Aspen EFD500 versus Garmin MX-20

[flyboy0681]

I posted this question in another area but got nary a response. Hopefully I will get more by posting it here.

 

Does anybody have any real-time experience or opinions of installing an Aspen EFD500 over a Garmin MX-20?

 

 

[KSMooniac]

Well, I don't have experience with either but thought I'd ask for clarification...the MX-20 is the older, obsolete MFD that has been superceded by the GMX200 (I think).  Are you wishing to compare the older unit to the new one from Aspen, or to Garmin's latest?  Do you already have an Aspen PFD?

[jelswick]

I responded a few minutes ago and our posts might have crossed.  Even with low hours on the Aspen, I can tell you what I like about it, but can't give you comparison data on the MX-20 other than the space saving aspect since I've not had an MX-20 installed in my aircraft.  I've sold aircraft for customers that had the Garmin unit and they too loved it.  From a cost perspective, I believe you'll get the same functionality for a lot less in the Aspen unit, but also a little more narrow presentation of the data.  Not an issue for me since my cockpit is finally replete with moving maps between the MFD 500, the Garmin 430 and Garmin 396.  A failure in one really shouldn't be an issue due to the number of backups and a very cost effective solution in my opinion. 

[flyboy0681]

Let me clarify my position. I have the opportunity to obtain a used MX-20 at a good price and installation has already been scoped out at about $800 by a reputable avionics shop. I think for the bucks this is going to be a dynamite upgrade. Although the MX-20 is not new, it will have the latest (and last) software release, so it will be current in that respect.

I'm thinking that the purchase price and install of a 500 is going to be much more involved than the MX-20.

On the subject of functionality, what does one have over the other?

 

 

 

[Cruiser]

these are narrowly specific comparisions that are unlikely to have many (if any real world) experience. Both are passive displays one big older MFD that is not upgradeable or matched to any current system. The other is a current designed and supported component in a multi-unit system.

As to comparable features, a little homework is probably in order. The data should be obtainable. Built a spreadsheet and list the features of one then the other.

We all would be interested in what you find out.

[kortopates]

No doubt an older MX20 is going to thousands cheaper than the new Aspen EFD500. But with out understanding your requirements or the goals you're hoping for I wouldn't know where to begin.

I don't have experience with the Aspen unit but I had a MX20 and then upgraded to the GMX200 when it came out, so I am very familar with the Garmin units. 

Giving you an idea of why your requirements are so important, if all you want or expect to use is the map features then I am sure you'll be happy with the MX20. You'll like its larger screen for readbility and its increased functionality for Terrain.  But if you want to be able to display Wx on the unit the Aspen is going to come out on top by all likelihood. The number and richness of wx products has increased significantly since support was dropped for the MX20 and you'd be paying the same subscription price while not being able to display all the products. On another note, If you like Jepp Charts, the MX20 supports them whereas Aspen suppirts NOAA charts. Frankly, one of the best utilities of the panel MFD is displaying the weather and your georeferenced Approach plate with the weathe over it. Think ahead down the road before you choose.

[flyboy0681]

The objective is simple. The plane is getting a new 430W and I thought it would be nice to complement it with a large MFD. Weather will continue to be displayed on the portable 496 mounted in the panel using an Airgizmo cradle. Since there is a glut on the market of used MX-20's, I thought it would be an inexpensive upgrade that will really wow me.

I just have a feeling that if I start getting into Aspen panels that the costs will rise exponentially. And I haven't seen an EFD500 mounted solo, the configurations I see have it side-by-side with an Aspen PFD.

 

 

[kortopates]

In that case you should be happy with larger MX20 installed right above the 430

[peter]

Quote: flyboy0681

I haven't seen an EFD500 mounted solo, the configurations I see have it side-by-side with an Aspen PFD. 

[TLSDriver]

I am having an Aspen PFD and 430 installed as I type this.  The aircraft has an MX-20 installed.  I figured I would keep the MX-20 and make the combo of the 430 and MX-20 as sort of a poor man's 530.

Since the used prices were so poor on the MX-20 I figured I may as well stretch the life abit.

When the pocketbook permits I will add a 2nd Aspen tube and probaly retire the MX-20 at that point.

David

 

[M016576]

I haven't used either display, but I have looked into them both:

To get the Aspen MFD, you first have to buy the PFD...so they kind of double dip you (although I know Peter doesn't see it that way).  Total cost for the MFD + PFD + Install is somewhere around $20,000

The MX20's I've been looking at on E-bay and used avionics shops are available for about $2500.00

The Aspen gives you a redundant AHRS, PFD, HSI/MAP and a MFD. 

The MX20 gives you a MFD with a MUCH bigger screen.  If you're happy with your current 6 pack, I'd get the MX20-> it's WAAAAAAYYYYYYY  cheaper and has a ton of capability (if you get the chartview function). 

If you want an all glass solution, you have a couple options for the price: the G500 and the Aspen.  If you are looking to maximize bang for the buck the MX20 doesn't seem like a bad option. 

Just my opinion...

JoB

[flyboy0681]

Quote: M016576

The MX20 gives you a MFD with a MUCH bigger screen.  If you're happy with your current 6 pack, I'd get the MX20-> it's WAAAAAAYYYYYYY  cheaper and has a ton of capability (if you get the chartview function). 

If you want an all glass solution, you have a couple options for the price: the G500 and the Aspen.  If you are looking to maximize bang for the buck the MX20 doesn't seem like a bad option. 

Just my opinion...

JoB

[KSMooniac]

Have you considered just adding a 530W instead of the 430W + MX20?  I'm of the opinion that seeing a moving chart on an MFD doesn't really help you navigate or increase your situational awareness commensurate with the expense involved (including subscription costs).  Since you have WX (plus terrain and other stuff on the 496) the only additional function an MX-20 would provide is charts and maps, right?  If that is what you're after, then OK.  

Personally, I'm happy with the Arc view (NAV 1) on the 530W that gives me relevant fixes/airports plus traffic from the GTX-330 and I wouldn't be any safer or more precise if I happened to have an airway line underneath the magenta line, or a shaded topo representation.  The extra bit of screen size on the 530W is very, very useful compared to the 430W IMO.  I also have a harnessed 496 for WX and battery backup.

Just another option to consider... if it were me I'd skip the obsolete MX-20 and keep that money in the bank for a PFD down the road, and then maybe do the PFD/MFD combo if that is still desired.  Prices might get better on this stuff in the future, but who knows.

[flyboy0681]

Another interesting perspective. I was under the impression that the MX20 presented much more detailed information than the 530. The MX20 has a bright VGA screen while the 530 a low resolution, 6 color screen.

I also like the idea of having the 430 displaying only navigational information and the MX20 the map.

[Jeff_S]

I have an MX20 mated to a Garmin 480 and I think it's great.  I also have the GDL-69a weather receiver  so it's a pretty comprehensive package.  The MX-20 does paint the screen a little slowly at times, but you get used to the response rate.  I've seen the MX-200 and it does some things nicer, but not really worth the handful of AMUs it would take to swap them out since it's not just a plug-n-play thing. I think you'd like your set-up as you describe it if it's comfortably within your budget.

[KSMooniac]

Quote: flyboy0681

Another interesting perspective. I was under the impression that the MX20 presented much more detailed information than the 530. The MX20 has a bright VGA screen while the 530 a low resolution, 6 color screen.

I also like the idea of having the 430 displaying only navigational information and the MX20 the map.

[FullyArticulate]

Quote: Jeff_S

I have an MX20 mated to a Garmin 480 and I think it's great.

[KSMooniac]

A 430W/530W can display XM weather if the GDL-69 is installed, but as you suspect, the poor graphics compared to the MX20 result in a poor weather representation.  The 496 (or 696) display beats it hands-down, and is much cheaper as well.  Both of those portables also have the Garmin "SafeTaxi" diagrams that you miss from Chartview, and they are indeed extremely helpful at big airports.

The lack of native airway support is a deficiency and my expectation is that you can trace back the geographical origins of the respective boxes and that might explain why the 480 had it and the 430/530 do not.  The 480 was born in Oregon where airways are the way of life on the west coast, and the 430/530 were born in KS where we get direct routings more often than not.    I've flown to both coasts from KS and am glad I live here so I don't have to program airway routings frequently!  It is a PITA, but still better than old-school dual VOR nav.

[flyboy0681]

Very interesting comments fellas.

From what I have heard here, I think the way to go at this point is to save on funds and obtain a used MX-20. No, it won't have the latest and greatest features nor all the bells and whistles, but until the time that I invest in a much broader panel upgrade (read G500), this should add some nice functionality at a reasonable cost.

Hey, I could have bought an MX-20 three years ago for $8k plus installation. I'm sure those that did are still enjoying it and praising their decision.

 

 

 

[KSMooniac]

Just to muddy the waters even further... you might consider selling your 496 and replacing it with a 696 in an Air Gizmo dock.  You'll get the MFD capability you want while retaining the cheaper XM solution and battery-backup GPS navigation.  Net cost might be similar compared to the used MX-20 plus installation, but in the end you'll have a more modern MFD/GPS unit that can likely be sold for a fairly good amount of money down the road if/when you upgrade to a G500 or dual Aspen or similar.  There will be a much larger market for a 5 year old 696 than for an MX-20...

[flyboy0681]

The subject of a 696 just came up today with my partners. The foreseeable problem is mounting it. Placing it on the right panel will mean moving a lot of things around and that won't come cheap.

[KSMooniac]

It still might be worth getting an estimate...it might not be as bad as you fear!  

[kortopates]

It cost me 12 hrs in labor for the avionics shop to move my A/P (KFC-150) and annunciator right of the center stack so that I could have my Audio panel, then MX20 (now GMX200), and dual 430's in the center stack. Although I've seen lots of MFD's mounted on the right side, IMO I find that useless. When your IFR and really value the sitautional awareness the MFD can provide, its got to be within your scan of the guages and center stack; off to right side it becomes a distraction from your instruments.  

I think you'll be pleased with MX20 mounted above your GNS430.  You'll be able to use the 430 to navigate while gaining the situational awareness of the map in the same scan range. The con is if you find you'd really like to add wx to it after using it a bit.

[Parker_Woodruff]

I have an instrument student with an M20J.  He has the 430W and MX20 combination that I advised him to install when he didn't want to spend the money on the G-500.  So far, he's happy.  But that crappy King HSI wasn't playing nice the other day (made for a great teaching moment!).

Do you currently have a 430 installed?

In KSMooniac's scenario, I would prefer the GNS430W and MX-20 over the Garmin 530-only.  The cost of a 430W+MX20 should be about the same as installing just a GNS530W.  You will have a better screen resolution with the MX-20 over the 530 and a lot of nice functions and flexibility not attainable with the GPS-only route.

The most important function of the moving map (at least for me) is to display weather and depict your best deviation options when there are cells worth avoiding.  My GNS430W was absolutely worthless for weather.  At the end of the day, the moving map can help things make a lot of sense when you can't see anything, but you still need to be flying CDIs/HSIs, not screens.

Whatever the case, I highly recommend XM WX for travel.  Just get ready for some panel surgery if you go the Aspen route.

 

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2044202&id=1521481606&l=25bf31625e

[fantom]

.....or just replace the 496 with an Aera 510 or 560. Everything you want plus airways.