Anyone switch foreflight <==> FlyQ?

[Badger]

looking for feedback from anyone who has switched either way Foreflight/FlyQ.

Good, bad,regrets

 

[Stingray Don]

I’ve used both and they are similar in functionality. I now have FlyQ because it is less expensive.

Edit: I should disclose that I am VFR only. Can’t comment on IFR ops.

 

[Jesse Saint]

I have demoed at least 4-5 of the common EFb’s out there and haven’t seen any that can hold a candle to ForeFlight as a one-size-fits-all option. I use it for weather checking, flight planning, flight plan filing and en route navigation, traffic and weather. All of this IMHO.

 

[James331]

Foreflight is the best, I played around with other options during my brief time with a android phone, foreflight is hands down the top dog.

That said, do you NEED it? For weekend VFR stuff free fltplan is a option, but for working dudes and IFR ops foreflight without a doubt

 

[Cluemeister]

Trying the 30 day demo right now. That Black Friday lifetime deal looks sweet. However, I’m so used to ForeFlight I’m having a hard time enjoying the demo period.

 

[Badger]

Trying the 30 day demo right now. That Black Friday lifetime deal looks sweet. However, I’m so used to ForeFlight I’m having a hard time enjoying the demo period.

I think the Black Friday deal was a link from 2016. I don't see any current deals.

 

[Cluemeister]

My bad! Still the vfr only rate is still much cheaper.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You might want to wait for the new FlyQ version before making a decision. According to them it's a big deal.

That aside, I have subscriptions and am pretty familiar with both. My take is this:

For me it depends on whether you are IFR or VFR. I've been using FF for about 8 years now. It's become so comfortable that I a not likely to make a change while I still fly IFR.

BUT... for VFR pilots, I much prefer FlyQ (except for a very minor annoyance - I don't like they way FlyQ automatically creates a route when you pop two airports into the search box on the map page).

Biggest reason I like FlyQ better for VFR-only pilots the excellent georeferenced taxi diagrams. My "gripe" with FF is that you have to buy at least the Pro (IFR) package in order to get theirs. I think they are important enough to safety that they should be available at all subscription levels. They are included in the basic FlyQ package at no extra cost. And, like FF, FlyQ has excellent charts for airports which do not have a separate FAA taxi diagram.One might even say better than FF's self-created ones since the ones from FlyQ are adaptations of the ones from those litte brown Flight Guide books many of us carried around.

 

[GLMS_NC]

I've used both. I fly IFR mostly so my comments are based on that experience. If you're VFR only, I'd almost go with Fltplan Go and save the money on either.

Not withstanding, per function, here are the better products in each category IMHO.
- Flight planning - FF, by a long shot
- MOS/weather planning - FF
- Maps - Same
- Weight & Balance tool - FF
- Portable ADS-B device support - FlyQ (more devices)
- Slicker and easier to use end-user interface - FF
- Weather display - FF (as FlyQ doesn't support the latest FIS-B data. Yet).
- Traffic display - Same
- Building a flight plan - FF (although FlyQ is closing the gap)
- Changing flight plan in route - Same
- Synthetic Vision - FlyQ (based on cost difference)
- Cost of the app - FlyQ
- Charts, approaches, SIDS/STARS - Maybe a slight edge to FF

FF has some great features, but many of the recent ones were developed for the higher subscription plans. For that reason I dropped it. I get free maps & charts with Fltplan Go, and it's free, so I go that way for charts. I have a lifetime for FlyQ and use it for back-up.

I hear it all day long...what's $200 for a subscription to FF in my total aircraft budget? I respond "do you pay me to perform maintenance on your plane that you don't need?" Then why buy an EFB app that you don't really need. Look at features and get what makes the most sense for you. VFR, IFR on sunny days, hard IFR, you panel, etc. are all deciding factors on what's best for you.

 

[Cluemeister]

BUT... for VFR pilots, I much prefer FlyQ (except for a very minor annoyance - I don't like they way FlyQ automatically creates a route when you pop two airports into the search box on the map page).

Is there a way to override that? It's very annoying to see a route with 9 waypoints for a simple VFR flight.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Is there a way to override that? It's very annoying to see a route with 9 waypoints for a simple VFR flight.

The only way I know is, In Settings | Flight Planning | Defaults you can set Default routing method to "None" and turn off all the routing options below it to off. It won't stop FlyQ from creating a plan, but it will only include the departure and destination airports.

Problem is, it's then a pain if you want it to create a routing.

 

[Cruiser]

Have you ever heard a pilot say "I use XYZ app but I hate it......" ?

Those that use Foreflight will say it is the best.
Those that use FlyQ will like it better.
Those that use FltPlan will say the same.
Keep in mind that the likes/dislikes are based on someone else's preference.

If you want to go with the crowd, Foreflight is by far the largest
If you are looking for value, check the others Foreflight is expensive.

A major factor to consider is how the company will update and support the product.
Features and improvements are important.
Do they fix glitches quickly when a new version is released.
It is not fun to have an app that doesn't work when you are in the cockpit.
Do they support open architecture? If the next new product you want isn't compatible (ADS-B) you might get locked into buying something you don't want.

 

[CrimsonFlyer]

Try Aerovie. Cheaper than ForeFlight and has lots of functions. The weather planning is great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GBSoren]

FlyQ announced there new product last night via webinar, I sat in on it. A lot of new stuff in "red barn" (version4.0), both the app and online versions. Kind of going the "social media" route of sharing flights with friends. It's kind of cool, it wasn't ready for prime time yet, and they said that. I use both Garmin Pilot and FlyQ, but the main reason I keep Garmin Pilot is the log book, now that FlyQ is adding that I may go to FlyQ. I really like FlyQ's geo referenced approach plates and safe taxi at no additional cost!

 

[TheGolfPilot]

I have a friend who swears by FlyQ. He is a VFR only pilot. Every time we start flying instruments he pulls out his Ipad, fiddles around, it freezes, and I revert back to Foreflight on my phone. Another VFR only guy pulled out Garmin Pilot on his Ipad two days ago, EXACT same experience. I told them both when you are on instruments you don't have time to fiddle around troubleshooting an Ipad. Foreflight on my phone just works. I pull it out, two-three clicks later I have the paper I want, less time than it takes to find the stuff if I brought the physical paper. I fly 300+ a year, spending ~$1 a flight hour is worth it to me to have reliable charts on hand. I'm not interested in being a new software company's test dummy.

 

[Arrow76R]

I had a year subscription to Garmin Pilot concurrent with ForeFlight. For me, FF was just enough more intuitive that I stayed with that rather than GP. Admittedly, both are good and each has its + and - so my 2 cents worth is that it's all in what your personal preferences are and what you are comfortable with. BTW, reference the iPad issues, I also carry Sky Nav WAC Digest paper charts as a backup!!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Biggest reason I like FlyQ better for VFR-only pilots the excellent georeferenced taxi diagrams. My "gripe" with FF is that you have to buy at least the Pro (IFR) package in order to get theirs. I think they are important enough to safety that they should be available at all subscription levels.

While I agree with your gripe, the Pro package is not an "IFR" package. You can fly IFR on the Basic plan, and there are plenty of additional VFR features in the Pro plan.

I'm not sure why they didn't split things up along those lines, but they didn't...

FF has some great features, but many of the recent ones were developed for the higher subscription plans.

ForeFlight has always done this, though, all the way back to when they first had more than one subscription plan. Some of the features eventually trickle down to the lower plans... You can think of the Pro plan, at least, as giving you more features NOW rather than waiting for them and potentially never getting them.

There has also been a lot of confusion around the new Performance plan, it seems like. It is not really designed for normally aspirated piston aircraft, which get relatively consistent cruise speeds at most of the altitudes they use frequently and thus don't need a ton of info to get reasonably accurate time enroute and fuel flow calculations. The Performance plan is aimed at jet, turboprop, and turbonormalized/turbocharged pistons, where there's always a balancing act to be had in terms of TAS vs winds aloft vs cost, and Performance allows for amazingly accurate calculations.

Since Performance is pretty new, a lot of development is happening there. However, most of the new features for Performance don't really even make sense to people who aren't operating turbine equipment. In addition, new features are still being developed for the other subscription levels too.

So, dropping them because they're letting other people pay for features you would never have a use for anyway is pretty silly.

 

[midlifeflyer]

While I agree with your gripe, the Pro package is not an "IFR" package. You can fly IFR on the Basic plan, and there are plenty of additional VFR features in the Pro plan.

I know that's not the way it is officially described. Just a personal viewpoint on what it ultimately is based on almost 8 years with the app. Looking at what I see as the essential features (there are bells and whistles I don't care about), I've always seen the Basic vs Pro differentiation as being mostly about approach chart georeferencing. Still do.

 

[Skyrys62]

pulls out his Ipad, fiddles around, it freezes

I have seen the same with a buddy cussing his pad and foreflight.
My FlyQ working happily.
Both of us using mini 4 version 12.xx
So I guess it goes both ways.
Pretty cool that we're lucky enough to have efb's at all, much less such robust ones.

Funny story about FlyQ, they're still using @WannFly 's tail number of the plane he bought (Kate) in their simulated training vids. I believe they were previous owners.
I guess they're simulated flights, or Kate is sneaking out of the hangar at night

 

[TheGolfPilot]

Pretty cool that we're lucky enough to have efb's at all, much less such robust ones.

That is the key and should be the #1 thing anybody cares about, especially if you rely on the computer for charts. Ideally, when you ask the person next to you to pull up a chart, they can touch their screen a few times and show it to you. If it does that reliably, the name of the EFB doesn't really matter.

 

[Cluemeister]

That $299 lifetime VFR is a great deal. Can't seem to break my foreflight addiction unfortunately.

 

[Skyrys62]

As a side note to anyone who already has a FlyQ subscription:

I had paid for a year subscription a while back, and just spoke with them. They refunded me that amount, and I applied it to the lifetime membership, so depending on your situation, they may work with you also...but naturally, I can't speak for them regarding that.
I've dealt with them about 3 times since I signed up over a year ago, and every single time they have provided excellent customer service.
No I don't work for them or advertise, etc., just passing along my experience so far.

 

[Cruiser]

Same story here. My buddy flew with me today for two hours and the most he said was his &^%%$$*( Foreflight keeps crashing.
My FlyQ on the co-pilot yoke worked the whole time without issues.

 

[clarkmueller]

I haven't used it, but those screen shots of FlyQ's user interface are so offensively ugly that I'm not tempted to try, either.

 

[szwinger]

I haven't used it, but those screen shots of FlyQ's user interface are so offensively ugly that I'm not tempted to try, either.

I have flown with Foreflight, WingX, Garmin and FlyQ. I'm not trying to dispute your opinion but am truly interested in what you found offensive?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

nope...no need. I'll stick with what I know....WingX.

 

[szwinger]

nope...no need. I'll stick with what I know....WingX.

My opinion is that they are all so good that the one you know is better than the rest regardless of price. For some (me) the ability to choose what other equipment is compatible is very important. Interoperability is one of the features I value.

 

[fishhog]

I switched from FF to FlyQ. Why? I bit on the lifetime deal. Overall, I think FF looks better. However, FlyQ will do the same thing FF will do. I also had a couple of Stratus issues and the manufacturer of Stratus refused to make the situation right. I’m an IFR pilot. I slowly rolled of FF until I was 100% comfortable with FlyQ. I don’t miss FF now.

 

[Somedudeintn]

I know this post is a bit old but I’m trying FlyQ for a year after using foreflight for about 5 years. The Boeing acquisition was enough to push me over the edge to FlyQ but I’m currently planning on going back to foreflight after the year is up.

My biggest complaint right now is missing information where the sectionals stitch together.

In the attachments you can see that the tower height information is missing. The dotted line note is cut off which says pilots are requested to avoid flight in this area under 3000ft.

I emailed FlyQ and wasn’t impressed with their response. I never experienced this issue on Foreflight or even fltplan go. FYI this is near KDKX.

Response:

The FAA charts do vary between North/South sections or adjoining charts. This phenomenon went largely unnoticed until technology allowed the stitching of the charts. Having said that, our team is looking into ways to address this.

Double tapping on a object like a airport or navaid calls up the information.


——-

I also miss being able to scroll through altitudes to see winds aloft on the charts, weather planning info, lightning layer, glide advisor. Not a fan of the extra steps to get a “flight plan” on the map. Some of this may just be that I was used to foreflight. I am curious to see what the next version of FlyQ brings.

 

[sarangan]

looking for feedback from anyone who has switched either way Foreflight/FlyQ.

Good, bad,regrets

I honestly don't know why these companies charge so much for subscription when the underlying data is free. May be because there are so many of us who are so willing to pay money for a brand name. I get all of VFR and IFR features for free through Avare, and I don't need to buy an ipad and have pay even more for cellular function to get the GPS to work.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I honestly don't know why these companies charge so much for subscription when the underlying data is free. May be because there are so many of us who are so willing to pay money for a brand name. I get all of VFR and IFR features for free through Avare, and I don't need to buy an ipad and have pay even more for cellular function to get the GPS to work.

Because there's a MASSIVE difference between a bunch of data (nav database, airport database, sectionals, charts, plates, etc) and a working EFB. ForeFlight does what it does thanks to dozens of developers working on it full-time.

 

[weirdjim]

The deal-breaker for me is that I will NEVER (repeat NEVER) again use an Apple device of any sort. Don't get me started on that rant.

Jim

 

[Warmi]

I only consider apps that offer quality vector maps ( which at this point means Garmin Pilot and FF only)
Scanned , geo-references sectional charts are just **** poor use of computing power. The whole point of interactive maps is to allow interactivity - enabling and disabling features and map presence based on distance , preferences and just about any useful criteria you can think of.
Using scanned sectionals is similar to using scanned old paper road maps on a computer vs interactive google-like traffic maps - there is no comparison.
If somebody offered this scanned map approach and then try to compete against modern vector maps like google traffic maps for car GPS devices , they would get laughed out but most vendors mentioned in this post limit their products to just that - let me scan that old sectional for you and call it a day - approach.

 

[Somedudeintn]

I never quite got on board with the vector map on foreflight and still typically would use the sectional for VFR flying. The FAA did figure out a way to get a lot of useful information on that cluttered chart.

I did really like the ability to tap something on the chart and get more info. Tap and obstruction or displayed lightning, etc.

 

[Challenged]

iFly: Vector map/North up, represent yo.

 

[EdFred]

I only consider apps that offer quality vector maps ( which at this point means Garmin Pilot and FF only)
Scanned , geo-references sectional charts are just **** poor use of computing power. The whole point of interactive maps is to allow interactivity - enabling and disabling features and map presence based on distance , preferences and just about any useful criteria you can think of.
Using scanned sectionals is similar to using scanned old paper road maps on a computer vs interactive google-like traffic maps - there is no comparison.
If somebody offered this scanned map approach and then try to compete against modern vector maps like google traffic maps for car GPS devices , they would get laughed out but most vendors mentioned in this post limit their products to just that - let me scan that old sectional for you and call it a day - approach.

So where do you get the additional information on sectional charts like inserts or other sorts of things?

 

[pigpenracing]

I like WingX the best

 

[sarangan]

Because there's a MASSIVE difference between a bunch of data (nav database, airport database, sectionals, charts, plates, etc) and a working EFB. ForeFlight does what it does thanks to dozens of developers working on it full-time.

The reason we have companies like Foreflight, Garmin, iFly etc.. is because the underlying data is free, courtesy of our government. Otherwise you will only have companies like Jeppesen and Boeing. For that reason, I prefer to support open source efforts. If you love Foreflight and Apple, by all means you should give them your money. I give my money to Avare (which is voluntary), in the hope that it will inspire the next generation of innovations.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So where do you get the additional information on sectional charts like inserts or other sorts of things?

What is on the chart that is unavailable anywhere else?

FWIW, ForeFlight does have the insets embedded - When you are in "sectional" view and zoom in to where it becomes readable, the inset (ie Milwaukee) will appear.

In addition, if you go to Preferences -> Map Touch Action and change it to "Bring chart to front with legends", wherever you tap, the actual sectional will appear on top and you can scroll to the edge and read the stuff you want there. But, my first question above applies - I have that turned off and have never missed the info.

 

[Warmi]

The reason we have companies like Foreflight, Garmin, iFly etc.. is because the underlying data is free, courtesy of our government. Otherwise you will only have companies like Jeppesen and Boeing. For that reason, I prefer to support open source efforts. If you love Foreflight and Apple, by all means you should give them your money. I give my money to Avare (which is voluntary), in the hope that it will inspire the next generation of innovations.

Getting free data from the feds, while obviously crucial, is just a start.
How you present it, link it utilize it is the meat of the application and apps like Avare are just bare minimums on the raw data with minimal value added - it works but it is like trying to calculate stuff with a windows calculator vs excel ....