CNX-80 vs Garmin 430/530

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.

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 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

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

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/

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/

(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

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 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

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