GPS 430 or 480?

I doubt that the incremental cost of certifying the 430 to TSO146 is that
great when they are already doing it for the 530. The 430 and 530 are
essentially the same box with different screens. Anyway, both are supposed
to be out in the first half of '05. The real issue is when the FAA will
publish a meaningful number of LPV approaches with significantly lower
minimiums. I like the idea of vertical guidance but to actually add
capibility, the approaches need lower minimiums. Since most of the airports
that I fly into have minimiums that are defined by terrain, I'm not sure
that WAAS will mean much to my flying.

Mike
MU-2

"John R. Copeland" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

I don't know where you went to business school but, to me, it seems that
if
you have an installed base of 45,000 units, then upgrading them for $1500
each is good business. Additionally they have commited to providing an
WAAS
upgrade path for the 430 and have already demonstrated the hardware. I
don't know if airways will be part of the package but adding them is
fairly
trivial.

Mike

Yes, adding airways to the GNS-430 would be fairly trivial.
But recertifying new hardware to TSO-C146a isn't trivial,
and my point is that Garmin has the GNS-480 already certified.
I see that as reducing justification for spending money on the 430.

Upgrading the 530 to TSO-C146a capability is more certain, I think
If I were sure that 430 certification would be a low-cost spin-off benefit
of certifying the modified 530, then I'd swing over to your view, Mike.
Right now, though, I'm skeptical of that.
I'd be happy to be wrong, however.
---JRC---

People around me (BED- Boston area) have been spending in the 6k range to
acquire a middle-aged GPS and install/certify it in 172s of similar vintage.
That is a big difference from $6k to buy a unit and $10k to install it. A
used/older GPS buys you a ton of new capabilities in a plane without RNAV or
DME. No question a 430/480 is great stuff but by itself it doesn't buy you
that much more at least right now.

-cwk.

"Ross Oliver" wrote in message
...
On 28 Oct 2004 17:15:28 GMT, Hankal wrote:
So the total cost of ownership of an
older GPS is really not that much less, for MUCH less capability.
That's the reason they're so cheap

I have not found a cheap 430. Found a used one for about 6k.
My avionics shop quoted a price of 10k to instal a 430 abd renove my ADF.
To me that is a lot of coins.
Hank


I meant an older model GPS, such as a KLN-89, which can be
picked up for about $1200, but would still cost about the
same to install.

The 480 also opens up the use of LNAV/VNAV approaches which aren't quite as
good as LPV minima but are an improvement on existing non-precision
approaches. They are also by all estimates preferable to fly because you've
got a stabilized approach all the way from the FAF to DH/MAP without one or
more configuration changes in between. According to AOPA there are about 700
of these out there now, though mostly at fields that already have ILSs and
such. Handy if the glideslope is out of service, I suppose.

The FAA has invested heavily in WAAS and has taken some flack from the
non-GA community for doing so. They want to show this as having paid off
which is impossible unless planes are equipped for it. So I suspect they're
not going to make life harder for Garmin to upgrade the 430 than they have
to from a safety standpoint.

-cwk.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
I doubt that the incremental cost of certifying the 430 to TSO146 is that
great when they are already doing it for the 530. The 430 and 530 are
essentially the same box with different screens. Anyway, both are
supposed
to be out in the first half of '05. The real issue is when the FAA will
publish a meaningful number of LPV approaches with significantly lower
minimiums. I like the idea of vertical guidance but to actually add
capibility, the approaches need lower minimiums. Since most of the
airports
that I fly into have minimiums that are defined by terrain, I'm not sure
that WAAS will mean much to my flying.

Mike
MU-2

"John R. Copeland" wrote in message
news "Dave Butler" wrote in message
...
John R. Copeland wrote:

I haven't navigated by airways more than probably a dozen times in the
past 25 years.

That's interesting. What part of the country do you live in (assuming US),
what
altitudes, what kind of equipment?

Dave

I can't even remember all the different brands of RNAV I've had over the
years.
I'm based in Ohio, and I rarely have need to fly outside the U.S.
Mostly right now I fly my pressurized twin in the teens and low flight
levels
border-to-border and coast-to-coast with a CNX-80, MX-20, and other toys.
Previously, it was equipped with LORAN and VHF-DME RNAV,
and I've had other airplanes with VHF-DME RNAV since the '70s.
---JRC---

How about the Northeast? If I tried to fly from Boston to White Plains
without flying airways they'd laugh me off the frequency.

-cwk.

In that area, there are uncommonly large numbers of airways compared
to the numbers of destinations.
In many parts of the U.S., it is the reverse of that.
West of the Alleghenies, it's quite common to file, and be cleared for,
direct legs of 500 nautical miles or more.
---JRC---

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message =
link.net...
=20
How about the Northeast? If I tried to fly from Boston to White Plains
without flying airways they'd laugh me off the frequency.
=20
-cwk.

"John R. Copeland" wrote in news:_aYfd.57417
:

Subject: GPS 430 or 480?


John-
I've had a CNX-80 since July, and just got it back with the V 2.0
software, which turns it into a GNS-480 with VNAV. There is no comparison
with the other Garmins:
1. Yes, VNAV is huge... I can do LNAV/VNAV approaches to tons of places,
and LPV down to near ILS minimums to a few, with more added every month.
2. GNS-480 updates 5X/second vs once/sec for other GPS's. Once a second
doesn't hack it on VNAV approaches -- an aircraft can move 20' vertically
in a second before you get any indication... at 5fps you move only 4'.
Also, 5X/sec is fast enough that you can keep the plane upright if you lose
all your gyros - 1/sec is NOT.
3. Airways... they are NOT gone in the NE. From New Haven, Teteboro,
KSLK, etc., many times ATC has thrown FRC's with airways at me shortly
after take-off. With the GNS-480, it is a snap to handle this:
- Direct To the first waypoint
- All the airways from that waypoint are LISTED by the GNS-480 - you
just push a soft-key for the one you want.
- Then you choose from a list of waypoints ON THAT AIRWAY where you
want to get off. It is EASY!
Yes, you must invest some time learning the 480, but that's true with any
GPS. I found it mostly intuitive, with only a few things that made me
think twice - like why it SUSPENDS at the MAP. I guess that puzzeled
Garmin too, because in V 2.0 it no longer does that.

One more really neat featu it sizes holding patterns based on your
ground speed so you'll do 1 minute legs if you just follow the line!
--Sandy, Worthington OH

Sandy, if your CNX-80 now shows "GNS-480" in the splash screen,
then I'm jealous. I even still have the same old Apollo CNX-80 bezel.
I was hoping it would come back re-branded, but no such luck.

The earlier version SUSPended at the FAF because the FAA insisted.
It's better now.

Do you still keep your airplane at Don Scott?
---JRC---

"Sandy Trevor" wrote in message =
...
"John R. Copeland" wrote in =
news:_aYfd.57417
:
=20
Subject: GPS 430 or 480?
=20
=20
John-
I've had a CNX-80 since July, and just got it back with the V 2.0=20
software, which turns it into a GNS-480 with VNAV. There is no =
comparison=20
with the other Garmins:
1. Yes, VNAV is huge... I can do LNAV/VNAV approaches to tons of =
places,=20
and LPV down to near ILS minimums to a few, with more added every =
month.
2. GNS-480 updates 5X/second vs once/sec for other GPS's. Once a =
second=20
doesn't hack it on VNAV approaches -- an aircraft can move 20' =
vertically=20
in a second before you get any indication... at 5fps you move only 4'.
Also, 5X/sec is fast enough that you can keep the plane upright if you =
lose=20
all your gyros - 1/sec is NOT.
3. Airways... they are NOT gone in the NE. From New Haven, Teteboro,=20
KSLK, etc., many times ATC has thrown FRC's with airways at me shortly =

after take-off. With the GNS-480, it is a snap to handle this:
- Direct To the first waypoint
- All the airways from that waypoint are LISTED by the GNS-480 - =
you =20
just push a soft-key for the one you want.
- Then you choose from a list of waypoints ON THAT AIRWAY where you =
=20
want to get off. It is EASY!
Yes, you must invest some time learning the 480, but that's true with =
any=20
GPS. I found it mostly intuitive, with only a few things that made me =

think twice - like why it SUSPENDS at the MAP. I guess that puzzeled=20
Garmin too, because in V 2.0 it no longer does that.
=20
One more really neat featu it sizes holding patterns based on your
ground speed so you'll do 1 minute legs if you just follow the line!
--Sandy, Worthington OH

John R. Copeland wrote:
The earlier version SUSPended at the FAF because the FAA insisted.
It's better now.

Does it still refuse to sequence to the MAP if you don't cross the FAF
dead-on? With the V1 software, if you miss the FAF by more than a
very small amount, it keeps the FAF as the active waypoint. It
confused the hell out of me the first time it happened.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message =
...
John R. Copeland wrote:
The earlier version SUSPended at the FAF because the FAA insisted.
It's better now.
=20
Does it still refuse to sequence to the MAP if you don't cross the FAF
dead-on? With the V1 software, if you miss the FAF by more than a
very small amount, it keeps the FAF as the active waypoint. It
confused the hell out of me the first time it happened.


I don't know, Roy.
I'd *like* to say I never miss the FAF, though. :-)

Is the FAF a fly-over waypoint, instead of a fly-by?
If it's a fly-over, then maybe you HAVE to fly over it.
If that's true, then there's probably no change in version 2.0.
---JRC---

John R. Copeland ) wrote:

Is the FAF a fly-over waypoint, instead of a fly-by?
If it's a fly-over, then maybe you HAVE to fly over it.

According to approach plate symbology, it is a fly-by waypoint.

--
Peter