Garmin GNS-430 vs. CNX80

[Mike Adams]

What's the latest thinking on the GNS-430 vs. the CNX80? I'm planning a
panel upgrade and have read all the magazine articles, including the
comparison in Aviation Consumer, but it would be interesting to hear from
some actual users on how they compare. It seems the general impression is
that the CNX80 is more capable (WAAS, airways in the database, etc.), but
may be a little harder to use for the VFR and light IFR user. Is it really
too "heavy duty" for casual use? Is it worth the extra $2 to $3K?

Thanks,
Mike

[Dude]

IMO, you might as well have 2 of these things, so you might as well get dual
430's or a 430/420 combo.

Seriously, too many of us are slaves to these things now (we should not be,
but unless you fly a lot of IFR, you likely really need one). I suppose it
may be better to have a handheld back up, but that means practicing with it,
and keeping extra batteries, etc. Also, its easier keeping a second
database up to date if both are the same machine.

The 530 does have extra features, but the dual 430's are plenty nice for me,
and since I want two, it would mean having a 530 AND a 430/420.

I can't say much about the CNX80 as I only used one for about 10 minutes.
The graphics were nice though.






"Mike Adams" > wrote in message
news:Z3HLc.43796$ve2.15214@okepread05...
> What's the latest thinking on the GNS-430 vs. the CNX80? I'm planning a
> panel upgrade and have read all the magazine articles, including the
> comparison in Aviation Consumer, but it would be interesting to hear from
> some actual users on how they compare. It seems the general impression is
> that the CNX80 is more capable (WAAS, airways in the database, etc.), but
> may be a little harder to use for the VFR and light IFR user. Is it really
> too "heavy duty" for casual use? Is it worth the extra $2 to $3K?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike

[PA34 F-GFTF]

"Mike Adams" > wrote in message
news:Z3HLc.43796$ve2.15214@okepread05...
> What's the latest thinking on the GNS-430 vs. the CNX80? I'm planning a
> panel upgrade and have read all the magazine articles, including the
> comparison in Aviation Consumer, but it would be interesting to hear from
> some actual users on how they compare. It seems the general impression is
> that the CNX80 is more capable (WAAS, airways in the database, etc.), but
> may be a little harder to use for the VFR and light IFR user.

After investigating and trying the simulators provided by Garmin (to
download from the website), I came to this same conclusion. I decided to go
for the CNX80 as I plan "serious" IFR activity, and then discovered that
CNX80 is apparently not certified in France for IFR.
That's surprising, as CNX80 was certified before the 430/530 in US, but it
leaves me little choice.

--
YAG

[Maik]

PA34 F-GFTF wrote:

> "Mike Adams" > wrote in message
> news:Z3HLc.43796$ve2.15214@okepread05...
>
>>What's the latest thinking on the GNS-430 vs. the CNX80? I'm planning a
>>panel upgrade and have read all the magazine articles, including the
>>comparison in Aviation Consumer, but it would be interesting to hear from
>>some actual users on how they compare. It seems the general impression is
>>that the CNX80 is more capable (WAAS, airways in the database, etc.), but
>>may be a little harder to use for the VFR and light IFR user.
>
>
> After investigating and trying the simulators provided by Garmin (to
> download from the website), I came to this same conclusion. I decided to go
> for the CNX80 as I plan "serious" IFR activity, and then discovered that
> CNX80 is apparently not certified in France for IFR.

This will change... I'm sure.

> That's surprising, as CNX80 was certified before the 430/530 in US, but it
> leaves me little choice.
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:07:21 GMT, Mike Adams >
wrote:

>What's the latest thinking on the GNS-430 vs. the CNX80? I'm planning a
>panel upgrade and have read all the magazine articles, including the
>comparison in Aviation Consumer, but it would be interesting to hear from
>some actual users on how they compare. It seems the general impression is
>that the CNX80 is more capable (WAAS, airways in the database, etc.), but
>may be a little harder to use for the VFR and light IFR user. Is it really
>too "heavy duty" for casual use? Is it worth the extra $2 to $3K?
>
>Thanks,
>Mike

I recently made the decision to go with the CNX80. I've not compared it
directly with the 430/530. But having the airways in the DB means you can
just input the FP the same way that ATC reads it to you. That is very
handy.

You are going to have a significant learning curve no matter what unit you
purchase. It's very different from VOR navigation; and programming the box
on the fly for changes in clearances is not always intuitive. But that's
true for all of the boxes. They each have their quirks.

The CNX80 is certified under TSO146 vs TSO129 for the 430. That means it
qualifies for sole source navigation.

Finally, I'm hoping that someday my local airport will have VNAV or LPV
approaches. Without a (estimated) $1500 upgrade on the 430, (which puts it
into the same price as the CNX80), I would not have been able to take
advantage of that.


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

[Roy Smith]

In article <Z3HLc.43796$ve2.15214@okepread05>,
Mike Adams > wrote:

> What's the latest thinking on the GNS-430 vs. the CNX80? I'm planning a
> panel upgrade and have read all the magazine articles, including the
> comparison in Aviation Consumer, but it would be interesting to hear from
> some actual users on how they compare. It seems the general impression is
> that the CNX80 is more capable (WAAS, airways in the database, etc.), but
> may be a little harder to use for the VFR and light IFR user. Is it really
> too "heavy duty" for casual use? Is it worth the extra $2 to $3K?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike

I've got about 50 hours with a CNX-80, and maybe 5-10 hours with a 430
(a couple of years ago).

I really love the CNX-80. The display is larger than the 430, the WAAS
capability means it's not just more reliable, but more future-proof
(there are some kinds of approach procedures which are only authorized
if you have WAAS). The airways in the database is a great improvement
over entering long strings of waypoints.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that the CNX-80 has a learning
curve. But, for an airplane that you own and fly all the time, it
should be a non-issue. Garmin has also recently come out with a
PC-based simulator, which makes home training easier than it was before.

[Peter R.]

Jerry Kurata wrote:

> "PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
>
> > (Robert M. Gary) writes:
> >
> > >I don't believe the 430 has airways displayed on the graphics. That is
> > >a serious disadvantage when you want to quickly hop onto an airway
> > >without having to program a bunch of stuff.
> > >
> > >-Robert
> > >
> >
> > I've used my 430 for a year now and don't fly airways anymore so it's not
> a
> > "serious disadvantge". I don't remember it ever being a problem with an
> > amended clearance, either. Amended may have me flying to an intersection
> which
> > is in the 430.
> >
>
> Same here, I have only had one V airway in the last 4 years being /G.

In the Northeast US, I quite frequently (filed as /G with a GNS430-
equipped aircraft) receive ATC instructions to fly a certain heading to
join an airway. Perhaps it is a local ATC preference?


--
Peter

[Richard Kaplan]

"Paul Keller" > wrote in message
...>

> victor airways. I live in the vicinity of RDU, and if I'm flying
> anywhere to the north, I have to pretty much figure on filing & flying
> the victor airways. If I'm flying to the west or south, random
> off-airway routes are generally available. All of the aircraft

That also depends a good bit on the altitudes you fly. At 15,000 feet I
often get random direct routes just about anywhere in the Northeast and
Southeast. In the descent into New York I will usually get an amended
routing with airways, but in practice that turns out to just be an Expected
routing in case of lost comm -- well before I start flying the airways I
usually get vectors or some shortcut routing.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Maule Driver]

> > victor airways. I live in the vicinity of RDU, and if I'm flying
> > anywhere to the north, I have to pretty much figure on filing & flying
> > the victor airways. If I'm flying to the west or south, random
> > off-airway routes are generally available. All of the aircraft
>
My experience flying north out of 8nc8 (10 miles north of RDU) is 50:50. I
file direct and I'd estimate a little less than half the time I get it (4000
to 8000). Even after they clear me, I can almost always request direct and
get it.

Problem is, sooner or later you have to get on the airways to get past DC if
you are going that way.