Need a 2nd nav with GNS 430?

I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
panel. Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches in
the near future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver to
identify intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the 430
does have one nav radio built-in.

Only problematic area I can think of are the cases where 2 VOR receivers
are pretty much necessary - to identify FAFs on ILS, LOC, and VOR (no
GPS overlay) approaches. I release that ILS's almost always have an OM
anyway and VOR IAPs w/no GPS overlay become scarcer by the month. With
WAAS.. much less of a problem all around (WAAS precision approaches).

If I decide I can do without another nav I save $2000 going with a SL-40
(com only) vs a SL-30 (nav/com).

Interesting in hearing from people with 430s (and up) how they are
flying the things.

(As for navigating with the 430 tango uniform - there's ATC vectors &
the backup handheld GPS.)

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
panel. Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches in
the near future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver to
identify intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the 430
does have one nav radio built-in.

In theory, you can fly all day with just the single GPS/NAV/COM. Just keep
going waypoint to waypoint to waypoint, with maybe an ILS approach at the
end, and some vectors thrown in.

But, there are still a couple of reasons you want a second NAV receiver.

1) If #1 goes TU, you're not SOL (ok, you covered that below).

2) Sometimes it's just plain easier to use the #2 NAV. You're in the
middle of programming an approach on the GPS when the guy says, "Fly direct
FOO VOR and hold". You could go direct FOO on the GPS, but it's often more
convenient to use the #2 NAV for something like that so you don't have to
interrupt what you're doing on the GPS.

If I decide I can do without another nav I save $2000 going with a SL-40
(com only) vs a SL-30 (nav/com).

Interesting in hearing from people with 430s (and up) how they are
flying the things.

Most of my club's planes are equipped with a CNX-80/GNS-480 and an SL-30.
If not an SL-30, then some other kind of NAV/COM. I find I do most of my
flying with the #1 radio, but I still wouldn't want to be without the #2.
I set them both up on an ILS. I'll use the #2 NAV to quickly get going in
the right direction, when the GPS is tied up programming something
complicated that I don't want to interrupt.

How about a clearance like this... "Depart Carmel on the 270 radial to
intercept the Sparta 030 radial, then direct Sparta". That's a real
clearance that you sometimes get out of HPN (I'm guessing on the exact
radials). That's a tough one to execute with just the single GPS. It's
probably not impossible, but having the 2nd nav sure makes it simplier.

The bottom line is you can probably get away without the #2 NAV. I
wouldn't want to, but it's not my $2k we're talking about spending :-)

Points taken. Thanks for the feedback. I'm now learning how to use a
430 (in a 172 RG I'm using for my complex endorsement) but not all this
stuff is clear yet.

I know it's only $2K, but my panel is over $20K as it is, equipment only
(building the panel is the only part of my aircraft, other than painting
it, that I don't plan to do myself). I am looking to save a bit here
and there. I had wanted to keep it to $25K ready to install.

On a related note, here's a great reason to fly a kitplane:
http://www.grtavionics.com/efis_horizond_series_1.htm


Roy Smith wrote:

Paul Folbrecht wrote:

I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
panel. Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches in
the near future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver to
identify intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the 430
does have one nav radio built-in.


In theory, you can fly all day with just the single GPS/NAV/COM. Just keep
going waypoint to waypoint to waypoint, with maybe an ILS approach at the
end, and some vectors thrown in.

But, there are still a couple of reasons you want a second NAV receiver.

1) If #1 goes TU, you're not SOL (ok, you covered that below).

2) Sometimes it's just plain easier to use the #2 NAV. You're in the
middle of programming an approach on the GPS when the guy says, "Fly direct
FOO VOR and hold". You could go direct FOO on the GPS, but it's often more
convenient to use the #2 NAV for something like that so you don't have to
interrupt what you're doing on the GPS.


If I decide I can do without another nav I save $2000 going with a SL-40
(com only) vs a SL-30 (nav/com).

Interesting in hearing from people with 430s (and up) how they are
flying the things.


Most of my club's planes are equipped with a CNX-80/GNS-480 and an SL-30.
If not an SL-30, then some other kind of NAV/COM. I find I do most of my
flying with the #1 radio, but I still wouldn't want to be without the #2.
I set them both up on an ILS. I'll use the #2 NAV to quickly get going in
the right direction, when the GPS is tied up programming something
complicated that I don't want to interrupt.

How about a clearance like this... "Depart Carmel on the 270 radial to
intercept the Sparta 030 radial, then direct Sparta". That's a real
clearance that you sometimes get out of HPN (I'm guessing on the exact
radials). That's a tough one to execute with just the single GPS. It's
probably not impossible, but having the 2nd nav sure makes it simplier.

The bottom line is you can probably get away without the #2 NAV. I
wouldn't want to, but it's not my $2k we're talking about spending :-)

Roy Smith wrote:
How about a clearance like this... "Depart Carmel on the 270 radial to
intercept the Sparta 030 radial, then direct Sparta". That's a real
clearance that you sometimes get out of HPN (I'm guessing on the exact
radials). That's a tough one to execute with just the single GPS. It's
probably not impossible, but having the 2nd nav sure makes it simplier.

The standard route from SQL to STS is 'RV SAU SAU R-330 STS R-141 COATI
Direct" To do that on a G430 + 2nd nav is not difficult. The easier
way is to know that SAU R-330 STS R-141 is also known as BURDE. I don't
know they don't use that intersection by name. Anyway, knowing it is
BURDE makes the GPS use a snap. I guess my point is, check out the DP
and IAP and maybe that clearance becomes easy with a single GPS.

Gerald

How do your members like the 480? Our club is going to upgrade three of our
airplanes with IFR gps's. Our maintenance officer is a big fan of the 430,
but some members want bigger units and are looking at the 530. The rational
for staying away from the 480 varies, but includes:

Harder to use,
Garmin may discontinue it,
Don't like soft keys ,
430/530 installed base is much bigger, therefore, guarenteed to be around,
Cheaper initially, and don't need waas now, so why pay for it.

I'd be interested in your opinion, having flown with the 480.

Brad
"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Paul Folbrecht wrote:
I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
panel. Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches in
the near future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver to
identify intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the 430
does have one nav radio built-in.

In theory, you can fly all day with just the single GPS/NAV/COM. Just
keep
going waypoint to waypoint to waypoint, with maybe an ILS approach at the
end, and some vectors thrown in.

But, there are still a couple of reasons you want a second NAV receiver.

1) If #1 goes TU, you're not SOL (ok, you covered that below).

2) Sometimes it's just plain easier to use the #2 NAV. You're in the
middle of programming an approach on the GPS when the guy says, "Fly
direct
FOO VOR and hold". You could go direct FOO on the GPS, but it's often
more
convenient to use the #2 NAV for something like that so you don't have to
interrupt what you're doing on the GPS.

If I decide I can do without another nav I save $2000 going with a SL-40
(com only) vs a SL-30 (nav/com).

Interesting in hearing from people with 430s (and up) how they are
flying the things.

Most of my club's planes are equipped with a CNX-80/GNS-480 and an SL-30.
If not an SL-30, then some other kind of NAV/COM. I find I do most of my
flying with the #1 radio, but I still wouldn't want to be without the #2.
I set them both up on an ILS. I'll use the #2 NAV to quickly get going in
the right direction, when the GPS is tied up programming something
complicated that I don't want to interrupt.

How about a clearance like this... "Depart Carmel on the 270 radial to
intercept the Sparta 030 radial, then direct Sparta". That's a real
clearance that you sometimes get out of HPN (I'm guessing on the exact
radials). That's a tough one to execute with just the single GPS. It's
probably not impossible, but having the 2nd nav sure makes it simplier.

The bottom line is you can probably get away without the #2 NAV. I
wouldn't want to, but it's not my $2k we're talking about spending :-)

"Brad Salai" wrote:

How do your members like the 480? Our club is going to upgrade three of our
airplanes with IFR gps's. Our maintenance officer is a big fan of the 430,
but some members want bigger units and are looking at the 530. The rational
for staying away from the 480 varies, but includes:

Harder to use,
Garmin may discontinue it,
Don't like soft keys ,
430/530 installed base is much bigger, therefore, guarenteed to be around,
Cheaper initially, and don't need waas now, so why pay for it.

I'd be interested in your opinion, having flown with the 480.

We're happy with the 480 (otherwise we wouldn't have bought 6 of them). I
don't have that much time with the 430, but from what I can see, it's a
nice unit too.

There is no doubt that there's a learning curve to the 480, but once you've
learned it, it's great. As far as screen size goes, bigger is better.

As for discontinuing it, nobody really knows what Garmin's plans are. I've
heard rumors that they're going to discontinue the 480, and I've also heard
rumors that they're going to discontinue the 430. At this point, it's all
just rumors. If you can pin a Garmin rep down to making a definitive
statement one way or the other, please let me know!

One of the really big plus's for the 530 over the 430 are two nav map pages,
both of which provide their particular great info, and of course, are easy to
read.

The downside is the lack of an airway database and the meager flight plan memory
(20 flight plans with a max of 31 WPs, each. My 296 does 50 with 300 WPs,
each).

Brad Salai wrote:

How do your members like the 480? Our club is going to upgrade three of our
airplanes with IFR gps's. Our maintenance officer is a big fan of the 430,
but some members want bigger units and are looking at the 530. The rational
for staying away from the 480 varies, but includes:

Harder to use,
Garmin may discontinue it,
Don't like soft keys ,
430/530 installed base is much bigger, therefore, guarenteed to be around,
Cheaper initially, and don't need waas now, so why pay for it.

I'd be interested in your opinion, having flown with the 480.

Brad
"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Paul Folbrecht wrote:
I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
panel. Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches in
the near future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver to
identify intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the 430
does have one nav radio built-in.

In theory, you can fly all day with just the single GPS/NAV/COM. Just
keep
going waypoint to waypoint to waypoint, with maybe an ILS approach at the
end, and some vectors thrown in.

But, there are still a couple of reasons you want a second NAV receiver.

1) If #1 goes TU, you're not SOL (ok, you covered that below).

2) Sometimes it's just plain easier to use the #2 NAV. You're in the
middle of programming an approach on the GPS when the guy says, "Fly
direct
FOO VOR and hold". You could go direct FOO on the GPS, but it's often
more
convenient to use the #2 NAV for something like that so you don't have to
interrupt what you're doing on the GPS.

If I decide I can do without another nav I save $2000 going with a SL-40
(com only) vs a SL-30 (nav/com).

Interesting in hearing from people with 430s (and up) how they are
flying the things.

Most of my club's planes are equipped with a CNX-80/GNS-480 and an SL-30.
If not an SL-30, then some other kind of NAV/COM. I find I do most of my
flying with the #1 radio, but I still wouldn't want to be without the #2.
I set them both up on an ILS. I'll use the #2 NAV to quickly get going in
the right direction, when the GPS is tied up programming something
complicated that I don't want to interrupt.

How about a clearance like this... "Depart Carmel on the 270 radial to
intercept the Sparta 030 radial, then direct Sparta". That's a real
clearance that you sometimes get out of HPN (I'm guessing on the exact
radials). That's a tough one to execute with just the single GPS. It's
probably not impossible, but having the 2nd nav sure makes it simplier.

The bottom line is you can probably get away without the #2 NAV. I
wouldn't want to, but it's not my $2k we're talking about spending :-)

You might want to consider a 530 instead of a 430. On the 530 you can opt
to show the distance and radial from whatever VOR is tuned. This basically
lets you show two waypoints (one VOR and one GPS) at a time. You can even
have the VOR output to an indicator if the indicator will take composite
input (while in GPS mode). I think that the 430 will also output a
composite signal (VOR (or LOC). The advantage of the 530 is that it gives
you distance and doesn't require another indicator.

Mike
MU-2


"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
...
I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the panel.
Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches in the near
future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver to identify
intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the 430 does have
one nav radio built-in.

Only problematic area I can think of are the cases where 2 VOR receivers
are pretty much necessary - to identify FAFs on ILS, LOC, and VOR (no GPS
overlay) approaches. I release that ILS's almost always have an OM anyway
and VOR IAPs w/no GPS overlay become scarcer by the month. With WAAS..
much less of a problem all around (WAAS precision approaches).

If I decide I can do without another nav I save $2000 going with a SL-40
(com only) vs a SL-30 (nav/com).

Interesting in hearing from people with 430s (and up) how they are flying
the things.

(As for navigating with the 430 tango uniform - there's ATC vectors & the
backup handheld GPS.)

530 is out of my price range.

The 430 does output a composite signal. An indicator is not needed with
the GRT EFIS - it talks to the 430 very nicely.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

You might want to consider a 530 instead of a 430. On the 530 you can opt
to show the distance and radial from whatever VOR is tuned. This basically
lets you show two waypoints (one VOR and one GPS) at a time. You can even
have the VOR output to an indicator if the indicator will take composite
input (while in GPS mode). I think that the 430 will also output a
composite signal (VOR (or LOC). The advantage of the 530 is that it gives
you distance and doesn't require another indicator.

Mike
MU-2

Will the EIFS accept composite?

Mike
MU-2


"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
...
530 is out of my price range.

The 430 does output a composite signal. An indicator is not needed with
the GRT EFIS - it talks to the 430 very nicely.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

You might want to consider a 530 instead of a 430. On the 530 you can
opt to show the distance and radial from whatever VOR is tuned. This
basically lets you show two waypoints (one VOR and one GPS) at a time.
You can even have the VOR output to an indicator if the indicator will
take composite input (while in GPS mode). I think that the 430 will also
output a composite signal (VOR (or LOC). The advantage of the 530 is
that it gives you distance and doesn't require another indicator.

Mike
MU-2