[flyboy1963]

I'm sure a lot of guys have done this....printed off the various screens, taped them to the dash....."...too close for missiles Goose, switching to... laser guided death ray EFIS! "
( prices from ACS )

My take is that for these ol' eyeballs, the numbers on a couple of the displays are much more readable. MGL & GRT seem to win this one.

questions;
- does this hold true in the cockpit, where the backlight and glare are as important as the size?

- anyone flown behind different models?

- Do some take waaaaay more money to attach all the cables and sensors, thus the package price becomes more crucial?

 

[Canadian_JOY]

Perry - first comment would be that anybody responding to your question will likely respond WITH a question!

What anybody needs to know is, what is your mission? What do you want the EFIS to do? This speaks directly to the installation complexity question.

From my little bit of experience... I have a Dynon D100 with Brightscreen glass in my 'flying' airplane and have a GRT Mini-X in our "project" airplane. The GRT is definitely a brighter, more crisp display - no doubt about it. Sunlight readability of the GRT is better (I've had mine outside playing with it in full sun - it's definitely better than the Brightscreen Dynon in that respect).

The Dynon and GRT are pretty easy to wire, but keep in mind the GRT comes with built-in GPS, terrain, synthetic vision and a few other things the Dynon won't give you, so it's not really a fair apples-to-apples comparison.

I like the "button-ology" of the Dynon better than the GRT, but that's likely because I've got a lot more time behind the Dynon. If you check the current thread here on the GRT Mini you'll see my recent report on the internal battery which I just had installed in mine. It makes sense if this is going to be your backup instrument that must work when all else fails.

BTW if you've been following the AvMap EFIS thread on this forum then you'll know AvMap finally woke up and made their unit fit in a 3 1/8" instrument hole.

From the pricing information you've provided above, I'd say you're not likely doing apples to apples comparison there. If you strip them all down to the same feature set, or strip the higher-featured units down to have similar functionality to the lowest common denominator, I think you'll find the pricing is quite a bit closer together, save for the Sandia.

 

[N941WR]

Back in the dark ages, when I made this decision for the first time, I made a spreadsheet and listed all the features each EFIS had. That allowed me to make an informed decision.

For example, the Dynon D10A can drive an autopilot but some of the others cannot. The Dynon also has an AoA, some of the others do not.

A comprehensive comparison is the only way to make sure you install an EFIS with the functionality you want.

Your comparison isn't really valid as people are not complaining about the visibility of the different screens once installed.

 

[Brantel]

You have left out the Dynon D6 which is more apples to apples with the AVMAP and Gemini.

Like was stated by Mark and Bill above, you really need to compare these units based on feature sets to see a more realistic comparison.

I have flown behind the D6 and the Gemini. The D6 is basically a D10A with a few features removed.

The D6 and D10 are much heavier and need more depth behind the panel than the Gemini. They can also have built in batteries where the Gemini requires an external backup if you want it. They also have a true ADAHRS built into them vs the Gemini which uses Trutrak's hybrid velocity vector display. The Gemini is not a full 3D capable instrument. Both are very readable. The Gemini has a transflective display. Installation on both is as basic as it gets with this stuff. The D6/D10A are based on well proven hardware that has been around for a long time and the firmware has been stable for several years. The Gemini is fairly new compared to the Dynon units.

I played with an AvMap extensively at Oshkosh 2 years ago and it had a very impressive AHRS but the graphics looked like something out of an 80's video game. Maybe they have improved that since then?

 

[Robert Anglin]

I agree.

I have been threw this battle a lot in the last year, trying to get ready to switch to glass instead of steam, where I started from. I agree it comes down to what you fly, how you fly, where you fly and what you want out of your flying. We after a lot of thought went with the Touch G3X and most all the add-on's to that system. You have to please yourself after all your the one that has to use what you buy. When your head starts to heart and you sleep on it two or three week. Pull the trigger on what make you happy. They all work and please someone as much as they don't someone or another.
I know this may not help, but you are the boss on this one..
Yours as always. R.E.A. III

 

[Greg_Toman]

GRT Mini-EFIS Comparision

I heard from a few customers about this thread, and they prompted me to reply. I was a little hesitant to reply, as I know I am biased towards our equipment, but I felt compelled to because there are some inaccuracies here.

For the instrument shown, the best comparison would be our Mini-B, at $1199. This puts us the lowest price. This version does not provide synthetic vision, which makes it most similar in function to the other instruments.

The mini-X is priced at $1399. The optional magnetometer would add $260 for a total of $1655, which is comparable in price to the ones shown. The mini-X provides synthetic vision, highway-in-the-sky approaches, and an AHRS that will function without airspeed or GPS data. I don't think you can find an AHRS in the experimental market that can function without aiding, other than ours. Not sure about the Sandia.

It is possible that some of the confusion came from our website undergoing some revisions. When you visit our website, be sure to refresh your browser to make sure you are seeing the most recent version of our website.

Thanks
Greg Toman

 

[Greg_Toman]

Backlight

The backlight in our Mini-EFIS, and all others display units we are producing, do brighten their screens automatically at power-up. After booting, when on the ground, the EFIS will go to the "Accept" page. This displays database effective dates, status, etc. If you do not hit the "Accept" button within 10 seconds, the screen will brighten automatically (if it was dimmed).

You do not need to memorize any button pushing. This software change was made quite some time ago (years), so if you don't see this, you need to update your software.

When one of our EFIS boots up and detects that it is in the air, the accept screen is not provided, and the dimming level would be as it was before it was turned off. In this case the EFIS was trying to resume function ASAP because it may have been turned off in flight.

Thanks
Greg Toman

 

[William]

I heard from a few customers about this thread, and they prompted me to reply. I was a little hesitant to reply, as I know I am biased towards our equipment, but I felt compelled to because there are some inaccuracies here.

For the instrument shown, the best comparison would be our Mini-B, at $1199. This puts us the lowest price. This version does not provide synthetic vision, which makes it most similar in function to the other instruments.

The mini-X is priced at $1399. The optional magnetometer would add $260 for a total of $1655, which is comparable in price to the ones shown. The mini-X provides synthetic vision, highway-in-the-sky approaches, and an AHRS that will function without airspeed or GPS data. I don't think you can find an AHRS in the experimental market that can function without aiding, other than ours. Not sure about the Sandia.

It is possible that some of the confusion came from our website undergoing some revisions. When you visit our website, be sure to refresh your browser to make sure you are seeing the most recent version of our website.

Thanks
Greg Toman

Hi Greg if one was to purchase the mini B could it then be upgraded to the mini X and then be upgraded to the autopilot? If so what is the fee for the upgrades? You can pm me if you like. Sorry for the thread drift.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Canadian_JOY]

Greg - thanks for providing this additional information. This is the kind of stuff that should flow down to the installation and operation manuals.

Would you be able to comment on the post above which indicates the Mini-X does not dim far enough for comfortable night flight, please? Is there another trick to setting the lowest brightness level a bit lower? I know with the CCFL there was always a lower-end limit defined by the physics of striking and holding an arc in the tube. Since the Mini's have LED backlighting I would assume there isn't a similar limitation.

 

[Canadian_JOY]

F1R - sorry if it seemed I misquoted you. I'm from Canada, where just about all we have is remote, very dark night flight so a dark cockpit is standard operating condition.

I haven't had a chance to fly the Mini at night yet but I find my Dynon D100 dims sufficiently for night ops. Unfortunately it's in a different airplane so I can't do a side-by-side comparison with the Mini.

With all that having been said, lower dimming levels should be more easily achieved with the LED backlight technology of the Mini-X, vice the cold cathode fluorescent lamps in the previous generation of displays.

 

[Canadian_JOY]

The MGL Xtreme does engine monitoring. Take a look at the classified listing by "Relentless" for his RV8 - you'll see he has a photo of his panel with the Xtreme being used as an engine monitor.

The GRT solution requires the use of the EIS. I would love it if GRT would remove the EIS from the equation (doing so would give me the necessary incentive to dump my AFS 2500 engine monitor and install a 3rd GRT EFIS screen).

Sensors/probes generally cannot be "paralleled" between multiple interface boxes; normally each I/F box provides its own excitation to the sensor, thus the limit of one I/F box per sensor.

 

[BobTurner]

The MGL Xtreme does engine monitoring. Take a look at the classified listing by "Relentless" for his RV8 - you'll see he has a photo of his panel with the Xtreme being used as an engine monitor.

The GRT solution requires the use of the EIS. I would love it if GRT would remove the EIS from the equation (doing so would give me the necessary incentive to dump my AFS 2500 engine monitor and install a 3rd GRT EFIS screen).

Sensors/probes generally cannot be "paralleled" between multiple interface boxes; normally each I/F box provides its own excitation to the sensor, thus the limit of one I/F box per sensor.

The GRT EIS box can be remote mounted, if that's the issue.