One of the interesting things about the panel upgrade project we?re doing on Louise?s airplane are the questions I have gotten on our choice of equipment. Most people have the impression that because I put a full Grand Rapids EFIS (Horizon 1) in the Valkyrie, that I am a GRT man all the way. Well, the truth is that I still believe that GRT has one of the most feature-full and reliable packages at an outstanding price when you?re building a full-up IFR Glass Cockpit airplane (at least for my purposes, and for the features that I value), but that doesn?t mean that it is the only solution that I can except.
Louise had planned a panel upgrade for her RV-6 before we even met, and had already installed several pieces of new hardware by the time I got involved in the project. With an SL-30, a Dynon D10A and a Tru-Trak ADI, she had a rudimentary IFR platform that didn?t depend on vacuum. Unfortunately, her systems monitoring capability (engine stuff) was all pretty primitive, and much of it was unreliable. She wasn?t looking to do a complete clean-sheet design because of the cost, so what we were looking for was to give Mikey a new systems monitoring capability and some IFR redundancy. We want to be able to travel with it, primarily VFR, but with the capability to work our way around weather that isn?t to bad ? I know that many people hate the term ?IFR Light?, but if you set your minimums and STICK TO THEM when planning flights (not launching if the forecast is at all suspect), then I believe that the concept is valid.
Louise didn?t feel like she wanted to invest the money into an IFR GPS at this time, and quite frankly, she doesn?t need to. For serious all-weather traveling, we?ll take the Val. This saves, not only on initial cost, but on database subscriptions as well. With a good VOR/LOC/GS capability and a VFR GPs with XM (396) for situational awareness and to drive the autopilot, it can get us there most of the time. (In 300 hours of flying last year, including 7 trips to the various boundaries of the US, I only filed IFR twice?.the RV gives you plenty of ways to deal with weather.)
So why Dynon this time? Well, she already had the D10A. Her ADI was upgradeable to an ADI Pilot II ? the same display she loves, with the addition of a two-axis autopilot, which I was pretty insistent upon for any IFR. What we needed was a graphical engine monitor, and we fell upon a really good deal on a D180 that Stein had in stock. I felt that it would be easy to integrate two Dynons, and the price was right, so that became the plan. I am actually looking forward to getting some real, first hand experience with the Dynons, from installation, trough setup, and in flight. It will expand my own experience base and make me a better advisor for others.
So how do I compare Dynon and GRT in the ?shopping? and specifications phase? Will I stick with my choice of GRT for the Val? Well, the second answer is ?yes?, and a lot of that has to do with my knowledge f the system, it?s features, and demonstrated reliability. I am pretty knowledgeable about how modern guidance, navigation, and control systems work in the aerospace world, and I have had long discussions with Greg Toman about his AHRS design and philosophy, Because of this knowledge, I have great trust in it ? and it has never let me down. I don?t have the same knowledge of Dynon ? that doesn?t mean it is less reliable, it simply means that I don?t know about it. With any EFIS system, once you build a really reliable and accurate AHRS, the rest (in my frank opinion), is picking an OEM display/computer and then writing cool software. The GRT software is mature and packed with features that actually help me to fly better, safer, and more efficiently. It is truly an integrated solution for aircraft navigation and trip management. Things like the HITS display making instrument approaches safer, and it works perfectly to display Nav data from various sources. It interfaces remarkably well with the Tru-Trak autopilots, and gives a ?Heavy-Iron? look and feel to how you fly the airplane. My perception of the Dynons to this point is that they are not quite as integrated (but are catching up) ? although to be fair, I haven?t flown them yet. I am satisfied with the reliability aspect in Louise?s airplane because we?ll have two independent Dynon units and the ADI Pilot II. Like we say in the space business, if you don?t know the reliability, then make it redundant!
So, there are some random thoughts for people wondering if Paul has gone over to the ?Dark Side??.I am still extremely happy with GRT, and keep looking into their future products. When I build a comparison spreadsheet for an all-up traveling machine, I still can?t find any system that better satisfies my own requirements. But it will be fun trying something new as well, and I expect that I?ll log enough hours in Mikey to be able to make much more meaningful comparisons in the future. This all goes to show there is rarely a single solution that fits all situations ? rather, you have to look at each design (and the design criteria) separately, and make decisions on what you need for that particular case.
Oh?.and in the end, it?s Louise?s airplane, and I respect that!
Paul
Louise had planned a panel upgrade for her RV-6 before we even met, and had already installed several pieces of new hardware by the time I got involved in the project. With an SL-30, a Dynon D10A and a Tru-Trak ADI, she had a rudimentary IFR platform that didn?t depend on vacuum. Unfortunately, her systems monitoring capability (engine stuff) was all pretty primitive, and much of it was unreliable. She wasn?t looking to do a complete clean-sheet design because of the cost, so what we were looking for was to give Mikey a new systems monitoring capability and some IFR redundancy. We want to be able to travel with it, primarily VFR, but with the capability to work our way around weather that isn?t to bad ? I know that many people hate the term ?IFR Light?, but if you set your minimums and STICK TO THEM when planning flights (not launching if the forecast is at all suspect), then I believe that the concept is valid.
Louise didn?t feel like she wanted to invest the money into an IFR GPS at this time, and quite frankly, she doesn?t need to. For serious all-weather traveling, we?ll take the Val. This saves, not only on initial cost, but on database subscriptions as well. With a good VOR/LOC/GS capability and a VFR GPs with XM (396) for situational awareness and to drive the autopilot, it can get us there most of the time. (In 300 hours of flying last year, including 7 trips to the various boundaries of the US, I only filed IFR twice?.the RV gives you plenty of ways to deal with weather.)
So why Dynon this time? Well, she already had the D10A. Her ADI was upgradeable to an ADI Pilot II ? the same display she loves, with the addition of a two-axis autopilot, which I was pretty insistent upon for any IFR. What we needed was a graphical engine monitor, and we fell upon a really good deal on a D180 that Stein had in stock. I felt that it would be easy to integrate two Dynons, and the price was right, so that became the plan. I am actually looking forward to getting some real, first hand experience with the Dynons, from installation, trough setup, and in flight. It will expand my own experience base and make me a better advisor for others.
So how do I compare Dynon and GRT in the ?shopping? and specifications phase? Will I stick with my choice of GRT for the Val? Well, the second answer is ?yes?, and a lot of that has to do with my knowledge f the system, it?s features, and demonstrated reliability. I am pretty knowledgeable about how modern guidance, navigation, and control systems work in the aerospace world, and I have had long discussions with Greg Toman about his AHRS design and philosophy, Because of this knowledge, I have great trust in it ? and it has never let me down. I don?t have the same knowledge of Dynon ? that doesn?t mean it is less reliable, it simply means that I don?t know about it. With any EFIS system, once you build a really reliable and accurate AHRS, the rest (in my frank opinion), is picking an OEM display/computer and then writing cool software. The GRT software is mature and packed with features that actually help me to fly better, safer, and more efficiently. It is truly an integrated solution for aircraft navigation and trip management. Things like the HITS display making instrument approaches safer, and it works perfectly to display Nav data from various sources. It interfaces remarkably well with the Tru-Trak autopilots, and gives a ?Heavy-Iron? look and feel to how you fly the airplane. My perception of the Dynons to this point is that they are not quite as integrated (but are catching up) ? although to be fair, I haven?t flown them yet. I am satisfied with the reliability aspect in Louise?s airplane because we?ll have two independent Dynon units and the ADI Pilot II. Like we say in the space business, if you don?t know the reliability, then make it redundant!
So, there are some random thoughts for people wondering if Paul has gone over to the ?Dark Side??.I am still extremely happy with GRT, and keep looking into their future products. When I build a comparison spreadsheet for an all-up traveling machine, I still can?t find any system that better satisfies my own requirements. But it will be fun trying something new as well, and I expect that I?ll log enough hours in Mikey to be able to make much more meaningful comparisons in the future. This all goes to show there is rarely a single solution that fits all situations ? rather, you have to look at each design (and the design criteria) separately, and make decisions on what you need for that particular case.
Oh?.and in the end, it?s Louise?s airplane, and I respect that!
Paul
