B

bkthomps

Well Known Member
Can anyone give me a solid reason/argument for NOT using the skyview? I've been keeping a little list here, and so far it's pretty short...I'm interested in constructive criticism against it, features that are not available yet, etc.

Integration with VPX is sorta on my con list, but isn't necessarily a requirement

Some of the upcoming features are very desired, but I don't see going with some of the other competitors based on these missing features....input? thoughts?

Am also considering doing a panel mounted 696 for EFB/charts/safetaxi, so that sort of functionality coming from dynon is no longer on my list
 
Thoughts

I see in your tag you are ifr, so your mission is diff than mine. I am finishing up a basic day night vfr ship and think the skyview is a GREAT choice for the money. I did a lot of research and there are lots of great products out there. I have a bendixav80r in an airgizmo, I have the 10"skyview with synthetic vision and will be adding an autopilot and I have an Ipad going in a ram mount. For the money that is a beautiful set up for MY mission. Simple to wire, various layers of back up for what I need etc. Some have cut up the skyview for not having all the features promissed available yet...but for the money and with their good rep and market share...they will get it done.

Very happy so far, good value, good support. Tough decisions based on how nice the competitors are (mgl, afs, grt etc) but you just have to pick one and go. :)
 
Defer the Decision

gimp2x said:
Can anyone give me a solid reason/argument for NOT using the skyview?
Click to expand...

I think you should defer the decision until you are much closer to needing avionics. Sure, it's possible to be building slow-build wings today and be flying next summer but more likely a few years will go by and that's a long time in the avionics business. Think back to what the avionics landscape was like 5 years ago.

That said, I think Skyview is a great choice and that's what I'd do if I were shopping for avionics today <g>.
 
Skyview sure is shaping up fast. It still is playing catch-up feature wise but Dynon sure is pounding em out. I bet that will increase expedentially.

Dynon really must have done their homework with the Skyview because the display seems to be really knocking the socks off those that have seen one in real life and in actual use. I also see from looking at real video of the Skyview that they must have gobs of processing power available and or done some real hard work on compressing and decompressing the huge databases that are required to run these systems since their map/terrain and synthetic vision seems to flow in near real time even when rotating the heading very quickly, the video seems to indicate that there is fluid smooth rotation and quick refresh rates. I have noticed on some of the competition videos that this is not the case with their units and that is with their new and improved processors.

In some ways Skyview is already ahead of the competition and in others a bit behind. I am sure they will work on the "necessary" features before moving into things like HITS displays, Approach Sequencing, Synthetic Approaches etc. Dynon really will need to work on some of these since they never had a reason to have any of that stuff in their legacy products. GRT has had em for a long time but in some cases the user interface and number of buttons to push have been reported as high/hard to use, AFS has done amazing things with their units. Rob really goes out and test his software to ensure that it is as good as it can be.

Then their is the little thing called bang for the buck...Depending on your needs/wants/budget ratio, this can be really important or really not. Just make sure you really understand the true price of an installed system. There are always ways to make a system look less expensive compared to another system. It is the bottom line cost of the completed panel that matters, not just the price of a few core components compared with each other. Don't forget to include the price of harnesses, engine probes, fuel flow sensors, optional software feature upcharges, ARINC converters, AP controllers, backup batteries, OAT probes, backup instruments or an additional ADAHRS, AOA capabilities, etc. Also don't forget the cost to keep databases current. This can be a huge cost over a long period of time.

The other thing is make tripple sure that what you are buying will do what you think it will. Recently there was someone on here that bought a G900 system with a particular AP later to find out that it would not fully integrate into the system they wanted and they were forced to move up to a much more expensive AP to get what they wanted. This type of thing can really change the total cost of a panel.

All of this is just my rambling, I have no rat in the race as I am not currently looking at a building a new panel. You can't go wrong with any of the major manufacturers...They are all great and the technology available today is StarTrek compared to just a few years ago. Most of our glass panel equiped homemade airplanes have better avionics that a ton of the airliners/military planes.
 
Last edited:
Joe said:
I think you should defer the decision until you are much closer to needing avionics. Sure, it's possible to be building slow-build wings today and be flying next summer but more likely a few years will go by and that's a long time in the avionics business. Think back to what the avionics landscape was like 5 years ago.

That said, I think Skyview is a great choice and that's what I'd do if I were shopping for avionics today <g>.
Click to expand...

It seems like the hardware they have is current generation, meaning software updates will keep it relevant for a long time to come....i don't see ADHRS changes of significance or 3d panels coming out anytime soon, plus I like to do my homework and watch the company/products grow as part of my decision making.

I am not looking for a dynon bashing session or anything else like that, I just can't seem to find many negatives to the system, and I see other people going with GRT, etc, I want to understand why as the reasons are not clear, case in point, the g900x is an awesome system, price is the limiting factor- that makes sense, these are all so similarly priced, it makes it difficult to see why people go one way or the other.
 
Truth be told, there isn't any real arguments against it, nor any of the EFISes out there. It's almost impossible to come up with "pro's and con's" that are applicable to everyone, because what one person perceives as a negative may be something that other people may perceive as no big deal. It's just not possible to conclusively say that any particular system from any company is good for everyone or bad for everyone. Obviously they are all popular and depending on your mission, budget, background, personal tastes, etc.. it can vary.

Reasons that people choose particular systems over other systems run the gamut from core functions, displays, personal desires, space, weight, cost, and even the attitude of the sales people in a booth at an airshow.

Brian makes good points about "total cost". Some systems have many different modules that are needed, some have everything built in with few external modules. Some have internal AHRS, some have external AHRS. Some internal batteries, some external batteries. Sometimes peoples background makes a huge difference as well (airline/military pilot).

You'll also notice that people usually love what they have and what they fly behind - which is good. Some people have flown behind many systems (people like Paul Dye and Doug Reeves who both own multiple systems at once) and are in an excellent position to report on their experiences with multiple systems much more than a person who has only ever flown behind the equipment they have installed in their own plane with no 1st hand exposure to other systems.

In the end, I can't give you any specific "choose this EFIS" statement without spending a lot more time getting to know both you, your requirements, budget, background, likes/dislikes, mission, etc.. At that point I'd feel a bit more comfortable recommending something, but with the information I have I can't honestly think anyone could give you a "good, bad, or ugly" without knowing more.

My 2 cents as usual, and I apologize that I cleared up absolutely nothing! :)

Cheers,
Stein
 
Reasons one might go with GRT or AFS over Dynon:

1. Their impression of how much experience one company has over the other.
2. Their impression of how good the support is at one company over the other.
3. The fact that both GRT or AFS has long term experience with nav source data manipulation and transfiguration to allow less expensive AP heads do more advanced things.
4. The fact that Rob is very active in his company, communicates directly with the code writters and flys his software sometimes the same day it is written providing direct feedback to his engineers.
5. The fact that GRT and AFS can drive a stand alone AP from the EFIS. Dynon will work along side a stand alone AP but will not drive one.
6. Some people are just hooked on brands...their buddies may have a GRT, this might be all they know. Maybe they just don't like Dynon or have some history with em or they know someone that had a bad experience with em.
7. Skyview is not complete in all ways yet. They are working hard on it and will most likely bring it inline with all the features of the competition but that might take some time.
8. Some people think that the EFIS market is oversaturated and that soon someone will be forced out...Who is it going to be???
9. Some people want the most bang for the buck and the GRT Sport if I am not mistaken will win this battle currently over the Skyview. Yes they are different systems and are not really apple to apple comparisons but some people are only motivated by feature list and price.
10. ????? fill in the blank

The list looks like I am against Dynon but this same list could easily be reconfigured to say why would someone pick a D?? system or Skyview over an AFS/GRT or AFS unit over a GRT or vice versa...it just boils down to what people want/need/mission and what their budget will allow or how far in debt they are willing to go....

Also don't forget about the Garmin G3X....Matt, Doug and Paul have caused some major drooling to take place...and I doubt that will be the company leaving the Experimental EFIS market in my lifetime....
 
Last edited:
gimp2x said:
It seems like the hardware they have is current generation, meaning software updates will keep it relevant for a long time to come....i don't see ADHRS changes of significance or 3d panels coming out anytime soon, plus I like to do my homework and watch the company/products grow as part of my decision making.

I am not looking for a dynon bashing session or anything else like that, I just can't seem to find many negatives to the system, and I see other people going with GRT, etc, I want to understand why as the reasons are not clear, case in point, the g900x is an awesome system, price is the limiting factor- that makes sense, these are all so similarly priced, it makes it difficult to see why people go one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Homework is good.

But......some folks buy Chevys and some buy Fords. :D
 
Choices

Gimp2x,

The best advice is to wait until you are only a few months out from flying. As someone noted, things will change even more over the next couple of years. Surely what you wire for today will be feature challenged in a few months.

I'm going with AFS in my 7. I like the company support and the fact that everything is updatable easily when changes or new features come out. Lots of great features, Vertical Power capable, the owner flies everything himself for testing and it works.

I have a very simple Dynon 10A in my current 7 and it has been fine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I went with Dynon. I don't have the screens yet, but the harnesses and Adahrs, pitot, EMS are all installed.

My decision was based primarily on a comment made in Kitplanes. It said that Dynon has sold more product than all of the others combined. That meant a lot to me. It is all a game of odds in this industry to not get left an orphan. Being bigger is no guarantee, but the odds are in their favor. (I hope). That left Dynon and Garmin to me, and Garmin, bless 'em, are just too proud of their stuff and too addicted to update revenue. I did go with Garmin for the stack.

Fear of becoming an orphan is also the primary reason I didn't go with Vertical. Great product and folks, but dadgum I think it would be hard to be a small specialty company in this industry during these times. Spruce and the like will always be around and every FBO on the planet has the basics to keep an old school electical system running. I wish them well and appreciate the advances they are bringing to the market. If they are still around on the next project, I will use them for sure, but I am already vulnerable if Dynon goes down, so I don't want to be double vulnerable.

Staying power was why I picked a Van's kit in the first place.

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.
 
Disclaimer: I am leaning toward the Skyview but am still not fully decided either...but I have time. I agree to wait until the last minute with avionics, technology changes at the speed of light! :)

Two things come to my mind to question:

1. Will Dynon be in business 5 yrs from now? 10 yrs from now? If not, your expensive piece of Avionics hardware could turn into a 'brick' real quick without support. I'm not saying they will, but I have heard horror stories from guys that have been in this hobby much longer than me that say well known companies can and do go by the wayside. Just be aware of this, you want to very comfortable with the business plan of the company you go with.

2. I really like the Vertical Power system and as of now, as everyone knows, Dynon doesnt support this. I tend to believe this will change by the time I need to make a decision but it would be a sticking point if I were buying today.

Thats all I have for possible negatives...it sure seems to be a great system for the buck. I also like AFS, but I think Dynon beats them on price for a very comparable system.

edit: just saw what Myron posted...ditto, same idea
 
I can't tell you why you would pick one EFIS over another, but I can tell you why I picked AFS over dynon.

1. AFS had a finished product before they shipped. This is important to me at is says a lot about the company.

2. AFS uses the crossbow ARHS which in my understanding is built to a level and calibration well beyond other experimental ARHS sensors.

3. AFS plays nice with other vendors. I didn't want an integrated auto pilot because I wanted a second source of attitude in my airplane, and the trutrack is a much more proven auto pilot. (Yes, I'm sure that Dynon's is getting better, but that's ok, I wanted a trutrack)

4. The AFS system uses a LED backlight display. I'm pretty sure the dynon is tube backlight.

5. The AFS owner flies IFR frequently in his own airplane and the software shows it.

6. The AFS runs on a ARM based low power processor. When it's on battery, it doesn't even use a fan, and when it's on plane power it's only drawing a single amp.

7. AFS flies all types of IFR procedures with the trutrak and 430W right now, Dynon has been saying they will have that for a few years now.

In a nutshell, if you want to fly IFR with a 430W then the GRT and AFS are better because they work right now. The Dynon might be better, but you have to wait for them to finish support for ARINC 429, and live with whatever design decisions they impose on you (like which auto pilot to run, or VPX integration, or whatever.)

Hope that helps,
schu
 
I have no experience with Dynon, but I have to say that we prefer GRT because they have great products and EXCEPTIONAL customer service.
 
akschu said:
1. AFS had a finished product before they shipped. This is important to me at is says a lot about the company.

4. The AFS system uses a LED backlight display. I'm pretty sure the dynon is tube backlight.

6. The AFS runs on a ARM based low power processor. When it's on battery, it doesn't even use a fan, and when it's on plane power it's only drawing a single amp.
Click to expand...

AFS makes a good product and there are lots of reasons to choose them, But a few factual corrections:

1) We can argue about the definition of a "finished product" but I think every single experimental EFIS vendor has added many, many features via software updates over the years, and this is one of the GOOD things about this industry, not bad. For instance, AFS didn't have TruTrak integration the day they started shipping their EFIS. They also didn't have a map in the product at all when it first shipped, nor did they have synthetic vision. In fact, they required a hardware, pay for upgrade if you wanted to add synthetic vision. So while you may have purchased an AF-4500 after they had added a lot of things, these were not all there the day they first shipped an EFIS.

4) The SkyView system is LED backlit and always has been. While all 4500's are LED backlit, AFS's other EFIS units are CCFL (tube) like the Dynon D100 / D10 products are. AFS is already "enhancing" the screens on newer AF-4500's, leaving original customers behind unless they want to pay.

6) The AF-4500 manual says "The AF-3000 power requirement is 12 volts at 2.5 Amps." Which interestingly is exactly the same as a SkyView screen. We also don't use fans in normal temperature operation. We also use a low power processor designed for embedded applications. We also don't require the screen to dim when on battery in order to reach an hour of operation off battery.

The backlight for SkyView screen draws 1/2 of the power of the whole system. For an EFIS to draw under an amp, it would have a much dimmer or smaller screen, even if it had no processor at all.
 
Last edited:
dynonsupport said:
AFS makes a good product and there are lots of reasons to choose them, But a few factual corrections:

1) We can argue about the definition of a "finished product" but I think every single experimental EFIS vendor has added many, many features via software updates over the years, and this is one of the GOOD things about this industry, not bad. For instance, AFS didn't have TruTrak integration the day they started shipping their EFIS. They also didn't have a map in the product at all when it first shipped, nor did they have synthetic vision. In fact, they required a hardware, pay for upgrade if you wanted to add synthetic vision. So while you may have purchased an AF-4500 after they had added a lot of things, these were not all there the day they first shipped an EFIS.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agreed. Everyone will have a different definition of finished here, and none of them are ever finished.

My definition of complete is when a vendor ships a new product that has 90% of its features implemented before shipping then add improvements. The AF-4500 absolutely had ARINC429, autopilot integration, synthetic vision, and a number of other features the day it shipped. In contrast the Skyview had a pretty limited set of it's total features implemented, and still doesn't do the IFR stuff.

This is a fundamental difference in product management, one vendor shipped when it was a complete system ready for it's intended usage, and another shipped once it worked well enough for some users, then continued development.

dynonsupport said:
4) The SkyView system is LED backlit and always has been. While all 4500's are LED backlit, AFS's other EFIS units are CCFL (tube) like the Dynon D100 / D10 products are. AFS is already "enhancing" the screens on newer AF-4500's, leaving original customers behind unless they want to pay.
Click to expand...

Yea, I saw that. I have an early 4500 and the screen is fine, but if I want to get the newer one then it costs some money. No worries though, I wouldn't expect them to stick with the old screen just on my account. I'm much more worried about the completeness of the software and the willingness of the vendor to integrate.

dynonsupport said:
6) The AF-4500 manual says "The AF-3000 power requirement is 12 volts at 2.5 Amps." Which interestingly is exactly the same as a SkyView screen. We also don't use fans in normal temperature operation. We also use a low power processor designed for embedded applications. We also don't require the screen to dim when on battery in order to reach an hour of operation off battery.

The backlight for SkyView screen draws 1/2 of the power of the whole system. For an EFIS to draw under an amp, it would have a much dimmer or smaller screen, even if it had no processor at all.
Click to expand...

Last time I touched the back of a dynon screen it was pretty hot, while the AFS is luke warm. AFS uses an ARM chip not unlike an ipod or any other low power device. Nobody knows what is inside of a Dynon because Dynon won't say, but given the heat on the back, I would bet it's a AMD chip.

Anyways, it doesn't matter, I'm sure the Dynon is a fine system for many people, I just couldn't get comfortable with the lacking IFR features, being locked into the dynon autopilot, the promises of ARINC 429 after the AP76 was dropped, the ARHS, and some other stuff.

Is the dynon the best bang for the buck? For VFR users, absolutely, for IFR? It wasn't for me....

schu
 
Just to clear a few things up...

1. All of the current features were not in the AF-4500s when we started shipping. We have 6 engineers that are constantly working on improvements. I actually just got back from test flying our next software release, in our RV-10, with HITS and XM Lightning.

2. All AFS screens are currently shipping with LED backlit screens.
(AF-3400s, AF-3500s, and AF-4500s)

3. The AF-4500s has always had a 1000+ nit LED backlit screen. We recently made a vendor change from a glossy screen to a matte finish screen, which also resulted in a slightly brighter 1200 nit screen.

4. The AF-4500s uses 1.5 amps at 12 Volts after the internal battery is charged.

5. We had been flying the AF-4500s IFR in our RV-10 for 6 months including GPS approaches, ILS approaches and approach plates, before we shipped a customer unit.

Hope this helps

Rob Hickman
Advanced Flight Systems Inc.
N401RH RV-4 (650 hours)
N402RH RV-10 (390 hours)
 
akschu said:
Is the dynon the best bang for the buck? For VFR users, absolutely, for IFR? It wasn't for me....
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a pretty subjective statement. :)

In my opinion (again, subjective) MGL Voyager/Odyssey has the best bang for the buck. There are a few others that would agree with that, but everyone is biased to some degree.

I think AFS, Dynon, etc have nice products, too. I have my reasons for switching away from Dynon (my original plan), and I'm glad I ended up going with the product (and company) that I ended up with.
 
Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There

Just a Personal Looking-Glass Perspective (my 2 cents only):

For my EFIS system and autopilot, I?m going with AFS. Why? What ?schu? said; particularly flight testing, human factors engineering (screen design, software display/sequencing, button design, etc.), value for the money, proven Trutrak and Garmin integration, free GPS map updates, geo-referenced IFR charts, reasonable IFR Approach Plate update prices, and great product support. My avionics choice: mainly Garmin.

Why I didn?t go with:

GRT: No plans to develop geo-referenced IFR charts. (Note: GRT is still an excellent choice, though.)

Garmin G3X: Somewhat overpriced even with rebates. Expensive updates; separate for each Garmin component. Like a few others, I prefer some ?asymmetric redundancy? rather than all my IFR equipment eggs on one manufacturer?s basket. Garmin?s product support is reportedly not as responsive and ?personal? as AFS?s or GRT?s. A personal preference only: I like the AFS (and GRT or Skyview) landscape screen design. I don?t like Garmin?s long-screen, portrait mode as much. When I looked at the G3X?s synthetic vision display, I felt that I was looking through an arrow slot rather than out a picture window ala AFS, GRT, and Dynon Skyview. Also, a personal ?quirk:? I don?t like glancing up and down for flight information when IFR; a side-to-side scan seems more natural, for me anyway.

Dynon Skyview and MGL Odyssey/Voyager: Dynon and MGL are apparently in the process of developing their own separate, closed-system architectures (integrated, sole-source EFIS, Autopilot, and Avionics systems). I hope they are both successful. On the other hand, I feel it is too early in their respective development cycles, without enough integrated systems flying, to commit; particularly for IFR flying. Also, again, I personally like some asymmetric redundancy rather than an ?all eggs in one basket? approach. That being said, it would be great if Dynon or MGL decide to develop their own IFR-certified avionics; particularly with an open, rather than closed, architecture approach. Personal Opinion: Autopilot-wise, Dynon and MGL have a long way to go to catch up with Trutrak.

As others have said, the EFIS decision is largely a personal preference based on your own perspective and experience, current and future operational requirements, financial resources, and the current EFIS state-of-the-art.

Given the rapid evolution of glass panels, the only ?fast? rule seems to be to wait as late as possible in your build cycle (Finishing Kit +) to make your panel decisions and purchases!

Good Luck!

Bill Palmer :)
 
akschu said:
Last time I touched the back of a dynon screen it was pretty hot,
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which Dynon screen you touched that was "pretty hot", but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a SkyView. We are an OEM dealer for MGL and Dynon. I have a Dynon SkyView on my front sales counter, and it is plugged in and running from 8am until 5pm every day of the week. I've never known it to be hot by the end of the day, after running for 8 or 9 hours non-stop with no cooling other than the built-in avionics fan.

YMMV
 
gimp2x said:
Can anyone give me a solid reason/argument for NOT using the skyview?
Click to expand...
Two ... Cost and information overload.
For as little IFR as we plan to do, we decided that the extra cost of the SkyView and the extra information and complexity was not worth it for our mission...
So we stuck with the D100/D120 that we initally planned on.
 
MauiLvrs said:
For as little IFR as we plan to do, we decided that the extra cost of the SkyView and the extra information and complexity was not worth it for our mission...
Click to expand...

The true benefit of synthetic vision..............is for the "unexpected"..

L.Adamson --- RV6A (six pac & Garmin 696, at the moment)
 
To answer your question, I don't think you will find a good reason to NOT to go with SkyView. So much is personal preference.

If I had one complaint about SkyView it is that there is no functional AOA audio. Without the AOA audio IMO the AOA might as well be turned off. To be fair, Dynon knows that I feel this way and I communicated this to them directly. My offer still stands to take their engineer for a flight and give them a demo. I am told that the audio function is "in the hopper", not sure what that means. I guess they are at least thinking about it. Hopefully it will be out soon as I consider this a safety of flight issue.

Still think SkyView has a great future and once they have weather, comm and transponder I will sell my Garmin 327 and SL30 and buy 2 more displays.

I do really love SkyView!
 
Skyview looks promising, but it has a lot left in terms of s/w upgrades before it will match systems from competitors. If you don't mind waiting then it would be a decent choice. One word of caution....I am a former Dynon customer that was burned by the promise of the AP76 (vertical autopilot guidance in particular), only to have that promise taken away. MY moral to that story is buy a system that has the features that you desire working today. If enhancements are added later, so much the better!

Other than that, here's something Dynon needs to fix IMO. The HSI on the 8" unit is about the size of a ping pong ball (actually maybe smaller than that), and as such has very limited value. The HSI on the 10" unit is a little larger, and therefore has a little more value, but I think it is also too small. I would not buy either unit because of that issue. As always, just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Joystick? JOYSTICK!?!

My disclaimer: I have very little experience flying behind ANY EFIS, and I am a looong way from making any choices so I have no axe to grind against any manufacturer.

However, as I look and dream, I notice that one trend on many of the latest models is to incorprate a joystick for data input.

If you're getting bounced around in the clag, is it possible to use an eight--or even four position joystick? I have to "walk my fingers" up the panel sometimes in moderate turblence just to push a GPS button--I have trouble seeing how a joystick would be feasible.

Comments from those with experience???
 
jarvis said:
My disclaimer: I have very little experience flying behind ANY EFIS, and I am a looong way from making any choices so I have no axe to grind against any manufacturer.

However, as I look and dream, I notice that one trend on many of the latest models is to incorprate a joystick for data input.

If you're getting bounced around in the clag, is it possible to use an eight--or even four position joystick? I have to "walk my fingers" up the panel sometimes in moderate turblence just to push a GPS button--I have trouble seeing how a joystick would be feasible.

Comments from those with experience???
Click to expand...

SkyView's joystick is actually very similar to the G1000. All of the EFIS panels are going to be a bit of a targeting problem in turbulence. So far I haven't had any problems with mine.
 
Does The Skyview Eliminate the Need For A GPS?

I'm confused!! Someone mentioned that the Skyview had a built in GPS. Do you get most of the functionality of, say a 496, already built into the Skyview? Or, do you still need a 496, 696, or 430 to drive the flight plan functions?

Tom
 
You have to buy the Dynon GPS and apparently soon they will have most GPS functions available for $500. Currently you with just the GPS antenna you a moving map with airports but no flight planning functions, no airport info. You can go direct to and nearest. I still use my Aera 510 for navigating.
 
Important omission from the discussion so far - your EFIS is not the only component in your airplane.

CONSIDER THE ENTIRE SYSTEM!!!

I fly IFR, but made my purchase decisions before Skyview and before Dynon had an autopilot. I didn't care a hoot about the EFIS' ability do drive the AP - that's what my GNS 480 does with my TruTrak VSGV, and now that I've gotten used to the difference between a 480 and a 430 I realize there is nothing else on the market as easy to enter a flight plan with, or to fly an approach with. ILS is going away, GPSS is on the rise; but if I need to fly an ILS I can still "steer" the autopilot for a perfect approach with almost zero effort - and I can do that irrespective of whether my EFIS is functional, so my AP acts as a backup attitude reference.

Big moving map, synthetic vision? We can now do most, or all, of that with an iPad which doesn't need to be wired into the panel. EFIS still gives you attitude.

Not arguing for or against my personal setup - everyone needs to make their own choices. Just saying you should consider all the features you feel you personally need for IFR, and then determine which components of your "solution" will fill that function as primary / secondary. Like algebra, you may find that two pieces of equipment give you redundancy you don't need (factors cancel out), and that one or the other might be just as well served with something cheaper.
 
Tony,
Eventually the SkyView will be a full replacement for a 496, 696, etc.

We show airspace, airports, and VORs today. You can do a direct-to to any object, but you cannot do a multi-leg flight plan.

In just a few weeks, we will show traffic on the map.

Coming after that will be mult-leg flight planning, weather, and lots of other little features. So it depends on when you buy and what features you need as to if we are a good replacement for another product.

If you fly IFR, and want to file /G or fly GPS approaches, you must legally have a certified GPS on board, non-certified equipment is never legal for that.
 
dynonsupport said:
In just a few weeks, we will show traffic on the map.
Click to expand...
That'll only be the TIS system available in the US though, wont it? ISTR a comment along those lines made earlier, but buggered if I can find it tonight...

Does Dynon have any plans to introduce ADSB-In for those of us that don't have TIS available?
 
SkyView can accept traffic from any device that supports the Garmin 330 format.

This means we can receive traffic from:

Dynon Transponder (TIS)
Garmin 330 Transponder (TIS)
Zaon XRX (Passive)
Navworx (ADS-B)
TRIG (future ADS-B product)

And anything else I may have forgotten.
 
Last edited:
I am sure you meant XRX on the Zaon and it also outputs a subset of TIS..

dynonsupport said:
SkyView can accept traffic from any device that supports the Garmin 330 format.

This means we can receive traffic from:

Dynon Transponder (TIS)
Garmin 330 Transponder (TIS)
Zaon MRX (Passive)
Navworx (ADS-B)
TRIG (future ADS-B product)

And anything else I may have forgotten.
Click to expand...
 
Consider Ergonomics

How well you interact with box and how it interacts with you is a consideration. I don't have much time behind a Dynon, but was easy to use without any training. Ditto AFS and GRT. Which is to say that they are a LOT better than anything Garmin I have flown behind.

Hans
 
dynonsupport said:
SkyView can accept traffic from any device that supports the Garmin 330 format.

This means we can receive traffic from:

Dynon Transponder (TIS)
Garmin 330 Transponder (TIS)
Zaon XRX (Passive)
Navworx (ADS-B)
TRIG (future ADS-B product)

And anything else I may have forgotten.
Click to expand...

Please contact Jose Monroy at Monroy Aerospace. The ATD-300 Traffic Watch has been upgraded to include bearing to traffic. I have one that I am testing. He also promised that an RS-232 connection would support traffic display on GPSs.

Since the Monroy box is so slick (small, easy to install, voice warnings) and the directional antenna is so compact that it can be externally mounted, this box promises to very popular.

Just to be a PITA, I also predict that ADS-B will have a major reset so that the spec can be rewritten to encrypt portions of the aircraft information. That may set back some of the transponder and TIS-B box development and the passive boxes that we have now may live longer.

V
 
You must log in or register to reply here.