# How much cheaper are RC's than full size?

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

#### HumanPoweredDesigner

##### Well-Known Member
Is the engine the most expensive part? Can you design a family of RC planes where you can take the engine out and put it on a different plane each day?

Instead of those normal controls, has anyone ever put a camera in their plane, and built a simulator seat with the camera view on the computer screen, and regular airplane controls wired into the RC controller so you can fly it like a normal pilot would?

Does FAA govern high flying RC planes?

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
You mean like this? Slaved to a pair of VR goggles that the pilot wears, so his POV is as if he's sitting in the aircraft. AND can look around - the camera in the airplane slaves to his head movements. There's a two-way datalink - up-channel for directing the camera, down-channel for video. This is all the rage in the RC community.

Last edited by a moderator:

##### Well-Known Member
The sane price range for RC aircraft is from around $50 to$50k, assuming you don't already have a transmitter. You can extend both ends of the range a bit, but most real RC's live in that range. By the time you pass $50k, you're generally moving into UAV territory (although there are cheap UAVs as well; I've been having a ball with the$300 Parrot drone: AR.Drone.com USA - Parrot Wi-Fi quadricopter. Augmented Reality games on iPhone, iPod touch and iPad).

Basically, this is way too broad a question. The engine can be the most expensive part, especially if you're using a jet; more often, the transmitter is (easy to share), or even more often, the build time is (hard to share). People have done first-person flight with RC; the AR drone I mention comes out-of-the-box with software for that.

I'm not 100% sure on the FAA rules, but I do know that anything over 40 lbs or anything autonomous needs some level of sign-off.

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Here's another showing a head-tracker systems similar to the one in the video. Not quite as good, though. I've seen the first guy's rig on YouTube (haven't been able to relocate the video, however) and his tracks much more accurately than this guy's, which is probably still being tuned up.

And another showing where this is going for them:

The RC guys are so far ahead of us in systems technology that it's not even funny. They have the luxury of testing without risking anything but a few hundred bucks of equipment, but there's very little reason (other than our innate conservatism) that some of this technology shouldn't be migrated to our world. I've heard all the "good sounding" reasons, all the paranoia, and all the "you can't do that full-scale 'because'", and it still rings hollow.

This kind of technology is our future, if we'd only embrace it. They have it because they're willing to try.

Imagine having synthetic vision overlaid on a set of see-through VR goggles, so you have all necessary instrument data overlaid no matter where your head turns, and maybe a button on the stick to turn it off quickly if you want a no-HUD view. Having traffic positions highlighted on the goggles, with aural cues (in your headphones) to direct your head in the right direction. Or overlay the whole thing on the inside of the canopy with mini-projectors, complete with "highway in the sky" natual-navigation (which could be done in the goggles as well).

It's all just software. At which point, some joker in "real" airplanes starts talking "blue screen of death" and how that means "He'll never fly with anything like that!!!"

Meh. We're strangling ourselves with our own conservatism. It's no wonder more people are choosing RC and simulators over the "real thing".

/rant.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Nickathome

##### Well-Known Member
We have a guy at our airport who is an aerobatic pilot and who is also into RC. He's got an RC jet that is about 6 feet long and its engine alone I would bet cost close to what I paid for my cessna 150.

##### Well-Known Member
The RC guys are so far ahead of us in systems technology that it's not even funny. They have the luxury of testing without risking anything but a few hundred bucks of equipment, but there's very little reason (other than our innate conservatism) that some of this technology shouldn't be migrated to our world. I've heard all the "good sounding" reasons, all the paranoia, and all the "you can't do that full-scale 'because'", and it still rings hollow.

This kind of technology is our future, if we'd only embrace it. They have it because they're willing to try.
Well, actually "we" already have many of those things. You can have an EFIS with synthetic vision and GPS-coupled autopilot for 5K. Those (autopilot) signals are standardized, and people already are writing more advanced programs for that. I though recently there were 2 EFIS available with a video-out port. That way you can simply hang your in-eye display or hud directly on your EFIS/synthetic vision.
Highway in the sky is available on several EFIS.

The best part of the deal? If it quits, so can still continue flying manually. That's by far the best way to get rid of the comment of the older blokes. IFR-flight might be a bit more critical, but VFR is ideal for toying around with this stuff.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Yes, "we" have it, but the prices are anything but reasonable and the interfaces I've seen are typical aerospace-horrific. Lots of badly laid-out data, needlessly multiple layers of access menus, etc. Most of the regular GA commercial stuff is typical of what happens when you let engineers do human interface design. Some of the smaller-firm sailplane stuff that runs on PDAs is pretty good - I'm sure you've seen some of those yourself.

The typical iOS or Android interface is decades ahead of anything available in a commerical aviation product today. Color displays are still a selling point in our stuff! Smartphones have moved on to software-based device architecture, pack more processing power than a 747, and cost around $400-$600, including built-in GPS, attitude accellerometers, magnetometer compass, and comm radio. GA is finally starting to get away from discrete hardware components serving individual functions, and $400 will hardly buy you the connectors for a current EFIS. My DroidX smartphone runs a 1GHz processor and can run a full moving map nav display while showing "driving instrument" information, update my e-mail and synched data in the background, and carry a hands-free phone call to a Bluetooth headset the whole time.$400 brand new, without contract subsidy. Show me anything in the GA world that even comes close, for ten times the money.

"Our volume is too low for prices like that!" says the old-time pilot. WHY? Why aren't we using the same components, operating systems, displays, processors, chassis, power supplies, and everything else that's already out there for consumer smart-phone manufacture? And dirt-cheap to buy even in relatively small volume. The iPhone costs Apple $135 to build. My DroidX is about the same, little bit more due to the larger screen. Why do we have to reinvent the wheel every single time, just because it's going into an airplane? Optimize the software for reliability and graceful failure, and have done. The hardware is bullet-proof and takes far more abuse in the average soccer-mom's purse than we'd ever dish out in an airplane. I agree with you about the "ultimate redundancy." But I've been in conversations with high-time pilots that seem to think putting a computer in a light aircraft is about the same as setting it on fire. They really slap themselves on the back with all the cute computer jokes they can come up with to demonstrate to themselves why "it's never going to work." I've related the story here about a flight instructor that had unresolvable emotional issues about my using a hand-held electronic E-6B, for heaven's sake. /rant #2 :gig: Off to lunch. Last edited: #### autoreply ##### Well-Known Member Yes, "we" have it, but the prices are anything but reasonable and the interfaces I've seen are typical aerospace-horrific. I don't agree. The EFIS in that vid goes for 5K. Seems like a lot? That's including "gyro", sensors, engine sensors, interface panels, screen and software. You can just buy a complete gyro for such money and this has MFD, PFD, moving map, full engine monitoring, autopilot coupling, IFR charts etc in it. It has terrain, all frequencies and so on. It really is an incredible "bang for the buck". Sure, you can built a laptob/pc for a lot less. But by the time you've done the software, bought the sensors, the electronic gyro, you're not that far from the 5K mark... As far as the interfaces go; I think they're pretty good. For the huge amount of functions they provide they're as simple as possible. A major problem with those "open" solutions is that nothing is really integrated. If you compare the Ipad (with aviation software), to the much more expensive Garmins, that Garmin is far superior in every aspect. The Ipad does every separate task quite well. The total integration though isn't achievable and thus you loose most of the benefit of a EFIS (which is a system, not a bunch of tied-together functions) "Our volume is too low for prices like that!" says the old-time pilot. WHY? Why aren't we using the same components, operating systems, displays, processors, chassis, power supplies, and everything else that's already out there for consumer smart-phone manufacture? They are. Most smaller EFIS-makers are using basic components, you'll find in many other applications. There are quite a lot of sensors in an EFIS though. OS? Most use a basic OS and standard-grade software. Displays need high-illumination. (Ever tried to read an Ipad outside?) 1500-2000 US$ for a basic EFIS is really cheap.

Topaz, I really think you're too pessimistic and might not have seen all developments of the last couple years. Van's airforce has a couple of great topics about it, but the possibilities (that are available today) are quite amazing. Steinair is also great for an idea what all available functions are. For 5-10K you can have all functionality the 747 (with EFIS) has, except for the IFR-certification (which is much more expensive, say 50K total)

I was at the Aero with a friend. After a couple looks at these kind of avionics he told me "this is exactly what my boss provides me with, only a factor 1000 cheaper". He flies the 777 with full glass and EFB...

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
I don't agree. The EFIS in that vid goes for 5K. Seems like a lot? That's including "gyro", sensors, engine sensors, interface panels, screen and software. You can just buy a complete gyro for such money and this has MFD, PFD, moving map, IFR charts etc in it. It has terrain, all frequencies and so on.

It really is an incredible "bang for the buck". Sure, you can built a laptob/pc for a lot less. But by the time you've done the software, bought the sensors, the electronic gyro, you're not that far from the 5K mark...
Except that my DroidX phone has all those components, and all the data connectivity, and functions as a comm radio, all in a $400 package. The only thing missing is the larger display. An iPad has a similarly-sized display, all the same functions, and costs under$900. And both of them have a full touch-screen interface, instead of those 1980's-style buttons on the bezel. The Dynon doesn't come with the engine sensors, it comes with an analog-to-digital converter to change the inputs from your existing engine sensors to a form it can read. So, in that sense, my DroidX is perfectly capable of doing the same.

So no, I don't think $5k for that functionality is "incredible 'bang for the buck'". I think it's highway robbery. As far as the interfaces go; I think they're pretty good. For the huge amount of functions they provide they're as simple as possible. A major problem with those "open" solutions is that nothing is really integrated. If you compare the Ipad (with aviation software), to the much more expensive Garmins, that Garmin is far superior in every aspect. The Ipad does every separate task quite well. The total integration though isn't achievable and thus you loose most of the benefit of a EFIS (which is a system, not a bunch of tied-together functions). Absolutely, 100%, 180° wrong, Jarno, and I'm honestly surprised to hear you say it. The typical smartphone or iPad integrates far more functions in a myriad of more possible combinations than any light-aircraft system ever built, including the Dynon EFIS. Integration is handled through standards and software, something the avaition community seems to think only needs to be done every couple of decades or so. As I said, I have the auto-windshield mount for my DroidX. It simultaneously does a fully-comparable set of functions to that Dynon EFIS while I'm using it, and at the same time functioning as a comm radio as well (or a full-stereo music player, if I want). Integrating new functions into a software-based system architecture is a matter of software. The phone functions, moving map functions, data-handling, housekeeping, and so on are all handled as software, much as is done on the F-22 or F-35. The radio is software, and there is a hardware waveform generator than handles the transceiver functions. The data handling is software, not a discrete processor. Everything is integrated, and to a far larger degree than any current-generation GA EFIS. Open up a current-generation smartphone and you'll find a processor, RAM, a waveform transceiver, a set of MEM accellerometers, a magnetometer compass, a screen, and a battery. That's it, and that's all integrated via software to perform the various functions of the device. This is all commerically available right now in mass quantities at low prices. Why are we not taking advantage of it??? Want to integrate a moving map and flight display? It's just software that drives the display. There's actually and EFIS (minus the engine instruments) available for the iPhone. It's limited by the size of the small display, not the ability of the device to produce an integrated display. Topaz, I really think you're too pessimistic and might not have seen all developments of the last couple years. Van's airforce has a couple of great topics about it, but the possibilities (that are available today) are quite amazing. Steinair is also great for an idea what all available functions are. For 5-10K you can have all functionality the 747 (with EFIS) has, except for the IFR-certification (which is much more expensive, say 50K total) Oh, I'll freely admit that the primary flight display and map display on that Dynon are quite a bit better than what I'd seen previously. The user interface (except for the stupid 1980's bezel buttons) is more along the lines of those "good" sailplane electronic panels I mentioned earlier. Kudos to Dynon for doing a decent display. The engine display is still a nightmare, though. Apparently if it's displaying the status of a "machine", it doesn't have to be actually readable. *rolls eyes* And$5-10k is not a "reasonable" price, when I can have the same functionality for under $1k through a more-modern software-based architecture. I can buy a car for the price of that EFIS. This "$5-10k is reasonable" attitude is killing our sport. There is NO rational reason for this stuff to be that expensive, when you can buy equal (or better) components being built by shipload lots for commercial electronics and do the same thing for a fifth the price.

Last edited:

##### Well-Known Member
Don't underestimate the cost of software development, Topaz. (A subject near to my heart.) You can often mask the cost these days by getting us good-hearted and geeky developers to do it for free; but that requires both significant volume and developer access to the machines (which Dynon is actually quite good at). The hardware costs are insane, yes; but they're recouping development costs, which are not.

Also, on a more specific note, bevel buttons good... sure, they're ugly as sin, but you can hit them unambiguously in heavy turbulence. I wouldn't want touch screen in the cockpit for primary input for that reason; and I'd rather have voice than touchscreen for non-critical secondary input.

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Don't underestimate the cost of software development, Topaz. (A subject near to my heart.) You can often mask the cost these days by getting us good-hearted and geeky developers to do it for free; but that requires both significant volume and developer access to the machines (which Dynon is actually quite good at). The hardware costs are insane, yes; but they're recouping development costs, which are not.
I don't, but the problem is we have closed system architectures in GA electronics that are protecting high-cost development. I have a YellowPages app on my DroidX that not only searches an online database for whatever you've typed in (natural language, too, not FAA-cryptic coding), but shows it on a map display, links the data to the nav software on the phone, and then overlays the precise location on a real-world image through the phone's camera, oriented by the accellerometers and compass, as you approach. That's "Augmented Reality", in latest aerospace parlance. That app was free, supported by tiny little ads at the bottom of the screen. (Here's where everyone howls that they'd rather pay $10k for an EFIS than see a quarter-inch tall ad on the screen.) You can get the no-advertisement version for$7.99. No, I did not slip a decimal point on that price.

If the system architectures were open (as in the personal computer world), software costs would come down in very short order. Competition and an open market are very good at that.

Also, on a more specific note, bevel buttons good... sure, they're ugly as sin, but you can hit them unambiguously in heavy turbulence. I wouldn't want touch screen in the cockpit for primary input for that reason; and I'd rather have voice than touchscreen for non-critical secondary input.
IMHO, if you're bouncing around that hard, the last thing you're worried about is changing displays. Your eyes ought to be outside the airplane, not on the panel. If it's critical, go voice-command (which my DroidX also has, stock out of the box for that same $400), or have the system sense the high and intermittant G-loads and default to a combined display that shows all the major functions you'd need in such a situation - mostly the PFD. Touch displays are so much more intuitive to use, and easier to learn. There's a reason you're seeing them crop up on everything consumer these days. We have such a high training barrier in avaition. Anything that makes it easier is well worth it, in my book. The only thing, IMHO, that's better with a tactile button is data input. Which is another topic. #### addaon ##### Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter But the issue is, if I put together a cute little iPhone app, I can reliably sell thousands of copies... for either thousands of dollars, or the equivalent ego boost. Even if everything were equally open in the aviation world, I'd be looking at hundreds of times lower volume. Now, I don't disagree that the fact that the iPhone app is a one-day project and the equivalent for a less-developed software stack is a week+ project is a factor... but the reason that's true is because Apple had the volume to invest in a good, easy-to-develop-on software stack to begin with. Plus quality requirements... having worked with lots of iPhone software (on the development side), I wouldn't let code written by 90% of those people be used on a critical system in anything I'm flying. For that matter, I wouldn't be fully comfortable with doing my own coding for critical systems (including primary instruments) using anything close to my standard development practices, and I consider myself a reasonable good software engineer. #### Topaz ##### Super Moderator Staff member Log Member But the issue is, if I put together a cute little iPhone app, I can reliably sell thousands of copies... for either thousands of dollars, or the equivalent ego boost. Even if everything were equally open in the aviation world, I'd be looking at hundreds of times lower volume. Now, I don't disagree that the fact that the iPhone app is a one-day project and the equivalent for a less-developed software stack is a week+ project is a factor... but the reason that's true is because Apple had the volume to invest in a good, easy-to-develop-on software stack to begin with. Plus quality requirements... having worked with lots of iPhone software (on the development side), I wouldn't let code written by 90% of those people be used on a critical system in anything I'm flying. For that matter, I wouldn't be fully comfortable with doing my own coding for critical systems (including primary instruments) using anything close to my standard development practices, and I consider myself a reasonable good software engineer. Well, IIRC, the iPhone "EFIS" is something like$49, give or take half of that. (Been a while since I looked at it, since I don't have an iPhone.) And sure, I'm not so fond of the idea of some script-kiddie writing a flight-display app, either. But the app market is a positively brutal example of software Darwinism at its finest. Once the blogosphere gets hold of an app, only the best survive. Inadequate solutions die, and quickly. That could apply to us as well, regardless of our small market. Even if the flight software cost $500, you're looking at a$1,300 EFIS instead of a $5,000 one. Seems like a clear choice to me. And as for the hardware and underlying OS architecture, why not use the commercial products already out there? Use the iOS stack or the Android stack. Why do we feel the absolute, fundamental necessity to develop from scratch when a viable solution already exists? It's a darned sickness in this industry. Instead, use commercial components and software base in the commercial configuration. Google is doing a tablet-optimized version of Android right now. Base it on that. As I said, the average smartphone reliably survives absolutely savage treatment at the hands of your typical teenage mall-rat compared to what we dish out in our airplanes. Thrown across the room in a tantrum. Stuffed in jeans and sat upon. Rolled up in a damp towel with the swimsuit. Carried on roller-coasters and battered around with a dozen other hard objects in a purse. Tell me a single aviation instrument that would stand that kind of abuse and then tell me about how "unreliable" these consumer components are. Seriously, build an EFIS on an Android-based tablet, or Windows 7 if you prefer. It's all there, already integrated, already built for reliability. We're talking a system that has to run maybe six or eight hours between system reboots. We can't do that with commercial components without jacking up the cost ten or twenty-fold? Come on. My phone runs days between shut-downs. Even if it had to be rebooted in-flight once in a blue moon, that process takes all of a minute or two, then you're back with full GPS position data and software. Anyone who can't hand-fly an airplane with a backup airspeed and altimeter for a couple of minutes doesn't deserve to be PIC. Last edited: #### TFF ##### Well-Known Member The FAA has ignored model flying until last year. Because out technology is parallel to the UAVs in many ways, the UAV big business is trying to shut models down so they can have uninterrupted usage of the airspace. Big business pushing in. With all of that now, artificial vision flying must be made with a plane weighing no more than 10 lbs and a safety pilot who can see the plane at all times. The FAA regulates all of our airspace; they defer the rule making to the AMA for models, but will step in. If people jack with it, the FAA will close it down; which is what we thought could happen last summer. #### Topaz ##### Super Moderator Staff member Log Member The FAA has ignored model flying until last year. Because out technology is parallel to the UAVs in many ways, the UAV big business is trying to shut models down so they can have uninterrupted usage of the airspace. ... And the market, no doubt. Some of these amateur-built RC rigs are on-par with the latest capabilities being presented to the DoD, except for size and range. Kinda hard to pitch that$10 billion development program when some college guy just posted the same capability on YouTube for $500, and already flying. #### autoreply ##### Well-Known Member Except that my DroidX phone has all those components, and all the data connectivity, and functions as a comm radio, all in a$400 package.
Can I have your phone too? It'd be great to have:
*A couple external volt+amp meters
*Flap sensor
*4/6 temperature gauges that operate in the 200F region
*another couple temperature gauges
*Couple of pressure sensors (fuel, oil)
*2 pressure sensors
*Angle of attack sensor
*Landing gear sensor
*Flap sensor
In your 400$phone. And both of them have a full touch-screen interface, instead of those 1980's-style buttons on the bezel. Yeah, just wait till you've worked with that. Your screen won't be readible after a start-up (which it wasn't in the first place). I've a lot of experience, mastering my Zumo 550 (gps on motorcycle). Believe me, push-buttons are absolutely great, compared to a touch-screen. Absolutely, 100%, 180° wrong, Jarno, and I'm honestly surprised to hear you say it. The typical smartphone or iPad integrates far more functions in a myriad of more possible combinations than any light-aircraft system ever built, including the Dynon EFIS. Integration is handled through standards and software, something the avaition community seems to think only needs to be done every couple of decades or so. [video=youtube;QJ__ZxlYP_o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ__ZxlYP_o[/video] As I said, I have the auto-windshield mount for my DroidX. It simultaneously does a fully-comparable set of functions to that Dynon EFIS while I'm using it, and at the same time functioning as a comm radio as well (or a full-stereo music player, if I want). Integrating new functions into a software-based system architecture is a matter of software. The phone functions, moving map functions, data-handling, housekeeping, and so on are all handled as software, much as is done on the F-22 or F-35. The radio is software, and there is a hardware waveform generator than handles the transceiver functions. The data handling is software, not a discrete processor. Everything is integrated, and to a far larger degree than any current-generation GA EFIS. Open up a current-generation smartphone and you'll find a processor, RAM, a waveform transceiver, a set of MEM accellerometers, a magnetometer compass, a screen, and a battery. That's it, and that's all integrated via software to perform the various functions of the device. This is all commerically available right now in mass quantities at low prices. Why are we not taking advantage of it??? Want to integrate a moving map and flight display? It's just software that drives the display. There's actually and EFIS (minus the engine instruments) available for the iPhone. It's limited by the size of the small display, not the ability of the device to produce an integrated display. Well, I've seen numerous discussion with the guys, actually following this approach. That's the Dynons, Advanced, and so on. There are a lot of things you don't take into account. You do need better hardware. An unreadable screen, or a ADAHRS that runs from you in 20 seconds isn't good enough for an aircraft. As for the software; there's a factor 10, 20 or 30 difference in the quality and quantity of what you have in a full-blown EFIS, compared to the Ipad-app. See above for how "great" that Ipad-software does... I'm not going into a detailed discussion; but you're saying a lot of things that reality has proven wrong. And just believe me if I'm saying that those guys from Dynon, Blue mountain, Garmin, GRT, Advanced are in an extremely competitive market. And$5-10k is not a "reasonable" price, when I can have the same functionality for under $1k through a more-modern software-based architecture. That's apples to oranges. You can have an efis from 1100$ on. That 5K is a MFD, PFD, moving map, autopilot, EMS, synthetic vision and so on. That's comparing a Porsche Turbo, to a Diahatsu. Ok, I admit, that was a bit mean, but yours is old right. I guess the lady can stand a bit of insult ;-)

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Can I have your phone too? It'd be great to have:
*A couple external volt+amp meters
*Flap sensor
*4/6 temperature gauges that operate in the 200F region
*another couple temperature gauges
*Couple of pressure sensors (fuel, oil)
*2 pressure sensors
*Angle of attack sensor
*Landing gear sensor
*Flap sensor
In your 400$phone. Sure. The processing power is already there (1GHz Atom). So is the OS support for I/O. So is the data port. A little software to drive the display, and done. In short, and to borrow on Apple's tag-line, "There's an app for that..." What you're talking about is software to read data and drive a display. With software, anything with a processor and the necessary hookups could do that. Someone just announced a little device that can plug in to the data port on a smartphone (iPhone or Android) and, given a saliva or urine sample, measure components in that sample and use the phone to send and receive the data to a provider who then accurately diagnose certain diseases from that data, and subsequently returns the result to the phone. All in a package that could be purchased inexpensively over-the-counter. And you think we can't figure out a way to read and display data from an airplane's landing-gear position switches? Yeah, just wait till you've worked with that. Your screen won't be readible after a start-up (which it wasn't in the first place). I guess you didn't read the part where I said I use this in my truck with a windshield mount. I didn't install it just yesterday, Jarno. Works just fine, and very readable even in sunlight, thank you very much. In fact, I ditched my dedicated Garmin 650 GPS nav for using my phone this way. Much better integration of functions - I can pull up a contact (or run an internet search), tap the address, and go directly to navigating to that address without any other data entry. The DroidX comes with a "Car Dock" app that sets up and integrates the most-common functions (Nav, phone, music player, voice search, etc.) with larger touch-screen buttons, which is handy. Well, I've seen numerous discussion with the guys, actually following this approach. That's the Dynons, Advanced, and so on. There are a lot of things you don't take into account. You do need better hardware. An unreadable screen, or a ADAHRS that runs from you in 20 seconds isn't good enough for an aircraft. As for the software; there's a factor 10, 20 or 30 difference in the quality and quantity of what you have in a full-blown EFIS, compared to the Ipad-app. See above for how "great" that Ipad-software does... Wow. So a video from people who get advertising support from people in the GA EFIS avionics industry, and are entrenched current GA pilots themselves, shows that the "GA" product is "their pick" over something that could put those advertisers out of business and be a different way of working than what they're used to. Shocking. (Don't forget what I do for a living, Jarno.) I'm not at all questioning their journalistic integrity, but this is an opinion piece and that leaves a lot of room open to "personal interpretation." Also note that what they're really comparing in that video is not hardware. It's software. So, what they're actually saying is that the software for the iPad isn't yet as advanced as that for the Garmin. Software is hardware independant. Unlike the dedicated-device model GA is currently using, you can change the software on something like the iPad. Improve it. In fact, I'm betting you could port the Garmin software over to the iPad and run it there if Garmin weren't in the business of selling EFIS hardware... Note that very few of their complaints center on hardware issues. The GPS? Well, yeah, the iPad's GPS is a little wonky (because Steve Jobs' philosophy insisted on a particular antenna location as "elegant" - same problem with the WiFi antenna on that particular device, and a source of complaints about the iPads in general), but that does not mean that all non-GA-industry GPS units are so. I've yet to encounter a GPS "hiccup" on my particular phone when in the car, where we arguably have a more restricted view of the sky, electromagnically, with all the power lines around overhead. Same went for my old PDA with a plug-in GPS using the Compact Flash II port. Just 'cause Steve Jobs believes function isn't as important as form doesn't mean the rest of the industry does. I'm not going into a detailed discussion; but you're saying a lot of things that reality has proven wrong. Fair enough. And with similar lack of detail, I'm going to completely disagree. And just believe me if I'm saying that those guys from Dynon, Blue mountain, Garmin, GRT, Advanced are in an extremely competitive market. That's apples to oranges. You can have an efis from 1100$ on. That 5K is a MFD, PFD, moving map, autopilot, EMS, synthetic vision and so on.
All of which could be done in software on something like an iPad (although I personally loathe Apple products, entirely on philosophical grounds).

That's comparing a Porsche Turbo, to a Diahatsu. Ok, I admit, that was a bit mean, but yours is old right ;-)
My "old" 914 kicked more than one (then) brand-new 1987 944's butt on Riverside and Laguna Seca raceways, with both me and my dad behind the wheel. And we weren't the fastest 914 on the track, by a long shot.

No offense taken.

Last edited:

##### Well-Known Member
Just a quick follow-up:

Features

I think Topaz is talking about these kind of things. An open-source set of software modules and an open standard for communication with sensors would be great. That might actually something for an organisation like EAA. A central organisation that takes care of the promotion and a bit of sponsoring (hosting and such) might be the way to go. Ubuntu and Sun (Open Office, Java) are a good example.

I like those ideas too, though I doubt whether it'll work as well as those guys think it will.

#### greywuuf

##### Active Member
What no one is going to post the paranoia view ? that if the general public ever found out what an rc electronics geek was capable off they would claim terrorists could use it, The FAA or TSA or someone is going to HAVE to step in and close down most Everything related to airspace...
oh course this will not make us safer. Funny the stuff we will put up with because someone gets a warm fuzzy over it. We do not have security we have inconvenience. the mind is the most dangerous weapon. a truly dedicated individual can cause mayhem with most anything.
I digress, ya'll Please be careful with your advanced RC/electronics projects, they are in danger of getting shut down

#### ultralajt

##### Well-Known Member
How much cheaper are RC's than full size?
If you crash, you stay alive! :ban:

This is my attempt to do first step into that direction (not crashing, but mounting a camera in to an R/C model.)

Next step will be building a biger scale model of my design and installed FPV system onboard.

Mitja

Last edited by a moderator: