MGL vs GRT vs Dynon?

[predragvasic]

I vaguely remember a discussion, from over a decade ago, on Vans Airforce, how MGL allows users to easily create what is essentially an RNAV approach into any runway, even if it is not in the database (essentially adding a private strip into it, and creating an approach to it), making it possible to couple your autopilot to it and have it fly as far down as it is safe. Dynon people participating in the discussion voiced their disagreement about that, declaring that Dynon will not be making it possible on their devices (arguing the usual liability exposure, with successors to a crashed pilot suing for damages when the pilot was found to be using his home brewed RNAV into his backyard).
I don’t know if anything has changed in the landscape (between GRT, MGL, Dynon, Garmin) and their EFISes for homebuilts.

[svyolo]

GRT does the same, although I haven't done it. I asked Dynon about it, and they seemed like they wanted to consult their lawyers first. The Garmin booth at SnF reminded me of the Apple Store in HK.

[svyolo]

If I was buying a hard IFR airplane I would go with Garmin or Dynon. Probably Dynon as Garmin reminds me of Apple. But just like Apple, Garmin puts out a great product.

Without hard IFR I would not consider Garmin, although the Apple folks will disagree - fair enough. To each his own.

GRT and MGL are experimental focused, with a side dish of Dynon. Dynon also makes great stuff.

I have been a HUD and glass cockpit cripple for >35 years. I flew a Wittman Tailwind most of the way across the country with steam guages and a Table and my phone last year. Everything but the phone and tablet were way down on the priority list.

I bought GRT for my EFIS, MGL for my COM, and TRIG for my xponder. I am pretty sure I would have been just as happy with more MGL or Dynon. Tech support for all have been great.

I kind of like supporting the little guy. GRT and MGL.

[Bcone1381]

I'd love to hear any thoughts on the below AND any lessons y'all have learned in your avionics decisions/installation/use.

Trade-off are made when most of us build. I understand why big screens are very popular. I started out looking at them. The decision making can be overwhelming. I felt peace as I simplified things and ended up with a more traditional no-compromise VFR panel.

I like portables. I like Knobs, I like the Winter airspeed indicator made for Gliders. Look at the sweep the arc makes at 40-50 kts. Awesome. I cant digest airpspeed data as efficiently using any airspeed tape display.

The G5 has OAT, TAS, Density Alt (on the ground), and winds when the DG display is selected. The engine instrument is a CGR-30P, and shows 1 of four pages. The GPS is a portable panel mount Garmin Aera 660 but prefer Fore Flight on an iPhone. With ForeFlight's Sentry ADS-B receiver I get traffic and weather displayed on my phone. Weight and power consumption is minimal.

This is about a $13,000 panel priced this morning at Spruce. $1000 less if the 660 was not installed. You can EASILY installed it in your shop with the avionics harness made up by a professional shop. All flight and engine data is downloadable.

The industry trend is strongly away from a panel like this. But if the cost difference allows one to install a Trail Blazer prop then that craft's utility enters a different category.
Screenshot 2026-02-06 at 10.12.57 AM.png

[rkennell]

There is a lot to be said about a simple panel. The utility and functionality are maintained and it fits the nature and mission of the airplane. The simplicity definitely speeds up the build and overtime there less to maintain. I didn't go that route. I have put in a two screen Dynon Skyview system with an Avidyne IDF 440 navigator and a 3 axis autopilot. I made up most of my own harnesses with help of an avionic tech friend who also made a full set of drawing for the electrical and avionic systems and did a lot of design work at no cost but to exercise his mind. I enjoyed putting it together but it took 9 months and was not cheap and it added more weight to the build. It has been a real education in many ways. So what was the reason for going the more complicated route? Because I could and it was a challenge. But, was it worth the cost and time it added to the build? That remains to be seen. There is a simple elegance the comes out when I look at Brook's panel and it fits the nature of the craft and his mission. There is more clarity about issues at this stage in the build than there was in the beginning when a lot of decisions were made.