LX Nav: Clear Nav, or LX Navigation, which one

[[email protected]]

Just wondering if anyone can add to a discussion as to why any of the above flight computers are better than the others. If you were to purchase one, which one would you buy and why?

[Kevin Christner]

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 3:36:10 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Just wondering if anyone can add to a discussion as to why any of the above flight computers are better than the others. If you were to purchase one, which one would you buy and why?

Feature sets (at least the ones you will use) are all fairly compatible. The most important thing is what others near you are using so you'll be able to get help with setup and use.

2C

[s6]

Le mardi 3 mars 2015 08:22:02 UTC-5, Kevin Christner a écrit*:
> On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 3:36:10 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > Just wondering if anyone can add to a discussion as to why any of the above flight computers are better than the others. If you were to purchase one, which one would you buy and why?
>
> Feature sets (at least the ones you will use) are all fairly compatible. The most important thing is what others near you are using so you'll be able to get help with setup and use.
>
> 2C

Hi

I was with Lx navigation, LX 5-7000, for 10 years very good product and support.
I upgraded to Clearnav this winter. I have not flown yet so I do not know
about quality and support. I think the output will be the same
I bought Clearnav because it is in north america and the other in far away
Slovenia from Montreal. Will see if this is a smart thinking.

[Dan Marotta]

I can't address the ClearNav computer/display, but I have their XC vario
and it's outstanding. Their customer support is, in my opinion, second
to none.

On 3/3/2015 7:07 AM, s6 wrote:
> Le mardi 3 mars 2015 08:22:02 UTC-5, Kevin Christner a écrit :
>> On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 3:36:10 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>>> Just wondering if anyone can add to a discussion as to why any of the above flight computers are better than the others. If you were to purchase one, which one would you buy and why?
>> Feature sets (at least the ones you will use) are all fairly compatible. The most important thing is what others near you are using so you'll be able to get help with setup and use.
>>
>> 2C
> Hi
>
> I was with Lx navigation, LX 5-7000, for 10 years very good product and support.
> I upgraded to Clearnav this winter. I have not flown yet so I do not know
> about quality and support. I think the output will be the same
> I bought Clearnav because it is in north america and the other in far away
> Slovenia from Montreal. Will see if this is a smart thinking.
>
>

--
Dan Marotta

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 3:36:10 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Just wondering if anyone can add to a discussion as to why any of the above flight computers are better than the others. If you were to purchase one, which one would you buy and why?

I've been using CN and CNv for five years, and both fully live up to advertizing. Factory support is excellent. The only thing I'd do differently is that I'd NOT have a tunnel mount. It looks snazzy, but it's too far away for these aging eyes. In fact, I think I'd do a pedistal mount for ease of access. From time to time you will want to send it back to the factory for some sort of update, and a pedistal mount will be much easier to remove than digging it out of the bowels of the instrument panel.

[Peter Purdie[_3_]]

As Kevin says, the feature sets are pretty compatible. One significant
difference is the usability, the Clearnav can be mastered in a few minutes

using the 4 page mostly pictorial reference guide, rather than a 68 page
manual.

The matching CNv vario system is equally usable, and an outstanding
multi-sensor vario.

Software updates are easily installed from web downloads; there have
been 2 factory hardware update in 6 years, the original optional upgrade
from 1/4 VGA to full VGA, and now the high speed processor plus even
higher brightness/lower power display.


At 18:20 03 March 2015, wrote:
>On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 3:36:10 AM UTC-5,
wrote:
>> Just wondering if anyone can add to a discussion as to why any of the
>abo=
>ve flight computers are better than the others. If you were to purchase
>on=
>e, which one would you buy and why?
>
>I've been using CN and CNv for five years, and both fully live up to
>advert=
>izing. Factory support is excellent. The only thing I'd do differently
>is=
> that I'd NOT have a tunnel mount. It looks snazzy, but it's too far
away
>=
>for these aging eyes. In fact, I think I'd do a pedistal mount for ease
>of=
> access. From time to time you will want to send it back to the factory
>fo=
>r some sort of update, and a pedistal mount will be much easier to
remove
>t=
>han digging it out of the bowels of the instrument panel.
>

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 2:15:10 PM UTC-5, pete purdie wrote:
> As Kevin says, the feature sets are pretty compatible. One significant
> difference is the usability, the Clearnav can be mastered in a few minutes
>
> using the 4 page mostly pictorial reference guide, rather than a 68 page
> manual.
>
> The matching CNv vario system is equally usable, and an outstanding
> multi-sensor vario.
>
> Software updates are easily installed from web downloads; there have
> been 2 factory hardware update in 6 years, the original optional upgrade
> from 1/4 VGA to full VGA, and now the high speed processor plus even
> higher brightness/lower power display.
>
>
> At 18:20 03 March 2015, wrote:
> >On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 3:36:10 AM UTC-5,
> wrote:
> >> Just wondering if anyone can add to a discussion as to why any of the
> >abo=
> >ve flight computers are better than the others. If you were to purchase
> >on=
> >e, which one would you buy and why?
> >
> >I've been using CN and CNv for five years, and both fully live up to
> >advert=
> >izing. Factory support is excellent. The only thing I'd do differently
> >is=
> > that I'd NOT have a tunnel mount. It looks snazzy, but it's too far
> away
> >=
> >for these aging eyes. In fact, I think I'd do a pedistal mount for ease
> >of=
> > access. From time to time you will want to send it back to the factory
> >fo=
> >r some sort of update, and a pedistal mount will be much easier to
> remove
> >t=
> >han digging it out of the bowels of the instrument panel.
> >

The feature set of LX9000 is years ahead of ClearNav. I used to fly with ClearNav and I switched to LX9000. I would never switch back to ClearNav for many reasons, the feature set being the most important. I got tired of waiting for simple changes. Anyone who wants to know more about LX9000 please download the LX Styler and play with it to see the power of LX9000. You can make it as complicated as you like or as simple as you like. It is a very flexible platform.

The variometers are very similar in terms of performance. I flew with both of them concurrently.

Credits to ClearNav; extremely good support probably the best out of all manufacturers. The area task optimizer is quite good as well.

I looked seriously at LX Navigation computers before buying the LX9000 but a couple of years ago they had many problems. Their variometer was just upgraded and there is no real experience with it yet. On the other hand LX Navigation will work with CNv and C302 which is awesome. Kudos to LX Navigation for not trying to lock a user to one type of variometer. Their computer is also very configurable so maybe worth looking at.

[Dave Springford]

I have to disagree with Pete Purdie on this one. I found the ClearNav interface difficult to understand and work with. The LX interface on the other hand, I find quite intuitive.

It comes down to what you like and know. I have flown with LX instruments since 1999 and know them well.

I liken the ClearNav / LX debate the same as the Apple / PC debate. Some like one, some like the other. I like PC and I find LX like more like PC. Apple confuses me and so does ClearNav.

[Dave Springford]

I have to disagree with Pete Purdie on this one. I found the ClearNav interface difficult to understand and work with. The LX interface on the other hand, I find quite intuitive.

It comes down to what you like and know. I have flown with LX instruments since 1999 and know them well.

I liken the ClearNav / LX debate the same as the Apple / PC debate. Some like one, some like the other. I like PC and I find LX more like PC. Apple confuses me and so does ClearNav.

[waremark]

I think most of us argue for what we have. I have an LX 9000 and find it superb. I like to choose what I look at and so appreciated being able to choose my setup on LX Styler. The software has been around the longest of the three so was the most complete and reliable when I got it, and it is the computer of choice at my club (in the various sizes). In my experience the company has been immediately responsive on the couple of occasions I have contacted them by email.

[[email protected]]

My ASH30Mi came over from Germany with LX8000s. Previously, I had flown with CN. After a summer of trying to explain to copilots how to use the LX in flight, I'm switching back to CN. If you want elegant, intuitive, easy-to-explain in flight, go CN. If you want 2000 different permutations about the world around you, LX is the way to go. Please take along a copilot to look at the real world while you figure out how to use all the buttons and knobs required to run the LX.

SF

[krasw]

All modern flight computers require steep learning curve. More features = more complicated user interface. Pilots flying couple of flights locally per year try to figure out how to adjust volume, and comp. pilots flying 100+ hrs of up-to-minute optimized area tasks usually know ever nuance of their computers. Most users probably need only good vario (sadly lacking in almost everywhere), map screen and simple final glide display.

[JS]

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 1:01:36 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> My ASH30Mi came over from Germany with LX8000s. Previously, I had flown with CN. After a summer of trying to explain to copilots how to use the LX in flight, I'm switching back to CN. If you want elegant, intuitive, easy-to-explain in flight, go CN. If you want 2000 different permutations about the world around you, LX is the way to go. Please take along a copilot to look at the real world while you figure out how to use all the buttons and knobs required to run the LX.
>
> SF

Tom, I found flying with Altair displays (XC Soar) similarly frustrating.
Too many cooks spoiled the broth.
LX5000/7000 (haven't flown with 8000) seemed awkward, but got used to things after a while. The LX9000 is much more intuitive. Like the CN, it becomes simple to use during the first flight.
Believe some LX are made by the Judean Peoples Front, the others by the Peoples Front of Judea? (ref below)
Happy enough with the CN to have it made into a CN2.
Besides CN, which of these dispays will load an Open Air airspace file? I find it useful when there are TFRs...
Jim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python%27s_Life_of_Brian

[Chris]

The ClearNav is super user friendly. I flew the LX9000 with an owner who didn't understand how to use it after several weeks. I could not figure out how to set a task despite a manual and some experience. What is the point of being able to set every parameter. It is impressive but mostly useless. ClearNav is the underdog, but meets my needs perfectly. And it is US made and supported.

D

[Richard[_9_]]

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 12:36:10 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> Just wondering if anyone can add to a discussion as to why any of the above flight computers are better than the others. If you were to purchase one, which one would you buy and why?

You might want to check out a Craggy Aero Ultimate Le system

PowerFlarm or Nano to LXNAV V7 to Craggy Aero Ultimate LE

http://www.craggyaero.com/le_5_7_systems.htm

Richard,
www.craggyaero.com

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 18:28 04 March 2015, Chris wrote:
>The ClearNav isuper user friendly. I flew the LX9000 with an owner
who
>di=
>dn't understand how to use it after several weeks. I could not figure
out
>h=
>ow to set a task despite a manual and some experience. What is the
point
>of=
> being able to set every parameter. It is impressive but mostly
useless.
>Cl=
>earNav is the underdog, but meets my needs perfectly. And it is US
made
>and=
> supported.
>
>D

I find the flexibilty of the LX 9000 impressive but definitely not
useless. Some spare time spent at home playing with it on the PC
simulator program (and personalising it with the LX Styler if, like me,
you wish) then load the profile on the 9000 via SD card you have a
hugely capable flight computer that you are already familiar with and
that requires minimal workload in flight. If you are happy with the
factory default profile then the parameters you need to set are simply
things like units, glider polar, pilot data etc.

John Galloway

[waremark]

I am one of the 100 hr plus folk. I found the LX 9000 easy to learn, but then I was already familiar with both the LX 7000 and SeeYou Mobile and the current LX software is a combination of those two. Knowing it well, I am easily able to brief my copilots on what they are looking at and what they might want to touch (the one thing they have to do for themselves is tell their screen that we have started the task). I certainly did not need to read the manual to set a task. I find the knobs much easier to use in flight than the CN interface (though I have only flown with one once). Most of the time all I need to touch the controls for is to change the zoom or the volume. In flight you certainly want to know what to find where on your main and any other screen without having to stare or fiddle. I suspect that working with LX Styler to set up your own profile helps a lot with that. Any moving map flight computer will be a distraction if you do not do your homework on the ground. Even on a familiar device using someone else's setup will be a major distraction.

Having said that I found the LX easy, I do believe the CN may be more suitable if you want to minimise your ground homework.

[waremark]

I am one of the 100 hr plus folk. I found the LX 9000 easy to learn, but then I was already familiar with both the LX 7000 and SeeYou Mobile and the current LX software is a combination of those two. Knowing it well, I am easily able to brief my copilots on what they are looking at and what they might want to touch (the one thing they have to do for themselves is tell their screen that we have started the task). I certainly did not need to read the manual to set a task. I find the knobs much easier to use in flight than the CN interface (though I have only flown with one once). Most of the time all I need to touch the controls for is to change the zoom or the volume. In flight you certainly want to know what to find where on your main and any other screen without having to stare or fiddle. I suspect that working with LX Styler to set up your own profile helps a lot with that. Any moving map flight computer will be a distraction if you do not do your homework on the ground. Even on a familiar device using someone else's setup will be a major distraction.

Having said that I found the LX easy, I do believe the CN may be more suitable if you want to minimise your ground homework.

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 3:36:10 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Just wondering if anyone can add to a discussion as to why any of the above flight computers are better than the others. If you were to purchase one, which one would you buy and why?

The one that you want is the one you don't fiddle with/stare at in flight. Cockpit displays can be an enormous distraction, and this is counter productive. The important stuff is outside the window.

I did my time on touch screen displays. There's a trackball equipped system out there. By all means, check them out. The alternative is a stick mounted remote with digital input (buttons to click). This isn't quite as slick looking/feeling at your kitchen table, but requires much less eyeball time in flight. No precision analog hand/eye coordination required.

I get jokes about the "wide screen plasma TV", but the point is: by making the display big and bright and extra-readable, it takes only a glance to get the info I need. The eyeball time is *really* small.

That's all my personal opinion. By way of disclosure, I do work with the ClearNav guys.

Evan Ludeman