GNS430 vs 480 vs 530

[pgbnh]

Your thoughts please on the relative value of the 430/480/530 units.
Is the 530 worth the extra $5000
Is the larger screen more legible
Does the different (different technology & more pixels)screen in the 530
really make a difference?
Is there real functionalitydifference between 430 and 530?
And where would you put the 480 in terms of value, ease of use, UI?

If money were not an issue, I think the 530 would be nice, but hey, money is
always an issue. I am trying to get a sense of the value.

Thanks in advance

[Mike Rapoport]

"pgbnh" > wrote in message
...
> Your thoughts please on the relative value of the 430/480/530 units.
> Is the 530 worth the extra $5000
> Is the larger screen more legible

Yes.

> Does the different (different technology & more pixels)screen in the
> 530 really make a difference?

Yes it has more pixels and better contrast also.

> Is there real functionalitydifference between 430 and 530?

The 530 has an "arc view" page which is the primary page that most people
use.

> And where would you put the 480 in terms of value, ease of use, UI?
>

No experience. No opinion.


Mike
MU-2

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:12:18 -0400, "pgbnh" > wrote:

>And where would you put the 480 in terms of value, ease of use, UI?

I only have experience with the 480 and, I must say, it is simple to use.

From what I have been told, two of its advantages over the 430/530 are:

1. Ease of flight plan entry -- you can usually enter it just as ATC reads
it to you as the airways and all relevant intersections are in there. If
you have an airway that has multiple turns at various VOR's or
intersections, you don't have to enter all those fixes, as I'm told you do
with the 430/530.

2. The 480 is certified under TSO-146. This gives you some advantages in
selecting alternates; and also gives you vertical guidance on most GPS
approaches (even the straight LNAV approaches). Although I initially
pooh-pooh'd that idea, having accomplished many non-precision approaches in
my flying lifetime, the first time I executed a GPS LNAV approach into my
home base with the advisory vertical guidance, I became a believer in it's
ability to make the approach easier for me.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Michelle P]

The 430 does not have audio output. THe 530 does. (According to a Garmin
engineer). The 530 can be TAWS equipped the 430 cannot. Terrain,
Terrain, Terrain......
Michelle

pgbnh wrote:

>Your thoughts please on the relative value of the 430/480/530 units.
>Is the 530 worth the extra $5000
> Is the larger screen more legible
> Does the different (different technology & more pixels)screen in the 530
>really make a difference?
>Is there real functionalitydifference between 430 and 530?
>And where would you put the 480 in terms of value, ease of use, UI?
>
>If money were not an issue, I think the 530 would be nice, but hey, money is
>always an issue. I am trying to get a sense of the value.
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>
>
>

[Viperdoc]

I have a 530 connected with a GTX 330 (traffic alert) and WX 500 (storm
scope), along with a GDL69A (Nexrad radar and XM radio) in one plane, and a
430/GTX330 in another.

For overall usage, the 530 is a great box, although it is getting a little
old. Although there are some prettier displays available, the 530 still
offers great functionality and easy user interface.

The screen on the 430 is a lot smaller, so information like traffic,
weather, and lightning is a lot harder to see. It also doesn't have the same
overall functionality of the 530.

I think Garmin has pretty much reached the limits on the 530 in terms of
expansion, and I hope they come out with something newer pretty soon that is
more up to date.

[Peter R.]

Mike Rapoport > wrote:

> The 530 has an "arc view" page which is the primary page that most people
> use.

What information does this page convey?

--
Peter
(a GNS430 user)

[Mike Rapoport]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport > wrote:
>
>> The 530 has an "arc view" page which is the primary page that most people
>> use.
>
> What information does this page convey?
>
> --
> Peter
> (a GNS430 user)
>

It has the usual nav information (it is customizable) but the airplane is
put at the bottom instead of one third of the way up. It also has an
azimuth arc in the upper portion. I typically use it on 150nm range where
you can see everything out to 150nm. In contrast, the 430's map page only
shows 100nm in front of the airplane when on 150nm range and when you go
over 150nm a lot of data (like VORs) drops out. If you download the manual,
there is an example on page 12. The other thing that I like about the 530
vs the 430 is that it will provide distance and bearing to the station
selected in the NAV frequency window. This is useful for flying approaches.

Mike
MU-2

[Peter R.]

Mike Rapoport > wrote:

> It has the usual nav information (it is customizable) but the airplane is
> put at the bottom instead of one third of the way up.

Thanks, Mike, for the explanation. The MX20 moving map that is connected
to my GNS430 offers this view, too.

However, the MX20 has a couple of quirks that I am sure the GNS530 solves.
For example, the MX20 does not display a course line off the waypoint when
I put the GNS430 in OBS mode. It also does not depict IAP holding
procedures. If I need these, I have to switch the GNS430 to its (small)
moving map view.

Yes, the 530 is superior. :)


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Matt Barrow]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Peter R." > wrote:
> >
> > Yes, the 530 is superior. :)
>
> My club has the GNS-480 (nee CNX-80) in 6 of our planes, and for the most
> part, we love them. I only have a little bit of 430 time, so I really
> can't do a fair comparison, but my impression is:
>
> 1) The larger screen on the 480 compared to the 430 is a real advantage.
> Of course, the 530 trumps the 480 in that respect, and the MX-20 trumps
> them all!
>

And a 430 with an AviDyne MX500 trumps that latter! :~)

http://www.avidyne.com/techpubs/Choosing%20Datalink_Rev_04_press.pdf (Pages
16-19 for some grain-of-salt comparisons).

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Roy Smith > writes:

> [...]
> 1) The larger screen on the 480 compared to the 430 is a real advantage.
> Of course, the 530 trumps the 480 in that respect, and the MX-20 trumps
> them all!
> [...]

Plus there are other GPS/MFD options out there too. I have a 430
driving an Avidyne EX500. With the big versatile MFD showing
weather/traffic/etc., there is rarely a need for the 430 to be in map
mode, so its compact size is an asset.

- FChE

[john smith]

Interesting that no one has brought up that the 480 is WAAS capable out
of the box, while 430/530 owners have been awaiting the promised upgrade
for years.

[Andrew Gideon]

pgbnh wrote:

> Is there real functionalitydifference between 430 and 530?

Perhaps the most annoying aspect of the 430 for me is that one can display
only four data fields on the map page. I want five: next waypoint,
distance to next waypoint, groundspeed, desired track, track.

I assume that the larger 530 can do better.

- Andrew

P.S. I learned flying with a GPS behind a BK-94 with some large
MFD. So I was spoiled by my early GPS experience. Little
things like drawing a faint line for actual track on the
display make a big difference, and the 430 doesn't do that.

[Andrew Gideon]

Michelle P wrote:

> The 430 does not have audio output. THe 530 does. (According to a Garmin
> engineer). The 530 can be TAWS equipped the 430 cannot. Terrain,
> Terrain, Terrain......

Ah ha! That explains why there's to be *uncertified* terrain warning in the
430 and certified in the 530.

- Andrew