What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Panel advice, which one?

Rik

Member
The RV12 I learned to fly in had a Garmin G3X Touchscreen panel and it was awesome.

However, we know that purchasing a Garmin system is not so awesome so I’m searching, at this point, for what is a good panel.

I honestly know ZERO about the EFIS panels and what is required to enable one to work completely.

GRT
MGL
Dynon
Garmin

I like that the GRT and MGL will control an autopilot, I heard they will control a transponder to? (If I we’re to use a uavonics “Tailbeacon X” for example, the panel can enter the squawk codes I heard.

But what about ASB in?

A complete, meaning everything needed to enable a glass panel to work is what I’m look for information on. GRT lays it out for like $9k but MGL says their “lite” panel only needs an RDAC and compass. Cuts the cost dramatically.

What are everyone’s thoughts on any of the glass panel systems?
 
I prefer GRT, hands down. But that's just me.

GRT is, in general, more economical and they go out of their way to make everything compatible with other systems.
 
Last edited:
GRT
MGL
Dynon
Garmin
?

Like Mel I chose GRT.
But this is an expensive decision. You should try hard to educate yourself on the pluses and minuses of each. It’s also important, now, to think about the whole package. ADSB-out and -in. GPS? IFR capable? Backups? And please, try to be objective. Too many people choose on looks instead of capability/performance.
 
More than brochure deep.

I chose Garmin for the integration. It fell short of my expectations in some areas (w/GTN650 specifically) but new features were found for a year after flying.

I remain thoroughly impressed with the capabilities, advancements, and support, but don't know specifically how they currently compare with the others.

The simulators fall a bit short of yielding a good experience for integration, but do a good job of getting started.

If you are an experimenter, look for ways to add extra thermocouples or discrete inputs with 0-5v so you can gather data easily with the data recording functions. There is a huge capability built in so they can be configured for a wide range of engines and needs.

If you fly IFR, look for cockpit connection to Foreflight. Uploading flight plans, pushing both ways, inflight updates included to keep up with fuel use projections enroute. Lots of pesky (helpful) enroute changes can upset the destination fuel projection, especially if relatively close on limits.
 
A lot of options, choose what you want but first do your homework.

For me, three RVs and all fly with the full SkyView integrated systems (dual EFIS, COMM, XPDR, ADS-B in/out, autopilot), plus the GTN-650. The SkyView is like an iPad, very intuitive. The GTN-650 has many things to memorialize to make it play - I get frustrated with it being unnecessarily clunky. But I tolerate it as it is required to be legal IFR. If you have no plans for IFR, skip the GTN-650 (or whatever). If you plan for IFR later, leave space to add it - and with luck there you may have another option by then.

I suggest you look beyond features and take a close look at after the sale service. I have only been burned by one avionics company, Garmin. I was an early adopter of the GTN-650 in my RV-10 and had problems starting at first flight. Two problems were classified by Garmin as “known issues”. Even so I had to pay for the firmware update that fixed them. Dynon on the other hand has always bent over backwards to help when I called.

Carl
 
You have several great choices for your aircraft from companies that wholly support the experimental community. Just to help you along with your decision and exploration of different system features, here are a couple videos we produced on the G3X Touch system for our virtual Oshkosh experience this year:

G3X Touch Overview
RV7A Avionics Tour

The Experimental Pricing Worksheet will help build a system and walk through the costs. I think you'll find many systems come closer in total cost than you think!

We're always here to help at the contact information listed below,

BR,

Brad
 
Im struggling with this myself, it seems if I go garmin path all my existing equipment will need to be changed out so it all talks to each other. I currently have 2 comms, good audio panel, and a great 2 axis AP. If I go g3x everything is pretty much useless if I want full integration. Im still doing my research before dropping the money but I love the g3x interface. GRT just felt cheap to me compared to garmin but I do like how they support third party integration so it's probably going to be the most economical approach for me.
 
I have installed about all of the different efis in one plane or another and I think they are all pretty good depending on what you need and can afford.
I am a GRT user. They are very affordable, can include an internal GPS and an autopilot. They play well with other radios and transponders and the support is excellent. GRT also provides an engine monitoring system and it works great but is a little challenging to set up initially. The Uavionics ADS-B is compatible and traffic and weather can be displayed on the screen. Oh yeah, GRT provides the 28 day navigation updates free of charge.
 
One more plus for GRT. They offer a small discount for Veterans.
 
Last edited:
Thanks!

So far it's GRT and then Garmin.

I'm not IFR rated, but I can appreciate the IFR capabilities and Synthetic Vision is really nice on the G3X Panel. I do not know if the others have this yet.
 
I went with Garmin because, after my experience with Blue Mountain, I wanted a company that would be there for a while. However, after further experience with glass panels, it doesn't really matter that much. Much like computer systems, whatever you install will be on the obsolescence timer immediately. It's not entirely the manufacturer's fault, when changes (positive though they are) like ADSB occur and older technologies are phased out. However, unlike computer systems, avionics is still struggling for standards, from interconnectivity to simple things like panel footprint. That makes it difficult to mix and match equipment and also to replace old or broken equipment.

For a concrete example, in my -10 I originally had a VP-200 serving a dual G-900X setup. When the VP went TU, Ballard had acquired VP and orphaned the VP-200. Going to the VP-X (which I now regret) required different mounting and harness. Worse, it did not come with a control screen like the VP-200 and the G-900X did not support it, so it was necessary to install a backup EFIS system mainly to run the VP-X. Thanks to Aerotronics for doing the design and majority of the wiring. I also lost the feature I wanted most from VP, the mode switching, because Ballard did not want to have that. And now my 900X is nearing end of life and, due to some setbacks, I still have not got the thing in the air. I might have been better going with standard circuit breakers, but I'm a computer geek so it is what it is.

If all that makes you think I am against glass panels, you could not be more wrong. I just replaced the Blue Mountain EFIS in my -6A with a G3X touch and really love it. But I watched personal computers go through the same crisis (how much compatibility do you suppose there was between a Radio Shack Color Computer, TI-99/4A, and an IBM PC?) though it did not last long due to market pressure. The size of our market does not make me optimistic that this will change soon, but that is no reason to shy away from glass panels if you enjoy them. Just be aware of the free-for-all right now and don't second-guess your choices too much.
 
If you're going to be doing the installation, download and read the installation manuals. Do they tell you what you need to know? Look especially at the engine monitor section, and make sure that you can figure out how to install your engine's sensors.

Dave
 
What the GA and Experimental market needs and it can be done, is a single panel that incorporates everything in it. Meaning, the panel controls and is the AP, the panel controls and is the Radio/Com, the panel is and controls the Transponder.

The panels appear to already have an engine function in them but everything is ala cart and this needs to be changed.

If this were the early days of computers, someone would incorporate all the needed features into a single panel and the cost would be the same with all these features but today it's much more profitable to break apart these features and sell them separately.

Sadly, once I or anyone lays out the $ such a panel will out for sale.

I noticed no on has mentioned the MGL panels.. Good/bad/ugly?
 
What the GA and Experimental market needs and it can be done, is a single panel that incorporates everything in it. Meaning, the panel controls and is the AP, the panel controls and is the Radio/Com, the panel is and controls the Transponder.

Personally I don't want ALL my eggs in one basket where 1 point of failure can take away flight status, engine status, and all communication and navigation information in one fell swoop.
 
What the GA and Experimental market needs and it can be done, is a single panel that incorporates everything in it. Meaning, the panel controls and is the AP, the panel controls and is the Radio/Com, the panel is and controls the Transponder.

The panels appear to already have an engine function in them but everything is ala cart and this needs to be changed.


I noticed no on has mentioned the MGL panels.. Good/bad/ugly?

re: MGL. I'll be honest. I know little of their products. I just am reluctant to put a lot of money into a company based in Africa. I know, they have a US service center, but if it needs to go back to Africa that's a long ways.
As to the first part of the above quote: This is already here. Both Garmin and GRT offer EFIS units that can control remote mounted transponders, remote mounted nav/coms, and autopilot servos. Not sure about Dynon but maybe they can too. The question is, is this desirable? An airplane isn't a computer. Do you want a situation where an EFIS failure takes out everything else?
 
What the GA and Experimental market needs and it can be done, is a single panel that incorporates everything in it.

I noticed no on has mentioned the MGL panels.. Good/bad/ugly?

You could start with this.... https://www.michiganavionics.com/xtreme-efis-ems/ for engine management and backup.

I have this in my RV and engine setup is very easy. Only three wires go through the firewall. The only other connections.... power, oat, pitot, static and gps antenna.

The screen is more than bright enough to see in direct sunlight and has no reflection.
 
It's time to move on.

What the GA and Experimental market needs and it can be done, is a single panel that incorporates everything in it. Meaning, the panel controls and is the AP, the panel controls and is the Radio/Com, the panel is and controls the Transponder.

The question is, is this desirable? An airplane isn't a computer. Do you want a situation where an EFIS failure takes out everything else?

A good question Bob, but if one considers the huge improvement in reliability (failures/1000 hrs) for well validated electronics, and redundancy already being built in the electronics architectures, the numbers and practical use (IMO) show a safe application of all electronics.

In my previous working life (1980's), fuel systems for heavy duty diesel engines were 1/3 of the overall failures and warranty. The systems were very simple, but they still had a lot of necessary parts. We developed a fully electronically controlled unit injectors. A huge effort for harsh validation was undertaken, and it paid off. Despite thousands of little parts and connections the new technology reduced fuel system warranty by 60% and the reliability numbers supported a similar benefit for customer downtime and events. It is certainly possible for our airplanes 35 years later.

Further, considering the low (and decreasing) volume production rates for the "round" gauges, availability of repair stations, and limited functionality, they are doomed to escalating costs and declining reliability.
 
A good question Bob, but if one considers the huge improvement in reliability (failures/1000 hrs) for well validated electronics, and redundancy already being built in the electronics architectures, the numbers and practical use (IMO) show a safe application of all electronics.

In my previous working life (1980's), fuel systems for heavy duty diesel engines were 1/3 of the overall failures and warranty. The systems were very simple, but they still had a lot of necessary parts. We developed a fully electronically controlled unit injectors. A huge effort for harsh validation was undertaken, and it paid off. Despite thousands of little parts and connections the new technology reduced fuel system warranty by 60% and the reliability numbers supported a similar benefit for customer downtime and events. It is certainly possible for our airplanes 35 years later.

Further, considering the low (and decreasing) volume production rates for the "round" gauges, availability of repair stations, and limited functionality, they are doomed to escalating costs and declining reliability.

Was not the case for International.
 
re: MGL. I'll be honest. I know little of their products. I just am reluctant to put a lot of money into a company based in Africa. I know, they have a US service center, but if it needs to go back to Africa that's a long ways.
As to the first part of the above quote: This is already here. Both Garmin and GRT offer EFIS units that can control remote mounted transponders, remote mounted nav/coms, and autopilot servos. Not sure about Dynon but maybe they can too. The question is, is this desirable? An airplane isn't a computer. Do you want a situation where an EFIS failure takes out everything else?

Ohhhh.. I was apparently under the impression that the M was for Michigan.. I had no idea it was a foreign owned company...
 
FS: Garmin non touch screens

I’ve got 2 Garmin non touch screens for sale in the classifies.
$2700
 
Back
Top