Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Advance flight systems

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Advance flight systems
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

flysrv10(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2014 3:06 pm Post subject: Advance flight systems

Anyone with Advanced flight systems EFIS that can comment about it's use for IFR flight and approaches?  Features that you think are great and others that you don't like?



I have watched some of the videos and am looking to find how user friendly and practical the system is.  Anything that trips you while shooting approaches?



Thanks in advance.

rnewman(at)tcwtech.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2014 4:25 pm Post subject: Advance flight systems

I have a three screen AFS system,  2- 4500's and a 3400  in a symmetrical 

panel layout.   I've been flying the plane for 2 years now and have done a 

pretty good amount of IFR work including approaches.  I have about 30 hours 

in IMC with the plane and really enjoy how the system works.  I've primarily 

shot GPS approach in actual, both with and without vertical guidance, and 

just a few ILS approaches.  I feel the AFS system  coupled to GNS navigator 

and the AFS/tru-trak autopilot have been truly awesome.  The display of 

information and the organization of the buttons and menus is very intuitive. 

I believe those with the 5000 series products have it even better  with more 

buttons and less menus.    Another feature that is really intuitive is the 

operation of the autopilot  via the knobs on the EFIS,  it makes the 

operation of the whole system, especially in IMC, quite straight forward. 

Lastly, when I designed my panel I thought that a separate screen, (the 

3400) primarily for showing the moving map and geo-referenced approach 

plates was going to be very useful.  I now think of it as essential.   In 

terms of situational awareness,  I think the center screen is one of the 

best tools going.    I also have Navworx ADS displaying weather and traffic 

on the center screen.    Flying in the Northeast with traffic on screen is 

spectacular.



Lastly,   I installed the AFS  AOA system when I built the plane but did not 

turn it on during the first year of flying, I had never used AOA before and 

just wasn't ready to wrap my head around another gizmo.    Then I turned it 

on and calibrated it.   I'm now a AOA evangelist.  It totally changed 

(improved) how I flew and especially landed the plane.   Since the RV-10 has 

such a wide range of capability from single pilot and unloaded to super 

fully loaded with all seats occupied, knowing exactly where you are with 

respect to lift reserve is just huge.   My advice, if you don't have it, get 

it,  if you got it,  turn it ON!



In my RV-8 I'll use AFS gear again.

Bob Newman

N541RV







--

N541RV-Instr_panel.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

1.27 MB

Viewed:

14281 Time(s)

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2014 4:32 pm Post subject: Advance flight systems

I  have no experience with the system other than having Rob Hickman 

demonstrate at airshows.

I like the ability to switch between an EFIS display and a conventional 

six pack(for cross training or individual preference). I like the 

ability to display the approach plates. AFS and Dynon have the latter 

capability.

I think the main features to look for is how user friendly the 

menu/buttons and other controls are, how sharp the display is, does it 

have features you want like angle of attack, screen layout, etc. and 

what nav source inputs it will display. Lastly, what is the cost to 

update its databases. The latter is pretty much a deal killer for the 

Garmin displays, IMHO, while most of the others are more reasonable. 

Lastly, how does the autopilot interface with the EFIS and what does 

that add to the cost. Between Grand Rapids, AFS and Dynon these days 

mostly a personal choice on displays, buttons, features and menus, they 

all are good and fairly price competitive.



On 1/18/2014 4:05 PM, Rob Kermanj wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Anyone with Advanced flight systems EFIS that can comment about it's use for IFR flight and approaches?  Features that you think are great and others that you don't like?



 I have watched some of the videos and am looking to find how user friendly and practical the system is.  Anything that trips you while shooting approaches?



 Thanks in advance.

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2014 4:55 pm Post subject: Re: Advance flight systems

I agree with Kelly. Remember that nearly everyone, including myself, thinks that their choices were the best choices! Best you can do is educate yourself as much as possible, then make YOUR choice.

You probably know that AFS has been acquired by Dynon. I do not know if this is good or bad, just stating a fact.



(BTW GRT will display approach plates)

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

carl.froehlich(at)verizon
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2014 5:32 pm Post subject: Advance flight systems

Good discussion.  The other aspect to overlay on selection is one's

confidence the company will be there in the long run.  Dynon and Grand

Rapids have the most market share and equally important I can report they

both have superb after the sale service.  



Carl

Dual Dynon SkyView and just got my IFR check ride in the RV-10.  The SkyView

will go into the upcoming RV-8 project as well.



--

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2014 5:36 pm Post subject: Advance flight systems

Keep in mind that AFS is now a Dynon subsidiary, so I expect support 

will be around for AFS, Dynon and Grand Rapids for quite awhile.

Nothing wrong with Garmin either, although I find their menus less 

friendly and their database update pricing obscene.



On 1/18/2014 6:31 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote:

[quote] 



 Good discussion.  The other aspect to overlay on selection is one's

 confidence the company will be there in the long run.  Dynon and Grand

 Rapids have the most market share and equally important I can report they

 both have superb after the sale service.



 Carl

 Dual Dynon SkyView and just got my IFR check ride in the RV-10.  The SkyView

 will go into the upcoming RV-8 project as well.



 --

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

Rv10flyer(at)live.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2014 7:27 pm Post subject: Advance flight systems

There are some advantages to both the AFS and Dynon. AFS is using the sky net system used on the synonym.

Me I would buy Dynon again, even if AFS has better synvis, simply put the support and attention to the comments of the users is huge for Dynon.

I flew 1 hr into the sun today. I ended up flying strictly from the panel and let flight following keep traffic away, the Dynon literally can fly one into the final 100 feet from the runway just from the synvis. Very different from the state of the art HSI we had in our Vietnam era helos. Had to think back in those days.

Pascal



[quote] On Jan 18, 2014, at 5:31 PM, "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 Good discussion.  The other aspect to overlay on selection is one's

 confidence the company will be there in the long run.  Dynon and Grand

 Rapids have the most market share and equally important I can report they

 both have superb after the sale service.  

 

 Carl

 Dual Dynon SkyView and just got my IFR check ride in the RV-10.  The SkyView

 will go into the upcoming RV-8 project as well.

 

 --

rleffler

Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 680

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:10 am Post subject: Advance flight systems

I have a very similar  configuration as Bob, except my physical layout is different.   If doing my panel again, I would use Aerosport Products symmetrical panel and put one large screen on each side, with a smaller one in the middle for map display.   That's a little OT since you can do the same with most vendors.



I've been very pleased with the support I've received from AFS.   We are fortunate that most of the EFIS vendors today provide great support.   I think the merger with Dynon has strengthen both companies.



As soon as the weather starts improving, I've got to get my IPC.  So I can't really comment on what it's like to fly with the 4500s in IMC.   Since you can't buy them anymore, it really doesn't matter.   Like Bob mentioned, the buttons and knobs on the 5000 series are greatly improved.  The menus are flatter and once they are learned easier to use.   If I had the spare cash, I would be upgrading my panel.



Bob touched on the use of the autopilot.   I'm a strong proponent on which ever EFIS vendor you choose, I highly recommend implementing  a stand alone autopilot like Trutrak or Trio.  The reason is if there should ever be an EFIS failure, the AP can keep your wings level and on course independently of the EFIS.   This buys you significant think time.   With the AP functions built into the EFIS and something fails, you are now hand flying.   Which scenario would you prefer?



For those that know me from conversations at the RV-10 at OSH, are aware that I almost went with GRT.   While there is nothing wrong with GRT.   Several years later, I'm  now glad that I went with AFS.   I think AFS has been leading the experimental EFIS vendors bringing innovation to the platform for the last several years.  Although my opinion is biased, I'm happy with the decision that I made. 



Bob



Sent from my iPad



[quote] On Jan 18, 2014, at 7:23 PM, "Bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> wrote:

 

 I have a three screen AFS system,  2- 4500's and a 3400  in a symmetrical panel layout.   I've been flying the plane for 2 years now and have done a pretty good amount of IFR work including approaches.  I have about 30 hours in IMC with the plane and really enjoy how the system works.  I've primarily shot GPS approach in actual, both with and without vertical guidance, and just a few ILS approaches.  I feel the AFS system  coupled to GNS navigator and the AFS/tru-trak autopilot have been truly awesome.  The display of information and the organization of the buttons and menus is very intuitive. I believe those with the 5000 series products have it even better  with more buttons and less menus.    Another feature that is really intuitive is the operation of the autopilot  via the knobs on the EFIS,  it makes the operation of the whole system, especially in IMC, quite straight forward. Lastly, when I designed my panel I thought that a separate screen, (the 3400) primarily for showing the moving map and geo-referenced approach plates was going to be very useful.  I now think of it as essential.   In terms of situational awareness,  I think the center screen is one of the best tools going.    I also have Navworx ADS displaying weather and traffic on the center screen.    Flying in the Northeast with traffic on screen is spectacular.

 

 Lastly,   I installed the AFS  AOA system when I built the plane but did not turn it on during the first year of flying, I had never used AOA before and just wasn't ready to wrap my head around another gizmo.    Then I turned it on and calibrated it.   I'm now a AOA evangelist.  It totally changed (improved) how I flew and especially landed the plane.   Since the RV-10 has such a wide range of capability from single pilot and unloaded to super fully loaded with all seats occupied, knowing exactly where you are with respect to lift reserve is just huge.   My advice, if you don't have it, get it,  if you got it,  turn it ON!

 

 In my RV-8 I'll use AFS gear again.

 

 

 Bob Newman

 N541RV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 --

_________________
Bob Leffler
N410BL - Phase I
http://mykitlog.com/rleffler

amekler

Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Posts: 164

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 7:53 am Post subject: Advance flight systems

I have 2 AFS 4500 and 1 3400. The 3400 is on the copilot side. I have the AFS AP and AOA.

I really like controlling the AP from the EFIS. Rob Hickman is always reachable for any questions and Ken Chard is also very helpful with tech questions. The only thing missing from the 4500 in my opinion for IFR is the low enroute maps.(the 5000 series has them as well as touch screen and if I had the money I could upgrade the 4500s) I use an iPad mini with fore flight for this purpose)

Being able to set minimum altitudes on an approach is an invaluable safety feature . 

Flying ILS with the AP is not as smooth as the GPS approaches. You have to remember to set the ILS course correctly.It is not automatic like with some other systems.

Alan

N668G

On Jan 18, 2014, at 10:26 PM, PReid <Rv10flyer(at)live.com> wrote:

[quote] 

 There are some advantages to both the AFS and Dynon. AFS is using the sky net system used on the synonym.

 Me I would buy Dynon again, even if AFS has better synvis, simply put the support and attention to the comments of the users is huge for Dynon.

 I flew 1 hr into the sun today. I ended up flying strictly from the panel and let flight following keep traffic away, the Dynon literally can fly one into the final 100 feet from the runway just from the synvis. Very different from the state of the art HSI we had in our Vietnam era helos. Had to think back in those days.

 Pascal

> On Jan 18, 2014, at 5:31 PM, "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> Good discussion.  The other aspect to overlay on selection is one's

> confidence the company will be there in the long run.  Dynon and Grand

> Rapids have the most market share and equally important I can report they

> both have superb after the sale service.  

> 

> Carl

> Dual Dynon SkyView and just got my IFR check ride in the RV-10.  The SkyView

> will go into the upcoming RV-8 project as well.

> 

> --

stein(at)steinair.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:13 am Post subject: Advance flight systems

I will also echo these previous statements....if there was a perfect system

for everyone then the other companies just wouldn't exist.  They ALL are

good solutions for the right folks depending on their budget, use, mission,

aesthetics, etc..  Same reason some of us like Blue cars and some like Red

cars.  In the end, I often recommend folks buy what fits their personal

desires and needs.  Building an airplane by committee is only an exercise in

compromises - because as noted each person for the most part will be biased

towards what they chose. How do I know?....look at this thread and you'll

see a few comments on various systems that are somewhat repeats of marketing

statements made by various mfgr's against other mfgr's.  For example, once

and awhile I still see database costs get thrown around, but people don't

realize they often times are comparing apples and oranges - for the most

part if you consider the same data across most systems the costs are the

pretty much the same. Folks also neglect to mention that while some mfgr's

offer "free" VFR data, they charge $500 to turn it on when you buy the

system.  My point isn't that one method is good or bad, just that you need

to take specific bits of data like that in their complete context and look

at the overall picture - not just a sales sound byte!  Some systems require

stuff like separate ARINC adapters to talk to certified GPSes, others don't.

Some offer external A/P controls, others don't.  Some offer AOA and others

don't. Some have big screens while others don't. Some offer things like

automatic pitch trim while some don't.  Some will fly synthetic approaches

to any waypoint, others won't.  My point is that I could go on and on for

pages about the little nuances and differences that make each system unique

on its own but won't make it perfect for all folks in all instances.



The fact is AFS, Dynon, Garmin and GRT are all good systems that for the

most part are 85% the same as far as functionality. One thing you might try

to do is get some time behind the actual units if you can, or go play with

them in person as much as you can without any sales pressures.  Each system

has its own benefits that those mfgr's will tout - and some are more

important to some folks than others are.  We sell a whole lot of EFISes each

year (many hundreds of them) and if one were perfect I wouldn't need to sell

the other three, but so far I haven't found that perfect system for

everyone.  



Just my 2 cents as usual!



Cheers,



Stein 



--

jjessen01

Joined: 27 Sep 2010
Posts: 50

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:32 am Post subject: Advance flight systems

Well put!  Now, if someone who knew of all these differences could list them, THAT would be a great contribution!



[quote] On Jan 19, 2014, at 10:12 AM, "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 I will also echo these previous statements....if there was a perfect system

 for everyone then the other companies just wouldn't exist.  They ALL are

 good solutions for the right folks depending on their budget, use, mission,

 aesthetics, etc..  Same reason some of us like Blue cars and some like Red

 cars.  In the end, I often recommend folks buy what fits their personal

 desires and needs.  Building an airplane by committee is only an exercise in

 compromises - because as noted each person for the most part will be biased

 towards what they chose. How do I know?....look at this thread and you'll

 see a few comments on various systems that are somewhat repeats of marketing

 statements made by various mfgr's against other mfgr's.  For example, once

 and awhile I still see database costs get thrown around, but people don't

 realize they often times are comparing apples and oranges - for the most

 part if you consider the same data across most systems the costs are the

 pretty much the same. Folks also neglect to mention that while some mfgr's

 offer "free" VFR data, they charge $500 to turn it on when you buy the

 system.  My point isn't that one method is good or bad, just that you need

 to take specific bits of data like that in their complete context and look

 at the overall picture - not just a sales sound byte!  Some systems require

 stuff like separate ARINC adapters to talk to certified GPSes, others don't.

 Some offer external A/P controls, others don't.  Some offer AOA and others

 don't. Some have big screens while others don't. Some offer things like

 automatic pitch trim while some don't.  Some will fly synthetic approaches

 to any waypoint, others won't.  My point is that I could go on and on for

 pages about the little nuances and differences that make each system unique

 on its own but won't make it perfect for all folks in all instances.

 

 The fact is AFS, Dynon, Garmin and GRT are all good systems that for the

 most part are 85% the same as far as functionality. One thing you might try

 to do is get some time behind the actual units if you can, or go play with

 them in person as much as you can without any sales pressures.  Each system

 has its own benefits that those mfgr's will tout - and some are more

 important to some folks than others are.  We sell a whole lot of EFISes each

 year (many hundreds of them) and if one were perfect I wouldn't need to sell

 the other three, but so far I haven't found that perfect system for

 everyone.  

 

 Just my 2 cents as usual!

 

 Cheers,

 

 Stein 

 

 

 

 --

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:10 am Post subject: Advance flight systems

I think you hit it on the head.  There is no one system better for all people.  One of the more important things, I think, for an IFR panel, is not so much CAN the system fly the type of approach you need (because many/most can), but more how EASILY they can be configured and managed on the approach. You will find big differences in the way individuals learn and understand knobology.  Look back at the old arguments between the original 480 and 430 from garmin.  There are people who will swear one is far easier to use than the other.  People are all different so I think it's important to try them out and see what fits your style.

Tim



[quote] On Jan 19, 2014, at 12:12 PM, "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 I will also echo these previous statements....if there was a perfect system

 for everyone then the other companies just wouldn't exist.  They ALL are

 good solutions for the right folks depending on their budget, use, mission,

 aesthetics, etc..  Same reason some of us like Blue cars and some like Red

 cars.  In the end, I often recommend folks buy what fits their personal

 desires and needs.  Building an airplane by committee is only an exercise in

 compromises - because as noted each person for the most part will be biased

 towards what they chose. How do I know?....look at this thread and you'll

 see a few comments on various systems that are somewhat repeats of marketing

 statements made by various mfgr's against other mfgr's.  For example, once

 and awhile I still see database costs get thrown around, but people don't

 realize they often times are comparing apples and oranges - for the most

 part if you consider the same data across most systems the costs are the

 pretty much the same. Folks also neglect to mention that while some mfgr's

 offer "free" VFR data, they charge $500 to turn it on when you buy the

 system.  My point isn't that one method is good or bad, just that you need

 to take specific bits of data like that in their complete context and look

 at the overall picture - not just a sales sound byte!  Some systems require

 stuff like separate ARINC adapters to talk to certified GPSes, others don't.

 Some offer external A/P controls, others don't.  Some offer AOA and others

 don't. Some have big screens while others don't. Some offer things like

 automatic pitch trim while some don't.  Some will fly synthetic approaches

 to any waypoint, others won't.  My point is that I could go on and on for

 pages about the little nuances and differences that make each system unique

 on its own but won't make it perfect for all folks in all instances.

 

 The fact is AFS, Dynon, Garmin and GRT are all good systems that for the

 most part are 85% the same as far as functionality. One thing you might try

 to do is get some time behind the actual units if you can, or go play with

 them in person as much as you can without any sales pressures.  Each system

 has its own benefits that those mfgr's will tout - and some are more

 important to some folks than others are.  We sell a whole lot of EFISes each

 year (many hundreds of them) and if one were perfect I wouldn't need to sell

 the other three, but so far I haven't found that perfect system for

 everyone.  

 

 Just my 2 cents as usual!

 

 Cheers,

 

 Stein 

 

 

 

 --

sean(at)braunandco.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:23 am Post subject: Advance flight systems

Everyone is different. For example Tim uses "knobology" and I use 

"buttonology" I know which one is better...



--

rleffler

Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 680

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:39 am Post subject: Advance flight systems

I tried, but wasn't successful.   Many of the differentiators aren't documented well in the manuals.  You really have to fly with them.  Most people will know the unit they have, but not the others.  This make comparisons difficult.  



Even seeing them side by side in Stein's or Aerotronics at OSH it's difficult to make comparisons because it's hard to evaluate process flows in a booth.  



There was a group of us making the rounds at OSH looking at screens.  There was the hot vendor that was first to bring great graphics to the market.  There was another vendor whose graphics weren't as hot, but used a font that was a little larger in font size.  Since don't size isn't adjustable on most screens, if you're just starting to wear bi-focals, this could be a factor to you. If not, you won't care.  



This is hard to distinguish in the documentation.  It also hard to determine single pilot work load and process flows by watching the vendor's videos. 



These are several reasons to find somebody that has your preferred screen installed and go fly with them. 



Sent from my iPhone



On Jan 19, 2014, at 1:31 PM, John Jessen <n212pj(at)gmail.com> wrote:






Well put!  Now, if someone who knew of all these differences could list them, THAT would be a great contribution!



[quote] On Jan 19, 2014, at 10:12 AM, "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 I will also echo these previous statements....if there was a perfect system

 for everyone then the other companies just wouldn't exist.  They ALL are

 good solutions for the right folks depending on their budget, use, mission,

 aesthetics, etc..  Same reason some of us like Blue cars and some like Red

 cars.  In the end, I often recommend folks buy what fits their personal

 desires and needs.  Building an airplane by committee is only an exercise in

 compromises - because as noted each person for the most part will be biased

 towards what they chose. How do I know?....look at this thread and you'll

 see a few comments on various systems that are somewhat repeats of marketing

 statements made by various mfgr's against other mfgr's.  For example, once

 and awhile I still see database costs get thrown around, but people don't

 realize they often times are comparing apples and oranges - for the most

 part if you consider the same data across most systems the costs are the

 pretty much the same. Folks also neglect to mention that while some mfgr's

 offer "free" VFR data, they charge $500 to turn it on when you buy the

 system.  My point isn't that one method is good or bad, just that you need

 to take specific bits of data like that in their complete context and look

 at the overall picture - not just a sales sound byte!  Some systems require

 stuff like separate ARINC adapters to talk to certified GPSes, others don't.

 Some offer external A/P controls, others don't.  Some offer AOA and others

 don't. Some have big screens while others don't. Some offer things like

 automatic pitch trim while some don't.  Some will fly synthetic approaches

 to any waypoint, others won't.  My point is that I could go on and on for

 pages about the little nuances and differences that make each system unique

 on its own but won't make it perfect for all folks in all instances.

 

 The fact is AFS, Dynon, Garmin and GRT are all good systems that for the

 most part are 85% the same as far as functionality. One thing you might try

 to do is get some time behind the actual units if you can, or go play with

 them in person as much as you can without any sales pressures.  Each system

 has its own benefits that those mfgr's will tout - and some are more

 important to some folks than others are.  We sell a whole lot of EFISes each

 year (many hundreds of them) and if one were perfect I wouldn't need to sell

 the other three, but so far I haven't found that perfect system for

 everyone.  

 

 Just my 2 cents as usual!

 

 Cheers,

 

 Stein 

 

 

 

 --

_________________
Bob Leffler
N410BL - Phase I
http://mykitlog.com/rleffler

flysrv10(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 1:45 pm Post subject: Advance flight systems

Thank you all for you  comments regarding my initial thread on this subject.

As Bob mentions here, it is not easy to evaluate a unit at airshows; you need to fly behind it to discover how well it functions.  My unit, while a huge improvement from the old days, has a particular button that I have to push to fly the glideslope.  I have to do this on every approach.   If I am out of practice and forget to press the button (which is hidden under a couple of menus), it does not capture the glideslope.  This bugs me a lot and concerns me when I fly in the mountains.  In fact, this is a big factor in wanting to upgrade to another system.

So... I was looking for people that fly IFR and could comment on how practical their system is.  When you fly an approach, is there anything that you find not intuitive?

Thanks again.

Do not archive.

On Jan 19, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com> wrote:

[quote] 

 I tried, but wasn't successful.   Many of the differentiators aren't documented well in the manuals.  You really have to fly with them.  Most people will know the unit they have, but not the others.  This make comparisons difficult.  

 Even seeing them side by side in Stein's or Aerotronics at OSH it's difficult to make comparisons because it's hard to evaluate process flows in a booth.  

 There was a group of us making the rounds at OSH looking at screens.  There was the hot vendor that was first to bring great graphics to the market.  There was another vendor whose graphics weren't as hot, but used a font that was a little larger in font size.  Since don't size isn't adjustable on most screens, if you're just starting to wear bi-focals, this could be a factor to you. If not, you won't care.  

 This is hard to distinguish in the documentation.  It also hard to determine single pilot work load and process flows by watching the vendor's videos. 

 These are several reasons to find somebody that has your preferred screen installed and go fly with them. 

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 19, 2014, at 1:31 PM, John Jessen <n212pj(at)gmail.com> wrote:

 Well put!  Now, if someone who knew of all these differences could list them, THAT would be a great contribution!

> On Jan 19, 2014, at 10:12 AM, "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> I will also echo these previous statements....if there was a perfect system

> for everyone then the other companies just wouldn't exist.  They ALL are

> good solutions for the right folks depending on their budget, use, mission,

> aesthetics, etc..  Same reason some of us like Blue cars and some like Red

> cars.  In the end, I often recommend folks buy what fits their personal

> desires and needs.  Building an airplane by committee is only an exercise in

> compromises - because as noted each person for the most part will be biased

> towards what they chose. How do I know?....look at this thread and you'll

> see a few comments on various systems that are somewhat repeats of marketing

> statements made by various mfgr's against other mfgr's.  For example, once

> and awhile I still see database costs get thrown around, but people don't

> realize they often times are comparing apples and oranges - for the most

> part if you consider the same data across most systems the costs are the

> pretty much the same. Folks also neglect to mention that while some mfgr's

> offer "free" VFR data, they charge $500 to turn it on when you buy the

> system.  My point isn't that one method is good or bad, just that you need

> to take specific bits of data like that in their complete context and look

> at the overall picture - not just a sales sound byte!  Some systems require

> stuff like separate ARINC adapters to talk to certified GPSes, others don't.

> Some offer external A/P controls, others don't.  Some offer AOA and others

> don't. Some have big screens while others don't. Some offer things like

> automatic pitch trim while some don't.  Some will fly synthetic approaches

> to any waypoint, others won't.  My point is that I could go on and on for

> pages about the little nuances and differences that make each system unique

> on its own but won't make it perfect for all folks in all instances.

> 

> The fact is AFS, Dynon, Garmin and GRT are all good systems that for the

> most part are 85% the same as far as functionality. One thing you might try

> to do is get some time behind the actual units if you can, or go play with

> them in person as much as you can without any sales pressures.  Each system

> has its own benefits that those mfgr's will tout - and some are more

> important to some folks than others are.  We sell a whole lot of EFISes each

> year (many hundreds of them) and if one were perfect I wouldn't need to sell

> the other three, but so far I haven't found that perfect system for

> everyone.  

> 

> Just my 2 cents as usual!

> 

> Cheers,

> 

> Stein 

> 

> 

> 

> --

rv10flyer(at)live.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 1:56 pm Post subject: Advance flight systems

I would suggest you go to the avionics company websites and check the forums. I know the Dynon has a swift hsi and glide slope using a Garmin but never actually tested it. Search "glide slope"  and you may get the feedback you're looking for.



On Jan 19, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com> wrote:



[quote] 

 

 Thank you all for you  comments regarding my initial thread on this subject.

 

 As Bob mentions here, it is not easy to evaluate a unit at airshows; you need to fly behind it to discover how well it functions.  My unit, while a huge improvement from the old days, has a particular button that I have to push to fly the glideslope.  I have to do this on every approach.   If I am out of practice and forget to press the button (which is hidden under a couple of menus), it does not capture the glideslope.  This bugs me a lot and concerns me when I fly in the mountains.  In fact, this is a big factor in wanting to upgrade to another system.

 

 So... I was looking for people that fly IFR and could comment on how practical their system is.  When you fly an approach, is there anything that you find not intuitive?

 

 Thanks again.

 

 Do not archive.

 

 

 On Jan 19, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com> wrote:

 

> 

> 

> I tried, but wasn't successful.   Many of the differentiators aren't documented well in the manuals.  You really have to fly with them.  Most people will know the unit they have, but not the others.  This make comparisons difficult.  

> 

> Even seeing them side by side in Stein's or Aerotronics at OSH it's difficult to make comparisons because it's hard to evaluate process flows in a booth.  

> 

> There was a group of us making the rounds at OSH looking at screens.  There was the hot vendor that was first to bring great graphics to the market.  There was another vendor whose graphics weren't as hot, but used a font that was a little larger in font size.  Since don't size isn't adjustable on most screens, if you're just starting to wear bi-focals, this could be a factor to you. If not, you won't care.  

> 

> This is hard to distinguish in the documentation.  It also hard to determine single pilot work load and process flows by watching the vendor's videos. 

> 

> These are several reasons to find somebody that has your preferred screen installed and go fly with them. 

> 

> 

> 

> Sent from my iPhone

> 

> On Jan 19, 2014, at 1:31 PM, John Jessen <n212pj(at)gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> Well put!  Now, if someone who knew of all these differences could list them, THAT would be a great contribution!

> 

>> On Jan 19, 2014, at 10:12 AM, "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> wrote:

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> I will also echo these previous statements....if there was a perfect system

>> for everyone then the other companies just wouldn't exist.  They ALL are

>> good solutions for the right folks depending on their budget, use, mission,

>> aesthetics, etc..  Same reason some of us like Blue cars and some like Red

>> cars.  In the end, I often recommend folks buy what fits their personal

>> desires and needs.  Building an airplane by committee is only an exercise in

>> compromises - because as noted each person for the most part will be biased

>> towards what they chose. How do I know?....look at this thread and you'll

>> see a few comments on various systems that are somewhat repeats of marketing

>> statements made by various mfgr's against other mfgr's.  For example, once

>> and awhile I still see database costs get thrown around, but people don't

>> realize they often times are comparing apples and oranges - for the most

>> part if you consider the same data across most systems the costs are the

>> pretty much the same. Folks also neglect to mention that while some mfgr's

>> offer "free" VFR data, they charge $500 to turn it on when you buy the

>> system.  My point isn't that one method is good or bad, just that you need

>> to take specific bits of data like that in their complete context and look

>> at the overall picture - not just a sales sound byte!  Some systems require

>> stuff like separate ARINC adapters to talk to certified GPSes, others don't.

>> Some offer external A/P controls, others don't.  Some offer AOA and others

>> don't. Some have big screens while others don't. Some offer things like

>> automatic pitch trim while some don't.  Some will fly synthetic approaches

>> to any waypoint, others won't.  My point is that I could go on and on for

>> pages about the little nuances and differences that make each system unique

>> on its own but won't make it perfect for all folks in all instances.

>> 

>> The fact is AFS, Dynon, Garmin and GRT are all good systems that for the

>> most part are 85% the same as far as functionality. One thing you might try

>> to do is get some time behind the actual units if you can, or go play with

>> them in person as much as you can without any sales pressures.  Each system

>> has its own benefits that those mfgr's will tout - and some are more

>> important to some folks than others are.  We sell a whole lot of EFISes each

>> year (many hundreds of them) and if one were perfect I wouldn't need to sell

>> the other three, but so far I haven't found that perfect system for

>> everyone.  

>> 

>> Just my 2 cents as usual!

>> 

>> Cheers,

>> 

>> Stein 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> --

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 4:35 pm Post subject: Re: Advance flight systems

To answer your last question, I fly in IMC behind a GRT HX, and am happy.

There is no button pushing if hand flying. If controlling an autopilot (Trio in my case) I push a knob to bring up the menu, push a button to arm the approach (choose ILS, LPV, etc), exit menu. All this is done prior to final course intercept. One button push plus add power will start the miss, if needed.



Another little thing that no one thinks about: count the number of serial ports you get, and try to figure how many you need. Do you have enough?

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

Leeverett

Joined: 07 Jan 2013
Posts: 14

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 7:06 pm Post subject: Advance flight systems

I have AFS 4500s and I love them. The only weakness I see is VOR approaches. But the AFS autopilot flys the GPS overlay perfectly. It flys a GPS and ILS much better than you can hand fly it. The only other issue I have is that it does not support stormscope data on its screen.

Leon Everett

 	  Quote: 	
		   From: flysrv10@gmail.com

 Subject: RV10-List: Advance flight systems

 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:05:31 -0500

 To: rv10-list@matronics.com

 --> RV10-List message posted by: Rob Kermanj <flysrv10@gmail.com>

 Anyone with Advanced flight systems EFIS that can comment about it's use for IFR flight and approaches?  Features that you think are great and others that you don't like?

 I have watched some of the videos and am looking to find how user friendly and practical the system is.  Anything that trips you while shooting approaches?

 Thanks in advance.

 _-============================================================

 _-=          - The RV10-List Email Forum -

 _-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse

 _-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,

 _-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,

 _-= Photoshare, and much much more:

 _-=

 _-=   --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 _-=

 _-============================================================

 _-=               - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

 _-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!

 _-=

 _-=   --> http://forums.matronics.com

 _-=

 _-============================================================

 _-=             - List Contribution Web Site -

 _-=  Thank you for your generous support!

 _-=                              -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 _-=   --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 _-============================================================

  [quote][b]

flysrv10(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 7:53 pm Post subject: Advance flight systems

What is the issue with vor approaches?

Rob Kermanj 

Sent from my iPad

Do not archive



On Jan 19, 2014, at 10:05 PM, LEON EVERETT <leeverett(at)msn.com (leeverett(at)msn.com)> wrote:

[quote]   I have AFS 4500s and I love them. The only weakness I see is VOR approaches. But the AFS autopilot flys the GPS overlay perfectly. It flys a GPS and ILS much better than you can hand fly it. The only other issue I have is that it does not support stormscope data on its screen.

Leon Everett



 	  Quote: 	
		   From: flysrv10(at)gmail.com (flysrv10(at)gmail.com)

 Subject: Advance flight systems

 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:05:31 -0500

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 

 --> RV10-List message posted by: Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com (flysrv10(at)gmail.com)>

 

 Anyone with Advanced flight systems EFIS that can comment about it's use for IFR flight and approaches?  Features that you think are great and others that you don't like?

 

 I have watched some of the videos and am looking to find how user friendly and practical the system is.  Anything that trips you while shooting approaches?<====================================================Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

&gt==============================================================================http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=======================================
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 

 		 	   		  
	


   	  Quote: 	
		  



D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

//forums.matronics.com

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D



	


[b]

johngoodman

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 530
Location: GA

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:27 am Post subject: Re: Advance flight systems

 	  Bob Turner wrote: 	
		  To answer your last question, I fly in IMC behind a GRT HX, and am happy.

There is no button pushing if hand flying. If controlling an autopilot (Trio in my case) I push a knob to bring up the menu, push a button to arm the approach (choose ILS, LPV, etc), exit menu. All this is done prior to final course intercept. One button push plus add power will start the miss, if needed.



Another little thing that no one thinks about: count the number of serial ports you get, and try to figure how many you need. Do you have enough? 	




Bob,

I also have a GRT HX with a TrioPro. The arming is true enough, but there is a lot of button pushing to get the ILS in the first place, unless you have an SL-30. I have the GNS430W and it's a pita to get the approach set up on the 430W. Since I can switch the Trio to the 430W, I just do that and monitor everything on the HX. The 430W will fly the missed, but the single button push is on the 430W - not on the HX.

What's your source for the ILS?



In fact, that's the real discussion on EFIS selection - you Nav sources. I agree that you need lots of serial ports - like the GRT HX, or HXr.



John

_________________
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum