Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Homebuilt panel (also Dynon EFIS-D10A)

Still looking for the “optimal” panel layout and bumped into this truly incredible thing. A guy has built a complete electronic (EFIS, EMS, autopilot, mooving map etc etc) panel from scratch. Everything from the single components to the software using off the shelf industrial industrial quality parts.

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Wow… It almost makes me want to join the homebuilt scene.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

He’s a very good hardware+software design engineer. Very impressive.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Very cool. Nice to see near monopolies in avionics being broken down by individuals. EAA is an association of individuals by design, and with encouragement by FAA those individuals have done more for GA than any other factor over the last 60 years.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 09 Apr 14:31

Astonishing!

Forever learning
EGTB

I wonder if they’ll try and get EASA validation under the recently approved bi-lateral? I can see loads of resistance from this side of the pond to having uncertified primary instruments being installed.

Avionics geek.
Fairoaks. EGTF

wigglyamp wrote:

I wonder if they’ll try and get EASA validation under the recently approved bi-lateral? I can see loads of resistance from this side of the pond to having uncertified primary instruments being installed.

Isn’t the bilateral only valid for items which are produced with EASA Form 1 / FAA Form 8130-3? For parts acceptance, this was the issue in under the old bilateral.

They (Dynon) don’t have PMA nor DOA/POA equivalent as far as I am aware, so they can’t issue a Form 8130-3 with the unit?

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

My understanding of the current (or previous) treaty was that if you got a DER 8110 design package, you could use that to apply for an EASA STC.

The 8110 package can be used standalone on an N-reg, to support a 337 (Major Alteration). That’s a Field Approval. This is a popular route for European N-reg owners, but can add a lot of cost.

And I think Dynon may have used the DER route to get their STC.

But who knows?

There must be a reason why they didn’t go for a TSO. It would be very interesting to know why. They can’t be short of money. Certification of “simple” avionics boxes is expensive only if you don’t know how to work the system.

One possibility is that their software was not designed IAW the requirements for a TSOd EFIS box. Honeywell had to abandon the original KSN770 design because of that, I was told by one of their reps. IMHO, having seen so many uncertified EFIS products, from 1-man companies, exhibited at EDNY over the years, they are developed by buying-in an AHRS box which outputs the data via some serial stream, and you buy a processor board, a big LCD, and use standard graphics libraries to implement things like round gauges, bar graphs, tapes, etc. I got someone to write some stuff in Borland Delphi c. 1996 and he did all of this, way back then. The learning curve is not a problem once you are “into” it. That panel above would have been a great fun project, taking 1-2 man-years.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

“They (Dynon) don’t have PMA nor DOA/POA equivalent as far as I am aware, so they can’t issue a Form 8130-3 with the unit?”

Under our FAA repair station approval which is on the back of our EASA part 145, we can only fit parts onto N reg aircraft that come with an 8130-3 or a new EASA Form 1. Therefore we couldn’t install a Dynon on a N-reg type covered by the STC. What parts release is required when installing new items to certified aircraft in the U.S.?

Avionics geek.
Fairoaks. EGTF
16 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top