A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Garmin GNS-430 vs. CNX80



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 22nd 04, 05:07 AM
Mike Adams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Garmin GNS-430 vs. CNX80

What's the latest thinking on the GNS-430 vs. the CNX80? I'm planning a
panel upgrade and have read all the magazine articles, including the
comparison in Aviation Consumer, but it would be interesting to hear from
some actual users on how they compare. It seems the general impression is
that the CNX80 is more capable (WAAS, airways in the database, etc.), but
may be a little harder to use for the VFR and light IFR user. Is it really
too "heavy duty" for casual use? Is it worth the extra $2 to $3K?

Thanks,
Mike
  #2  
Old July 22nd 04, 06:10 AM
Dude
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

IMO, you might as well have 2 of these things, so you might as well get dual
430's or a 430/420 combo.

Seriously, too many of us are slaves to these things now (we should not be,
but unless you fly a lot of IFR, you likely really need one). I suppose it
may be better to have a handheld back up, but that means practicing with it,
and keeping extra batteries, etc. Also, its easier keeping a second
database up to date if both are the same machine.

The 530 does have extra features, but the dual 430's are plenty nice for me,
and since I want two, it would mean having a 530 AND a 430/420.

I can't say much about the CNX80 as I only used one for about 10 minutes.
The graphics were nice though.






"Mike Adams" wrote in message
news:Z3HLc.43796$ve2.15214@okepread05...
What's the latest thinking on the GNS-430 vs. the CNX80? I'm planning a
panel upgrade and have read all the magazine articles, including the
comparison in Aviation Consumer, but it would be interesting to hear from
some actual users on how they compare. It seems the general impression is
that the CNX80 is more capable (WAAS, airways in the database, etc.), but
may be a little harder to use for the VFR and light IFR user. Is it really
too "heavy duty" for casual use? Is it worth the extra $2 to $3K?

Thanks,
Mike



  #3  
Old July 22nd 04, 07:47 AM
PA34 F-GFTF
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mike Adams" wrote in message
news:Z3HLc.43796$ve2.15214@okepread05...
What's the latest thinking on the GNS-430 vs. the CNX80? I'm planning a
panel upgrade and have read all the magazine articles, including the
comparison in Aviation Consumer, but it would be interesting to hear from
some actual users on how they compare. It seems the general impression is
that the CNX80 is more capable (WAAS, airways in the database, etc.), but
may be a little harder to use for the VFR and light IFR user.


After investigating and trying the simulators provided by Garmin (to
download from the website), I came to this same conclusion. I decided to go
for the CNX80 as I plan "serious" IFR activity, and then discovered that
CNX80 is apparently not certified in France for IFR.
That's surprising, as CNX80 was certified before the 430/530 in US, but it
leaves me little choice.

--
YAG


  #4  
Old July 22nd 04, 11:09 AM
Maik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



PA34 F-GFTF wrote:

"Mike Adams" wrote in message
news:Z3HLc.43796$ve2.15214@okepread05...

What's the latest thinking on the GNS-430 vs. the CNX80? I'm planning a
panel upgrade and have read all the magazine articles, including the
comparison in Aviation Consumer, but it would be interesting to hear from
some actual users on how they compare. It seems the general impression is
that the CNX80 is more capable (WAAS, airways in the database, etc.), but
may be a little harder to use for the VFR and light IFR user.



After investigating and trying the simulators provided by Garmin (to
download from the website), I came to this same conclusion. I decided to go
for the CNX80 as I plan "serious" IFR activity, and then discovered that
CNX80 is apparently not certified in France for IFR.


This will change... I'm sure.

That's surprising, as CNX80 was certified before the 430/530 in US, but it
leaves me little choice.

  #5  
Old July 22nd 04, 11:58 AM
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:07:21 GMT, Mike Adams
wrote:

What's the latest thinking on the GNS-430 vs. the CNX80? I'm planning a
panel upgrade and have read all the magazine articles, including the
comparison in Aviation Consumer, but it would be interesting to hear from
some actual users on how they compare. It seems the general impression is
that the CNX80 is more capable (WAAS, airways in the database, etc.), but
may be a little harder to use for the VFR and light IFR user. Is it really
too "heavy duty" for casual use? Is it worth the extra $2 to $3K?

Thanks,
Mike


I recently made the decision to go with the CNX80. I've not compared it
directly with the 430/530. But having the airways in the DB means you can
just input the FP the same way that ATC reads it to you. That is very
handy.

You are going to have a significant learning curve no matter what unit you
purchase. It's very different from VOR navigation; and programming the box
on the fly for changes in clearances is not always intuitive. But that's
true for all of the boxes. They each have their quirks.

The CNX80 is certified under TSO146 vs TSO129 for the 430. That means it
qualifies for sole source navigation.

Finally, I'm hoping that someday my local airport will have VNAV or LPV
approaches. Without a (estimated) $1500 upgrade on the 430, (which puts it
into the same price as the CNX80), I would not have been able to take
advantage of that.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
  #6  
Old July 22nd 04, 01:20 PM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article Z3HLc.43796$ve2.15214@okepread05,
Mike Adams wrote:

What's the latest thinking on the GNS-430 vs. the CNX80? I'm planning a
panel upgrade and have read all the magazine articles, including the
comparison in Aviation Consumer, but it would be interesting to hear from
some actual users on how they compare. It seems the general impression is
that the CNX80 is more capable (WAAS, airways in the database, etc.), but
may be a little harder to use for the VFR and light IFR user. Is it really
too "heavy duty" for casual use? Is it worth the extra $2 to $3K?

Thanks,
Mike


I've got about 50 hours with a CNX-80, and maybe 5-10 hours with a 430
(a couple of years ago).

I really love the CNX-80. The display is larger than the 430, the WAAS
capability means it's not just more reliable, but more future-proof
(there are some kinds of approach procedures which are only authorized
if you have WAAS). The airways in the database is a great improvement
over entering long strings of waypoints.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that the CNX-80 has a learning
curve. But, for an airplane that you own and fly all the time, it
should be a non-issue. Garmin has also recently come out with a
PC-based simulator, which makes home training easier than it was before.
  #8  
Old August 11th 04, 02:39 PM
Richard Kaplan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"Paul Keller" wrote in message
...

victor airways. I live in the vicinity of RDU, and if I'm flying
anywhere to the north, I have to pretty much figure on filing & flying
the victor airways. If I'm flying to the west or south, random
off-airway routes are generally available. All of the aircraft


That also depends a good bit on the altitudes you fly. At 15,000 feet I
often get random direct routes just about anywhere in the Northeast and
Southeast. In the descent into New York I will usually get an amended
routing with airways, but in practice that turns out to just be an Expected
routing in case of lost comm -- well before I start flying the airways I
usually get vectors or some shortcut routing.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com


  #9  
Old August 17th 04, 04:57 AM
Maule Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

victor airways. I live in the vicinity of RDU, and if I'm flying
anywhere to the north, I have to pretty much figure on filing & flying
the victor airways. If I'm flying to the west or south, random
off-airway routes are generally available. All of the aircraft


My experience flying north out of 8nc8 (10 miles north of RDU) is 50:50. I
file direct and I'd estimate a little less than half the time I get it (4000
to 8000). Even after they clear me, I can almost always request direct and
get it.

Problem is, sooner or later you have to get on the airways to get past DC if
you are going that way.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Garmin Price Fixing Post from other newsgroup TripodBill Instrument Flight Rules 8 July 16th 04 04:50 PM
Garmin Specials ADV Michael Coates Home Built 0 March 18th 04 01:24 AM
Garmin DME arc weidnress Dave Touretzky Instrument Flight Rules 5 October 2nd 03 02:04 AM
"Stand Alone" Boxes (Garmin 430) - Sole means of navigation - legal? Richard Instrument Flight Rules 20 September 30th 03 02:13 PM
Garmin 430/530 Questions Steve Coleman Instrument Flight Rules 16 August 28th 03 09:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.