful.

So there is a cascade of milestones in the life of our equipment (the order is questionable):
  1. manufacturing of equipment
  2. purchase of equipment
  3. first use of equipment
  4. needed / desired capabilities of equipment (this could shift anywhere in this list)
  5. cost-effective supported lifespan of equipment (will the cost of a repair exceed the value or upgrade)
  6. supported lifespan of equipment
  7. lifespan of equipment

scard 10-10-2014 09:59 AM

I think I commented elsewhere that I am quite pleased that my 8yr old computer still works at all with all the time it has spent riding around in a less than ideal environment. Hence the question of what we think our realistic expectations are.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:30 AM.