Brantel

Brantel

Well Known Member
Now that AFS is arriving in regards to a similar feature set as the GRT offering, I would like to know the opinions on the value to price ratio between the two.

It seems that when you compare the prices apples to apples on these two units, that AFS is significantly more expensive. That being said, there may be some real good reasons why this is so. Not wanting to discount a great system based just on price, I would like to know the opinions about what justifies this gap in price.

Does anyone have any opinions on this?
 
I have not priced out a GRT system relative to my AF3500, but I can tell you I am thoroughly happy with it in every regard and feel that it is a very strong value all things considered. There are lots of features I love about it that no one ever talks about...
-Very intuitive engine leaning software, I use it every flight -- never seen anyone mention it.
-Real time GPS-derived wind vectors: shows wind vectors both numerically and with an arrow. I always know what's happening with the wind whether making a cruise altitude decision or seeing the wind as I approach an airport area.
-All parameters have visual (numbers turn from white to yellow then red) and audible warnings that are completely programmable. Most have the option to not trigger unless rpm is above 1500 to avoid nuisance alarms. Very useful!.
-Clock in upper left corner, I like knowing what time it is to know so I know if I'm late or early arriving somewhere

And as Alton mentioned the support is truly superlative. Ever call a company to report a problem and get the feeling they immediately doubt their product is defective but think it's you the user? I find that attitude with many companies but NOT with AFS. I have found several small bugs along the way and they have always been right on it and not assumed it was me doing something wrong.

Some of these things might seem insignificant but to me they truly enhance the day-to-day functionality of the aircraft.

I love my AF3500!

VAF_7426_640.jpg
 
Last edited:
I haven't had the opportunity to play with an AFS unit yet, but I look forward to seeing them in the field. From Randy's description of some of the features, it sounds like they are very similar in capability to the GRT units - GRT has pretty much everything that Randy mentioned - and I have heard good things about the company. GRT, of course, has a heck of a customer service reputation as well.

I'd like to hear about how the AFS leaning function looks/works. The GRT has a time/temperature graph of EGT (that looks a lot like a strip chart recorder) that makes leaning so easy that when I have to use the "bar graphs" common on most airplanes these days, I get lost. With the EGT plots, you basically lean until they all the lines come together, then keep going until one begins to drop out, and you're going LOP - really simple at a glance.

I expect that there are only a few folks that can actually write a report comparing the two units - maybe Stein , or someone like that who has had the chance to play with both.

Paul
 
Which unit has more bang for the buck? I depends solely on what value you put on each function. Which car has more bang for the buck a Ford or a Chevy.
 
Brantel said:
Now that AFS is arriving in regards to a similar feature set as the GRT offering, I would like to know the opinions on the value to price ratio between the two.

It seems that when you compare the prices apples to apples on these two units, that AFS is significantly more expensive. That being said, there may be some real good reasons why this is so. Not wanting to discount a great system based just on price, I would like to know the opinions about what justifies this gap in price.

Does anyone have any opinions on this?
Click to expand...

Hi,

Actually the price for a dual screen setup with a GRT HS/AFS 3500 is fairly close. They are both great units. I have AFS in my 7 and had GRT in my 6. Give me a call and I'd be happy to discuss the units regardless of where you buy them
 
MNRVFlyer said:
Hi,

Actually the price for a dual screen setup with a GRT HS/AFS 3500 is fairly close. They are both great units. I have AFS in my 7 and had GRT in my 6. Give me a call and I'd be happy to discuss the units regardless of where you buy them
Click to expand...

Not sure how this is so with the prices posted but maybe I am adding them up wrong or something. Last time I did this, I came up with more than 4 grand difference. Please fill me in on how you are comparing them.

Thanks,
 
I came to the conclusion that a AFS 3500EE single screen system was a few hundred dollars cheaper than a similar GRT H1/X system (both without XM weather) a few months ago. I had a GRT on order but as the AFS developed and the HX deliveries stretched out, I switched to AFS. Be sure to include the EIS system cost in any analysis.

I have to admit I haven't reviewed the costs since the recent GRT announcement nor did I consider the Sport since I am building a full IFR ship. Nor was there any hints of a large screen HX at that time which may not be the case now.

YMMV
 
one of each

I am on the fence with these 2 choices as well but a year out from the decision point and trying to stay focused on the rivets at hand.

However, just for the heck of it. whats the harm of one of each. The GRT HX for synth vision with the raim gps as pfd and the 3500 as mfd for engine and map

what say the experts?
 
deene said:
I came to the conclusion that a AFS 3500EE single screen system was a few hundred dollars cheaper than a similar GRT H1/X system (both without XM weather) a few months ago. I had a GRT on order but as the AFS developed and the HX deliveries stretched out, I switched to AFS. Be sure to include the EIS system cost in any analysis.

I have to admit I haven't reviewed the costs since the recent GRT announcement nor did I consider the Sport since I am building a full IFR ship. Nor was there any hints of a large screen HX at that time which may not be the case now.

YMMV
Click to expand...

I am not comparing the HX to the AFS offering because that would not be apples to apples. The Sport now has the same functions as the Horizon with the exception of some inputs. It also has a cross checking dual AHRS system when using two Efis screens. The Sport is now a fine option for a full IFR ship.

Typical Sport Single Screen setup = $ 4450 with 429, EIS and probes (single AHRS)
Typical Sport Dual EFIS Screen setup = $ 7250 with 429, EIS and probes (dual AHRS with crosschecking)
Typical Sport one EFIS and one MFD Screen setup = $ 6250 with 429, EIS and probes (single AHRS)
Typical Horizon Single Screen setup = $ 6825 with 429, EIS, probes and dual AHRS (with crosschecking)
Typical Horizon Dual Screen setup = $ 8825 with 429, EIS, probes and dual AHRS (with crosschecking)

Typical 3400 Single Screen setup = $ 7333 with 429, EM built in, probes and MM software (single AHRS)
Typical dual 3400 one efis and one combo setup = $ 11357 with 429, EM built in, probes and MM software (dual AHRS and no crosschecking)
Typical dual 3400 one MFD and one combo setup = $ 9128 with 429, EM built in, probes and MM software (single AHRS)

Single AFS 3400 vs Sport $ 2883 more
Single AFS 3400 vs Horizon $ 508 more
Dual AFS using MFD vs Sport using MFD $ 2878 more
Dual AFS using 2nd EFIS vs Sport using 2nd Efis $ 4107 more
Dual AFS using MFD vs Horizon $ 303 more
Dual AFS using 2nd EFIS vs Horizon $ 2532 more

Tuff to beat the Sport with the new pricing and features.
 
Sorry to be a spoiler (and I'm sure Todd S will want to slap me for this), but the sport IMHO isn't worth comparing to the AFS as being an equivalent to the Horizon series EFISes. The Horizon is what you should be comparing to the AFS. While on paper the GRT Sport looks the same as the Horizon, the fact of the matter is they are not. I call the Sport a "diet" Horizon, because that's what it really is....a Horizon "lite". Frankly I dislike that GRT has compared the sport so close to the Horizon because it makes people think they are the same when they aren't. Lots of differences other than the "analog" inputs - even if the "comparision chart" would lead you to believe they are the same.

You can probably tell, I'm not a huge fan of the GRT Sport EFIS being compared to the Horizon. I think a more equitable comparision is the Sport to the Dynon.

Some of the things off the top of my head that I know about the Sport being inferior to the Horizon specifically are the interdisplay communication, processor speed/power, the internal AHRS, the limited inputs/outputs regarding serial ports, imited interfacing to other external avionics, so on and so forth. I know the list is longer, but it's late and my brain isn't working at it's best. I look at it this way - the Sport is a fine EFIS and does lots of things (sort of), but the Horizon is a bit better and does all those things the Sport does even better. Just because both columns on their page say "yes" to a certain function doesn't mean that the Sport and Horizon perform that function to the same level of detail or in the same way. It's like looking at two pools of water that appear to be exactly the same on the surface. Except in this case one pool (Sport) is only 1 foot deep, while the other pool (Horizon) is 100 feet deep.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll get hammered on this one, but this whole move with the Sport system and marketing it by GRT as the same as the Horizon when it's not has been bothering me a bit - I told them this would start confusing customers and making them think they Sports are the same as Horizons....I mean, if that were truly the case, then why would they even bother making the Horizon at all??!!? The reality is that they are still different systems with different (if even somwhat similar) feature sets for different applications.

The Sport is a great unit and good in the right applications, but I would never suggest to a customer that it's interchangeable with the Horizon...still wayyyy to many differences.

As far as the question at hand...the AFS and Horizon are still different systems - each with their own unique set of benefits....not much I can say about one over the other becase I really like both products and really like both companies. We sell an awful lot of both (I think we've sold and installed more of each than anyone else) and still think that each one is a good system. Ford/Chevy/Dodge!

Just my no holds barred 2 cents as usual. The advice (or more likely my opinion) is worth what you paid for it!

Cheers,
Stein
 
Last edited:
Stein,

I definately would agree with your observation. I am very familiar with the Horizon I system having been flying with it for two years now.

In the last few days I have been setting up a Sport system for a friend in preparation for the first flight. I too found the differences to be significant and find your description of the pool depth a good analogy. Not that I have any issue with the Sport System but it is nowhere in the same league.

Martin Sutter
building and flying RV's since 1988
 
disagree

Well, Stien I whole heartedly disagree with you!

The differences you list in your 3rd paragraph between Sport and Horizon are either not true or irrelevant for 98% of cases - inputs, AHRS etc.

I have flown behind both and I own the Sport (so im biased i know), and i can say they are very hard to tell apart. The feature list between the two from GRT is the same except for maybe 2 or 3 things. I know the GRT guys are sad that the Sport is so close to the Horizon.

I have not flown behind the AFS systems but have seen them in detail. They are very nice and do have a superior map to GRT. But it is completely legit to compare them to the Sport.


David T.
 
Stein,

Thanks for your comments, they are appreciated.

From a standpoint that I need to be educated by someone who works with these things everyday and not influenced so much by who they work for, I have some questions:

Once the 429 interface is there for the Sport, what connectivity options will it not have that the AFS does? From looking at all the manuals and diagrams, it seems the Sport has similar connectivity options.

What is so bad about having an internal AHRS when you have two of them in different boxes that constantly crosscheck each other and can rollover if needed?

What does the Sport not do in regards to interdisplay coms that the Horizon does (after the latest feature list is completely integrated into the firmware)?

Do you have data on the processors/speed/memory that the Sport uses vs the Horizon?

Do you really concider the Horizon 100 times better than the Sport?

On the Horizon connections vs the Sport with the 429 interface, I understand the limitations with full rollover capability on exernal data sources but in most cases the data that would be lost is almost always represented somewhere else on the panel. This is the one place for sure that the Horizon has the Sport beat. But if you have the data elsewhere, is this really a problem? I also don't see how the AFS unit could accomplish this either so looks like the Horizon is the winner in this regard.

Again, thanks for your open comments!
 
Regarding the "pool depth" analogy, the ratio of features is obviously less than 100 to 1 but there are significant differences. The first one will be evident when you enter the set-up menues and compare the number of options available in each category. It appeared to me that there are about half as many in the Sport. Unless you have installed and set up a Horizon system with the full compliment of IFR capabilities utilized you will not readily recognize the extensive features this system can provide. There is a reason the Sport is considerably less expensive. Grand Rapids themselves describes it as a VFR system also suitable for light IFR. Given the price point of both systems they are an excellent value in either case. To make use of ALL the capabilities of the Horizon you need an auto pilot like the DigiFligt VSGV, and an IFR certified navigator akin to the GNS430/530W. The Horizon then becomes a capable flight management system able to perform fully coupled approaches with vertical steering and altitude pre-select and capture.

Martin Sutter
buidling and flying RV's since 1988
 
EFIS Wars

I'm in the process of installing an AFS 3500 in my -8A. I probably spent more time on the EFIS decision than any other aspect of the build. For me it finally came down to a careful, reaslistic analysis of my idividual requirements, a realization that better was the ultimate enemy of good enough, and probably the factor that had the most weight - a subjective feeling about both the adaquacy and human factors aspects of the screen presentations, and the degree of warm fuzziness I got when dealing with customer service.

Can't really provide real life experience to the former, since I haven't flown yet. But for the latter - customer service - I am tremendously impressed by the folks at AFS. A comprehensive responsive forum, FAQs, quickly returned phone calls (always) and a willingness to get into great detail regarding my frequent (and I'm sure wrt their level of expertise) really basic installation questions.

Sometimes it ain't just about the money.
 
Well I called and talked to Stein and he filled me in on alot of what he was speaking of above. He also filled me in on how the prices can add up in different ways ie list vs oem pricing ect.

AFS is back on the table
GRT is still in the running both Horizon and Sport
Dynon just blasted back onto the scene
MGL is off the table due to size issues with the Voyager

Now that Dynon has released info on the new AP integration, it seems like all my prior ideas and decisions are all thrown back up in the air.

Great time to be planing a panel. I can't wait till Osh so I can put my hands on all of these new goodies!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.