|
-
POSTING RULES

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

11-28-2011, 02:41 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Brisbane Qld. Aust.
Posts: 2,271
|
|
Quote:
|
Just because it has papers and is certified, don't assume it is automatically more reliable.
|
Brantel on the money again!
Does anyone remember the Aspen panels.....TSO'd and very expensive. Well the first year or two they would Topple...........yes a EFIS going haywire, just because you flew south of Melbourne Australia and probably up around Alaska.
now a friend of mine had this happen to him a few times in IMC while climbing or descending      Talk about good TSO'd value.
The idea of a TSO is not what most think. In fact in this area it is a hinderance, that is why Dynon, AFS, MGL GRT etc have done so well and their products are often better and upgraded quicker....not all the TSO and insurance overhead to carry.
No doubt the manufacturers will chime in any time soon on that matter.
The concept of the Skyview and a D6 is the ultimate. Those little classic Dynons are the best things since sliced bread. 
|

11-28-2011, 04:21 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Delaware, OH (KDLZ)
Posts: 4,196
|
|
One other item to ponder on.....
Even if your AHARS has the ability to sense a fault in a tandem or paired unit, which one do you trust?
This is why most will recommend a third source from perferably a different vendor as a tie breaker if you plan to fly IFR.
bob
|

11-28-2011, 10:13 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Houston, Alaska
Posts: 292
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brantel
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.
|
Brantel,
Can you tell us exactly what the dynon/integrated autopilot and dynon/trutrak combinations give you feature wise?
You say that you can run whatever autopilot you want with the skyview which is true, but there are limitations which affect it's usefulness flying IFR. Would you please explain what those are?
From what I understand the dynon AP can't fly any vertical nav at all and it doesn't output ARINC 429 to an external autopilot so it won't fly with GPS steering so basically it overshoots each waypoint. Also, an external autopilot won't fly the heading bugs until TT starts supporting dynon's bug labels on the serial interface.
Is this information correct?
schu
|

11-28-2011, 02:46 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Brisbane Qld. Aust.
Posts: 2,271
|
|
Schu
Brantel will no doubt answer your question, but the question of vertical is a good one. This is a planned release in the skyview and shortly there after in the classic panels.
We have no WAAS and hence no LPV's down here, and really it is no big deal not having the VNAV, however it is a nice to have. We do have a few ILS and to be honest you have to hand fly the vertical by means of throttle anyway, so it is not that hard in a well trimmed aircraft.
As for GPSS.....connected to a GNS430/530 type unit the GPSS works fine 
|

11-28-2011, 07:05 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brazil
Posts: 46
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brantel
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.
|
The TSO ones need to pass throught extensive build quality requirements that non TSO doesn?t need. I don?t know about the build quality circuits and materials of the experimental ones but there should be a diference on this and this is why TSO exists and is demanded in some cases by regulatory agencies. Or is it just marketing?
|

11-28-2011, 07:18 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Delaware, OH (KDLZ)
Posts: 4,196
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cristianomc
The TSO ones need to pass throught extensive build quality requirements that non TSO doesn?t need. I don?t know about the build quality circuits and materials of the experimental ones but there should be a diference on this and this is why TSO exists and is demanded in some cases by regulatory agencies. Or is it just marketing?
|
TSO doesn't necesarily mean improved quality. All it means is that the vendor has documented their processes and submit their products for appropriate testing to prove it meets the TSO spec.
That doesn't automatically imply that experimental products are of a lessor quality by not going through the TSO process. It just means that the experimental vendors perceive that the investment in a TSO certification doesn't generate an appropriate return of investment.
|

11-28-2011, 07:31 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brazil
Posts: 46
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by akschu
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? Yes, it?s mandatory for IFR in Brazil.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. It also need to be TSO. Will search for it.
Does the exhaust gas and cylinder head need to be separate gauges? Get that integrated into your efis (if your not using garmin.) No, it doesn?t. The analogic ones are for backup and I tought on integrated in EFIS, like AFS, etc, or even the JPI EDM-930 or the VP-200, that also checks the entire electrical system.
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. Yes, I realize that. For GPS aproaches I need a TSO GPS and for enroute GPS flying it can be a non TSO. A 2 axis is more than suficient. I?ll go for now with a non TSO.
About the audio panel. Does it need to be certified? Yes! Can you get away with a GMA-240 which is much lighter and cheaper, though it doesn't do the real fancy stuff. Is it TSO?
Do you need the trutrak auto trim? Can you trim the airplane yourself, that saves some money and weight. You?re correct! Will exclude it from the list.
Do you need the vertical power? It's a bit of money and fuses/breakers work just fine. I don?t know if it?s all that necessary. I think it adds a degree of safety, doesn?t it?
Do you need the Aspen Pro? Yes, for IFR enroute and aprouche flight with a TSO GPS. The pro couples with the AP. 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. The ANAC agency told me it?s mandatory for IFR. Or 6 TSO gauges!
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 Pro 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. But I can buy the mapping from Garmin and use it together AFS, can?t I?
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. The VP-200 does it!
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. If going with experimental EFIS I?ll go with AFS or G3X.
Before deciding you should read through the threads on autopilots and see what you think.
Hope that helps,
schu
|
Thank you very much, schu!
|

11-28-2011, 07:33 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brazil
Posts: 46
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteinAir
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
|
Thanks for getting the thread in the track again, Stein!
|

11-28-2011, 07:47 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brazil
Posts: 46
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rleffler
TSO doesn't necesarily mean improved quality. All it means is that the vendor has documented their processes and submit their products for appropriate testing to prove it meets the TSO spec.
That doesn't automatically imply that experimental products are of a lessor quality by not going through the TSO process. It just means that the experimental vendors perceive that the investment in a TSO certification doesn't generate an appropriate return of investment.
|
So why is it mandatory for IFR? Why does it exists?
Thank you!
|

11-28-2011, 07:53 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 211
|
|
TSO vs Experimental
Just as a last note;
When you TSO a device, you are not able to make major alterations to it unless it undergoes certification again.
This means that experimental units are able to keep a breast of developments much faster than TSO solutions. You get more of the latest in experimental gear.
Also on cost. The certification of equipment is expensive. Just the documentation is expensive to produce and maintain. The testing sequence is expensive and so is the re-testing of things like bug fixes. Sometimes the extra cost of TSO equipment is because of all of that ...
....not because of the better quality of manufacturing. Sometimes the quality is the same.
__________________
Gus Bisbal
RV7
Obsession only exists when someone else isn't doing it too.
|
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.
|