Aspen MFD500 Change?

[Baker Avionics]

I have been discussing things with Aspen and we are trying to help persuade them to stop production of their MFD500 and change it into an Engine Monitor.  The MFD500 isn't a big seller for them and the addition of an Engine Monitor with those screens would be phenomenal, In My Opinion. Thoughts?

[tmo]

Why "stop production and change" instead of "start also making an EIS / engine monitor"?

The above asked, I have to ask why.  Aspen doesn't have a wholly integrated suite like Garmin does, they play nice with JPI / EI, why not focus on what they do best and making that even better?

[Baker Avionics]

43 minutes ago, tmo said:

Why "stop production and change" instead of "start also making an EIS / engine monitor"?

The above asked, I have to ask why.  Aspen doesn't have a wholly integrated suite like Garmin does, they play nice with JPI / EI, why not focus on what they do best and making that even better?

I agree, it would just be a way to display what EI already has. Basically it is changing the software so it can display what the EDC puts out on 232 data similar to what they do with the navigators currently. 

[squeaky.stow]

What would make me interested in buying a second Aspen display? 

A 10” PFD/MFD display that competes with the impressive G3X capabilities AND will drive my legacy AP through my existing EA100, with my PFD1000 becoming my standby.

Use the same “fill a 3.5” hole” concept for the processor and battery, but have it cover a six-pack worth of steam dials so that those that want to avoid cutting a new panel can reduce installation costs.

[rbridges]

I would definitely get a 3rd screen if they would do that.  I wouldn't want it to be limited to just an engine monitor, but having primary gauges in addition to other stuff would definitely spark my interest. 

I've asked other forum members, and they agree with you.  It's the lack of utility the mfd500 brings to the table that keeps them from biting.

Keep us updated if you could.  I'm on the cusp of buying a jpi 930 this year but would change gears if this was a viable option.  

. 

[tmo]

With the disclaimer that I don't have any glass in my plane, nor much glass experience either, I don't see much value in just another engine monitoring system.  I don't also foresee a big move to glass for my plane in the near future.

On the other hand, if you're talking adding the ability to display engine data in addition to other "glass cockpit" features (what @rbridges is talking about) then it makes more sense.  But I probably would still buy an engine monitor from EI/JPI, audio panel from PS-Engineering, navigator from Avidyne, and glass from Aspen (the biggest uncertainty, given the new Garmin GI-275 devices, the AV-30 and so on that can drive my KFC-200), etc.

Also, Garmin has a lot going for them with the GFC-500.  I'm really cheering for Dynon, and a little bit for the TruTrak to become a real IFR autopilot.  The new STEC stuff seems to be prohibitively expensive in comparison.

Hope the above makes at least some sense...

[Cruiser]

On 1/18/2020 at 4:18 PM, squeaky.stow said:

What would make me interested in buying a second Aspen display? 

A 10” PFD/MFD display that competes with the impressive G3X capabilities AND will drive my legacy AP through my existing EA100, with my PFD1000 becoming my standby.

Use the same “fill a 3.5” hole” concept for the processor and battery, but have it cover a six-pack worth of steam dials so that those that want to avoid cutting a new panel can reduce installation costs.

Originally I was with you on the larger screen size. I wanted the MFD to cover four holes to allow for the larger screen display BUT having an Ipad does this job and I have one mounted on the copilot side of the panel. 

While the Garmin products have much larger units, it appears that much of that extra display space is wasted. 

Can someone with a G500 or a G3X measure the actual size of the HSI display and calculate the wasted (blue background with nothing in it) that these units appear to have. ?

I would suggest that the usable display is not much different than the Aspen screens. Aspen is just much more efficient in utilizing what is available.