Garmin 430 Reception

[Jon Kraus]

Our "new" '79 M20J came with a 2 year old Garmin 430 GPS and Garmin 340
audio panel. The backup radio is an ancient King 170B. I must say that
the reception on the Garmin sucks compared to the 170B. Am I doing
something wrong or is this just something I have to live with? To me for
10 grand the Garmin should run circles around the 170B . Thoughts?
Don't flame me too bad I have only flown this plane a couple of
times... Thanks!!

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
Student Mooney Owner
'79 M20J 4443H @ TYQ

[Jack Allison]

Hey Jon...one of the rental 172s I used to fly had a 430 in it. Wish I
could recall what the 2nd radio but am drawing a blank at the moment. I
never noticed a difference between the two and I've flown this
particular plane quite a bit on x-c flights where I was constantly using
both radios.

By the way, I've taken the first very small step on the ownership path.
I have a potential partner and we're just starting to kick around
ideas on co-ownership. Both of us are high and dry in terms of rental
as our FBO went down in flames over the past month. I just may have to
borrow the "student aircraft purchaser" part from your sig. line.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, plan-to-be-IA-Student, flying club member/co-owner wanna-be

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Aaron Coolidge]

In rec.aviation.owning Jon Kraus > wrote:
: Our "new" '79 M20J came with a 2 year old Garmin 430 GPS and Garmin 340
: audio panel. The backup radio is an ancient King 170B. I must say that
: the reception on the Garmin sucks compared to the 170B. Am I doing

I just flew a '77 Arrow with a 430 and a KX170B. The reception on the
170B was FAR superior to that on the 430. I think that the old-timers
that designed the 170/175 radios really had a handle on how to take care
of low signal strength inputs, while the 430 designers copied the TI
databook for a "118 to 135 MHz aircraft transmitter/receiver".

Beyond that, the antennas can make a big difference in how a receiver
performs. If the old antenna and wiring was re-used for the 430 I would
consider rewiring and replacing with new parts.
--
Aaron Coolidge

[Peter R.]

Jon Kraus ) wrote:

> Our "new" '79 M20J came with a 2 year old Garmin 430 GPS and Garmin 340
> audio panel. The backup radio is an ancient King 170B. I must say that
> the reception on the Garmin sucks compared to the 170B. Am I doing
> something wrong or is this just something I have to live with? To me for
> 10 grand the Garmin should run circles around the 170B . Thoughts?
> Don't flame me too bad I have only flown this plane a couple of
> times... Thanks!!

Where do you notice the reception problem, on the ground or in the air?

Do you know where on the body of the aircraft the antenna for the GNS
430 is located? How about the King 170B? What quality is the co-ax
connecting the radio to the antenna? Is the antenna itself in good
shape?

By no means am I an avionics installation guru, but these are the first
questions that come to my mind when I read of a reception problem.

I have pretty much the same stack (GNS430, a B/K 155, and a Garmin audio
panel), but the GNS 430 does not have reception problems that you
describe. The reception seems to be comparable to the 155.

--
Peter

[Cockpit Colin]

Have you considered swapping the antenna leads (at the tranceiver end) to
see if it's a aerial issue?

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> Our "new" '79 M20J came with a 2 year old Garmin 430 GPS and Garmin 340
> audio panel. The backup radio is an ancient King 170B. I must say that
> the reception on the Garmin sucks compared to the 170B. Am I doing
> something wrong or is this just something I have to live with? To me for
> 10 grand the Garmin should run circles around the 170B . Thoughts?
> Don't flame me too bad I have only flown this plane a couple of
> times... Thanks!!
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student Mooney Owner
> '79 M20J 4443H @ TYQ
>

[Jon Kraus]

The "aircraft purchaser" part is all yours Jack... It's the "Student
Mooney Owner" that I am still presently using (and will be for a while I
suspect)... :-) Good luck!! A good partner is a great find... Let me
know if you have any questions...

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
Student Mooney Owner
M20J 4443H @ TYQ

Jack Allison wrote:
> Hey Jon...one of the rental 172s I used to fly had a 430 in it. Wish I
> could recall what the 2nd radio but am drawing a blank at the moment. I
> never noticed a difference between the two and I've flown this
> particular plane quite a bit on x-c flights where I was constantly using
> both radios.
>
> By the way, I've taken the first very small step on the ownership path.
> I have a potential partner and we're just starting to kick around ideas
> on co-ownership. Both of us are high and dry in terms of rental as our
> FBO went down in flames over the past month. I just may have to borrow
> the "student aircraft purchaser" part from your sig. line.
>

[Jon Kraus]

Good idea.... For some reason in '98 when they painted the aircraft
they thought painting the antenna's was a brilliant idea too.... Maybe
that has something to do with it and the 170B handles it better.. JK

Aaron Coolidge wrote:

> In rec.aviation.owning Jon Kraus > wrote:
> : Our "new" '79 M20J came with a 2 year old Garmin 430 GPS and Garmin 340
> : audio panel. The backup radio is an ancient King 170B. I must say that
> : the reception on the Garmin sucks compared to the 170B. Am I doing
>
> I just flew a '77 Arrow with a 430 and a KX170B. The reception on the
> 170B was FAR superior to that on the 430. I think that the old-timers
> that designed the 170/175 radios really had a handle on how to take care
> of low signal strength inputs, while the 430 designers copied the TI
> databook for a "118 to 135 MHz aircraft transmitter/receiver".
>
> Beyond that, the antennas can make a big difference in how a receiver
> performs. If the old antenna and wiring was re-used for the 430 I would
> consider rewiring and replacing with new parts.

[Jon Kraus]

The reception issue seems more prevelant on the ground. THe 430 antenna
is on the top of the aircraft. I haven't had time to check the cable
connections yet but I will.... The antenna got painted when it probably
shouldn't have..... Thanks for the advise! JK

Peter R. wrote:

> Jon Kraus ) wrote:
>
>
>>Our "new" '79 M20J came with a 2 year old Garmin 430 GPS and Garmin 340
>>audio panel. The backup radio is an ancient King 170B. I must say that
>>the reception on the Garmin sucks compared to the 170B. Am I doing
>>something wrong or is this just something I have to live with? To me for
>>10 grand the Garmin should run circles around the 170B . Thoughts?
>>Don't flame me too bad I have only flown this plane a couple of
>>times... Thanks!!
>
>
> Where do you notice the reception problem, on the ground or in the air?
>
> Do you know where on the body of the aircraft the antenna for the GNS
> 430 is located? How about the King 170B? What quality is the co-ax
> connecting the radio to the antenna? Is the antenna itself in good
> shape?
>
> By no means am I an avionics installation guru, but these are the first
> questions that come to my mind when I read of a reception problem.
>
> I have pretty much the same stack (GNS430, a B/K 155, and a Garmin audio
> panel), but the GNS 430 does not have reception problems that you
> describe. The reception seems to be comparable to the 155.
>

[Jim Weir]

Painting the antenna with anything other than a metallic-based paint (very rare)
will have no measurable effect on the antenna. Stop changing out parts and
start measuring. Any avionics shop worth a damn will have either a Bird b-d
wattmeter or a VSWR meter. I prefer the Bird, but anything is better than
guessing.

Jim




Jon Kraus >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->Good idea.... For some reason in '98 when they painted the aircraft
->they thought painting the antenna's was a brilliant idea too.... Maybe
->that has something to do with it and the 170B handles it better.. JK


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[[email protected]]

Desribe your reception problem in more detail. Do you have background
noise, poor range, poor readibility (i. e. audio frequency response),
poor built-in squelch settings, maybe even poor frequency selectivity
(do you hear transmissions 25 KHz above or below set frequency)?

Best quality, clearest, & most troublefree radio in my A/C is an old
Cessna RT508C. It is supposed to be junk.

[David Lesher]

Jon Kraus > writes:

>Our "new" '79 M20J came with a 2 year old Garmin 430 GPS and Garmin 340
>audio panel. The backup radio is an ancient King 170B. I must say that
>the reception on the Garmin sucks compared to the 170B. Am I doing
>something wrong or is this just something I have to live with? To me for
>10 grand the Garmin should run circles around the 170B . Thoughts?
>Don't flame me too bad I have only flown this plane a couple of
>times... Thanks!!

Can you swap the antennas around? There is no receiver made that
does not need a good antenna.


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Jon Kraus]

I agree Jim.... Thanks for the great advise!!! JK

Jim Weir wrote:
> Painting the antenna with anything other than a metallic-based paint (very rare)
> will have no measurable effect on the antenna. Stop changing out parts and
> start measuring. Any avionics shop worth a damn will have either a Bird b-d
> wattmeter or a VSWR meter. I prefer the Bird, but anything is better than
> guessing.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> Jon Kraus >
> shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
> ->Good idea.... For some reason in '98 when they painted the aircraft
> ->they thought painting the antenna's was a brilliant idea too.... Maybe
> ->that has something to do with it and the 170B handles it better.. JK
>
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com

[James M. Knox]

Aaron Coolidge > wrote in news:cm4ceq$d31
:

> I just flew a '77 Arrow with a 430 and a KX170B. The reception on the
> 170B was FAR superior to that on the 430. I think that the old-timers
> that designed the 170/175 radios really had a handle on how to take care
> of low signal strength inputs, while the 430 designers copied the TI
> databook for a "118 to 135 MHz aircraft transmitter/receiver".
>
> Beyond that, the antennas can make a big difference in how a receiver
> performs.

Very true, but still the difference is real. My '77 Arrow has a KX170B and
a GX-60 (now also Garmin). The KX170B is good for another hundred miles
over the GX-60. In my case it's definitely not the antenna, but the
squelch. Many times ATC will not come in, or will come in very broken.
Pull the squelch and they are loud and clear. Switch to the KX-170B and it
works beautifully.

I questioned UPSAT if the GX-60 squelch could be adjusted and was told a
blunt "NO, it's fixed. Go away."

jmk

[Dave Anderer]

I put a 430 in about 4 years ago, and kept a 170B as the 2nd radio. Can't
say I've noticed any difference between them in reception. Both are
"fine" to my ears.

[Maik]

hi

James M. Knox wrote:
> Aaron Coolidge > wrote in news:cm4ceq$d31
> :
>
>
>>I just flew a '77 Arrow with a 430 and a KX170B. The reception on the
>>170B was FAR superior to that on the 430. I think that the old-timers
>>that designed the 170/175 radios really had a handle on how to take care
>>of low signal strength inputs, while the 430 designers copied the TI
>>databook for a "118 to 135 MHz aircraft transmitter/receiver".
>>
>>Beyond that, the antennas can make a big difference in how a receiver
>>performs.
>
>
> Very true, but still the difference is real. My '77 Arrow has a KX170B and
> a GX-60 (now also Garmin). The KX170B is good for another hundred miles
> over the GX-60. In my case it's definitely not the antenna, but the
> squelch. Many times ATC will not come in, or will come in very broken.
> Pull the squelch and they are loud and clear. Switch to the KX-170B and it
> works beautifully.
>
> I questioned UPSAT if the GX-60 squelch could be adjusted and was told a
> blunt "NO, it's fixed. Go away."

My experience with the UPSAT guys is diefferent. They were very responsive.

In the installation manual of the GX-60 you will find a way to adjust
the squelch.

Send me a mail if you don't have it.

Maik

[James M. Knox]

Maik > wrote in :

>> I questioned UPSAT if the GX-60 squelch could be adjusted and was
>> told a blunt "NO, it's fixed. Go away."
>
> My experience with the UPSAT guys is diefferent. They were very
> responsive.
>
> In the installation manual of the GX-60 you will find a way to adjust
> the squelch.
>
> Send me a mail if you don't have it.

I have the manual, and it is NOT in there. I wonder if it is a capability
that they added in the newer units.

What version of the GX-60 is yours? [Mine is something like 2.4]

jmk

[PaulH]

I checked my 430 against my KX125 today on the ATIS and the 430 picked
up the ATIS 60 miles out, about 10 miles before the KX125. My
installer strongly recommended new cables and antenna when the 430 was
installed, and it's always been excellent.