J

jeff beckley

Well Known Member
Not looking for a poll but would like to know if the SkyView would perform better in IFR operations. I am happy with the success that Dynon is generating with the soon to be released Skyview. I have a buddy that is on the fence as to which EFIS system to chose. I looks like the leaders of efis systems are relying on graphics and resolution rater than meat and potatos performance to sway new sales. To me inter-connectivity and performance would be top priority in IFR environment over a glitzy video display. When I talk about performance I do not mean bullet proof design but rather how well does the efis enhance safety. How well does it provide important information. How well does the autopilot work.
I have flown behind an EFIS that had synthetic vision and found it to be a little difficult to concentrate when performing a hard ILS approach.
I have been flying behind the TT EFIS IV for a while now. I chose it because it did not have synthetic display. It has a mature and flawless autopilot system and integrates with 430W for LPV approaches and does a nice job with the SL30.
I just do not understand the hype over a video game. VFR I think the SkyView would be pretty cool but would it be trusted for IFR with their autopilot?
 
I like the way you think...

.... and I believe that is the way TruTrak thinks as well. Too much gee wizardry may be more of a distraction, thus a detriment to safety, than the clean, get the job done TT system. I have been looking to upgrade my basic panel next year and have been on the fence between TT and Dynon's D100. I have been looking for someone who is using the TT EFIS to get their impressions. I would like to hear more of your experience.
 
The EFIS has exceeded my expectations. The screen layout is very very good. I had tapes on my last EFIS that showed speed/alt/trends ect... I found that I always referred to my steam gauges for the basics. I now hardly look at them. The semi round gauges on the SG are great. I opted for the standard brightness screen and found it to be very bright. Direct sunlight is even better.
The EFIS has a mission... To provide the pilot with direct information needed to fly the plane and provide a platform for their autopilot. Integration with my 430w is excellent. LPV/GPS approaches are performed flawlessly. Three button presses to perform a fully coupled approach to minimums and fly the missed procedure and enter the hold. Operation of the menus is straight forward with no sub menus to cycle through to get something done. The EFIS uses soft keys to select the desired action like setting alt, setting vert speed, GPSS, GPSSV. TT software is intelligent and anticipates what you might need to select and offers the item above the keys before you might need it so no sub menus are required. It provides a female voice annunciation for every stage of an approach. It has two knobs that provide direct control of vert speed, course and altitude. Another neat feature is what I call the "O S$it Button"
A separate button that when pressed will level the wings and lock the heading.
The Autopilot is rock steady and really smooth. Holds spot on even in turbulence. I installed it in my RV7 and have not touched a single factory setting.
The only thing it needs to be the perfect system is the ability to display VOR/ILS signals from my 430w. That will be resolved in a couple of weeks when TT ships the ARNIC converter.
One last thing is it does not use a magnetometer. It only displays course.
At first I was skeptical until after the first flight and I saw heading mode is not needed. What difference does it make what way the plane is pointing if you are going from point A to B. A golf ball does not fly through the air pointing straight. Wind correction is calculated internally.
I know it does not have a moving map or synthetic display but I get that from my 430 and 396. I used to have to enter a flight plan in three different GPS's. Now I only have to enter one into my 430 and it cross fills my 396 and provides the EFIS with the flight data.
 
Jeff,

The lack of AHRS or Magnetometer has concerned me. My current DG bugs me. I fly a lot of cross country and get tired of resetting the DG to fly the heading. I agree that when on autopilot the DG does not matter, but when hand flying it does.

Also, are you using the EMS system/display too? If so, what has been your experience with it and likes and dislikes?

Like Frank, I have been intrigued by the TT EFIS but have not heard or read many first hand experiences so your posts are very helpful.

John
 
Frank Smidler said:
.... and I believe that is the way TruTrak thinks as well. Too much gee wizardry may be more of a distraction, thus a detriment to safety, than the clean, get the job done TT system. I have been looking to upgrade my basic panel next year and have been on the fence between TT and Dynon's D100. I have been looking for someone who is using the TT EFIS to get their impressions. I would like to hear more of your experience.
Click to expand...

Ah..............the flat lands of Indiana and Iowa. Looks like we still need some additional gee wizardry out here in the rugged mountain west. Pilots are still whacking the hills in this area. IFR, VFR, inadvertent IMC or loss of situational awareness. Do I look forward to more "synthetic vision"?............yes!

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
jeff beckley said:
One last thing is it does not use a magnetometer. It only displays course.
At first I was skeptical until after the first flight and I saw heading mode is not needed. What difference does it make what way the plane is pointing if you are going from point A to B.
Click to expand...


While I agree with you in principle that course is more important than heading when going from A to B, when you get into a busy terminal environment IFR, you are going to be expected to fly assigned headings, not courses. The controller is giving everyone headings, and since they are all operating in the same wind pattern, that works out fine. If someone out there is flying a course instead, it can put him where ATC doesn't expect. So for IFR where radar vectors are expected, you really should have magnetic heading available.

Now, if they every perfect "Free Flight", it will be a different matter....

Paul
 
Ironflight said:
While I agree with you in principle that course is more important than heading when going from A to B, when you get into a busy terminal environment IFR, you are going to be expected to fly assigned headings, not courses. The controller is giving everyone headings, and since they are all operating in the same wind pattern, that works out fine. If someone out there is flying a course instead, it can put him where ATC doesn't expect. So for IFR where radar vectors are expected, you really should have magnetic heading available.

Now, if they every perfect "Free Flight", it will be a different matter....

Paul
Click to expand...

That is what I thought at first. My flight instructor and good friend is a traffic controller here in Des Moines. For eons heading mode was the norm until the digital age. He told me that he can tell right away when the pilot is flying heading or course mode and can make the correction in his assigned course so it really does not matter when going into a controlled zone. When you have an autopilot being controlled by a GPS it is flying course. This way when transitioning to a vectored approach you do not have to redo the math in your head. Course mode is sooo much simpler as the efis calculates the wind correction for you. Cross country flight planning is simpler. Flying the hold at a VOR in strong cross winds are a breeze. "no pun"
All the current EFIS manufacturers except TT have the ability to fly both but I liken it to having a DVD player and a VHS in the same multi function TV. Some want both. To me flying course mode removes a lot of mental work load.
 
L.Adamson said:
Ah..............the flat lands of Indiana and Iowa. Looks like we still need some additional gee wizardry out here in the rugged mountain west. Pilots are still whacking the hills in this area. IFR, VFR, inadvertent IMC or loss of situational awareness. Do I look forward to more "synthetic vision"?............yes!

L.Adamson --- RV6A
Click to expand...

I agree completely but my question is does the SkyView provide a competent IFR platform. To me synthetic vision does not provide me with any more terrain or obstacle warnings than my 430 or 396 does. If it going into a plane with just a SL30 or less than it would be great. I am only trying to make these comparisons to differentiate designs between fluff and practicality.
I had the Blue Mountain system and loved it for the synthetic vision but found i used it less and less. A clean uncluttered screen with accurate flight data is essential while performing a IFR approach. The TruTrak efis only provides you with the information needed for current phase of your flight.
 
Bubblehead said:
Jeff,

The lack of AHRS or Magnetometer has concerned me. My current DG bugs me. I fly a lot of cross country and get tired of resetting the DG to fly the heading. I agree that when on autopilot the DG does not matter, but when hand flying it does.

Also, are you using the EMS system/display too? If so, what has been your experience with it and likes and dislikes?

Like Frank, I have been intrigued by the TT EFIS but have not heard or read many first hand experiences so your posts are very helpful.

John
Click to expand...

John I do not have the EMS as it would require a substantial rework of my panel. If I were to start from scratch it would be in there. For my review go over to the Trutrak web site and in the forums I have posted some comments. http://trutrakap.com/forum/index.php
 
I am sure you can turn the SV on or off??? If you don't like it, don't use it.

Also, there are many more new features to the Skyview system other than the SV. It is just one of the reasons this will be an awesome system.

Out of the gate it will be worthless for IFR until they add the many features that are promised to be coming for that system.

If they make good on the promises, it will be a great solution for IFR when coupled with a great GPS/NAV source like the 430w/530w.

Also it is impossible to answer your question at this point because there are few of them flying in the world and most likely there is no body with experience in an IFR environment with a Skyview and the track record for reliability will have to be earned in the future.
 
Last edited:
If you are looking at TT as a competitor to the Dynon equipment and don't want SynVis, then a D100/D180 is a much more direct competitor, and at 30% less than the price of the TT.

TT doesn't do a map or SynVis, just like the D180/D100. So a lot of the enhanced functionality of SkyView doesn't seem to be something you are thinking about. In this case, a D100 is a proven platform, with well over 5000 of them flying.

A big advantage to the Dynon equipment is that it shows true attitude, not VSI and turn rate. The TT EFIS is a flight path vector, not attitude. Take the TT EFIS, place it on a table on it's side, and 15 seconds later is shows you level, because you have no turn rate. The Dynon platform is based on true attitude, and works just like a traditional attitude indicator. As mentioned before, we have a magnetometer so we show magnetic heading, not just ground track, and we can use this data to do enhanced calculations like winds.

If you fly real IFR, backups are important, and you can put a D100/D180 in the plane, get full engine monitoring, total redundancy on the PFD, and a full AP for $7900 (including engine sensors). A single screen TT will cost you much more than that with no backups.
 
True attitude..... What good does do to know what direction the nose of the plane is pointing if it is sinking? And who flys sideways for 15 min? The TT shows what the plane is doing. Direction of flight, climbing, desending in real time. You make it sound like they cut corners but to the contrary the design is outstanding. Again my question is about flying hard IFR. Would Dynons line up be concidered a stable and safe platform for that mission? Can the D100 or 180 comand the AP to fly coupled approaches? Where is the design focused. How stable is your AP? How much more money is needed to purchase the ARINC converters so it can get commands from external sources?look you have the potetial for great product. But there are other great products out there that do a better job than yours for different missions.
So stop with the "mines bigger than yours" game. You can't be the end all of efis's
 
Jeff,
People do need to know that the TruTrak EFIS displays are not attitude displays, and are different from every other attitude display made (ours and every other competitor). You may be okay with that, but not all people are. A TruTrak will show you level in slow flight even though the nose is 10 degrees up. There is a reason they believe they need to annunciate low airspeed, since you can be pulling back on the stick, holding "level" on the TruTrak, while the nose just gets higher and higher up and you eventually stall with no warning. In roll, it will show you banked while in a flat turn. Please note I said roll errors show up on the table in 15 seconds, not minutes.

It's good information, and is flyable, but it's not attitude. You have to fly it differently than you've been trained as an IFR pilot. If the market really does end up loving the TT method of flight path display, then you'll probably see a lot more of it, since it requires much less expensive sensors and calibrations to do.

To answer the direct questions, yes, we consider the Dynon system to be a highly proven platform that is more than appropriate for IFR, given appropriate backups (which is true for any platform. Single source attitude/airspeed/altitude/heading while in IMC is dangerous no matter what manufacturer you go with).

The D100/D180 can couple to the lateral part of a GPS or NAV approach. We do not have vertical coupling yet. The ARINC-429 converter is $650 if you plan to use an IFR legal GPS.
 
jeff beckley said:
True attitude..... What good does do to know what direction the nose of the plane is pointing if it is sinking? And who flys sideways for 15 min? The TT shows what the plane is doing. Direction of flight, climbing, desending in real time. You make it sound like they cut corners but to the contrary the design is outstanding. Again my question is about flying hard IFR.
Click to expand...

The autopilot on the dynon platform doesn't do what the TT will in IFR conditions, and the dynon won't integrate with other autopilots (send GPS steering signals). Simply put, if you want vertical navigation and other high end autopilot features then you really want a TT.

I suggest looking at an AFS 3500 since it will do all of those things with a TT autopilot and it's got the simple clean display your looking for. Not to mention the arhs is the same as the certified crossbow.

Perhaps dynon will be a good ifr platform in the future, but right now their arinc 429 interface won't do what the AFS and GRT will do, and their autopilot won't do what a TT will do. That said, many fly ifr with dynon, so it works, it just isn't as feature rich as the competition.

I suppose it really comes down to budget.

schu
 
Just as an FYI note, we are very open about the way our ADI and EFIS display "attitude". We have never tried to tell anyone that it is true attitude as we believe the way we do it gives a better situational awareness of what the aircraft is doing. We do offer users the option for indicating pitch attitude. When that is active, it moves the VSI to the right side of the display. We choose to show wings level when the aircraft is flying straight. Our slip indicator is very prominent at the top of the display for reference of a low wing or slip condition.
 
Last edited:
Using TT EFIS

When I saw the TT EFIS I knew that was the display I wanted. Reading about how it works (attitude, course), it makes perfect logical sense to me, and getting Jeff's (and others) feedback on actual usage is confirmation I made the right choice. Here is a representation of my Rocket panel, Vertical Power on the left (EIS display ++), 696 on the right, and TT EFIS IV in the middle with a 430W, SL30, PS8000B, and GTX330. Stein is currently putting together the order for the few items I don't already have.

My thoughts on redundancy - I have two navs and two coms, if the EFIS goes then I fly on the ADI and the 696, both of which have battery backup. I realize I lose the AP if the EFIS goes, although if it is just the screen the "AP Level" button will help. However this is a weakness in my setup that I will have to plan and practice for - gives me a reason to go flying :D.

Panel.jpg
 
dynonsupport said:
Jeff,
A TruTrak will show you level in slow flight even though the nose is 10 degrees up. There is a reason they believe they need to annunciate low airspeed, since you can be pulling back on the stick, holding "level" on the TruTrak, while the nose just gets higher and higher up and you eventually stall with no warning.
Click to expand...

It is showing level because there is no up or down movement. The AI is designed to show changes in altitude not what attitude the nose is pointing. The AI first shows pitch change instantly... then trends toward altitude changes. Makes perfect sense once you fly behind one for more than a couple of min. Do not forget that the autopilot will not EVER allow the aircraft to slow to the point of stalling. Pull the power and the AP will pitch up to maintain alt but to a point that the airspeed drops to stall then the AP will pitch over to maintain flight. No other AP does that.
For the people that have bought Trutrak's ADI the EFIS displays the same way. I had the ADI along with a conventional AI and they mimicked each other exactly.
Take slow flight for example. Your nose is naturally pitched up. We both agree on that. With a conventional AI it shows a pitch of 10deg but how do you know if your losing altitude? Look at the VSI or altimeter right? With the TT in slow flight the AI shows level you know you are moving through the air with no loss of alt. If it shows below the horizon then you naturally know you are losing alt. In regards to stalling you know what airspeed the plane stalls at. I do not need an AI to tell me that the plane is going to stall.
TT just adds an additional feature to let you know when your air speed is low enough to stall. Your EFIS does that does it not? I hope you are not saying that the annunciation is for correcting for a poor design. That would be lame.
Both ways are very effective but I feel that the way TT does it along with the way they present the other flight data allows my mind to interpret that data instantly. Much Much faster than tapes or a single digital numeric number.
In the end the TT EFIS is designed to complement their excellent autopilot system. It is a first and foremost a flight director designed to assist or control the aircraft in all phases of the flight. I challenge anyone to fly behind one for an hour and not say "brilliant"
 
Guys please be civil,

us wannabe IFR guys are trying to learn and absorb as much as we can, the bickering wants me to run to another thread, but then I might miss some important info.

Kind Regards
Rudi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.