What's new
Van's Air Force

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

GRT vs MGL

pylotttt

Active Member
I am going to replace my steam gauges with glass and have narrowed it down to GRT or MGL.

I have ruled out Garmin and I would love to have Dynon/AFS, but their cost is too high for my pocketbook.

MGL has given me a price that is an easier pill to swallow, but I am still waiting for the quote from GRT.

I would love to hear pro's and con's for both.
I live in Arkansas and would like to get to see a real system before I commit.

Is there anyone in or near Arkansas that I can get with to try your systems?

Thanks,
Rob
 
I've had GRT in 2 airplanes and also plan GRT for my current project.

Their pricing, products, and support are excellent. Another thing I like about GRT is that they play well with other systems.
 
Last edited:
You might find you get a lot more responses if you update the title to read GRT instead of DRT...

What do you want to install in your aircraft - what functionality? Just an EFIS? EFIS + engine monitor? EFIS + engine monitor + autopilot? Do you want to have the ability to use the EFIS to control remote-mounted radios? Do you want the EFIS to display ADSB-IN data or not?

These are a bunch of questions you need to answer before you go shopping for a particular brand of hardware.

Off the bat I would recommend in favor of GRT if for no reason other than geographic proximity. South Africa is a long way from where you live.

I have a bias to which I readily admit; it's hard to hide the fact that I have three GRT EFIS devices in one of my airplanes and one Dynon in my other airplane. While I've poked buttons on MGL equipment at Oshkosh it wasn't until a few weeks ago that I had the opportunity to fly behind an MGL EFIS.

I find the graphics on the newer MGL screen very nice in terms of crispness and color but I wasn't too keen on how some of the information was presented and the "button-ology" required to get to the information I needed.

GRT button-ology is very much a learned skill - it's not completely intuitive. But the up-side is that GRT makes excellent use of both buttons and knobs in their user interface. Now that I've been flying GRT for a while it has become pretty much second nature.

The ability of GRT gear to interface with equipment made by other companies is pretty much industry-leading, as are their innovations like presenting FLIR imagery overlaid with EFIS data, HUD data, free Android flight planning app etc etc.

At the end of the day the answer is always the same - you gotta fly the glass before you buy it.

I recently met a fellow building an aircraft... he had opted to go with a GRT Sport 10.1 EFIS but had never flown behind ANY glass before. A couple of days ago I got him up for a flight in the late afternoon which morphed into evening and darkness. He was like a kid in a candy store with the EFIS in front of him and seemed happy with his choice of the GRT Sport 10.1 EFIS if it was anything like the glass installed in my airplane.
 
It's a VFR panel. I want the 10.1", 1 remote com w/head, 2 axis autopilot, gps, full engine monitoring, I will use my existing Garmin 327 x-pondr, ADSB in/out, traffic/weather, synthetic vision. May look at putting a second efis in when finances allow.
 
GRT VS MGL

I have a MGL 10" Challenger (front seat) and 8" Explorer (back seat) in my RV8 and 2 systems in our RV6, both integrated with MGL radios, autopilot and GNS430W and UAVAVONIX ADSB and an infinity stick grip for EFIS and aircraft function control. All work fine. I like the ability to create my own custom EFIS screen designs for each plane. I also have 4 little video cameras looking in different directions in my 8 that are separately selectable in both the back and front seat and displayed when desired on each EFIS. Lots of flexibility with MGL avionics. If your interested I can send you my 8 POH it explains how things are integrated. One interesting thing is I can record 430 ARINC 429 inflight data on the EFIS then play it back in the fully functional MGL PC simulator/screen designer and use this data to help in new screen designs or modify current ones. Pretty unique. Last thing the MGL boots up from no power to fully on in about 1 second (yes 1 second)!!!
 
MGL in a Pitts here.

- Bootup and fix acquisition time is phenomenal (like nothing I've ever seen).
- If you don't like the built-in screens, the displays are almost infinitely customisable in terms of how & where you display information
- Works with a lot of common 3rd party avionics
- the can bus interface makes it super easy to connect all the MGL devices together with the prefab harnesses. Just literally one big daisy chain.

Disclaimer: I have not flown with GRT. I did consider them but they cannot fully support my 9 cylinder setup for engine monitoring. They're 6 thermocouple inputs short and although I believe they once had plans to address that, I'm pretty sure it never happened.
 
I am going to replace my steam gauges with glass and have narrowed it down to GRT or MGL.

I have ruled out Garmin and I would love to have Dynon/AFS, but their cost is too high for my pocketbook.

MGL has given me a price that is an easier pill to swallow, but I am still waiting for the quote from GRT.

I would love to hear pro's and con's for both.
I live in Arkansas and would like to get to see a real system before I commit.

Is there anyone in or near Arkansas that I can get with to try your systems?

Thanks,
Rob
Now you know. After all these years and Dynon has not addressed the reflection on their screens....
dynon reflection.JPG

And before 2010 MGL solved the reflection problem 13 years ago....
mgl xtreme.JPG
I am sure Dynon is an excellent product. But, reflection on screens is just not acceptable in 2023 if you want a product that provides information needed without having to shade the screen from reflection.

https://vansairforce.net/community/showpost.php?p=1475708&postcount=6
 
I thought I was the only RV person with MGL avionics. The interface is simple. You run way less wires than the other guys. I think the firewall forward mounted RDAC that eliminates running all the engine sensor wires back into the cockpit is the biggest plus.

The downside is technical support and documentation. There appears to be only one application engineer. I have a host of maddening minor issues that have dragged on forever without resolution.
 
It's a VFR panel. I want the 10.1", 1 remote com w/head, 2 axis autopilot, gps, full engine monitoring, I will use my existing Garmin 327 x-pondr, ADSB in/out, traffic/weather, synthetic vision. May look at putting a second efis in when finances allow.

So here’s one of the questions to ask: Will my GRT efis display the traffic/wx from my adsb box? Will the MGL? These days so much stuff is interconnected that whenever possible you should think of the entire panel as one interconnected system, and see what works with what.
 
I dont have an EFS, but I have been very happy with the MGL components I have installed in two RV's. Im a big fan.
 
GRT

When I bought my -9A it had a Horizon WS and an EIS 4000. I replaced the WS with a Horizon EX, which also required a new magnetometer. It talks to a Garmin 430W.

I really like GRT generally and the EX in particular (which from what I can tell is very much like a Sport EX, but in a different box). I've had excellent support from GRT, and they have very customer friendly policies when it comes to things like upgrading boxes, etc. Far superior to Garmin in that regard. And the bang for the buck is quite good.

The one place GRT could use improvement, IMHO, is in their written materials. Manuals etc. are Not Great in terms of organization, clarity, and scope. I don't know enough about Dynon to compare GRT in that area, however.

I am going to replace my steam gauges with glass and have narrowed it down to GRT or MGL.

I have ruled out Garmin and I would love to have Dynon/AFS, but their cost is too high for my pocketbook.

MGL has given me a price that is an easier pill to swallow, but I am still waiting for the quote from GRT.

I would love to hear pro's and con's for both.
I live in Arkansas and would like to get to see a real system before I commit.

Is there anyone in or near Arkansas that I can get with to try your systems?

Thanks,
Rob
 
The one place GRT could use improvement, IMHO, is in their written materials. Manuals etc. are Not Great in terms of organization, clarity, and scope. I don't know enough about Dynon to compare GRT in that area, however.

I definitely agree GRT’s documentation is “not great.” In fact I would say it’s really, really bad because you have to explore numerous GRT product manuals to figure out how to install, setup and operate their product. Unlike, Garmin there is a desert of “how to’ videos to help you install and learn your system. Having said this I must also say their products are truly good, sturdy, and integrate very well with a “lot” of third party avionics. Their product pricing is very competitive but be advised a lot of avionics shops do not like to work on GRT panels because of the documentation issues.

Having said all the above negatives I am glad my panel is basically GRT. However my learning curve was painful!
 
I would always go GRT over Dynon, but never had MGL. Dynon lost a customer over their extremely pspor service of a broken EFIS, broke from the day I recieved it and they refused to fix it. 3 months old and they send it back broke.
 
Yeah I was being diplomatic…

The manuals are indeed really, really bad.

Agree on all.

I definitely agree GRT’s documentation is “not great.” In fact I would say it’s really, really bad because you have to explore numerous GRT product manuals to figure out how to install, setup and operate their product. Unlike, Garmin there is a desert of “how to’ videos to help you install and learn your system. Having said this I must also say their products are truly good, sturdy, and integrate very well with a “lot” of third party avionics. Their product pricing is very competitive but be advised a lot of avionics shops do not like to work on GRT panels because of the documentation issues.

Having said all the above negatives I am glad my panel is basically GRT. However my learning curve was painful!
 
I thought I was the only RV person with MGL avionics. The interface is simple. You run way less wires than the other guys. I think the firewall forward mounted RDAC that eliminates running all the engine sensor wires back into the cockpit is the biggest plus.

The downside is technical support and documentation. There appears to be only one application engineer. I have a host of maddening minor issues that have dragged on forever without resolution.

The RADAC for installing everything is great, unless the previous owner installed the RADAC inside the panel right beside the EMS :(

Yes, technical support is lacking but at least it starts up in a second and works.
 
I recently installed GRT Sport EX on my plane to replace old TruTrak EFIS - reasonably easy installation for a mostly serial interface.
After using it for some time one thing i don’t really like is lack of any warning range on their EMS alerts/displays - it is either green ( we are good ) or blinking red ( take action now ) type of deal …
 
I've had GRT in 2 airplanes and also plan GRT for my current project.

Their pricing, products, and support are excellent. Another thing I like about GRT is that they play well with other systems.

+ 1 for GRT. I have use GRT for 12 years and upgraded to the latest.
 
After using it for some time one thing i don’t really like is lack of any warning range on their EMS alerts/displays - it is either green ( we are good ) or blinking red ( take action now ) type of deal …

I have a GRT Hx which is fed engine data thru the GRT engine monitor. You can set independent limits on both units, e.g., Hx CHT display starts blinking, means "CHT on this cylinder is getting high, take a look at it" (limit set at yellow line). But if the engine monitor master caution comes on, it means "fix this NOW" (limit set at red line).
 
I have a GRT Hx which is fed engine data thru the GRT engine monitor. You can set independent limits on both units, e.g., Hx CHT display starts blinking, means "CHT on this cylinder is getting high, take a look at it" (limit set at yellow line). But if the engine monitor master caution comes on, it means "fix this NOW" (limit set at red line).

Yes I was advised about this setup as a possible solution but it wont work for me because i have a remote EIS which does not support separate limits - i wish they just added warning ranges - should be pretty easy :)
 
Back
Top