Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:12:34 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-843760@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.36.178.141; envelope-from=JJHALLE@stoel.com
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: Op Technologies opinions?
Thread-Topic: lml Digest #1425
Thread-Index: AcXvVBt50quDApoxTeat2/K1eIxG4gAMsR3g
From: "Halle, John" <JJHALLE@stoel.com>

<<I am considering the Op Technologies EFIS for my panel. They seem to =
have all the requisite bells and whistles, along with a better visual =
presentation that the Blue Mountain EFIS/One.=20

 Does anyone out there have any experience with Op Technologies? I would =
like to hear from the group about reliability, usability, factory =
support, etc.>>


I have just bought two of the small screens and assorted support =
paraphernalia for my Legacy.  We are going to pull my panel and start in =
on the install this weekend.  So far, my experience consists of flying =
in OP's demo Cirus, hooking one of the boxes I just bought up to a 12-V =
battery and running the demo program and reading the Owner's and =
Installation manuals.

Since I bought it, I obviously considered it to be my first choice.  I =
mostly compared it to the Chelton Sport system, which I also liked.  =
Both the OP and the Chelton systems use the Crossbow 420 AHRS and have =
very similar features.  I ended up with the OP system for two principal =
reasons.  First, I like the display better (and particularly like the =
fact that you can split the screen on a single display to present both =
EFIS and other data (map or engine.)  The OP also has a killer approach =
screen that displays the approach in both vertical and horizontal modes =
with a little red a/c bug flying along the line.  Second, OP is located =
five miles from my hangar and are considering moving to a space about =
200 yds. from it. (I am going to really like this -- not sure about =
them.)  I did not compare it with the Blue Mountain system, which I =
don't know much about. =20

The flight confused me completely, as was to be expected with so complex =
a piece of gear.  After fooling with it and reading the manual, I think =
it is certainly manageable and most of the trouble will be trying to =
adjust from Garmin conventions to OP conventions (some of which I think =
are better and some worse than Garmin.)  With any system, you need to =
learn how to use it and that is going to be a big task.

One of the most difficult things to sort out is the difference between =
OP's "integrated" and "non-integrated" systems.  Basically, you can =
drive the displays with remote mounted gear that includes not only the =
normal EFIS stuff but your entire radio stack.  You can also use a =
conventional radio stack to drive the OP system.  You can use the OP =
system to input into some stack devices but not others.  Eg. original =
Garmin products are closed archetecture so they will output but will not =
permit input of data.  Former Apollo products permit two way =
communication and therefore allow the OP to drive the stack gear.  =
Tru-Trak will not take OP inputs but I understand OP and S-Tek are =
working on something.

I opted for the non-integrated system, in part because I wanted a =
fully-independent backup.  It has been something of a chore to determine =
exactly how each piece of gear works with this OP system but I think I =
am there now.  The marketing materials and manuals are not helpful in =
this regard (they had to leave something out) so there is no alternative =
but to talk to the OP engineers.

I am using a Dynon for backup EFIS and am not installing any backup =
round guages except for an OBS indicator that will run of by Garmin 430.

I also tried but failed to talk to Rick.  I did talk to two other pilots =
with installed OP systems:  Bottom line in both cases was that the =
system was big-time iffy when they first installed it over a year ago =
but they were able to work closely with OP and the system now works =
flawlessly.

OP is a bit behind Chelton on some software items but are working on all =
of them.  Eg. the Chelton feature of projecting track, rather than =
heading, on the EFIS is not there yet but they are working on it.  SIDs =
are in the system but not STARs.  GPSS VNAV is a work in progress (but =
in any case requires a WAAS enabled GPS and GPSS VNAV autopilot, both of =
which are current rarities.)  My sense is that all this is coming in the =
next year or so.  OP is seeking certification of what they refer to as a =
dumbed down version of the experimental system and STARs are going to be =
required for that.

OP are a bunch of ex-Honeywell engineers who are currently earning a =
living doing contract work, mainly, I think, for Boeing.  OP is small =
but profitable based on the contract work.  From this lawyer's =
perspective, they seem to know what they are talking about and what they =
say will happen generally has.

Call or email me in a month and I can tell you whether this is a boom or =
a bust.