Garmin530 and MX20

[O. Sami Saydjari]

In an article at http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003 about
Garmin 530 vs CNX-80, many of the pilots said that they would want a
combination of a Garmin 530 AND an MX20. I do not understand. Isn't
the Garmin 530 also an MFD capable of displaying multiple inputs, like
weather and terrain? Can someone tell me why both might be desirable?
Does anyone have experience with an MX20?

-Sami

[Jeff]

Sami,
have you had a chance to see a MX20 working in an airplane?
There are MFD's and then there is the MX20.
Awsome resolution. The garmin 530 is not a real MFD, you can get a module to
display weather, it can display traffic using the garmin 330 transponder,
but the MX20 displays what you see on a sectional, with probably better
detail. It can also display approach charts and a variety of other things.
The MX20 is not a GPS, it needs a GPS like a 430/530 or CNX-80 connected to
it. But it can do everything else. the color and detail on the mx20 is
awsome.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> In an article at http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003 about
> Garmin 530 vs CNX-80, many of the pilots said that they would want a
> combination of a Garmin 530 AND an MX20. I do not understand. Isn't
> the Garmin 530 also an MFD capable of displaying multiple inputs, like
> weather and terrain? Can someone tell me why both might be desirable?
> Does anyone have experience with an MX20?
>
> -Sami

[John Harper]

I've never flown an MX20 so I can't comment on that. But
I would say that if you don't need the display area of the
530 (which you don't if you have an MX20) then you could
save $5K or so and go with a 430. You get all the same features
for less $$$ and panel space. (Actually there's ONE useful
feature you don't get, which is the auto-identification and
auto-"DME" from VORs, which is a very nice feature but
not indispensible).

John

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> In an article at http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003 about
> Garmin 530 vs CNX-80, many of the pilots said that they would want a
> combination of a Garmin 530 AND an MX20. I do not understand. Isn't
> the Garmin 530 also an MFD capable of displaying multiple inputs, like
> weather and terrain? Can someone tell me why both might be desirable?
> Does anyone have experience with an MX20?
>
> -Sami
>

[Fred E. Pate]

Yeah.

I haven't flown behind an MX20, but the Garmin. Well. Its got 8 colors. Count 'em. You don't get terrain worth diddley with that. The MX20 will show you sectional-chart-style terrrain and instrument approach plates. And airport diagrams (with your location on them) so you can't get lost.

I have heard, however, that the MX20 is not as sunlight-readable as the Garmin display.


O. Sami Saydjari wrote:

>
>In an article at http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003 about
>Garmin 530 vs CNX-80, many of the pilots said that they would want a
>combination of a Garmin 530 AND an MX20. I do not understand. Isn't
>the Garmin 530 also an MFD capable of displaying multiple inputs, like
>weather and terrain? Can someone tell me why both might be desirable?
>Does anyone have experience with an MX20?
>
>-Sami
>

[Jeff]

that MX20 is on my list to get in about 6 months, if it had a built in GPS I
would have got it over the 430 in a heart beat.

John Harper wrote:

> I've never flown an MX20 so I can't comment on that. But
> I would say that if you don't need the display area of the
> 530 (which you don't if you have an MX20) then you could
> save $5K or so and go with a 430. You get all the same features
> for less $$$ and panel space. (Actually there's ONE useful
> feature you don't get, which is the auto-identification and
> auto-"DME" from VORs, which is a very nice feature but
> not indispensible).
>
> John
>
> "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In an article at http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003 about
> > Garmin 530 vs CNX-80, many of the pilots said that they would want a
> > combination of a Garmin 530 AND an MX20. I do not understand. Isn't
> > the Garmin 530 also an MFD capable of displaying multiple inputs, like
> > weather and terrain? Can someone tell me why both might be desirable?
> > Does anyone have experience with an MX20?
> >
> > -Sami
> >

[Windecks]

We have a Garmin 430 and an MX20 and they work really well together. The
terrain display on the MX20 is great, and the resolution on VFR and IFR
charts is sharp and the map's easily readable in direct sunlight. The MX20
is easy to use and configure, and really enhances the capabilities of the
430. I'd only go for a 530 if there wasn't enough space in the panel.
Never seen a CNX80 in action, but it sounds like an enhanced 430. Still,
UPSAT (and now, of course, Garmin) has been marketing the CNX80/MX20 combo.
Go figure, they want to sell 2 boxes instead of 1!!


"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> In an article at http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003 about
> Garmin 530 vs CNX-80, many of the pilots said that they would want a
> combination of a Garmin 530 AND an MX20. I do not understand. Isn't
> the Garmin 530 also an MFD capable of displaying multiple inputs, like
> weather and terrain? Can someone tell me why both might be desirable?
> Does anyone have experience with an MX20?
>
> -Sami
>

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Thanks. Interesting. So, does one send the Garmin 430 GPS information
to the MX20 and have it displayed there? I would prefer to have one
integrated display of nav and weather information. If so, then it seems
that the garmin 430 display space is a waste of valuable panel
real-estate. If not, how are the two different displays used
differently? Seems like it adds to workload that way to have to monitor
2 screens.

On a separate note, what sort of weather modules exist to feed-into
these displays. I here they are available, but I can not find them on
the garmin website. I am looking to learn about 1 or 2 options of such
modules that uplink to satellites and download weather, and displays it
on the MFD. I would like to know ballpark cost of the module, panel
real estate requirements, and what the cost of a subscription would be.

-sami

Windecks wrote:

> We have a Garmin 430 and an MX20 and they work really well together. The
> terrain display on the MX20 is great, and the resolution on VFR and IFR
> charts is sharp and the map's easily readable in direct sunlight. The MX20
> is easy to use and configure, and really enhances the capabilities of the
> 430. I'd only go for a 530 if there wasn't enough space in the panel.
> Never seen a CNX80 in action, but it sounds like an enhanced 430. Still,
> UPSAT (and now, of course, Garmin) has been marketing the CNX80/MX20 combo.
> Go figure, they want to sell 2 boxes instead of 1!!
>
>
> "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In an article at http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003 about
>>Garmin 530 vs CNX-80, many of the pilots said that they would want a
>>combination of a Garmin 530 AND an MX20. I do not understand. Isn't
>>the Garmin 530 also an MFD capable of displaying multiple inputs, like
>>weather and terrain? Can someone tell me why both might be desirable?
>>Does anyone have experience with an MX20?
>>
>>-Sami
>>
>>
>
>

[Jeff]

the garmin 430/530 is suppose to have a terrain data base that is suppose to be out soon, it wont be as good as the MX20, but for a 500$ upgrade, it could be worth it.

"Fred E. Pate" wrote:

> Yeah.
>
> I haven't flown behind an MX20, but the Garmin. Well. Its got 8 colors. Count 'em. You don't get terrain worth diddley with that. The MX20 will show you sectional-chart-style terrrain and instrument approach plates. And airport diagrams (with your location on them) so you can't get lost.
>
> I have heard, however, that the MX20 is not as sunlight-readable as the Garmin display.
>
> O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
>
> >
> >In an article at http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003 about
> >Garmin 530 vs CNX-80, many of the pilots said that they would want a
> >combination of a Garmin 530 AND an MX20. I do not understand. Isn't
> >the Garmin 530 also an MFD capable of displaying multiple inputs, like
> >weather and terrain? Can someone tell me why both might be desirable?
> >Does anyone have experience with an MX20?
> >
> >-Sami
> >

[Jeff]

the garmin weather module is here
http://www.garmin.com/products/gdl49/

it sends weather overlay to the GPS.

having 2 gps's gives you the ability to have like an arrival procedure on one
GPS, say the 430, then you canhave the actual approach on the MX20.

but you can go cheaper since the mx20 is such an awsome product, and get a small
cheaper ifr certified GPS, connect it to the MX20 and get the same information
that a 430 would supply to it. Having 2 GPS's is really nice, I have my 430 and
still use my handheld 295. But this is only a temp solution untill I get the MX20
installed (after I get my wife another horse)


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> Thanks. Interesting. So, does one send the Garmin 430 GPS information
> to the MX20 and have it displayed there? I would prefer to have one
> integrated display of nav and weather information. If so, then it seems
> that the garmin 430 display space is a waste of valuable panel
> real-estate. If not, how are the two different displays used
> differently? Seems like it adds to workload that way to have to monitor
> 2 screens.
>
> On a separate note, what sort of weather modules exist to feed-into
> these displays. I here they are available, but I can not find them on
> the garmin website. I am looking to learn about 1 or 2 options of such
> modules that uplink to satellites and download weather, and displays it
> on the MFD. I would like to know ballpark cost of the module, panel
> real estate requirements, and what the cost of a subscription would be.
>
> -sami
>
> Windecks wrote:
>
> > We have a Garmin 430 and an MX20 and they work really well together. The
> > terrain display on the MX20 is great, and the resolution on VFR and IFR
> > charts is sharp and the map's easily readable in direct sunlight. The MX20
> > is easy to use and configure, and really enhances the capabilities of the
> > 430. I'd only go for a 530 if there wasn't enough space in the panel.
> > Never seen a CNX80 in action, but it sounds like an enhanced 430. Still,
> > UPSAT (and now, of course, Garmin) has been marketing the CNX80/MX20 combo.
> > Go figure, they want to sell 2 boxes instead of 1!!
> >
> >
> > "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>In an article at http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003 about
> >>Garmin 530 vs CNX-80, many of the pilots said that they would want a
> >>combination of a Garmin 530 AND an MX20. I do not understand. Isn't
> >>the Garmin 530 also an MFD capable of displaying multiple inputs, like
> >>weather and terrain? Can someone tell me why both might be desirable?
> >>Does anyone have experience with an MX20?
> >>
> >>-Sami
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

[John R. Copeland]

Ironic. UPSAT built exactly that MX20 with internal GPS for the
famous Capstone project, but the unit isn't available to us civilians.
---JRC---

"Jeff" > wrote in message =
...
> that MX20 is on my list to get in about 6 months, if it had a built in =
GPS I
> would have got it over the 430 in a heart beat.
>

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Thanks. Looks like the subscription service is pretty reasonable.

Jeff, Is there a limit to which GPS's will hook into a MX20? For
example, the plane I am considering buying as an Apollo GX-50 GPS. Will
that interface to the MX20? That would be awesome!

-Sami


Jeff wrote:

> the garmin weather module is here
> http://www.garmin.com/products/gdl49/
>
> it sends weather overlay to the GPS.
>
> having 2 gps's gives you the ability to have like an arrival procedure on one
> GPS, say the 430, then you canhave the actual approach on the MX20.
>
> but you can go cheaper since the mx20 is such an awsome product, and get a small
> cheaper ifr certified GPS, connect it to the MX20 and get the same information
> that a 430 would supply to it. Having 2 GPS's is really nice, I have my 430 and
> still use my handheld 295. But this is only a temp solution untill I get the MX20
> installed (after I get my wife another horse)
>
>
> "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks. Interesting. So, does one send the Garmin 430 GPS information
>>to the MX20 and have it displayed there? I would prefer to have one
>>integrated display of nav and weather information. If so, then it seems
>>that the garmin 430 display space is a waste of valuable panel
>>real-estate. If not, how are the two different displays used
>>differently? Seems like it adds to workload that way to have to monitor
>>2 screens.
>>
>>On a separate note, what sort of weather modules exist to feed-into
>>these displays. I here they are available, but I can not find them on
>>the garmin website. I am looking to learn about 1 or 2 options of such
>>modules that uplink to satellites and download weather, and displays it
>>on the MFD. I would like to know ballpark cost of the module, panel
>>real estate requirements, and what the cost of a subscription would be.
>>
>>-sami
>>
>>Windecks wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We have a Garmin 430 and an MX20 and they work really well together. The
>>>terrain display on the MX20 is great, and the resolution on VFR and IFR
>>>charts is sharp and the map's easily readable in direct sunlight. The MX20
>>>is easy to use and configure, and really enhances the capabilities of the
>>>430. I'd only go for a 530 if there wasn't enough space in the panel.
>>>Never seen a CNX80 in action, but it sounds like an enhanced 430. Still,
>>>UPSAT (and now, of course, Garmin) has been marketing the CNX80/MX20 combo.
>>>Go figure, they want to sell 2 boxes instead of 1!!
>>>
>>>
>>>"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>In an article at http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003 about
>>>>Garmin 530 vs CNX-80, many of the pilots said that they would want a
>>>>combination of a Garmin 530 AND an MX20. I do not understand. Isn't
>>>>the Garmin 530 also an MFD capable of displaying multiple inputs, like
>>>>weather and terrain? Can someone tell me why both might be desirable?
>>>>Does anyone have experience with an MX20?
>>>>
>>>>-Sami
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

[O. Sami Saydjari]

I read the that garmin 530 anticipates the COM frequencies you need and
loads them into an internal Com radio. That is a really nice feature.
Does the Garmin 430 do this? Or can the 430 combination accomplish the
same thing by interfacing to standard radios?

Jeff wrote:

> the garmin weather module is here
> http://www.garmin.com/products/gdl49/
>
> it sends weather overlay to the GPS.
>
> having 2 gps's gives you the ability to have like an arrival procedure on one
> GPS, say the 430, then you canhave the actual approach on the MX20.
>
> but you can go cheaper since the mx20 is such an awsome product, and get a small
> cheaper ifr certified GPS, connect it to the MX20 and get the same information
> that a 430 would supply to it. Having 2 GPS's is really nice, I have my 430 and
> still use my handheld 295. But this is only a temp solution untill I get the MX20
> installed (after I get my wife another horse)
>
>
> "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks. Interesting. So, does one send the Garmin 430 GPS information
>>to the MX20 and have it displayed there? I would prefer to have one
>>integrated display of nav and weather information. If so, then it seems
>>that the garmin 430 display space is a waste of valuable panel
>>real-estate. If not, how are the two different displays used
>>differently? Seems like it adds to workload that way to have to monitor
>>2 screens.
>>
>>On a separate note, what sort of weather modules exist to feed-into
>>these displays. I here they are available, but I can not find them on
>>the garmin website. I am looking to learn about 1 or 2 options of such
>>modules that uplink to satellites and download weather, and displays it
>>on the MFD. I would like to know ballpark cost of the module, panel
>>real estate requirements, and what the cost of a subscription would be.
>>
>>-sami
>>
>>Windecks wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We have a Garmin 430 and an MX20 and they work really well together. The
>>>terrain display on the MX20 is great, and the resolution on VFR and IFR
>>>charts is sharp and the map's easily readable in direct sunlight. The MX20
>>>is easy to use and configure, and really enhances the capabilities of the
>>>430. I'd only go for a 530 if there wasn't enough space in the panel.
>>>Never seen a CNX80 in action, but it sounds like an enhanced 430. Still,
>>>UPSAT (and now, of course, Garmin) has been marketing the CNX80/MX20 combo.
>>>Go figure, they want to sell 2 boxes instead of 1!!
>>>
>>>
>>>"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>In an article at http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003 about
>>>>Garmin 530 vs CNX-80, many of the pilots said that they would want a
>>>>combination of a Garmin 530 AND an MX20. I do not understand. Isn't
>>>>the Garmin 530 also an MFD capable of displaying multiple inputs, like
>>>>weather and terrain? Can someone tell me why both might be desirable?
>>>>Does anyone have experience with an MX20?
>>>>
>>>>-Sami
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Any ideas when this much-discussed WAAS upgrade is coming for the
Garmins? Are we talking 30 days away, or more like 30 months. If one
is considering upgrading avionics right now, and if the WAAS upgrade is
happening soon, it seems it would pay to wait until the garmin are
shipped with integrated WAAS capability so you do not have to pay for
removing the device, upgrading it, and such. Anyone know the plan here?
-Sami

Jeff wrote:

> Sami,
> have you had a chance to see a MX20 working in an airplane?
> There are MFD's and then there is the MX20.
> Awsome resolution. The garmin 530 is not a real MFD, you can get a module to
> display weather, it can display traffic using the garmin 330 transponder,
> but the MX20 displays what you see on a sectional, with probably better
> detail. It can also display approach charts and a variety of other things.
> The MX20 is not a GPS, it needs a GPS like a 430/530 or CNX-80 connected to
> it. But it can do everything else. the color and detail on the mx20 is
> awsome.
>
> Jeff
> http://www.turboarrow3.com
>
> "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
>
>
>>In an article at http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003 about
>>Garmin 530 vs CNX-80, many of the pilots said that they would want a
>>combination of a Garmin 530 AND an MX20. I do not understand. Isn't
>>the Garmin 530 also an MFD capable of displaying multiple inputs, like
>>weather and terrain? Can someone tell me why both might be desirable?
>>Does anyone have experience with an MX20?
>>
>>-Sami
>>
>

[[email protected]]

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> I read the that garmin 530 anticipates the COM frequencies you need and
> loads them into an internal Com radio. That is a really nice feature.
> Does the Garmin 430 do this? Or can the 430 combination accomplish the
> same thing by interfacing to standard radios?

It's smart. ;-) It knows where you are and it knows your destination and it knows the
frequencies of those places.

[[email protected]]

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> I read the that garmin 530 anticipates the COM frequencies you need and
> loads them into an internal Com radio. That is a really nice feature.
> Does the Garmin 430 do this? Or can the 430 combination accomplish the
> same thing by interfacing to standard radios?

It's smart. ;-) It knows where you are and it knows your destination and it knows the
frequencies of those places.

[[email protected]]

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> I read the that garmin 530 anticipates the COM frequencies you need and
> loads them into an internal Com radio. That is a really nice feature.
> Does the Garmin 430 do this? Or can the 430 combination accomplish the
> same thing by interfacing to standard radios?

It's smart. ;-) It knows where you are and it knows your destination and it knows the
frequencies of those places.

[[email protected]]

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> I read the that garmin 530 anticipates the COM frequencies you need and
> loads them into an internal Com radio. That is a really nice feature.
> Does the Garmin 430 do this? Or can the 430 combination accomplish the
> same thing by interfacing to standard radios?

It's smart. ;-) It knows where you are and it knows your destination and it knows the
frequencies of those places.

[Tom Fleischman]

In article >, O. Sami Saydjari
> wrote:

> Thanks. Looks like the subscription service is pretty reasonable.
>
> Jeff, Is there a limit to which GPS's will hook into a MX20? For
> example, the plane I am considering buying as an Apollo GX-50 GPS. Will
> that interface to the MX20? That would be awesome!
>
> -Sami
>

It *is* awesome. I did my IR training in the club's Archer which is
equipped with an approach-approved GX-60 (the GPS/COMM GX unit) and an
MX-20. The GX-50 will interface just fine. It's a wonderful
combination, especially when combined with an SL-30 as a second
Nav/Comm.

[Dave Butler]

O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
> Any ideas when this much-discussed WAAS upgrade is coming for the
> Garmins? Are we talking 30 days away, or more like 30 months. If one
> is considering upgrading avionics right now, and if the WAAS upgrade is
> happening soon, it seems it would pay to wait until the garmin are
> shipped with integrated WAAS capability so you do not have to pay for
> removing the device, upgrading it, and such. Anyone know the plan here?

http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/060403.html

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
Dave

[Windecks]

The reader's digest version of why we chose the 430:
It fits, is not that much more expensive, works well with the MX20, has a
superior user interface, and the display is very handy when used for
setup/lookup tasks. The map is redundant, and includes incremental info not
found on the MX20.

Unabridged version:
The Garmin NAV info is sent to the MX20, where it is combined with terrain,
weather and chart databases contained in the MX20. It's true that you can
put in a cheaper (and smaller) IFR GPS to interface with the MX20, but we
chose to go with the 430 for the following reasons:

- Combined with a SL30 Nav/Com, XPNDR, audio controller/Marker Beacon, the
430 and MX20 all fit in a single stack in our panel
- Subjective preference for 430 user interface over King KLNs, UPSAT MXs and
others
- 430 map page has better ID for roads, bodies of water etc. than MX20
- $$$ difference not all that great between 430 and others, if you consider
installation and certification costs

90+% of the time I use the combination of MX20 moving map+terrain+NAV
overlay with the 430 CDI page, yielding awesome SA for both VFR and IFR.
Our Sandel EHSI also displays the GPS waypoint, flight plan, groundspeed as
well as standard HSI info. Since flying behind the MX20/430 combo, I
haven't unfolded a sectional, terminal or enroute chart while in the plane.
Except to ID roads and lakes (on long boring flights), the 430 map page
doesn't get used all that much. The display on the 430 works well for
looking up NRST data for position fixes, waypoint info, setting up
approaches, and other miscellaneous stuff. We don't have the weather input
installed, so can't help you there. I'm not sure if the TIS info from a
Garmin Mode S XPNDR (GTX330?) can be displayed on the MX20; that or perhaps
a TCAD input would be really nice.

Here's a link to the MX20 documentation:
http://www.garminat.com/mx_docs.shtml
(garminat.com is the website for the APOLLO products)




> If so, then it seems that the garmin 430 display space is a waste of
valuable panel
> real-estate. If not, how are the two different displays used
> differently? Seems like it adds to workload that way to have to monitor
> 2 screens.
>

[Fred E. Pate]

Yeah, but I think it gives you big blobs of yellow and red areas instead of a many-color topo chart.

Jeff wrote:

>
>the garmin 430/530 is suppose to have a terrain data base that is suppose to be out soon, it wont be as good as the MX20, but for a 500$ upgrade, it could be worth it.
>
>"Fred E. Pate" wrote:
>
>> Yeah.
>>
>> I haven't flown behind an MX20, but the Garmin. Well. Its got 8 colors. Count 'em. You don't get terrain worth diddley with that. The MX20 will show you sectional-chart-style terrrain and instrument approach plates. And airport diagrams (with your location on them) so you can't get lost.
>>
>> I have heard, however, that the MX20 is not as sunlight-readable as the Garmin display.
>>
>> O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >In an article at http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003 about
>> >Garmin 530 vs CNX-80, many of the pilots said that they would want a
>> >combination of a Garmin 530 AND an MX20. I do not understand. Isn't
>> >the Garmin 530 also an MFD capable of displaying multiple inputs, like
>> >weather and terrain? Can someone tell me why both might be desirable?
>> >Does anyone have experience with an MX20?
>> >
>> >-Sami
>> >
>

[Jeff]

the garmin 430 and 530 are basically the same, only a few small exceptions, screen size
being the biggest.
But as you approach your destination the 430/530 puts your freq into standby

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> I read the that garmin 530 anticipates the COM frequencies you need and
> loads them into an internal Com radio. That is a really nice feature.
> Does the Garmin 430 do this? Or can the 430 combination accomplish the
> same thing by interfacing to standard radios?
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > the garmin weather module is here
> > http://www.garmin.com/products/gdl49/
> >
> > it sends weather overlay to the GPS.
> >
> > having 2 gps's gives you the ability to have like an arrival procedure on one
> > GPS, say the 430, then you canhave the actual approach on the MX20.
> >
> > but you can go cheaper since the mx20 is such an awsome product, and get a small
> > cheaper ifr certified GPS, connect it to the MX20 and get the same information
> > that a 430 would supply to it. Having 2 GPS's is really nice, I have my 430 and
> > still use my handheld 295. But this is only a temp solution untill I get the MX20
> > installed (after I get my wife another horse)
> >
> >
> > "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Thanks. Interesting. So, does one send the Garmin 430 GPS information
> >>to the MX20 and have it displayed there? I would prefer to have one
> >>integrated display of nav and weather information. If so, then it seems
> >>that the garmin 430 display space is a waste of valuable panel
> >>real-estate. If not, how are the two different displays used
> >>differently? Seems like it adds to workload that way to have to monitor
> >>2 screens.
> >>
> >>On a separate note, what sort of weather modules exist to feed-into
> >>these displays. I here they are available, but I can not find them on
> >>the garmin website. I am looking to learn about 1 or 2 options of such
> >>modules that uplink to satellites and download weather, and displays it
> >>on the MFD. I would like to know ballpark cost of the module, panel
> >>real estate requirements, and what the cost of a subscription would be.
> >>
> >>-sami
> >>
> >>Windecks wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>We have a Garmin 430 and an MX20 and they work really well together. The
> >>>terrain display on the MX20 is great, and the resolution on VFR and IFR
> >>>charts is sharp and the map's easily readable in direct sunlight. The MX20
> >>>is easy to use and configure, and really enhances the capabilities of the
> >>>430. I'd only go for a 530 if there wasn't enough space in the panel.
> >>>Never seen a CNX80 in action, but it sounds like an enhanced 430. Still,
> >>>UPSAT (and now, of course, Garmin) has been marketing the CNX80/MX20 combo.
> >>>Go figure, they want to sell 2 boxes instead of 1!!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In an article at http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003 about
> >>>>Garmin 530 vs CNX-80, many of the pilots said that they would want a
> >>>>combination of a Garmin 530 AND an MX20. I do not understand. Isn't
> >>>>the Garmin 530 also an MFD capable of displaying multiple inputs, like
> >>>>weather and terrain? Can someone tell me why both might be desirable?
> >>>>Does anyone have experience with an MX20?
> >>>>
> >>>>-Sami
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >

[O. Sami Saydjari]

OK, so does anyone know what a Garmin 430/Apollo MX-20 would cost to buy
and install. I think a Garmin 430 runs about $9K installed and an MX20
runs about $7.2K (just for the equipment). So, do you think I should
figure $20K? The aircraft that I am considering is a Comanche 260 and
it only has a Loran in it for area navigation. So, a GPS antenna would
need to be installed and I would need a panel to switch between Nav and
GPS (I figure that would cost a few $K). I am just looking for a
ballpark figure here...for planning purposes.

-Sami

O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
> In an article at http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003 about
> Garmin 530 vs CNX-80, many of the pilots said that they would want a
> combination of a Garmin 530 AND an MX20. I do not understand. Isn't
> the Garmin 530 also an MFD capable of displaying multiple inputs, like
> weather and terrain? Can someone tell me why both might be desirable?
> Does anyone have experience with an MX20?
>
> -Sami
>

[John R. Copeland]

There are several I/O options for the MX20,
with different serial communications ports. Prices vary accordingly.
Be sure you get prices for the configuration you need.
I needed many of the advanced features for displaying and controlling
radar, TCAD, and ChartView.
---JRC---

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message =
...
> OK, so does anyone know what a Garmin 430/Apollo MX-20 would cost to =
buy=20
> and install. I think a Garmin 430 runs about $9K installed and an =
MX20=20
> runs about $7.2K (just for the equipment). So, do you think I should=20
> figure $20K? The aircraft that I am considering is a Comanche 260 and =

> it only has a Loran in it for area navigation. So, a GPS antenna =
would=20
> need to be installed and I would need a panel to switch between Nav =
and=20
> GPS (I figure that would cost a few $K). I am just looking for a=20
> ballpark figure here...for planning purposes.
>=20
> -Sami
>=20
> O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
> > In an article at http://avionicswest.com/archive/shootout.htm#2003 =
about=20
> > Garmin 530 vs CNX-80, many of the pilots said that they would want a =

> > combination of a Garmin 530 AND an MX20. I do not understand. =
Isn't=20
> > the Garmin 530 also an MFD capable of displaying multiple inputs, =
like=20
> > weather and terrain? Can someone tell me why both might be =
desirable?=20
> > Does anyone have experience with an MX20?
> >=20
> > -Sami
> >=20
>