VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #11  
Old 11-07-2017, 05:57 AM
FORANE's Avatar
FORANE FORANE is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: East TN
Posts: 564
Default

Not sure if the op is familiar but last I looked, I believe both had their own user forums which could be tapped for more information.
I know grt is compatible with the ads-b I intended to install. I haven't researched if the mgl would be. What ads-b does the op intend to use?
I like touchscreen on an EFB which I run but disliked it on the GTN I had. If I intended to run other components (such as comm) from the EFIS I might want touchscreen on an EFIS but I don't use remote avionics nor wish to have a single point of failure in my system so I don't miss the lack of touchscreen on my EFIS.
I don't have experience with mgl. I do have experience with grt and it has been solid.
__________________
Lancair 235/340
RV-9A (2013 - 2016)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-07-2017, 07:39 AM
tim2542 tim2542 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Redding,Ca
Posts: 633
Default

Is suggest you call a company that has installed both, like SteinAir. I think you may find they have formed some opinions of both based on experience.
My experience with GRT has been great, and I don?t know anyone who would tell you otherwise.
Tim Andres
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-07-2017, 08:27 AM
FasGlas's Avatar
FasGlas FasGlas is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 739
Default

You need to figure out the mission. MGL iEFIS systems are pretty much limitless when it comes to programming. You can design your own screens, add just about anything you can imagine on the screens, alter your screens as your needs change, etc, etc.. MGL has way more inputs and outputs than anything on the market and no add on after add on costs. With that said, there is a learning curve to using the design features and takes time, like building your own computer and loading in all the software and configurations that suit you. The docs aren't very good and missing info. If you want an EFIS to run out of the box and don't have an interest in customizing it for you than MGL is not a good choice. It does come loaded and ready to go but you miss out on it's real power. BTW, the touch screen is more intuitive than buttonology, though MGL has both, and you can't see the fingerprints unless the system is off. They wipe right off with a damp microfiber. Download the Sim from the MGL site and try it. If you do a site search for MGL there's lots of MGL threads.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-07-2017, 08:54 AM
sblack sblack is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,456
Default

The MGL is not only a touchscreen. There are buttons. I understand that GRT owners like their units, and that is great. But it is not evidence that they are better, which was the original question.

It would be nice to hear from MGL users to see what they think.
__________________
Scott Black
Old school simple VFR RV 4, O-320, wood prop, MGL iEfis Lite
VAF dues 2020
Instagram @sblack2154
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-07-2017, 09:12 AM
FORANE's Avatar
FORANE FORANE is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: East TN
Posts: 564
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sblack View Post

It would be nice to hear from MGL users to see what they think.
I agree. It would be nice. Why aren't more posting? Is their market share significantly less than grt? Another reason?
__________________
Lancair 235/340
RV-9A (2013 - 2016)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-07-2017, 09:47 AM
FasGlas's Avatar
FasGlas FasGlas is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 739
Default

I guess I should have said that I installed a dual MGL iEFIS system about 3 years ago. I have used other systems, Garmin, Dynon, GRT, etc and they all have their attributes but as I said in my last post, these are mission different. My system has 9 screens on each EFIS, I've custom designed many screens, gauges, alarms, in's & out's, etc. I've interface my system with an Android computer. Most everything I've custom added to my MGL could not have been added to any other EFIS. It was a learning curve and it helps to be techie.

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-07-2017, 10:55 AM
merlin3 merlin3 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: ohio
Posts: 171
Default

I installed a 10" mgl lite screen last winter and have been happy. For the cost the mgl cannot be beat. I also added on the smaller mgl extreme and have a garmin gtr200 radio connected to the main screen. So far so good.
__________________
Justin
Rv-6, o360, whirlwind cs prop, old paint and panel
Rv-4,o-320,prince prop, mgl avionics screens - sold
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-07-2017, 01:33 PM
Canadian_JOY Canadian_JOY is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,291
Default

I have no experience with MGL equipment. Then again I had no experience with GRT or Dynon equipment when I first installed it.

Many here have provided excellent advice. Understand your mission. Understand your personal capabilities. Then go through the work required to understand how each device will or won't fit your mission and capabilities. Nobody can make the decision for you or even provide you meaningful advice unless they also know intimately your mission and capabilities.

With all that having been said, I found the Dynon D100 drop-dead easy to install, configure and fly. I'm sure their more modern product offerings, being more software-intensive, are likely not quite so easy to configure or master in flight.

GRT makes good stuff, but their documentation is a horrid Achilles heel. Likewise, their deep menu structure requires some getting used to. "Button-ology" always takes getting used to, and its only once people have become accustomed to their units' particular user interface that they feel comfortable enough to recommend it on forums such as this one.

MGL may have advantages and disadvantages. I know I really like the idea of the RDAC sitting somewhere that eliminates running many wires through the firewall. I also enjoy that they are embracing the open-source movement, as is GRT in terms of supporting more and more external off-brand devices.

Both MGL and GRT have had their owners participating in this discussion forum so that should tell you the companies are fully dedicated to this market.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-07-2017, 01:51 PM
supercub supercub is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Modesto CA
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FasGlas View Post
I guess I should have said that I installed a dual MGL iEFIS system about 3 years ago. I have used other systems, Garmin, Dynon, GRT, etc and they all have their attributes but as I said in my last post, these are mission different. My system has 9 screens on each EFIS, I've custom designed many screens, gauges, alarms, in's & out's, etc. I've interface my system with an Android computer. Most everything I've custom added to my MGL could not have been added to any other EFIS. It was a learning curve and it helps to be techie.

I probably should have mentioned, I'm looking for an easy to use unit. I'm not a techie, and would rather spend my time flying then reading instructions on how to use a complicated unit. The easier to use unit is probably best for me.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-07-2017, 03:11 PM
dutchroll dutchroll is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 123
Default

The MGL is easy to use and easy to physically install and connect the components. Cannot speak for GRT.

The technical stuff comes when you want to customise your screen setup and inputs/outputs beyond the defaults, which MGL allow you to do to an extent which is not possible with other vendors. If that's not your cup of tea, you can just use their defaults for a 4 or 6 cylinder, which are still well designed, plus there are some simple menu customisations you can do.

I agonised over the decision to go with GRT or MGL who both have screens around the 8 inch size which would fit neatly in my space-deprived panel. I went with MGL, partly because the screen customisation I wanted for my 9 cylinder radial was more than GRT would handle and GRT still requires some compromises to do 9 cylinder engine monitoring which MGL does not.

I'm also reasonably computer tech savvy so the tinkering didn't bother me too much, and Matt at MGL USA is really good with his support response (I believe GRT are too). But as I said - you don't have to tinker with it if you don't want to.
__________________
Mike
Down Under

Last edited by dutchroll : 11-07-2017 at 03:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:53 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.