Help me understand the modern glass panel "landscape"...

[skirting_virga]

The extent of my glass panel experience is flying a few variously-equipped Skyhawks with two G5s, an Aspen PFD, a G3X touch, and a either a Garmin 530, 650, or 750 GPS. When I look at the experimental world, there are a lot of options and I've known about the existence of Dynon for about 20 years now, without necessarily understanding the "big picture" of why someone would choose a particular configuration.

Dynon Skyview got me thinking about synthetic vision, which seems a "must" for SA. But Dynon also sells Advanced Flight Systems (a company they acquired?), and I don't really understand how this product line differs from Dynon's SkyView offerings. On top of all that, there are now a few different options from Garmin for PFD/MFDs, at pricing that seems decent for the experimental market. Even 3 main branches seems like a recipe for paralysis-by-analysis. What are the major pros/cons to the various systems offered?

If I had to state a preference, I prefer functions linked to hard buttons over touchscreen menus - as an example, the CDI button on a Garmin 530 is accessible from all screen pages, while switching the "CDI button" in a GNS 650/750 requires navigating to a particular screen. From this perspective something with more buttons (Skyview?) seems more to my liking than something that is more dependent on navigating modal "pages" like G3X Touch (though to be fair, I have spent very limited time using one).

Perusing the top most recent threads, almost everyone seems to be choosing G3X touch. Why?

Can anyone help me understand the landscape?

 

[wirejock]

I wouldn't pretend to understand all the options, but I did buy an Advanced Panel-less panel, albeit not flying yet.
Basically, they put everything together and test. Then they ship it all. Owner builds the panel. They also offer full operational panels. It's all connected to the AFS Advanced Control Module. ACM is similar to the Vertical Power VPX except it also routes data and audio.
Advanced and Dynon play well together and integrate with several GPSs. Support is excellent. Dynon HDX is touch or button. All functions can be done by either touch or by using the buttons and knobs. The Advanced offerings are similar to the Dynon HDX. The biggest EFIS is larger than the HDX.
Their support and sales are both excellent. You might want to call.

 

[rvbuilder2002]

If I had to state a preference, I prefer functions linked to hard buttons over touchscreen menus -

That is one of the differences between Dynon HDX and the AFS screens.

AFS has a lot more direct access buttons on the screen bezel which takes you directly to specific functions versus accessing secondary menus.
Just one of the reasons I prefer my AFS screen after having flown extensively with the big three.

 

[Ironflight]

A couple of thoughts to get the OP started….

1) You’re in the right forum (Glass Cockpit) to start reading threads - there are hundreds (if not thousands) of threads on “which EFIS should I pick and why?” In the end, they pretty much come down to the same thing - pick what works well with your brain.

2) The main EFIS brands (Garmin, Dynon, AFS, GRT, MGL) pretty much all offer the same feature sets these days - as soon as someone comes up with a great idea, others figure out how to emulate it.

3) Most builders/owners/pilots tend to defend the choices that they made for themselves. Fair enough - its what they know. Look for thoughts from folks that fly/own several different types - they have a little skin in all the games, and are generally more objective.

4) Everyone likes to talk about Customer Service…also fair enough, and very important! However, for every “this is the greatest company of people to ever exist!” (for any one company), you will also find “These people are the spawn of Satan, and I would never deal with them again!” …. (For the same company). In other words, customer service has good and bad days - and in talking personally with many of the customer service types for all of the companies, it has a LOT to do with how the customer approaches the company with a problem. To quote the bouncer in that old movie Roadhouse….”be nice!”

5) Years ago - back when the experimental EFIS market was developing and maturing - I used to do a forum every year with Stein on “how to choose an EFIS”. We pointed out that if you compare a full panel, apples to apples (hint - if you want IFR, you are going to buy a Garmin or Avidyne Navigator), the final cost came out to within a percent or two no matter which manufacturer you choose. In other words - you don’t shop on price.

6) Hardware and software quality vary, yes…..but there are thousands of airplanes flying with each brand of equipment, so they all work. The market has driven out those that don’t.

The bottom line is this - go to some shows, or a company that sells numerous company’s stuff. Get hands on with it. Navigate the menus the way you will fly. The one that works best with your brain is the one to focus on - everything else is noise… especially what any of us here tell you On which one to buy….

Paul

 

[BobTurner]

+1 on Paul’s post (#4), although I do think the cost variation is more than 2% - but not enough to impact most people’s choice. As to the OP’s comment about synthetic vision, yes, I have it, but in fact have never really used it. I view it as a backup should I have an engine failure in IMC, nothing more. For the record, I have 2010 era GRT efis’s, Garmin 420W navigator, SL30 nav com, Trig transponder, Dynon D6 mini efis backup, Trio Pro autopilot, no touch screen (I don’t like them), no plans to upgrade, I’m happy. You’ll notice I prefer the ‘pick and choose individual components’ route, over the ‘fully integrated system’ route, just my preference.

 

[rmartingt]

and in talking personally with many of the customer service types for all of the companies, it has a LOT to do with how the customer approaches the company with a problem

As someone working in customer service (not for these companies though)... THIS. Just be nice, and read the free manual

 

[Shado]

For full disclosure, I finally went with a all Garmin G3X system and panel built by Stein. Before making that choice I did my home work and then invested in flight sim hardware from a company called "RealSimGear". They have a fairly faithful implementation of the G3X touch, G5, GNS 650 navigator and GFC 500 autopilot. This investment allowed me to really test how my brain aligned around using the proposed configuration.

I know that my approach to this problem of choosing is not practical or reasonable for most. But it did surprise me as to what my actual likes and dislikes were. There were things that I disliked (such as the minimizing or elimination of buttons), things that I liked (such as the integration between components). The things that I did not like I got comfortable with the fact that I would have to live with them and adapt.

I believe that regardless oh which manufacture I would have gone with I would have basically the same features, and comparable customer service. The only recommendation I can give is to find some way to get actual hands on and quality time behind your potential panel (simulated or real) and see what works for your thought process.

 

[USN bullet]

I think Paul Dye has it nailed. Without reading the manual, see which System seems easiest to operate. I was able to travel to Aerotronics in Billings MT.
where they have each Garmin and Dynon set up. After playing with both, I found the Garmin was easiest for me. Could the fact that I had used the Garmin GPS for several years been a factor? Probably. This old round gauge geezer is astounded by the new stuff.

 

[Snowflake]

FWIW, i've got a Dynon D10A in my -6, but i've flown in RV's with Dynon and GRT, and in a Gamebird GB-1 (wow, that's a rush) that has what I believe is the certified version of the G3X.

I'm a long-time Garmin user, having had a GPS III, GPS 76map, Aera 500, and now an Aera 660. I have to say that I really, really like Garmin's UI. The G3X was instantly usable for me... Completely intuitive, extremely well integrated with the radio, transponder, audio. I've always thought that if money is no object, the Garmin system is what i'd install. But Paul's post is interesting as he indicates that the costs are comparable across all lines for comparable setups. That's good to know as I think about upgrades.

The initial setup is one cost to consider, but consider the ongoing costs as well. Databases for airspace, terrain, airport info all need to be updated, and everyone wants to extract their toll for the privilege. Also find out what happens when your databases expire. Does the system lock you out from them because they aren't current? Or can you skip every second update and cut your database costs in half?

 

[flyvans.com]

I do not completely share the "price is equal" view... Maybe, if you weigh up a theoretical & complete standard feature set.
But, want a cheap auxiliary display for a backseater? Or a video input for a forward looking camera? Or only partial functionality at a lower cost?
Things like that make the comparisons more difficult and pricing more varied (to reach the minimum desired functionality and not more).

One aspect that I personally find often gets overlooked is the robustness of the autopilot. I'm a big fan of having partially independent autopilot heads that are able to maintain pitch, rate etc... without depending on the main EFIS and air data computer/AHRS. Fine, if ultimately guidance comes from there and all the fancy level selects and vertical profile features require the EFIS, but the AP should be able to hold wings level and altitude without much fanfare.
That's the first thing you fall back on / depend when you need to do in flight troubleshooting, the EFIS spontaneously reboots and similar situations. And no kidding, don't know any of the manfucaturers where there wasn't any reboots or inflight hardware failures.
The amount of mental capacity you can free up with a simple heading and level hold is amazing.
Now a lot of newer systems have moved towards an architecture of hooking servos directly to the EFIS, which in my book then automatically requires more investment into dual AHRS/redundant air data computers etc.. (instead of single). You don't want to lose everything, including your fallback altitude and heading hold when there is already bigger problems brewing with your avionics.
A related topic is proper Autopilot disconnect alerting, which is another important human factors element that is often lacking in the experimental world.
And autotrim!

Also, you absolutely need IMHO discrete controls for Altitude Select, Heading Select, QNH etc...
Depending on system, there are often auxiliary components available (Garmin, Dynon) or simply enough rotary buttons around the screens (Later AFS). Those auxiliary components in my opinion are not optional but should be considered a requirement. There are also really poor examples where like 10 functions are tried to be mapped to one or 2 rotaries, that just isn't intuitive.
Not a big fan of touch either. If you can, get dedicated buttons and rotaries and as little touch as necessary. "Sticky Fat" fingerprints on screens will always show and annoy and precision is tricky in turbulence or when one has to work quickly.
There is some nice touch functionality sometimes with mapping, or with the 15k$ Garmin Certified IFR Navigators as positive mentions, but in general, real buttons always win in my opinion.

Another important point where I see (or rather saw) huge differences, is color coding and general symbology. The whole topic was developed over decades for airline type aircraft, so why not simply copy what works and where a lot of psychological and human factors expertise has gone into?! When experimental EFIS's came around, you had a large variety of color coding, symbology and in general poor graphics quality. And frankly some weird non-traditional approaches to otherwise "common western EFIS" elements, which reminded me of e.g. soviet attitude indicators from the 80s (worked opposite to western instruments). Some manufacturers have disappeared but there are still some that underperform in this department IMHO.

Synthetic Vision, while somewhat pleasing to the eye, I find totally overrated. For full disclosure, I have older dual AFS 3400s with first generation synthetic vision. But even in later systems from all manufacturers there is not a leap in functionality that would justify a huge investment or upgrade (if it doesn't come already included). Very happy with my choice, by the way, but those decisions were made 15 years ago and a lot has moved since. I would personally definitely go for AFS and/or Dynon again (they are somewhat compatible these days) but that is a complex combination of reasons and very individual.
A simple brown/blue attitude display without SV is even easier to read for bank angles, pitch etc... while flying in mountain valleys for example.
The biggest advantage I see is when you try to find an unknown airfield, VFR reporting point etc... SV helps you to find what bearing and mainly how far up/down you need to look...
But would never throw out a system based on SV yes/no.

your mileage may vary, only my 50cts

 

[graywoodworking]

Go to Oshkosh and try them all.

 

[RVDan]

Go to Oshkosh and try them all.

Or Sun n Fun.

 

[Aer0bat]

As others have alluded to, make sure you consider your full avionics stack when making a decision. The large vendors provide components that integrate very nicely together when you stay within their ecosystem. If you have existing components you want to keep, or if you want to mix & match, the level of integration may vary and you may lose some of the little features that reduce workload. Same with EFBs, if you have a favorite among Foreflight/Garmin Pilot/Other, you may lose features based on support from the EFIS system you're installing.

 

[Av8torTom]

The extent of my glass panel experience is flying a few variously-equipped Skyhawks with two G5s, an Aspen PFD, a G3X touch, and a either a Garmin 530, 650, or 750 GPS. When I look at the experimental world, there are a lot of options and I've known about the existence of Dynon for about 20 years now, without necessarily understanding the "big picture" of why someone would choose a particular configuration.

Dynon Skyview got me thinking about synthetic vision, which seems a "must" for SA. But Dynon also sells Advanced Flight Systems (a company they acquired?), and I don't really understand how this product line differs from Dynon's SkyView offerings. On top of all that, there are now a few different options from Garmin for PFD/MFDs, at pricing that seems decent for the experimental market. Even 3 main branches seems like a recipe for paralysis-by-analysis. What are the major pros/cons to the various systems offered?

If I had to state a preference, I prefer functions linked to hard buttons over touchscreen menus - as an example, the CDI button on a Garmin 530 is accessible from all screen pages, while switching the "CDI button" in a GNS 650/750 requires navigating to a particular screen. From this perspective something with more buttons (Skyview?) seems more to my liking than something that is more dependent on navigating modal "pages" like G3X Touch (though to be fair, I have spent very limited time using one).

Perusing the top most recent threads, almost everyone seems to be choosing G3X touch. Why?

Can anyone help me understand the landscape?

Talk to Stein at Steinair. He's very knowledgeable, and helpful.

 

[Amadeus]

I have to say that I really, really like Garmin's UI. The G3X was instantly usable for me...

Also find out what happens when your databases expire. Does the system lock you out from them because they aren't current?

Garmin's user interface is very intuitive. Easy to learn; easy to use.

The system does not lock you out when database expires but you are then flying on outdated information. Highly illegal for IFR flying and difficult to explain if you have an incident or accident in VFR conditions.

 

[DavidHarris]

Garmin and Dynon are the leading vendors. Unless you like to pick the path less traveled, I don't see much reason to go elsewhere for your PFD. The price difference is negligible between the two. If you plan to resell, Garmin is a standard every buyer will recognize. Like some folks said, I went to Oshkosh the summer before I purchased, to look at the two in person. Garmin would barely give me the time of day, and the sales guy didn't know much about experimental installation. Dynon spent an hour with me and explained everything. I also found I liked the Dynon interface better, though both PFDs are fine. Dynon talked me into an Avidyne IFD540 over a Garmin 750 GPS. Now I fly one plane with each, and I find the Avidyne to be far better, with much less button pushing, smart selection of destinations, and easier use in turbulence.

The experimental avionics are a dream compared to a Bonanza with a Garmin 530 I use to fly, and the cost is less than half of a certified setup. I'm pleased with Dynon, and especially with ease of use and with the support I got during installation. However, I'm building an RV12is that I expect to sell after a little while, and am leaning toward Garmin for that one for resale.

I bought the Dynon QuickPanel, which solved a bunch of things for not much more money than the base components. I've also purchased things from Stein and have only positive experiences there.

 

[mreifeis]

I have a slightly different take on the choice which is driven from the perspective of flying multiple aircraft. I have a Garmin stack in my certified aircraft. It was therefore important for me to have consistency between my RV-8 and my other aircraft. Operation of the G3X is almost identical to the certified stack. So, the decision was relatively straightforward on those grounds for me. This is very closely related to the what is most intuitive approach.

 

[Dugaru]

Autopilot disconnect alerting, which is another important human factors element that is often lacking in the experimental world.

Hard agree. My system (G5 and a 307 controller) can’t generate any audible warning of a disconnect, as far as I can tell, and the visual cue is minimalist. Not sure if this would pass muster in a certified installation. In any event it bugs me because the autopilot has indeed lost consciousness on a few occasions.

Not a big fan of touch either. If you can, get dedicated buttons and rotaries and as little touch as necessary. "Sticky Fat" fingerprints on screens will always show and annoy and precision is tricky in turbulence or when one has to work quickly.
There is some nice touch functionality sometimes with mapping, or with the 15k$ Garmin Certified IFR Navigators as positive mentions, but in general, real buttons always win in my opinion.

Same, for me, although obviously this is very subjective. Also, as the guy with a Garmin 430W, I am compelled to acknowledge that buttons have their own problems in some cases. Fortunately that’s a cheap fix from Garmin. Oh wait….

Synthetic Vision, while somewhat pleasing to the eye, I find totally overrated.

That was my initial impression as well, but I seem to be getting more and more utility out of it as time goes on. I’d call SV an improvement but a surprisingly subtle one, relative to all the marketing. It’s certainly not close to being one of the biggest improvements offered by an EFIS relative to steam gauges, at least for me.

For full disclosure, I have older dual AFS 3400s with first generation synthetic vision.

I had one of those in a Sportsman and really really liked it, although replacing that coin cell battery was like playing “Operation.” In general I really like AFS gear.

But would never throw out a system based on SV yes/no.

Agree completely.

 

[Jpm757]

I wouldn't pretend to understand all the options, but I did buy an Advanced Panel-less panel, albeit not flying yet.
Basically, they put everything together and test. Then they ship it all. Owner builds the panel. They also offer full operational panels. It's all connected to the AFS Advanced Control Module. ACM is similar to the Vertical Power VPX except it also routes data and audio.
Advanced and Dynon play well together and integrate with several GPSs. Support is excellent. Dynon HDX is touch or button. All functions can be done by either touch or by using the buttons and knobs. The Advanced offerings are similar to the Dynon HDX. The biggest EFIS is larger than the HDX.
Their support and sales are both excellent. You might want to call.

I have been dealing with AFS for 10 years and have installed several of their Quick Panels in my RV-7 and Javron Super Cub. AFS is affiliated with Dynon, and most of their peripheral hardware is Dynon. The big difference is AFS has developed their own software, PFD and MFD displays. I have flown the Garmin and Dynon Skyview, and they are all equally awesome, but my personal preference is AFS. Customer support between Dynon and AFS has been outstanding. No secret wiring diagrams, everything you need is on their website. Rob and Jen Hickman and the rest of the team have been a pleasure to deal with.

 

[maxmirot]

I have been dealing with AFS for 10 years and have installed several of their Quick Panels in my RV-7 and Javron Super Cub. AFS is affiliated with Dynon, and most of their peripheral hardware is Dynon. The big difference is AFS has developed their own software, PFD and MFD displays. I have flown the Garmin and Dynon Skyview, and they are all equally awesome, but my personal preference is AFS. Customer support between Dynon and AFS has been outstanding. No secret wiring diagrams, everything you need is on their website. Rob and Jen Hickman and the rest of the team have been a pleasure to deal with.

I went this route with Avidyne navigatator for IFR. I used Garmin 375 nav without the PFD and MFD in training.
Avidyne has hybrid touch ( Button and touch screen for any command path) and has much easier menus system IMO.
AFS has followed the hybrid touch path too.

One thing consider is how many serial ports comes with the system. This control the number external devices ( Comms, Autopilot , etc.) .
Dynon has maxium of 4 or 5 and AFS systems will have 2x more if you have dual screens.
Not sure about garmin

 

[Snowflake]

The system does not lock you out when database expires but you are then flying on outdated information. Highly illegal for IFR flying and difficult to explain if you have an incident or accident in VFR conditions.

Trivial to explain if you have a current paper chart in the sidewall pocket with you.

[Edit] To clarify, i'm not suggesting that anyone should fly with less than all the knowledge that they need to to complete their flight. But I am saying that updating your EFIS data every 56 days simply isn't necessary in many VFR aircraft in many regions. Even yearly wouldn't give you any significant changes in most cases.

 

[Ironflight]

Trivial to explain if you have a current paper chart in the sidewall pocket with you.

[Edit] To clarify, i'm not suggesting that anyone should fly with less than all the knowledge that they need to to complete their flight. But I am saying that updating your EFIS data every 56 days simply isn't necessary in many VFR aircraft in many regions. Even yearly wouldn't give you any significant changes in most cases.

Agree completely - except that you don’t need paper in the pocket, just a tablet with an EFB program (and some are still free I think) that keeps itself up to date. With six flying airplanes in our hanagr, all with EFIS panels, we don’t keep them all up to date - we carry iPads with Foreflight, and only update the EFIS for IFR…..

 

[Bill Boyd]

Agree with Rob about the practical need for VFR chart data updates. Even buying year-long data subscriptions that make such 56-day updates "pre-paid," I find updates to be a minor hassle I often do not stay up with. A quick online check of of frequencies for the destination airport before launch, and confidence that airports are seldom physically relocated on the planet is all I need to feel comfortable launching VFR with moderately "obsolete" nav data.

Also agree that syn vis is more eye candy than anything else. Having flown behind it for a hundred hours, I cannot imagine trying to use it like a flight sim video game to scud run in mountain valleys or survive inadvertent VFR into IMC. It might help somewhat, but it's not enough alone. That said, it's really sexy and I'm glad I get to look at it. In those brief moments when my AFS-5500 occasionally loses its database and displays a blue over brown AI horizon instead of 3-D undulating green mountains, I recognize both it's non-essential nature and how fun it is to have in front of me (and that I need to D/L the latest software update from Advanced Flight that reportedly fixes this bug).

 

[maxmirot]

Agree with Rob about the practical need for VFR chart data updates. Even buying year-long data subscriptions that make such 56-day updates "pre-paid," I find updates to be a minor hassle I often do not stay up with. A quick online check of of frequencies for the destination airport before launch, and confidence that airports are seldom physically relocated on the planet is all I need to feel comfortable launching VFR with moderately "obsolete" nav data.

Also agree that syn vis is more eye candy than anything else. Having flown behind it for a hundred hours, I cannot imagine trying to use it like a flight sim video game to scud run in mountain valleys or survive inadvertent VFR into IMC. It might help somewhat, but it's not enough alone. That said, it's really sexy and I'm glad I get to look at it. In those brief moments when my AFS-5500 occasionally loses its database and displays a blue over brown AI horizon instead of 3-D undulating green mountains, I recognize both it's non-essential nature and how fun it is to have in front of me (and that I need to D/L the latest software update from Advanced Flight that reportedly fixes this bug).

Dynon and AFS get their EFIS data from Seattle Avionics. It cost about 120.00 per year.
I would update for VFR as needed, like a long trip out of your usual VFR area.
Otherwise Foreflight is fine.

 

[Snowflake]

Dynon and AFS get their EFIS data from Seattle Avionics. It cost about 120.00 per year.
I would update for VFR as needed, like a long trip out of your usual VFR area.
Otherwise Foreflight is fine.

$120 is downright reasonable. In Canada, data isn't that cheap... Our government sold out the air traffic control system to private entities and along with it the rights to the taxpayer-funded databases and maps. The private company that runs it now must extract their percentage to stay afloat.

 

[akschu]

I always encourage people to look at the install manuals. Some vendors install manual is 60 pages, others are 600 and spell everything out.

Also, I wouldn’t install anything that didn’t use canbus or some sort of network bus. The old way of having 12 serial ports on the EFIS and having it talk to each discrete thing is a bit of wiring when others just have two wires daisy chained from device to device or a hub everything connects to.