GPS 430 or 480?

John R. Copeland wrote:

The 430 cannot get that capability without being recertified under
TSO-C146a, and the 430 hardware would need to be replaced to achieve that
performance level. I can't imagine Garmin upgrading the 430 now that they
own the 480 design. ---JRC---

The 430 is scheduled to be WAAS-able next summer. The price I've seen for
this is $1500, and the unit needs to go back to "the factory" for this.

Another major difference for the IFR flyer between the 430 and the 480 is
that the latter permits airway-based route entry. That is, you enter the
route as it is filed. The 430 requires entry of each and every waypoint.
For long airways with many "bends", this gets annoying.

I've spoken to a Garmin representative about the possibility of airway-based
entry becoming available in the 430. He said "maybe", but that the concern
was that this would make the user interface more complex. I don't
understand this answer, as it would appear to make things *simpler*. But
I've never flown behind the 480, so...

- Andrew

P.S. The latest news on weather is that the WAAS upgrade will also
permit the 430 to speak to the GDL69.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message =
online.com...
John R. Copeland wrote:
=20
The 430 cannot get that capability without being recertified under
TSO-C146a, and the 430 hardware would need to be replaced to achieve =
that
performance level. I can't imagine Garmin upgrading the 430 now that =
they
own the 480 design. ---JRC---
=20
The 430 is scheduled to be WAAS-able next summer. The price I've seen =
for=20
this is $1500, and the unit needs to go back to "the factory" for =
this.
=20
Another major difference for the IFR flyer between the 430 and the 480 =
is=20
that the latter permits airway-based route entry. That is, you enter =
the=20
route as it is filed. The 430 requires entry of each and every =
waypoint. =20
For long airways with many "bends", this gets annoying.
=20
- Andrew

Your "airway" point in favor of the 480 is correct, of course.
However, I personally use vertical guidance on approaches far more often
than I use airways in my flight plans, so I value VNAV more highly.
I haven't navigated by airways more than probably a dozen times in the =
past 25 years.

I still think Garmin's unlikely to upgrade the 430 to TSO-C146a =
capability.
It doesn't sound like good business sense, when they now have the 480.
Recertification would be a colossal expense, and I don't see enough =
return for it.
It took Apollo nearly a year simply to get approval for Software Version =
2.0,
giving the CNX-80/GNS-480 the VNAV capability plus a few minor features.
If Garmin really were to issue the 430 upgrade by next summer,
they'd need to have it undergoing flight tests before now.
Maybe they have, but nobody's said so.
---JRC---

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

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?

I still think Garmin's unlikely to upgrade the 430 to TSO-C146a capability.
It doesn't sound like good business sense, when they now have the 480.

Well, Garmin has said they would do so. There is an old press release on their
web site that says they'll have it by 4Q2004 for $1500, but they've backed away
from that date, even though last time I checked the press release was still
hanging out there. I called and asked about it a few weeks ago and they indeed
say they intend to have it by next summer. There was a thread here about it
earlier where I reported on my phone call.

TBH, they didn't say "TSO-C146a" but I inferred that from the capabilities they
mentioned.

Dave

"John R. Copeland" wrote in message
...
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
John R. Copeland wrote:

The 430 cannot get that capability without being recertified under
TSO-C146a, and the 430 hardware would need to be replaced to achieve that
performance level. I can't imagine Garmin upgrading the 430 now that they
own the 480 design. ---JRC---

The 430 is scheduled to be WAAS-able next summer. The price I've seen for
this is $1500, and the unit needs to go back to "the factory" for this.

Another major difference for the IFR flyer between the 430 and the 480 is
that the latter permits airway-based route entry. That is, you enter the
route as it is filed. The 430 requires entry of each and every waypoint.
For long airways with many "bends", this gets annoying.

- Andrew

Your "airway" point in favor of the 480 is correct, of course.
However, I personally use vertical guidance on approaches far more often
than I use airways in my flight plans, so I value VNAV more highly.
I haven't navigated by airways more than probably a dozen times in the past
25 years.

I still think Garmin's unlikely to upgrade the 430 to TSO-C146a capability.
It doesn't sound like good business sense, when they now have the 480.
Recertification would be a colossal expense, and I don't see enough return
for it.
It took Apollo nearly a year simply to get approval for Software Version
2.0,
giving the CNX-80/GNS-480 the VNAV capability plus a few minor features.
If Garmin really were to issue the 430 upgrade by next summer,
they'd need to have it undergoing flight tests before now.
Maybe they have, but nobody's said so.
---JRC---

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
MU-2

"Dave Butler" wrote in message =
...
John R. Copeland wrote:
=20
I haven't navigated by airways more than probably a dozen times in =
the past 25 years.
=20
That's interesting. What part of the country do you live in (assuming =
US), what=20
altitudes, what kind of equipment?
=20
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---

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message =
ink.net...
=20
I don't know where you went to business school but, to me, it seems =
that if=20
you have an installed base of 45,000 units, then upgrading them for =
$1500=20
each is good business. Additionally they have commited to providing =
an WAAS=20
upgrade path for the 430 and have already demonstrated the hardware. =
I=20
don't know if airways will be part of the package but adding them is =
fairly=20
trivial.
=20
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---

In article , Dave Butler
writes:

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?

I fly out of an area west of CLE with a Garmin 430 and haven't used an airway
in several years. I file direct with a VOR in the middle of the route if one
is on course. I will sometimes get a change as I near CLE from the east.
Sometimes it is to an intersection but most of the time it is vectors. Flight
levels are generally 5 to 9k.

Chuck

PaulaJay1 wrote:
In article , Dave Butler
writes:


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?


I fly out of an area west of CLE with a Garmin 430 and haven't used an airway
in several years. I file direct with a VOR in the middle of the route if one
is on course. I will sometimes get a change as I near CLE from the east.
Sometimes it is to an intersection but most of the time it is vectors. Flight
levels are generally 5 to 9k.

Thanks, so I guess avoidance of airways is fairly common. In about 10 years of
IFR flying in airplanes variously equipped with and without RNAV, I've only had
direct clearances a dozen or so times. I don't seek direct clearances even when
equipped because they seem to save very little distance.

In my view, staying on an airway makes navigation simpler, all my course lines
are already drawn on my charts, I always know where I am relative to a nearby
intersection or navaid. I can locate my position on an IFR chart at a glance.
Minimum altitiudes are spelled out for the airways (yeah, I guess off-course
altitudes are there now, too).

Personal preference I guess. I can see where flying long distances the advantage
might be greater. For most of my flights the time-savings is in the noise level.

Sorry for the thread drift.

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.