What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Glass Reliability

S

StuBob

Well Known Member
Over on BeechTalk, there's a thread started by a Baron owner, lamenting the repairs he's had to make on his low-time Aspen, Auracle and Avidyne panel and suggesting he'd been better off with spinning gyros. Maybe he's right, but I really don't want to put a vacuum system in my RV8 if I don't have to. Of note, several posters have told him his experience might've been different if he'd bought Garmin.

What about you? Have you been flying with the same glass panel for a couple of years or more? Is something broken all the time? Is there a difference between Garmin and the others?

Thanks in advance. Y'all are great, etc.
 
Current G3X Touch panel and the non touch predecessor have been/were very reliable as in no failures yet...hope it stays that way!

The D6 backup was a refurb unit and had the leans out of the box. Dynon quickly replaced it.

The Legacy Dynon based panel was also very reliable other than the issue I had out of the box with the DSAB bus controller in the D100 when it was cold. Dynon quickly resolved that issue as well.

Have 3 RV friends with Dynon Legacy based panels and all three have had a few issues. The ones where they have contacted Dynon about have been resolved. One just lives with the issue.

Love the look of a well built all steam panel but I would never go back!
 
Last edited:
Uh, No.

We call them steam gauges for a reason. It's old, less reliablel technology. Moving parts mean wear and tear and multiple opportunities for failure. Why anyone would put anything OTHER than an all glass panel in a modern build is beyond me. Do you need backups? Yes, of course, but they should be highly reliable, modern, electronic displays and sensors. Provide multiple power sources, consider sourcing from different vendors for primary and backup, and most importantly, avoid single point failure modes.
 
What Randy said. No question. No steam (vacuum)
Remember why the Cessna 210 came with two vacuum pumps.... just to get out of the clouds alive...when the gyro wanted to roll over and play dead.
 
Hard question to ask as you will need to filter out the "this is what I have" bias.

So - my biased input. Four years and 350 hours on dual 10" Dynon SkyViews with the Dynon ADS-B receiver, remote radio, transponder an autopilot. Dual ADHARS modules. One module was bad out of the box - Dynon replaced no questions asked. After 100 hours one display started to have some stripes. Dynon replaced at no charge.

I also have standard altimeter and airspeed indicators in the panel - and recommend others do the same. I have independent power going to each display, and recommend others do the same.

While glass is the new normal, some traditional values still apply. Ask about service after the sale (my experience with Dynon makes them the standard for others to model). Ask about total cost of ownership. Make your own determination on the odds the company will be around 10 years down the road.

I'm an amateur pilot. I would be hard pressed to try flying IFR with a traditional six pack and go without all the information provided by modern glass.

Carl
 
My AFS4500 failed after about 4 years.

I was told my 2010 AFS4500 had a CPU that was prone to heat failure and the newer AFS5400 resolved this issue.

I was doing a database update when the system failed to reboot, so I do think it would have been a ground failure only and not have failed in flight (just a guess).

AFS gave me a good tradein price, but, still, pricey to change out to the AFS5400 and of course, to swap to another vendor would have been extremely costly.
 
Glass reliability

I'm sure you'll get many opinions on this subject. After 30 years of flying I'd have to say the glass panels have been more reliable than legacy equipment. My RV7A finished in 2005 had 1200 hours when I sold her last year. It had a legacy GRT Dual Horizon EFIS with a single AHRS. Not one problem ever. The back up airspeed indicator from Vans needed to be serviced after 800 hours, the needle was rubbing on the faceplate.

My 172 years ago had the vacuum pump go out twice, luckily in VFR conditions. My Commander 114 had the HSI go belly up plus the main vacuum pump over a 500 hour 4 year period.

The RV10 I currently fly has a dual SkyView system with several peripherals. it's only been flying for 4 years but so far so good. I really like the customer service and documentation from SkyView.

I finished building a super simple low and slow Highlander in the summer of 2014. Strictly VFR but I still put in a GRT SportSX with no back ups other than an Alph System AOA. No way you can put in legacy equipment for the same price not to mention the same functionality.

Gary
 
I've found glass to be much more reliable than round dials. My first glass was in '85ish and I was skeptical at the time, but the glass proved to be very reliable.

If you plan to do acro, most gyros will not handle it. Digital stuff doesn't care.
 
Warning, I have all legacy instruments (sounds better than steam) and no issues on anything in 700 hours.
Main reason I went legacy when I was building in late 90s early 2000s is I was worried that many of the glass companies would not survive. No glass was in certified aircraft therefore I thought the companies selling glass may consolidate or go out of business and therefore no customer support. There seems to be now a pretty stable set of suppliers. Little did I know at the time I should have been worried more about my Apollo radios/gps then about glass.
Still like my legacy instruments and my Apollo GX65, always dreaming of glass but making due with an iPad on my knee.
 
Last edited:
flyinga said:
I've found glass to be much more reliable than round dials. My first glass was in '85ish and I was skeptical at the time, but the glass proved to be very reliable.

If you plan to do acro, most gyros will not handle it. Digital stuff doesn't care.
Click to expand...

I'm obviously a huge glass advocate but, in the interest of full disclosure, it's important to note that "digital stuff" does care about aerobatics. My Dynon single ADHRS system will handle mild aerobatics without "tumbling" but throw a multi-turn spin, a snap roll, or some other aggressive maneuvers at it and you'll be requested to wait while it regains its footing. A few seconds of straight and level is all it takes. Just don't expect your glass panel to be a perfect attitude reference during aggressive aerobatics.
 
plehrke said:
Main reason I went legacy when I was building in late 90s early 2000s is I was worried that many of the glass companies would not survive. No glass was in certified aircraft therefore I thought the companies selling glass may consolidate or go out of business and therefore no customer support.
Click to expand...
Everything I've ever flown in my day job since 1998 was glass cockpit in certified aircraft.
 
Anecdotal data point.

My 2013 dual D700 SkyView system with ADAHRS, EMS, ARINC-429, ADS-B, Transponder, GPS-250 with Garmin 430W has over 250hrs with no failures. My D-6 (2011) was DOA new out of the box but Dynon repaired it immediately and it hasn't missed a beat since. Before the "glass" upgrade I had 1 vacuum pump fail, 1 altimeter problem (excessive friction) and 1 DG problem (excessive precession) all within the previous 500hrs.

YMMV

:cool:
 
Dont put all your eggs in one basket in IFR. Design fault tolerance into your panel and then the reliability of one particular instrument is irrelevant to your safety.
 
rzbill said:
Dont put all your eggs in one basket in IFR. Design fault tolerance into your panel and then the reliability of one particular instrument is irrelevant to your safety.
Click to expand...

And then train to fly on back-up. We had our state Governor die in a flight when he was campaigning for US Senate in a plane crash his son was POC. The primary system failed and the son was unable to fly [through a thunderstorm] on back-up. Aftermath lawsuits by the family drove Parker out of the vacuum system business (at least for GA) and caused my CFI to have me do simulated instrument failures for my next 2 bi-annuals.
 
Last edited:
What about repairs? I know Garmin has flat-rate pricing. Do the others? Is the flat rate reasonable? Avidyne, for instance, plays all kinds of nasty games with this. But they don't do experimental AFAIK.
 
rzbill said:
Dont put all your eggs in one basket in IFR. Design fault tolerance into your panel and then the reliability of one particular instrument is irrelevant to your safety.
Click to expand...

True for all systems, glass or steam. But IMHO this discussion is on glass instrument reliability not on how to deal with an in flight equipment failure.

:cool:
 
GalinHdz said:
True for all systems, glass or steam. But IMHO this discussion is on glass instrument reliability not on how to deal with an in flight equipment failure.

:cool:
Click to expand...
I read into the remark as one needs to understand the reliability of the devices you're installing versus your acceptable level of risk. This could apply to any manufacturer or system, and should be known before passing judgement. And one basket may be fine if it's a suitably reliable basket.

As for Garmin specifically, I can't speak to the reliability of their avionics. But assuming their flight instrumentation systems are comparable to their radios and portable devices, it will be highly reliable for typical light GA standards. I've used three generations of "electronic" instrumentation systems. First was analog home-built/design, second Dynon D-10, last Dynon D-100/120 series. Aside from transducers, none of my Dynon systems have ever failed. I bought Dynon products because they fit my cost/reliability targets.
 
Last edited:
I have a Garmin 2-screen G3X EFIS with a TruTrak Gemini as a backup. I had the G3X MFD go out during Phase I. Garmin support was outstanding in getting it swapped out for a replacement MFD. Any repair fee on a hardly used, but out of warranty piece of kit is always a tough pill to swallow. However relative to other electronic devices and my other vehicles I've had to have repaired I found the fee reasonable particularly when compared to the cost of buying a new replacement. Although to be honest I don't know if it was their flat rate or not.

Even after my one failure, I'll never go back to steam. YMMV....
 
Last edited:
I've experienced hard internal failures in flight of both steam and glass products, so I believe we can only look at a real MTBF analysis for the various components to draw any unbiased conclusions.

That said, regardless of the MTBF results, steam instruments and vacuum systems are rapidly fading away into obscurity. I suspect that in a few years the repair and overhaul of these components will be relegated to a handful of specialty shops, and people will be faced with the same number of choices as the guy needing an overhaul of his Merlin V-12.
 
thread started by a Baron owner
Click to expand...

It seems this was one Baron owner complaining about 3 different certified systems.

This suggests ,to me, that it is more likely he was experiencing installation/wiring problems, setup problems, or equipment being damaged during installation/wiring rather than a faulty efis.

Like those above I have found the Garmin G3x and even the original Blue Mountains as reliable as steam gauges and vacuum pumps and have many friends with Dynons, MGLs, Advanced, and GRTs all of whom have experienced excellent reliability.
 
Glass What If's?

-8A; 700 hours over 5 years; AFS 4500, Garmin 496, TruTrak ADIII - with backup airspeed, VSI and altimeter. Backup endurance bus with SD8 IAW Aero Connection architecture. Tech support at both AFS and TruTrak has been exceptional. Garmin is Garmin, but eventually gets there.

No issues other than an intermittent ammeter readout on the 4500 that I haven't yet addressed.

I did a lot of research before deciding on this configuration. It appears that all experimental glass products are highly reliable - without the worry of vacuum system failures.

Configuration decision will really come down to personal preferences, but in my opinion, without doubt glass is the way to go.
 
N395V said:
It seems this was one Baron owner complaining about 3 different certified systems.
Click to expand...

According to his signature he is a Baron owner building an RV-8.

"V35B Bonanza
RV6 tail -- Abandoned 1997
RV8 tail -- Started 12/26/15. Done.
Wings ordered. Seems like they'll never get here."

:D
 
Last edited:
Where's your sense of adventure,wile musing about a friends blue mountain melt down in low broken at 2,000 have your glass go black screen,then display "System Unavailable, Fly Straight & level" a quick reboot brought everything on line with no further issues,latter down load showed no events.As time goes by avionics are getting better&faster and more capable and the price comes down. Outside of a whisky compass why go back in time.
 
StuBob said:
What about repairs? I know Garmin has flat-rate pricing. Do the others? Is the flat rate reasonable? Avidyne, for instance, plays all kinds of nasty games with this. But they don't do experimental AFAIK.
Click to expand...

Generally, if there are problems, they will show up within the 3 year warrantee that most of the glass makers have. At some point in the build you will need to make decisions regarding what make and configuration, however I would hold off on the purchase of the glass and AHRS units until almost ready to fly to get the maximum warrantee period. Once you pick a specific brand and configuration you could have Stein do a harness and mount most of the other "stuff" radios, switches, breakers etc. A lot of builders buy glass and have the warrantee expire before the ship even flies. Perhaps there is a small market opportunity for dummy components for builders to do their mounts and layout with, for all the remote boxes. Most companies will still look after you if there is a defect that timed out of warrantee while being built.
 
GalinHdz said:
According to his signature he is a Baron owner building an RV-8.

"V35B Bonanza
RV6 tail -- Abandoned 1997
RV8 tail -- Started 12/26/15. Done.
Wings ordered. Seems like they'll never get here."

:D
Click to expand...
That's me, but I wasn't the OP on BeechTalk.

As to the point that it was ONE guy...........yeah???? What do you want, a committee report? ;) The thread I mentioned isn't the only one, not by a long shot. It's just the most recent.
 
I wonder if the woes mentioned by your thread is so much in the reliability of their avionics, or their installer/maintenance.

Glass, in general, is much more reliable than any of the older steam systems. However, there is a lot more room for wiring installation problems than older systems.

StuBob said:
That's me, but I wasn't the OP on BeechTalk.

As to the point that it was ONE guy...........yeah???? What do you want, a committee report? ;) The thread I mentioned isn't the only one, not by a long shot. It's just the most recent.
Click to expand...
 
Vacuum pump reliability

When we were building our IFR-equipped RV-6A glass was not yet available. The big weak spot in a vacuum system is the dry vacuum pump. We replaced ours with an airwolf wet pump ($$). It is considered to be good for at least the life of the engine if not more. We also have a second (electric) AI. We have since added portable glass back up. No failures of anything in 1050 hours. Aerobatics are prohibited to protect the gyros. I love our set-up but then it is what I am used to. I think is is probably heavier than glass but I'm not sure when you add in back-up batteries, etc.

LeRoy Johnston RV-6A Esperanza 1050 hours
 
My only real addition to this whole discussion is that these types of discussions (on round steam instruments vs. digital) and such are basically just a moot point to be blunt.

We (meaning the market and manufacturers) have already reached the point where is is both cheaper to build the digital equipment, cheaper to support and reliability is clearly better by almost every conceivable metric (aside from individual owner reports). The fact is whether we like it or not, the world and technology is just going away from spinning gyros, aneroid capsules/bellows, etc... despite what any of us think emotionally about what we feel better about.

Some people still like DOS and arguable it does have it's advantages, so did rotary dial phones, but the reality is what we think doesn't matter because technology already decided for us.

My point isn't to take sides nor to advocate for one over the other (because we still sell and install round instruments), but just to note that perceived reliability based on individual circumstances doesn't really matter in the end.

I will say however when you have one plane that has many issues with various systems across various manufacturers of various types of equipment, there usually is a common denominator....and it's rarely the technology! :)

Just my 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein
 
It's certainly possible that this particular Baron's problems are caused by something electrically upstream. It's also true that the are a lot of anecdotes that make Aspen, in particular, look bad.

I wouldn't expect Stein to say anything publicly about one brand vs another. But I hope he'll give me the low down when I'm buying!
 
In the 9 years I've been flying experimental glass, I've also been flying a steam guage airplane. The glass has been 100% reliable while the steam-driven airplane has suffered failures of the vacuum pump, DG, AI, T&B, and now the electric T&B is starting to act up.

What does this mean to me? The airplane I'm building is all glass, with lots of redundancy. While the steam airplanes may lose one or two instruments on a regular basis, the failure of an EFIS means loss of all of the displayed instruments in one fell swoop. That's what has driven my selection of multiple EFIS instruments for our next panel.

On the up-side, experimental glass is, comparatively speaking, cheap. Buying a backup EFIS to backup something like 6-10 analog instruments costs the same as, or less than, a backup electric Attitude Indicator. With this being the case, going solid state is almost a no-brainer.
 
Downside to Glass

One of the nice things about steam gauges is that the software updates are free. Also, when there is a bug in the software, and it happens, it doesn't affect the steam gauges.

I personally like glass and may do some stuff to my certified plane but I'm not all in yet. Half of my -9 panel is glass, other half is steam. In my opinion, there is still just too much variability in the software releases that both promises to fix past known problems and also provide new functionality. Spending 10 minutes reading the specific glass forums when the software patch is released will give you an idea of what can possibly happen. Also, it appears that sometimes the patch is not always mistake-proofed before released so we the experimental folks get to find the problems. Things like TFR's not showing up, terrain acting weird, reboot issue (who wants to reboot in the air), etc.

With steam, no worries except that they are becoming dinosaurs. Of course steam stuff tears up too. I guess there isn't a perfect system yet so my vote is for one or two backup steam gauges.

Good luck!
 
rzbill said:
Dont put all your eggs in one basket in IFR. Design fault tolerance into your panel and then the reliability of one particular instrument is irrelevant to your safety.
Click to expand...

All of the glass brand reliability comments on this thread are purely anecdotal and therefore useless for an analysis. For example, every one of the experimental glass brands has had failures despite the good experiences that happen to be posted here. I have, my neighbor with the competitors NEW glass has. And these were NOT installation issues.

Even though I got beat up for it, I go back to the exact point I was trying to make. Its not about glass or steam, ANY system CAN fail. Plan for it to fail and then the MTBF of the system(s) you chose is no longer highest on the list of selection criteria.
 
Last edited:
I think all of this is easily solved by not being an early adopter of the new software. If you're concerned about upgrades having faults, allow others that are prepared to deal with the issues work them out.

Self-induced reliability issues by accepting non-proven software is hardly reason to discount the reliability of glass equipment. I completely understand that most of us want instant results, but having a bit of patience is part of this experimental game.

Steam or glass... They're both HIGHLY reliable systems, with proper installation and maintenance.

grubbat said:
In my opinion, there is still just too much variability in the software releases that both promises to fix past known problems and also provide new functionality. Spending 10 minutes reading the specific glass forums when the software patch is released will give you an idea of what can possibly happen. Also, it appears that sometimes the patch is not always mistake-proofed before released so we the experimental folks get to find the problems. Things like TFR's not showing up, terrain acting weird, reboot issue (who wants to reboot in the air), etc.

With steam, no worries except that they are becoming dinosaurs. Of course steam stuff tears up too. I guess there isn't a perfect system yet so my vote is for one or two backup steam gauges.

Good luck!
Click to expand...
 
grubbat said:
One of the nice things about steam gauges is that the software updates are free. Also, when there is a bug in the software, and it happens, it doesn't affect the steam gauges.

I personally like glass and may do some stuff to my certified plane but I'm not all in yet. Half of my -9 panel is glass, other half is steam. In my opinion, there is still just too much variability in the software releases that both promises to fix past known problems and also provide new functionality. Spending 10 minutes reading the specific glass forums when the software patch is released will give you an idea of what can possibly happen. Also, it appears that sometimes the patch is not always mistake-proofed before released so we the experimental folks get to find the problems. Things like TFR's not showing up, terrain acting weird, reboot issue (who wants to reboot in the air), etc.

With steam, no worries except that they are becoming dinosaurs. Of course steam stuff tears up too. I guess there isn't a perfect system yet so my vote is for one or two backup steam gauges.

Good luck!
Click to expand...

Good points, all. I've got an old school altimeter and airspeed gauge in addition to my GRT Sport for the reasons you mention, and I have to admit for nostalgic and aesthetic reasons as well... a nice mixture of rectangles and squares gives the panel a little variety.

I'm gonna do the GAMI spread thing on my next flight to see if I need to do any injector-nozzle changes, and with the steam gauges I still have an altitude reference when I go to the leaning page on the EFIS.
 
Hey Widgit---Kahuna----jump in here. I know what brand you guys are flying. What say you on the reliability of your glass equipment???:eek: "I'd" sure like to know.
 
Another point is that there are steam gauges and there are steam gauges. If you go by the $150 Falcon gauges which I think are made in China, you will be replacing them regularly. Good steam gauges cost a lot. That's why glass is the way to go, but you need to design in redundancy if you are going to fly in weather both in terms of the instruments and the power source(s). I will have one box and no steam backup. I don't fly in weather. If the box dies I will look out the window and fly attitude. I am totally comfortable with that, but others might not be.
 
sblack said:
Another point is that there are steam gauges and there are steam gauges. If you go by the $150 Falcon gauges which I think are made in China, you will be replacing them regularly. Good steam gauges cost a lot. That's why glass is the way to go, but you need to design in redundancy if you are going to fly in weather both in terms of the instruments and the power source(s). I will have one box and no steam backup. I don't fly in weather. If the box dies I will look out the window and fly attitude. I am totally comfortable with that, but others might not be.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely a fair comment - the really good round instruments (like United, Mid Continent, RC allen) can outcost the equivalent glass by many hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars. Of course you can get cheapo round instruments, but to paraphrase the old saying "the bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweet taste of low price".

Cheers,
Stein
 
My favorite steam gauge
Airspeed14.jpg


Unfortunately, the range doesn't fit my RV and it would be hard to see underneath the wing!

I'm just VFR and I love my all glass panel but there are times when I have to remind myself to look out the window and "get my head out of my GLASS!"
 
I must be the guy with the worst luck then. I have one large(isn) screen in my rocket and other redundant backup flight instruments. The autopilot is separate but linked to the EFFIS, meaning that it can operate without the main screen.
Once a year for the last five years I have had to send my EFFIS back for repairs. The screen goes black, the screen goes fuzzy, for the last year I flew without the data card as the card reader connections went south. This meant no engine data at a time when I was having engine issues.
The service has been beyond reproach, with fast turn around times, but for the life of me I can not explain why me when everyone else appears to be trouble free. The EFFIS also includes my engine instruments and thus without it I am not flying. OF course if the failure happened in the air I would just land at the most convient airport but I would not really be able to take off again.
A simple oil pressure light is going to added this year, I already have a back up rpm, mp and volt meter, thus giving me enough to at least fly.
In hind site I should have put in two smaller screens, but that ends up being even more money, and on it goes.
There is no going back in time but I cannot give reliability as a benefit to glass panels.
 
Last edited:
Anecdotal, but another data point:

TSO'd stuff that failed:
GNS-430W GPS board failed within the first year, repaired under warranty
Trig XPDR (sold as Dynon SV-XPDR-261) within about a year, replaced under warranty

Non-TSO'd stuff that failed:
Skyview 10" EFIS screen freeze due to board manufacturing error (repaired under recall/warranty)
Plane Power Alternator after about a year and a half (VR failed, leaving the alternator always ON, repaired under warranty)

Stuff that hasn't failed (just under 400 hours now):
D6; GMA-340; SL-40; Dynon ADS-B in, ADAHRS, A/P servos, EMS module, ARINC module.

So it's about evenly split between TSO'd and non-TSO'd "things", both for failures and for non-failures.

It does feel like I've gotten past all the infant mortality problems and other issues, and all systems are performing nominally now (and have been for a while now). Knock on wood. :)
 
I'm glad you mentioned that about the MGL XTreme because I'm considering buying one partly for backup purposes but can't find much information on MGL's stuff. (Lots of information on Dynon components failing though.)
 
good to know

I'm glad I found this thread - I was reading some complaints about high repair bills for some of the glass systems - though I'm sure the old steam stuff is not cheap to fix either. Also - I've never seen a steam gauge ADI, HSI, or DG that didn't need help recovering from just doing unusual attitudes!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top