Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
AFS 5600 x Dynon Skyview
- Thread starter cristianomc
- Start date
- Status
cristianomc
Member
Got it. Thank you!
cristianomc
Member
Man, if we don?t talk with the correct people we get wrong infos... I didn?t know that. But and about the waypoints? Thank you!
RV10inOz
Well Known Member
As for your panel, looks great.
Now this next comment may offend some viewers....so hide all sharp objects
It is my opinion, far too many builders are building panles for planes the size of a Boeing or Airbus, and not one for an RVx. Even for IFR operations, this is a single pilot aeroplane.
We designed ours very carefully to be not only ergonomic for the single pilot, but everything is laid out in terms of importance from left to right. For example Pitot Heat is closer than cabin lights as it is more important/frequently used than cabin lights.
I am not saying this is the only way, but have a look at how we built ours and think about the logic we used, and maybe apply this to your future builds.
Walt
Well Known Member
As for your panel, looks great.
Now this next comment may offend some viewers....so hide all sharp objects
It is my opinion, far too many builders are building panles for planes the size of a Boeing or Airbus, and not one for an RVx. Even for IFR operations, this is a single pilot aeroplane.
We designed ours very carefully to be not only ergonomic for the single pilot, but everything is laid out in terms of importance from left to right. For example Pitot Heat is closer than cabin lights as it is more important/frequently used than cabin lights.
I am not saying this is the only way, but have a look at how we built ours and think about the logic we used, and maybe apply this to your future builds.
Very simple yet functional design you have there, I like it
cristianomc
Member
Great panel!
The Dynon support guy messaged me to let me know that the new AFS units are also x86 based. I confirmed this with Rob Hickman. I wonder why they moved away from ARM. I really liked how the unit could be passively cooled and had minimal power requirements. Rob, can you tell us a little about the engineering decision behind this? Perhaps it's less expensive, or more powerful, though you can get some pretty stinking fast ARM cpus these days.
Thanks,
schu
This isn't true, if you look at the skyview network cabling in the documentation they daisy chain the skyview network cables and run both ARHS units through a splitter.
If one of the skyview network cables gets pinched and it shorts the TX or RX wire to ground you could potentially loose both AHRS units and your autopilot for all displays all at the same time. Same if the power wires are shorted.
With EFIS and autopilot systems that have the AHRS and batteries integrated you cannot have that happen. A pinch in any wire in the system won't bring the entire thing down since the batteries and sensors are internal.
Look at the dynon D10 system, it works with absolutely nothing plugged into it (though you could loose whatever aiding it needs), I feel this is a bit more fault tolerant than the skyview which does depend on the cabling.
Don't forget about the software redundancy as well as different hardware specs. It's much less likely to have a software bug affect all of your systems or a heat issue cause problems with systems from multiple vendors. If you have two skyview systems installed then it's much more likely to have a software bug or an over heating issue effect both at the same time.
The Skyview is less expensive and integrates, but it's not ever going to be as fault tolerant as autonomous systems from different vendors that work together or alone. One of the competitions EFIS units combined with a tru track will give you completely different AHRS units that cannot be killed with any single cabling issue as well as different hardware specs and software. The odds of you loosing your EFIS and a trutrack are WAY lower than the odds of you loosing both of your skyview systems given the common software and cabling.
Also, last I checked the dynon doesn't have geo referenced approach plates or vertical coupling. For these reasons I feel that the other vendors provide a better IFR solution.
All this said, I think the dynon is a fine solution and wouldn't have a problem flying behind one at all if the install is well done, however I don't agree with the technical argument that they are just as fault tolerant. I write software for a living and know that software that deals with fault tolerance adds another mode of failure to the system. If you have another complete system that you can manually switch to, that tends to be much more stable if you can live with the downtime waiting for the tech to switch things over, which in an airplane isn't a big deal.
These comments are worth exactly what you paid for them.... nothing.... so if you disagree that's fine. Fly what you like and be happy.
schu
Brantel
Well Known Member
I can "what if" a dozen failure modes that can take out any of these systems.
Your understanding of the Dynon Skyview setup is not correct. You left out the fact that there is a redundant DSAB bus and each screen has its own backup power. There is also no TX or RX wires on the Dynon DSAB bus. It is a 3 wire half duplex RS-485 differential based network (bi-directional)..
Anyway I could have been talking about GRT and their integrated AP...
By the way the TT AP does not have a AHRS in it.
Oh and #2 above does have a fully Internally integrated stand alone EFIS included. Lose all the Skyview or GRT stuff and you still have a full working EFIS running different code on different hardware.
The point is there is always more than one way to skin a cat and provide the same or better redundancy. The beauty of it is we can make up our own minds on what we want to purchase. The problem comes in when people provide bad, misleading, obsolete or just plain wrong information to those seeking answers.
My advice to others is do your own research and stop asking others for their biased opinions.....there is nothing wrong with any of the mainstream choices available right now. Find the one that meets your mission and budget and be happy!
Your understanding of the Dynon Skyview setup is not correct. You left out the fact that there is a redundant DSAB bus and each screen has its own backup power. There is also no TX or RX wires on the Dynon DSAB bus. It is a 3 wire half duplex RS-485 differential based network (bi-directional)..
Anyway I could have been talking about GRT and their integrated AP...
By the way the TT AP does not have a AHRS in it.
Oh and #2 above does have a fully Internally integrated stand alone EFIS included. Lose all the Skyview or GRT stuff and you still have a full working EFIS running different code on different hardware.
The point is there is always more than one way to skin a cat and provide the same or better redundancy. The beauty of it is we can make up our own minds on what we want to purchase. The problem comes in when people provide bad, misleading, obsolete or just plain wrong information to those seeking answers.
My advice to others is do your own research and stop asking others for their biased opinions.....there is nothing wrong with any of the mainstream choices available right now. Find the one that meets your mission and budget and be happy!
Last edited:
cristianomc
Member
Almost done
I?m loving to plan my Explorer panel but I confess, I?m also exausted...
Well, between Dynon and AFS I decided to go with AFS. But I checked the G500 option and the price diference on the 2 configs below is not big, so I need to decide this. I changed my price tag to $42k because importing taxes to Brazil. I also find the Cobham (or S-tec or Chelton) very good, but could not find any price for the IDU-680, etc. Does anyone knows about this brand? Your toughts are welcome! Thank you all!
#1: Garmin:
A) TSO instruments:
1- Davtron Instruments 811B-12 Clock/Chronometer - $399.00
2- Sirs NV-2C-4000 Compass (blue lighted) - $225.00
3- Dynon Pitot Probe Heated - $450.00
TOTAL: $1,074.00
B) Non TSO instruments:
1- Westach Quad Gauge 3 1/8" Exhaust Gas Temperature 3AQ2 - $361.00
2- Westach Quad Gauge 3 1/8" Cylinder Head Temperature 3AQ1 - $308.00
TOTAL: $669.00
C) TSO antennas:
1- Comant Ci 120-400 VOR/LOC/GPS antenna - $997.00
2- Comant Ci 2480-400 VHF/GPS/XM antenna - $987.00
3- Comant Ci 105-6 DME/XPDR antenna - $273.95
TOTAL: $2,257.95
D) TSO avionics:
1- Garmin SL-30 COM - $3,679.00
2- Garmin G500 - $13,989.00
3- Garmin GAD43 - $2,650.00
4- PS Engineering Audio Panel PMA-8000BT - $1,795.00
5- Garmin GTX-327 - $1,795.00
TOTAL: $23,908.00
E) Non TSO avionics:
1- Vertical Power VP-200 (with cables) - $7,045.00
2- Trutrak Digiflight II VSGV - $3,850.00
3- Trutrak Autotrim - $325.00
TOTAL: $11,220.00
GLOBAL TOTAL: $39,128.95
#2: AFS:
A) TSO instruments:
1- Davtron Instruments 811B-12 Clock/Chronometer - $399.00
2- Sirs NV-2C-4000 Compass (blue lighted) - $225.00
3- Dynon Pitot Probe Heated - $450.00
TOTAL: $1,074.00
B) Non TSO instruments:
1- Westach Quad Gauge 3 1/8" Exhaust Gas Temperature 3AQ2 - $361.00
2- Westach Quad Gauge 3 1/8" Cylinder Head Temperature 3AQ1 - $308.00
TOTAL: $669.00
C) TSO antennas:
1- Comant Ci 120-400 VOR/LOC/GPS antenna - $997.00
2- Comant Ci 2480-400 VHF/GPS/XM antenna - $987.00
3- Comant Ci 105-6 DME/XPDR antenna - $273.95
TOTAL: $2,257.95
D) TSO avionics:
1- Garmin SL-30 COM - $3,679.00
2- Aspen EDF 1000 Pro - $9,995.00
3- PS Engineering Audio Panel PMA-8000BT - $1,795.00
4- Garmin GTX-327 - $1,795.00
TOTAL: $17,264.00
E) Non TSO avionics:
1- Vertical Power VP-X (with cables) - $1,789.00
2- Trutrak Digiflight II VSGV - $3,850.00
3- Trutrak Autotrim - $325.00
4- Dynon Skyview-GPS-250 GPS Receiver and Antenna - $200.00
5- Advanced Flight Systems AF-5600 package - $14,100.00
TOTAL: $20,264.00
GLOBAL TOTAL: $41,528.95
I?m loving to plan my Explorer panel but I confess, I?m also exausted...
Well, between Dynon and AFS I decided to go with AFS. But I checked the G500 option and the price diference on the 2 configs below is not big, so I need to decide this. I changed my price tag to $42k because importing taxes to Brazil. I also find the Cobham (or S-tec or Chelton) very good, but could not find any price for the IDU-680, etc. Does anyone knows about this brand? Your toughts are welcome! Thank you all!
#1: Garmin:
A) TSO instruments:
1- Davtron Instruments 811B-12 Clock/Chronometer - $399.00
2- Sirs NV-2C-4000 Compass (blue lighted) - $225.00
3- Dynon Pitot Probe Heated - $450.00
TOTAL: $1,074.00
B) Non TSO instruments:
1- Westach Quad Gauge 3 1/8" Exhaust Gas Temperature 3AQ2 - $361.00
2- Westach Quad Gauge 3 1/8" Cylinder Head Temperature 3AQ1 - $308.00
TOTAL: $669.00
C) TSO antennas:
1- Comant Ci 120-400 VOR/LOC/GPS antenna - $997.00
2- Comant Ci 2480-400 VHF/GPS/XM antenna - $987.00
3- Comant Ci 105-6 DME/XPDR antenna - $273.95
TOTAL: $2,257.95
D) TSO avionics:
1- Garmin SL-30 COM - $3,679.00
2- Garmin G500 - $13,989.00
3- Garmin GAD43 - $2,650.00
4- PS Engineering Audio Panel PMA-8000BT - $1,795.00
5- Garmin GTX-327 - $1,795.00
TOTAL: $23,908.00
E) Non TSO avionics:
1- Vertical Power VP-200 (with cables) - $7,045.00
2- Trutrak Digiflight II VSGV - $3,850.00
3- Trutrak Autotrim - $325.00
TOTAL: $11,220.00
GLOBAL TOTAL: $39,128.95
#2: AFS:
A) TSO instruments:
1- Davtron Instruments 811B-12 Clock/Chronometer - $399.00
2- Sirs NV-2C-4000 Compass (blue lighted) - $225.00
3- Dynon Pitot Probe Heated - $450.00
TOTAL: $1,074.00
B) Non TSO instruments:
1- Westach Quad Gauge 3 1/8" Exhaust Gas Temperature 3AQ2 - $361.00
2- Westach Quad Gauge 3 1/8" Cylinder Head Temperature 3AQ1 - $308.00
TOTAL: $669.00
C) TSO antennas:
1- Comant Ci 120-400 VOR/LOC/GPS antenna - $997.00
2- Comant Ci 2480-400 VHF/GPS/XM antenna - $987.00
3- Comant Ci 105-6 DME/XPDR antenna - $273.95
TOTAL: $2,257.95
D) TSO avionics:
1- Garmin SL-30 COM - $3,679.00
2- Aspen EDF 1000 Pro - $9,995.00
3- PS Engineering Audio Panel PMA-8000BT - $1,795.00
4- Garmin GTX-327 - $1,795.00
TOTAL: $17,264.00
E) Non TSO avionics:
1- Vertical Power VP-X (with cables) - $1,789.00
2- Trutrak Digiflight II VSGV - $3,850.00
3- Trutrak Autotrim - $325.00
4- Dynon Skyview-GPS-250 GPS Receiver and Antenna - $200.00
5- Advanced Flight Systems AF-5600 package - $14,100.00
TOTAL: $20,264.00
GLOBAL TOTAL: $41,528.95
I would recommend to consider running the same numbers with GRT and compare it to your option 2
Their systems is extremely capable, reliable and redundancy of dual AHAR system is just awesome but you can't go wrong with either option as AFS is a very great system if IFR is part of the design.
Their systems is extremely capable, reliable and redundancy of dual AHAR system is just awesome but you can't go wrong with either option as AFS is a very great system if IFR is part of the design.
cristianomc
Member
AFS have a bigger screen and it also have internal AHRS and engine monitor on each display, correct? Also they have all those buttons that make easy and quick to interact to, right?
At first I prefer AFS. But, convince me about GRT!
Many of those things are rather subjective and as a matter of personal preference so I am not sure if I can convince you or even want to.
But I have more time behind GRT and know how easy and accurately they are to operate, while emphasizing that I think you will not go wrong at all with either product.
As a technical stand point, I like the dual AHAR of GRT that constantly runs checks against each of the AHARs and if one them has invalid data, it can be marked down/switched to the good AHAR for both screens. I don?t know if AFS does this cross check between the AHARs but if it does not, then this would be a big plus for GRT. After all, in case of conflict and in IFR, how would you know which one has the good data.
Case in point, about 3 weeks ago I was flying with a friend that has a two screen EIFS (without mentioning the brand) and one of the EIFS that was on PFD was showing a slight left bank angle (erroneously and we didn't know) which he kept correcting yet getting off course. We didn?t know about the error in the bank till he switched his second EIFS from map to PFD (for other reason) and then we realized that there is an error in bank on the first EIFS There was no error or warning in the system to show discrepancy between the two EIFS.
On the subjective items, I prefer not to have the array of buttons as they take precious real estate off the panel. I don?t remember which plane your building and how much space you have there but it is of a limited space and I rather not lose it for that use. In my case, many of those buttons don?t get used often enough so lack of having them to become a hassle and those that gets used often are there within one or two touch.
As for the engine monitor goes, those are adds-on HW piece and you can do the same thing with GRT or display one source of engine data on both EIFS and on the EIS separately.
I hope this be a help and best of luck and wishes
cristianomc
Member
My plane is a Inpaer Explorer (http://www.inpaer.com/aeronave.asp?mod=Explorer).. 4 seat powered by a Lycoming YIO-390 (210hp). In a near future I hope to be posting here to get your opinions about a RV-10 IFR panel!
I know that the perfect EFIS or the perfect airplane doesn?t exist, but the one that fits on your budget, tastes and needs. Also there isn?t a failure free EFIS but some configs that make more dificult you to be lost in the sky.
What is attracting me in G500 is its reliability because it?s a TSO equipment. As it is, its screen is more clean and easy to navigate when compared to an experimental EFIS that put everything inside seeming that there is no logic in the distribution of flight data.
But, for the experimental side, its customization is great and that?s one of the reasons why it?s not TSO. Also its price.
I think that it needs a kind of "insanity" to fly a experimental single piston engine in IMC. I want a IFR panel simply to be able to land in IMC in case of getting this kind of situation during a flight. So, if I have a IFR panel, and even a TSO airplane, I would not take off in this situation. But the brazilian flight regulation agency have some rules that is unlogical, like the need of a TSO GPS to do a GPS based IMC approach and not needing it to do a GPS based IMC enroute flight! And because the rules I need a TSO EFIS to be used together 2 others great quality ones, non TSO, spending more money for what will not assure I will not be lost in the sky and for what isn?t really necessary.
What we need to remember, at least myself, is that one of the reasons we are in the experimental aircraft world is that it?s cheaper to buy and operate than a entire TSO aircraft. This is why I didn?t choose a new Cessna Skylane or a Cirrus SR22!
TO ROB: does the AFS-5600 do cross check between 2 AHRS?
Thank you!
Cristiano
Brantel
Well Known Member
Just because it has papers and is certified, don't assume it is automatically more reliable.
Just ask all those people that were flying around with G1000's and had big Red X's on their screen!
Oh and most EFIS's can be decluttered and MGL even let's you customize your own layout.
Just ask all those people that were flying around with G1000's and had big Red X's on their screen!
Oh and most EFIS's can be decluttered and MGL even let's you customize your own layout.
Schu,
The Dynon SkyView network has redundant signals in the cable. There are two grounds, two power wires, and two network pairs (4 wires). So a single cut and most shorts don't cause any issues.
If you want more redundancy, you can run wires from the back of each screen to the AHRS units individually. This gives even more redundant paths for the data to flow. We actually give the installer huge flexibility in how they want to trade off cost, weight, and redundancy. Just because the manual shows a splitter as one example does not mean this is the only way.
If the issue of wire cuts is important to you, then you need to verify with your EFIS vendor that the system will provide good data without any external devices. Every AHRS out there has a remote magnetometer, and many systems rely on this for the attitude solution. Other systems rely on GPS. So just because the AHRS is inside a unit doesn't mean it doesn't rely on external boxes for part of it's solution. Not saying this is true of every EFIS out there, but if having a functioning attitude when there are literally no wires hooked to the unit at all is important, then you really need to have an in-depth conversation with your vendor.
Again, the point Brantel was mentioning is that a SkyView AND a D6 gives more redundancy than another brand EFIS and a different autopilot. Not that just SkyView is better than both. The idea that because you went with SkyView means that you have your AP and EFIS all in one box and you have no other backups is totally false.
As for automatic cross-checking between AHRS units, SkyView does not do this today but this is planned for the next software release, early next year.
The Dynon SkyView network has redundant signals in the cable. There are two grounds, two power wires, and two network pairs (4 wires). So a single cut and most shorts don't cause any issues.
If you want more redundancy, you can run wires from the back of each screen to the AHRS units individually. This gives even more redundant paths for the data to flow. We actually give the installer huge flexibility in how they want to trade off cost, weight, and redundancy. Just because the manual shows a splitter as one example does not mean this is the only way.
If the issue of wire cuts is important to you, then you need to verify with your EFIS vendor that the system will provide good data without any external devices. Every AHRS out there has a remote magnetometer, and many systems rely on this for the attitude solution. Other systems rely on GPS. So just because the AHRS is inside a unit doesn't mean it doesn't rely on external boxes for part of it's solution. Not saying this is true of every EFIS out there, but if having a functioning attitude when there are literally no wires hooked to the unit at all is important, then you really need to have an in-depth conversation with your vendor.
Again, the point Brantel was mentioning is that a SkyView AND a D6 gives more redundancy than another brand EFIS and a different autopilot. Not that just SkyView is better than both. The idea that because you went with SkyView means that you have your AP and EFIS all in one box and you have no other backups is totally false.
As for automatic cross-checking between AHRS units, SkyView does not do this today but this is planned for the next software release, early next year.
This thread has gotten all kinds of off track....debating a Dynon or AFS or GRT and their bits and bytes is almost half a moot point to the OP's situation. He HAS to have a TSO'd solution (or at least part of it). There are a number of countries where this is the case, no matter what we each think of the EFISes we may personally like.
This is why I say repeatedly that there is NOT a solution that is the panacea for every builder in every country and every situation. We sell a whole pile of each EFIS mentioned in this thread, and much of the time the ultimate choice of the builder is made after much consultation and review of their individual situations which include budget, mission, laws of their locality, their level of knowledge, technical ability, comfort with technology, flight experience, etc.
I'm not trying to take anything away from everyone elses opinions, but am pointing out that in this particular thread many of posts or debates on technical data just muddy up the water for the decision which this builder is trying to make based on his needs - which include some pretty specific interfaces to equipment (TCAD, Strikefinder/stormscope, etc.) that some EFISes just won't work with. If a builder is asking for a certain set of personal requirements like being able to fly a coupled GPS approach, vertical GPS guidance with his autopilot, or a certain set of interfaces to external equipment it's of little use to convince him to buy one that won't....even if the rest of the EFIS is fantastic.
Anyway, I know my post doesn't add much off anything. I'm just encouraging those responding to try and keep this thread relevant so it can be usefull for others in the future when they search the archives for data.
Just my 2 cents as usual....except I'm still working off the Turkey hangover!
Cheers,
Stein
This is why I say repeatedly that there is NOT a solution that is the panacea for every builder in every country and every situation. We sell a whole pile of each EFIS mentioned in this thread, and much of the time the ultimate choice of the builder is made after much consultation and review of their individual situations which include budget, mission, laws of their locality, their level of knowledge, technical ability, comfort with technology, flight experience, etc.
I'm not trying to take anything away from everyone elses opinions, but am pointing out that in this particular thread many of posts or debates on technical data just muddy up the water for the decision which this builder is trying to make based on his needs - which include some pretty specific interfaces to equipment (TCAD, Strikefinder/stormscope, etc.) that some EFISes just won't work with. If a builder is asking for a certain set of personal requirements like being able to fly a coupled GPS approach, vertical GPS guidance with his autopilot, or a certain set of interfaces to external equipment it's of little use to convince him to buy one that won't....even if the rest of the EFIS is fantastic.
Anyway, I know my post doesn't add much off anything. I'm just encouraging those responding to try and keep this thread relevant so it can be usefull for others in the future when they search the archives for data.
Just my 2 cents as usual....except I'm still working off the Turkey hangover!
Cheers,
Stein
Stein has a point that is worth more than 2 cents as usual, so lets look at this solution:
Is the clock/Chronometer required to be TSO? Seems like most EFIS systems do these functions these days so that would save $400 and some weight.
For the pitot you can run a used one off of a cessna or some other airplane. Look for a PH502, you should be able to get one of these under $300 if you look around.
Does the exhaust gas and cylinder head need to be separate gauges? Get that integrated into your efis (if your not using garmin.)
I don't see a gps in your panel that has IFR flight plans. I don't think the G500 can do that so your going to need a 430W or a 650 which is expensive.
About the audio panel. Does it need to be certified? Can you get away with a GMA-240 which is much lighter and cheaper, though it doesn't do the real fancy stuff.
Do you need the trutrak auto trim? Can you trim the airplane yourself, that saves some money and weight.
Do you need the vertical power? It's a bit of money and fuses/breakers work just fine.
Do you need the Aspen Pro? The EFD1000 Pilot is a bit cheaper and has the same features except it can't drive an auto pilot, but I don't know why you would want it to since it's basically a backup for your panel that meets your TSO horizon requirement.
With these comments in mind I would look at this setup:
Sirs NV-2C-4000 Compass (blue lighted) - $225.00
Used Pitot tube $300
Comant Ci 120-400 VOR/LOC/GPS antenna - $997.00
Comant Ci 2480-400 VHF/GPS/XM antenna - $987.00
Comant Ci 105-6 DME/XPDR antenna - $273.95
Garmin 430W $7800
Garmin 240 $800
Garmin GTX-327 $1800
Trutrak Digiflight II VSGV - $3,850.00
AFS 4500 With engine board, AHRS board, and ARINC : $7,035
Aspen EFD1000 Pilot $6,000
With this setup you still don't have mapping. You may want to get a garmin 696 or an Ipad or something since the mapping in the EFIS products aren't as good as the garmin solutions. It's hard to beat them at their own game.
So toss in a GPS Map 696 for $2100.
With this setup you are at $32,200, but you have a pretty decent setup. You get synthetic vision, full engine monitor, a very nice IFR solution with geo-referenced approach plates, with the ability to drive the auto pilot from the AFS, 430W, or 696 (using serial), attitude in your AFS, Aspen, or autopilot (though it can't display it, just fly it), you get garmin maps on a separate dedicated screen.
Please keep in mind that option 1 you posted doesn't have any kind of an engine monitor, only gauges which won't give you warnings which I think is a great reason to have an EFIS. Also, I'm not sure if the Garmin setup in option 1 can do fuel calculations. You might want to look at that too.
Other options you can look at are the GRT or skyview. GRT is a nice box and many run them an like them. They have all of the IFR features that the AFS has. The skyview doesn't have all of the IFR features yet and they force you to run their autopilot. It's not nearly as mature since it hasn't been flown on as many types as the TT nor has been around as long, but it may fly your airplane just fine.
Before deciding you should read through the threads on autopilots and see what you think.
Hope that helps,
schu
Is the clock/Chronometer required to be TSO? Seems like most EFIS systems do these functions these days so that would save $400 and some weight.
For the pitot you can run a used one off of a cessna or some other airplane. Look for a PH502, you should be able to get one of these under $300 if you look around.
Does the exhaust gas and cylinder head need to be separate gauges? Get that integrated into your efis (if your not using garmin.)
I don't see a gps in your panel that has IFR flight plans. I don't think the G500 can do that so your going to need a 430W or a 650 which is expensive.
About the audio panel. Does it need to be certified? Can you get away with a GMA-240 which is much lighter and cheaper, though it doesn't do the real fancy stuff.
Do you need the trutrak auto trim? Can you trim the airplane yourself, that saves some money and weight.
Do you need the vertical power? It's a bit of money and fuses/breakers work just fine.
Do you need the Aspen Pro? The EFD1000 Pilot is a bit cheaper and has the same features except it can't drive an auto pilot, but I don't know why you would want it to since it's basically a backup for your panel that meets your TSO horizon requirement.
With these comments in mind I would look at this setup:
Sirs NV-2C-4000 Compass (blue lighted) - $225.00
Used Pitot tube $300
Comant Ci 120-400 VOR/LOC/GPS antenna - $997.00
Comant Ci 2480-400 VHF/GPS/XM antenna - $987.00
Comant Ci 105-6 DME/XPDR antenna - $273.95
Garmin 430W $7800
Garmin 240 $800
Garmin GTX-327 $1800
Trutrak Digiflight II VSGV - $3,850.00
AFS 4500 With engine board, AHRS board, and ARINC : $7,035
Aspen EFD1000 Pilot $6,000
With this setup you still don't have mapping. You may want to get a garmin 696 or an Ipad or something since the mapping in the EFIS products aren't as good as the garmin solutions. It's hard to beat them at their own game.
So toss in a GPS Map 696 for $2100.
With this setup you are at $32,200, but you have a pretty decent setup. You get synthetic vision, full engine monitor, a very nice IFR solution with geo-referenced approach plates, with the ability to drive the auto pilot from the AFS, 430W, or 696 (using serial), attitude in your AFS, Aspen, or autopilot (though it can't display it, just fly it), you get garmin maps on a separate dedicated screen.
Please keep in mind that option 1 you posted doesn't have any kind of an engine monitor, only gauges which won't give you warnings which I think is a great reason to have an EFIS. Also, I'm not sure if the Garmin setup in option 1 can do fuel calculations. You might want to look at that too.
Other options you can look at are the GRT or skyview. GRT is a nice box and many run them an like them. They have all of the IFR features that the AFS has. The skyview doesn't have all of the IFR features yet and they force you to run their autopilot. It's not nearly as mature since it hasn't been flown on as many types as the TT nor has been around as long, but it may fly your airplane just fine.
Before deciding you should read through the threads on autopilots and see what you think.
Hope that helps,
schu
Brantel
Well Known Member
For the sake of the archives:
Big misconception....
Dynon does not force you to use their AP, you can use any AP you like in conjunction with the Dynon systems be it Legendary series or Skyview.
As a matter of fact, TT just recently announced that they will soon support the bugs that Dynon added to the Skyview data stream.
The only reason people started integrating AP's with EFIS's in the first place was because they wanted to use the less expensive AP's in advanced modes that normally required much more expensive AP's. You can take a TT Sorcerer and a 430W and do whatever you want with it without any EFIS at all.
RV10inOz
Well Known Member
Brantel on the money again!
Does anyone remember the Aspen panels.....TSO'd and very expensive. Well the first year or two they would Topple...........yes a EFIS going haywire, just because you flew south of Melbourne Australia and probably up around Alaska.
now a friend of mine had this happen to him a few times in IMC while climbing or descending
Talk about good TSO'd value.The idea of a TSO is not what most think. In fact in this area it is a hinderance, that is why Dynon, AFS, MGL GRT etc have done so well and their products are often better and upgraded quicker....not all the TSO and insurance overhead to carry.
No doubt the manufacturers will chime in any time soon on that matter.
The concept of the Skyview and a D6 is the ultimate. Those little classic Dynons are the best things since sliced bread.
Brantel,
Can you tell us exactly what the dynon/integrated autopilot and dynon/trutrak combinations give you feature wise?
You say that you can run whatever autopilot you want with the skyview which is true, but there are limitations which affect it's usefulness flying IFR. Would you please explain what those are?
From what I understand the dynon AP can't fly any vertical nav at all and it doesn't output ARINC 429 to an external autopilot so it won't fly with GPS steering so basically it overshoots each waypoint. Also, an external autopilot won't fly the heading bugs until TT starts supporting dynon's bug labels on the serial interface.
Is this information correct?
schu
RV10inOz
Well Known Member
Schu
Brantel will no doubt answer your question, but the question of vertical is a good one. This is a planned release in the skyview and shortly there after in the classic panels.
We have no WAAS and hence no LPV's down here, and really it is no big deal not having the VNAV, however it is a nice to have. We do have a few ILS and to be honest you have to hand fly the vertical by means of throttle anyway, so it is not that hard in a well trimmed aircraft.
As for GPSS.....connected to a GNS430/530 type unit the GPSS works fine
Brantel will no doubt answer your question, but the question of vertical is a good one. This is a planned release in the skyview and shortly there after in the classic panels.
We have no WAAS and hence no LPV's down here, and really it is no big deal not having the VNAV, however it is a nice to have. We do have a few ILS and to be honest you have to hand fly the vertical by means of throttle anyway, so it is not that hard in a well trimmed aircraft.
As for GPSS.....connected to a GNS430/530 type unit the GPSS works fine
cristianomc
Member
The TSO ones need to pass throught extensive build quality requirements that non TSO doesn?t need. I don?t know about the build quality circuits and materials of the experimental ones but there should be a diference on this and this is why TSO exists and is demanded in some cases by regulatory agencies. Or is it just marketing?
rleffler
Well Known Member
TSO doesn't necesarily mean improved quality. All it means is that the vendor has documented their processes and submit their products for appropriate testing to prove it meets the TSO spec.
That doesn't automatically imply that experimental products are of a lessor quality by not going through the TSO process. It just means that the experimental vendors perceive that the investment in a TSO certification doesn't generate an appropriate return of investment.
cristianomc
Member
Thank you very much, schu!
cristianomc
Member
Thanks for getting the thread in the track again, Stein!
cristianomc
Member
GusBiz
Well Known Member
TSO vs Experimental
Just as a last note;
When you TSO a device, you are not able to make major alterations to it unless it undergoes certification again.
This means that experimental units are able to keep a breast of developments much faster than TSO solutions. You get more of the latest in experimental gear.
Also on cost. The certification of equipment is expensive. Just the documentation is expensive to produce and maintain. The testing sequence is expensive and so is the re-testing of things like bug fixes. Sometimes the extra cost of TSO equipment is because of all of that ...
....not because of the better quality of manufacturing. Sometimes the quality is the same.
Just as a last note;
When you TSO a device, you are not able to make major alterations to it unless it undergoes certification again.
This means that experimental units are able to keep a breast of developments much faster than TSO solutions. You get more of the latest in experimental gear.
Also on cost. The certification of equipment is expensive. Just the documentation is expensive to produce and maintain. The testing sequence is expensive and so is the re-testing of things like bug fixes. Sometimes the extra cost of TSO equipment is because of all of that ...
....not because of the better quality of manufacturing. Sometimes the quality is the same.
rleffler
Well Known Member
Simple answer, government regulation.
cristianomc
Member
Got it! Thanks!
cristianomc
Member
With that logic, let's all just put in steam gauges. They work just fine.
If you really believe that the VP-X is the same as fuses, please read up on our web site so you understand what it really does. Don't take that the wrong way, though.
Marc,
Of course I don't believe that fuses and breakers provide the same level of functionality, the Vertical Power stuff is really nice, and if the original poster can afford it, it's a fantastic upgrade, but I thought he was talking about cutting costs so I figured I would mention it because it's my opinion that an IFR GPS and a fully coupled autopilot have a higher priority in the avionics budget.
cristianomc,
It sounds like you really need a completely certified panel in order to certify for IFR, so perhaps you should focus on getting a nice certified EFIS that can provide your primary instruments and drive the autopilot and just get a skyview for a backup instrument and engine monitor and not bother with hooking it up to drive the autopilot.
What about this setup:
King KFD840 $12000 (EFIS)
Trutrak Digiflight II VSGV - $3,850.00
Sirs NV-2C-4000 Compass (blue lighted) - $225.00
Used Pitot tube $300
Comant Ci 120-400 VOR/LOC/GPS antenna - $997.00
Comant Ci 2480-400 VHF/GPS/XM antenna - $987.00
Comant Ci 105-6 DME/XPDR antenna - $273.95
PS Engineering PMA6000B $1000
Garmin GTX-327 $1800
Garmin 430W $7800
Dynon Skyview $5000
EI SC-5 clock $330
This puts you at $34000 and the entire panel is certified except for the dynon which provides backup PFD, synthetic vision, and an engine monitor.
The idea is that the King PFD will drive the autopilot or the 430W directly, while the skyview gives you a nice backup, synthetic vision, and an engine monitor/fuel computer.
You can add the vertical power back in and have that displayed on the dynon.
All of this said, I have no experience with certified avionics, so this is not a recommendation. You need to call Stein and ask him about the best way to do this.
My goal is just to toss ideas out there for you to look at to help you figure out what works for you.
schu
Of course I don't believe that fuses and breakers provide the same level of functionality, the Vertical Power stuff is really nice, and if the original poster can afford it, it's a fantastic upgrade, but I thought he was talking about cutting costs so I figured I would mention it because it's my opinion that an IFR GPS and a fully coupled autopilot have a higher priority in the avionics budget.
cristianomc,
It sounds like you really need a completely certified panel in order to certify for IFR, so perhaps you should focus on getting a nice certified EFIS that can provide your primary instruments and drive the autopilot and just get a skyview for a backup instrument and engine monitor and not bother with hooking it up to drive the autopilot.
What about this setup:
King KFD840 $12000 (EFIS)
Trutrak Digiflight II VSGV - $3,850.00
Sirs NV-2C-4000 Compass (blue lighted) - $225.00
Used Pitot tube $300
Comant Ci 120-400 VOR/LOC/GPS antenna - $997.00
Comant Ci 2480-400 VHF/GPS/XM antenna - $987.00
Comant Ci 105-6 DME/XPDR antenna - $273.95
PS Engineering PMA6000B $1000
Garmin GTX-327 $1800
Garmin 430W $7800
Dynon Skyview $5000
EI SC-5 clock $330
This puts you at $34000 and the entire panel is certified except for the dynon which provides backup PFD, synthetic vision, and an engine monitor.
The idea is that the King PFD will drive the autopilot or the 430W directly, while the skyview gives you a nice backup, synthetic vision, and an engine monitor/fuel computer.
You can add the vertical power back in and have that displayed on the dynon.
All of this said, I have no experience with certified avionics, so this is not a recommendation. You need to call Stein and ask him about the best way to do this.
My goal is just to toss ideas out there for you to look at to help you figure out what works for you.
schu
TSO means that you know the quality (of the hardware and the software) and the manufacturer can demonstrate that it was all designed, built and tested to those standards. Experimental means unverifiable quality (h/w & s/w) and less production records - but what that means in practical terms is crowd certification of EFISs. Because companies are still in business means that their products have proven to meet their customers' needs and are reliable in the field.
Government departments have not been open to crowd certification, and still insist on TSO compliance - I wonder if they will ever recognise the power of the marketplace?
If your authority requires TSOed equipment for IFR certification I would install the absolute minimum of TSOed kit and an AF5600 (but I'm sure other would recommend Dynon products). I would also read the regulations very carefully to find every last wrinkle to avoid a TSOed clock, etc.
Pete
I should note that I have found the mainstream experimental products to be equal in quality to certified products and in some cases better (andair), however the documentation for certified avionics is FAR better. Go download an install manual for AFS or dynon then look at the garmin documentation and you will see what I mean.
schu
schu
cristianomc
Member
It´s nice, schu!
The only problem is that I don´t like the idea of using EFISes from diferent brands. It´s complicated to handle it. This is why I´m exitating to install 2 AFS-5600 and a Aspen Pro.
About the VP, it´s a great product. I thought to include VP-200 in place of the JPI EDM-930 but it´s discontinued and no longer available, as Marc told me in email.
Stein is also helping me with ideas and he suggested me a G900X, but it´s not TSO and will blow away all my pockets at the same time!
Thank you!
Cristiano
Last edited:
GusBiz
Well Known Member
discontinued???
What!?? is that true? the VP 200 is discontinued? or did I read that incorrectly
What!?? is that true? the VP 200 is discontinued? or did I read that incorrectly
rleffler
Well Known Member
I think there is a mis-understanding. VP just released new code for the VP-X and the VP-200. Perhaps you're thinking about the VP-100?
It may be a budget buster for some I can agree but just to set the record straight; all of the componetry including the AHRS, Air Data Computer, GPS, Radios, Encoder, Transponder, Audio Panel, etc.. still carry their TSO, both hardware and software....which is part of the reason for their price point. Garmin does not provide non certified hardware for the G900x. I confirmed with extremely reliable sources (authorities in Brazil) that in Brazil it is accepted by the authorities as acceptable for IFR and in fact many of them have been installed in experimentals and certified for IFR in Brazil as is the Aspen, G500 and a couple other much more expensive systems.
Anyway, we're still trying to find a good solution!
Cheers,
Stein
cristianomc
Member
No.. check their website! It?s no longer available for purchases. They will be launching another product by the first quater of 2012.
cristianomc
Member
Thanks Stein!
Yep,
I placed my order with Stein, including the VP200, and was diplomatically told to "hold off on the VP200 and harness".
Apparently the VP400 is coming out, now have to figure out whether to run all of my wiring now and make the harness in place, anticipating the -400, or whether to wait. I had planned on using the premade harness with the-200, but if there are any production delays, I don;t want to get really far behind on airframe wiring...
Phil
RV-10 finishing
Salt Lake City
cristianomc
Member
The same problem to me... my plane will be ready on march and I doubt VP-400 will be ready. So, there is a temendous chance to give up on this and go with JPI EDM-930, or VP-X. Wrong company marketing strategy, VP! But Marc did not give me any date or at least a month in wich the VP-400 will be for shure on sale...
Cristiano
cristianomc
Member
No news about VP-400, Phil? Is there an option to VP-200 besides VP-X?
Not yet, but Marc is getting my interest up!!
Given that my actual time to complete a task is usually 3x greater than my estimated, the VP-400 debut will probably be before I'm ready for it.
I'm proceeding with my panel, anticipating a -400 display in the lower pedestal of my aerosport panel. Will finish up a bunch of pending work. If I get close to estimated release will wait for premade harness, otherwise will start my airframe wiring and make the harness myself...
Phil
RV10 - finishing
Salt Lake City
cristianomc
Member
But how may I leave a panel space for it if I don´t even know its size and cabling needs?
I'm betting that the new display will still fit in the lower pedestal location, so if I get that far, I might terminate all my airframe wiring to that point. I won't drill out the instrument panel blank until I know the specifics. The panel blank in this location is quite large, and I have no other plans to locate anything there...
Phil
- Status
