[Pounder]

Planning a new panel for my 8, and for months I have been set to use Dynon. But recently I called the folks at GRT.

Now I am not so sure which of these two products I want to go with.

My intent is a safe, reliable, IFR cross country platform. It will have the commensurate redundancy and of course auto flight.

The primary nav is already a done deal, an Avidyne IFD540.

I know there's a vast array of experience, knowledge, and raw talent in this space. So with that, I am all ears to opinions & recommendations, hopefully based on real experiences:

Dynon or GRT.

 

[BobTurner]

I can guarantee you, everyone likes what they bought. IMHO GRT makes the superior efis, while dynon has better installation manuals. For the record I went with grt and am a happy customer.[two grt Hx efis, SL30, G420W, Trio Pro autopilot, Trig TT22 transponder/adsb-out, skyradar D2 adsb-in]

 

[Ironflight]

I own an airplane with GRT, and another with Dynon (along with other airplanes with Garmin and MGL….). I’ll tell you what I tell everyone - all the systems work, and most all have mor or less the same feature sets. What’s most important is how the operating system and user interface works with YOUR brain. Don’t decide until you have played with all potential systems in person - at a show or in an airplane. Pick the one that makes the most sense to you.

Paul

 

[Mike S]

I own an airplane with GRT, and another with Dynon (along with other airplanes with Garmin and MGL….). I’ll tell you what I tell everyone - all the systems work, and most all have mor or less the same feature sets. What’s most important is how the operating system and user interface works with YOUR brain. Don’t decide until you have played with all potential systems in person - at a show or in an airplane. Pick the one that makes the most sense to you.

Paul

Right square on the button

 

[airguy]

Agreed - I'm a Dynon guy but they are all proficient at what they do. Let the user interface and your experience with it make the decision and you won't go wrong.

 

[rv8ch]

I'm not qualified to compare the two, but I have the GRT and it works fine for the type of flying I do - day VFR - and it has been extremely reliable. It was pretty easy to install and configure. I did have to read the books, but I guess that's the same with all the EFIS and engine monitors out there. I had some questions - probably in the range of 5 - and they were answered promptly by the GRT team. I also asked for a feature to import flight plans in a different format, and they coded that up and sent me an update.

 

[BH1166]

I'm not qualified to compare the two, but I have the GRT and it works fine for the type of flying I do - day VFR - and it has been extremely reliable. It was pretty easy to install and configure. I did have to read the books, but I guess that's the same with all the EFIS and engine monitors out there. I had some questions - probably in the range of 5 - and they were answered promptly by the GRT team. I also asked for a feature to import flight plans in a different format, and they coded that up and sent me an update.

750 hrs behind GRT, one flawless simple upgrade, same day service support and sales. My only experience with glass, and a great one. Ditto what Mickey said.

 

[Dan 57]

I have been set to use Dynon. But recently I called the folks at GRT

No choice then... go Garmin

 

[Taltruda]

I fly both, I feel the font on the GRT it’s too small.. I probably need glasses, also entering waypoints on the Dynon seems easier, I would lean towards the Dynon out of those two choices.. but like Paul said, you should fly both setups and see which one you like..

 

[Mel]

I prefer GRT primarily because of price and compatibility with other systems.

GRT equipment talks to and gets along great with other brands.

Admittedly the manuals are not that great but any time you call, you will be walked through any problems you might have.

 

[Bavafa]

No brainer for me, GRT hands down.

 

[Ruready]

Only one is made in the USA and its not dynon

 

[Taltruda]

Really? So many fans of GRT? I must be missing something.. I fly a RV-9a with a Horizon 10.1 screen and feel like it’s a toy.. the heading bug is so tiny, the course line is so thin, you can just barely see it.. forget about seeing the white line for the synthetic approach mode (which works well, but is impossible to see) the engine instruments are tiny, like as small as a dime.. I must not have something set right.. the Dynon has big bold font, easy to use, easy to read.. what am I missing?

 

[BobTurner]

Really? So many fans of GRT? I must be missing something.. I fly a RV-9a with a Horizon 10.1 screen and feel like it’s a toy.. the heading bug is so tiny, the course line is so thin, you can just barely see it.. forget about seeing the white line for the synthetic approach mode (which works well, but is impossible to see) the engine instruments are tiny, like as small as a dime.. I must not have something set right.. the Dynon has big bold font, easy to use, easy to read.. what am I missing?

Somethings wrong. I have a 6” diagonal Hx, wear bifocals, see everything fine. Or maybe you need bifocals too! Without them everything is a blur.

 

[Taltruda]

Somethings wrong. I have a 6” diagonal Hx, wear bifocals, see everything fine. Or maybe you need bifocals too! Without them everything is a blur.

Haha I’m sure I probably need glasses, or I’m getting close.. seems every restaurant menu needs more light (I started doing the phone flashlight thing, drives my wife nuts).. but the GRT isn’t blurry, and Dynon/Garmin are easy to read.. the only thing about the Garmin that would prevent me from recommending them is their inability to display sectional charts TRACK up!

 

[RV8iator]

Easy

Really? So many fans of GRT? I must be missing something.. I fly a RV-9a with a Horizon 10.1 screen and feel like it’s a toy.. the heading bug is so tiny, the course line is so thin, you can just barely see it.. forget about seeing the white line for the synthetic approach mode (which works well, but is impossible to see) the engine instruments are tiny, like as small as a dime.. I must not have something set right.. the Dynon has big bold font, easy to use, easy to read.. what am I missing?

Turn on the crayon setting or check your glasses!

Another GRT vote.

 

[jclark]

Upsize the fonts ..

Really? So many fans of GRT? I must be missing something.. I fly a RV-9a with a Horizon 10.1 screen and feel like it’s a toy.. the heading bug is so tiny, the course line is so thin, you can just barely see it.. forget about seeing the white line for the synthetic approach mode (which works well, but is impossible to see) the engine instruments are tiny, like as small as a dime.. I must not have something set right.. the Dynon has big bold font, easy to use, easy to read.. what am I missing?

There are options to INCREASE the font size etc. in some areas.

Yes, some things are smaller than Dynon (or Garmin), but in SOME cases, that makes things seem more "crisp".

This truly something that is in the "eye of the beholder".

Another reason (as Paul mentioned), to try them all on for size first.

p.s. I have flown behind Dynon, Garmin and GRT (all good stuff). The EFIS's in my planes are GRT as I got used to them way "back in the day"..

 

[Squid]

Vote for GRT

Well, not having flown behind the Dynon, I have to give a plug for GRT's customer service. I have an Hxr and two Mini's with battery backup. Stopping by the GRT booth at Oshkosh every year is one of my must-stops to discuss questions or ideas for future consideration.

What made me a loyal customer was a custom software routine supplied by Jeff at GRT to help me diagnose what I thought was a problem. Turns out it was loose USB stick in the back of the Hxr but it was really nice to get the personal attention that you don't see at most avionics vendors.

Someone mentioned Dynon's documentation being better and I'd have to agree with that, especially when installing the autopilot servos. Otherwise, watch Widget's YouTube videos (all five) several times and you're most of the way there. I'm sure you can't go wrong with either system...just try before you buy.

 

[skelrad]

Like many people have said, if you're waffling, try to get hands on button pushing time before you make a decision. Since I had experience with GRT in a friend's plane, I thought I had decided on it until I had the chance to play with Dynon, Garmin and Advanced Flight Systems at Osh. I would happily fly behind any of them, but it didn't take more than a few minutes with each for me to have a strong preference. The functions are all there across the vendors, but the UI and navigation can be pretty different. For me, AFS was the standout of the four systems.

 

[akschu]

Go read the documentation for both systems. Try to plan a complete panel only from documentation. When I did this exercise I realized a few things:

1. The dynon and garmin are network based. A daisy-chain or hub connects everything and everything can talk to everything else when using the same vendors radio/autopilot/etc. GRT requires everything a device talks to be directly connected with rs-232 interfaces making a mesh topology.

2. The documentation wasn’t good enough for me to plan out a panel design without talking to support.

3. The GRT doesn’t support having a 3rd axis autopilot.

All that said, the GRT likes to interop with other vendors, so it’s the best choice if you want to avoid vendor lock-in.


I ended up with garmin. Expensive and locked in, but worth it for the lovely documentation.

https://static.garmin.com/pumac/190-01115-01_au.pdf

https://www.dynonavionics.com/includes/guides/SkyView_System_Installation_Guide-Rev_AF-v15_4.pdf

https://grtavionics.com//media/10-1-Sport-Horizon-Installation-Manual-Rev-A.pdf

 

[mr.sun]

A vote for Dynon. Have been flying behind Skyview for 10+ years and works well, reliable, very clear to see and great customer service over the years for any minor issues needing help. I have added various components over the years and it was easy. Quick answers and fair prices.

 

[BobTurner]

All that said, the GRT likes to interop with other vendors, so it’s the best choice if you want to avoid vendor lock-in.

This is perhaps the best reason to go with GRT, if you’re the type of builder that wants to make their own choices on all avionics. While I’m at it….there seems to be a strong trend toward ‘integrated’ autopilots from the efis vendors. These tend to be about $1k cheaper than ‘stand alone’ autopilots (e.g., Trio Pro). The GRT control interface to the Trio works very well, easy to use. But if all the efis units go belly up, I can flip one switch and the Trio is in stand-alone mode, and can easily fly the plane to vfr conditions, or shoot a gps approach right down to the runway. I count it as another backup.

 

[Dugaru]

Strange

Something is definitely odd here — I’m like Mr. Bifocals Magoo but I can see my GRT Horizon EX screen and all its lines etc. fine. Some sort of setting gone awry? Are you dealing with a brightness or glare problem perhaps? Photos!

Really? So many fans of GRT? I must be missing something.. I fly a RV-9a with a Horizon 10.1 screen and feel like it’s a toy.. the heading bug is so tiny, the course line is so thin, you can just barely see it.. forget about seeing the white line for the synthetic approach mode (which works well, but is impossible to see) the engine instruments are tiny, like as small as a dime.. I must not have something set right.. the Dynon has big bold font, easy to use, easy to read.. what am I missing?

 

[Taltruda]

Something is definitely odd here — I’m like Mr. Bifocals Magoo but I can see my GRT Horizon EX screen and all its lines etc. fine. Some sort of setting gone awry? Are you dealing with a brightness or glare problem perhaps? Photos!

Brightness is fine, not blurry, everything is just so small on it! Like I said, the heading bug gets lost among the details on the HSI, and the white SAP line is darn near impossible to see. The font of everything is very small.. I bet if we had a second screen to display the engine stuff, that would declutter the main panel, I’m just not impressed so far..
I’ll post a picture next time I fly it..

 

[rv8ch]

Brightness is fine, not blurry, everything is just so small on it! Like I said, the heading bug gets lost among the details on the HSI, and the white SAP line is darn near impossible to see. The font of everything is very small.. I bet if we had a second screen to display the engine stuff, that would declutter the main panel, I’m just not impressed so far..
I’ll post a picture next time I fly it..

Tom, does yours look like this? Here's mine from a fairly recent flight.

 

[GalinHdz]

IMHO DYNON is the overall best of all the EFIS systems. But that is only my OPINION and opinions are like belly buttons; everybody has one and they all stink!

I installed my DYNON SkyView in 2012 and absolutely love how user friendly it is for me. But just as so many others have noted, get some hours flying with different systems before you decide. Then go with the one that YOU feel is best.

 

[Pounder]

This is perhaps the best reason to go with GRT, if you’re the type of builder that wants to make their own choices on all avionics. While I’m at it….there seems to be a strong trend toward ‘integrated’ autopilots from the efis vendors. These tend to be about $1k cheaper than ‘stand alone’ autopilots (e.g., Trio Pro). The GRT control interface to the Trio works very well, easy to use. But if all the efis units go belly up, I can flip one switch and the Trio is in stand-alone mode, and can easily fly the plane to vfr conditions, or shoot a gps approach right down to the runway. I count it as another backup.

Bob, you touch on another perhaps more specific question i am having.

I expect to take full advantage of auto flight, fairly often. With that, my preference is to have stand alone A/P controller. Dynon provides this. GRT does not.

Perhaps a third party A/P system such as Trio could work well. But I am clueless wrt (A/P) integration:

Can you or anyone tell me, will Trio couple to multiple nav’s, say either my IFD540, or whatever EFIS I end up with (HDX or Horizon)?

Dry sponge here.

 

[akschu]

This is perhaps the best reason to go with GRT, if you’re the type of builder that wants to make their own choices on all avionics. While I’m at it….there seems to be a strong trend toward ‘integrated’ autopilots from the efis vendors. These tend to be about $1k cheaper than ‘stand alone’ autopilots (e.g., Trio Pro). The GRT control interface to the Trio works very well, easy to use. But if all the efis units go belly up, I can flip one switch and the Trio is in stand-alone mode, and can easily fly the plane to vfr conditions, or shoot a gps approach right down to the runway. I count it as another backup.

Actually, if you install the remote head autopilot box (gmc-507) it can fly the airplane on its own, same with a G5. Because all of lives on the can bus everything talks to each other.

This means that you can lose your EFIS and still have your trio, but if you lose your trio, you have no autopilot. In the garmin world even the servos are on can bus, so you can loose your efis, your AP head, or your G5 and as long as one of them works you still have autopilot. This is achieved with a two wires daisy chained from box to box to box which makes wiring easy.

 

[jclark]

Some clarification ..

Go read the documentation for both systems. Try to plan a complete panel only from documentation. When I did this exercise I realized a few things:

1. The dynon and garmin are network based. A daisy-chain or hub connects everything and everything can talk to everything else when using the same vendors radio/autopilot/etc. GRT requires everything a device talks to be directly connected with rs-232 interfaces making a mesh topology.

2. The documentation wasn’t good enough for me to plan out a panel design without talking to support.

3. The GRT doesn’t support having a 3rd axis autopilot.

All that said, the GRT likes to interop with other vendors, so it’s the best choice if you want to avoid vendor lock-in.


I ended up with garmin. Expensive and locked in, but worth it for the lovely documentation.

https://static.garmin.com/pumac/190-01115-01_au.pdf

https://www.dynonavionics.com/includes/guides/SkyView_System_Installation_Guide-Rev_AF-v15_4.pdf

https://grtavionics.com//media/10-1-Sport-Horizon-Installation-Manual-Rev-A.pdf

Just some clarification on interconnects with GRT. From their docuentation:

5.2 Inter-Display Link
Display units communicate via ethernet cable so that most entries made during flight can be made
from any display unit, and will be applied to all. The data that is transmitted on the Inter-Display
Link is user-defined (Set Menu, General Setup, Inter-Display Link). It is best to design the system
to allow devices to communicate directly to multiple screens for redundancy, but the number of
serial ports available may limit this. Data may also be shared via the Inter-Display Unit Link, which
allows the serial ports to be used for more devices. If more than two HXr displays are connected,
it is necessary to use an ethernet hub.

Not all devices have the Ethernet connection for the Inter-Display Link. On those you use a "High Speed" serial connection.

Regarding autopilots, aside from their own, one can use Trio or TruTrak (King) as they were one of the first to make these interfaces work with the experimental EFIS units.

 

[jclark]

Bob, you touch on another perhaps more specific question i am having.

I expect to take full advantage of auto flight, fairly often. With that, my preference is to have stand alone A/P controller. Dynon provides this. GRT does not.

Perhaps a third party A/P system such as Trio could work well. But I am clueless wrt (A/P) integration:

Can you or anyone tell me, will Trio couple to multiple nav’s, say either my IFD540, or whatever EFIS I end up with (HDX or Horizon)?

Dry sponge here.

Bryan,

Is your desire for a separate "Mode Control Panel" or a separate device to control autopilot functions and thus NOT touching anything on your primary display?

There are at least three ways that you can use the GRT autopilot servos (in addition to using a TruTrak (King) or Trio).

1. Push button to "engage autopilot" (separate or on stick). Then push buttons on screen to activate the function you desire.
2. Use a SEPARATE GRT unit (like a Mini) and dedicate it to do autopilot (and other) functions. No disruption of your primary screen.
3. On the touch screen models, touch, altitude. and have the equivalent of a "mode control panel" pop up on the screen and use that as desired.

Otherwise you are CORRECT they do not have the separate panel with the buttons, knobs, or scroll wheel. And they probably SHOULD make such available since they have already programmed all the functions into their units.

 

[Bavafa]

Interestingly, GRT has had SW features for years now that some of the big companies are just offering those now. I still see features offered in GRT that I would like to see in Garmin.

 

[edhunter]

I did not read this entire thread, so I may be repeating someone else. But for ease of installation you cannot bear Advanced Flight with their ACM
Module. I love my AFS dual panel setup. I also have IFD540 navigator.

 

[Mike S]

I bet if we had a second screen to display the engine stuff, that would declutter the main panel

How about a third screen dedicated to engine stuff?

 

[Canadian_JOY]

How about a third screen dedicated to engine stuff?

Three screens make for an excellent solution. Even better if they are backed up by three AHARS sources.

In my case I have a hybrid of older and newer GRT equipment. The primary display is a 6" HX with Adapative AHARS, beside it is a Mini-X and over on the right side is a Sport EX. This configuration gives me three displays, three AHARS, and I can switch data between all three screens.

Oh, behind the scenes is a an EIS-66R remote engine monitor. The Sport EX is wired with bi-directional RS232 ports to allow configuration and control of the EIS.

Typically I fly with engine indications on the right hand display and the middle display, the HX, as the PFD. The Mini-X is my "just don't touch it" display that is always in PFD mode. No matter how I might mess up a button push somewhere else I always have PFD information available to me at a glance.

If flying with a passenger who will fly I move the engine data over to the HX and configure the right hand display, the Sport EX, as a PFD while again keeping the Mini-X in PFD mode.

After six years of flying in this configuration I don't think I would change it if the opportunity presented itself. These displays, in conjunction with the IFR navigator and an 8" android tablet on the outboard edges of the instrument panel provide so much information in such a clear, understandable format that I can't see much room or need for improvement.

 

[Ruready]

Really? So many fans of GRT? I must be missing something.. I fly a RV-9a with a Horizon 10.1 screen and feel like it’s a toy.. the heading bug is so tiny, the course line is so thin, you can just barely see it.. forget about seeing the white line for the synthetic approach mode (which works well, but is impossible to see) the engine instruments are tiny, like as small as a dime.. I must not have something set right.. the Dynon has big bold font, easy to use, easy to read.. what am I missing?

This heading bug is plenty big for my eyes, big as the 73 heading bug almost. Not sure what the synthetic approach white line you are referring to but on my GRT mini the SAP is either several rectangular boxes you fly thru or you can choose a flight directer in settings instead of the boxes, all extremely visible.

 

[Canadian_JOY]

One of the terrific features of the GRT is the ability to show waypoint "ballons" and an aircraft velocity pipper. This makes flying a total no-brainer. Steer the airplane to put the pipper on the balloon - you will fly directly over the waypoint. It really is like cheating...

 

[BobTurner]

Bob, you touch on another perhaps more specific question i am having.

I expect to take full advantage of auto flight, fairly often. With that, my preference is to have stand alone A/P controller. Dynon provides this. GRT does not.

Perhaps a third party A/P system such as Trio could work well. But I am clueless wrt (A/P) integration:

Can you or anyone tell me, will Trio couple to multiple nav’s, say either my IFD540, or whatever EFIS I end up with (HDX or Horizon)?

Dry sponge here.

1. Correct, grt does not offer a stand alone autopilot controller. But if you push in on one knob, the display puts a horizontal band, maybe 1.5” high (?), across the bottom, where all the usual options (heading track, nav track, gps track, climb on VS, climb on AS, arm ILS, arm GPS approach) appear. I’ve flown behind a garmin 503 and I’d say they’re different but similar. I have a slight preference for the grt., mostly because I pre-program climb/descent rates. On approaches, a ‘missed’ box in yellow appears over the center button. One push (plus power) starts the miss.
2. The Trio has only one nav input, and it must be a digital gps signal (3 lines total: 2 arinc lines plus an RS232 line). For vor or ils you need an efis to make those signals ‘look like’ gps data. That’s the one external switch I mentioned: normal, nav input from efis. Other position, if efis fails, data direct from GPS (G420W in my case).

I really like the Trio Pro. It’s embarrassing, it flies better than I can. If I let it fly the ILS to near touchdown it consistently flies me to 10 feet right of the centerline - because my SL30 ILS receiver uses an Archer antenna in the left wingtip!

 

[Pounder]

Thanks gents..

Lots of good information, observations, opinions, and suggestions.

I do enjoy the collective here. So refreshing....

FWIW, I'm coming from a few years of Honeywell, Pegasus FMS. Anyone else of the like? I'm guessing recommendations from that background would lean to Garmin. But I'm not going there, particularly with the Avidyne nav.


Attached is layout. Also open to suggestions (please accompany w/justification

RV8
Standard throttle quadrant on left.

Single screen/ Dual ADAHRS
AV30 back up
Dual Nav and com:
IFD540 (nav/com)
Dynon’s remote Trig com
Val INS429 self contained radio nav
Remote transponder

Yes, stick in right hand, buttons on left.
Smoke

 

[PaulvS]

Comment on panel: will there be one comm radio or two? If one only, then an alternative to the Dynon control panel and separate intercom may be to use just a Trig TY91 comm that has a built-in intercom as well as audio input. It can interface with Skyview for frequency exchange.

 

[jclark]

Well, Since you asked ...

RV8

Front panel.
Radio stack on left since right hand is on the stick.

Big EFIS in center as it displays all that I need for flight (VFR or IFR).

Two Minis on the right.
- Emergency backup PFD with internal battery for 30-60 minutes if ALL OTHER electrical systems have failed.
- Additional MAP display to be able to easily look up NEAREST airports, frequencies, etc. Also ability to serve as a SEPARATE autopilot control.
- Could choose for one to show ENGINE data in a different way if desired.

The backseat is an iPad running iLevil app. It can take ENGINE data from GRT and display it. You can also have it do PFD. AND you can split screen and have Foreflight (as I seem to recall.)

Hope this helps.

 

[Pounder]

GRT

Mini’s are terrific. They will return, supposedly next year some time.

 

[Mike S]

Comment on panel: will there be one comm radio or two? If one only, then an alternative to the Dynon control panel and separate intercom may be to use just a Trig TY91 comm that has a built-in intercom as well as audio input. It can interface with Skyview for frequency exchange.

We have a Trig comm and xpnder being controlled by the GRT --- I believe the system can run two comms if needed.

 

[akschu]

Just some clarification on interconnects with GRT. From their docuentation:

5.2 Inter-Display Link
Display units communicate via ethernet cable so that most entries made during flight can be made
from any display unit, and will be applied to all. The data that is transmitted on the Inter-Display
Link is user-defined (Set Menu, General Setup, Inter-Display Link). It is best to design the system
to allow devices to communicate directly to multiple screens for redundancy, but the number of
serial ports available may limit this. Data may also be shared via the Inter-Display Unit Link, which
allows the serial ports to be used for more devices. If more than two HXr displays are connected,
it is necessary to use an ethernet hub.

Not all devices have the Ethernet connection for the Inter-Display Link. On those you use a "High Speed" serial connection.

Regarding autopilots, aside from their own, one can use Trio or TruTrak (King) as they were one of the first to make these interfaces work with the experimental EFIS units.

Bob, you touch on another perhaps more specific question i am having.

I expect to take full advantage of auto flight, fairly often. With that, my preference is to have stand alone A/P controller. Dynon provides this. GRT does not.

Perhaps a third party A/P system such as Trio could work well. But I am clueless wrt (A/P) integration:

Can you or anyone tell me, will Trio couple to multiple nav’s, say either my IFD540, or whatever EFIS I end up with (HDX or Horizon)?

Dry sponge here.

There is a distinction between a control box that can control the autopilot running in the EFIS and a completely different autopilot that gets nav data from the EFIS.

Another distinction is how things work normally and how things work in a mode of failure.

From what I understand, if you have multiple GRT screens they can all talk to each other over ethernet (standard network cable), but if you lose the screen the AP servos are connected to, you loose the AP.

If you have an external autopilot like a trutrak or trio, then you get an external box with it's own buttons, and you can send nav information to it from any screen effectively controlling it from the EFIS, but if the external autopilot has issues, again, you lose your auto pilot.

GRT provides a drawing to connect the servos two two screens at once https://grtavionics.com/media/AP-Wiring-Dual-DU-Rev-H.pdf to get around the fact that they aren't on the network, but it's not as efficient as the garmin/dynon way which is to put the servos on the network instead of having both EFIS screens directly connecting over serial.

If you go down the trio route, it looks like it only has one rs-232 interface so you can't connect it to both screens, you would need a switch that drives the trio from EFIS 1 or EFIS 2 or live with the possibility that loosing the EFIS it's connected to would put the AP in manual mode as it wouldn't be able to get nav data from the dead EFIS.

 

[FireMedic_2009]

AFS

I only saw one person mention of AFS. I installed an AFS5600 in 2017. With AFS you are only one button from everything. It is very intuitive making it easy to master. I would say Dynon is next with Garmin n GRT. For some reason I like GRT’s map the best. AFS and Dynon’s Com panel along with the AP and Alt/Baro panel mount makes it nice. Not sure if GRT has those available. Garmin has the AP and Alt/Baro panel mount. However once you master GRT’s efis you will like it. All four companies are solid but Garmin’s engine info displayed on the PFD/Map split screen has the least info along with limited data bar on the top.

I have G3X in my RV3 which I’ve owned 2.75 yrs. If someone would trade me the G3X package (remote Com, xponder, servos, adsb in/out, ADHRS) for an AFS package with the harnesses I’d do it