pros and cons - Enigma and GRT

I've just read Rainiers "Odyssey et al" and its a real great pitch and becuase of this I need some impartial advise. I'd got to the stage where I was pretty much certain I would be buying the GRT dual Horizon (with WAAS), now I'm not sure given Rainiers pitch. Those in the know, can you tell me pros and cons for both systems

Cheers fellas


Martin

Antoher Question

Not trying to hijack the thread, but I have a question along similar lines.

For users of Cheltons/Enigma/GRT what is the advantage of having the integral WAAS GPS since you can't use it for primary IFR navigation? My understanding is that the internal GPS can be used as "guidance", but in order to fly a GPS approach you have to have a certified GPS, which right now is either the Garmin 430W/530W, or the G1000/900x. Are those of you with the Cheltons/Enigma/GRT WAAS set up using your NAV radios to fly the ILS, VOR or NDB approach and just using the EFIS as a back up?

Thanks for the info, I love reading and learning from these forums.

-John
Dreaming of building an RV....someday

About IFR/GPS for EFIS's

To begin, you are correct that you can only use non-TSO GPS devices in the IFR environment to enhance situational awareness. No matter how you interpret that, I don't think it includes flying an approach.

OK, so why go with the internal WAAS (I haven't, yet). One reason could be that it's well integrated with the EFIS. In the case of GRT you can use both a 430/530/GNS80, etc. AND the internal GPS and they will back up and cross check each other. You can also use a 2/3/496 for the external GPS. Being well integrated means able to drive the autopilot from the EFIS which offers the advantage of combining route portions that may include capturing the ILS. You can do it with the external GPS too.

Yes, you can fly IFR without a certified GPS. In fact, even the 430/530 cannot be used (GPS portion) as primary. The primary must be a radio with very few exceptions, most of them very expensive Garmins. As long as what you are doing is being done with the radio(s) or at least looks like it is, then you are legal in my opinion. Others may not agree.

I am not familiar with the other brands, so the part of this that is equipment specific is not intended as comparison information, only to illustrate the GPS issue.

jtrusso said:

For users of Cheltons/Enigma/GRT what is the advantage of having the integral WAAS GPS since you can't use it for primary IFR navigation?

Click to expand...

Backup! If it all hits the big whirling thingie, I'm going to use anything that I can to get home safely. If I have non-TSOed equipment that will help me get there, great. We can deal with the paperwork later.

hevansrv7a said:

Yes, you can fly IFR without a certified GPS. In fact, even the 430/530 cannot be used (GPS portion) as primary. The primary must be a radio with very few exceptions, most of them very expensive Garmins. As long as what you are doing is being done with the radio(s) or at least looks like it is, then you are legal in my opinion. Others may not agree.

Click to expand...

May want to check out TSO-146a, which the Garmin WAAS panel mount units comply with. No need for ground based NAV, if you have a GPS that meets this standard. Now, whether or not it is a good idea to not have some sort of backup is a completely different question....

Unlike Redundnacy....

I am always a little nervous about having everything in one box made by the same company and coded the same. No offense to anyone intended, but I like to have a couple of baskets for my eggs. The large aerospace plane I've been flying for 25 years has two different sets of software coded by two different companies...

I think GRT makes a great platform and display system, but I use the 430 as my Nav engine. I use the TruTrak as a backup for the platform. I also have two other GPS's on board, one wired in to the GRT to back up the 430 (sure it's non-IFR approved, but it WILL get me home).

And the 396 is completely independent so that I will no where I am going down as I glide to a landing with both alternators and both batteries out, all three busses shorted, and the engine stopped....

Paul

Ironflight said:

And the 396 is completely independent so that I will no where I am going down as I glide to a landing with both alternators and both batteries out, all three busses shorted, and the engine stopped....

Paul

Click to expand...

Hey, isn't that why NASA used HP-41 calculators as backups to the shuttle computers for re-entry calculations? (I love HPs ... always used a RPN calculator).

Seriously, I think this is one of the best arguments for the G396 - a built in battery backup! It also has (as far as I can tell) most approaches built in to the database. Yes, it's not legal to use it, but when it all hits the fan, I'll use whatever I can, thanks.

TODR

hevansrv7a said:

In the case of GRT you can use both a 430/530/GNS80, etc. AND the internal GPS and they will back up and cross check each other.

Click to expand...

So the internal GPS in the EFIS actually will cross check the external Garmin, and vice versa? I didn't realize that, pretty nice feature.

I fully undertand using the internal GPS as a backup in the case of a failure, and completely agree that one should use all the tools they have to get themselves home. However, from my armchair quarterback position it seems to me that you just don't get a lot of extra bang for the buck when you opt for the internal GPS. If you have a G430W/530W driving the autopilot, and a 396/496 backup that could take over in the event of a failure of the 430/530, then you seem to have your bases covered. Add to that an SL30 and a traditonal nav head and I would think that you'd have complete redundancy.

One more question....if you do have a Chelton/GRT with an internal WAAS GPS, do you have to input your flight plan into both the EFIS and the external Garmin? Can the Garmin "talk" to the EFIS and automatically input the flight plan so it shows up on the EFIS and automatically calculates all the fuel/distance/time data?

Thanks for all the replies, you guys are great.

-John
Dreaming of building an RV....someday

I'm still looking for an answer to Enigma vs GRT pros and cons, any takers???

dare to compare

SHINEY, ME TOO!!!! Who really has any knowledge of the new system---Stein?

Good point well put! Hey Stein, what's your take on this question, pros and cons on GRT and Enigma ?

shiney said:

I'm still looking for an answer to Enigma vs GRT pros and cons, any takers???

Click to expand...

You're running into the same problem that everyone does - very few people have flown multiple different experimental EFIS's (the whole field still being fairly new), so it's hard to find someone with first hand in flight knowledge of both. For instance, I have over 500 hours flying the GRT, but all I know about the Enigma is what I've read, so I simply can't give you a comparison. Sorry.

(Oh, and TODR, I have my HP-41CV right here....still have my DeOrbit Target program too....give me a state vector, and I can run a solution for you!)

Thanks Paul, I know exactly what you are saying, so let me put it another way; you're flying the GRT, would you buy it again? are there things it doesn't do which the other(s) (Enigma) do that you wish it would ?

Martin

GRT Flight Plans

jtrusso said:

... Add to that an SL30 and a traditonal nav head and I would think that you'd have complete redundancy.

Click to expand...

The SL-30 also has a CDI and digital read-out of radial built in.

jtrusso said:

One more question....if you do have a Chelton/GRT with an internal WAAS GPS, do you have to input your flight plan into both the EFIS and the external Garmin? Can the Garmin "talk" to the EFIS and automatically input the flight plan so it shows up on the EFIS and automatically calculates all the fuel/distance/time data?...

Click to expand...

The GRT has the ability to use either internal flight plan or external flight plan regardless of GPS source(s). It could even be switched in flight, though I would not suggest it. With the fuel flow option, the GRT computes endurance, etc. The 496 etc. computes ETA's to waypoints and destination. There may be more; I just haven't bothered.

Like Paul, I have zero knowledge of the MGL products. My gut tells me they are very feature-rich. I would at least think about service issues and a guesstimate about reliability probability. GRT makes some claims, although they are vague, about how they engineered their failure modes. They put that on their website. It's worth reading, but hard to verify. In other words, GRT has a solid reputation built over a number of years. MGL may be just as good or better, but with their new products, how can you know? GRT service is excellent and they are in the Eastern time zone (Michigan). I'm not slamming MGL; their stuff looks wonderful on the web and I want to see it at OSH. I am just trying to present realistic perspectives. BTW, GRT sees Dynon as backup to GRT and GRT as backup to Chelton.

hevansrv7a said:

...
BTW, GRT sees Dynon as backup to GRT and GRT as backup to Chelton.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this was the one think I read on their site that made me wonder.. Why would they state that? They are equal in features with the exception of Synthetic vision. So, why?

What do you want an EFIS for?

I assume if you were buying a dual screen Horizon, you're interested in punching into a cloud now and then. If so, I highly suggest you read the MGL AHRS manual. From that manual:

When you descend into the cloud your sole aim is to maintain heading, wings level and ball centered. Check your VSI to ensure that you descend at the required rate. Only use engine power to control your descent. Crosscheck your airspeed with your pitch attitude. Watch your rate of turn indicator (if you have one). You don't want to turn. Do not maneuver. Your most reliable instruments are the slip indicator, compass (if SP-2) and airspeed. Your horizon is secondary at this stage.

Click to expand...

Try and find that kind of "do not even think of using our attitude" statement in any other EFIS manual. What's the point of the attitude if you can't use it in an emergency?

I'd also read the Enigma documents. The last manual update was in May, and it's still "preliminary". Read the disclaimer. For all the "we do it different" attitude that MGL throws around, even they acknowledge that by allowing customers to put all sorts of unknown stuff on the unit, the unit isn't very stable and may crash at any time, and that updates are frequent and untested.

You may want to check out the install manual for the Enigma as well. It's only 20% complete after a year of work. You have to wonder what the support for these products will be like if the company is moving right along making bigger screens, radios, and who knows what else while they can't even document their current products.

Jordan1976 said:

What do you want an EFIS for?
Try and find that kind of "do not even think of using our attitude" statement in any other EFIS manual. What's the point of the attitude if you can't use it in an emergency?
.

Click to expand...

What scares me more is the absence of such statements from other manufacturers manuals. We all use pretty much the same gyros and AHRS technology...

Jordan1976 said:

I'd also read the Enigma documents. The last manual update was in May, and it's still "preliminary".
.

Click to expand...

You know, the manual will remain preliminary probably for a long time to come.
Reason - we are adding new functions all the time. We release new software with new goodies almost every three weeks currently.
And, sorry to say - you are wrong - last manual update was June. You read the date in the "American" way.

Jordan1976 said:

Read the disclaimer. For all the "we do it different" attitude that MGL throws around, even they acknowledge that by allowing customers to put all sorts of unknown stuff on the unit, the unit isn't very stable and may crash at any time, and that updates are frequent and untested.
.

Click to expand...

Rubbish !
No customer has ever put anything onto our system. It's rock solid. We have both a "beta" and "stable" release policy and anybody can decide which software they want to install. We certainly don't release software that is untested, is prone to crashing or has never flown (not even the beta). That is just completely untrue.

Jordan1976 said:

You may want to check out the install manual for the Enigma as well. It's only 20% complete after a year of work. You have to wonder what the support for these products will be like if the company is moving right along making bigger screens, radios, and who knows what else while they can't even document their current products.

Click to expand...

This manual is due for a complete replacement but is not high on our list of current priorities. Reason: Most is covered in our other manuals and everything that is of importance is covered. The 20% note should perhaps be removed. That's likely the only outdated part.

Now, I note you have done 4 posts. All of them negative - 2 against us, 1 against GRT, 1 against AFS.
What's your beef ?

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

Busted my friend !!!!
The penny dropped.

A quick search on the net revealed your identity.

Does your boss know you're trying some underhanded stuff ?

Mr. Ian Jordan, lead design engineer at Dynon ?

Do you think you really have to do this ? Can't compete on even terms ?

Very, very dissapointed in Dynon I am...

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

Jordan1976 said:

What do you want an EFIS for?

I assume if you were buying a dual screen Horizon, you're interested in punching into a cloud now and then. If so, I highly suggest you read the MGL AHRS manual. From that manual:

..rest of this dribble snipped..

Click to expand...

shiney said:

Good point well put! Hey Stein, what's your take on this question, pros and cons on GRT and Enigma ?

Click to expand...

I don't have a "take" on the question at the moment. We just got our first Enigma literally within the past number of days. I haven't personally had enough time playing with it to make an informed decision yet. I need to get some time with them before I do.

Now - that being said, what I am really starting to get sick of on this site is the bantering between certain parties. I'm tired of seeing certain people picking on other companies products and trying to point out weaknesses or flaws in each other products. This is particularly bad when each company is in effect living in a glass house - each of those people know that it's very poor practice to try and sell your product on other people's backs - it just doesn't work in the long term.

What I can say from my own personal observation is that you don't see Rob Hickman from AFS constantly trying to pick at everyone elses products. You also won't see Todd/Greg from GRT doing anything of the sort, or Dexter from OP. I'm tired of seeing it and wish certain people had enough professional respect for their competitors to quit doing it. I don't need to tell you who it is that does this a lot, but literally some people stick their noses into EVERY thread, whether it has anything to do with them or not. For example, this thread was about Enigma vs. GRT. What possible benefit is there to having a competitors employees throwing in their 2 cents when it's only sarcastic and not beneficial to anyone reading it, other than trying to make someone else look bad.

Anyway, to the original question....I can't give an honest opinion right now based on the info I have. What I can say is that I have NEVER seen the GRT people on this forum or anyone elses trying to stump their own product, nor have I seen them trying to pick apart someone elses.

Just my 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein.

SteinAir said:

Now - that being said, what I am really starting to get sick of on this site is the bantering between certain parties. I'm tired of seeing certain people picking on other companies products and trying to point out weaknesses or flaws in each other products. This is particularly bad when each company is in effect living in a glass house - each of those people know that it's very poor practice to try and sell your product on other people's backs - it just doesn't work in the long term.

What I can say from my own personal observation is that you don't see Rob Hickman from AFS constantly trying to pick at everyone elses products. You also won't see Todd/Greg from GRT doing anything of the sort, or Dexter from OP. I'm tired of seeing it and wish certain people had enough professional respect for their competitors to quit doing it. I don't need to tell you who it is that does this a lot, but literally some people stick their noses into EVERY thread, whether it has anything to do with them or not. For example, this thread was about Enigma vs. GRT. What possible benefit is there to having a competitors employees throwing in their 2 cents when it's only sarcastic and not beneficial to anyone reading it, other than trying to make someone else look bad.

Click to expand...

Amen to that, Stein.

Mike

If I had wished to hide my identity, I would not have chosen that username. My full identity is in my public profile.

While I do have some unique insight into the EFIS industry due to my employment, my posts represent my own views and not that of Dynon. They are not posted on Dynon's time. Just because I work for Dynon doesn't make my points any less valid.

I believe that customers of EFIS products should have complete information and know about the issues with any purchase they are considering. The original poster to this thread asked for comparisons between GRT and MGL after you posted an advertisement. I just pointed out some serious issues with the MGL equipment that purchasers should be aware of, issues that are directly listed in your documentation. Customers can decide for themselves if these issues are dealbreakers or not, and I hope they do by reading your documentation for themselves.

trying to make informed decisions

I am one of those builders who is at the point where I am having to make very hard decisions on which instruments to purchase. I am going to be making that commitment within the next few months and then living with the decision. I too am looking for all manner of information that will help me base my decision on logical sound judgment.

Although it is very difficult to avoid presenting information without interjecting an opinionated slant, sometimes it is really much more valuable if opinions are left out of the discussion. I am not sure if that can realistically be done though. It does appear that comparisons of one vendor's product with another vendor's product opens the door for some very subjective "observations". Although I may wish it weren't so, I must admit that sometimes these subjective "observations" are enough to push me in one direction over the other.

Whenever I ask a vendor a question pertaining to comparisons to other products, I know I have to weigh their responses with a certain amount of analysis of facts as best I can and perhaps even some level of skepticism. We are all trying to evaluate the various products with the highest level of analysis we can. Opinions and sales pitches really only serve to: at best cloud the information, or, at worst to, totally break down our abilities to make a decision.

I value user's experiences and will continue to anticipate future replies to this and other threads asking for comparisons. However, for my own analysis, I know it is going to come down to a great many bits and pieces of information from a great multitude of sources before I feel confident that I can finally come to a consensus of what to purchase.

I, for one, respect SteinAir's responses to these types of queries because I trust that he will "tell it like it is". I am sure there are other shops out there with similar philosophies. I will continue to listen to them and trust in their experience but I will ultimately have to come down to making that decision myself.

Thanks Stein for your input. Speaking for myself, I value that input along with the input from other experienced aviators with first hand experience that are willing to share.

I do appreciate Mr. Lamers' posts also. He is in the unenviable position of trying to present his product in an already very competitive market. It does sound like MGL has a similar philosophy to mine in that they seem to believe that these products should not cost as much as they currently do. It appears that they are attempting to do something proactive to change that in this market. I commend them for that. I will watch closely to see if they are successful in this endeavor.

I will offer up my first hand experience with what I know (which isn't much). I currently fly with a Grand Rapids EIS (Engine Information System). It works exactly as it is designed to do. everything about it is simple and straight forward. I do have a problem with the accuracy of the fuel quantity gauge but my belief is that this is related to the probe and/or the installation rather than the EIS itself. I know this is probably not all that helpful but hopefully it does serve as another data point to say that Grand Rapids does build quality products. I am so far leaning toward their product because of the quality of their product and the fantastic customer support they have provided me in working with my existing instrument. For whatever my experience is worth to anyone else, I am most interested in working with a company that will place customer support as their NUMBER 1 priority.

Partially installed Enigma

FYI - I just posted a few photos of my RV4 panel rough-in; includes an Enigma. Check it out HERE

Sincerely,
Brian Vickers, Bainbridge Island, WA
RV4 Project

Why, indeed?

w1curtis said:

Yeah, this was the one think I read on their site that made me wonder.. Why would they state that? They are equal in features with the exception of Synthetic vision. So, why?

Click to expand...

I cannot speak for GRT, but they made it pretty obvious in the context of those remarks that they were talking about aerospace quality construction and engineering, not just feature sets. Chelton is TSO'd, I think. Pay your money, take your choice. There is much that is built into an EFIS system that is not visible. An example that may get me flamed: Blue Mountain is very feature-rich, but has a reputation for inconsistency and some say their failure modes are more all-in-one, so to speak. I can't say if this is true, but having heard it more than once I feel it's fair to use it as an example.

I was looking at MGL's site today and found, for example, that their underlying data could be a valid point for contrast/compare. Terrain and obstacle data in the CONUS should be something to depend on. I don't know if the site is up to date, so this may no longer be an issue. I know GRT is always in need of a good site refresh, so MGL may be, too.

Unless you are going to use this stuff for serious IFR, probably Dynon, GRT, Chelton, MGL and maybe even Blue Mountain would all be good choices. If you are going to use it for serious IFR, then the data must come from a TSO'd GPS anyhow IMHO. That said, you want the very best in aerospace grade AHRS and direction sensing and you want displays that won't quit at a critical moment. I think it was Paul Dye who pointed out the wisdom of having different boxes as backup (code and hardware). That makes such compelling common sense! I think you could interpret GRT's remarks to be in agreement.

Jordan,

When you criticize a product in an open forum and are in any way connected with a competitor of that product it is customary to identify yourself in the post itself as an employee of the competitor.

When I read your total of four posts at the time of posting I found them a bit distasteful but viewed them as your opinion. In light of your identity being a Dynon employee I have re read them and now find them totally inappropriate.

If I had wished to hide my identity, I would not have chosen that username. My full identity is in my public profile.

Click to expand...

Nowhere in your profile your affiliation with Dynon mentioned.

While I do have some unique insight into the EFIS industry due to my employment, my posts represent my own views and not that of Dynon. They are not posted on Dynon's time. Just because I work for Dynon doesn't make my points any less valid.

Click to expand...

Had you identified yourself as a Dynon employee this would be true and your comments less offensive.

By not making this identification your comments become suspect and downright inappropriate.

Dynon makes an excellent product with an excellent reputation. Their product sells well based on its merits. No Company improves its sales by criticizing its competitors. By making these comments in public without full disclosure of your relationship diminishes not only you but also your employer. Was I your supervisor and I saw this you would no longer be employed.

You owe an apology to the readers of this list, MGL Avionics, and your employer.

N395V said:

Jordan,

When you criticize a product in an open forum and are in any way connected with a competitor of that product it is customary to identify yourself in the post itself as an employee of the competitor.

When I read your total of four posts at the time of posting I found them a bit distasteful but viewed them as your opinion. In light of your identity being a Dynon employee I have re read them and now find them totally inappropriate.

Me too.

Nowhere in your profile your affiliation with Dynon mentioned.

I just went back and re-read your profile, and was going to post the same comments, but Milt beat me to it.

Had you identified yourself as a Dynon employee this would be true and your comments less offensive.

By not making this identification your comments become suspect and downright inappropriate.

Dynon makes an excellent product with an excellent reputation. Their product sells well based on its merits. No Company improves its sales by criticizing its competitors. By making these comments in public without full disclosure of your relationship diminishes not only you but also your employer. Was I your supervisor and I saw this you would no longer be employed.

Absolutely!!

You owe an apology to the readers of this list, MGL Avionics, and your employer.

Click to expand...

My comments in bold, above.

Amen.

Thanks Milt.

Mike

Jordon,

Your conduct here so far will hurt Dynon's reputation almost immediately, IMHO. Also, the sniping between vendors stops now (rules). You should have identified yourself as a Dynon employee in each post. Feel free to post, only do it with complete professionism.

Recapping...follow the rules and play nice. Quoting 'Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby', "...(or) I'm gonna come at you like a spider monkey!"

If it means I loose Dynon as an advertiser, I'm OK with that.

CC'ing: My contact at Dynon (Ron Ulbrich).





"The only ship that works is a tight ship."
-- Scorch

DeltaRomeo said:

If it means I loose Dynon as an advertiser, I'm OK with that.

Click to expand...

A man with principals.

I like that.

Mike

hevansrv7a said:

I cannot speak for GRT, but they made it pretty obvious in the context of those remarks that they were talking about aerospace quality construction and engineering, not just feature sets. Chelton is TSO'd, I think. Pay your money, take your choice. There is much that is built into an EFIS system that is not visible. ...

Click to expand...

I guess it depends which Chelton you/they are referring. The certified and TSO'd line is up there in price with the G900x. The un-certified and non-TSo's stuff is that which typically gets installed in experimentals.

The thing that irks me about the Chelton sport is that they use totally differnet hardware, claim the software is the same, and leverages that to tout "meets TSO'd specifications" every chance they get. For example their certified EFIS units use the certified Crosbow 500GA AHRS, but up until recently they would use the much cheaper, and ultimately less reliable, 400EX AHRS. The currently shipping Pinpoint AHRS is probably better than the 400EX but why not use the 500GA? Where else did they cut corners with the Sport system? At least the G900x is EXACTLY the same as the G1000, just without the paperwork.

One of the things I like about the AFS 34/3500 line is that they use the Crossbow 500GA gyro packaged in the 34/3500 chassis. I'd feel way more comfortable flying IFR (I hate the term "lite IFR") behind the GRT or AFS system, with appropriate backup, than I would behind the Chelton. The 500GA gyro among other items is one of the reason the GRT is now second on my list to AFS which is at the top.

hevansrv7a said:

..
Unless you are going to use this stuff for serious IFR, probably Dynon, GRT, Chelton, MGL and maybe even Blue Mountain would all be good choices. If you are going to use it for serious IFR, then the data must come from a TSO'd GPS anyhow IMHO. That said, you want the very best in aerospace grade AHRS and direction sensing and you want displays that won't quit at a critical moment. I think it was Paul Dye who pointed out the wisdom of having different boxes as backup (code and hardware). That makes such compelling common sense! I think you could interpret GRT's remarks to be in agreement.

Click to expand...

Well, where I live an fly (on the East Coast) ALL IFR is SERIOUS IFR. Unless you are out in the southwest where there are few days with visible precip in the air, I would think that all IFR is serious IFR. As above, those that use the term "lite IFR" really missed something in their IFR training or are not yet IFR rated. Since I will be flying IFR, whatever I install, should be up to the task of IFR flying-Serious to you.

craigvince said:

Can I suggest we close this thread now and move on?

Click to expand...

Craig,

Please allow me to respectfully disagree that we should close this thread. Like RVbySDI and probably many other builders here, I am about to make decisions that will cost big bucks and that I will have to live with. There are some great products available to us and we need to make informed decisions. Objective and unbiased information is the key to making the best decisions.

Rainer and his crew are newcomers to the arena and I would like to see their products have a full and fair evaluation. I hope this thread will continue and we will later read here the input of Stein, whom we all respect for his professionalism and knowledge, as well as the experience of those now installing the Enigma.

There is much valuable information exchanged on this forum under the rules established and enforced by Doug. I look forward to hearing objective observations, and even opinions with specific basis regarding the Enigma and its comparison with other systems.

Thanks for Info on Chelton

w1curtis said:

I guess it depends which Chelton you/they are referring. The certified and TSO'd line is up there in price with the G900x. The un-certified and non-TSo's stuff is that which typically gets installed in experimentals.

The thing that irks me about the Chelton sport is that they use totally differnet hardware, claim the software is the same, and leverages that to tout "meets TSO'd specifications" every chance they get. For example their certified EFIS units use the certified Crosbow 500GA AHRS, but up until recently they would use the much cheaper, and ultimately less reliable, 400EX AHRS. The currently shipping Pinpoint AHRS is probably better than the 400EX but why not use the 500GA? Where else did they cut corners with the Sport system? ...

Click to expand...

I did not know that. I am probably not the only one. Thanks! I guess I'm still happy with my GRT, then.

Also, I see your point about IFR. For me, "light" IFR is just a way of flying above clouds with VFR below. However, I admit that WX forecasting is an imperfect art at best. That said, in a small single engine airplane, you have to make decisions about how it will be less capable/redundant than a bizjet or an airliner.

Members of the Vans Air Force community:

I apologize for the confusion or ill will that I may have caused. I will be clear in posting my employer with any further posts that I do make.

Thank You Jordan,
I consider this an excellent post on which to end this thread I am certain Jordan was just unaware of appropriate conventions relative to disclosure and look forward to his input in the future. This thread is closed.

Milt Concannon (N395V)