[Jon Clements]

As I am on the low side of the equator and couldn't make it to Osh I was wondering if anyone could give me some feedback on the GRT Series I HX High Res EFIS with synthetic vision which I assume was displayed - also any feedback on the AFS 3500 with the updated moving map software. I am sitting on the fence in relation to which system to install in my 7. Its proving very difficult to get any detailed info or screen drops from either company and I would greatly appreciate some Osh feedack if available. I am leaning towards the GRT for additional features (and compatibility with my TT Digitrak) over AFS but I reckon the graphics on the AFS are far better and the inclusion of AOA is a bonus......can anyone swing me one way or the other so I can start cutting holes in my panel?

 

[flyvans.com]

Hi Jon,

being in a similar situation like you, we looked in depth at both options.
although more pricey, we had planned on and we'll probably go with grt.

several "key" points:
-grt will bring new hardware, superbright screens, graphics are gonna look beautiful.
-grt had not much of the new software ready for the show, but assuming they port even only the current functionality of the efis1 to the new screen, they're already ahead of many competitors. so anything like 3d terrain etc... will be a neat extra to us.
- grt is actually ahead of development schedule. grt is definitely an engineering driven rather than marketing company, we like that approach.
- grt has a history of many great and regular software updates.
-afs moving map clearly only supports the U.S. with no plans for even medium-term change of policy. the whole company in fact seems to be very "U.S. only" oriented.
-grt is coming up with an optional jeppesen compatibility, of course that'll cost extra but at least you will be able to get data outside the u.s.
-autopilot integration is much much better with grt (tt digiflight IIvsgv) than with afs, which is only working on the basic integration right now (no word on vertical, flight mode annunciator etc..)
-grt has an actual mode annunciator with all the active and armed modes.
-afs screen looks overloaded to me with the hsi overlaid on the pfd, and no chance to configure it differently (2 screen system). in fact they want to patent? that.
-afs announced a partnership with honeywell. they are clearly hardware limited right now, so if they want to bring the user interface up to honeywell (or aspenavionics) standards, then they'll eventually have to bring new boxes which leaves questions about support/software upgrade for the current ones.
-afs currently is probably the better "bang for the buck", gets you a good efis at a decent price, but less features and outlook on upgrades.
-"look and feel" of the user interface with the afs is clearly inferior to grt. single rotary knob versus 2. afs rotary knob drops inputs when turned too quickly (when the screen is loaded/split mode) even at very reasonable hdg-knob turn-speeds. screen update rate is very variable with the afs. function of the rotary knob is set by browsing through a list, pushing the knob. this is clumsy, costs you capacity. you first push the button, visually check which function it is now set to, wheter you want to browse further through the list or turn it now. if you turn too early you'll change the wrong setting. also the list is dynamic, depending on wheter you have e.g. altitude bugs turned on or not. so blindly changing the settings by memorizing sequence doesn't work either.
anyway i've had several "smaller" issues with the afs, which are a dealbreaker to me. it may not appear significant when "playing" with it on the ground, but as a controller, i know what a good or a bad hmi can do to support/hinder you under pressure at critical times.
-grt with 2 screens will give you 4 rotary pushbuttons
-the fact that some people at afs were "dissing" grt, e.g. for still having some soldered electronics rather than smd on their board, or using wince as OS etc... did not bring them any aditional points with me. to me that's all fine as long as it works, and it appears to have worked very well. you only need to look at the grt track record, read the yahoo groups etc... if there would have been problems, these would be valid arguments, but brought up like that it's an almost religious reinvigoration of the mac vs pc debate. also that applies to the efis1 base which is now several years old, i assume grt will come up with improvements where deemed necessary.
-we're looking at a 1/2 to 1 year timeframe from now for the panel construction, so timing with the grt will be just right.

that's it for now, maybe i'll have some more flashbacks from the show regarding that debate.

kind regards, bernie

 

[w1curtis]

Bernie,

I'm also deciding between the AFS and GRT but your second sentence makes it clear you have already made your decision and then all your subsequent points goes on to justify why the GRT is best for YOU. Many of you points are subjective and while they may be a positive or negative for you, another user may think the opposite.

Here are some of my opinions:
-I actually like the HSI deception as an effective use of screen space.

Here are some facts:
-Jeppessen Nav data IS worldwide so why would GRT data be an improvement.
-By my calculation a two screen GRT and a two screen AFS EFIS are about the same price.

Dual screen GRT $8,995
AFS (AF-3500EFIS- $4,447, AF-3500EM - $2,965, AF-6CYL - $1376) = $8,888

-Why do you consider the AFS system "hardware limited?" It is a brand new architecture using current technology. Clearly the GRT Series I (not the Series I / HS) is hardware limited. For example the GRT uses compact flash storage while the AFS uses S-DRAM. The AFS uses a version of the certified Crossbow 500GA AHRS while it is unknown which MEMS technology AHRS is used with the GRT. Not that the GRT is not good, just trying to understand what you mean by "hardware limited."
-you describe the AFS user interface as "inferior", based on what? -your personal opinion?
-Why is 4 rotary push buttons a good thing--or better than 2?
-The symbology that AFS uses is aviation industry standard, the GRT symbology is not. It's fine that you prefer the GRT symbology, just compare it to symbology from all the certified EFIS manufactures.

GRT Series I

GRT Series I / HS

AFS 3500 EFIS/EM

*Pictures not to scale

 

[flyvans.com]

william,

i'll try to elaborate:

first of all, our decision is not final. no purchases made etc... if something better comes along in the meantime that fits "us" then we're open for a change. for example the aspenavionics units were such a surprise, easily the single best digital AI/HSI combo at a reasonable price at the show. unfortunately lacking all the other nice integrated features of complete efis'es, respectively aimed at the certified market and -autopilots.
of course, everyone has to figure out his own personal tastes and requirements and select accordingly. i never claimed total objectivity. certain features such as smoothness etc... are all subjective. and there are objective criteria such as map data support.

-1: hsi over pfd. purely subjective opinion.
just don't like it for the same reason i don't like the trutrak slanted hsi depiction... trying to reinvent the wheel on something that has worked very well. honeywell/airbus/boeing/collins have probably spent millions in dollars and have thrown huge amounts of human interface design brainpower at engineering their flightdecks, yet they always end up using the vertical or side-by-side split between PFD and ND. i think there will be just too many items turning and moving in a dynamic situation at any given time in the same screen area. anyways, purely subjective. would be nice if it could optionally be turned off/split in a multi-screen system while having it on on a single screen system.

-2: jeppesen / navdata.
i agree that jeppesen is worldwide and not that much of a special feature for a mapping application. it is however a huge improvement over a proprietary AFS map database with absolutely NO coverage outside the U.S.! and an AFS having NO compatibility with jeppesen, not now and not in the near future. agreed, the data is free which is nice for everyone living in the states of course. the same way i envy you for having xm weather, which isn't available anywhere else.
i consider this database issue quite a factor if you live somewhere else like we do in europe or jon does down under, who started the thread. believe me, i spent considerable time at the AFS booth looking at the map (which looks very very nice by the way) and inquiring about their unit. When asked wheter they would provide the data format so we could at least feed the most important map data for europe on our own they were more than reluctant. technically it should be relatively easy since it's all fed via the sdcard. when asked about any improvements in that direction afs directly admitted being focused on the U.S. market and having other items first in priority, such as autopilot integration. that is fine with me and a valid business decision. however that may in turn influence decisions on the (foreign) customer side.

-3: price
i do not actually compare the efis1 with the afs3400/3500 but rather the upcoming grt efis1/hx, which is clearly more expensive, i figure by about 4000$ for 2 screens although information from the website is not very clear. if it'll be cheaper, it would be appreciated of course ;-) simply budgeting....

-4: hardware limitations
having played around some with their different units at the booth i got a "feel" for the unit, respectively the software. especially in "demo mode" when all the features were displayed at the same time in splitscreen, (pfd, hsi, various bugs, moving map, engine data) one could "feel" respectively observe a notable slowdown. in a regular turn, headings started to "jump" between redraws and as stated hdg-bug inputs were severely dropped. once you decluttered the screen things improved notably and you could actually call it smooth. now assuming they have nicely written and optimized code (and i really belive they do) that shows that the processor is no longer up to speed/required features. also no antialiasing employed, (which is not a dealbreaker either, i actually like the AFS software look). but throw honeywell into the equation, which by all accounts and experiences will require super-smooth user interface and antialiasing, a new hardware box will be in store for afs... or honeywell intends to expand its brand towards the bottom end of the market, could be another possibility. just my 20cts.
you are right, the current grt efis1 is hardware limited. but grt recognized that and did not overload it, neither with graphics nor with features, i'll take smoothness and user interface over nice gimmicks and eye-candy at any time.
that's also why the new box will run with a dedicated graphics chip and a much stronger processor, which will also allow the unit to grow.

if everybody aimed for a standard in the region of the aspenavionics units, the result would be niiiiice efissss'es ;-) also that proves that it can be done at reasonable cost when they are able to do it certified!

-5: AHRS:
agree, the AFS unit has a nice well known xbow unit on their side. definitely a plus. however the GRT ahrs has been around for a while and by all accounts works very well, also it is an independent box. display and drawing is physically separated from data acquisition/sensors. also, i doubt a reliable ahrs could be realised with a processor of less resolution/quality/frequency than the sensors.

-6: user interface / symbology:
agreed, AFS has much nicer symbology! that was and still is my single most criticized point about the GRT. just like the other guys tried to reinvent the wheel with their HSI's, GRT did it with the colors, speed and altitude tapes.
however, they are smooth and still easily readable and interpretable. also the hdg bug/crs pointer moves at your request in all situations.
regarding the user interface being inferior to grt is my personal opinion and based on the functionality of the rotary knobs and line select keys together with their depiction on the screen.
4 rotary knobs are always better than 2. the same reason why dynon is expanding their avionics with 2 rotaries up from zero.
airbus and boeing don't have a single rotary pushbutton where you first have to select its function by pushing it... in fact they have multiple, some with push and pull functions! look at a garmin g1000/g900x, also several rotary knobs and as with the "big iron" they even have different shapes so you immediately notice by tactile feedback which one you are turning. just gives you a more direct access and interface to the system.
so the nearest you can get to that situation with the avionics in question is having 4 knobs from 2 interlinked grt displays and using each for one or max 2 functions. you don't want to change altimeter setting instead of selected altitude "in the heat of the battle" just because you forgot to switch its function first...

none of these units is perfect, otherwise we wouldn't have such a fierce competition and even new players entering the market. also i'm in no way affiliated to grt nor had any personal issues with AFS, in contrary. only reporting my subjective observations from osh.

kind regards and looking forward to other opinions,
bernie

 

[w1curtis]

if something better comes along in the meantime that fits "us" then we're open for a change. for example the aspenavionics units were such a surprise, easily the single best digital AI/HSI combo at a reasonable price at the show. unfortunately lacking all the other nice integrated features of complete efis'es, respectively aimed at the certified market and -autopilots.
of course, everyone has to figure out his own personal tastes and requirements and select accordingly. i never claimed total objectivity.
....

Hmm, again I don't understand why you say the the Aspen Avionics EFD1000 lacks "integrated features." It has full ARINC 429 interfaces, support for 2 GPS and 2 VHF NAV, integration with XM weather and traffic. What is it missing that you think is in a "complete efis's"?

-4: hardware limitations
having played around some with their different units at the booth i got a "feel" for the unit, respectively the software. especially in "demo mode" when all the features were displayed at the same time in splitscreen, (pfd, hsi, various bugs, moving map, engine data) one could "feel" respectively observe a notable slowdown. in a regular turn, headings started to "jump" between redraws and as stated hdg-bug inputs were severely dropped. once you decluttered the screen things improved notably and you could actually call it smooth. now assuming they have nicely written software (and i really belive they do) that shows that the processor is no longer up to speed/required features. also no antialiasing employed, which is not a dealbreaker either, i like the AFS software look.

So you are judging a new product on the performance of the "demo mode?" While this *may* provide some information on the performance of a unit in the real world, I'm not sure that information is useful.

but throw honeywell into the equation, which by all accounts and experiences will require super-smooth user interface and antialiasing, a new hardware box will be in store for afs... or honeywell wants to expand its brand towards the bottom end of the market, another possibility. just my 20cts.

I don't understand why Honeywell will prompt a change in hardware. As I understand it, AFS is doing contract work for Honeywell which presumably will be marketed separately by Honeywell to the certified market. Except for the improvement of the software in the uncertified stuff, I don't see how you extrapolate the interaction to require new hardware.

-5: AHRS:
agree, the AFS unit has a nice well known brand unit on their side. definitely a plus. however the GRT ahrs has been around for a while and by all accounts works very well, also it is an independent box. display and drawing is physically separated from data acquisition/sensors. also, i doubt a reliable ahrs could be realised with a processor of less resolution/quality/frequency than the sensors.

Just because all items of a system are integrated into a single box, doesn't mean that they are using the same processor. Again, I fail to see how you come to this conclusion.

...
regarding the user interface being inferior to grt is my personal opinion and based on the functionality of the rotary knobs and line select keys together with their depiction on the screen.
4 rotary knobs are always better than 2. the same reason why dynon is expanding their avionics with 2 rotaries up from zero.
airbus and boeing don't have a single rotary push button where you first have to select its function by pushing it... in fact they have multiple, some with push and pull functions! look at a garmin g1000/g900x, also several rotary knobs and as with the "big iron" they even have different shapes so you immediately notice by tactile feedback which one you are turning. just gives you a more direct access and interface to the system.
so the nearest you can get to that situation with the avionics in question is having 4 knobs from 2 interlinked grt displays and using each for one or max 2 functions. you don't want to change altimeter setting instead of selected altitude "in the heat of the battle" just because you forgot to switch its function first...

I don't know about "Airbus and Boeing" but there are MANY avionics that utilize the push to change from a default function. The Aspen Avionics units, Avio, and the GNS-430/530 AND the G-1000 you cite above come to mind. On the 430/530 you push the right knob for the cursor, you push the left button to tune VHF Nav frequencies. On the G900/1000 you push the Nav button to switch between Nav1 and Nav2, you push the HDG button to Sync the heading, etc. The Aspen Avionics EFD1000 functions the same way as the AFS unit in that the function of the knob changes from the default with each push. You don't have to "first select" anything unless you want to change from the DEFAULT function. I'm not sure which avionics you are familiar with but just because you want an individual knob for each function, doesn't mean that this is the best or only way to do it.

I may eventully go with the GRT, especially if AFS does not offer an ARINC 429 interface at a reasonable price, but all the points you made and continue to make are subjective and only apply to you, but you put them forth as objective. That is my only contention.

 

[flyvans.com]

william,

Hmm, again I don't understand why you say the the Aspen Avionics EFD1000 lacks "integrated features." It has full ARINC 429 interfaces, support for 2 GPS and 2 VHF NAV, integration with XM weather and traffic. What is it missing that you think is in a "complete efis's"?

again that statement is only true for our (experimental) case...
As several times stated it is a beautiful unit with probably the nicest software currently out there. main item missing right now is autopilot integration.
It lacks support for a trutrak digiflight II VSGV for example, especially vertical guidance. Only supports certified autopilots like s-tec etc... so far, at least that's what the guy at their booth told me.
It does not have integration to an engine monitor. agreed, a third party engine monitor with the vertical power vp-200 would cover that.
It does not have any upfront data recording capability (nice for e.g. testflights)
Some Efis's offer internal flight planning
if they come up with trutrak integration we will seriously reconsider.

So you are judging a new product on the performance of the "demo mode?" While this *may* provide some information on the performance of a unit in the real world, I'm not sure that information is useful.

Well that "demo mode" was basically the real software replaying a flight... Don't see any problem with that comparison. If the software is still beta and not yet optimized, then it would be something else... However from chatting with one of their devs it appeared that this was close to RTM, and specifically about the hdg-bug-problem not much he could do about.

I don't understand why Honeywell will prompt a change in hardware. As I understand it, AFS is doing contract work for Honeywell which presumably will be marketed separately by Honeywell to the certified market. Except for the improvement of the software in the uncertified stuff, I don't see how you extrapolate the interaction to require new hardware.

To be honest, i barely know anything about the situation with honeywell. The honeywell spin mainly came out of a chat with someone very knowledgeable in avionics. That they were working together, one of the most visible sign is the design of the altitude tape which apparently belongs to honeywell, while honeywell had an afs/based unit on display on their booth. Repeat, i do NOT know anything about Honeywell, no insider knowledge, no nothing. The hardware performance statement i stand behind however, everything else about where things might be headed is purely speculation on my part.

Just because all items of a system are integrated into a single box, doesn't mean that they are using the same processor. Again, I fail to see how you come to this conclusion.

sorry, you totally missed my point on the ahrs. it was a reply to your first objection about the "hardware limited" statement. i think they are both fine ahrs and both unaffected by either display unit possibly maybe potentially being hardware limited.

I don't know about "Airbus and Boeing" but there are MANY avionics that utilize the push to change from a default function. The Aspen Avionics units, Avio, and the GNS-430/530 AND the G-1000 you cite above come to mind. On the 430/530 you push the right knob for the cursor, you push the left button to tune VHF Nav frequencies. On the G900/1000 you push the Nav button to switch between Nav1 and Nav2, you push the HDG button to Sync the heading, etc. The Aspen Avionics EFD1000 functions the same way as the AFS unit in that the function of the knob changes from the default with each push. You don't have to "first select" anything unless you want to change from the DEFAULT function. I'm not sure which avionics you are familiar with but just because you want an individual knob for each function, doesn't mean that this is the best or only way to do it.

that is all fine, i never disliked that in principle. in fact i'm lucky to be able to rent a da40 with a g1000 glass panel which has the pushbutton functions changing com1 to com2 etc... syncing a hdg with the hdg knob is equally comfortable.
however it's a huge difference to having a single knob available. and cycling through altimeter setting and altitude preselect right after each other.
you may have another opinion on that and i will accept that. i only strongly feel that there is quite a danger of accidentally changing the wrong setting when under pressure causing confusion etc...

see, i don't want to start a flaming-war ;-) i'm also totally fine with anyone having a completely different opinion on the systems and stating them here. the original poster asked for opinions and i provided mine.... now everyone is free to agree, disagree or forget about it. it may or may not give a heads up on some issues. i also like to be proven wrong on any negative point i mentioned on any of these systems discussed... which would ultimately make them fit our reqs/expectations maybe at a much lower price than what we're looking at right now...

I may eventully go with the GRT, especially if AFS does not offer an ARINC 429 interface at a reasonable price, but all the points you made and continue to make are subjective and only apply to you, but you put them forth as objective. That is my only contention.

i sincerely did not intend to claim objectivity. while some points are pretty objective (such as outside u.s. mapping) many others are totally subjective and there will be many opinions on them. i purely wrote from my standpoint.

kind regards, bernie

 

[N402RH]

william,

Well that "demo mode" was basically the real software replaying a flight... Don't see any problem with that comparison. If the software is still beta and not yet optimized, then it would be something else... However from chatting with one of their devs it appeared that this was close to RTM, and specifically about the hdg-bug-problem not much he could do about.

1. The Demo mode is not a real flight, it is special software that simulates all the sensors, GPS, SL30, AHRS, altimeter, and airspeed. It is running on top of all the real software and does slow the system down slightly.

2. The AF-3400 and AF-3500 already have a graphics coprocessor and a 400 mhz XScale chip and are running our own small proprietary OS.

3. We have talked to Jeppeson about using their data and we will most likely offer it in the near future (btw-they are located about 10 miles away from us).

4. The Crossbow AHRS has its own internal processor and does not use any CPU time from the main system.

5. We are almost finished with the new menu structure that will remove much of the knob button pressing and make it simpler to use.

6. We do have a prototype of the ARINC 429 working with a 430 and will have production units available soon.

7. The complete system will run on the internal battery for an hour if you lose power.

8. We have already done a seperate HSI and will most likely offer it in the next release.

What I would like to see is an unbiased/independent evaluation of all the AHRS available. Each AHRS should be tested in its normal mode as well as with the pitot, static, and GPS disconnected. This would enable everyone to make an informed decision and know what to expect in the event of a pitot or GPS failure.

We currently have five full time engineers and not one single marketing person We are looking for a production manager and electronics technicians.

Sincerely,

Rob Hickman
Advanced Flight Systems

 

[dav1111]

GRT VS. AFS

Thanks go out to Rob Hickman for his posting to this thrend. Lets not start another primer type war over the two systems.

First let me point out that I am a flying RV-10 with a 3 screen GRT system that I love and any upgrade will be to the new GRT screens, not to AFS. Having said that, AFS has a lot going for it and anybody buying a system needs to look at all the options and go with what works best for their intended flight needs.

When SteinAir built my panel and installed the GRT 3 screen system AFS was not an option, but if I were building a new panel today I would probably look real hard at putting in an AFS as the third screen vs. my GRT Sport. Saying that I would look hard at such option doesn't mean that I would do it, only that AFS is really worth a hard look and I would give them a lot of consideration before making a decision.

GRT absolultly has the best customer support of any company I have dealt with in my 61+ years. The guys and Sandy at GRT are second to none when it comes to helping their customers as I have repeatedly posted.

My advise for anyone thinking about buying an EFIS system is to first get on the GRT wait list if you want one of their new systems anticipated to be out later this year. It doesn't cost a thing to get on the list and GRT will not ask you for money for any of their units until the week they are ready to ship the unit to you. I don't know about AFS but you should certaintly call and talk to them about their policy. If the Chilton purchasers had not had to pay in advance for a system when ordering (months before shipping) they would not have gotten left holding the bag.

 

[flyvans.com]

Rob,

thanks a lot for the update!

sounds excellent!

i'm always ready to be convinced ;-) haven't written off AFS at all.
all my statements so far are based on what i got to see at the booth and talking to one of your engineers. i didn't "make" anything "up".
great if we get news from THE person who must be in the know ;-)

some follow up questions:
3: have you considered putting the map data specifications in public domain?
5: are you going to publish a video, pdf or kind of demo explaining the new menu structure?
you have one of the nicest cases by the way. also, the rotary knob has a very nice touch to it, it's just the software...
8: when having the separate HSI, can the HSI on top of the PFD be turned off?

- any plans to work on the heading-bug issue? e.g. having some discrete electronics buffering knob inputs?
- how far along are you on integrating the trutrak? will you have a flight mode annunciator / vertical guidance?
- would we be able to hook up 3 3400's to have 3 rotary knobs, all synchronized? maybe any plans on adding a second knob to the existing units? or coming up with an "auxiliary" display without any sensors but interconnected to the other displays to allow for another rotary?
- are you going to make all the units user configurable? e.g. kg as weight on the weight and balance page, while still having altitude in feet etc...

thanks,

kind regards,
bernie

 

[w1curtis]

....
.....
- would we be able to hook up 3 3400's to have 3 rotary knobs, all synchronized? maybe any plans on adding a second knob to the existing units? or coming up with an "auxiliary" display without any sensors but interconnected to the other displays to allow for another rotary?

My-my Bernie, you do have a facination with knobs!

Flying IFR most of the time, I guess I've never given thought to how additional knobs would help me. I'll have to reflect on this on my next IFR (I guess also VFR) flight.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

What I would like to see is an unbiased/independent evaluation of all the AHRS available. Each AHRS should be tested in its normal mode as well as with the pitot, static, and GPS disconnected. This would enable everyone to make an informed decision and know what to expect in the event of a pitot or GPS failure.

I agree. The differences in AHRS are not well understood. IIRC, the Dynon uses pitot/static aiding and the AHRS will go unreliable after some time without it. The Crossbow 420/425 uses GPS aiding and is stable without it, but errors will accumulate (similar to precession). What about others?

Also IIRC, most of our AHRS use three MEMS gyros as well as three MEMS accelerometers and are normally assisted by a magnetometer. These are used, either by themselves or with other data to form the basic solution. Kalman filters are often used to mathematically mosh the data into the best solution. The more data you add to the Kalman filter, the better the solution, normally (think of it as overdetermination of position via more GPS satellites). So, if you can add GPS and/or pitot-static data, then you should get a more accurate and reliable solution, and it will be able to deal with the loss of one of more accelerometers or gryos.

And there's the rub - what is the stability of each of the systems without any pitot-static or GPS input? If we look at the XBow 420/425, it clearly stated its angular drift both with and without GPS data. Now, the 425 had some problems and got a bad rap because of the antenna mismatches, but I think that the 420/425 is still a good product.

What would be really interesting is to understand the difference between the 420/425 and the 5000-series AHRS made by XBow - the 5000 is TSOed, needs no GPS ading.

TODR

 

[Jon Clements]

Bernie, William et al -

Thanks for your generous feedback - appreciated. Funnily enough i share support on both sides of the differences in opinion (if thats possible?!).

I have purchased a Trutrak Digiflight II VSGV so the GRT system is the best option in terms of compatibility. The reality is however that for the GRT dual screen Horizon I HX (once you add options and internal Raims GPS) you are up for more than $13k to $14k which is a lot more than AFS dual screen steup at around $9k with AOA.

Being down under I really want Jepperson and it appears that GRT will first cab off the rank in that department.

Yes it appears that I will swing towards the GRT for features, synthetic vision, Jepperson ultimately and Vertical steering inputs to TTDIIVSVG.

That said the AFS offers excellent value, much larger screen, better graphic presentation of information (in my opinion) and AOA.....put it along side an AVmap EKP IV with Jepperson and you have got three screens and change in your pocket....tempting but without vertical steer for the Trutrak.

All said:

No doubt GRT and AFS will view this thread most likely. I have had reasonable feedback from both companies in my research process (thankyou) however the reality is there is very little info available on the new GRT system and the AFS Version 5 at this stage. It would be great if both GRT and AFS could update their websites to provide some detailed insight into what is really on offer to help myself (and others) make informed decisions. I am sure I am not the only one who solely relies on the Internet for product research...

I need to make a decision in the next month or two and I'm losing sleep over it!

Cheers,

JON.

PS: FYI

My opinions are based on limited in-flight experience with the GRT Horizon 1. I have not flown with AFS or demo'd but I'm impressed.

I am installing back-up instruments no matter which system I install including Alt, Airspeed, Trutrak ADI with GPS and VS. I am currently a VFR rated pilot but I would like the system to be IFR capable for "future proofing".

 

[Brambo]

Bernie,

-The symbology that AFS uses is aviation industry standard, the GRT symbology is not. It's fine that you prefer the GRT symbology, just compare it to symbology from all the certified EFIS manufactures.

The reason I chose GRT is that the symbology used is VERY close to what is used in airliners today (both Boing and Airbus), and I didn't want to have totally differant symbology at home. I would say that if there is an aviation industry standard, then GRT is much closer than AFS.

Just my 2 cents.

Bill Rambo
RV-7A

 

[MTBehnke]

IFR GPS

I read Stein's article in the September Kitplanes and he mentioned that GRT plans an IFR approved GPS within the next year. That opens up some really interesting options (replace 430?)

Looked at both AFS and GRT at Oshkosh - both great units. Might have to build a second plane. At least I have around a year before I have to decide.

 

[N402RH]

3: have you considered putting the map data specifications in public domain?

There is a lot of work that goes into the map database and it would be pretty hard for most people to do it. We are afraid that if we make it public we will have to support the average user trying to make their own data.

5: are you going to publish a video, pdf or kind of demo explaining the new menu structure?

As soon as we are finished we will post pictures.

8: when having the separate HSI, can the HSI on top of the PFD be turned off?

Yes

- any plans to work on the heading-bug issue? e.g. having some discrete electronics buffering knob inputs?

We already have a special interface chip for knob buffering, we are fine tuning the acceleration. We actually have had zero complaints from people flying the new software.

- how far along are you on integrating the trutrak? will you have a flight mode annunciator / vertical guidance?

We have the ARINC module working and we are almost ready to flight test the interface. We have a Digiflight IIVSGV in the plane and ready.

- would we be able to hook up 3 3400's to have 3 rotary knobs, all synchronized?

This should work, it works with two units.

Are you going to make all the units user configurable? e.g. kg as weight on the weight and balance page, while still having altitude in feet etc...

This is already done.

Our software engineering effort is going toward making the map better. Most people that I talk to would purchase the G1000 if they had the money for any system. Have you noticed that the G1000 does not have 3D synthetic vision or HITS? It does have an extremely nice map. I see no real value in developing 3D synthetic vision until we have an extremely good map.

Rob Hickman
Advanced Flight Systems

 

[Captain_John]

Rob, maybe you have already been asked for this but, how difficult would it be to put an aural altitude alert function or CDI off course alarm on your unit?

Maybe one for LOC/ILS would be do-able too?

CJ

 

[flyvans.com]

Thank you Rob for your detailed replies

3: have you considered putting the map data specifications in public domain?

There is a lot of work that goes into the map database and it would be pretty hard for most people to do it. We are afraid that if we make it public we will have to support the average user trying to make their own data.

On one hand i understand that fear... Support, especially to a small company is a major business problem to handle... On the other hand look at the flightsim market, MS$ supports the base product, distributes a more (or mostly) less complete SDK and lets the developers and community handle it. In case someone requests support for anything like that, they tell them to do a "clean install" and leave it that way. You would only need to provide a nice "revert to defaults", removing all custom maps, checklists etc...
Look at what happened with GRT, for them a certain Carl Morgan from New Zealand came up with a software called "GRTDecode" to make use of the flight logs. That's a free benefit to the system and even at no cost to the manufacturer! http://www.rvproject.gen.nz/grt/index.html To see what a certain community can do.

- any plans to work on the heading-bug issue? e.g. having some discrete electronics buffering knob inputs?

We already have a special interface chip for knob buffering, we are fine tuning the acceleration. We actually have had zero complaints from people flying the new software.

As stated it was mostly obvious when the screen was loaded with splitscreen display. Map, Engine Info etc... all at once. Now think of a 180? turn scenario, where you want to turn the first 160? pretty fast (not faster than i would on an analog king hsi, not at an unrealistic speed just to test the unit), and then slow down to fine adjust. Never happened with 20? right or left, that kind of input.

Our software engineering effort is going toward making the map better. Most people that I talk to would purchase the G1000 if they had the money for any system. Have you noticed that the G1000 does not have 3D synthetic vision or HITS? It does have an extremely nice map. I see no real value in developing 3D synthetic vision until we have an extremely good map.

Totally agree with you on that point!

HITS and synthetic vision are purely eye candy (as long as there is still VFR and IFR). Maybe one day this will melt into some kind of virtual 3d see-and-avoid controlled and uncontrolled flight rules and it might change, but not until then... I've yet got to see a nice 3d depiction of the alps which could actually be used as a reference, and the devil lies in the details (gps alt or baro alt) to actually be trusted etc...

by the way, one of the neatest features on the g1000 is the cursor "joystick". lets you change range, pan around the map and "draw" a flight plan by graphically inserting waypoints. on the other hand (at least in the da40) the alphanumeric keyboard is being missed.


watching your progress

kind regards, bernie

 

[Ironflight]

HITS and synthetic vision are purely eye candy (as long as there is still VFR and IFR).

Bernie - I'll agree with you on the Synthetic Vision thing - looks really cool, but I doubt I'll ever be flying a single engine plane in conditions where I need it. The HITS, however, is a huge improvement over flying needles, Bars, or Flight Director on an ILS - at least for me. Ive flown it in my -8 now for better than a year and a half, and it is far more intuitive than anything I've flown - except for other HITS displays in other planes and sims.

I'd take good a good HITS, then a good map, and lastly Synthetic Vision (in that order) for improvements to future EFIS's....

This has been an interesting thread to follow, with a HUGE amount of good information!

 

[N999BT]

AFS 3500

Hey everyone,

I rebuilt my -4s panel this spring and installed an AFS-3500, Trutrak Digiflight IIVS, a Garmin SL-30 Nav/com/gs, and a Garmin GPSMAP-496.

I have to say that I am very satisfied with AFS, and especially Rob Hickman. Their customer service has been better than any other company I have ever dealt with on problems that were self inflicted.

AFS gave me the new version of the software at Oshkosh, and it has performed flawlessly. Upgrading to new software is easy as well, since all you have to do is plug in a card into the front of the unit. I really like the split screen map and EFIS for the cross country portions of my flight. I go the full screen EFIS for landing.

The feature that I use the most was a surprise to me. It is the AOA system. I would not fly an RV without again. I find that I don't even look at airspeed much on approach anymore, except as a rough cross check. Additionally, the change from a heavy to a light airplane stall speed is at least 5 knots which I didn't realize before getting the AFS-3500. Anyway, when we flew to KOSH I had to make a tight turn for landing. I had just refueled, and had a passenger and bags, pretty close to gross weight. During the turn, we got the yellow bars above the donut, in an uncomfortable place, close to stall. Prior to this, I would not even have realized how close we were to stall. I don't know if it really saved my bacon or not, but I added power and shallowed the turn to get the AOA back to the right spot. Thank you Rob.

In general, the whole thing is very readable, even in direct sunlight. The scolling numbers are a really nice addition, as well as the new altitide sawtooth display. There are many other nice features, and I know I don't need any more knobs to spin. I would just get confused when under a high workload.

 

[clarkefarm]

Jepp RoW Database may disappoint

For those hanging out for Jeppesen compatibility a word of warning ?

I am located near Melbourne in Australia and pay BMA $395 p.a. for a Jeppesen database. The supplied Rest of World database is a big disappointment for anybody flying VFR in an RV. It seems that none of the ERSA unlicensed airfields and not even all the licensed ones make it into the database.

What would be really helpful would be the ability to copy locally available airfield databases to the Efis.

Too bad that Anywhere Map stopped supporting other countries because their product was good to use.

Regards.

Rupert Clarke

 

[cgfinn]

HITS - Chelton vs the rest of the field

Bernie - I'll agree with you on the Synthetic Vision thing - looks really cool, but I doubt I'll ever be flying a single engine plane in conditions where I need it. The HITS, however, is a huge improvement over flying needles, Bars, or Flight Director on an ILS - at least for me. Ive flown it in my -8 now for better than a year and a half, and it is far more intuitive than anything I've flown - except for other HITS displays in other planes and sims.

I'd take good a good HITS, then a good map, and lastly Synthetic Vision (in that order) for improvements to future EFIS's....

This has been an interesting thread to follow, with a HUGE amount of good information!

Ironflight,

I'll be adding HITS in my panel for IFR. Chelton seems to have paved the way and has the reputation, but not without a hefty entrance fee. Does the GRT come close to the Chelton implementation? Anyone have any experience with the Enigma version?

Chuck

 

[SteinAir]

GRT has really good stuff, but shouldn't really be compared to the Cheltons in an apples to apples comparision. From a design, software & hardware perspective, they are apples & oranges. Also, I hope you aren't serious about comparing the Enigma to the Chelton? You almost can't get further apart! I think the Ranier & the MGL boys are onto something great, but if they've managed to convince anyone that it's an equitably comparitive unit to Chelton then I have a bunch of beach front property for sale! GRT is getting closer but as it sits today they are still apples & oranges....in a LOT of ways.

Just my 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein

 

[cgfinn]

HITS mainly

Stein,

We know you speak with authority, but its not quite fair using "hand waving" arguments for those of us who are lacking on the experiential side. Can you provide some qualitative reasons why the GRT isn't in the same ball park?

I mean I was mainly talking about the HITS capability, is CFS even in another league there as well?

thanks for obliging me,

Chuck

GRT has really good stuff, but shouldn't really be compared to the Cheltons in an apples to apples comparision. From a design, software & hardware perspective, they are apples & oranges. Also, I hope you aren't serious about comparing the Enigma to the Chelton? You almost can't get further apart! I think the Ranier & the MGL boys are onto something great, but if they've managed to convince anyone that it's an equitably comparitive unit to Chelton then I have a bunch of beach front property for sale! GRT is getting closer but as it sits today they are still apples & oranges....in a LOT of ways.

Just my 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein

 

[w1curtis]

....
Can you provide some qualitative reasons why the GRT isn't in the same ball park?

Yeah, it looks prettier and cost three times as much
Oh wait, only one of those is qualitative. Well, those are all I can think of.

GRT has really good stuff, but shouldn't really be compared to the Cheltons in an apples to apples comparision.

For one who has also asked this question and have gotten a lot of hyperbole and obfuscation, I'd like to know also?

 

[SteinAir]

Hi Guys,

Believe me I'm not doing much "hand waving" at all lately

Anyway, regarding the differences between GRT & Chelton, do a little homework on this site (search) as well as the matronics lists and you'll find plenty - pages & pages of info.

I'm not advocating one over the other because as most of you well know Chelton hasn't treated their experimental customers all that well in the past year....but...remove that negative experience and emotion and you still have a product that is pretty good.

We sell and install a lot of GRT stuff (more than anyone else) so I can say that I really like it as well...and I've never been hosed by GRT as a company. Todd, Sandy & Greg are some of the best people we've dealt with in this business.

What it comes down too is much more than I can physically type here at the moment with my one hand - so I apologize that I can't elaborate more...but if you do much due diligence at all you'll find GRT & Chelton to be quite different in many ways. Not good or bad, just different. Do a little digging and you''ll find a ton of info.

Cheers,
Stein

 

[jgrabeklis]

High Res GRT EFIS

Has anyone taken delivery of a high res GRT yet? If so, what do you think? Any pictures?

 

[Bill Ervin]

Alex D. has one in his 10

Has anyone taken delivery of a high res GRT yet? If so, what do you think? Any pictures?

Alex and I flew over to LOE in his 10 last week, he has both the regular and High res. (The regular was on my side) I was watching both units over and back, and You'll get a unqualified "I love it" from me. If you want to see the difference call Alex and go fly with him.

The screen is bigger of course, but its also brighter. I know what I'd be buying right now!! But by the time I finish my 9, cars will be flying