CNX-80 vs Garmin 430/530

[Paul DeSmet]

It looks like the new CNX-80 is the way of the future. Has anyone used
one?

[Paul DeSmet]

Paul DeSmet wrote:
> It looks like the new CNX-80 is the way of the future. Has anyone used
> one?
>
O.K.. I read some of these msgs. Does it look like WAAS is going to die
on the Vine? If so is there any reason to go with a CNX 80? I'm now
thinking about getting an Apollo GX 55 instead and save a bunch a money.
I have an Anywhere Map IPAC. That does a great job for situational
awareness. The GX 55 gets me into the IFR GPS for less than 7K
installed? Eventually I can add the MX 20 display. Thoughts?

[Roy Smith]

Paul DeSmet > wrote:
> It looks like the new CNX-80 is the way of the future. Has anyone used
> one?
>

I've got about 7 hours over 4 flights behind a CNX-80 and I love it.
There is definately a learning curve to the thing, but then again there
is a learning curve for any of the competing units. My guess is the
CNX-80 is the primary reason Garmin bought UPS-AT, and my expectation is
that the 430/530 line isn't long for this world.

I've got a little bit of time with the 430, and a little time with the
Apollo GX-60 too. I'm not sure I really spent enough time with either
unit to do a fair evaluation, but my impression was that the 430 was the
simplier of the two to operate. The CNX-80 blows them both away.

Part of the reason, of course, is the larger screen real-estate
available which lets you display more information at one time, but it's
more than that. The CNX-80 just seems to be better thought out.
Certainly the ability to enter flight plans by picking airways and
waypoints out of a database menu is a real improvement over spelling
every fix out with big-knob, small-knob gymnastics.

It doesn't take long to get used to pulling frequencies out of the
database (NRST, INFO, FREQ) instead of dialing them in digit by digit.
At first it seemed like a pain, but you quickly realize it's actually
much easier. My club's new Bonanza has a CNX-80 coupled to a 2nd nav
com (SL-30?), and 2nd radio gets access to the database information too.
I still havn't figured out exactly what frequencies the CNX-80 decides
to send to the SL-30, but it's a testiment to good design that the one
you're looking for always seems to be there.

We also have the blind xponder controlled by the CNX-80. Again, at
first this seemed awkward, but you quickly get used to it. The only
thing you ever really have to do is tap in the xponder code. It goes on
when during your takeoff roll and shuts itself down when you land (all
based on groundspeed). Neat.

It used to be the standard panel was 2 nav-coms, plus adf, dme, and
xponder. That amount of panel space will now hold a CNX-80, MX-20, and
SL-30.

All in all, it's just a great box.

[John R. Copeland]

I faced a similar decision, but went with the CNX80,
primarily because it meets TSO-C146a for precision approaches.
The GX55 is certified only under the old TSO-C129,
and I chose to buy for the future instead of the past.

I'll roll my airplane out of the avionics shop a few days from now,
sporting a CNX80, MX20, and some other companion equipment.
I'm expecting great things from the new boxes, including glideslope
guidance on LNAV/VNAV approaches (as soon as the next version
of software is released early in 2004). It's in flight testing now.
Newsletter 2 tells more about it at:
http://www.garminat.com/cnx_docs.shtml

I paid extra for ChartView in my MX20, before learning how much
Jeppesen charges for the required JeppView subscription.
I'll probably buy the first year's subscription just to see if I want
to renew it in following years.
Maybe I won't find JeppView to be cost effective.

WAAS will remain useful.
Nobody but John Tarver says WAAS will "die on the vine".
---JRC---

"Paul DeSmet" > wrote in message =
...
> Paul DeSmet wrote:
> > It looks like the new CNX-80 is the way of the future. Has anyone =
used=20
> > one?
> >=20
> O.K.. I read some of these msgs. Does it look like WAAS is going to =
die=20
> on the Vine? If so is there any reason to go with a CNX 80? I'm now=20
> thinking about getting an Apollo GX 55 instead and save a bunch a =
money.=20
> I have an Anywhere Map IPAC. That does a great job for situational=20
> awareness. The GX 55 gets me into the IFR GPS for less than 7K=20
> installed? Eventually I can add the MX 20 display. Thoughts?
>

[Bob Gardner]

I can't imagine why you would think that WAAS is a failed system. Read Joe
Shelton's article in the December IFR magazine...WAAS and LAAS are for real.

Bob Gardner

"Paul DeSmet" > wrote in message
...
> Paul DeSmet wrote:
> > It looks like the new CNX-80 is the way of the future. Has anyone used
> > one?
> >
> O.K.. I read some of these msgs. Does it look like WAAS is going to die
> on the Vine? If so is there any reason to go with a CNX 80? I'm now
> thinking about getting an Apollo GX 55 instead and save a bunch a money.
> I have an Anywhere Map IPAC. That does a great job for situational
> awareness. The GX 55 gets me into the IFR GPS for less than 7K
> installed? Eventually I can add the MX 20 display. Thoughts?
>

[Dave]

You can get a Garmin 430 for $7K installed now-a-days. This is WAAS
upgradeable, maybe even available by the time you do the installation.

The CNX-80 offers some nice enhancements, including a much higher
resolution display (and slightly larger than the 430, but smaller than
the 530) and a built in transponder (that slaves to a remote
transponder - the SL70T - mounted behind the panel). But at an
installed price approaching $13-$15K, some might shy away from it
initally.

I already have a 430 installed and would consider my next investment a
slaved Avidyne 550 for the bigger moving map that is completely
compatible with the 430. It includes a datalink, and they offer a
cheap pay-as-you-go service for weather and flight planning products.



Paul DeSmet > wrote in message >...
> Paul DeSmet wrote:
> > It looks like the new CNX-80 is the way of the future. Has anyone used
> > one?
> >
> O.K.. I read some of these msgs. Does it look like WAAS is going to die
> on the Vine? If so is there any reason to go with a CNX 80? I'm now
> thinking about getting an Apollo GX 55 instead and save a bunch a money.
> I have an Anywhere Map IPAC. That does a great job for situational
> awareness. The GX 55 gets me into the IFR GPS for less than 7K
> installed? Eventually I can add the MX 20 display. Thoughts?

[Jeff]

I was debating the same question a month ago, I just got my plane out of
the shop last week, went with the garmin 430, garmin 327 x-ponder, ps
engineering 7000b audio panel and AM/FM/CD player.

I couldnt find enough information on the cnx80 to make an informed
decision, the 430 is a well tested GPS and does everything I need for it to
do, I had one in my old cherokee 180 and liked it so went with what I was
familiar with. The mx20 is something I plan on getting in about 6 months,
if you have the MX20, then you dont need a really expensive GPS/COM, the
mx20 will do everything and more of that the 430 or the cnx80 will do. I
have seen the MX20 used, awsome display.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


Paul DeSmet wrote:

> It looks like the new CNX-80 is the way of the future. Has anyone used
> one?

[Jeff]

There is no doubt about it that Apollo made some really good avionics, but
pricey as hell.
that SL-30 radio is like $4000+ by its self.

I dont see the garmin 430/530 going out any time soon, its been installed in
so many airplanes, and is still being installed in allot of new airplanes,
its a really nice piece of equipment. Also the 430 now displays MSA (min safe
alt) for your flight, surprised me when I saw that added. and as with the
cnx-80, if you have a garmin x-ponder then it also displays altitude, the
flight timer starts and stops when you take off and land. I think the only
thing it does not do compared to the cnx80 is show airways which for me wasnt
a big deal because if you go VOR to VOR and put it into the 430 your
basically on the airway anyways. But the benefit of having a IFR GPS is to be
able to go direct and not use the airways.

My stuff costed me just $20k to have installed, if I had went with the cnx80
it would have been around 25k, I didnt see any extra benefit to the extra
cost of the cnx80. but that is just my opinion.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com



Roy Smith wrote:

> Paul DeSmet > wrote:
> > It looks like the new CNX-80 is the way of the future. Has anyone used
> > one?
> >
>
> I've got about 7 hours over 4 flights behind a CNX-80 and I love it.
> There is definately a learning curve to the thing, but then again there
> is a learning curve for any of the competing units. My guess is the
> CNX-80 is the primary reason Garmin bought UPS-AT, and my expectation is
> that the 430/530 line isn't long for this world.
>
> I've got a little bit of time with the 430, and a little time with the
> Apollo GX-60 too. I'm not sure I really spent enough time with either
> unit to do a fair evaluation, but my impression was that the 430 was the
> simplier of the two to operate. The CNX-80 blows them both away.
>
> Part of the reason, of course, is the larger screen real-estate
> available which lets you display more information at one time, but it's
> more than that. The CNX-80 just seems to be better thought out.
> Certainly the ability to enter flight plans by picking airways and
> waypoints out of a database menu is a real improvement over spelling
> every fix out with big-knob, small-knob gymnastics.
>
> It doesn't take long to get used to pulling frequencies out of the
> database (NRST, INFO, FREQ) instead of dialing them in digit by digit.
> At first it seemed like a pain, but you quickly realize it's actually
> much easier. My club's new Bonanza has a CNX-80 coupled to a 2nd nav
> com (SL-30?), and 2nd radio gets access to the database information too.
> I still havn't figured out exactly what frequencies the CNX-80 decides
> to send to the SL-30, but it's a testiment to good design that the one
> you're looking for always seems to be there.
>
> We also have the blind xponder controlled by the CNX-80. Again, at
> first this seemed awkward, but you quickly get used to it. The only
> thing you ever really have to do is tap in the xponder code. It goes on
> when during your takeoff roll and shuts itself down when you land (all
> based on groundspeed). Neat.
>
> It used to be the standard panel was 2 nav-coms, plus adf, dme, and
> xponder. That amount of panel space will now hold a CNX-80, MX-20, and
> SL-30.
>
> All in all, it's just a great box.

[Jeff]

paul, you can download and install the traner for most of garmins GPS's. go
to garmin.com and then to avionics. its free andit will give you a feel for
what they do. the cnx80 is about the only one that does not have a trainer
for it online.

Paul DeSmet wrote:

> Paul DeSmet wrote:
> > It looks like the new CNX-80 is the way of the future. Has anyone used
> > one?
> >
> O.K.. I read some of these msgs. Does it look like WAAS is going to die
> on the Vine? If so is there any reason to go with a CNX 80? I'm now
> thinking about getting an Apollo GX 55 instead and save a bunch a money.
> I have an Anywhere Map IPAC. That does a great job for situational
> awareness. The GX 55 gets me into the IFR GPS for less than 7K
> installed? Eventually I can add the MX 20 display. Thoughts?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Jeff > wrote:

> paul, you can download and install the traner for most of garmins GPS's. go
> to garmin.com and then to avionics. its free andit will give you a feel for
> what they do. the cnx80 is about the only one that does not have a trainer
> for it online.

There is a trainer for the CNX. It's not a real simulator like for the
other boxes, more of a multi-media guided tour of all the features of
the box. More than a manual, but less than a sim.

[Thomas Borchert]

Paul,

I can't see that WAAS is not here to stay. But the 430/530 will support
WAAS, too.

Some dislike the operating of the CNX-80 and find it more convoluted
than the 430/530. Some love the CNX-80 for the ability to enter airways
in flightplans.

You might want to read the articles Aviation Consumer published on
this.

One problem I would see with the GX 55 that it is for sure an orphaned
unit since AFAIK GarminAT has announced it will be discontinued.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kyler Laird]

Jeff > writes:

>There is no doubt about it that Apollo made some really good avionics, but
>pricey as hell.
>that SL-30 radio is like $4000+ by its self.

Eastern Avionics has them for $3189. That's considerably cheaper than
getting two plain nav/comms with similar features. Of course they work
a lot better (in normal situations) than two separate units and require
much less space (and power, installation, ...), so it seems like quite
a bargain to me.

--kyler

[Rad]

check out an article on avionicswest.com... apparently, they did some sort
of a test by having a bunch of pilots fly both.. vast majority preferred 530
over cnx80...


"Paul DeSmet" > wrote in message
...
> It looks like the new CNX-80 is the way of the future. Has anyone used
> one?
>

[Jeff]

where is it?
I couldnt find it on the garmin site when I looked

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >,
> Jeff > wrote:
>
> > paul, you can download and install the traner for most of garmins GPS's. go
> > to garmin.com and then to avionics. its free andit will give you a feel for
> > what they do. the cnx80 is about the only one that does not have a trainer
> > for it online.
>
> There is a trainer for the CNX. It's not a real simulator like for the
> other boxes, more of a multi-media guided tour of all the features of
> the box. More than a manual, but less than a sim.

[Jeff]

thats one radio for that amount, not two. Adding the CNX-80 would give you two
com's. I know the SL30 does alot, but its still allot for one radio. Also that
3100 does not include install

Kyler Laird wrote:

> Jeff > writes:
>
> >There is no doubt about it that Apollo made some really good avionics, but
> >pricey as hell.
> >that SL-30 radio is like $4000+ by its self.
>
> Eastern Avionics has them for $3189. That's considerably cheaper than
> getting two plain nav/comms with similar features. Of course they work
> a lot better (in normal situations) than two separate units and require
> much less space (and power, installation, ...), so it seems like quite
> a bargain to me.
>
> --kyler

[Stuart King]

You can download the CNX-80 training program from my website.
www.kingfamily.net/cnx80 but its kinda big (60MB)

Stuart


"Paul DeSmet" > wrote in message
...
> It looks like the new CNX-80 is the way of the future. Has anyone used
> one?
>

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Jeff > wrote:

> where is it?
> I couldnt find it on the garmin site when I looked

Ok, I'm stumped. I'm pretty sure it used to be there, but I can't find
it now. I've got it in a 30-meg zip file. If you like, I'll be happy
to send you a copy.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:WXTvb.279578$Tr4.860490@attbi_s03...
> I can't imagine why you would think that WAAS is a failed system. Read Joe
> Shelton's article in the December IFR magazine...WAAS and LAAS are for
real.

LAAS is for real and now that WAAS is released, we can move LAAS forward.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Paul,
>
> I can't see that WAAS is not here to stay. But the 430/530 will support
> WAAS, too.
>
> Some dislike the operating of the CNX-80 and find it more convoluted
> than the 430/530. Some love the CNX-80 for the ability to enter airways
> in flightplans.

It is pressure altitude and the 5 times per second GPS engine that give the
CNX it's advantages.

[Thomas Borchert]

Tarver,

> It is pressure altitude and the 5 times per second GPS engine that give the
> CNX it's advantages.
>

Hmm. Have you found the update rate of the Garmins lacking? In what kind of
situation?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver,
>
> > It is pressure altitude and the 5 times per second GPS engine that give
the
> > CNX it's advantages.
> >
>
> Hmm. Have you found the update rate of the Garmins lacking? In what kind
of
> situation?

The VNAV function for GPS will require the faster engine and pressure
altitude. If the operator is not using the VNAV function, then there is not
much difference; for now. If at some point the system is able to automate
ATC and free flight goes forward, more capability under CFR 14 is likely to
require the new generation of GPS equipments.

Besides that, both machines are Garmins.

[O. Sami Saydjari]

I checked outthe website. I see a statement that the comparison was
done. The reference is on
http://avionicswest.com/workinprogress/mainpageworkinprogress.htm. But
I do not see a link to the article itself. Can you give the full link
to the article?

-Sami

Rad wrote:

> check out an article on avionicswest.com... apparently, they did some sort
> of a test by having a bunch of pilots fly both.. vast majority preferred 530
> over cnx80...
>
>
> "Paul DeSmet" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>It looks like the new CNX-80 is the way of the future. Has anyone used
>>one?
>>
>>
>
>

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Ooops....sorry, I found it at;
http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003
It was just not in an abvious place.

-sami

O. Sami Saydjari wrote:

> I checked outthe website. I see a statement that the comparison was
> done. The reference is on
> http://avionicswest.com/workinprogress/mainpageworkinprogress.htm. But
> I do not see a link to the article itself. Can you give the full link
> to the article?
>
> -Sami
>
> Rad wrote:
>
>> check out an article on avionicswest.com... apparently, they did some
>> sort
>> of a test by having a bunch of pilots fly both.. vast majority
>> preferred 530
>> over cnx80...
>>
>>
>> "Paul DeSmet" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> It looks like the new CNX-80 is the way of the future. Has anyone used
>>> one?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Jeff > wrote:
>thats one radio for that amount, not two.

One radio that will let you listen to your standby frequency while
listening/transmitting on your primary frequency, and get a digital
RMI indication from your secondary nav.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[ArtP]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:34:42 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:


>It is pressure altitude and the 5 times per second GPS engine that give the
>CNX it's advantages.
>

My GNS430s have pressure altitude. By early next year I can upgrade
them to the raster refresh rate required by VNAV.

[Tarver Engineering]

"ArtP" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:34:42 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >It is pressure altitude and the 5 times per second GPS engine that give
the
> >CNX it's advantages.
> >
>
> My GNS430s have pressure altitude. By early next year I can upgrade
> them to the raster refresh rate required by VNAV.

Cool.

[Paul DeSmet]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I can't see that WAAS is not here to stay. But the 430/530 will support
> WAAS, too.
>
> Some dislike the operating of the CNX-80 and find it more convoluted
> than the 430/530. Some love the CNX-80 for the ability to enter airways
> in flightplans.
>
> You might want to read the articles Aviation Consumer published on
> this.
>
> One problem I would see with the GX 55 that it is for sure an orphaned
> unit since AFAIK GarminAT has announced it will be discontinued.
>
First of all I want to thank everyone's input. I read the article about
the comparison betweek the various boxes. Certainly the 430 and 530
remain very popular. If they will also support WAAS I assume that means
VNAV/LNAV capable also? Does anyone know when this upgrade for the
430/530 will be? Also how much???

Thanks, Paul

[Jeff]

a month ago I would have wanted it, but got the 430 now.
Went out and did some practice approaches today, the DMR arc was a no
brainer, the 430 is connected to my HSI and auto pilot, my DME read 16.0
the entire way around, perfect arc...

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >,
> Jeff > wrote:
>
> > where is it?
> > I couldnt find it on the garmin site when I looked
>
> Ok, I'm stumped. I'm pretty sure it used to be there, but I can't find
> it now. I've got it in a 30-meg zip file. If you like, I'll be happy
> to send you a copy.

[Jeff]

ya I know it does alot, its a nice radio as I said, just pricey for one
radio.
the reason to have 2 radios is incase something happens to the first so
you have a backup.

Ben Jackson wrote:

> In article >,
> Jeff > wrote:
> >thats one radio for that amount, not two.
>
> One radio that will let you listen to your standby frequency while
> listening/transmitting on your primary frequency, and get a digital
> RMI indication from your secondary nav.
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

[Jeff]

I heard the update was like $1000, but it may be 1500$, its one of those.
Personally I dont think I will use the vnav, thats why I got the 430, with
exception of vnav and entering in flight plans via the airways they are
esentially the same box.

I was out doing practice approaches today with my 430, its coupled to my HSI
and that is coupled to my auto pilot. even the DME arc was simple. flew a
perfect arc, well the auto pilot flew a perfect arc :)


Paul DeSmet wrote:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > I can't see that WAAS is not here to stay. But the 430/530 will support
> > WAAS, too.
> >
> > Some dislike the operating of the CNX-80 and find it more convoluted
> > than the 430/530. Some love the CNX-80 for the ability to enter airways
> > in flightplans.
> >
> > You might want to read the articles Aviation Consumer published on
> > this.
> >
> > One problem I would see with the GX 55 that it is for sure an orphaned
> > unit since AFAIK GarminAT has announced it will be discontinued.
> >
> First of all I want to thank everyone's input. I read the article about
> the comparison betweek the various boxes. Certainly the 430 and 530
> remain very popular. If they will also support WAAS I assume that means
> VNAV/LNAV capable also? Does anyone know when this upgrade for the
> 430/530 will be? Also how much???
>
> Thanks, Paul

[John R. Copeland]

<blink>
You don't think you'd use VNAV if you had it?
That's like ignoring your ILS glideslope, and always making LOC =
approaches.
Please tell me I misunderstood you.
---JRC---

"Jeff" > wrote in message =
...
> I heard the update was like $1000, but it may be 1500$, its one of =
those.
> Personally I dont think I will use the vnav, thats why I got the 430, =
with
> exception of vnav and entering in flight plans via the airways they =
are
> esentially the same box.
>=20
> I was out doing practice approaches today with my 430, its coupled to =
my HSI
> and that is coupled to my auto pilot. even the DME arc was simple. =
flew a
> perfect arc, well the auto pilot flew a perfect arc :)
>=20
>

[Jeff]

no you did not misunderstad me,
I am just as happy with using my altimiter, vnav lets you decend about an extra 20 ft or so
( the approach I did today was a 20 ft difference) its not something that is necessary for
me, and its not going to open 100 more airports for me, vnav simply gives you a lower MDA
and its nothing like ignoring a glideslope.
A ILS is a precision approach and a gps approach is not.
Also Vnav is not in wide use as of yet, it will be sometime before its widely available.
You have gone this long without using vnav, why is it a must for you now?
not flamming or anything negative, just a curious question.

Jeff

"John R. Copeland" wrote:

> <blink>
> You don't think you'd use VNAV if you had it?
> That's like ignoring your ILS glideslope, and always making LOC approaches.
> Please tell me I misunderstood you.
> ---JRC---
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> > I heard the update was like $1000, but it may be 1500$, its one of those.
> > Personally I dont think I will use the vnav, thats why I got the 430, with
> > exception of vnav and entering in flight plans via the airways they are
> > esentially the same box.
> >
> > I was out doing practice approaches today with my 430, its coupled to my HSI
> > and that is coupled to my auto pilot. even the DME arc was simple. flew a
> > perfect arc, well the auto pilot flew a perfect arc :)
> >
> >

[ArtP]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:38:41 -0800, Jeff > wrote:


>I am just as happy with using my altimiter, vnav lets you decend about an extra 20 ft or so
>( the approach I did >today was a 20 ft difference) its not something that is necessary for
>me, and its not going to open 100 more airports for me, vnav simply gives you a lower MDA
>and its nothing like ignoring a glideslope.
>A ILS is a precision approach and a gps approach is not.
>Also Vnav is not in wide use as of yet, it will be sometime before its widely available.
>You have gone this long without using vnav, why is it a must for you now?
>not flamming or anything negative, just a curious question.

At GAI the GPS 14 LNAV has an MDA of 700 AGL, the LNAV/VNAV has a DA
of 400 AGL, and THE LPV (when equipment becomes available) will have a
DA of 300 AGL. That is as good as some ILS approaches. Since the
approach plates do use the term DA for the approaches, that sure makes
me think they are in fact precision approaches.

[Jeff]

I went downstairs and got my approach plates, your right its shown as DA, also I was thinking
that a requirement for a precision approach is verticle navagation, so maybe vnav will (or is) a
precision approach, I havnt read enough about it.
Where I live, if we have low clouds, they are full of ice, the sky is clear most of the year,
average 6 inches of rain a year. When I fly to california, where it does get foggy, low clouds
and such, every other airport seems to have an ILS, so vnav is not a big issue for me.

Where I flew today, cedar city, Ut the DA for the ILS is 5800 and a 1/2 mile, the GPS approach
using vnav is 6000 and 1 mile, the airport elevation is 5622 so the ILS gets you down to 200 agl
and the vnav gets you down to 400 AGL. My preference to flying any approach in IMC, where I may
have to decend to minimuns is to use an ILS. My reasoning is because around here, alot of the
VOR and GPS approaches turn you around mountains, not something I really want to do when I cant
see the mountains. So my reasoning for not having a need for vnav is based on several things,
mainly I dont think I would use it because we dont have the weather and the main places I fly
that does have weather I have a choice of airports with ILS's. But I am curious if this vnav is
actualy going to be a precision approach.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


ArtP wrote:

>
>
> At GAI the GPS 14 LNAV has an MDA of 700 AGL, the LNAV/VNAV has a DA
> of 400 AGL, and THE LPV (when equipment becomes available) will have a
> DA of 300 AGL. That is as good as some ILS approaches. Since the
> approach plates do use the term DA for the approaches, that sure makes
> me think they are in fact precision approaches.

[Kyler Laird]

Jeff > writes:

>thats one radio for that amount, not two.

The SL-30 is better than two radios.

>Adding the CNX-80 would give you two
>com's.

More like three (or four?).

>I know the SL30 does alot, but its still allot for one radio.

Have you used one? It is a lot for a single radio. It's not a lot
for one that very effectively replaces two. Yes, it does cost more
to get the more capable unit than to get one with far less
functionality. That's not an aviation first.

--kyler

[Kyler Laird]

(Ben Jackson) writes:

>>thats one radio for that amount, not two.

>One radio that will let you listen to your standby frequency while
>listening/transmitting on your primary frequency,

....*and* give the primary frequency priority. That is *so* much
better in many situations than manually twiddling the knobs on two
radios. I often listen to an upcoming CTAF frequency while I'm
still with Center. It's great to know that I won't miss a call
from Center even if someone's still transmitting on CTAF. And I'm
just one more button press from going over to CTAF as my primary
frequency.

Try that with two separate radios.

No, I'm not an SL-30 salesman. I just like to applaud good design
and I hate seeing people rail on equipment they don't understand.

--kyler

[Jeff]

I can do exactly the same thing and do with my radios.
I am guessing you dont just have the one radio in your plane do you? you
probably have another nav/com or gps/com correct?


Kyler Laird wrote:

> (Ben Jackson) writes:
>
> >>thats one radio for that amount, not two.
>
> >One radio that will let you listen to your standby frequency while
> >listening/transmitting on your primary frequency,
>
> ...*and* give the primary frequency priority. That is *so* much
> better in many situations than manually twiddling the knobs on two
> radios. I often listen to an upcoming CTAF frequency while I'm
> still with Center. It's great to know that I won't miss a call
> from Center even if someone's still transmitting on CTAF. And I'm
> just one more button press from going over to CTAF as my primary
> frequency.
>
> Try that with two separate radios.
>
> No, I'm not an SL-30 salesman. I just like to applaud good design
> and I hate seeing people rail on equipment they don't understand.
>
> --kyler

[Jeff]

no I dont have one in my airplane, I could probably rent an airplane
with one but I like my airplane.
I have a gps/com and a nav/com, I dont have a need for another radio. an
sl30 can be 5 radio's in one, it may have alot of function, and may be a
good idea if someone was going to install only one radio. But you can
only listen to so many people at one time. For me, that is 2.
I have not said it was a bad radio, all of apollo stuff is good, I only
said it was expensive and that if you had 2 radio's the extra functions
are a big deal compared to the cost.
I just paid $20,000 for my new avionics, my plane was in the shop for a
week. I could have easily spent $40,000, but is it stuff I really need.

How much did your new avionics stack run you for?




Kyler Laird wrote:

> Jeff > writes:
>
> >thats one radio for that amount, not two.
>
> The SL-30 is better than two radios.
>
> >Adding the CNX-80 would give you two
> >com's.
>
> More like three (or four?).
>
> >I know the SL30 does alot, but its still allot for one radio.
>
> Have you used one? It is a lot for a single radio. It's not a lot
> for one that very effectively replaces two. Yes, it does cost more
> to get the more capable unit than to get one with far less
> functionality. That's not an aviation first.
>
> --kyler

[James M. Knox]

Jeff > wrote in
:

> paul, you can download and install the traner for most of garmins
> GPS's. go to garmin.com and then to avionics. its free andit will give
> you a feel for what they do. the cnx80 is about the only one that does
> not have a trainer for it online.

Heck, UPSAT (okay, now a division of Garmin) doesn't even make available to
prospective customers a simulator for the GX50/60. The only one they
provide doesn't do approaches, which is pretty much the part you really
want the simulator to see how easy/hard it is to use. [Entering a radio
frequency just isn't that big a deal.]

And guess what, even if you shell out $6K or so for the GX60... you still
don't get the real simulator. [But you CAN buy it!] I'm sorry... that's
just not good customer service.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[Jeff]

I was hoping that garmin, now since they own upsat, will make simulators
available for the CNX80 like they do for the 430/530 , having that may have
swayed me to get the cnx80, but since I couldnt find any real info on it..went
with the 430. I think before long they will have better integration for garmin
and upsat stuff, I am interested in seeing what theyhave planned, hopefully its
not taking advanntage of the market and gouging us.


"James M. Knox" wrote:

> Jeff > wrote in
> :
>
> > paul, you can download and install the traner for most of garmins
> > GPS's. go to garmin.com and then to avionics. its free andit will give
> > you a feel for what they do. the cnx80 is about the only one that does
> > not have a trainer for it online.
>
> Heck, UPSAT (okay, now a division of Garmin) doesn't even make available to
> prospective customers a simulator for the GX50/60. The only one they
> provide doesn't do approaches, which is pretty much the part you really
> want the simulator to see how easy/hard it is to use. [Entering a radio
> frequency just isn't that big a deal.]
>
> And guess what, even if you shell out $6K or so for the GX60... you still
> don't get the real simulator. [But you CAN buy it!] I'm sorry... that's
> just not good customer service.
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> James M. Knox
> TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
> 1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
> Austin, Tx 78721
> -----------------------------------------------

[John R. Copeland]

Yes, that is the plan.
Sometimes you'll now see the term "Near-precision approach".
The "Gamma 2" approaches typically get you down to 350-450 feet AGL.
The "Gamma 3" approaches, as we get them gradually,
will be the APV/LPV approaches with approximately 250-ft AGL minima.
---JRC---

"Jeff" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> .... But I am curious if this vnav is
> actualy going to be a precision approach.
>=20
> Jeff
> http://www.turboarrow3.com
>=20

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, Jeff >
writes:

>I heard the update was like $1000, but it may be 1500$, its one of those.
>Personally I dont think I will use the vnav, thats why I got the 430, with
>exception of vnav and entering in flight plans via the airways they are
>esentially the same box.

I have a 430 and like it but they are NOT the same box. The 80 engine is about
5 times faster that the 430. I'm sure that the 1.5K update (late next year)
will make then nearly the same box.

Chuck

[smackey]

(Dave) wrote in message >...
> You can get a Garmin 430 for $7K installed now-a-days. This is WAAS
> upgradeable, maybe even available by the time you do the installation.
>
> Dave,

Where can I get a Garmin 430, installed, for $7000? Last time I
checked, about 6 months ago, I was told about $11,000 +/- $500
installed, with new indicator, cerified etc.
Steve M

[Jeff]

Mine was 9200$ installed.
this was IFR certified. I did not need a new indicator or nav head since I had an HSI for it to drive.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


smackey wrote:

> Where can I get a Garmin 430, installed, for $7000? Last time I
> checked, about 6 months ago, I was told about $11,000 +/- $500
> installed, with new indicator, cerified etc.
> Steve M

[Ken Martin]

I had a Garmin 430 with Garmin indicator installed and certified in my
Mooney in February for $8850. Shop was Tim Mathison Avionics in LaFayette,
GA>

--
Ken Martin
N5888Q '65 M20C
Kingsport, TN KTRI
"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> Mine was 9200$ installed.
> this was IFR certified. I did not need a new indicator or nav head since I
had an HSI for it to drive.
>
> Jeff
> http://www.turboarrow3.com
>
>
> smackey wrote:
>
> > Where can I get a Garmin 430, installed, for $7000? Last time I
> > checked, about 6 months ago, I was told about $11,000 +/- $500
> > installed, with new indicator, cerified etc.
> > Steve M
>