What's new
Van's Air Force

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

To remote or to not remote?

Mike D

Well Known Member
With all the new EFIS systems, it seems the control of remote transponders, radios, and audio panels is the rage these days. To clarify, I am talking about avionics with no other way to control, or see, them other than through the EFIS.

I have to question if this is a good thing. VFR, I don't really have an issue other than the potential resale value. But because I am not yet IFR rated, I don't know what I don't know. But my gut says this might not be good in IMC.

Will remote audio panels work with all the brands of Efis's? Or are they proprietary? Same question with transponders, radios, and all the other gizmos.

So what say you? To remote or not to remote?
 
With all the new EFIS systems, it seems the control of remote transponders, radios, and audio panels is the rage these days. To clarify, I am talking about avionics with no other way to control, or see, them other than through the EFIS.

I have to question if this is a good thing. VFR, I don't really have an issue other than the potential resale value. But because I am not yet IFR rated, I don't know what I don't know. But my gut says this might not be good in IMC.

Will remote audio panels work with all the brands of Efis's? Or are they proprietary? Same question with transponders, radios, and all the other gizmos.

So what say you? To remote or not to remote?

Mike, I am remote controlling and Im not sure what you mean by VFR or IFR? Whether or not you push buttons on an EFIS or an end unit, I find absolutely no functional difference.
The end units all have their own serial sentences. Means that NO, not all EFIS will control all end units. Just a matter of time before they do though. Once the EFIS manufacturers have the UI done and a basic code around the serial in and out, its not a big deal for them to code to them all in pretty short order.
What I find with my GRT is that the interface of the GRT is MUCH better to enter information into. BIG, right in front, nice digital display. Simple, elegant. Turn a dial, bam, frequencies sent. Or better yet, turn no dials.. waypoints are already in the EFIS, just select the freq you want. Pretty cool!

There is no functionality improvement. There is space savings and ease of use.

Each EFIS manufacturer has a list of what they control now, and those lists are updated weekly so check back often.
 
With secondary screens, automatic switching, backup batteries that keep the system up for longer than the fuel in your tanks will last....I see no downside to remote mounted. My transponder is under my back seater's leg, and the PAR100 radio is mounted on a shelf behind the PFD...which means the radio was short enough to mount it where a standard would never fit. I'm all for remote electronics...in the end a bundle of wires from a control head to a remote box is no more failure prone than internal wiring.
 
Some thoughts on IFR. Lets talk integration. Integration by definition means that your life should be simpler. Stop dealing with 10 things on the panel and deal with one. If your in a huge cockpit, maybe you done care if your messing with 10 different units. Here is a sample of whats possible off the top of my head.

Your IFR, you going into your destination. Typically you must stop looking at attitude and begin the mundane, distracting, task of looking up the atis and weather for decisioning.
Your EFIS knows alot about what you want already. It knows where you are going. It knows your gonna need the weather. It knows what the weather is. It knows what you likely gonna want to know and when. One button can now give you weather in text. Or text to speech audio in your headset. It can set your baro, tell you the best runway for the winds. It has notams current. It knows what runways are closed, what ILS is out of service, etc. It can help you make lots of decisions at the push of a button. Whether VFR or IFR, it can stop you from being distracted off your flying attitude job and keep you focused on the screen while doing other simple tasks. The possibilities are endless. We are not there quite yet, but we are getting there.
Course when the screen goes TU, we have to have a plan for that as well. But the EFIS gives us so much integration, reduced workload, simplicity of use etc, we should not be scared of it. We should learn it, use it for what its good for, plan for the failures, and enjoy the fun of integration. Its really cool stuff.
 
Kahuna, you make it sound great?
My concern for IFR, comes from my fear of the display going black. I am still a nube, when it comes to wiring things for redundancy.

Is there a transition type of avionics? ColoRV mentioned the PAR100. Can this be both remote and independent? Meaning, if I buy the PAR100 and my current system does not have the ability to control it remotely. Then I upgrade to the HXr (when I win the lottery). Will this radio/audio panel do the upgrade? Will it be a compromise?

I think there are many others like me that need to upgrade or replace one thing but don't have the money to do the whole panel. But i also don't want to spend money for avionics that won't work with my eventual plans of an HXr

I would like to keep the conversation high level so we can learn independent of the system chosen, but here is my specific situation:
I have a GRT sport, PS engineering 1000 II, GNS 480, icom A200, digiflight II, and a Garmin 320a. I would like to upgrade the intercom to an audio panel. So what panel do I choose. I will eventually move to an HXr (but not this year) and the transponder will need to move toward ADS-B compliment eventually. Or maybe this is a question for Stein. :)
 
As the guy at Dynon that is tasked with thinking about these exact issues, let me offer my thoughts:

As we were all taught when we got our PPL:
1) Aviatie
2) Navigate
3) Communicate

The PFD part of your EFIS basically covers #1, and the MFD covers #2. So if your EFIS fails, the fact that you might lose your transponder or radio only affects #3. Your day only gets a little worse ;)

At Dynon, we design all of our systems so if you have two screens, everything works normally on the failure of one. So if you were really IFR, you had a backup, right? If your backup was another SkyView screen, then you now use that screen to control the transponder. Nothing in the plane has changed except you have 1/2 the screen real estate and 1/2 the buttons. The workload goes up some, but not through the roof, and most of that workload is not due to the transponder, which you are not touching because you have your squawk already.

If you use a dissimilar backup like the Dynon EFIS-D6, then you do lose your transponder if you lose your only SkyView screen. However, this is not a flight critical loss. You might be limited to what airspaces you can enter, but that's about it.

Another issue is that almost everyone is already relying on their EFIS for the transponder even if they don't realize it. Probably 95% of experimental builders today use the EFIS as the altitude encoder for their transponder. This means that when the EFIS stops, so does the Mode-C altitude encoding. This is what you need to fly IFR or in controlled airspaces anyway, so unless you also put a standalone encoder in, you were already relying on the EFIS. On top of that, no matter how you control your transponder, you probably only have one of those. If it were a standalone transponder, it could have failed on it's own unless you are putting two transponders in.

So, the transponder is a case that when well engineered, you really may have increased reliability by having it integrated since you have more than one controller running it.

You can make all the same arguments for a integrated radio or audio control panel as well.

Where the radio and audio panel break down is in the User Interface. I actually think the UI for the transponder is great. You get 8 buttons and can just type in your Mode-A code really quick. No spinning knobs, and the 4 digits are pretty easy to remember when they are assigned in case you need to move across a menu or two to enter it.

I'm not as convinced with a radio or audio panel. I personally don't think that having to dig into a menu every time you want to enter a frequency, swap frequencies, or change the volume is a good user interface. When the controller says "change frequency to 128.975," I don't think you should need to hit BACK->BACK->RADIO->MHz->turn knob->KHz->Turn knob->Flip flop. If all you fly is VFR at uncontrolled airports, maybe the EFIS can always have a good suggestion ready for your next frequency and you can swap when you aren't busy, but if you are in any Class C or B airspaces, you're going to get given frequencies that nobody knew was coming.

I think the same is true of adjusting squelch, volume, and sources with an audio panel. When you want the volume changed, you want it NOW. You don't want to have to go into a menu.

Because of this, the radio that Dynon is working on will have a control panel, and will require it to operate. The reason for this is not because of redundancy, it's because the UI is right. It will use SkyView to give the control panel all sorts of amazing features, but the control panel will also give you exactly the knob or button you want all the time.

It does also give you redundancy as well, which does have moments where it's nice. If you do lose all your EFIS units, at least you can still communicate, and I think the radio is something more likely to save someone when their EFIS fails in IMC than their transponder is.

I think the real question builders should ask is what happens to their workload if a device in the plane fails. Accident and human factors studies will tell you over and over that workload is a big deal for safety in a plane. So, the real issue with the "eggs in one basket" design is if the loss of the basket causes your workload to be come unacceptably high.

So ask yourself: If I lose my EFIS in my kind of flying (VFR, IFR, IMC), how big of a deal is that? For some people, the loss of attitude, altitude and airspeed may hardly bother them since it's bright and sunny out. In this case, the loss of the transponder along with it is probably a non-issue. The radio might actually be the most annoying thing to lose in this case, and losing your intercom so you can't talk to the non-pilot next to you and explain the situation will be annoying as well. But neither of those is a saftey of flight issue until the co-pilot starts punching you in the shoulder trying to get your attention.

If you're in IMC, then losing your EFIS is a big deal. No PFD, no EMS. That will make any IMC pilot nervous. But, you likely still have your navigation (Certified GPS), and you have some sort of backup airspeed, altitude, and attitude. Here, the loss of the transponder is annoying, but unlikely to lead to any real workload increase. Again though, the radio is a larger loss and is doubled if you lost your transponder and can't squawk the no radio code. If you were tied to an integrated audio panel, this could actually be a big issue, because all you will have access to is your primary COM radio, so you may lose other sources you were used to having.

I'm sure some EFIS vendors can integrate a radio better or worse than others depending on what kind of knobs, and buttons their hardware has. There is no single answer, you have to evaluate how you fly, where you fly, and exactly what your system configuration gives you in various failures. For Dynon, for our average customer, we believe the transponder can be remote, but a radio or audio panel needs to be it's own module. That's right for a large group of customers, but will inevitably be wrong for some. There are good arguments each way, and thankfully the market is giving builders options to chose what is right for them.

--Ian Jordan
Chief Systems Architect
Dynon Avionics
 
Last edited:
Ian, thank you for a well-written, informative, and non-biased reply. I learned something from you today.
 
Ian, great post. This is exactly what I was looking for. Very informative and a good look into the thought behind the UI and features.

In VFR, I could lose everything and be okay. But in IMC, losing the attitude/altitude/airspeed would be well beyond my comfort zone. And if this was combined with the loss of radios, I would need new underwire if I lived through it.:eek: (Not IFR rated yet, so this is not a serous concern yet)

So, this is the concern behind my questions. Looks like I will go with the full radio stack.

Now the question is; how to upgrade piece meal and work with the great features of the new EFIS's? It would be great if the radios could be controlled by both the EFIS and radio control head.

Seems the Trig TT22 and TT31 mode S transponders can be controlled by the EFIS and the Trig control head. So this may solve the upcoming ADS-B issue and not require a whole panel upgrade.

But the radios and audio panel are still in question. Will the PAR100 or PMA5000EX work with Dynon, GRT or any of the other EFIS's? How about the ICOM 210 or garmin radios? Can it be controlled by the EFIS? Will a Dynon radio play nice with a GRT EFIS?

Also, any thoughts on autopilots solely controlled by the EFIS for IFR in an RV? Although I have a TT Digiflight now, the AP's for the EFIS have some great features at a relatively low cost. Very enticing.
 
Mike,

The Trig transponders cannot be controlled by an EFIS and a control head at the same time. I believe only the very expensive Garmin GTX-330's can, and only if someone reverse engineers the non-published protocol, and they take up more panel space to boot.

The Dynon radio will never work with any product but our own. It is an integral part of SkyView, not just a radio that happens to work with SkyView.

The radio in the PAR100EX can't be controlled by anything except the PAR100EX audio panel. The PAR5000EX is just an audio panel, and the volume can't be digitally controlled, so there's nothing to interface with there. Even if you could, would you really grab a knob on your EFIS to change the intercom volume when the real knob is right there on the panel already?

I think the real question here is what are you trying to get out of integration? You seem to be concerned if things will "work" with an arbitrary EFIS, but why do you want to connect them at all?

The main thing you can really get with a standalone radio is the ability to tune the standby frequency of the radio from the EFIS. Many EFIS systems support this to the Garmin SL40, SL30, Icom A210, and some other radios which use the Garmin SL30/40 protocol. This does not let you do things like change volume however.

On another topic, the Autopilot is the same as the transponder. I tried to point out in IMC that you don't actually lose your PFD, since you have a backup. So the worst you lose is your transponder or radio if you have any sort of well thought out backup strategy. So the real question is not "what if I lose my PFD and my radio and my transponder and my autopilot" it's "what if I lose my transponder and radio and autopilot?"

One thing I think might help people to understand the redundancy story is to turn your thinking upside down. Start with your backup, but think of this as your primary flight instruments, whether this is analog steam gauges or another EFIS. That's because these are instruments you'll have no matter what single failure you have.

Ok, so now you have airspeed, altitude, airspeed, and maybe more covered in your plane. They never go away because they are backed up.

Now you put in another EFIS as "backup." This single screen has a transponder, autopilot, radio, map, and maybe even more in it. But it is not your primary flight instruments, it's your backup. So what you lose when you lose this is your transponder and autopilot.

Now you can see that having the AP in an EFIS isn't putting your eggs all in one basket. In fact, it can be better than a standalone AP. If all you put in the plane is an EFIS and an AP, then if you lose the EFIS, all you have is the AP. But if you have an EFIS+AP, and a backup to your primary, then depending on the failure, you either still have EFIS+AP or just a PFD. A better situation than just AP in my mind.

One interesting example in certified land is the Garmin GTN750. This is a COM, NAV, GPS, Transponder, and audio panel all in one box. It's a big, beautiful screen, and it's a lot of eggs in one basket. It literally means that if it fails, you probably can't navigate or communicate. But you see it in certified planes because you can still aviate, and that's the #1 thing.

At some point, the most awesome backup instrument in the world sounds like a PFD, MAP, radio, transponder, audio panel, autopilot all in one. Because now you have a backup everything. But wait! Now those eggs are all in one basket, and I'm nervous because if I lose my backup transponder I loose my backup autopilot and my airplane is really wounded! But wait, they were all supposed to be backups....

One thing I urge people to remember is that you can add too much redundancy to the plane. Eventually, it weighs too much to get off the ground. We don't put second engines on the planes, we don't generally have two transponders, we don't have redundant cables and pushrods to control surfaces. You can only do so much. And in that vein, try this thought exercise:

  1. Write down what you feel you must have to fly and get back to the ground. Buy two of each of those.
  2. Now write down everything else. Next to each of those, make a column and write down what you MUST still have working in the plane if that fails. For instance, "Transponder and Radio" if you think you will be very unsafe if you lose the transponder and radio at the same time.
  3. Don't put those two items in the same box. Everything else, put it one box if it's cheaper, lighter, better, or just cooler. You can handle it if they all go at the same time
And remember, just because your radio and transponder aren't in the same box doesn't mean they don't share the same wire from the alternator and battery, and it doesn't mean they don't share the same airframe that can get hit by lightning or some other trauma. It never ends if you think about it too much.

--Ian
 
Have not posted for a long time.

My take:
Remote control of VHF COM radios via EFIS is a given. That makes sense and works well. This is regardless if we are talking about a panel mount radio or a remote mount radio. The main advantage is, for some EFIS systems, easy entry of numeric values (frequencies) and for most, sending frequencies directly from navigation databases to the radio.

Transponders - honestly, not sure about this. Yes, we control Sandia and Garrecht transponders from the EFIS and will be supporting both Dynon as well as Trig transponders very soon. So, it's not that we can't do this - it's that I don't see a huge amount of value. Setups you rarely if ever change - so doing that on the transponder itself is just fine. Entering a 4 digit code ? Yes, we have a touch screen on the iEFIS and you can setup a code with just 5 taps (one to "open" the transponder display and 4 taps for the digits) - but still, that is not really sufficient advantage over the more common rotary control on the transponder itself.
The only time I can honestly advise a remote mount transponder is if you have a panel space problem and simply can't fit a head.

BTW, Both Dynon and Trig (as well as Sandia and Garrecht) remote mount transponders **CAN** be controlled by a remote head simultaneously to an EFIS (or even more than one EFIS) thus providing redundancy (from a control point of view). The required head for this is currently in production at MGL and should be released shortly.
The head currently will work only with MGL EFIS systems however the CAN based protocol that MGL uses is in the public domain so anybody can use it if they want to.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
dynonsupport wrote. "Where the radio and audio panel break down is in the User Interface. I actually think the UI for the transponder is great. You get 8 buttons and can just type in your Mode-A code really quick. No spinning knobs, and the 4 digits are pretty easy to remember when they are assigned in case you need to move across a menu or two to enter it."

Since PS Engineering has the only audio panel that controls a remote mounted radio, I feel compelled to respond to the User Interface (UI) breaks down, since there is no other products that has this combination.

The user interface employed in the PAR100EX works like almost all of GA's radios, GNS430, KX-155, A-210, SL-30, and just about any other radio that I can think of.

The PAR100EX UI was designed with several goals, two were KISS and familiarity.

Nothing wrong with direct entry, but having buttons (or screen) to allow the selection of frequencies takes up real estate.

I have great respect for Dynon and think their support here is outstanding, so I hope Ian respects this post as only as my respond to his comment about the implementing of entering frequencies in communication radios. I don't consider this as a breakdown.

Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
 
Last edited:
Mark,
As this was a thread about integrating radios and other devices into EFIS units, my statement ""Where the radio and audio panel break down is in the User Interface" was referring to when you shove those functions into an EFIS that is already doing PFD, MFS, EMS, WX, AP, Transponder, and does not have any dedicated controls for radio volume or tuning. It was not a statement that you can't build an audio panel that integrates a radio without a terrible UI. In fact, the PAR100EX avoids exactly the issues I was describing by having a dedicated knob for controlling radio frequency.

In a different thought, touch screens change some things for sure, but not everything. I still believe that a radio needs a knob no matter what, and I at least get to find one company that agrees: Garmin. When they designed the new GTN series of certified GPS/NAV/COM, they left three knobs on the box instead of making the screen bigger and lowering their manufacturing price: Radio Volume, Radio MHz, and Radio KHz. You can also tap the frequency and enter it direct with a keypad, but they did determine that you need a knob in a lot of cases.

As I also said before, the market is full of options, and my thoughts are just my own. I'm sure there are plenty of good ways to achieve a the man-machine interfaces that we need in airplanes, and many I've never considered or experienced. I'm just trying to get the original poster some opinions to consider around his question.

--Ian
 
My bad Ian, I clearly took that statement out of context, sorry.

I did say (and meant it!) that Dynon's support is great and I know I got that right!!!

Mark
 
Wow, thanks for the great posts!!!!!

I guess I really have several questions.
1. Can everything be remote as shown in the brochures of GRT HXr, Dynon Skyview, MGL iEFIS and the Garmin G900?
2. If so, is this a good setup for IFR?
3. Is there a way to get there from here, without a complete panel redo? Meaning buying all new equipment.

Seems from the responses so far, the real answer to question 1 is no.
I agree with Ian, that well thought out controls are a must. But it seems that GRT, Garmin, and MGL have the correct types of buttons and knobs nessissary to control the radios and transponder without any deep menus. I have not played with a Skyview yet, so it might be there too. But the real issue is compatibility and the functions that can be controlled remotely. (Or that is what I am understanding from the responses)
How to get rid of that 6.25-inch center stack???:)

Still not sure about the answer to question 2. But as Ian has clearly pointed out, dual EFIS's give good backup and should be adequate. Extra safety measure might be a Dynon D6.

I am still very confused about question 3. Not sure it is possible, but my bank account can't handle the cost of the full upgrade. I have already spent it on my current setup.

But if starting from scratch, there is a lot of functionality for a relatively cheap price available now. So huge congrats to each company. I have got a lot of learning to do, and that is why I am here.:)
 
Hi Mike,

Thanks for bringing up such relevant questions. This segment of the industry is changing rapidly these days, and as more airplanes with remote avionics are finished & upgraded, more and more good ideas will emerge. Some of the interfaces currently available will probably prove to be impractical, while others will shine. I think I speak for all EFIS manufacturers when I say we are eager to get this input and further evolve our systems to meet pilots' needs.

For IFR redundancy, a dual display/dual AHRS system is best, especially when combined with an essential bus and secondary power supply. The HXr has the capability to control a single remote transponder from either screen in a dual system, and you'd likely have two radios, one wired to each screen-- so the odds of losing control of your remote devices is slim. In a single-screen setup like my RV-3B, I'll have some choices to make. I'll want an independent backup attitude source if I want to do any IFR flying. How will I accomplish it? There are a few options out there, and the technology is changing fast. The Android interface is promising technology that's still in development, but I think that will play a large role in the supporting instruments I decide to put in my panel.

To answer Question 3: Cost-wise, you will be further ahead to stick with GRT. The introductory price on HXr is good through the end of Sun 'n Fun, and we can take your Sport in for trade/upgrade. If you have panel space available for one or more panel-mount radios for now, you can keep what you currently have and incrementally upgrade your entire radio stack to remote as your budget allows. As the radio/transponder manufacturers finish their hardware, new options are appearing on the market all the time. GRT has an open interface, so you will have the freedom to choose most any ADS-B, nav/com, transponder and GPS option. Of course, only a few of these are remote-capable right now, but your future brand options for these devices will not be limited.

Your installation would be easier as well. The wiring for a Horizon system is more complex because of increased capabilities, but it follows the same logic as the Sport with color-coded wires and serial ports. If you have a GRT EIS engine monitor, it will stay the same as well--and you can blind-mount the same instrument you already have. There are several RV builders who have successfully upgraded from Sport to HXr on this forum. One is a retired airline captain who flies a lot of IFR. I'm sure between those guys and our techs at GRT, we can answer all your questions. Feel free to give us a call! (616) 245-7700, ext. 234
 
Wow, thanks for the great posts!!!!!

I guess I really have several questions.
1. Can everything be remote as shown in the brochures of GRT HXr, Dynon Skyview, MGL iEFIS and the Garmin G900?
2. If so, is this a good setup for IFR?
3. Is there a way to get there from here, without a complete panel redo? Meaning buying all new equipment.

I have written much on this subject in the past, so I won't rehash pages of details, but will try to answer your questions above directly.

1) Comparing those 5 EFIS systems in one sentence is impossible because they are so entirely different in so many different ways. Without getting into a huge amount of details, the G900X is pretty much composed of certified components (including dual real TSO146 GPSes, etc..) and it's on the exterme end of one spectrum and the price reflects that. Also note that marketing rhetoric can sometimes be stretched just a little. Remember "remote radios" at the moment in most of the systems discussed do not include NAV radios or real certified TSO146 IFR GPSes. Also note that with the exception of Garmin and Dynon, everyone else is using different branded radios than their own (not saying it's good or bad, just a fact) and also some of the aformationed companies require small unadvertised 'modules' to be installed in between the radio and/or transponder and the EFIS screen to control the product. For example, those who have/and or are adopting the Dynon and/or Garmin transponder protocols have no such modules in between the transponder and EFIS. Not a big deal, but just a detail that sometimes gets left out from the sales guys. There have been some very good posts with very good information so far, but also some information sharing has been somewhat selective in details (using the interfaces on things as an example). Just like a GTN-750 can control a REMOTE (not internal) audio panel and/or transponder, it can just as easily be hooked up to run them panel mounted at the same time (we often do just that).

Also note that in my opinion 2 AHRS are not necessarily better than one for IFR (and in some cases could be worse) without a 3rd Tie Breaker. I wouldn't consider the D6/Gemini to be a "might" type of an extra safety measure, for IFR I'd consider it a "must".

2) You are well on the way with having a 480 in there already, and even with your current setup it's likely you are technically IFR legal, though probably not comfortbly IFR functional (depending on what type of flying you do). It's impossible to say exactly what is a "good" setup because it's all relative and about perspective. What is good for one person might be bad for another.

3) Honestly I haven't had the time to study your current configuration in detail, and the answer will depend on a whole lot of variables...but the reality is that if you want to go full boat IFR then at least some new equipment will be in the cards for you. Also some panel surgery will also likely be required. That doesn't mean you have to redo everything, but also keep in mind that sometimes it is just as easy to start from zero reusing some of your existing components as it is to kludge things together. I'm not saying that's the case here, but sometimes it is.

To get some clear and concise answers to your questions would depend on a variety of factors (budget, time, desired functionality, ability, what you like to look at, etc..).

I guess in the end I'd say the integrated stuff can be a double edged sword. There are some very well executed example, but there have been some very poorly executed examples in the past (Blue Mountain, OP Technologies, etc..) and sorting through things is getting more and more difficult for folks, so I understand your desire to figure it all out! I wish I had a solid answer for you, but at this time I just don't. It's also hard to judge integration of various systems (regardless of what you read from mfgr's) if the actual integration isn't done, or isn't flying, or has some production level (not beta test or bench flying time) customer fleet time. That leaves us as customers only using a rather subjective bits of data to go from! I would urge a little bit of caution and restraint on making a decision based on "upcoming functionality"; sometimes thing don't always work as advertised. :)

Something like the PAR100EX can get confused in this discussion because it can be integrated with some EFISes, yet can also be a stand alone product. That actual unit installed as stand alone is very easy to use and the integration between it and the radio is well done. That said, I do not have any personal flight time with the GRT version of that pacakge running remotely so I can't comment on it either way.

That's just my quick 2 cents on a subject that can get quite complicated quite fast!

Cheers,
Stein
 
Last edited:
Very interesting discussion!

Has anyone ever attempted to do a run down of the differences and advantages/disadvantages of the main EFIS systems that are currently available?
 
Sure. After spending lots of money, everyone thinks that they made the best choice! Me too!! It's just human nature.
As Stein said, it really gets down to personal preferrences.
 
Ian - what are the dimensions of the radio HMI device? And how much room will it need behind the panel? I have a friend with an RV4 looking to convert and squeeze in a 10 inch Skyview, with Dynon transponder, and hoping soon for the com radio as well because it will all take up less panel space. Thought the comm hmi would be all in the EFIS, now realize that is not so. And will the comm all live on the Skyview network or take up a serial port?
 
The radio will be 1.8" wide and 3.5" tall. It is about 1.5" deep. It will not use a SkyView serial port.
 
Dynon Comm. Radio

Been waiting a long time to see confirmation on the dimensions. Are we still to understand the radio will not be available until June of this year? When will customer drawings be published..? I made a cutout of the measurements the control head will fit perfect between the 2 Skyviews.. Thanks, Mark C. RV9A
 
We will not be publishing cutout dimensions until we are closer to the product release date, and at this point we do not have a date that we are discussing with customers.
 
Back
Top