S

spmerrell

Member
Does anyone have any feed back on the pros and cons of the Grand Rapids, Advanced, and Dynon EFIS systems? I need to make a decision on which of the 3 to choose for an F1 Evo project.
 
Sir,

Welcome to the forum. There are tons of info in the archives. Do some searching and you will find more info than you can absorb about this very subject.
 
Very quick summary

You've got lots of research to do on this. Here's a quick primer:

Cost:
GRT - High
AFS - Medium
Dynon - Low

Size:
AFS - Biggest
Dynon - Middle
GRT - Smallest

Capabilities:
GRT - Most
AFS - Middle
Dynon - Fewest

Compatibility
GRT - High
AFS - Medium
Dynon - Low

Things are about to change to make this list a bit more interesting but I believe it's correct for the current offerings. Dynon and AFS have both announced ARINC interfaces so all three will soon offer Nav interfaces to things like the Garmin 5/430 (GRT already does). GRT has announced larger screens which higher resolution so that will bring them up to par with AFS and Dynon. GRT already has moving map and weather, AFS is about to release it and Dynon hasn't moved on this as of yet (as far as I can tell).

This is quick and dirty and fairly subjective but you get what you paid for. ;) Good luck and I can't wait to see pictures of your panel!

-Rick

p.s. The above assumes GRT Horizon 1, AFS 3500 and Dynon D180.
 
Last edited:
GRT Sport still a lotta bang for the buck...

The GRT dual sport for $6200 is a lot of bang for the buck with internal GPS and sensors for 4 cyl.

Comparatively the AFS was more for a 2 screen setup and Dynon was marginally less for a 2 screen setup (add the sensor prices to their list price)

I like the fact that I can upgrade for the delta of cost with GRT to a Horizon 1 down the road pretty easily.

While the newer super high res screens are pretty sexy, The smaller screens offer the advantage of being able to stack.

I haven't figured out how to use the GRTs with one screen- its possible on the AFS, but I like the additional functionality you get with the GRT.

After SUN N FUN, I was a bit discouraged with the newer GRT screens. I have my panel all planned and they simply didn't fit the larger screens. I really took a hard look at Dynon and AFS while I was there and after weighing all the perks of each system- I am resolved the dual Sport is the best bang for the buck currently.

Combined with an SL30 and a Garmin 396/496 combo- it will provide an upgradeable light IFR platform that won't break the bank on startup.
 
if anything...

The GRT system would seem to most effective with the EFIS on the top screen and moving map and/or EIS on the bottom.

One could use the smaller screen for the EFIS on top and a bigger screen ($600 more- not the super duper hi res) for the EIS on the bottom.

This would allow for future upgrades, but still maintain a tight panel.
 
GRT Mounting Options

That's a great point ... with GRT they have three different mounting options available:

  • Front-mount flanged
  • Flush-mount flanged
  • Radio stack (6.25" wide, flush, no flanges)

Lots of options for getting the right layout and appearance.

-Rick
 
Another plus for GRT

I found another plus for GRT, even if you go for only one screen (lets say the new big and bright Sport HS), adding engine monitoring capability will get you an EIS.
This makes a backup for engine controls should you loose for any reason your EFIS . Depending on how you do your panel, you could fly with the EFIS missing. With Dynon or AFS, you loose the screen you loose all.
 
BMA

I just noticed that there are not that many references to Blue Mountain Avionics stuff in EFIS discussions in the forum. Any particular reasons? I have looked around their website and I like the synthetic view, but I have no experience with either one of the systems mention. Can anybody give us some insight into the BMA system?
 
GRT EIS

pgroell said:
I found another plus for GRT, even if you go for only one screen (lets say the new big and bright Sport HS), adding engine monitoring capability will get you an EIS.
This makes a backup for engine controls should you loose for any reason your EFIS . Depending on how you do your panel, you could fly with the EFIS missing. With Dynon or AFS, you loose the screen you loose all.
Click to expand...

Is the EIS the actual engine monitor that feeds the EFIS screen on the GRT?
 
fmarino1976 said:
I just noticed that there are not that many references to Blue Mountain Avionics stuff in EFIS discussions in the forum. Any particular reasons? I have looked around their website and I like the synthetic view, but I have no experience with either one of the systems mention. Can anybody give us some insight into the BMA system?
Click to expand...
Only my observations of past threads and comments, but I think there have been some delivery and/or support issues associated with BMA.
 
7A_@ABI said:
Is the EIS the actual engine monitor that feeds the EFIS screen on the GRT?
Click to expand...

Yes, the GRT EIS acts as the data gathering box for engine and systems information which is then fed to the EFIS Display Units. The EIS has it's own simple display that you can use if you don't have the DU's turned on.

It can be argued that the EIS is a single point failure, and it is....but it has been around for many years, and proven to be highly reliable. Nevertheless, I did add a "Low Oil Pressure" light driven by a pressure switch to my panel, in case the EIS went away....if the engine is still firing, oil pressure is about the only thing I really need to monitor!

Paul
 
BMA - Your mileage may vary

BMA has been around for a long time ... they were one of the first EFIS available to the experimental crowd. They've got a lot of units in the field but there seems to be a love/hate relationship with them.

I've followed their product since EFIS 1 was first made available for sale. My impression at this point is that:
  • They're good engineers and they spend a lot of time trying to deliver features that their users want
  • They generally deliver what they say they will but you may end up waiting 6+ months to get it
  • They often get a wee bit distracted by offering pidly little features rather than the ones that really make a diff (multiple waypoints, weather, etc.)
  • They are prone to using their users as beta testers much more than the other vendors and often release products that are partially baked

I'm not interested in a flame war on this topic ... I've been a BMA hopeful for a long time. Unfortunately, the other guys just have a better track record (in my estimation only).

-Rick
 
Light IFR

JC, your SL30 does provide VOR and ILS but you are missing the future of approaches where ground-based navaids are not likely and that is GPS approaches.

Are you happy with not having that capability?
 
ronlee said:
JC, your SL30 does provide VOR and ILS but you are missing the future of approaches where ground-based navaids are not likely and that is GPS approaches.

Are you happy with not having that capability?
Click to expand...

Not JC obviously. Radio Navaids are not going to be gone tomorrow, they will be around long enough to refuel the wallet for upgrades. I will be using the GRT and whether or not I have the $$ left over now for the EFIS 1 with RAIM GPS (scheduled to be avail soon) it is simple matter to upgrade. Upgrade from Sport to EFIS 1 (if needed), add the RAIM GPS and then go find the cheapest used (all it needs to do is power up) IFR GPS and you are good to go.

IMHO of course.
 
See if you can get your hands on the next to the last issue of Kitplanes. Stein wrote a great review of the various pieces of glass available.
 
GRT Screen (original)

Before I made the purchase decision and while at OSH I had Dynon and GRT each take their unit out into the bright sunlight so I could see how they looked there. The Dynon was hard to view. The GRT becomes reflective in bright light, backlit in dimmer light. Thus, I never have a problem seeing and reading my GRT EFIS. By way of comparison, it is a great deal better than my '496 and the '496 is quite a bit better than the 296/396. Perhaps Dynon has gotten better? I haven't seen AFS. In an RV because of the canopy, this is an important issue.
 
hevansrv7a said:
Before I made the purchase decision and while at OSH I had Dynon and GRT each take their unit out into the bright sunlight so I could see how they looked there. The Dynon was hard to view. ... Perhaps Dynon has gotten better? I haven't seen AFS. In an RV because of the canopy, this is an important issue.
Click to expand...
Dynon has an option of an increased brightness screen for the 7" units (D100/120/180), 800 nits up from 400. Price adder is $200. I think these were not available at OSH last year.

I have yet to see a GA EFIS display that rivals what the readability of what is used on the Big Iron. Take a peek inside a 737NG sometime and look at the visibility of the six screens they have. Impressive!
 
Ironflight said:
Nevertheless, I did add a "Low Oil Pressure" light driven by a pressure switch to my panel, in case the EIS went away....if the engine is still firing, oil pressure is about the only thing I really need to monitor!

Paul
Click to expand...

Hi Paul,
Just a quick question about your comment...are you saying that if your EIS quit you'd continue flying your airplane so long as your oil pressure light didn't come on? My first reaction if I lost all engine status indications would be to get on the ground fast, even if I knew my oil pressure was OK.
 
I don't undestrand why everything should be fit in single unit. As if we want see EFIS information on our screen, we do have not much space for moving map for example so that is not an option IMHO Instead having double EFIS with moving map capability, I would seriously consider standalone moving map because of cost and independency. If EFIS fails, standalone moving map will keep going. So likely will the another EFIS too, but I would still consider non-independent solution more reliable.

One thing I don't understand in AFS units is the price of AOA option. What I know about AOA and their solution, it should be doable with 2 pressure sensors and some mathematics. Do we have enough data that we could do it by our own?
 
Moving Map

I agree with anyone that advocates a seperate moving map. I have a MX20 in my 8 along with a dual scren GRT. Having redundancy is always a good thing. I will have the same setup in the next 8 with a SL30 and a 430. The 10 will get a MX200, four GRT screens, a SL-30 and a 430/530 or something. Even my Ercoupe is currently being fited with a 296/SL-40/SL-70. All will have necessary backup 2.25" guages.

I do love glass and gadgets, but I consider it a safety issue as well. When I can spend $3000 and have a moving map, com with intercom and transponder, even in an Ercoupe, I think it is not only money well spent, but insurance.

GRT and glass get my vote, but I love the Dynon AOA pitot setup. Wish it had static, pitot and AOA in one.
 
Last edited:
lostpilot28 said:
Hi Paul,
Just a quick question about your comment...are you saying that if your EIS quit you'd continue flying your airplane so long as your oil pressure light didn't come on? My first reaction if I lost all engine status indications would be to get on the ground fast, even if I knew my oil pressure was OK.
Click to expand...

You might be reading too much into it Sonny - if my EIS died, I would land at the first reasonable opportunity, but I would not turn a simple systems failure into an emergency (ie, land at a short or inaccessible strip). My point is that you really don't need a ton of instrumentation to monitor a well-maintained and running Lycoming. If it's been doing OK for the past couple of hours, it will probably keep doing so with the fuel you have remaining... but I sure wouldn't plan on taking off again until I had sorted out the problem!

Different folks do have different comfort levels though, and that's OK!


Paul
 
Reliability

There's lots of talk about features and price but what about reliability? Perhaps "reliability" isn't the right word, but what about this: my Dynon EFIS-D10A requires a pitot line connection in order for its attitude indicator to operate properly. As I understand it, the instrument can't tell acceleration from a climb without it. So with a pitot system failure (e.g. ice or bug ingestion), the attitude indicator goes Tango Uniform (or at least becomes suspect). I consider this a serious drawback even for "soft" IFR and is one of the reasons I tell people I like my Dynon but don't love it when they ask about it. (However, my experience with Dynon support has been outstanding so maybe I do love it :)

How about the GRT and Advanced units? Will the attitude indicator work with only an uninterrupted supply of electrons?
 
Lobby at Van's

Saw the AFS system at Van's yesterday. You can stop in and they will brief you on it's functions. I believe they will be selling them in the near future. Was impressed by the clearness of the display.

Rgds,
Mark
Waiting for the empennage kit.
8A
 
Joe said:
How about the GRT and Advanced units? Will the attitude indicator work with only an uninterrupted supply of electrons?
Click to expand...

I can only speak about the GRT, which I know, and yup, the attitude is good so long as you have power (and, I suppose, some gravity...)

Paul
 
Considering I'm a VFR pilot right now and would like to use the 9a to get my IFR ticket, I think I could live with that for awhile. The beauty of the GRT is I can disconnect the harness undo 4 screws and upgrade at the cost difference for the EFIS 1 (with some more plumbing for the seperate AHRS).

But I can get the plane flying SOONER with the GRT Dual Sport without having to redo the panel down the road.
 
Paul stated:

It can be argued that the EIS is a single point failure, and it is....but it has been around for many years, and proven to be highly reliable. Nevertheless, I did add a "Low Oil Pressure" light driven by a pressure switch to my panel, in case the EIS went away....if the engine is still firing, oil pressure is about the only thing I really need to monitor!
Click to expand...

Same here. I recently installed the same type of oil pressure light not only to serve as a backup to the RMI uMonitor but to also provide a "Turn Off the Master Switch You" idiot light. :)

As to the concerns about continuing a flight with only an oil pressure indicator, I too have no reservations about completing the flight. The old spam cans that we have rented in the past that have been in service for decades have very little in the way of engine instrumentation. I had never seen a CHT or EGT indicator until I started flying experimental aircraft.

I often wonder if we over-analyze our carbed, fixed-pitch engines. If the baffling is working properly and we haven't run out of oil or fuel, the engine is going to run happily regardless of whether we have the ability to watch fancy engine monitors. The engine just doesn't care as long as it is fed.

I'm not adverse to engine monitoring, just observing that many builders seem to obsess over having the ability to monitor every crack and orifice of their very reliable and over-engineered engines.
 
Pirkka said:
One thing I don't understand in AFS units is the price of AOA option. What I know about AOA and their solution, it should be doable with 2 pressure sensors and some mathematics. Do we have enough data that we could do it by our own?
Click to expand...

AFS requires the two pressure sensors with some form of microprocessor to read the data from them, two runs of tubing out to the wing and two pressure ports for the wing (AFS AOA mounts on the top and bottom sides of the wing skin).

I believe AFS decided not to include all of the AOA sensors in the main package as standard to keep everyone from having to pay the price for it. So if you have their EFIS and you want AOA you buy the wing kit and the logic board then the data is displayed on screen. If you don't have the EFIS then you buy the wing kit, logic board and display module (you choose functional vs. fancy display). They've done a good job of giving their users choice in this regard.

Keep in mind that all prices in this market account for fairly low production volumes (no economy of scale) and enough profit margin to support on-going R&D plus justification to the business owners to invest their energy in it. If you were dealing with a mass market company the prices could be significantly lower but that's just not what we have here so things will always seem like they cost more than they 'should'.

-Rick
 
Hard Knox said:
I agree with anyone that advocates a seperate moving map. I have a MX20 in my 8 along with a dual scren GRT.
Click to expand...
I don't have really any time behind either, but 5 minutes with both lead me to believe that the MX20 / GMX200 is WAY better than the GRT map. OTOH, the GRT map is WAY cheaper than the MX20 and can also do double duty as a HSI, engine monitor, EFIS repeater, etc.

If I can spare the change, a GMX200 will go into my project.
 
Me too

I am also thinking pretty seriously about adding a separate unit just for the moving map feature.

I have a dual GRT with internal gps, back up gps in the ADI, and a TruTrac DF2vgvs, so the plane can get places just fine, but I like to know where I am when I look out the window.

So far, I am really interested in the AVMap, and the Lowerance units. Reasons are screen size, price, and, oh yes, screen size. And I have a nice big area on the panel where I could put one, on a removable mount----makes it available for car etc. use.

Yes, the Garmin stuff has tons of "Geewhizzbzng" stuff, but the screen size is way too small to display more than a single feature at a time.

Yes, I know I need glasses--------

Mike
 
Last edited:
IFR approaches

JC, please find out if you have to practice and demonstrate three different approaches to get your IFR rating. Then ask your instructor and examiner if the system you plan to install will allow that. I think that you may be missing one approach capability.

Mike, I was trying to read the instructions on the back flappy pages of a weed killer and the print was just too small to read...for me.
 
Last edited:
Ironflight said:
My point is that you really don't need a ton of instrumentation to monitor a well-maintained and running Lycoming. If it's been doing OK for the past couple of hours, it will probably keep doing so with the fuel you have remaining... but I sure wouldn't plan on taking off again until I had sorted out the problem!
Click to expand...

Hi Paul,
That's what I was wondering...I'm a pretty low-time pilot, and I like to gleen knowledge from those with more experience. I think I just misunderstood your overall intent in your comment. Since you explained it this way, I can now see the logic in your decision making process.
 
ronlee said:
JC, please find out if you have to practice and demonstrate three different approaches to get your IFR rating. Then ask your instructor and examiner if the system you plan to install will allow that. I think that you may be missing one approach capability.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I think the SL 30 would allow the following 3 approaches:

1) ILS
2) Localizer only
3) VOR

Of course, the specifics of each approach available in the local area might make one or the other harder to find and execute during a checkride. For instance, the need for ADF (or IFR GPS replacement) for some missed approaches could be an issue.

I have the OPPOSITE problem. I am training on a very well equiped steamer, so I will undoubtedly be forced to demonstrate NDB approaches and DME arcs during the checkride just because the darned instruments are sitting in the panel. :rolleyes:
I think I'll never use them again after I get my chariot finished.

Where is that stack of no-op stickers anyway? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.