VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Avionics / Interiors / Fiberglass > Glass Cockpit
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-20-2009, 09:01 PM
jeff beckley jeff beckley is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 192
Default

[QUOTE
One friend who has probably over 10K hours in everything from his RV to fighters, to airlines, and more once told me he didn't understand why everyone is pumping out big bucks to buy synthetic vision. As he said, "It is not like you are going to use it to fly up a mountain valley in the clouds and when you are in the system who cares what's below you?"[/quote]

Exactly!!! Milt and I both have experience with synthetic vision planes. I find I have exactly no use for them now. If I am in the clouds I am in the system and I have situational awareness. If VFR I am looking out the window. If doing Acro I am looking out the window. I thought synthetic was great but now it looks to me more of a feeding frenzy with little regard to user ergonomics. But it sure looks pretty.
__________________
Jeff Beckley
Des Moines Iowa
Van's RV-7A
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-20-2009, 09:14 PM
jeff beckley jeff beckley is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N941WR View Post
As a Dynon Beta Tester, I would submit you simply don't know what you are talking about.

The Dynon AP has some safety features that just blow away the competition. Having the AP driven by the EFIS allows for all types of intelligence that you don't get with other AP's. That's all I'll say about this subject right now. If Dynon wants to elaborate, great, but I will add, the Dynon AP can be a life saver and perform in ways others, including TT can't.
I am sure you are right that the AP can be a life saver but as I understand the SkyView is presently not able to fly any kind of approaches. As it has no ability to communicate with certified NAV/GPS receivers. Even Dynon's site says that there is no AP software right now. No HSI. How could that be considered a IFR platform? The stuff you are flying right now might have it but I was talking about current production products that can be used for IFR use.
__________________
Jeff Beckley
Des Moines Iowa
Van's RV-7A

Last edited by jeff beckley : 12-20-2009 at 09:25 PM. Reason: getting my facts right
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-20-2009, 09:31 PM
breister breister is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny7 View Post
i reckon it was a straightforward way of saying the dynon ADAHRS gets it's primary info through airspeed,(through the pitot system)
For the record, this was fixed two software releases ago. They now use GPS to backup the pitot-static sources, just like the Garmin 1000 series does.

That is part of the problem with EFIS technology, it is changing so fast it is hard to keep up.

FWIW, I am an IFR pilot with over 2,500 hours, most of it in pointy jets. The Dynon's are fine for IFR/IMC. If you plan to fly regularly in IMC you should always have a backup (I have vaccuum attitude and a TT autopilot that will keep me right-side-up if both my EFIS and backup fail).

Any of the products available are fine now; it really comes down to the features you want. You can find a "flaw" in any of the solutions if you look hard enough. For example, to the gentleman who said that the TT EFIS plus GNS430W does everything better than any other combination - try to load a Victor Airway in your flightplan! Nothing personal, I use a TT product as part of my solution too. Well, that's not a "fault" of the EFIS, because that particular EFIS isn't providing the flight plan / moving map "features." Yet other EFIS solutions DO provide that functionality. Too, couple that same TT EFIS with a GNS 480 and programming an airway in your flightplan would be a snap. To poke a little more fun at that person's choice, all of the pride in being able to fly an ILS will one day be irrelevant as MOST of the ILS approaches are being abandoned in lieu of GPSV (the ILS costs money to maintain, and airports want to cut their budgets). Ok, enough fun poking - the point is that it is a personal decision and that each person's "requirements" may be different depending on where they live and the type of flying they do.

Which brings me to my advice for the seeker - consider your entire avionics stack as a "system" rather than looking specifically at a particular EFIS. Just like with home entertainment systems, you can get your features all in one "super system" or purchase them ala carte. Determine all of your needs and establish a budget, along with your personal tolerance for fail-over. Truth is, a hand-held GPS and a Dynon D6 (or vaccuum instruments) would be plenty to get you down safely under almost any circumstances.

Good luck!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-20-2009, 10:04 PM
dynonsupport's Avatar
dynonsupport dynonsupport is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Woodinville, WA
Posts: 1,499
Default

Jeff,
SkyView isn't really a competitor to the TT products. As you mention, the TT is "complete" and will never, ever do a moving map, synthetic vision.

We already sell an EFIS that does artificial horizon, HSI, and autopilot for under 1/2 the price of a TruTrak EFIS. We've been selling these for years and it's just as complete and solid as any other product on the market. To act as if the only product Dynon sells is the SkyView is selling us a bit short.

We have no plans to cancel the current line of products in any way, shape or forum so they are just as "current" as SkyView is. If all you want out of an EFIS is artificial horizon, HSI, and an AP, we would never suggest SkyView.

Last edited by dynonsupport : 12-20-2009 at 10:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-20-2009, 10:09 PM
Mike D's Avatar
Mike D Mike D is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 456
Default

Wow! Not quite sure what to say about this discussion anymore. Hope we can all be nice and provide a thread that others, and myself, can learn from. Things are moving quickly, and that is why I have some questions that are not answered, or no longer valid, in other posts.

I am all for safety, but I am a little worried that all this electronics may give some a since of safety that is a little unfounded and go beyond their capabilities. Kind of like people driving way too fast in an SUV because they have a lot of metal and airbags to ?keep them safe?.

I am all for redundancy when it is critical. But I am just a poor pilot skipping cable, huge cell bills, and extravagant nights out to afford a hobby I love. So, a GNS530 connected to a TT auto pilot and the best wiz bang EFIS is not in the cards for me any time soon. But not sure I would do that even if I had the money. Just need to know which way is up, where I am, and that the engine is okay. Glass is cheaper than steam now. But, as Paul had mentioned in his post, ?If you save $500 - $1000 and settle for less features than you want, you will probably be disappointed once you?re flying.? But I will not be scared into buying more than is useful.

I kind of take the demos at SNF and Osh like I take the demos of the 3D modeling software salesmen are always trying to get me to buy. They have some great features and put on a good show, but when it comes down to it, most of the features are just fluff and, although nice, don?t help me do my job any better. Candy is good, but you need some real food first.

This is kind of like the PC vs. Mac debate. Both have their good points, but it depends on what is important to you. I wish I knew what made each EFIS system special, then I could better decide which one fit my mission. I guess the experimental EFIS market is just too young to have such a good division of brands.

So, If anyone can point to a reason to chose an EFIS that more suited to a particular mission than another, and give a reason not based on opinion, I am all ears.

Looks like AFS is more suited to acro because of the speed of the attitude instrument and the screen of steam gauges that they mention that acro pilots use. Am I wrong? Plus they have some nice weight and balance screens to let me calculate my envelope.

Looks like GRT is more suited to IFR/IMC due to the way it calculates the attitude. But others may have the same ability now? Can someone help me understand how each system calculates for errors in attitude?

Looks like Dynon (non Skyview) are more tuned to the VFR value buyer. Skyview is beautiful, but unproven and without many of its features that would allow it to be compared to the AFS and GRT.

Am I trying to simplify this too much?

One more question, Does it matter where I buy the system? ACS?, Stein?, local dealer?
__________________
Michael Delpier
RV6A -O-320, fixed pitch, GRT Sport, 496
RV-10 - working on finish kit
Houston
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-20-2009, 10:17 PM
Brantel's Avatar
Brantel Brantel is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Newport, TN
Posts: 7,496
Default

You kinda helped make a point here.....

For an EFIS to be an EFIS, it does not have to fly any approaches, does not have to have the ability to talk to certified receivers, does not have to be an autopilot, and does not have to have a HSI.

All of those things can come from third party integration.

That does not mean that the EFIS system is not suitable as an IFR platform.

Granted all of those things add value and are sweeeeet when they are a part of the solution......

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff beckley View Post
I am sure you are right that the AP can be a life saver but as I understand the SkyView is presently not able to fly any kind of approaches. As it has no ability to communicate with certified NAV/GPS receivers. Even Dynon's site says that there is no AP software right now. No HSI. How could that be considered a IFR platform? The stuff you are flying right now might have it but I was talking about current production products that can be used for IFR use.
__________________
Brantel (Brian Chesteen),
Check out my RV-10 builder's BLOG
RV-10, #41942, N?????, Project Sold
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RV-7/TU, #72823, N159SB
Lyc. O-360 carbed, HARTZELL BA CS Prop, Dual P-MAGs, Dual Garmin G3X Touch
Track N159SB (KK4LIF)
Like EAA Chapter 1494 on Facebook
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-20-2009, 11:48 PM
Spindrift Spindrift is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike D View Post
This is kind of like the PC vs. Mac debate.
If that's the case, can someone who has extensive experience working with both Macs and PCs give some perspective on which EFIS system has the most intuitive interface. Nothing is more annoying than having to think like an engineer to figure out how to navigate a system (no offense to the many engineers here ;-)
__________________
bill
RV7A QB kit -- sold and now flying in S. Africa
RV7 purchased flying

"A pilot just bides his time until his plane can take him away again, into the air"
-- Jake Grafton (Stephen Coonts, Flight of the Intruder)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-21-2009, 07:02 AM
L.Adamson's Avatar
L.Adamson L.Adamson is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KSLC
Posts: 4,021
Default

Quote:
=jeff beckley;388405][QUOTE
One friend who has probably over 10K hours in everything from his RV to fighters, to airlines, and more once told me he didn't understand why everyone is pumping out big bucks to buy synthetic vision. As he said, "It is not like you are going to use it to fly up a mountain valley in the clouds and when you are in the system who cares what's below you?"
Quote:
Exactly!!! Milt and I both have experience with synthetic vision planes. I find I have exactly no use for them now. If I am in the clouds I am in the system and I have situational awareness. If VFR I am looking out the window. If doing Acro I am looking out the window. I thought synthetic was great but now it looks to me more of a feeding frenzy with little regard to user ergonomics. But it sure looks pretty.
And just who/what is in the accident statistics? Fighters, and airlines, as well as GA and other government, commercial operations.

Here is one from earilier this year. These guys were not in the "system", but did try to fly up a mountain valley. Just a few years ago, a GA pilot who was in the system cancelled his IFR flight to land at his local airport, which he had done many times. Thanks to night time whiteout conditions, he became disoriented, flew low over a foothill subdivision, and right into the rising mountainous terrain. Both of these accidents are within 30 miles of my home...too.
--------------------------------------------------------------



NTSB Identification: WPR09GA216
14 CFR Public Use
Accident occurred Saturday, April 25, 2009 in Stockton, UT
Aircraft: LOCKHEED P2V-7, registration: N442NA
Injuries: 3 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On April 25, 2009, about 1005 mountain daylight time, a Lockheed P2V-7 Neptune, N442NA, impacted the terrain about one and one-half miles north of Stockton, Utah. The two airline transport pilots and their passenger were killed in the accident sequence, and the airplane, which was owned by Neptune Aviation Services, and under the operational control of the United States Forest Service, was destroyed by the impact. The 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 Public Use repositioning flight, which departed Missoula, Montana, about two hours prior to the accident, was en route to Alamogordo, New Mexico. At that time of the accident, the airplane was flying in an area of low ceilings and restricted visibility. No flight plan had been filed.

According to two individuals who were near the crash site, the airplane could be heard proceeding in a southeasterly direction, and although to them it sounded low, it could not be seen because of the low clouds. In a matter of seconds after the airplane passed their location, they heard what sounded like the airplane impacting the terrain.

The wreckage was eventually located about 250 feet below the top of a ridge on the eastern side of Stockton Pass. The point of initial impact was located about 5,630 feet above sea level, on the northwestern slope of the ridge.

L.Adamson
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-21-2009, 07:30 AM
N395V's Avatar
N395V N395V is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Mendon South Carolina
Posts: 1,391
Default

Two quite cogent comments from the posts above.

Quote:
This is kind of like the PC vs. Mac debate.

You can find a "flaw" in any of the solutions if you look hard enough.
I am not a 30 gazillion hour airline ex fighter jock(not that that matters) but have spent a good bit of time in the clouds staring at one of those dreaded BMA units and also one of the "legacy Dynons" in planes with adequate backup instrumentation.

Never had a problem. I did, back in the old days, once suffer a gyro failure, so from my experience ifr the EFIS has a better track record.

I think synthetic vision is cool but do not find it essential and actually feel it is more difficult to fly in IMC, but that is just me.


There are many on this board that have a lot of hours in IMC behind Dynons. BMA's, Tru Trak's, Grand Rapids, AFS's, and MGL's. None of these guys are dead.

I think it not unreasonable to say that GR, Tru Trak, Dynon, MGL. AFS are all reasonable systems to fly in the clag.

So in my mind it gets back to the two quoted comments above.

Take your time, decide what you want, need, and can afford, then wait to the last minute to buy it in case something new and reallly cool comes along.
__________________



Milt Concannon
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-21-2009, 08:03 AM
jeff beckley jeff beckley is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dynonsupport View Post
Jeff,
SkyView isn't really a competitor to the TT products. As you mention, the TT is "complete" and will never, ever do a moving map, synthetic vision.

We already sell an EFIS that does artificial horizon, HSI, and autopilot for under 1/2 the price of a TruTrak EFIS. We've been selling these for years and it's just as complete and solid as any other product on the market. To act as if the only product Dynon sells is the SkyView is selling us a bit short.

We have no plans to cancel the current line of products in any way, shape or forum so they are just as "current" as SkyView is. If all you want out of an EFIS is artificial horizon, HSI, and an AP, we would never suggest SkyView.
You are right I was not including your legacy products but be careful when you say complete. AP76? Also you are correct the TT and SkyView are apples and oranges apart. Completely different missions. I like your stuff and the price point is excellent but I guess that I have a little old school in me. Most new comers are having an increasingly difficult time determining the difference in the current crop of products out there right now.
I think the term EFIS no longer stands for one type of devise. Kind of like a customer asking what kind of panel to buy.

It looks like Mike D's best choice for a display given his most current refinement if the mission he needs is the D180. Good price and value.
__________________
Jeff Beckley
Des Moines Iowa
Van's RV-7A
Reply With Quote
Reply



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 08:07 AM.


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.