Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 20:48:03 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp802.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.168.181] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.3) with SMTP id 432908 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 26 Sep 2004 10:40:04 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.163.168.181; envelope-from=rfreilich@sbcglobal.net Received: from unknown (HELO corbel) (rfreilich@sbcglobal.net@69.151.245.23 with login) by smtp802.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Sep 2004 14:39:32 -0000 From: "rfreilich" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] Dynon EFIS D10A X-Original-Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:39:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D1_01C4A3AC.B13E2980" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcSjiGd3MJIZwQUuToWHcnsJaCp90gAPwkgw In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00D1_01C4A3AC.B13E2980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> for $2,000..is this too good to be true? Gerard, "We are not recommending that the EFIS-D10A be used as a primary flight instrument for IFR flight at this time." -Dynon website, FAQ There has been great discussion on this matter in the past. As experimental builders, we determine what is safe to install in our planes and what is not. We don't need TSO'd equipment to fly IFR (except for the FAA required list.) That does not mean that common sense should be ignored either. The members on this list agree (a rare occurrence) that Lancairs are excellent cross-country machines. They are fast, capable, expensive and, at times, a handful. At the speeds these planes fly, cross-country weather conditions can change unexpectedly at a moment's notice. There was a loss of a Lancair recently as an experienced pilot entered a storm cell while flying IFR. How he came to be in that situation is a matter of some speculation. His primary flight instrument was an earlier version Dynon. Entering a storm cell is a virtual death sentence regardless of the equipment. A more capable PFD will give a pilot much more stable and reliable information about his situation. In a life or death situation, which would you prefer? I am not Dynon bashing. Experimental development is what this community is all about. I believe that there are appropriate airframes to install these in. IMHO, it doesn't belong in a high performance aircraft as a PFD. Someone on this list had a great rule of thumb ratio of expected build costs. If my memory serves, the panel should equal the cost of the engine. In other words, as the capability of the aircraft increases, so does the capability of the panel. There is friendly disagreement about this also. Please plan your panel based on the expected mission and unexpected conditions. Richard Freilich ------=_NextPart_000_00D1_01C4A3AC.B13E2980 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>> for $2,000..is this too good to be = true?

Gerard,

“We are not recommending that the EFIS-D10A be used as a primary flight instrument for IFR flight at this = time.” –Dynon website, FAQ

There has been great discussion on this matter in the = past.  As experimental builders, we determine what is safe to install in our = planes and what is not.  We don’t need TSO’d equipment to fly IFR = (except for the FAA required list.)  That does not mean that common sense = should be ignored either. 

The members on this list agree (a rare occurrence) that = Lancairs are excellent cross-country machines.  They are fast, capable, = expensive and, at times, a handful.  At the speeds these planes fly, cross-country = weather conditions can change unexpectedly at a moment’s notice.  = There was a loss of a Lancair recently as an experienced pilot entered a storm = cell while flying IFR.  How he came to be in that situation is a matter of = some speculation. His primary flight instrument was an earlier version Dynon.  = Entering a storm cell is a virtual death sentence regardless of the = equipment.  A more capable PFD will give a pilot much more stable and reliable = information about his situation. In a life or death situation, which would you = prefer?     

I am not Dynon bashing.  Experimental development is = what this community is all about.  I believe that there are appropriate airframes to install these in.  IMHO, it doesn’t belong in a = high performance aircraft as a PFD.  

Someone on this list had a great rule of thumb ratio of = expected build costs.  If my memory serves, the panel should equal the cost of the engine.  In other words, as the capability of the aircraft = increases, so does the capability of the panel.  There is friendly disagreement = about this also. 

Please plan your panel based on the expected mission and unexpected conditions. =       

Richard Freilich

------=_NextPart_000_00D1_01C4A3AC.B13E2980--