What's new
Van's Air Force

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

MGL or GRT

supercub

I'm New Here
I'm trying to decided on a EFIS........8.4 size. I've looked online and have narrowed it down to these two companies. The GRT Sport SX is slightly less money, which I like..........but the MGL Explorer Lite is touch screen........not sure how much of an advantage that is. So I'm looking for any comments regarding the two units.
I'l be adding ADSB system, but not for a while yet. Thanks for you input.
Brian
 
I have the GRT HX and an HS, and am convinced I made the best choice. So is everyone else, who chose something different!!
1. I regularly fly in airplanes with a Garmin 650. I just don't like the touch screens. I use the knobs whenever I can. Seems like more heads-down time to me, and half the time I touch the wrong thing (any turbulence at all). But maybe I'm just "touch-challenged"!
2. I have to be honest: I prefer to support a US company over a foreign one. While they do have a US distributor, I wonder what support would be like if you need some odd-ball part?
3. If you do not have a transponder yet, the Trig TT-22 plus GRT gps is a cost effective way of getting ADSB-out. If you do have a transponder already, then look at the Echo. For ADSB-in, GRT supports a bunch of different stuff. I happen to have a SkyRadar D2, works fine, displays traffic and wx on the GRT HX and an iPad at the same time.

If you want to fly up to LVK and look at my GRT stuff, just let me know.
 
I Don't Like Touch Screens

I have GRT EFIS's in my RV9A and find that they do everything I need and more. For me, buttons are easier to use, especially when bumpy, and being OCD, I hate the fingerprints on touch screens. Everything seems to be going touch screen, but, I'll try to avoid going there for as long as I can. It probably comes down to a personal preference.

Also, I have found GRT's support to be really superior.
 
I have the GRT Sport EX, the Safe-Fly-GPS, and TT22. Even though I have very little time on the complete system, so far, I love it!
 
Last edited:
Man, touch screens are horrible in bumpy weather. I've got a Dynon 180, (buttons), a Garmin 496, (buttons), and then there's my Nexus 9 Android---touch screen. I start getting a few bumps, and I can't make the darn thing do what I want it to do.:eek:
 
Love my GRT. Touch screen wasn't available at the time. I use an IPad in cockpit for maps and airport info. That's enough touch screen for me! Too hard to use in turbulence.

Fingerprints would be another annoyance.

Bevan.
 
I installed the MGL first in one plane. When it came time to do the RV I went G3X. I?m still trying to work MGL issues with the company....
 
Not many opinions from people that have had both. Most people justify their decision by saying the manufacturer they chose is the best. One of the people who has answered the op's original question has made a career out of bashing a manufacturer rather than take numerous opportunities presented by the manufacturer to fix his problem.
 
Not sure if the op is familiar but last I looked, I believe both had their own user forums which could be tapped for more information.
I know grt is compatible with the ads-b I intended to install. I haven't researched if the mgl would be. What ads-b does the op intend to use?
I like touchscreen on an EFB which I run but disliked it on the GTN I had. If I intended to run other components (such as comm) from the EFIS I might want touchscreen on an EFIS but I don't use remote avionics nor wish to have a single point of failure in my system so I don't miss the lack of touchscreen on my EFIS.
I don't have experience with mgl. I do have experience with grt and it has been solid.
 
Is suggest you call a company that has installed both, like SteinAir. I think you may find they have formed some opinions of both based on experience.
My experience with GRT has been great, and I don?t know anyone who would tell you otherwise.
Tim Andres
 
You need to figure out the mission. MGL iEFIS systems are pretty much limitless when it comes to programming. You can design your own screens, add just about anything you can imagine on the screens, alter your screens as your needs change, etc, etc.. MGL has way more inputs and outputs than anything on the market and no add on after add on costs. With that said, there is a learning curve to using the design features and takes time, like building your own computer and loading in all the software and configurations that suit you. The docs aren't very good and missing info. If you want an EFIS to run out of the box and don't have an interest in customizing it for you than MGL is not a good choice. It does come loaded and ready to go but you miss out on it's real power. BTW, the touch screen is more intuitive than buttonology, though MGL has both, and you can't see the fingerprints unless the system is off. They wipe right off with a damp microfiber. Download the Sim from the MGL site and try it. If you do a site search for MGL there's lots of MGL threads.
 
The MGL is not only a touchscreen. There are buttons. I understand that GRT owners like their units, and that is great. But it is not evidence that they are better, which was the original question.

It would be nice to hear from MGL users to see what they think.
 
I guess I should have said that I installed a dual MGL iEFIS system about 3 years ago. I have used other systems, Garmin, Dynon, GRT, etc and they all have their attributes but as I said in my last post, these are mission different. My system has 9 screens on each EFIS, I've custom designed many screens, gauges, alarms, in's & out's, etc. I've interface my system with an Android computer. Most everything I've custom added to my MGL could not have been added to any other EFIS. It was a learning curve and it helps to be techie.

finished.jpg
 
I installed a 10" mgl lite screen last winter and have been happy. For the cost the mgl cannot be beat. I also added on the smaller mgl extreme and have a garmin gtr200 radio connected to the main screen. So far so good.
 
I have no experience with MGL equipment. Then again I had no experience with GRT or Dynon equipment when I first installed it.

Many here have provided excellent advice. Understand your mission. Understand your personal capabilities. Then go through the work required to understand how each device will or won't fit your mission and capabilities. Nobody can make the decision for you or even provide you meaningful advice unless they also know intimately your mission and capabilities.

With all that having been said, I found the Dynon D100 drop-dead easy to install, configure and fly. I'm sure their more modern product offerings, being more software-intensive, are likely not quite so easy to configure or master in flight.

GRT makes good stuff, but their documentation is a horrid Achilles heel. Likewise, their deep menu structure requires some getting used to. "Button-ology" always takes getting used to, and its only once people have become accustomed to their units' particular user interface that they feel comfortable enough to recommend it on forums such as this one.

MGL may have advantages and disadvantages. I know I really like the idea of the RDAC sitting somewhere that eliminates running many wires through the firewall. I also enjoy that they are embracing the open-source movement, as is GRT in terms of supporting more and more external off-brand devices.

Both MGL and GRT have had their owners participating in this discussion forum so that should tell you the companies are fully dedicated to this market.
 
I guess I should have said that I installed a dual MGL iEFIS system about 3 years ago. I have used other systems, Garmin, Dynon, GRT, etc and they all have their attributes but as I said in my last post, these are mission different. My system has 9 screens on each EFIS, I've custom designed many screens, gauges, alarms, in's & out's, etc. I've interface my system with an Android computer. Most everything I've custom added to my MGL could not have been added to any other EFIS. It was a learning curve and it helps to be techie.

finished.jpg

I probably should have mentioned, I'm looking for an easy to use unit. I'm not a techie, and would rather spend my time flying then reading instructions on how to use a complicated unit. The easier to use unit is probably best for me.
 
The MGL is easy to use and easy to physically install and connect the components. Cannot speak for GRT.

The technical stuff comes when you want to customise your screen setup and inputs/outputs beyond the defaults, which MGL allow you to do to an extent which is not possible with other vendors. If that's not your cup of tea, you can just use their defaults for a 4 or 6 cylinder, which are still well designed, plus there are some simple menu customisations you can do.

I agonised over the decision to go with GRT or MGL who both have screens around the 8 inch size which would fit neatly in my space-deprived panel. I went with MGL, partly because the screen customisation I wanted for my 9 cylinder radial was more than GRT would handle and GRT still requires some compromises to do 9 cylinder engine monitoring which MGL does not.

I'm also reasonably computer tech savvy so the tinkering didn't bother me too much, and Matt at MGL USA is really good with his support response (I believe GRT are too). But as I said - you don't have to tinker with it if you don't want to.
 
Last edited:
I probably should have mentioned, I'm looking for an easy to use unit. I'm not a techie, and would rather spend my time flying then reading instructions on how to use a complicated unit. The easier to use unit is probably best for me.

I would advise against MGL then, and that's from a happy MGL owner. The instructions can be too technical and difficult to read; not to mention very voluminous due to all the features. If your not interested in the customization I think you'd likely be happier with something else.

With that said, if you're willing to put the time in up front, it has many neat features for a very attractive price. It is nice to be able to set each screen exactly how you want it; and once set I don't find it more complicated than other systems. I haven't changed much of anything for 4 or more years.

I'm not sure if you were aware that the free MGL software is a fully functional sim of the device as well, so you can play around with it to see if it meets your needs without spending anything.
 
Decision will fall to the OP, clearly. But he certainly can't go wrong by choosing GRT. They have a great product with top notch factory support. :)
 
Brien, give Matt a call at MGL (they are almost in your back yard) and ask him about your needs. They have been a very solid company to deal with.

If you want engine monitoring in your EFIS, there is none easier to hook up than MGL.
 
One thing is for sure... No EFIS is plug and play, they all need to be configured for your aircraft and preferences. They all program different, some do a lot more than others and some are fast and some are slow. If you can see some in person installed and running that might sway you. I have used and programmed different EFIS's and they are all unique. I always find that there's a compromise and limitations in each one's functions. The iEFIS is fast, it's the only system that has a self calibrating compass, does not use proprietary components and you don't have buy more **** to interface with anything. It's 232, 429, CAN, analog, digital, gray code, NTSC/PAL video in, VGA out, AOA, can run 4 RDAC's, backup AHRS, backup iBOX, ECB's, raster maps, more... I can't begin to state the functions I do with my setup that could not have been done with any other system. But they will run right out of the box with a few days of easy configuration. The free windows simulator is the same software you use to learn and design the iEFIS. It's on the MGL site, it's free.
 
First off, Matt is quick to answer any questions in my experience. Good guy!

The MGL installation is easy in my opinion. I temporarily have the Challenger in my RV6 until I have time to install the Explorer that will actually fit the panel. The Challenger and the EXtreme is for a M14p powered Moose I've been building forever. Almost done with the wiring in the Moose. Engine monitoring, MGL's V6 radio, compass and AHARS... Very simple I thought. RS232 for radio, transponder... control. I would like the schematics to be clearer or drawn out more like a typical schematic tho.

The menus are easy to setup for the sensors for both the EXtreme and the IEFIS. Very adaptable to many different types of sensors. The manuals do a good job explaining the setup for the different types in my opinion.

Flying with the Challenger took some getting used to as with any new navigator but now I like it!

It didn't even take a day to get the Challenger Lite working as a navigator with AHARS for the RV. No engine monitor through the Challenger on the RV yet. Power, ground, pitot, static for the Challenger. CAN bus between the EFIS and compass module. Power and ground to the compass module... done. Not one hiccup yet in about 60 hours as a navigator. AHARS is stable. Once in a while the AHARS will get a little goofy in pitch while taxiing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top