What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Which Manufacturer??

amaris

Well Known Member
This seems like I could be opening the primer wars here, but I'm curious why people go with Garmin vs Dynon vs MGL, GRT, etc.

I'd love to hear specifics as to why or why not one system over the other.

Thanks for the input!
 
My only experience with Dynon is the 10A in 2006.
My 10A is my current backup to the GRT Sport SX. I've used the GRT EIS4000 since 2006.

IMHO...
My experience has been is that the smaller manufacturers are more responsive to customers. For example, when the Stratux ADS-B IN became available, GRT was quick to enable a hard wire to my EFIS as it had no WiFi capability. The same when Navworx released their product. I can call tech support and discuss issues & potential enhancements with the engineers. I'm treated as an important customer.

With Garmin, they are more proprietary with their data stream and less responsive due to their incredible market share.
 
Last edited:
I have built, owned, several RV's, equipped with Garmin, GRT, Dynon, King, Narco, and other mfg. avionics. IMHO, for what it is worth, Garmin's market share is what it is because of the quality of the product and its customer support.
We have seen a number of avionics mfg. come and go. In the long run, I feel, Garmin will be the "Last one standing".
Dick
 
I read the different operating manuals and to me, they ranked differently based on my own desire to fly day VFR. If I were an IFR pilot, I might have made a different decision. In fact, an airline pilot that I know made his choice based on nothing more than compatibility of the user interface with the systems his airline uses.

Also some of the installation manuals were difficult to figure out for some specific operations, such as setting up the engine sensors, while others were very clear. Look at it with regard to the particular engine you're going to install. Which reminds me that the consensus on VAF is that the EFIS systems change rapidly so do the engine first. For me, that was easy - a year into my project, Santa brought me an engine, so that was on hand.

Yeah, that's a lot of downloading and reading but it's an expensive decision and I didn't want to mess it up. To me, it was necessary due diligence.

Dave
 
My two cents:
If you?re strictly vfr, shop by price. Probably Dynon wins.
For IFR: GRT is the winner here, if you shop by performance and price. But if you shop by looks and feel (and it is amazing how many do) then Garmin wins. Also, GRT is almost for ?hobbyists?. They expect you to be able to read schematics, and follow instruction manuals written by engineers. I personally rate Dynon as unacceptable for IFR, due to its dependence on pitot data (and/or fault detecting software to switch to GPS data - which has been reported here on VAF to sometimes fail in certain situations). Ymmv.
 
Dynon SkyView - period. The performance is as advertised and the after the sale service sets the bar for the industry. I have a lot of hard IFR hours with this system and find it superb for situational awareness.

I have just purchased another overpriced $9000 Garmin GTN-650 to go with the dual SkyView install on the new project - only because the alternative GPS navigator sufferers from all the things wrong with the TSO side of Garmin.

Carl
 
Plus 1 for Bob comment. I loved my GRT and how far ahead of other manufacturers have been in terms of feature sets.
 
Allen, give me a call at your convenience and I?ll talk you through my thought process on picking a system.

- Feature sets are a big marketing push, many of the features of which you may never use. Most of them are very nice to have during IFR flight, however, for situational awareness.
- Ease of installation is another difference, which mainly depends on whether you want to wire it yourself or have it wired for you.
- Customer support. This is a two-fold issue or more. One, how easy is it to get support on the phone when you need them (huge differences between manufacturers). Two, how responsive they are about possible component failures and how many hoops you have to jump through to troubleshoot before they send you a replacement.
- Reliability and system architecture. How robust are the components and how robust is the communication link between components.
- Price should really be one of the last considerations. At least 3 of the manufacturers are within 5% or each other on system pricing.
 
Whish System

Your intended use is the first question you must answer.

If VFR only then the decision about the equipment is not critical.

IF IFR, then IMHO, any system that must have pitot-static input for the AHARS to function properly is unsatisfactory.

Murphy rules and while possible to fly across the great lakes in a single engine airplane, one must ask if the idea is sound?

Good Luck
John
 
There are at least a bazillion threads in the archives on this subject. Any over say 4-5 years old are probably declining in value since much has changed in that time. Many of the features have normalized across manufacturers.

There are some significant differences in user interface, presentation styles, menu depth, buttonology, color standards, communication bus types, connector robustness, etc.

As for support, Garmin basically has 2 business units we experimentals deal with. The certified group for the certified products and the experimental group for the experimental products. These 2 groups are handled very differently within Garmin. The experimental group is second to none at supporting the experimental products. Not that the certified support is bad, it is just different and geared to a different customer base. The others have great support as well however you will find examples of poor support from all of the manufacturers in the archives. I would say that at this time, those would be exceptions to the norm we all have come to expect.

Bottom line is you have to understand your mission, budget, and do your own research. Most people advocate what they have chosen so you have to be careful with opinions.

There are some that have real experience with multiple brands. Those folk’s opinions hold more weight in my mind. There are some good non biased articles out there that do a great job helping folks come to a conclusion. I suggest checking those out. Get to a show and put your hands on the ones you are considering and play around with them to be sure.

Also be mindful of avionics vendors...understand that those that are not an authorized distributor of a particular brand may be less than enthusiastic to recommend them.
 
Last edited:
Dynon SkyView - period. The performance is as advertised and the after the sale service sets the bar for the industry. I have a lot of hard IFR hours with this system and find it superb for situational awareness.

I have just purchased another overpriced $9000 Garmin GTN-650 to go with the dual SkyView install on the new project - only because the alternative GPS navigator sufferers from all the things wrong with the TSO side of Garmin.

Carl

Agreed. I'm running dual 10" Skyview Classic and a Garmin 430W for the IFR work, and it's outstanding. Dynon's innovation and market support make them the top of the pile in the experimental avionics world, in my opinion.

I do admit to having a love-hate relationship with Garmin over their "revenue first" business style, but I chose the 430W for my IFR receiver because it was the best fit (for me) of function, size, and value.
 
Your intended use is the first question you must answer.

If VFR only then the decision about the equipment is not critical.

IF IFR, then IMHO, any system that must have pitot-static input for the AHARS to function properly is unsatisfactory.

Murphy rules and while possible to fly across the great lakes in a single engine airplane, one must ask if the idea is sound?

Good Luck
John

I note with interest the G3X Operating Manual calling out both Pitot and GPS feeds needed for operation of the AHRS.

With such integrated systems one would hope for these layered crosschecks and backup modes - like both SkyView and G3X do.

Carl
 
One comment I will make about GRT. Their EFIS systems will work with virtually any make of avionics. So you can have your choice of autopilot, nav systems, ADS B, intercoms, etc. Some of the other brands available do not do that.
 
My $.02

When Garmin first come on the scene, they were the greatest thing since sliced bread. Unfortunately they have moved on the the rich crowd and abandoned us "low income folks". For example, they came out with the GNC 250 GPS/Com and it was a perfect fit for around $2500. The nearest thing they have to replace that now is north of $10,000.

My personal favorite is GRT. They just need to work on their documentation.
Their assistance is great but, more often than not, you must call them to get it.

Dynon makes some very good products and fairly reasonable, but they have a few negatives too.

Botton line; Do your research and make sure you're getting what you think you are.
 
AFS/DYNON was my choice

when I did my research last year. The AFS screens do not require a lot of "menu searching and scrolling" to find what you need. AFS has many dedicated buttons, labeled and easy to find. As a plus, AFS is compatible with "other" autopilots and accessories. And, as another important feature, AFS integrates all of the Dynon equipment. Documentation for the install and operation is complete and easy to understand.

Support from the folks at AFS is outstanding!

Ron
 
AHRS Operation Clarification

I note with interest the G3X Operating Manual calling out both Pitot and GPS feeds needed for operation of the AHRS.


While we believe that each person is entitled to their opinion for which avionics best suit their flying style, preferences, or budgets, I do want to make sure statements are factually accurate. The below AHRS operation information comes from the G3X Pilot’s Guide which you can download from the Garmin website: https://support.garmin.com/support/manuals/manuals.htm?partNo=010-00G3X-00

The Garmin AHRS in the G3X uses aiding from many sources to improve performance. This attitude solution is used in our certified platforms as well. Per the below chart, you must lose GPS and Air Data to lose your attitude solution.

fb93WGtm4P_7LE3UjxWFt8eda-_Z3OWoo9KKWKkxvLKulD1ST7WtVcPEjnyBfS37D-1qrxBmy9crTQp18mnUyc7K1FxaSljNkchHkkdHUIqXQ2pjvmGifx4gGqI3E-BgWpndIORhWbLcH9dmn6A04F4I3c0_pgtSfrxVKiA3AfIpMLM4OkiTnHFcfxVtiTkrICLNXCIX8d51unUxXANHYHiJHuhxT1nVa7Cxt_c5Sn-e-U3ZkUIV2zgAdquzpkSSMk5dfJ6-fHQMjb0tWQWvJafD23oRG_LQM5e-hPV4DNsiNZQfU-mV4Ov1SErGyFDybfhdDDgDc0qUsn1Wv_2VHOSOCn5MJUgEMogVmqdQJ4vId1Pvzb2HdZWPDZ36aBp9jOLksLEMCTHaS527A0iYjrLpncTlCgWgW9pMV-IW610W0_BVhKIur9x_jb17kXdPxVV1X57sITxCzY-nMSdfIAAJlts-Yc5O5NeC1HcnJwollZ3S2NIun9NCpLTdBPsnHm1v1rxT-4FmSRUz814GqTZRsSivCUPPAv4WmCKVOhXcAgsX4ny2WZkMDUpzXBG5h3xpbIuQ1dKkj2u5mpI0ujJLEkhxEYhcCWKN0cLSQZZPrUwAElyHEm0CMlt2yDNVnOSy5rceEgZ2opGrLIcxa1qfJcaGlajeRTCssaCQWG0_7bsW49FbEk-IWw=w506-h284-no


If anyone has questions on G3X system operation or features, we are always happy to help. The fastest way to get a response is usually via email at the address below.

Thanks,
Levi
 
Last edited:
Something else for the OP: In asking what system (singular) is best, you sort of implied you want a fully integrated system. e.g., you enter the altimeter setting once, and all the other boxes get it. When everything works, these systems are very nice. But they also talk to each other. I still recall when a software bug slipped thru brand X, and entering a destination that did not start with a K caused a crash - which then propagated to all the other boxes, bringing the entire system down. While the software is pretty well tested these days, I personally chose to make one backup non-integrated. It is a different manufacturer, is not connected to any busses or other boxes, even has its own battery. Yes, I have to do the cross-checking, since the software cannot. So there are pluses and minuses. But do give it some thought.
 
Something else for the OP: In asking what system (singular) is best, you sort of implied you want a fully integrated system. e.g., you enter the altimeter setting once, and all the other boxes get it. When everything works, these systems are very nice. But they also talk to each other. I still recall when a software bug slipped thru brand X, and entering a destination that did not start with a K caused a crash - which then propagated to all the other boxes, bringing the entire system down. While the software is pretty well tested these days, I personally chose to make one backup non-integrated. It is a different manufacturer, is not connected to any busses or other boxes, even has its own battery. Yes, I have to do the cross-checking, since the software cannot. So there are pluses and minuses. But do give it some thought.

That?s why Garmin intentionally built the G5 to run on different hardware and a totally different software platform and they isolate critical code to prevent such a situation.
 
While we believe that each person is entitled to their opinion for which avionics best suit their flying style, preferences, or budgets, I do want to make sure statements are factually accurate. The below AHRS operation information comes from the G3X Pilot?s Guide which you can download from the Garmin website: https://support.garmin.com/support/manuals/manuals.htm?partNo=010-00G3X-00

The Garmin AHRS in the G3X uses aiding from many sources to improve performance. This attitude solution is used in our certified platforms as well. Per the below chart, you must lose GPS, Magnetometer, and Air Data to lose your attitude solution.

G4WAFqSkQFfgmG3iNs2lPvbE4QeWgH78s7MaAfZtRVPpYqkbYvNfrl4ygKSNq2GrPIjeMvmTMAj9B3fGeMAMLsfE7DWLz3uq51G5NjcjzNK1ZaAZuNxvKt3tZFujH6HvEWj9Rnfx8I2khVnUe9e0GjvVq0Dip-t_ryJPhAVzbg_yQPHr8Ukb9OS47UkoN4cYA6wJ8NVMTqgttyOQdaql26VWqCugnbT7Yq7TSwUE5bOXvHv13Zloe4G9fk5m7ih151NBOS9lml1OLwArpTz0gJ6lE_Svt1lo3xYRKQYF_0N6ifF4EKHd04wVWMEXb1Byy1PYxPCEKbUttbvHyA8MbGnuKk4pmtDFueV6mYDoppaZZxs3nRWeNQHSffKxz72BoZZnqwmqSfeQMKa8FVdfuiQi7g1-bzO3m6nNbRNg1ahn9TAhG4Yl-unsfK18w1A3HEhjda3PwPwUy2N3nKsVZheqOOnwGz3arfOmWonQbmwpr_TEutqsPcRv9x7dP1sy7OnwcZXp6RlpbubGbzQusco7mL76PakNx5KgIpRGwvbNcBpF9Ncm6KDaBIn-qtXQQuTMvvT2LbHID6T0HxWWnkHSkWhLNInULvh3kTI37zJ7sok5lNQpOXr0W-mV18dv=w506-h284-no


If anyone has questions on G3X system operation or features, we are always happy to help. The fastest way to get a response is usually via email at the address below.

Thanks,
Levi

Levi, thank you for this information. But I am confused. Are green arrows ?working?, red arrows ?not working?? So if gps fails, I follow the red arrow down?
Magnetometer working, so I follow the green arrow? Air data not working, I follow the red arrow to ?no attitude solution?? Isn?t this exactly what the poster complained about?
 
That?s why Garmin intentionally built the G5 to run on different hardware and a totally different software platform and they isolate critical code to prevent such a situation.

If I were building today I would consider the G5 an acceptable backup - but I still would not use any system interconnects. I would keep it as isolated as possible. Of course nothing is fool-proof. Never say ?never?.
 
I haven't seen anyone mention MGL in this thread, but they too have glass panel fully integrated systems. I understand that the layout and presentation is nearly completely customizable as well, so if you want a certain arrangement of instruments/map/AHRS on your screen, you can probably build it.

I have no ownership stake in any of the systems, apart from having a few of the MGL gauges in my panel... Nothing in the large screen product line though.
 
Chart clarification

Levi, thank you for this information. But I am confused. Are green arrows ‘working’, red arrows ‘not working’? So if gps fails, I follow the red arrow down?
Magnetometer working, so I follow the green arrow? Air data not working, I follow the red arrow to ‘no attitude solution’? Isn’t this exactly what the poster complained about?

Bob,

The red arrow indicates that the item above has failed. If you follow any failure path down to an outcome you still have AHRS (Attitude) in each case except for the path on the far right side. The AHRS can run in many different modes and the path shows which mode the AHRS would be operating in with each failed state. The important point is that you still have a working attitude solution in all cases except if GPS and Air Data fail, or GPS and Magnetometer fail. In either case, there is a dual failure.

Thanks,
Levi
 
Last edited:
Bob,

The red arrow indicates that the item above has failed. If you follow any failure path down to an outcome you still have AHRS (Attitude) in each case except for the path on the far right side. The AHRS can run in many different modes and the path shows which mode the AHRS would be operating in with each failed state. The important point is that you still have a working attitude solution in all cases except if GPS, Magnetometer AND Air Data fail.

Thanks,
Levi

Your chart must be incorrect then. It clearly shows gps fail (red), magnetometer working (green), air data fail (red) leading to “No attitude solution”. Can someone help me see the light here?

Edit: Thank you for the correction, and clearing things up.
 
Last edited:
I went with GRT (Sport SX) for a number of reasons...reasonable price, integrated AHRS and the fact they've been in biz for a while and continue to innovate.

But foremost, I like their graphical presentation. It's just so very clean and straightforward. Great support too..a had a pitch gyro go bad out of warranty, and they fixed it and got it back to me in just a couple of days...and just charged me for shipping.
 
I haven't seen anyone mention MGL in this thread, but they too have glass panel fully integrated systems. I understand that the layout and presentation is nearly completely customizable as well, so if you want a certain arrangement of instruments/map/AHRS on your screen, you can probably build it.
I put an MGL (Explorer 8.5?) in my aircraft. Their implementation of the can bus makes installation very easy and is near enough to ?plug and play? when you purchase their pre-made harnesses. Their engine monitoring box requires no pin crimping or soldering of sensor wires and is very simple and effective. Their screen layouts are the most customisable of any EFIS vendor, period. This will be a double-edged sword for some but if you are willing to learn the design interface they provide and you?re handy with a PC and mouse, you can literally start with a blank screen and build your own EFIS instrumentation, or just use what they provide, or anything in between.

I thought I had a brilliant idea for the layout of engine instruments. After the first couple of flights exposed the flaws in my plan, an hour or two on the computer at home had a totally revamped screen on SD card tested and ready to upload.

Also support from Matt at MGL USA (even though I live a long way from the USA!) is excellent.
 
Your chart must be incorrect then. It clearly shows gps fail (red), magnetometer working (green), air data fail (red) leading to “No attitude solution”. Can someone help me see the light here?

The manual explains it quite well.
 
Correction to original post

Your chart must be incorrect then. It clearly shows gps fail (red), magnetometer working (green), air data fail (red) leading to “No attitude solution”. Can someone help me see the light here?

Bob,

Thanks for staying on top of this. In my explanation I had incorrectly stated that you must lose all three aiding items, but I have corrected those statements in the original posts. Sorry for the confusion!

The intent of the original response was to say that there is not a single failure of the aiding that can cause loss of attitude. Failure of either air data or GPS will not bring down the AHRS. This is depicted in the chart. I should have just let you read the chart as you guys are all smart enough to figure it out if I don't confuse you.

I didn't intend to cause thread drift here, sorry. I'm putting down the keyboard and picking back up my popcorn.

Thanks,
Levi
 
This seems like I could be opening the primer wars here, but I'm curious why people go with Garmin vs Dynon vs MGL, GRT, etc.

I'd love to hear specifics as to why or why not one system over the other.

Thanks for the input!

MzeroA Did a nice video on their new glass cockpit that is Garmin-less. It's a Dynon Skyview HDX with an Avidyne.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfAxIR99UuA&t=11s

I fly behind a Skyview, but did spend time with a G3X. In the end, I just found that the Skyview was much more intuitive. I think it comes down to personal preference, but Dynon is a wonderful, affordable system with terrific support. It wont disappoint.

Brian
 
Last edited:
MzeroA Did a nice video on their new glass cockpit that is Garmin-less. It's a Dynon Skyview HDX with an Avidyne.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfAxIR99UuA&t=11s

I fly behind a Skyview, but did spend time with a G3X. In the end, I just found that the Skyview was much more intuitive. I think it comes down to personal preference, but Dynon is a wonderful, affordable system with terrific support. It wont disappoint.

Brian

Looks as good as when it left our shop. :D
 
Price out each of the systems complete. Make it apples to apples. You may find as I did that the huge price differences people in here talk about....just aren’t. That was the biggest surprise to me.

There are plenty of trash talkers on all sides of this argument. Most have only played with one system in flight and a shocking number with very enthusiastic opinions have never even done that much so be careful whose opinions you put a lot of faith in. The loudest are often the least informed.

My advice, go to Oshkosh or SnF and spend a week playing with these systems all lit up and working. Walk around the backside and look at the connectors. Push the buttons, spin the knobs...see which feels like you can punch it a thousand times in turbulence. If you’re intending to go IFR, remember you’re betting your life on that panel staying lit up. VFR in the dark isn’t much fun staring at a black screen either.

After you have done your research, you won’t need any outside opinions.
 
Price out each of the systems complete. Make it apples to apples. You may find as I did that the huge price differences people in here talk about....just aren?t. That was the biggest surprise to me.

There are plenty of trash talkers on all sides of this argument. Most have only played with one system in flight and a shocking number with very enthusiastic opinions have never even done that much so be careful whose opinions you put a lot of faith in. The loudest are often the least informed.

My advice, go to Oshkosh or SnF and spend a week playing with these systems all lit up and working. Walk around the backside and look at the connectors. Push the buttons, spin the knobs...see which feels like you can punch it a thousand times in turbulence. If you?re intending to go IFR, remember you?re betting your life on that panel staying lit up. VFR in the dark isn?t much fun staring at a black screen either.

After you have done your research, you won?t need any outside opinions.

Lots of truth here. There is no substitute for doing your own research.
 
I've been reading these and happy to hear all the opinions. Thanks for sharing.

Bill, you're correct. The actual user experience with me pushing buttons and turning knobs (if applicable) is only something I can judge. And something I will be doing for sure before I make any final decisions.

The things I find invaluable are the opinions about good or bad support, good or bad documentation, etc. I do want to hear these and appreciate everyone's opinion.

I am VFR only at this point and not something that I see in my immediate future. But I do want as much safety and redundancy as realistically possible. While I could fly day vfr with very little instrumentation, with what we have these days, why add the possibility of instrumentation failure to the list of what could go wrong.

I am interested in having some different manufacturers to help with the whole thing going down as some have alluded to. But I also want some simplicity without having to enter the same info in every piece of gear. I remember the early days of having to enter my altimeter in 3 different places each time. That's something I'd like to avoid.

I'll keep reading and thanks again for all the thoughts.
 
I split manufacturers as well with Garmin backed up by Dynon. Same thinking, one bug taking all down. My current opinion after flying is that I wouldn’t do that again. The only thing in my panel that has failed is the backup which went black during a trip across the country. If I build again, and I likely will...it will be all G. The documentation is fantastic, connectors and racks are a step above, support is amazing and the IFR capability is airline level. The entire system is simply awesome and since much of my flying is far away from home, often IFR...reliability and support mean everything.

Stein is an opinion you should not go without. Call him, have “the talk”. He will run through your mission, current and future, and give you realistic numbers apples to apples along with up to the minute informed advice. When I called him to have that talk I had a plan in mind already. That plan in my head, based on a lot of VAF misinformation, would have completely screwed up my mission. Not at all workable for an IFR bird. Stein showed me the err in my plan and explained why.
 
Back
Top