GNS 430W vs GNS 480

Ron Gordon wrote:
I'm going to add either the GNS 430W or GNS 480 to a Beach Bonanza and am
wondering if any of you who fly with these GPS units have a recommendation?
I'd like a very capable IFR GPS with integrated NAV/COM abilities, which
I'll couple to my S-TEC 50 Autopilot with GPSS. Both the 430W and 480 are
WAAS capable. Either will fit into my panel. (I consider the 530 out of my
price range and I'm not going to tie WX or Traffic into the GNS.)

Do you have any recommendations? Which unit is the most capable? Whichever I
get, I'm going to work diligently to learn, including any quirks.

The 480 is more capable (has holds, etc), but the 430 is *MUCH* easier
to use. If you are a computer geek, go with the 480. If you want easy
of flying, go with the 430. If you think you may want to fly G1000
someday, go with the 430 because the nav side is right from a 430.

-Robert, CFII

480 is more capable (has holds, etc), but the 430 is *MUCH* easier
to use. If you are a computer geek, go with the 480. If you want easy
of flying, go with the 430. If you think you may want to fly G1000
someday, go with the 430 because the nav side is right from a 430.

-Robert, CFII

I tend to disagree with Robert, I think the 480 has a more intutive
user interface.

"Ad-hoc" holds: You can define a hold point at any user waypoint or
database point. Specify the leg lenght in mins or miles/Kilomiles
(grin), direction of turns, etc.. The 480/GPSS will drive the hold for
you.

On Jan 1, 5:39 pm, "JD" wrote:
480 is more capable (has holds, etc), but the 430 is *MUCH* easier
to use. If you are a computer geek, go with the 480. If you want easy
of flying, go with the 430. If you think you may want to fly G1000
someday, go with the 430 because the nav side is right from a 430.

-Robert, CFIII tend to disagree with Robert, I think the 480 has a more intutive
user interface.

"Ad-hoc" holds: You can define a hold point at any user waypoint or
database point. Specify the leg lenght in mins or miles/Kilomiles
(grin), direction of turns, etc.. The 480/GPSS will drive the hold for
you.

And, also, it'll tell you what kind of entry to use, teardrop, direct,
etc..

"JD" wrote in message
ups.com...


On Jan 1, 5:39 pm, "JD" wrote:
480 is more capable (has holds, etc), but the 430 is *MUCH* easier
to use. If you are a computer geek, go with the 480. If you want easy
of flying, go with the 430. If you think you may want to fly G1000
someday, go with the 430 because the nav side is right from a 430.

-Robert, CFIII tend to disagree with Robert, I think the 480 has a more
intutive
user interface.

"Ad-hoc" holds: You can define a hold point at any user waypoint or
database point. Specify the leg lenght in mins or miles/Kilomiles
(grin), direction of turns, etc.. The 480/GPSS will drive the hold for
you.

And, also, it'll tell you what kind of entry to use, teardrop, direct,
etc..


As does the 530.

I have a real problem with your statement that the 430/530 is not enroute
certified. They are all that is fitted into the bird I fly we fly IFR all
the time.

Roy N5804F wrote:



I have a real problem with your statement that the 430/530 is not enroute
certified. They are all that is fitted into the bird I fly we fly IFR all
the time.


It is so certified. This really gets complicated, because the FAA has
created a moving target with all their changes.

You can use your 530 as sole means by doing an en route RAIM prediction
for the route.

Once the 530W has the update, you can use it as sole means without
taking any action for domestic flight.

The latest version of the 530 without WAAS, is approved for sole means
for oceanic because of FDE (fault detection exclusion).

The FAA has never really taken a firm position on what is primary for en
route, because the NAS is still predicated on VOR. This is very much an
FAA problem of being a horse and buggy aviation agency. ;-)

JD wrote:

And, also, it'll tell you what kind of entry to use, teardrop, direct,
etc..

The GNS430W/530W will do this for terminal chart-published holds, too.

--
Peter

In article . com,
"JD" wrote:

480 is more capable (has holds, etc), but the 430 is *MUCH* easier
to use. If you are a computer geek, go with the 480. If you want easy
of flying, go with the 430. If you think you may want to fly G1000
someday, go with the 430 because the nav side is right from a 430.

-Robert, CFII

I tend to disagree with Robert, I think the 480 has a more intutive
user interface.

"Ad-hoc" holds: You can define a hold point at any user waypoint or
database point. Specify the leg lenght in mins or miles/Kilomiles
(grin), direction of turns, etc.. The 480/GPSS will drive the hold for
you.

One thing about holds on the 480 that's counter-intuitive is that the
inbound leg is always defined in terms of "course to". If ATC says
"hold south of Carmel VOR on the 180 radial", you have to enter "360" on
the hold screen. If you enter "180", you end up holding north.

Of course, one could argue that the classic phrasology for describing a VOR
hold is counter-intuitive, and the GPS does it "right". In any case, it is
different, and I've seen it be a cause of confusion when teaching people
how to use the box.

JD wrote:
480 is more capable (has holds, etc), but the 430 is *MUCH* easier
to use. If you are a computer geek, go with the 480. If you want easy
of flying, go with the 430. If you think you may want to fly G1000
someday, go with the 430 because the nav side is right from a 430.

-Robert, CFII

I tend to disagree with Robert, I think the 480 has a more intutive
user interface.

As an instructor, teaching in a GPS that makes heavy use of softkeys
just makes things one level more difficult. In the 480 if you are on
the wrong page, you can't swap com1/com2. The 430 has dedicated buttons
for nav/com. Again, not bashing the 480 but its easier for me to teach
the 430 than the 480.
I've done instructing in the G1000 (430 basically) and found that the
most difficult (at least VFR) thing for pilots to learn is how to
change pages and manipulate the cursor to enter data. However, the 480
is certainly a more capable unit but more difficult in that regard.
Also, I don't think the method of having a departure page, enroute
page, and destination page for the flight plan is intuitive in the 480.
In the 430 the start is the departure and the last fix is the
destination, which seems more intuitive.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:



I've done instructing in the G1000 (430 basically) and found that the
most difficult (at least VFR) thing for pilots to learn is how to
change pages and manipulate the cursor to enter data. However, the 480
is certainly a more capable unit but more difficult in that regard.

I can't image a 480 being more capable than a G-1000 with WAAS.

Sam Spade wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:



I've done instructing in the G1000 (430 basically) and found that the
most difficult (at least VFR) thing for pilots to learn is how to
change pages and manipulate the cursor to enter data. However, the 480
is certainly a more capable unit but more difficult in that regard.

I can't image a 480 being more capable than a G-1000 with WAAS.

Well, our G1000 C-182 doesn't have WAAS yet, but I don't expect that
holds will be added during that upgrade. The G1000 works like the 430.
When it comes to holds you go into suspend and you have to drive it
around the hold. The only difference between the G1000 and 430 with
regard to holds/procedure turns is that the G1000 automatically
resequences when inbound vs. the 430 that you have to press the
OBS/SUSPEND button to start sequencing again.

-Robert