Ipad compatible bluetooth GPS which has an external antennasocket and external pwr input?

On Nov 6, 2:47*pm, Peter wrote:
Alan Browne wrote

My main frustration with the iPhone is also the very starved GPS
interface. *I'd love to see more of what's going on with the receiver
and sats status. *Moreso in the iPhone 4S (which I don't have) that also
uses GLONASS.

For airborne use I'd get a dedicated aviation receiver - though I can
understand the seductive appeal of the iPad for such with its gorgeous
larger screen. *Maybe the solution is in a non-Apple tablet?

The Samsung Galaxy 10" tablet is the main competitor. Very similar to
the Ipad, slightly less slick finger gesture implementation but
actually fine for the job. Runs Android.

And Oziexplorer exists for Android right now.

I'll be ordering the etrex 30 soon. *It uses both GPS and GLONASS. *(Not
an aviation receiver).

As to your last statement, the iPhone GPS doesn't need to be that good.
*It's assisted. *The correlators are driven "lazily" to save power. *My
tests of its tracks against a WAAS GPS recorder show (in controlled,
open sky areas with good ground truths) 2 - 5 m on the WAAS GPS receiver
and 15 - 20 m on the iPhone 4.

For VFRing around, the later is sufficient, actually - though not sure
how much coverage you would get in some areas.

20m is fine for enroute IFR too.

It's just that the GPS has problems keeping a fix once it has got one
- something which is quite unusual in the GPS business.

If you never read this:
http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182076-1.html
Then you really shouldn't mess with non certified GPS in IFR. If
you've read, then you're en enlightened person...
My usual ramble follows, the real point is made already... Big fan...
John Deakin rules. Learned a ton of stuff you'll never dream of
learning from instructors (mostly about aircraft piston engines).

Also if you never tried an Anywhere Map device, you really should.
Their stuff is sooo much cheaper and leaps and bounds better than
Garmin (and traditional competition). They don't force you to buy a
new system just to upgrade the software. I used their software 10+
years ago on an Compaq iPaq with an external USB GPS sensor, it worked
perfectly. I flew a few "emergency simulation" approaches (with a
safety pilot) using their solution instead of an ILS receiver, with
better results than what you'll get from your typical run of the mill
ILS receiver on old aircraft. Soo much easier to intercept the
localizer with precision, and that was before WAAS (I was in Florida
back then).

For enroute and terminal the real issue is just keeping a lock on the
signals, having an up to date database and navigation software that
doesn't calculate things wrong. Even 100 meter error isn't an issue.
RNP 0.3 is 550 meters, RNP 0.1 is 185 meters (currently RNP 0.3 is the
tightest RNP standard used outside of approaches) ! You need to have a
huge IONO storm with very few satellites without WAAS to be outside an
RNP 0.1 track (vast majority of airliners today can't do better than
RNP 0.3). Anyhow if you don't have a certified IFR receiver, radar
control will assume your navigating that long direct leg via dead
reckoning + VOR fixes, where errors of many nautical miles are the
norm.

Bottom line is we should be able to use a decent handheld SBAS enabled
GPS for enroute and terminal operations. But the FAA certification
police will never allow it, due to their usual paranoia. Perhaps a
simplified certification procedure. One can wish.

Just having your current wind compensated ground track at all times is
a huge workload reducing advantage. That alone pays for having a VFR
GPS onboard.

Marcelo Pacheco

macpacheco wrote:

Perhaps a
simplified certification procedure. One can wish.


Wish on.