GNS 430W vs GNS 480

Peter R. wrote:


But once the GNS430 is upgraded to the WAAS feature-set, it appears (based
on the sim) that the unit will be able to provide positive course guidance
completely around holds that are published on terminal charts. That is
what I discovered when playing with the GNS430W sim.



Provided you have an autopilot with roll steering.

JD wrote:

.

But, only Garmin knows for sure, but they spent a lot of money to
acquire Apollo and the techonology/engineers that the 480 was built on.

It wouldn't make much buisness sense to now kill that product after the
millions(?) they spent to acquire it.

It was done to kill the competition.

JD wrote:




Roy, could just be a time lag in reading/posting, but the 530/430s ARE
NOT currently certified for PRIMARY ENROUTE NAVIGATION, IFR or
otherwise.


The only "otherwise" that comes to mind is VFR, and nothing, other than
my piloting skills, has to be certified for primary en route VFR nav. ;-)

Roy N5804F wrote:



I have a real problem with your statement that the 430/530 is not enroute
certified. They are all that is fitted into the bird I fly we fly IFR all
the time.


It is so certified. This really gets complicated, because the FAA has
created a moving target with all their changes.

You can use your 530 as sole means by doing an en route RAIM prediction
for the route.

Once the 530W has the update, you can use it as sole means without
taking any action for domestic flight.

The latest version of the 530 without WAAS, is approved for sole means
for oceanic because of FDE (fault detection exclusion).

The FAA has never really taken a firm position on what is primary for en
route, because the NAS is still predicated on VOR. This is very much an
FAA problem of being a horse and buggy aviation agency. ;-)

JD wrote:
480 is more capable (has holds, etc), but the 430 is *MUCH* easier
to use. If you are a computer geek, go with the 480. If you want easy
of flying, go with the 430. If you think you may want to fly G1000
someday, go with the 430 because the nav side is right from a 430.

-Robert, CFII

I tend to disagree with Robert, I think the 480 has a more intutive
user interface.

As an instructor, teaching in a GPS that makes heavy use of softkeys
just makes things one level more difficult. In the 480 if you are on
the wrong page, you can't swap com1/com2. The 430 has dedicated buttons
for nav/com. Again, not bashing the 480 but its easier for me to teach
the 430 than the 480.
I've done instructing in the G1000 (430 basically) and found that the
most difficult (at least VFR) thing for pilots to learn is how to
change pages and manipulate the cursor to enter data. However, the 480
is certainly a more capable unit but more difficult in that regard.
Also, I don't think the method of having a departure page, enroute
page, and destination page for the flight plan is intuitive in the 480.
In the 430 the start is the departure and the last fix is the
destination, which seems more intuitive.

-Robert

Thanks Sam for the detailed explanation.

We have the very latest 530 without WAAS so it seems I am all set to cross
the Atlantic in the Archer.
Now when I fit the extra fuel tank and depart 300 lbs over gross weight am I
still legal to use the 530 as sole means of ocean navigation on the way home
to the England :-)

Thanks again,

Roy

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
Roy N5804F wrote:



I have a real problem with your statement that the 430/530 is not enroute
certified. They are all that is fitted into the bird I fly we fly IFR all
the time.

It is so certified. This really gets complicated, because the FAA has
created a moving target with all their changes.

You can use your 530 as sole means by doing an en route RAIM prediction
for the route.

Once the 530W has the update, you can use it as sole means without taking
any action for domestic flight.

The latest version of the 530 without WAAS, is approved for sole means for
oceanic because of FDE (fault detection exclusion).

The FAA has never really taken a firm position on what is primary for en
route, because the NAS is still predicated on VOR. This is very much an
FAA problem of being a horse and buggy aviation agency. ;-)

Roy N5804F wrote:


Thanks Sam for the detailed explanation.

We have the very latest 530 without WAAS so it seems I am all set to cross
the Atlantic in the Archer.
Now when I fit the extra fuel tank and depart 300 lbs over gross weight am I
still legal to use the 530 as sole means of ocean navigation on the way home
to the England :-)

Thanks again,

Roy

So long as your 530 has the firmware version that gives it FDE, you are
set for oceanic.

Robert M. Gary wrote:



I've done instructing in the G1000 (430 basically) and found that the
most difficult (at least VFR) thing for pilots to learn is how to
change pages and manipulate the cursor to enter data. However, the 480
is certainly a more capable unit but more difficult in that regard.

I can't image a 480 being more capable than a G-1000 with WAAS.

Ron Gordon wrote:
I'm going to add either the GNS 430W or GNS 480 to a Beach Bonanza and am
wondering if any of you who fly with these GPS units have a recommendation?
I'd like a very capable IFR GPS with integrated NAV/COM abilities, which
I'll couple to my S-TEC 50 Autopilot with GPSS. Both the 430W and 480 are
WAAS capable. Either will fit into my panel. (I consider the 530 out of my
price range and I'm not g


The 480 is a far superior unit in many ways to the 430. It excels
at IFR work. You enter flight plans/mods to the plans as you would
expect. You enter the destination and then starting at your
source you can enter the next waypoint (as the 430 does) or you
can enter the airway at that point and then scroll through all
the waypoints on the airway to find the next point.

The NAV/COM unit is based on the SL30 and is far superior to
anything garmin has ever done.

The thing has full approach sequencing through the autopilot
which I thought Garmin would have added as part of their -W
conversion but early reports seems to say otherwise.

Sam Spade wrote:
JD wrote:

.

But, only Garmin knows for sure, but they spent a lot of money to
acquire Apollo and the techonology/engineers that the 480 was built on.

It wouldn't make much buisness sense to now kill that product after the
millions(?) they spent to acquire it.

It was done to kill the competition.

Actually, I think it was to get a WAAS product two years before
the 430 was ready and to pick up all the work that UPSAT had done
with ADS-B and to pick up the SL-30/40 non-gps com units that they
didn't have an answer for.

They've already rolled forward the MX-20 into the GMX200 for those
who aren't going to replace the enitre panel for the 600/900x/1000
line.