Grand Rapids vs Dynon - Dynon vs Grand Rapids

[Sticky1]

Grand Rapids vrs Dynon - Dynon vrs Grand Rapids

I am having a **** heck of a time deciding what I want to do......

I am rebuilding a plane and have decided to change the panel from steam gauges to glass. I am not new to glass however, all these new advances....

Eventually the system design will be for IFR.

Dual Displays - 8-10" - Touch not an issue, Sunlight
External inputs - analog-digital fully able to map the way I want to display?
Charting? Costs associated?

Full Engine management, Engine type...?
Fuel type
Six fuel inputs

Autopilot - High torque servos
Radio interface.. Space might not b an issue; If it is..??

Here's the kicker, I currently have an Allison 250 turboprop or An IO-540 twin turbo that can be installed on the plane (no not an rv, however you all have always had good comments). Yea-Yea-Yea I know all the issues.

How close can I get?

Anyway,

Thanks in advance for any info.......

[DGlaeser]

Both are capable of meeting your needs.
It is like choosing a car from GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, ... (I work for GM so forget about those other guys )

I fly both (I have GRT, I'm flying with an IFR student in his RV7A with a full Dynon package).
I am a GRT fan. I find their stuff rock solid and more than capable.
We have had some minor issues with the Dynon - but nothing that would cause me to not recommend them - mostly installation issues (done by an avionics shop).
GRT got their start with EIS, so I give them a leg up in that department. Six fuel inputs will be interesting with either unit. That one will require some research.
Charting costs - depends on what you want. I do IFR charts on my iPad (Foreflight). The non-IFR GPS database updates are free from GRT - probably the same from Dynon since it is FAA data.
Your IFR GPS is independent of either unit so that is a wash. Both will hook up to the GPS similarly (through an ARINC 429 interface for IFR).
There is enough info on both manufacturer's websites to put together a side by side comparison of features and costs. It's involved but doable.

[rleffler]

Dennis hit the nail on the head. But since I used to work for GM and Honda, I have a different bias. I'm driving all Hondas these days.

While I have a preference for Dynon/AFS, it's really almost a flip of the coin.

I can do four fuel source on my AFS EFIS, but I don't know of any that do six. But then I never looked for that feature either.

I do have a preference for using an external AP head for IFR. Both vendors support that option.

I'm not sure I understand what you meant by, External inputs - analog-digital fully able to map the way I want to display? Are you looking for additional annunciators or are you looking for the ability to change the displays. I think MGL is the only one that provides that ability to significantly modify the display. Both your vendors have to capability to annunciate external devices.

For approach plates, Dynon has a slight advantage. Seattle Avionics has been known to sell their charts for a deep discount on Black Friday. I think they offered 2 for 1 last year. I don't recall their offer from this year.

I do like the new bus technology that is now used by both AFS and Dynon. I don't think GRT has anything similar. It does give the AFS/Dynon team a little more flexibility to integrate new technology into the solution.

[Davedubb]

SkyView can easily support 6 fuel sensors. The system has over 10 general inputs that can be configured to monitor almost anything. The system can accommodate 4 capacitive sensors and the rest would need to be resistive. Or you could have them all be resistive.

From the Dynon Manual:

Capacitive fuel level sensors are only supported on pins 8, 22, 23, and 31 on the SV-EMS-220/221 D37. Capacitive sensors must output a variable voltage within the ranges of 0-5 volts DC

Dynon also sells a capacitive to resistive converter if needed.

[Bavafa]

I agree with Bob, Dennis was all correct with the exception of GM. Toyota rules in my house hold.

In regards to the EIFS, I have flown behind GRT and Dynon and for IFR type flying, I prefer GRT by a long shot. If I was going with Dynon, then I would consider Advance as I think it is a toss-up between GRT and Advance.

[dynonsupport]

Sticky,
We do have the ability to support turboprops. It requires some help from us individually, but we're happy to give it. We can display two RPM's, do them in % or RPM, and of course your various temps and pressures.

As also mentioned, we can support 6 fuel tanks if needed. We have 14 general purpose inputs on our engine module that can be configured as needed.

As for charting costs, Dynon gives the USA aerodata (airspace, airports, navaids, obstacles, etc) away for free with a simple download on our website each month. Other charts like sectionals, airport diagrams, IFR HI/LO and approach and departure plates are $99 a year from Seattle Avionics. This is one charge per airplane no matter how many screens you have.

Dynon's COM radio is really small, so I bet you can find a place on the panel. However, if you are really planning for IFR, you need to decide on your GPS/COM/NAV first, since those are often integrated into one, so a COM may not be needed depending on your requirements. IFR in an experimental requires a certified GPS (if you want to use the GPS, including as a DME replacement) so that has a lot to do with your panel. Dynon's display and autopilot fully couples to IFR GPS and NAV radios.

If anyone says that another system is more capable in IFR, I would ask when they made that analysis, and how the system was configured. In the last year we have added a huge amount of IFR features such as the ability to show the full flight plan and approach from an IFR GPS on our screens, a flight director, and enroute charts. Dynon is always updating software so you can be sure a product from us will continue to get better and more capable. Dynon also has the ability to go from a simple VFR PFD only to a three screen, super redundant IFR setup with engine monitoring, mapping, charting, and more, so the configuration is important when making a comparison.

Good luck in your decision and project! If you stick that turboprop in the nose we want a ride

[BobTurner]

When I was making that choice (I went with GRT) I eliminated Dynon for one reason: Their attitude solution would fail if pitot-static data was lost. I personally did not consider it adequate for ifr if a pitot blockage would cause the attitude indicator to fail. Since then they have come up with a software fix, which, if it detects a complete pitot blockage, switches to gps ground speed. (So now attitude data depends on having gps data OR pitot data). Whether or not you consider this adequate for ifr is your call.

[Canadian_JOY]

Dynon's reliance on pitot input for attitude has been mitigated by the ability to use GPS speed. That was done some time ago (2-3 years?) so I'd say this portion of the argument doesn't carry as much weight as it once did. The GRT AHARS has never used airspeed as an input to the attitude equation.

BTW, I have flown legacy Dynon equipment in my own airplane for years, and my new aircraft has GRT. Both are top notch in the support department. Not that I've needed any hardware support on either, but both have been quick to answer questions and provide guidance. Can't really go wrong with either.

[Bill Boyd]

making great hardware. The tiebreaker for me was Dynon's stance toward (against) synthetic approach to user waypoints (private runways). Got the HXr and won't look back. Did a feature comparison on similarly priced D6 and Mini-X, sold the D6 at a loss and turned it into a more capable Mini that takes 1/3 the depth behind the panel and has a moving map and synthetic vision (are you kidding me - I feel like Buck Rogers )

No doubt Dynon will strike back with another offering soon. Competition makes these magic boxes better for all of us. I'd suggest buying at the last possible minute, given the dynamic market competition.

-Stormy

[Jim Slesser]

Can we add the G3X to this comparison. I am building a 14 and want it to be IFR so I expect to install a Garmin 750 for nav/com. Given this I am looking at G3X because it will communicate with the 750. But, I want to be sure it compares well with GRT and Dynon. I would love everyone's thoughts.




Dues paid this year
RV 14 N4114A reserved
Wings done, tail done