|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

11-27-2011, 04:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 3,351
|
|
I would recommend to consider running the same numbers with GRT and compare it to your option 2
Their systems is extremely capable, reliable and redundancy of dual AHAR system is just awesome but you can't go wrong with either option as AFS is a very great system if IFR is part of the design.
__________________
Mehrdad
N825SM RV7A - IO360M1B - SOLD
N825MS RV14A - IO390 - Flying
Dues paid
|

11-27-2011, 05:13 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brazil
Posts: 46
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bavafa
I would recommend to consider running the same numbers with GRT and compare it to your option 2
Their systems is extremely capable, reliable and redundancy of dual AHAR system is just awesome but you can't go wrong with either option as AFS is a very great system if IFR is part of the design.
|
AFS have a bigger screen and it also have internal AHRS and engine monitor on each display, correct? Also they have all those buttons that make easy and quick to interact to, right?
At first I prefer AFS. But, convince me about GRT!
|

11-27-2011, 06:14 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 3,351
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cristianomc
AFS have a bigger screen and it also have internal AHRS and engine monitor on each display, correct? Also they have all those buttons that make easy and quick to interact to, right?
At first I prefer AFS. But, convince me about GRT!
|
Many of those things are rather subjective and as a matter of personal preference so I am not sure if I can convince you or even want to.
But I have more time behind GRT and know how easy and accurately they are to operate, while emphasizing that I think you will not go wrong at all with either product.
As a technical stand point, I like the dual AHAR of GRT that constantly runs checks against each of the AHARs and if one them has invalid data, it can be marked down/switched to the good AHAR for both screens. I don?t know if AFS does this cross check between the AHARs but if it does not, then this would be a big plus for GRT. After all, in case of conflict and in IFR, how would you know which one has the good data.
Case in point, about 3 weeks ago I was flying with a friend that has a two screen EIFS (without mentioning the brand) and one of the EIFS that was on PFD was showing a slight left bank angle (erroneously and we didn't know) which he kept correcting yet getting off course. We didn?t know about the error in the bank till he switched his second EIFS from map to PFD (for other reason) and then we realized that there is an error in bank on the first EIFS There was no error or warning in the system to show discrepancy between the two EIFS.
On the subjective items, I prefer not to have the array of buttons as they take precious real estate off the panel. I don?t remember which plane your building and how much space you have there but it is of a limited space and I rather not lose it for that use. In my case, many of those buttons don?t get used often enough so lack of having them to become a hassle and those that gets used often are there within one or two touch.
As for the engine monitor goes, those are adds-on HW piece and you can do the same thing with GRT or display one source of engine data on both EIFS and on the EIS separately.
I hope this be a help and best of luck and wishes
__________________
Mehrdad
N825SM RV7A - IO360M1B - SOLD
N825MS RV14A - IO390 - Flying
Dues paid
|

11-27-2011, 07:54 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brazil
Posts: 46
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bavafa
Many of those things are rather subjective and as a matter of personal preference so I am not sure if I can convince you or even want to.
.
.
.
|
My plane is a Inpaer Explorer ( http://www.inpaer.com/aeronave.asp?mod=Explorer).. 4 seat powered by a Lycoming YIO-390 (210hp). In a near future I hope to be posting here to get your opinions about a RV-10 IFR panel!
I know that the perfect EFIS or the perfect airplane doesn?t exist, but the one that fits on your budget, tastes and needs. Also there isn?t a failure free EFIS but some configs that make more dificult you to be lost in the sky.
What is attracting me in G500 is its reliability because it?s a TSO equipment. As it is, its screen is more clean and easy to navigate when compared to an experimental EFIS that put everything inside seeming that there is no logic in the distribution of flight data.
But, for the experimental side, its customization is great and that?s one of the reasons why it?s not TSO. Also its price.
I think that it needs a kind of "insanity" to fly a experimental single piston engine in IMC. I want a IFR panel simply to be able to land in IMC in case of getting this kind of situation during a flight. So, if I have a IFR panel, and even a TSO airplane, I would not take off in this situation. But the brazilian flight regulation agency have some rules that is unlogical, like the need of a TSO GPS to do a GPS based IMC approach and not needing it to do a GPS based IMC enroute flight! And because the rules I need a TSO EFIS to be used together 2 others great quality ones, non TSO, spending more money for what will not assure I will not be lost in the sky and for what isn?t really necessary.
What we need to remember, at least myself, is that one of the reasons we are in the experimental aircraft world is that it?s cheaper to buy and operate than a entire TSO aircraft. This is why I didn?t choose a new Cessna Skylane or a Cirrus SR22!
TO ROB: does the AFS-5600 do cross check between 2 AHRS?
Thank you!
Cristiano
|

11-27-2011, 08:04 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Newport, TN
Posts: 7,496
|
|
Just because it has papers and is certified, don't assume it is automatically more reliable.
Just ask all those people that were flying around with G1000's and had big Red X's on their screen!
Oh and most EFIS's can be decluttered and MGL even let's you customize your own layout.
|

11-27-2011, 09:56 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Woodinville, WA
Posts: 1,499
|
|
Schu,
The Dynon SkyView network has redundant signals in the cable. There are two grounds, two power wires, and two network pairs (4 wires). So a single cut and most shorts don't cause any issues.
If you want more redundancy, you can run wires from the back of each screen to the AHRS units individually. This gives even more redundant paths for the data to flow. We actually give the installer huge flexibility in how they want to trade off cost, weight, and redundancy. Just because the manual shows a splitter as one example does not mean this is the only way.
If the issue of wire cuts is important to you, then you need to verify with your EFIS vendor that the system will provide good data without any external devices. Every AHRS out there has a remote magnetometer, and many systems rely on this for the attitude solution. Other systems rely on GPS. So just because the AHRS is inside a unit doesn't mean it doesn't rely on external boxes for part of it's solution. Not saying this is true of every EFIS out there, but if having a functioning attitude when there are literally no wires hooked to the unit at all is important, then you really need to have an in-depth conversation with your vendor.
Again, the point Brantel was mentioning is that a SkyView AND a D6 gives more redundancy than another brand EFIS and a different autopilot. Not that just SkyView is better than both. The idea that because you went with SkyView means that you have your AP and EFIS all in one box and you have no other backups is totally false.
As for automatic cross-checking between AHRS units, SkyView does not do this today but this is planned for the next software release, early next year.
|

11-27-2011, 10:14 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 2,473
|
|
This thread has gotten all kinds of off track....debating a Dynon or AFS or GRT and their bits and bytes is almost half a moot point to the OP's situation. He HAS to have a TSO'd solution (or at least part of it). There are a number of countries where this is the case, no matter what we each think of the EFISes we may personally like.
This is why I say repeatedly that there is NOT a solution that is the panacea for every builder in every country and every situation. We sell a whole pile of each EFIS mentioned in this thread, and much of the time the ultimate choice of the builder is made after much consultation and review of their individual situations which include budget, mission, laws of their locality, their level of knowledge, technical ability, comfort with technology, flight experience, etc.
I'm not trying to take anything away from everyone elses opinions, but am pointing out that in this particular thread many of posts or debates on technical data just muddy up the water for the decision which this builder is trying to make based on his needs - which include some pretty specific interfaces to equipment (TCAD, Strikefinder/stormscope, etc.) that some EFISes just won't work with. If a builder is asking for a certain set of personal requirements like being able to fly a coupled GPS approach, vertical GPS guidance with his autopilot, or a certain set of interfaces to external equipment it's of little use to convince him to buy one that won't....even if the rest of the EFIS is fantastic.
Anyway, I know my post doesn't add much off anything. I'm just encouraging those responding to try and keep this thread relevant so it can be usefull for others in the future when they search the archives for data.
Just my 2 cents as usual....except I'm still working off the Turkey hangover!
Cheers,
Stein
|

11-28-2011, 12:35 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Houston, Alaska
Posts: 292
|
|
Stein has a point that is worth more than 2 cents as usual, so lets look at this solution:
Is the clock/Chronometer required to be TSO? Seems like most EFIS systems do these functions these days so that would save $400 and some weight.
For the pitot you can run a used one off of a cessna or some other airplane. Look for a PH502, you should be able to get one of these under $300 if you look around.
Does the exhaust gas and cylinder head need to be separate gauges? Get that integrated into your efis (if your not using garmin.)
I don't see a gps in your panel that has IFR flight plans. I don't think the G500 can do that so your going to need a 430W or a 650 which is expensive.
About the audio panel. Does it need to be certified? Can you get away with a GMA-240 which is much lighter and cheaper, though it doesn't do the real fancy stuff.
Do you need the trutrak auto trim? Can you trim the airplane yourself, that saves some money and weight.
Do you need the vertical power? It's a bit of money and fuses/breakers work just fine.
Do you need the Aspen Pro? The EFD1000 Pilot is a bit cheaper and has the same features except it can't drive an auto pilot, but I don't know why you would want it to since it's basically a backup for your panel that meets your TSO horizon requirement.
With these comments in mind I would look at this setup:
Sirs NV-2C-4000 Compass (blue lighted) - $225.00
Used Pitot tube $300
Comant Ci 120-400 VOR/LOC/GPS antenna - $997.00
Comant Ci 2480-400 VHF/GPS/XM antenna - $987.00
Comant Ci 105-6 DME/XPDR antenna - $273.95
Garmin 430W $7800
Garmin 240 $800
Garmin GTX-327 $1800
Trutrak Digiflight II VSGV - $3,850.00
AFS 4500 With engine board, AHRS board, and ARINC : $7,035
Aspen EFD1000 Pilot $6,000
With this setup you still don't have mapping. You may want to get a garmin 696 or an Ipad or something since the mapping in the EFIS products aren't as good as the garmin solutions. It's hard to beat them at their own game.
So toss in a GPS Map 696 for $2100.
With this setup you are at $32,200, but you have a pretty decent setup. You get synthetic vision, full engine monitor, a very nice IFR solution with geo-referenced approach plates, with the ability to drive the auto pilot from the AFS, 430W, or 696 (using serial), attitude in your AFS, Aspen, or autopilot (though it can't display it, just fly it), you get garmin maps on a separate dedicated screen.
Please keep in mind that option 1 you posted doesn't have any kind of an engine monitor, only gauges which won't give you warnings which I think is a great reason to have an EFIS. Also, I'm not sure if the Garmin setup in option 1 can do fuel calculations. You might want to look at that too.
Other options you can look at are the GRT or skyview. GRT is a nice box and many run them an like them. They have all of the IFR features that the AFS has. The skyview doesn't have all of the IFR features yet and they force you to run their autopilot. It's not nearly as mature since it hasn't been flown on as many types as the TT nor has been around as long, but it may fly your airplane just fine.
Before deciding you should read through the threads on autopilots and see what you think.
Hope that helps,
schu
|

11-28-2011, 12:38 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Houston, Alaska
Posts: 292
|
|
Oh, and buy it from Stein at steinair.com. He has the best prices and service that I have found.
schu
|

11-28-2011, 01:13 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Newport, TN
Posts: 7,496
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by akschu
they force you to run their autopilot.
schu
|
For the sake of the archives:
Big misconception....
Dynon does not force you to use their AP, you can use any AP you like in conjunction with the Dynon systems be it Legendary series or Skyview.
As a matter of fact, TT just recently announced that they will soon support the bugs that Dynon added to the Skyview data stream.
The only reason people started integrating AP's with EFIS's in the first place was because they wanted to use the less expensive AP's in advanced modes that normally required much more expensive AP's. You can take a TT Sorcerer and a 430W and do whatever you want with it without any EFIS at all.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:55 AM.
|