Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

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

Panel planning
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

rvdave

Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Posts: 191

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:32 am Post subject: Panel planning

Am currently considering and planning for 2 AFS 5600 displays one in front of each stick similar to Rob Hickmans setup.  I have the Aerosport symmetrical panel and looking to put a GTN750 in the upper center as far up as I can get it which will probably leave a little room above for autopilot .  Transponder, 2nd comm, Nav, and audio looking to do remote.  Looking objectively at this to see if I really need a third screen for redundancy or not?

_________________
Dave Ford
Cadillac, MI

stein(at)steinair.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:59 am Post subject: Panel planning

Hi Dave,



For redundancy, a 3rd screen really doesn't add anything other than it looks

really nice, and it gives you a screen that you can dedicate to MFR

functionality (traffic/weather/map/engine) without splitting the main PFD.

Basically, it's a "nice to have" item that if you can swing it in the budget

is neat, but not necessarily something that adds tremendously to the basic

redundancy or reliability.



Cheers,



Stein Bruch

President - SteinAir, Inc.

651-460-6955





--

EdKranz

Joined: 29 Dec 2010
Posts: 132
Location: Hastings, MN

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:00 am Post subject: Panel planning

There isn't a way to fit a 750 and an AFS5500 (let alone another 10" display) in the center panel of the Aerosport symmetrical panel, without doing some custom fiberglass or carbon fiber work.But... does it look nice, heck yeah! 



This is close to the general setup I'm trying to figure out. I want a full MFD in the center, as I don't want to have to reach over to the co-pilot side for mapping, flight planning, weather, etc. If I were doing two screens, I'd probably leave out the co-pilot screen over the center screen, and replace it with something like an iPad.

[img]cid:ii_149a4ed5f66994b1[/img]





On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:32 AM, rvdave <rv610dave(at)gmail.com (rv610dave(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com (rv610dave(at)gmail.com)>

 

 Am currently considering and planning for 2 AFS 5600 displays one in front of each stick similar to Rob Hickmans setup.  I have the Aerosport symmetrical panel and looking to put a GTN750 in the upper center as far up as I can get it which will probably leave a little room above for autopilot .  Transponder, 2nd comm, Nav, and audio looking to do remote.  Looking objectively at this to see if I really need a third screen for redundancy or not?

 

 --------

 Dave Ford

 RV6 flying

 RV10 building

 Cadillac, MI

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433515#433515

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 br> fts!)

 r> > com" target="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com

 w.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com

 p.com" target="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com

 e.com" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com

 " target="_blank">www.mrrace.com

 target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 ===========

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

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 _blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

image.png

Description:

Filesize:

244 KB

Viewed:

13021 Time(s)

_________________
Ed Kranz
RV10
Finishing
www.edandcolleen.com

rvdave

Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Posts: 191

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:32 am Post subject: Re: Panel planning

Hi Ed, 

I like the layout,it's what I was originally thinking but I don't think the 750 would fit that low without major reinforcement of the second bulkhead?  Haven't looked that far into it though.



Originally my thoughts about the screen in front of copilot but with the touchscreen it's just a swipe of the screen to display different screen modes from what I understand.

_________________
Dave Ford
Cadillac, MI

bill.peyton

Joined: 19 Sep 2010
Posts: 198
Location: St. Louis, MO

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 6:43 am Post subject: Re: Panel planning

With all that glass, why would you spend all that money on a 750, when a 650 or even a 430w would provide you with the exact same capability?



I also have a different opinion about a third AFS display.   If this is an IFR aircraft, then having an independent "Stand Alone" third display for backup is a great idea.  Simply adding a third AFS slave display does not get you this backup.  Look at Rob's panel.  He has a Dynon backup

_________________
Bill
WA0SYV
Aviation Partners, LLC

EdKranz

Joined: 29 Dec 2010
Posts: 132
Location: Hastings, MN

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:13 am Post subject: Panel planning

Regarding the 750 vs the 650, I just went thru that decision process. I was set on the 750 for a few reasons: Remote audio panel capabilities, full on-screen keyboard for entering flight plans, and a nice big uncluttered screen.



In the end, however, I'm choosing to go with a 650. My justification for this is that my EFIS is going to be the Garmin G3X Touch, which duplicates many of the capabilities of the 750. There is no remote audio panel option for it, but it sounds like there will be soon enough. The G3X has a full onscreen keyboard for looking things up, and with the FlightStream capabilities, I should be able to push flight plans to the 650 (according to Stein). So, in the end, it would cost me an extra $5000 and valuable panel space for not much gain.

That being said, Dave is running AFS panels, so he won't have that full integration... and the justifications above do apply. It's all about preferences. I really don't like the sliding keyboard on the 650...

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:43 AM, bill.peyton <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net (peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net)> wrote:

[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net (peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net)>

 

 With all that glass, why would you spend all that money on a 750, when a 650 or even a 430w would provide you with the exact same capability?

 

 I also have a different opinion about a third AFS display.   If this is an IFR aircraft, then having an independent "Stand Alone" third display for backup is a great idea.  Simply adding a third AFS slave display does not get you this backup.

 

 --------

 Bill

 WA0SYV

 Aviation Partners, LLC

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433578#433578

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 br> fts!)

 r> > com" target="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com

 w.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com

 p.com" target="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com

 e.com" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com

 " target="_blank">www.mrrace.com

 target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 ===========

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

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 _blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 

 

 

 [b]

_________________
Ed Kranz
RV10
Finishing
www.edandcolleen.com

fdombroski

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 33
Location: Westfield NJ

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:24 am Post subject: Re: Panel planning

I like all of your choices as they represent the best in class systems available today.  If you fly real IFR, I like back up hardware from a different manufacturer.  



I am using a GRT Mini-x for the back up EFIS.  It is small enough to fit next to the pilot EFIS, and provides a totally self contained redundant system.  If the AFS goes TU for any reason, you have everything necessary to get back safely on the ground.



Cheers,

Frank

_________________
Frank Dombroski
Multiple Offender RV-8, 7A, 10 x 2
RV-10 2.0 N46VT 2015
KSMQ Somerset Airport NJ

bwestfall

Joined: 22 Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Location: Portland, OR

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 9:16 am Post subject: Panel planning

There is a thread on VAF that discusses symmetrical vs side by side that is

worthy of a read.



http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=116936



 	  Quote: 	
		  From what I've heard you won't use the far right screen much at all so I'd

somehow put the 2nd EFIS in the center.  If money were no object I'd throw a
	


3rd screen over on the copilot side as well.  As for a backup instrument I

went with and prefer the Dynon D2 up on the center post similar to Rob

Hickman's because I felt that relying on the screen in front of the copilot

as the backup would be difficult at best.  I've also been told that the

backup in the lower left of the panel is very hard to see.



-Ben



--

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 9:43 am Post subject: Panel planning

Hey Ben and all,

I have 3 screens, with 2 shifted to the Left (one is near center),

and the 3rd is center of co-pilot. I like the arrangement a lot.

Both pilots have easy access to the center screen (MFD) and the radio

stack.  I don't/can't utilize the buttons very much on the far

screen without a bunch of stretching, but in my case, that's not

needed anyway.



But, the one thing I had to add is, I fly very often off of the

copilot screen.  I don't find it hard at all.  Now, if I had to

do a lot of button manipulation, it wouldn't be much fun,

but, as far as using it for flying, it really isn't bad at all.

So I feel that a backup EFIS functioning as backup gauges actually

works pretty well over there. It's more comfortable than if you were

having to look down to the low part of the pane in front of you,

in fact...or especially lower left.



The button pushing is the only part that I'd worry much about.

If you're using a 2-screen EFIS, I think it would be much better

to probably put one on the pilot side, and at furthest, put

the 2nd one in the center, if you're planning a lot of single-pilot

use, or planning to actually hit buttons on that 2nd screen.

A 2nd screen over by the co-pilot that needs to be physically

touched by the pilot is going to be very uncomfortable.



With 3, you have the best of all worlds.



Tim

On 11/13/2014 11:13 AM, Ben Westfall wrote:

[quote] 



 There is a thread on VAF that discusses symmetrical vs side by side that is

 worthy of a read.



 http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=116936



>From what I've heard you won't use the far right screen much at all so I'd

 somehow put the 2nd EFIS in the center.  If money were no object I'd throw a

 3rd screen over on the copilot side as well.  As for a backup instrument I

 went with and prefer the Dynon D2 up on the center post similar to Rob

 Hickman's because I felt that relying on the screen in front of the copilot

 as the backup would be difficult at best.  I've also been told that the

 backup in the lower left of the panel is very hard to see.



 -Ben



 --

rvdave

Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Posts: 191

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:12 am Post subject: Re: Panel planning

Was originally thinking 750 over 650 because of gaining a display and the features of the 750.   Since learning the remote non Garmin devices can't be controlled 2 way via Garmin display-- audio panel, Nav, transponder, etc, I'm leaning back toward the 650 but still learning the differences between the two.



I would think the middle display could be independent of the other two displays in case of TU failure so not sure why a Dynon display would be necessary unless middle display is tied to Afs hub and not truly independent.

_________________
Dave Ford
Cadillac, MI

Bob Turner

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

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:48 am Post subject: Re: Panel planning

 	  rvdave wrote: 	
		  



I would think the middle display could be independent of the other two displays in case of TU failure so not sure why a Dynon display would be necessary unless middle display is tied to Afs hub and not truly independent. 	




There have been a couple of reported cases of a software failure which simultaneously affected all screens made by the same manufacturer; so some (including me) have opted for a different manufacturer (to assure different software) for a back up EFIS. How you assess this risk is of course up to you.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:07 pm Post subject: Panel planning

Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:50 pm Post subject: Panel planning

On 11/13/2014 4:00 PM, Bill Watson       wrote:

     

     [quote]              Don't know enough about your mission         (IFR/VFR, etc) to respond directly to the OP.

         

         Here's my experience and thoughts from having installed 3 GRT         HXs in my '10.  Flying 3 years.

                    I used Stein's aluminum panel with a middle section angled             towards the pilot seat.   I have 1 unit centered for the             pilot, one center on an angle and 1 centered on the             co-pilot.           
For normal ops, the pilot has a PFD/Map split screen, the             center is 100% engine, the co-pilot is for my co-pilot.           
For Map work, I flip the center screen to 100% Map.               Without the angle panel, this would be much less desirable.              If the angle panel was not available, in retrospect I would             not have installed them symmetrically because the center             panel is 'too far away'.  Instead I would have bunched the 2             screens over in front of the pilot (with the 3rd centered             for the co-pilot.)  I've seen pics of people who have             bunched them like that on a flat panel.  It doesn't look as             good aesthetically but would work much better than 3 part             symmetry on a flat panel.           
For backup/redundancy I have an ADI, ASI, Alt and AP in             front of the pilot below the screen.  If I lose the screen I             would immediately go to those.  If possible, I would then             transition to the middle panel.  I don't think I could hand             fly in the soup using the co-pilot screen... at least that             wouldn't be a planned alternative.           
iPad:  The reality of my flying since my days in gliders             and a Maule is that the latest and greatest portable units             will always be ahead of the panel installed last year.  I             had a GNC 300XL but the G396 quickly became the go-to device             for nav and wx and general reference.  In the '10, the G430W             provides the WAAS smarts, the GRT displays and integrates,              but the iPad running Foreflight is the go-to device for nav,             wx and general reference.  Accordingly, the G396 was RAM             mounted to my Maule panel and the iPad is RAM mounted to my             center console.  Where and how is your iPad going to be             mounted?         
         The only thing I'm absolutely convinced of is that there is no         single optimal solution... perhaps short of G999

       

     [b]

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 5:01 pm Post subject: Panel planning

Having a different manufacturer for one of the EFIS is a mixed bag, IMHO. Having to know two different menu logic/screens during a high stress period isn't a good idea. I'd lean toward a mini-EFIS from same vendor that uses same menu logic if you aren't comfortable with dual EFIS, dual ADAHARS, dual backup batteries. We each have to decide level of redundancy we are comfortable with. Years ago I flew IFR with one flip flop nav com, one ADF, transponder and venturi vacuum powered AN gyros with an electric turn and bank, with no auto pilot of any kind. Just a handheld navcom for backup/second nav. No GPS, no Loran. That isn't my comfort level today.

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)> wrote:

[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>

 rvdave wrote:

 >

 >

 > I would think the middle display could be independent of the other two displays in case of TU failure so not sure why a Dynon display would be necessary unless middle display is tied to Afs hub and not truly independent.

 There have been a couple of reported cases of a software failure which simultaneously affected all screens made by the same manufacturer; so some (including me) have opted for a different manufacturer (to assure different software) for a back up EFIS. How you assess this risk is of course up to you.

 --------

 Bob Turner

 RV-10 QB

 Read this topic online here:

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433614#433614

 ===========

 et="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com

 sbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com

 rget="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com

 rget="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com

 ="_blank">www.mrrace.com

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 le, List Admin.

 ===========

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

 ===========

 ">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 [b]

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

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:21 pm Post subject: Panel planning

I think one of the keys to the backup gauge situation is to

be honest with yourself and your abilities.  Going with a 2nd

manufacturer of EFIS is an OK idea, if you use it as a backup

gauge system.  When the stuff hits the fan though, I'd be

willing to bet that most people won't remain IFR current and

proficient enough in running 2 systems as full approach systems,

if they want them while IFR.  So personally, I'm more concerned

with having a backup EFIS or backup gauges (either is fine) that

will primarily be there to help me keep the plane:

Right-side up

At the right altitude

Headed the right direction

Yeah, I have a GNS480 and I can load an approach in it (if I've

practiced recently), but if I lose my primary system, I'm

probably realistically going to contact ATC and have them give

me the hand that I really need.

Long ago I had to decide....do you want two systems, or

do you want to build one good one that you trust.  I really

believe that you're better off building one good solid one.

Now, that's not saying that for a backup EFIS, such as a

GRT mini or something small, you shouldn't just buy one and

stick it in.  You SHOULD have some sort of backup attitude

indication, altitude indication, and heading indication.  But

just be honest with yourself as to what you're really going to be

able to do when you lose that primary system. It takes more

work than you'd think, to stay proficient as a weekend pilot.

That's why I wouldn't bother going with a dual garmin G3X

system, and add in a big AFS, for instance.  There is too

much buttonology to have that be fun at all.

Tim

On 11/13/2014 6:57 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Having a different manufacturer for one of the EFIS is a mixed bag,

 IMHO. Having to know two different menu logic/screens during a high

 stress period isn't a good idea. I'd lean toward a mini-EFIS from same

 vendor that uses same menu logic if you aren't comfortable with dual

 EFIS, dual ADAHARS, dual backup batteries. We each have to decide level

 of redundancy we are comfortable with. Years ago I flew IFR with one

 flip flop nav com, one ADF, transponder and venturi vacuum powered AN

 gyros with an electric turn and bank, with no auto pilot of any kind.

 Just a handheld navcom for backup/second nav. No GPS, no Loran. That

 isn't my comfort level today.

 On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu

 <mailto:bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>> wrote:

     <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu <mailto:bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>>

     rvdave wrote:

      >

      >

      > I would think the middle display could be independent of the

     other two displays in case of TU failure so not sure why a Dynon

     display would be necessary unless middle display is tied to Afs hub

     and not truly independent.

     There have been a couple of reported cases of a software failure

     which simultaneously affected all screens made by the same

     manufacturer; so some (including me) have opted for a different

     manufacturer (to assure different software) for a back up EFIS. How

     you assess this risk is of course up to you.

     --------

     Bob Turner

     RV-10 QB

     Read this topic online here:

     http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433614#433614

     ===========

     et="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com

     sbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com

     rget="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com

     rget="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com

     ="_blank">www.mrrace.com

     ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

     le, List Admin.

     ===========

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

     ===========

     ">http://forums.matronics.com

     ===========

 *

 *

dlm34077(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:16 am Post subject: Panel planning

For IFR, I think two independent systems  are necessary. My Chelton system with two displays has a complete AHRS and GPS  system; my backup is a GRT Sport SX with AHRS and GPS, the tie breaker is a  Trutrak Digiflite II with its own solid state gyroscopic capabilities. There are  three different ways to keep the clean side up. The AP can be used with each  EFIS (LNAV,VNAV) with the Cheltons, LNAV with the GRT and stand alone. The SL30  output for the VOR/LOC/ILS is sent digitally to both EFISs. The backup EFIS has  power inputs from both the primary and essential busses. The Cheltons and the  Trutrak are powered from the essential buss. The original plan was two 680s in  parallel for starting and backup but due to a requirement for a little more  forward CG, I added a 680 to the firewall and insulated it. It provides ground  power and is isolated from the starting circuit of the essential buss. With the  engine running and the alternator providing power, the primary and essential  busses are one. 

  

From a practical stand point if you have an EFIS  failure while IFR, the failure must be reported to ATC; it is very reasonable to  declare and use their assistance to put the aircraft on the ground safely. From  a practical standpoint, The primary Chelton is the PFD, the secondary Chelton  alternates as MFD during flight and engine data during landing and take off. The  backup has a page for MFD with airspeed, altitude, traffic and weather. If the  primary fails the backup has three important buttons, PFD,MFD, or engine  data. Of course there are lots of split screen possibilities but in an  emergency, simple is better. I plan to use it as a PFD which includes  engine data; I expect to land at a large airport, if possible, with fire rescue  equipment. I obviously would use the AP to keep the wings level while attending  to other duties. I find that the things I consider in the planning never  seem to happen. Also since the GRT Sport SX has the synthetic approach  capability, I have two means of an ILS approach guidance at hand, the crosshairs  (from SL30 data) on the Sport and the internal GPS HITS which overlay the  ILS. 

  

  

Each must be comfortable with one's own plan. I too  learned and hand flew much IMC with round gauges but early on I added an  electric AI and a Strikefinder to my C177RG. Now my comfort level requires  more.  

  

    [quote][b]

Kellym

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

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 7:11 am Post subject: Panel planning

I'm curious, since I know of very little data on the subject. How many 

of you have experienced, or know of an EFIS problem from a software bug 

in the past say 3 years?  During the early years of experimental EFIS 

systems I'm sure the concern of dual EFIS having dual failure from 

software bugs was a real concern. At least one vendor recently asserted 

to me that it really isn't a problem anymore. I've seen nothing to 

support either side of the discussion. That said, I'd sure want to put 

some VFR testing time behind any firmware revision before launching IFR 

to depend on anybody's EFIS.



On 11/14/2014 7:14 AM, DLM wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 For IFR, I think two independent systems are necessary.

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

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 7:33 am Post subject: Panel planning

I'm sure bugs exist, but I haven't found any in years, actually.

A hardware problem is much more likely.  But, some systems, like mine

and many others, are actually independent CPU's for each screen, so

something that affects one doesn't affect all the others.

I don't disagree with having items from two manufacturers, but

I also don't think that having 2 dis-similar units from one manufacturer

wouldn't accomplish the same thing. In the end, the most important

thing I think is that you have a reliable primary system, and

purchase at least some form of backup system, wether it be EFIS or

round gauges.  Once you have that, I see no problems regardless

of the manufacturer of each.

I'm weighing the options for my RV14 build now too.

I'm thinking an RC Allen round Attitude indicator (I believe they

may be coming out with one with airspeed and heading built in)

would be plenty for me for a backup.

Other choices are the GRT mini, or round gauges.

Certainly I'm not going to waste a ton of panel space on it.

I'd prefer to keep it to a 2.25" round gauge if possible.

Once you have a good actual instrument as a backup attitude/

altitude/heading indicator, I think the iPad makes a pretty

good backup navigational device, and with 4 iphones and

4 ipads in the family, I'm not too concerned with having one

available.

Tim

On 11/14/2014 9:09 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 I'm curious, since I know of very little data on the subject. How many

 of you have experienced, or know of an EFIS problem from a software bug

 in the past say 3 years?  During the early years of experimental EFIS

 systems I'm sure the concern of dual EFIS having dual failure from

 software bugs was a real concern. At least one vendor recently asserted

 to me that it really isn't a problem anymore. I've seen nothing to

 support either side of the discussion. That said, I'd sure want to put

 some VFR testing time behind any firmware revision before launching IFR

 to depend on anybody's EFIS.

 On 11/14/2014 7:14 AM, DLM wrote:

>

> For IFR, I think two independent systems are necessary.

>

bill.peyton

Joined: 19 Sep 2010
Posts: 198
Location: St. Louis, MO

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 2:25 am Post subject: Re: Panel planning

Early on I had full and selected EFIS failures and reboots multiple times, one specific one in full IMC.  I fully believe that those software bugs have been found and fixed, and I have not had one in over a year 250 hours. So yes, they happen.  Don't kid yourself.  I agree with Tim, I frequently practice approaches and hand flying with just the backup D6, and it is extremely difficult to fly the plane and set up the GPS to shoot an approach due to the panel layout, D6 way over on left.  If it happened for real in IMC I would have approach vector me.  So define your mission and then define your panel around that mission.

_________________
Bill
WA0SYV
Aviation Partners, LLC

Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:44 am Post subject: Panel planning

Zero failures or problem from bugs on my (3) GRT HXs - 3 years and 500+ 

hours.  Plenty of IFR.

I don't care for the dual brand EFIS thing either.  I use an ADI and 

some small round guages for basic backup, I can keep it upright with 

that.  The Trutrak AP is a very capable backup as well.  Though the 3 

systems run the same software, they do run independently from a HW 

failure standpoint.  Dual Batts, dual alts, dual bus, dual AHRS,   3 

screens  and 3 or 4 GPSs feels good.  Having the juice to run the 

doo-whizzies is pretty important.

On 11/14/2014 10:09 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 I'm curious, since I know of very little data on the subject. How many 

 of you have experienced, or know of an EFIS problem from a software 

 bug in the past say 3 years?  During the early years of experimental 

 EFIS systems I'm sure the concern of dual EFIS having dual failure 

 from software bugs was a real concern. At least one vendor recently 

 asserted to me that it really isn't a problem anymore. I've seen 

 nothing to support either side of the discussion. That said, I'd sure 

 want to put some VFR testing time behind any firmware revision before 

 launching IFR to depend on anybody's EFIS.

 On 11/14/2014 7:14 AM, DLM wrote:

>

> For IFR, I think two independent systems are necessary.

>

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