I will hold on to my slobber till I see the price... "Dynon Price" price or not this stuff is going to cost way more than the current solutions.....
 
Weather and traffic down the road...

Dynon's website says they plan for weather and traffic "down the road". That will make this package complete and mighty hard to beat!
 
I am sure when they talk about traffic, they are talking support for displaying TIS data from a separate traffic avoidance device like the Zaon or the Gtx-330.
 
Oh boy. Every time I get settled on a plan, something like this comes along. Does anyone know if it does fullscreen on the syn-vis? Because that would be pretty. IIRC, the BMA EFIS-One doesn't give you the full 10" display for the 3d view, but the MGL Odyssey does. The MGL unit seems more versatile, with its headless radio options, and configurability, and the price is certainly right, but the Dynon's 3D view is amazing.

I grew up on video games and flight sims, so I'm right at home with synvis and HITS.
 
A friend

In the office showed me her new Iphone yesterday..OH my... The thing has an accelerometer in it, I bet with a little application writing you could velco the thing to the panel and go flying IMC!

This sort of stuff is just amazing these days!

Frank
 
Hey Stein,

I know you must have been discussing the next gen stuff with the folks at Dynon.... That being said, you most likely know about more of the details of the planned architecture than what they are willing to share with the public at this time.

So- With what you know about their plans and the latest announcements, would you concider a dual screen setup based on this new system compatible with an IFR bird?
 
It's a good time......

To be working on my wings:D It's looking like I won't have a reason NOT to buy Dynon when the time comes, and my CFO will appreciate that;)
 
Duh

Brantel said:
Hey Stein,


So- With what you know about their plans and the latest announcements, would you concider a dual screen setup based on this new system compatible with an IFR bird?
Click to expand...

I guess I don't quite understand the question?...Why do you think it would NOT be compatible?...There are lots of Dynon systems being used in IFR birds

Confused

Frank
 
frankh said:
I guess I don't quite understand the question?...Why do you think it would NOT be compatible?...There are lots of Dynon systems being used in IFR birds

Confused

Frank
Click to expand...

Yes but not the same as you have seen with units with redundant ARHS and connectivity capabilities to give you a fully redundant solution.

On many occassions Stein has voiced his opinion that the current dual screen Dynon solution does not meet his standard for an IFR bird without full redundant backups of some sort. There is a reason for this and he will fill you in on the details if you ask.

That is not to say that the existing product cannot be used in an IFR solution. Everyone has there own idea of what will satisfy their comfort level. I just happen to appreciate Stein's ideas on this even though his and mine are not exactly the same.

It looks as though Dynon is planning to market themselves as the single source for Dual redundant EFIS, EMS, AP, and soon NAV, COM, GPS data. To do that for an IFR bird is going to require some major differences from the existing product base.
 
Last edited:
frankh said:
In the office showed me her new Iphone yesterday..OH my... The thing has an accelerometer in it, I bet with a little application writing you could velco the thing to the panel and go flying IMC!
Click to expand...

I know you're kidding around, but it takes a lot more than accelerometers to make an EFIS, namely gyros. And even then, with the cheap devices used in most of today's low-end EFISes, some hinting is needed from an external source like a pitot or GPS.

Brantel said:
I just happen to appreciate Steins ideas on this even though his and mine are not exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Everybody's got a motive. Some people are trying to prop up the company in which they just invested several grand (e.g. "I just bought an XYZ EFIS and it's great!"). Some people make a larger profit selling some over-priced units over others. Until you know a person's motivation, be skeptical.

In the eventual system, I believe you'll be able to hook up two screens to two ADAHRS. If one ADAHRS fails, you'll be able to fail over to the other. What level of redundancy are you looking for that can't be addressed by installing two D100s with internal batteries (and two pitots if you really want to go for it)? Not sure it gets much better than that.

And just for full disclosure, I was a software engineer at Dynon for a year up until a few months ago. (I left for personal reasons--nothing to do with the products. They make good stuff there.) And I have dual Advanced Flight AF-3400s in my panel that I bought long before I worked at Dynon, and still have in my panel mainly because the units work and I'm too lazy to change my entire panel (but synthetic vision... <drool>). I'm very familiar with both companies' products.

Does anyone know if it does fullscreen on the syn-vis?
Click to expand...

Not positive, but I think it will.

I am sure when they talk about traffic, they are talking support for displaying TIS data from a separate traffic avoidance device like the Zaon or the Gtx-330.
Click to expand...

Probably. However as mentioned on their site, Dynon is also working on a transponder module. A large portion of the cost delta between a GTX-330 and -327 (~$1500!!) is the super fancy ARINC interface handler contained in the -330. It's a great feature for certified planes with a mess of different equipment in them, but useless to us. I've often thought that a simple mode-S transponder could be made for much less.

Why do these folks constantly do this to us. I'll go shred my thoughts from last week about my panel!
Click to expand...

Never buy avionics (or cut your panel) in June or July. The whole game will change at Oshkosh. Of course, the delivery time is quoted as 2009. That means any time 5-17 months from now. Depends if you can wait that long.
 
Davepar said:
What level of redundancy are you looking for that can't be addressed by installing two D100s with internal batteries (and two pitots if you really want to go for it)? Not sure it gets much better than that.
Click to expand...

I can think of several.

One, people really do not want to have to install two pitot's, some sort of control should be given to the pilot to be able to select gps GS for the aiding if he detects a problem with the pitot or do some different tricks to be less dependant on the pitot info.

Loose the DSAB master and the entire data sharing bit goes out the window. That goes for the new AP as well. An RV in IMC with no AP and a partial panel is not my idea of something I want to experience.

Loose DSAB or the HS34 and all your Nav sources are dead in the water and your back to using their built in screens to get directions. Can be done but who really wants to do this under pressure? What if you need to shoot an ILS with the SL30 and the HS34 or the DSAB master goes belly up?

Less important is the lack of redundancy for engine data, loose the box that the engine data is being sourced from and you have no RPM, Oil Pressure or Fuel level unless you install backups but who wants to do this when your spending all that money on glass?


Don't get me wrong, I love the new and exciting promisses from Dynon. The synthetic vision in the pics look outstanding. I now have a difficult decision to make about buy now or wait. My panel will have a Dynon solution in it one way or the other. If the future holds answers to some of the redundancy issues above, I might rethink my plan to be VFR only.
 
Last edited:
Sweet!

Another way to look at redundancy is with something like the TruTrack autopilot. Yes, I know Dynon's now undercuts the price - but having a different method of determining level at any moment than the Dynon gives you some assurance that even if your ADHARS goes belly up you can still navigate through the soup to a landing.

By the way, with reference to the "Dynon vulnerability," I'd have to say that their heated AOA pitot seems pretty solid. It includes an annunciator light to let you know if it detects any fault, so it seems like the likelihood of an unnoticed failure would be pretty small.
 
Brantel said:
I can think of several.
...........
Less important is the lack of redundancy for engine data, loose the box that the engine data is being sourced from and you have no RPM, Oil Pressure or Fuel level unless you install backups but who wants to do this when your spending all that money on glass?
................
Click to expand...
Exceptional point! We just lost our VM1000 IMMEDIATELY after receiving transition training and haven't been able to take our -8 up for practice. Pretty hard to fly without RPM, MAN, OIL, etc. Doesn't help that the VM people are ALL in KOSH.
 
I'm probably in the minority here but the synthetic vision "thing" doesn't appear that useful to me. Now granted, I fly east of the Rockies where everything is going to look flat and maybe that's the reason. I like the moving maps with the detail and all, but the syn vision? I can live without it I think.

BTW, I'm in the process of picking new EFIS units for my next Rocket and the choices (and the costs) are unbelievable.
 
Sweeet! 7" and 10" screens, 3" mounting depth .... Pretty cool! Sounds like they will have a modular ADAHRS system like GRT or an open ADAHRS system like Chelton.

TODR
 
Wait!

Once again proof positive to wait untill you really need them to buy your avionics.

I think, as previously posted, these products are just starting to break out.

We're going to be seeing alot of new product coming out and hopefully all the prices going down as more companies start to offer them.

Ted
 
Everybody's got a motive. Some people are trying to prop up the company in which they just invested several grand (e.g. "I just bought an XYZ EFIS and it's great!"). Some people make a larger profit selling some over-priced units over others. Until you know a person's motivation, be skeptical.

As to the motive of people for their opinions, I have known Stein for years, he flies a Dynon, and has great respect for the stuff, but his experience ranges from Decathlons to 757's from turn coordinators to Collins Proline and other systems.

His loyalty is to the clients. So, the opinions he gives customers about building various levels of panel have nothing to do with price. In fact, you might be surprised to know that hardware margins are very, very tight.

Stein and Jed are motivated to continue serving this community and to support a business that they hope will last many many years to come.

Sorry for the soap box, but the original question was sent in the direction of Stein and the others in the business. Those people are beyond reproach in my experience and when they are asked a straight question, like or lump the answer, you can be assured that it will be an honest and straightforward answer.

As to whether the units will be suitable for IFR, that is a decision each pilot will need to make on their own. But, even hardened systems have a backup.
 
I was trying to avoid pointing any fingers at anybody in particular. Just recommending against getting all your info from one source. I've never met Stein, but I know he's well regarded in the community.

Good points Brian. On one occasion, I had my AF3400 EMS screen go dark while on the ground (luckily only 20 miles from home). Turns out the EMS was still functioning, so I was able to see the display on the EFIS. It would have been a real problem to be 1000 miles from home without an EMS. Everybody has to decide for him/herself whether to spend thousands to avoid that unlikely event, or rely on the support from the manufacturer.

The new Dynon units do have a dual DSAB bus. I'm not sure how that's going to be used exactly, but there is the potential there to handle the DSAB master failing.

Randy said:
I'm probably in the minority here but the synthetic vision "thing" doesn't appear that useful to me.
Click to expand...

I guess you've never been picking your way through the Siskiyous or Cascades with ceilings at 2000' AGL, wondering "Am I going to clear that next pass?" :)

 
Davepar said:
I guess you've never been picking your way through the Siskiyous or Cascades with ceilings at 2000' AGL, wondering "Am I going to clear that next pass?" :)

Click to expand...
IF you are IFR your would NEVER be doing this so I guess it would only be useful for VFR scud running. For IFR it is only "eye candy."
 
f1rocket said:
I'm probably in the minority here but the synthetic vision "thing" doesn't appear that useful to me. Now granted, I fly east of the Rockies where everything is going to look flat and maybe that's the reason. I like the moving maps with the detail and all, but the syn vision? I can live without it I think.
Click to expand...

I live in the Rocky Mtn. area, and think it's one of the best ideas yet. There is still a lot of aircraft clobbering mountains out here every year, for numerous reasons. Synthetic 3D will change solid IMC to daytime conditions.................if needed.

L.Adamson
 
w1curtis said:
IF you are IFR your would NEVER be doing this so I guess it would only be useful for VFR scud running. For IFR it is only "eye candy."
Click to expand...

Actually, quite a few IFR accidents come to mind, where this synthetic 3D terrain would have been useful. Aspen, Colorado is a good example.

L.Adamson
 
Brantel said:
I know you must have been discussing the next gen stuff with the folks at Dynon.... That being said, you most likely know about more of the details of the planned architecture than what they are willing to share with the public at this time.

So- With what you know about their plans and the latest announcements, would you concider a dual screen setup based on this new system compatible with an IFR bird?
Click to expand...

We've been holding this stuff really close to the chest until just a few days ago (start of Osh). The number of people outside of Dynon that had ever seen the next generation screens, or knew what we were planning on showing, can be counted on an extremely small amount of fingers. Some of them are spouses of employees.

Pricing truly hasn't been determined yet. There's a lot of analysis that we still need to do, and a lot of how prices shake out is going to depend on competition, the marketplace as we get closer, the Brownian motion of a lava lamp, and...

The bottom line is that we've always focused on bringing products to the market at a low cost. It's been one of the primary drivers of our success, and it remains one of our core company philosophies. We want to see our stuff in all of your airplanes, not just the high-end ones! :)
 
John Courte said:
Does anyone know if it does fullscreen on the syn-vis? Because that would be pretty.
Click to expand...

It does, and at a fairly incredible frame-rate (I'm biased though :) )

In fact, given the modular nature of the next generation, you'll be able to have a screen display a full-screen PFD, map, EMS, etc, or you can combine different elements onto a single screen as you've seen in the screens thus-far.
 
Synthetic Vision. Nice, but...

Now first of all, I'm not yet a pilot, so take this for what it is worth, but I'm not sure I'd be too keen to follow synthetic vision based from a (how old?) map to avoid running into something when I can't see outside. From my extremely limited flight experience so far (a whopping 23 hours of it) I always understood that you look at your map, check all the objects within several miles of your intended flight path, and then plan an altitude to clear them by a good and handy margin. Okay, I guess if you had to cross a very high and very log mountain range then you might be below the 'safe' level and thread through valleys and whatnot, but I would expect to done only VFR and certainly not relying on any sort of synthetic vision (except perhaps radar/sonar generated real time kind of stuff that I suppose the military might have). Scary stuff; its no computer game...
 
One comment I have on the Dynon terrain is the about the use of the checker-board pattern. Repeating patterns like this tend to mess with the eyes somewhat, and create an impression of movement and/or shape where there is none. I'd go with a solid color and shading if possible (maybe using time-of-day to determine light source and shadow direction...).
 
Terrain data

I wonder if the terrain data will be confined to north America or will include rest of the world?
If it is rest of world will it be at same arc seconds for Australia as it is for North America?
What is the arc second resolution of the terrain data?
I have just looked at a past thread from Sun n Fun of a competitors unit and it is said by them to be "the terrain data for the US is 3 arc-second. That works out to a data point every 90 meters. Australia and New Zealand is also 3 arc-second data. Data is available from +60/-60 deg latitude."
John
 
Davepar said:
Everybody's got a motive. Some people are trying to prop up the company in which they just invested several grand (e.g. "I just bought an XYZ EFIS and it's great!"). Some people make a larger profit selling some over-priced units over others. Until you know a person's motivation, be skeptical.

Never buy avionics (or cut your panel) in June or July. The whole game will change at Oshkosh. Of course, the delivery time is quoted as 2009. That means any time 5-17 months from now. Depends if you can wait that long.
Click to expand...

Dave,

Your crazy and ignorant assumptions don't even warrant much of a response. It's obvious you know VERY little about me, my company or my motivations or about many of the top avionics shops in general.

Another thing...don't EVER believe timing quotes from ANY mfgr at OSH. Most all of the companies (including Dynon) do not have very stellar records when it comes to timelines of new products.

Anyway, OSH is great - lots of phenomenal people, lots of fun!

Cheers,
Stein
 
L.Adamson said:
Actually, quite a few IFR accidents come to mind, where this synthetic 3D terrain would have been useful. Aspen, Colorado is a good example.

L.Adamson
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm missing something but can you explain to me how "this synthetic 3D terrain would have been useful" on an IFR flight?

Every time someone tries to convince themselves that Synthetic vision would be indispensable for IFR flight, I have to think that they really don't understand the the IFR system and procedures. IFR MEAs and approach procedures are designed to ensure certain obstacle clearance parameters. If you follow the procedures, and maintain procedure altitude and headings, you are GUARANTEED obstacle clearance.

IFR Flights that come to grief do so because they do NOT follow the procedures and maintain altitude and headings. Would synthetic 3D terrain prevent them from busting altitude and heading assignments?--maybe, maybe not. If you are on a particular segment of an IFR flight or approach and you are OUTSIDE the procedure parameters, synthetic vision ~may~ give you a better indication of this than you altimeter, but if you have to rely on the synthetic vision, it means you are not following the procedure anymore and are "flying on your own" while under IMC-no longer IFR.

Synthetic 3D terrain may give you a warm & fuzzy when flying IFR, however the only time this would be useful is when scud running VFR. Then you have to trust that the database is updated and there were no towers installed since you last updated the terrain database.
 
AntiGravity said:
Now first of all, I'm not yet a pilot, so take this for what it is worth, but I'm not sure I'd be too keen to follow synthetic vision based from a (how old?) map to avoid running into something when I can't see outside. From my extremely limited flight experience so far (a whopping 23 hours of it) I always understood that you look at your map, check all the objects within several miles of your intended flight path, and then plan an altitude to clear them by a good and handy margin. Okay, I guess if you had to cross a very high and very log mountain range then you might be below the 'safe' level and thread through valleys and whatnot, but I would expect to done only VFR and certainly not relying on any sort of synthetic vision (except perhaps radar/sonar generated real time kind of stuff that I suppose the military might have). Scary stuff; its no computer game...
Click to expand...

As the statistics show, at some point, many pilots have "blown it", and have flown directly into rising terrain. And they range from GA to military to commercial. Low to high hours, as well as students and instructors. I keep track of "ALL" these terrain accidents in the U.S. It's a case of not planning the route and altitude properly, getting momentarily lost, or being lost without really realizing it. Or just loosing situational awareness on missed approaches in regards to altitude, rising terrain, or both.

The idea is not to actually use synthetic vision to thread through mountain passes, although a report from a few years ago, titled "A Case for a Garmin" shows where terrain GPS could have helped a pilot with a failed engine over the western US's Sierra Nevada's.

I've used and tested flight simulations for years. The computer based terrain topography (at least in the USA) is very good. I live in the mountain west, and constantly compare it. Distance between data points will be somewhat less in the cockpit, but certainly good enough.

The whole point is to turn night or IMC into day, and see the runway in relation to surrounding mountains. The Hendricks Motorsports accident is a recent example. The aircraft had an older point A to B line GPS on a small screen. They didn't realize that they had overflown the airport in IMC, and flew directly into a mountain. This new technology should easily make these types of accidents a relic of the past.

Compare these two pics. Actual and Google with computer based elevations. This is just out of the Salt Lake City, Utah area. 36U

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4905/dsc03138reducedqm1.jpg

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2690/google3rb2.jpg

L.Adamson
 
Davepar said:
I guess you've never been picking your way through the Siskiyous or Cascades with ceilings at 2000' AGL, wondering "Am I going to clear that next pass?" :)

Click to expand...

Uh, no. If I can't see it out my canopy, I shouldn't be flying in it.
 
One very good reason to have synthetic vision.....

w1curtis said:
Maybe I'm missing something but can you explain to me how "this synthetic 3D terrain would have been useful" on an IFR flight?

Every time someone tries to convince themselves that Synthetic vision would be indispensable for IFR flight, I have to think that they really don't understand the the IFR system and procedures. IFR MEAs and approach procedures are designed to ensure certain obstacle clearance parameters. If you follow the procedures, and maintain procedure altitude and headings, you are GUARANTEED obstacle clearance.

IFR Flights that come to grief do so because they do NOT follow the procedures and maintain altitude and headings. Would synthetic 3D terrain prevent them from busting altitude and heading assignments?--maybe, maybe not. If you are on a particular segment of an IFR flight or approach and you are OUTSIDE the procedure parameters, synthetic vision ~may~ give you a better indication of this than you altimeter, but if you have to rely on the synthetic vision, it means you are not following the procedure anymore and are "flying on your own" while under IMC-no longer IFR.

Synthetic 3D terrain may give you a warm & fuzzy when flying IFR, however the only time this would be useful is when scud running VFR. Then you have to trust that the database is updated and there were no towers installed since you last updated the terrain database.
Click to expand...


So you are flying IFR over significant mountainous terrain in an RV or any other single engine aircraft. You are flying in the clouds and have 2000 ft plus clearance over your lowest safe altitude. Things are going well (even though some people would argue heavy IFR in singles has certain risks associated with it).

THE ENGINE STOPS (Don't ask how).

Your RV just became a rather inefficient glider.

I would certainly prefer to have synthetic vision (rather than not) at this point in time allowing you to alter your flight path as necessary and enter the middle of a valley (reasonably safely) hoping to clear the cloud base and choose your best option for what its worth in what has suddenly become a very busy cockpit.

With everything going on and without Syn Vis in rugged terrain there would be a good chance you had topped a mountain before you had a chance to find a suitable valley to enter on on your maps or non 3D gps. Artificial horizons and airspeped are where your eyes should be in these conditions...

Just my 2 cents worth....i don't put a price on safety. Every inch of safety is worth whatever you pay for it. Ask your wife and kids whether or not you should cut costs in this area....
 
Sorry for the silly question...

...does anyone know if "traditional" EFIS D-10A and EMS D10 will be abandoned or will still be produced? I'm about to order them and don't want to buy an obsolete product. In Dynons FAQ's this is not said. I guess they will maintain both products...but are we sure?
 
The value of synthetic vision:

Have you ever made a mistake? Misspelled a word, taken a wrong turn? We all make mistakes. Just because you made a mistake, got distracted, etc., does not mean you should pay for it with your life.

Even with the best instrumentation, people still make mistakes, hit mountains with their engines still running, etc. For example, a couple years ago a Cirrus hit a mountain outside Hood River, Oregon and it's hard to argue that a Cirrus has inadequate equipment. The pilot made a mistake.

And talk to pilots about flying into clouds--I am surprised at how many have done that and survived (those who don't crash don't show in the stats). Wouldn't you like to have synthetic vision if you found yourself in a cloud?

Whether IFR or VFR, synthetic vision should save lives every year and I will be glad to have it.

I applaud and thank all these outfits who are working to provide this kind of instrumentation at a price we can afford. They are saving lives.
 
Camillo said:
...does anyone know if "traditional" EFIS D-10A and EMS D10 will be abandoned or will still be produced? I'm about to order them and don't want to buy an obsolete product. In Dynons FAQ's this is not said. I guess they will maintain both products...but are we sure?
Click to expand...

this is actually a great question that we were just talking about during Happy Hour last night on the question of "Swiss Army Knife" displays in the panel. Companies are expanding into all sorts of areas whereas a few years ago that were good at producing one thing.

EFIS specialists are getting into autopilots. Autopilot people are getting into EFIS systems and on on and on.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm not saying that's a good thing. But it does begin to lead me to wonder whether some of the smaller companies OR getting pretty good at a lot of things are GREAT at a few and whether the answer to that question is good or bad.

But I have to admit, looking at some of this stuff does make me wonder if there isn't still an elegant beauty to a steam gauge. :D

Still, Oshkosh is for folks with big money. Homebuilding getting to be a place for people with big money and I do tend to wonder whether anyone is hearing the concern that I believe is behind Camillo's question.

By the way, the sniping back and forth in this thread is stupid and unnecessary, and not at all of interest to folks who are looking for solid information. It's not the Oshkosh "vibe."
 
Pictures

L.Adamson said:
.....
Compare these two pics. Actual and Google with computer based elevations. This is just out of the Salt Lake City, Utah area. 36U

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4905/dsc03138reducedqm1.jpg

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2690/google3rb2.jpg

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

Neat pictures... Google even got the snow level correct....:)

Does anyone know where the master data base for elevation comes from?
I guess Google uses the elevation master and adds their "picture" on top of it...
 
az_gila said:
Does anyone know where the master data base for elevation comes from?
Click to expand...

This article has some info on sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_elevation_model

Some of the data actually comes from the Space Shuttle.

On the scud-running sub-thread, I didn't want to imply I do a lot of scud running. In fact, I usually fly on the conservative side of clouds. My point was that synthetic vision would help with situational awareness in the mountains. Nobody plans on flying up a box canyon, but it obviously happens.
 
NVG's

Sticky1 said:
Can't wait till they intergrate this stuff with FLIR.......
Click to expand...

How about NVG's? I was thinking about trying the ones I use for the helicopter. That would be very cool. Maybe on a shift when the helicopter is down.
 
Bring it on

Jon Clements said:
So you are flying IFR over significant mountainous terrain in an RV or any other single engine aircraft. You are flying in the clouds and have 2000 ft plus clearance over your lowest safe altitude. Things are going well (even though some people would argue heavy IFR in singles has certain risks associated with it).

THE ENGINE STOPS (Don't ask how).

Your RV just became a rather inefficient glider.

I would certainly prefer to have synthetic vision (rather than not) at this point in time allowing you to alter your flight path as necessary and enter the middle of a valley (reasonably safely) hoping to clear the cloud base and choose your best option for what its worth in what has suddenly become a very busy cockpit.
Click to expand...

Right on the money Jon. As you point out, if you can glide away from the mountains to a valley you increase the chances of breaking out of the cloud at lower altitude....and you increase the chances of finding a flat, deforested area to land....and you increase the chances of landing near population...and you also increase the chances of being found. It all sounds like a huge advantage to me.

There's been a couple of well documented cases in Australia recently of highly experienced commercial IFR pilots spearing into the sides of mountains during GPS approaches (they had IFR approach GPSs but with no mapping functions). The pilots became confused and descended below the LSA. Bang...a lot of passengers killed. It's a high price to pay for a momentary loss of situational awareness.

There is no doubt whatsoever that GPS with mapping functions has been a massive step forward in improving situational awareness for pilots....and synthetic vision will be just the next logical step.

I do fair bit of night flying...I say bring on synthetic vision.
 
Last edited:
Interesting

Its not quite the same but i have been generally leaving the 430W set to the terrain page lately.It sort of does the same thing as a moving map..At least it shows which parts are higher than you.

So in the meantime you can get an approximation while waiting for the new Dynon display

Frank
 
Camillo said:
...does anyone know if "traditional" EFIS D-10A and EMS D10 will be abandoned or will still be produced? I'm about to order them and don't want to buy an obsolete product. In Dynons FAQ's this is not said. I guess they will maintain both products...but are we sure?
Click to expand...

It's likely that we'll continue offering the 4" products - the EFIS-D10A and the EMS-D10 - even after the next generation is the only offering in the 7" form factor.
 
OK

Thank-you. I already cut the panel and would be upset to start again.
I think you should continue on 4'' instruments. They allow builders to place them inside a more classical panel, besides analogic ASI, ALT and VSI.

Actually, my panel is a "classic 6": ASI, D-10A, ALT and below ADI, D-10A (as DG/HSI) and VSI. I like my project, because I have everything one needs in a classic style with lot of redundancy for quite a lot of money... :)

Ciao.
Camillo
 
RScott said:
The value of synthetic vision:

Have you ever made a mistake? Misspelled a word, taken a wrong turn? We all make mistakes. Just because you made a mistake, got distracted, etc., does not mean you should pay for it with your life.
...
Click to expand...

Most accidents aren't caused by a single mistake but a chain of mistakes or bad events. Yes we all make mistakes and I'm all for anything that would reduce those critical errors. For me, that is not synthetic vision. A 2D overhead view offers much more topographical.

Jon Clements said:
So you are flying IFR over significant mountainous terrain in an RV or any other single engine aircraft. You are flying in the clouds and have 2000 ft plus clearance over your lowest safe altitude. Things are going well (even though some people would argue heavy IFR in singles has certain risks associated with it).

THE ENGINE STOPS (Don't ask how).

Your RV just became a rather inefficient glider.

I would certainly prefer to have synthetic vision (rather than not) at this point in time allowing you to alter your flight path as necessary and enter the middle of a valley (reasonably safely) hoping to clear the cloud base and choose your best option for what its worth in what has suddenly become a very busy cockpit.

With everything going on and without Syn Vis in rugged terrain there would be a good chance you had topped a mountain before you had a chance to find a suitable valley to enter on on your maps or non 3D gps. Artificial horizons and airspeped are where your eyes should be in these conditions...

Just my 2 cents worth....i don't put a price on safety. Every inch of safety is worth whatever you pay for it. Ask your wife and kids whether or not you should cut costs in this area....
Click to expand...
Actually, in this situation I would prefer an up to date moving map with topo and maybe CAPS.:D

That being said, first let me define some terms. To me Synthetic Vision is the attempted 3D representation of the view outside the FRONT window on a 2D screen--that is, the left side of the Dynon screen. This is what I find of dubious value. In an emergency the best place to land may be BEHIND you to which you Synthetic Vision display will tell you nothing.

This is Synthetic Vision: -left side of Dynon display
DNG_Svis.jpg



This is a moving map with 2d topography:-not Synthetic Vision. This IS useful.
DNG_Map.jpg


The right side of the screen, the moving map with topography, this I think is EXTREAMLY useful for ALL pilots. This probably would have helped most of those pilots that came to grief in the mountainous areas, not so much the synthetic vision. The overhead view offers a better overall view of surrounding topography than than the forward looking "Synthetic Vision" offers. You can get this topographical view, and the situational awareness today with any moving map navigator with topography. So maybe that is why I do not view the forward looking "Synthetic Vision" as offering me anything I don't already have. Until we can get 180 degree synthetic vision in the cockpit, I think it will be "eye candy" that will probably sell a lot of units.

The unfortunate side effect of Synthetic Vision however will be when some try to use it to scud run in sub and marginal VFR conditions. On one hand it may help some, but on the other it may give others a false sense of comfort leading them to grief.
 
That being said, first let me define some terms. To me Synthetic Vision is the attempted 3D representation of the view outside the FRONT window on a 2D screen--that is, the left side of the Dynon screen. This is what I find of dubious value. In an emergency the best place to land may be BEHIND you to which you Synthetic Vision display will tell you nothing.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. It shouldn't be too difficult to add a "change view" feature to these systems. Maybe a knob to rotate the view around the aircraft, with press to reset. Or something.

On that note, some of these systems can calculate glide distance and path, so it may be possible to use the topography to locate a best (flattest) place to land within the available glide range., and display a HITS to this location.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.