GPS 430 or 480?

[Hankal]

Just looked at my approach plates. Very few have NDB approaches, some are VOR
DME, some require ADF. More and more now are GPS.
Since I can use the GPS instead of DME for Some VOR approaches, is it not wise
(prudent)
to get an IFR certified GPS now?
Should it be a Garmin 430 or a 480? The cost of the 480 is about 2 grand more,
but I could use it for ILS approaches.
My ADF is useless and I am contemplating a GPS in the place on the panel.
I have never flown a GPS approach.
My finances are low, but my life does have a high value. So says the MRS.
You can email or put your thoughts and suggestion here.
Hank 172 driver

[Roy Smith]

(Hankal) wrote:
> Just looked at my approach plates. Very few have NDB approaches, some are VOR
> DME, some require ADF. More and more now are GPS.
> Since I can use the GPS instead of DME for Some VOR approaches, is it not wise
> (prudent)
> to get an IFR certified GPS now?
> Should it be a Garmin 430 or a 480? The cost of the 480 is about 2 grand more,
> but I could use it for ILS approaches.

Can't you fly an ILS with either the 430 or the 480?

Here's my personal opinion on the state of IFR GA avionics today.

1) ADF is dead.

2) DME is dead.

3) GPS is the way to go.

4) You need some sort of backup if the GPS goes TU. A conventional
NAV/COM with GS driving its own CDI means you can get vectors to an ILS
if you need to. My club has been gravitating towards the SL-30 as our
standard #2 NAV/COM, but you don't need to be that fancy.

For better or worse, Garmin pretty much has a lock on the market today.
Assuming your budget precludes the 530 (gotta love that big screen), the
only real choice is between the 430 and the 480. My personal opinion is
that on technical merits, the 480 is the better box, but the big open
question is which of the two will Garmin continue to support in the
future. Garmin's not talking, but my guess (and it's really just a
guess) is that the 430 is going to be retired soon.

> My ADF is useless and I am contemplating a GPS in the place on the panel.
> I have never flown a GPS approach.

Whatever box you buy, there will be a learning curve, and you had better
budget some learning time to master the software on whatever box you
install. But once you do, flying a GPS approach is much easier than
just about anything else (except perhaps vectors to an ILS).

[Wizard of Draws]

On 10/26/04 8:14 PM, in article
, "Hankal" >
wrote:

> Just looked at my approach plates. Very few have NDB approaches, some are VOR
> DME, some require ADF. More and more now are GPS.
> Since I can use the GPS instead of DME for Some VOR approaches, is it not wise
> (prudent)
> to get an IFR certified GPS now?
> Should it be a Garmin 430 or a 480? The cost of the 480 is about 2 grand more,
> but I could use it for ILS approaches.
> My ADF is useless and I am contemplating a GPS in the place on the panel.
> I have never flown a GPS approach.
> My finances are low, but my life does have a high value. So says the MRS.
> You can email or put your thoughts and suggestion here.
> Hank 172 driver

I fly with a 430 and it's IFR certified. I don't know what the future holds
for it as far as Garmin is concerned, but it certainly does everything I
could ask of it. It's reasonably simple to operate with a little study and
in truth, I can't think of a bad thing to say about it.
Standard disclaimer about not working for or having any other affiliation
with Garmin applies.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Steven DalPra]

ADF and DME are not dead. Lose GPS enroute IFR and what else do you have?
I have used regularly in my flying a CNX remoted to an MX-20. SL30 is
second Nav/Com. Two VOR`s with separate glide slopes. DME remotes to SL30.
RMI presents information from ADF on double needle and Nav1, Nav2, or GPS to
single needle.
So guess what happens? In turbulence I knock off the only knob on the CNX
that selects radio frequencies. The shaft that the knob fits over is bent
and will not turn. That is with how much force I hit the panel with my hand.
The airplane immediately loses Nav1, Com1, and GPS. Garmin says that this
has never happened before. I am left on a multileg flightplan with VOR, DME
and ADF. I have a handheld Garmin GPS 196 but you may have difficulty
programming it when aircraft control takes all your attention. I could not
use the hand held GPS at that time.
I flew an ILS approach with DME and ADF assistance. No emergency. No
question of outcome.

The dilemma of these boxes is that while they save tremendous panel space,
you give up redundancy.
I am not proCNX80 and antiGNS430. They are simply 2 different boxes with 2
different missions and 2 different learning curves. And we keep getting
another curve to learn with the CNX as Garmin continually modifies and
improves and changes and fixes the software. When they do this, the menus
change. They nested menus. This means you have to unlearn and relearn how
the unit operates.
One of my friends always laughs and says " When you live on the cutting
edge, you sure bleed a lot".

I would choose the CNX based on your type of flying and not because it is
the hot new box and somebody else has one. It has a very steep learning
curve(expensive). But if you fly serious IFR and you are familiar with
FMS`s, it must be considered.
I think the unspoken concern I share is that this is getting way too
complicated for casual use. And is this technology going to get any easier
or intuitive in operation in the future?
I also believe that when a company sells ANY new technology unit that
training must be made available from that company. How many of us really
use the navigational potential of any of our equipment? If you can afford
the box and risk the safety of your flight on the outcome of the use of the
box, you can afford the training. Flying has never been cheap and it is not
getting any cheaper tomorrow.

"Hankal" > wrote in message
...
> Just looked at my approach plates. Very few have NDB approaches, some are
> VOR
> DME, some require ADF. More and more now are GPS.
> Since I can use the GPS instead of DME for Some VOR approaches, is it not
> wise
> (prudent)
> to get an IFR certified GPS now?
> Should it be a Garmin 430 or a 480? The cost of the 480 is about 2 grand
> more,
> but I could use it for ILS approaches.
> My ADF is useless and I am contemplating a GPS in the place on the panel.
> I have never flown a GPS approach.
> My finances are low, but my life does have a high value. So says the MRS.
> You can email or put your thoughts and suggestion here.
> Hank 172 driver

[John R. Copeland]

I wrestled with that same concern, but I overcame it.
For 'casual use' there's Direct-To, and that's not complicated at all.
With the new GPS gear, we can climb the learning curve gradually,
using one new feature at a time, after becoming comfortable with each.
The CNX-80/GNS-430 is especially rich in available features,
but nobody says we have to use all of them in the beginning.
---JRC---

"Steven DalPra" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> <-- Many good points snipped -->
>=20
> I think the unspoken concern I share is that this is getting way too=20
> complicated for casual use.
>

[C Kingsbury]

If you mainly want a DME/ADF replacement and to use for occasional RNAV
approaches, do you really need either the 430 or the 480? You can buy a used
IFR GPS for less than half of what either of those boxes cost new and get
all of that stuff and save some money to solve other problems. Neither box
will do you any good if the plane is on the ground because you don't have
the money to repair a cylinder.

If you're thinking about throwing real money around, why not buy a used 430
and get yourself a GTX-330 and get TIS while you're at it? That's useful in
VFR, too. As for support, the GNS-430 base is too big for Garmin to not
support. But, if you're buying new, I can't see any reason to not buy the
480.

I would not want to have only one NAV/COM radio for serious IFR. If they're
tearing up the wiring have them put a connector so you can plug your
handheld COM into the external antenna- you'll get much better reception.
You do have handheld radios, don't you? My #1 oh-$#@! IFR scenario is an
electrical failure, particularly in a middle-aged 172. Handheld COM and GPS
running on batteries are the best insurance.

-cwk.

"Hankal" > wrote in message
...
> Just looked at my approach plates. Very few have NDB approaches, some are
VOR
> DME, some require ADF. More and more now are GPS.
> Since I can use the GPS instead of DME for Some VOR approaches, is it not
wise
> (prudent)
> to get an IFR certified GPS now?
> Should it be a Garmin 430 or a 480? The cost of the 480 is about 2 grand
more,
> but I could use it for ILS approaches.
> My ADF is useless and I am contemplating a GPS in the place on the panel.
> I have never flown a GPS approach.
> My finances are low, but my life does have a high value. So says the MRS.
> You can email or put your thoughts and suggestion here.
> Hank 172 driver

[Hankal]

>If you're thinking about throwing real money around, why not buy a used 430
>and get yourself a GTX-330 and get TIS while you're at it? That's useful in
>VFR, too. As for support, the GNS-430 base is too big for Garmin to not
>support. But, if you're buying new, I can't see any reason to not buy the
>480.

I had to buy used, never know who abused the equipment.
Would love to get the 480. Never know when I get to my destination and have to
fly the approach. Sure I can fly VOR or ILS
but some require GPS and others DME.
I have neither.

[Ross Oliver]

C Kingsbury > wrote:
>If you mainly want a DME/ADF replacement and to use for occasional RNAV
>approaches, do you really need either the 430 or the 480? You can buy a used
>IFR GPS for less than half of what either of those boxes cost new and get
>all of that stuff and save some money to solve other problems. Neither box
>will do you any good if the plane is on the ground because you don't have
>the money to repair a cylinder.


Don't be swayed by unit acquisition cost alone.
The installation and certification will be a large chunk of the initial
expense, whether an older or new model. They will also both cost about
the same in database updates. So the total cost of ownership of an
older GPS is really not that much less, for MUCH less capability.
That's the reason they're so cheap ;-)

[SR]

On 27 Oct 2004 23:31:54 GMT, (Hankal) wrote:

>>If you're thinking about throwing real money around, why not buy a used 430
>>and get yourself a GTX-330 and get TIS while you're at it? That's useful in
>>VFR, too. As for support, the GNS-430 base is too big for Garmin to not
>>support. But, if you're buying new, I can't see any reason to not buy the
>>480.
>
>I had to buy used, never know who abused the equipment.
>Would love to get the 480. Never know when I get to my destination and have to
>fly the approach. Sure I can fly VOR or ILS
>but some require GPS and others DME.
>I have neither.


Both the GNS-430 and GNS-480 have GPS/ILS/VOR/Com all in the same box.
Would not be different in that regard for either of them. 480
apparently currentyl has WAAS capability and this is supposed to be an
upgrade for the 430. There are many other differences between them
but they both have the same basic capabilities. The only current
difference in approaches you could fly would be ones requiring WAAS.

[John R. Copeland]

"SR" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
>=20
> Both the GNS-430 and GNS-480 have GPS/ILS/VOR/Com all in the same box.
> Would not be different in that regard for either of them. 480
> apparently currentyl has WAAS capability and this is supposed to be an
> upgrade for the 430. There are many other differences between them
> but they both have the same basic capabilities. The only current
> difference in approaches you could fly would be ones requiring WAAS.

I think the difference between having vertical guidance for GNS-480 =
approaches,
and not having it with GNS-430 approaches is a HUGE difference.
It's even bigger than ILS approaches versus Localizer-only approaches.

The 430 cannot get that capability without being recertified under =
TSO-C146a,
and the 430 hardware would need to be replaced to achieve that =
performance level.
I can't imagine Garmin upgrading the 430 now that they own the 480 =
design.
---JRC---

[Andrew Gideon]

John R. Copeland wrote:

> The 430 cannot get that capability without being recertified under
> TSO-C146a, and the 430 hardware would need to be replaced to achieve that
> performance level. I can't imagine Garmin upgrading the 430 now that they
> own the 480 design. ---JRC---

The 430 is scheduled to be WAAS-able next summer. The price I've seen for
this is $1500, and the unit needs to go back to "the factory" for this.

Another major difference for the IFR flyer between the 430 and the 480 is
that the latter permits airway-based route entry. That is, you enter the
route as it is filed. The 430 requires entry of each and every waypoint.
For long airways with many "bends", this gets annoying.

I've spoken to a Garmin representative about the possibility of airway-based
entry becoming available in the 430. He said "maybe", but that the concern
was that this would make the user interface more complex. I don't
understand this answer, as it would appear to make things *simpler*. But
I've never flown behind the 480, so...

- Andrew

P.S. The latest news on weather is that the WAAS upgrade will also
permit the 430 to speak to the GDL69.

[John R. Copeland]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message =
online.com...
> John R. Copeland wrote:
>=20
>> The 430 cannot get that capability without being recertified under
>> TSO-C146a, and the 430 hardware would need to be replaced to achieve =
that
>> performance level. I can't imagine Garmin upgrading the 430 now that =
they
>> own the 480 design. ---JRC---
>=20
> The 430 is scheduled to be WAAS-able next summer. The price I've seen =
for=20
> this is $1500, and the unit needs to go back to "the factory" for =
this.
>=20
> Another major difference for the IFR flyer between the 430 and the 480 =
is=20
> that the latter permits airway-based route entry. That is, you enter =
the=20
> route as it is filed. The 430 requires entry of each and every =
waypoint. =20
> For long airways with many "bends", this gets annoying.
>=20
> - Andrew
>
Your "airway" point in favor of the 480 is correct, of course.
However, I personally use vertical guidance on approaches far more often
than I use airways in my flight plans, so I value VNAV more highly.
I haven't navigated by airways more than probably a dozen times in the =
past 25 years.

I still think Garmin's unlikely to upgrade the 430 to TSO-C146a =
capability.
It doesn't sound like good business sense, when they now have the 480.
Recertification would be a colossal expense, and I don't see enough =
return for it.
It took Apollo nearly a year simply to get approval for Software Version =
2.0,
giving the CNX-80/GNS-480 the VNAV capability plus a few minor features.
If Garmin really were to issue the 430 upgrade by next summer,
they'd need to have it undergoing flight tests before now.
Maybe they have, but nobody's said so.
---JRC---

[Hankal]

> So the total cost of ownership of an
>older GPS is really not that much less, for MUCH less capability.
>That's the reason they're so cheap

I have not found a cheap 430. Found a used one for about 6k.
My avionics shop quoted a price of 10k to instal a 430 abd renove my ADF.
To me that is a lot of coins.
Hank

[Dave Butler]

John R. Copeland wrote:

> I haven't navigated by airways more than probably a dozen times in the past 25 years.

That's interesting. What part of the country do you live in (assuming US), what
altitudes, what kind of equipment?

> I still think Garmin's unlikely to upgrade the 430 to TSO-C146a capability.
> It doesn't sound like good business sense, when they now have the 480.

Well, Garmin has said they would do so. There is an old press release on their
web site that says they'll have it by 4Q2004 for $1500, but they've backed away
from that date, even though last time I checked the press release was still
hanging out there. I called and asked about it a few weeks ago and they indeed
say they intend to have it by next summer. There was a thread here about it
earlier where I reported on my phone call.

TBH, they didn't say "TSO-C146a" but I inferred that from the capabilities they
mentioned.

Dave

[Mike Rapoport]

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
...
"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> John R. Copeland wrote:
>
>> The 430 cannot get that capability without being recertified under
>> TSO-C146a, and the 430 hardware would need to be replaced to achieve that
>> performance level. I can't imagine Garmin upgrading the 430 now that they
>> own the 480 design. ---JRC---
>
> The 430 is scheduled to be WAAS-able next summer. The price I've seen for
> this is $1500, and the unit needs to go back to "the factory" for this.
>
> Another major difference for the IFR flyer between the 430 and the 480 is
> that the latter permits airway-based route entry. That is, you enter the
> route as it is filed. The 430 requires entry of each and every waypoint.
> For long airways with many "bends", this gets annoying.
>
> - Andrew
>
Your "airway" point in favor of the 480 is correct, of course.
However, I personally use vertical guidance on approaches far more often
than I use airways in my flight plans, so I value VNAV more highly.
I haven't navigated by airways more than probably a dozen times in the past
25 years.

I still think Garmin's unlikely to upgrade the 430 to TSO-C146a capability.
It doesn't sound like good business sense, when they now have the 480.
Recertification would be a colossal expense, and I don't see enough return
for it.
It took Apollo nearly a year simply to get approval for Software Version
2.0,
giving the CNX-80/GNS-480 the VNAV capability plus a few minor features.
If Garmin really were to issue the 430 upgrade by next summer,
they'd need to have it undergoing flight tests before now.
Maybe they have, but nobody's said so.
---JRC---

I don't know where you went to business school but, to me, it seems that if
you have an installed base of 45,000 units, then upgrading them for $1500
each is good business. Additionally they have commited to providing an WAAS
upgrade path for the 430 and have already demonstrated the hardware. I
don't know if airways will be part of the package but adding them is fairly
trivial.

Mike
MU-2

[John R. Copeland]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message =
...
> John R. Copeland wrote:
>=20
>> I haven't navigated by airways more than probably a dozen times in =
the past 25 years.
>=20
> That's interesting. What part of the country do you live in (assuming =
US), what=20
> altitudes, what kind of equipment?
>=20
> Dave
>
I can't even remember all the different brands of RNAV I've had over the =
years.
I'm based in Ohio, and I rarely have need to fly outside the U.S.
Mostly right now I fly my pressurized twin in the teens and low flight =
levels
border-to-border and coast-to-coast with a CNX-80, MX-20, and other =
toys.
Previously, it was equipped with LORAN and VHF-DME RNAV,
and I've had other airplanes with VHF-DME RNAV since the '70s.
---JRC---

[John R. Copeland]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message =
ink.net...
>=20
> I don't know where you went to business school but, to me, it seems =
that if=20
> you have an installed base of 45,000 units, then upgrading them for =
$1500=20
> each is good business. Additionally they have commited to providing =
an WAAS=20
> upgrade path for the 430 and have already demonstrated the hardware. =
I=20
> don't know if airways will be part of the package but adding them is =
fairly=20
> trivial.
>=20
> Mike
>
Yes, adding airways to the GNS-430 would be fairly trivial.
But recertifying new hardware to TSO-C146a isn't trivial,
and my point is that Garmin has the GNS-480 already certified.
I see that as reducing justification for spending money on the 430.

Upgrading the 530 to TSO-C146a capability is more certain, I think
If I were sure that 430 certification would be a low-cost spin-off =
benefit
of certifying the modified 530, then I'd swing over to your view, Mike.
Right now, though, I'm skeptical of that.
I'd be happy to be wrong, however.
---JRC---

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, Dave Butler
> writes:

> I haven't navigated by airways more than probably a dozen times in the past
>25 years.
>
>That's interesting. What part of the country do you live in (assuming US),
>what
>altitudes, what kind of equipment?

I fly out of an area west of CLE with a Garmin 430 and haven't used an airway
in several years. I file direct with a VOR in the middle of the route if one
is on course. I will sometimes get a change as I near CLE from the east.
Sometimes it is to an intersection but most of the time it is vectors. Flight
levels are generally 5 to 9k.

Chuck

[Dave Butler]

PaulaJay1 wrote:
> In article >, Dave Butler
> > writes:
>
>
>>I haven't navigated by airways more than probably a dozen times in the past
>>25 years.
>>
>>That's interesting. What part of the country do you live in (assuming US),
>>what
>>altitudes, what kind of equipment?
>
>
> I fly out of an area west of CLE with a Garmin 430 and haven't used an airway
> in several years. I file direct with a VOR in the middle of the route if one
> is on course. I will sometimes get a change as I near CLE from the east.
> Sometimes it is to an intersection but most of the time it is vectors. Flight
> levels are generally 5 to 9k.

Thanks, so I guess avoidance of airways is fairly common. In about 10 years of
IFR flying in airplanes variously equipped with and without RNAV, I've only had
direct clearances a dozen or so times. I don't seek direct clearances even when
equipped because they seem to save very little distance.

In my view, staying on an airway makes navigation simpler, all my course lines
are already drawn on my charts, I always know where I am relative to a nearby
intersection or navaid. I can locate my position on an IFR chart at a glance.
Minimum altitiudes are spelled out for the airways (yeah, I guess off-course
altitudes are there now, too).

Personal preference I guess. I can see where flying long distances the advantage
might be greater. For most of my flights the time-savings is in the noise level.

Sorry for the thread drift.

[Ross Oliver]

On 28 Oct 2004 17:15:28 GMT, Hankal > wrote:
>> So the total cost of ownership of an
>>older GPS is really not that much less, for MUCH less capability.
>>That's the reason they're so cheap
>
>I have not found a cheap 430. Found a used one for about 6k.
>My avionics shop quoted a price of 10k to instal a 430 abd renove my ADF.
>To me that is a lot of coins.
>Hank


I meant an older model GPS, such as a KLN-89, which can be
picked up for about $1200, but would still cost about the
same to install.

[Mike Rapoport]

I doubt that the incremental cost of certifying the 430 to TSO146 is that
great when they are already doing it for the 530. The 430 and 530 are
essentially the same box with different screens. Anyway, both are supposed
to be out in the first half of '05. The real issue is when the FAA will
publish a meaningful number of LPV approaches with significantly lower
minimiums. I like the idea of vertical guidance but to actually add
capibility, the approaches need lower minimiums. Since most of the airports
that I fly into have minimiums that are defined by terrain, I'm not sure
that WAAS will mean much to my flying.

Mike
MU-2

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> I don't know where you went to business school but, to me, it seems that
> if
> you have an installed base of 45,000 units, then upgrading them for $1500
> each is good business. Additionally they have commited to providing an
> WAAS
> upgrade path for the 430 and have already demonstrated the hardware. I
> don't know if airways will be part of the package but adding them is
> fairly
> trivial.
>
> Mike
>
Yes, adding airways to the GNS-430 would be fairly trivial.
But recertifying new hardware to TSO-C146a isn't trivial,
and my point is that Garmin has the GNS-480 already certified.
I see that as reducing justification for spending money on the 430.

Upgrading the 530 to TSO-C146a capability is more certain, I think
If I were sure that 430 certification would be a low-cost spin-off benefit
of certifying the modified 530, then I'd swing over to your view, Mike.
Right now, though, I'm skeptical of that.
I'd be happy to be wrong, however.
---JRC---

[C Kingsbury]

People around me (BED- Boston area) have been spending in the 6k range to
acquire a middle-aged GPS and install/certify it in 172s of similar vintage.
That is a big difference from $6k to buy a unit and $10k to install it. A
used/older GPS buys you a ton of new capabilities in a plane without RNAV or
DME. No question a 430/480 is great stuff but by itself it doesn't buy you
that much more at least right now.

-cwk.

"Ross Oliver" > wrote in message
...
> On 28 Oct 2004 17:15:28 GMT, Hankal > wrote:
> >> So the total cost of ownership of an
> >>older GPS is really not that much less, for MUCH less capability.
> >>That's the reason they're so cheap
> >
> >I have not found a cheap 430. Found a used one for about 6k.
> >My avionics shop quoted a price of 10k to instal a 430 abd renove my ADF.
> >To me that is a lot of coins.
> >Hank
>
>
> I meant an older model GPS, such as a KLN-89, which can be
> picked up for about $1200, but would still cost about the
> same to install.
>
>

[C Kingsbury]

The 480 also opens up the use of LNAV/VNAV approaches which aren't quite as
good as LPV minima but are an improvement on existing non-precision
approaches. They are also by all estimates preferable to fly because you've
got a stabilized approach all the way from the FAF to DH/MAP without one or
more configuration changes in between. According to AOPA there are about 700
of these out there now, though mostly at fields that already have ILSs and
such. Handy if the glideslope is out of service, I suppose.

The FAA has invested heavily in WAAS and has taken some flack from the
non-GA community for doing so. They want to show this as having paid off
which is impossible unless planes are equipped for it. So I suspect they're
not going to make life harder for Garmin to upgrade the 430 than they have
to from a safety standpoint.

-cwk.

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> I doubt that the incremental cost of certifying the 430 to TSO146 is that
> great when they are already doing it for the 530. The 430 and 530 are
> essentially the same box with different screens. Anyway, both are
supposed
> to be out in the first half of '05. The real issue is when the FAA will
> publish a meaningful number of LPV approaches with significantly lower
> minimiums. I like the idea of vertical guidance but to actually add
> capibility, the approaches need lower minimiums. Since most of the
airports
> that I fly into have minimiums that are defined by terrain, I'm not sure
> that WAAS will mean much to my flying.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

[C Kingsbury]

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
...
"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> John R. Copeland wrote:
>
>> I haven't navigated by airways more than probably a dozen times in the
past 25 years.
>
> That's interesting. What part of the country do you live in (assuming US),
what
> altitudes, what kind of equipment?
>
> Dave
>
I can't even remember all the different brands of RNAV I've had over the
years.
I'm based in Ohio, and I rarely have need to fly outside the U.S.
Mostly right now I fly my pressurized twin in the teens and low flight
levels
border-to-border and coast-to-coast with a CNX-80, MX-20, and other toys.
Previously, it was equipped with LORAN and VHF-DME RNAV,
and I've had other airplanes with VHF-DME RNAV since the '70s.
---JRC---

How about the Northeast? If I tried to fly from Boston to White Plains
without flying airways they'd laugh me off the frequency.

-cwk.

[John R. Copeland]

In that area, there are uncommonly large numbers of airways compared
to the numbers of destinations.
In many parts of the U.S., it is the reverse of that.
West of the Alleghenies, it's quite common to file, and be cleared for,
direct legs of 500 nautical miles or more.
---JRC---

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message =
link.net...
>=20
> How about the Northeast? If I tried to fly from Boston to White Plains
> without flying airways they'd laugh me off the frequency.
>=20
> -cwk.
>

[Sandy Trevor]

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in news:_aYfd.57417
:

> Subject: Re: GPS 430 or 480?
>

John-
I've had a CNX-80 since July, and just got it back with the V 2.0
software, which turns it into a GNS-480 with VNAV. There is no comparison
with the other Garmins:
1. Yes, VNAV is huge... I can do LNAV/VNAV approaches to tons of places,
and LPV down to near ILS minimums to a few, with more added every month.
2. GNS-480 updates 5X/second vs once/sec for other GPS's. Once a second
doesn't hack it on VNAV approaches -- an aircraft can move 20' vertically
in a second before you get any indication... at 5fps you move only 4'.
Also, 5X/sec is fast enough that you can keep the plane upright if you lose
all your gyros - 1/sec is NOT.
3. Airways... they are NOT gone in the NE. From New Haven, Teteboro,
KSLK, etc., many times ATC has thrown FRC's with airways at me shortly
after take-off. With the GNS-480, it is a snap to handle this:
- Direct To the first waypoint
- All the airways from that waypoint are LISTED by the GNS-480 - you
just push a soft-key for the one you want.
- Then you choose from a list of waypoints ON THAT AIRWAY where you
want to get off. It is EASY!
Yes, you must invest some time learning the 480, but that's true with any
GPS. I found it mostly intuitive, with only a few things that made me
think twice - like why it SUSPENDS at the MAP. I guess that puzzeled
Garmin too, because in V 2.0 it no longer does that.

One more really neat feature: it sizes holding patterns based on your
ground speed so you'll do 1 minute legs if you just follow the line!
--Sandy, Worthington OH

[John R. Copeland]

Sandy, if your CNX-80 now shows "GNS-480" in the splash screen,
then I'm jealous. I even still have the same old Apollo CNX-80 bezel.
I was hoping it would come back re-branded, but no such luck.

The earlier version SUSPended at the FAF because the FAA insisted.
It's better now.

Do you still keep your airplane at Don Scott?
---JRC---

"Sandy Trevor" > wrote in message =
...
> "John R. Copeland" > wrote in =
news:_aYfd.57417
> :
>=20
>> Subject: Re: GPS 430 or 480?
>>=20
>=20
> John-
> I've had a CNX-80 since July, and just got it back with the V 2.0=20
> software, which turns it into a GNS-480 with VNAV. There is no =
comparison=20
> with the other Garmins:
> 1. Yes, VNAV is huge... I can do LNAV/VNAV approaches to tons of =
places,=20
> and LPV down to near ILS minimums to a few, with more added every =
month.
> 2. GNS-480 updates 5X/second vs once/sec for other GPS's. Once a =
second=20
> doesn't hack it on VNAV approaches -- an aircraft can move 20' =
vertically=20
> in a second before you get any indication... at 5fps you move only 4'.
> Also, 5X/sec is fast enough that you can keep the plane upright if you =
lose=20
> all your gyros - 1/sec is NOT.
> 3. Airways... they are NOT gone in the NE. From New Haven, Teteboro,=20
> KSLK, etc., many times ATC has thrown FRC's with airways at me shortly =

> after take-off. With the GNS-480, it is a snap to handle this:
> - Direct To the first waypoint
> - All the airways from that waypoint are LISTED by the GNS-480 - =
you =20
> just push a soft-key for the one you want.
> - Then you choose from a list of waypoints ON THAT AIRWAY where you =
=20
> want to get off. It is EASY!
> Yes, you must invest some time learning the 480, but that's true with =
any=20
> GPS. I found it mostly intuitive, with only a few things that made me =

> think twice - like why it SUSPENDS at the MAP. I guess that puzzeled=20
> Garmin too, because in V 2.0 it no longer does that.
>=20
> One more really neat feature: it sizes holding patterns based on your
> ground speed so you'll do 1 minute legs if you just follow the line!
> --Sandy, Worthington OH

[Roy Smith]

John R. Copeland > wrote:
>The earlier version SUSPended at the FAF because the FAA insisted.
>It's better now.

Does it still refuse to sequence to the MAP if you don't cross the FAF
dead-on? With the V1 software, if you miss the FAF by more than a
very small amount, it keeps the FAF as the active waypoint. It
confused the hell out of me the first time it happened.

[John R. Copeland]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message =
...
> John R. Copeland > wrote:
>>The earlier version SUSPended at the FAF because the FAA insisted.
>>It's better now.
>=20
> Does it still refuse to sequence to the MAP if you don't cross the FAF
> dead-on? With the V1 software, if you miss the FAF by more than a
> very small amount, it keeps the FAF as the active waypoint. It
> confused the hell out of me the first time it happened.
>

I don't know, Roy.
I'd *like* to say I never miss the FAF, though. :-)

Is the FAF a fly-over waypoint, instead of a fly-by?
If it's a fly-over, then maybe you HAVE to fly over it.
If that's true, then there's probably no change in version 2.0.
---JRC---

[Peter R.]

John R. Copeland ) wrote:

> Is the FAF a fly-over waypoint, instead of a fly-by?
> If it's a fly-over, then maybe you HAVE to fly over it.

According to approach plate symbology, it is a fly-by waypoint.

--
Peter

[Lee Elson]

Sandy Trevor > wrote in message
<snip>
>
> One more really neat feature: it sizes holding patterns based on your
> ground speed so you'll do 1 minute legs if you just follow the line!
> --Sandy, Worthington OH

Actually it does more than that. Using it in a stiff wind last week, I
found that it appears to take note of either your ground speed
variation in the turns or your outbound versus inbound ground track
and if it finds a difference, it assumes that your holding pattern
needs wind correction. Then it actually *draws* a holding pattern with
sides that are not parallel, just as you would fly in a crosswind.
This can have a downside in that if you vary your speed or track for
some other reason, it would draw an incorrect pattern.

[Dave Butler]

Lee Elson wrote:
> Sandy Trevor > wrote in message
> <snip>
>
>>One more really neat feature: it sizes holding patterns based on your
>>ground speed so you'll do 1 minute legs if you just follow the line!
>> --Sandy, Worthington OH
>
>
> Actually it does more than that. Using it in a stiff wind last week, I
> found that it appears to take note of either your ground speed
> variation in the turns or your outbound versus inbound ground track
> and if it finds a difference, it assumes that your holding pattern
> needs wind correction. Then it actually *draws* a holding pattern with
> sides that are not parallel, just as you would fly in a crosswind.
> This can have a downside in that if you vary your speed or track for
> some other reason, it would draw an incorrect pattern.

Aha! Very interesting. There was an earlier thread about this and I never did
understand how this works. If anyone has any more detail, I'm interested in
learning about it. My partners and I are considering the GNS-480.

Dave

[Doug Easton]

I'm confused I guess. Doesn't the holding pattern outline as drawn represent
the desired track for the aircraft to fly over the ground? Clearly the
heading of the aircraft will change to compensate for a crosswind but why
does the desired track change?

Doug

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> Lee Elson wrote:
>> Sandy Trevor > wrote in message <snip>
>>
>>>One more really neat feature: it sizes holding patterns based on your
>>>ground speed so you'll do 1 minute legs if you just follow the line!
>>> --Sandy, Worthington OH
>>
>>
>> Actually it does more than that. Using it in a stiff wind last week, I
>> found that it appears to take note of either your ground speed
>> variation in the turns or your outbound versus inbound ground track
>> and if it finds a difference, it assumes that your holding pattern
>> needs wind correction. Then it actually *draws* a holding pattern with
>> sides that are not parallel, just as you would fly in a crosswind.
>> This can have a downside in that if you vary your speed or track for
>> some other reason, it would draw an incorrect pattern.
>
> Aha! Very interesting. There was an earlier thread about this and I never
> did understand how this works. If anyone has any more detail, I'm
> interested in learning about it. My partners and I are considering the
> GNS-480.
>
> Dave
>

[Dave Butler]

Doug Easton wrote:
> I'm confused I guess. Doesn't the holding pattern outline as drawn represent
> the desired track for the aircraft to fly over the ground? Clearly the
> heading of the aircraft will change to compensate for a crosswind but why
> does the desired track change?

Don't feel bad, you're not the only one who has never been taught this. If the
wind is blowing across the inbound course, one of your turns will be upwind and
the other will be downwind. If the inbound and outbound courses are parallel and
you make standard rate turns, the radius of your turn (as observed from ground)
will be greater on the downwind turn and smaller on your upwind turn, and you'll
undershoot on the upwind turn and overshoot on the downwind turn. In order to
avoid undershoot and overshoot on the turns, you need to make the inbound and
outbound tracks closer together at the end where you turn upwind, and farther
apart at the end where you turn downwind.

If you follow the rules-of-thumb about multiplying the inbound course correction
by 2 or 3 on the outbound leg, this happens automatically. The holding pattern
is really more-or-less egg-shaped, and you roll out of your standard rate turn
right on the desired course. You shouldn't be trying to make the outbound course
parallel the inbound.

If you wanted to make the outbound parallel the inbound, you would make your
outbound course correction equal to the inbound course correction.

Dave

>
> Doug
>
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Lee Elson wrote:
>>
>>>Sandy Trevor > wrote in message <snip>
>>>
>>>>One more really neat feature: it sizes holding patterns based on your
>>>>ground speed so you'll do 1 minute legs if you just follow the line!
>>>> --Sandy, Worthington OH
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually it does more than that. Using it in a stiff wind last week, I
>>>found that it appears to take note of either your ground speed
>>>variation in the turns or your outbound versus inbound ground track
>>>and if it finds a difference, it assumes that your holding pattern
>>>needs wind correction. Then it actually *draws* a holding pattern with
>>>sides that are not parallel, just as you would fly in a crosswind.
>>>This can have a downside in that if you vary your speed or track for
>>>some other reason, it would draw an incorrect pattern.
>>
>>Aha! Very interesting. There was an earlier thread about this and I never
>>did understand how this works. If anyone has any more detail, I'm
>>interested in learning about it. My partners and I are considering the
>>GNS-480.
>>
>>Dave
>>
>
>
>


--
Dave Butler, software engineer 919-392-4367

[Jon Woellhaf]

Dave Butler wrote to Doug Easton, "... you're not the only one who has never
been taught [that in a crosswind the inbound and outbound legs of a holding
pattern are not parallel]."

I figured this out when I wrote a simple holding pattern simulator and
played with it. My instructor hadn't been taught it either and was amazed by
the result.

Jon

[Roy Smith]

Doug Easton > wrote:
>I'm confused I guess. Doesn't the holding pattern outline as drawn represent
>the desired track for the aircraft to fly over the ground? Clearly the
>heading of the aircraft will change to compensate for a crosswind but why
>does the desired track change?

Certainly, you can track any straight line on the ground simply by
appling the correct wind correction angle. But that only covers the
inbound and outbound legs.

If you want to fly a circular arc over the ground (i.e. the inbound
and outbound turns) with any wind, you need to be continuously
changing the rate of turn, and thus the bank angle, as you progress
through the turn. If you want to fly constant bank, standard-rate
turns (as we were all taught to do), it is IMPOSSIBLE to fly an exact
racetrack pattern in anything other than calm air.

The general rule of thumb is to double (or triple, depending on the
authority you read) the inbound WCA on the outbound leg. You end up
flying some blob-shaped track instead of a nice neat racetrack, but at
least you stay on the protected side of the inbound course.