Why would I buy a G430/530 when the 696 is cheaper

[Buster1]

Any experience with this decision?  I am looking at a few birds with various avionics.  Some have no "glass" at all, and I wonder, why spend $10K+ to upgrade to a G430/530 when I can get a 696 and panel mount it?

Is the main difference that ability for the 430/530 to have WAAS and shoot an approach?

Thanks.

[231Pilot]

The 696 is not approach certified, and that is the main reason.  A better choice is to buy both, panel mount the 696, and forget about Garmin or WSI datalink installed in the aircraft.  Use the 696 as a backup GPS and as your datalink weather, use the 430/530 for navigation/com.  If you don't feel the need for approach certified GPS, just get the 696.

[KSMooniac]

I agree with Lew.  Additionally, a 530W/430W will interface to an autopilot, which is perhaps the second biggest reason besides IFR approaches.  As I've mentioned on here a bunch, a WAAS GPS + GPSS module on an autopilot is the biggest workload reducer for single-pilot IFR out there IMO, and thus a big safety enhancement.  If you are a fair weather pleasure flyer only, then hand-flying with a 696 is probably sufficient.

My plane came with a 530 & 430.  I added a 496 for battery backup and weather, mainly because it was tons cheaper than the GDL-69 XM weather receiver to put WX on the 530.  The 496 (and 696) have much better screen resolution too.  I also upgraded both receivers to WAAS.  If I were starting from scratch today, I would go for a single 530W and a panel-mounted 696 (and a SL30 or similar Nav/Com) and call it good.  I think that would be the best solution on a moderate budget.

[hansel]

Agree with all the comments above. I have a Garmin 530/396 combo. The approaches, autopilot communication, and battery back-up GPS (ie in event of electrical failure) are comforting on IFR flights. On a tight budget I would get the 530 first with a cheaper XM weather display (the 396s are going for a song nowadays). A 530 and 696 would be tops (assuming you're trying to avoid the huge cost of all glass retrofits).  

[flight2000]

I was acutally surprisied at the cost of installing a G500.  Less than 20 amu's for everything and that included the synthetic vision technology.  Someday...

I agree with getting either the 530W or 430W installed for IFR ops.  I'm just now putting in a 430W and have the 496 for the weather and backup.

Brian

[Amelia]

I installed a G-530W a couple of years ago (coupled to the autopilot, but without APSS- I figured I could manage to twist a heading bug when prompted to do so) and have repeatedly found the approach capability to be invaluable. Between the Garmin built-in and the yoke-mounted AnywhereMap with XM WX, (which is far less expensive both initially and for ongoing subscriptions, not to mention its better display resolution and touchscreen) than the Garmin handhelds, I have just about everything I need. At least with the AWM handheld, I don't have to buy a whole new box everytime they have a better idea.

[jlunseth]

Second the motion.  The ability to couple the GPS to an AP is extremely helpful for single pilot operations, whether approach or enroute.  Makes things much more seamless.  You can literally take off and let the plane do the rest except for changing altitude and slowing down or speeding up.  On days when the weather has the plane moving around quite a bit, the AP coupled to the GPS really smooths out the enroute flight.  Same if AP is couple to a NAV radio and VOR, but the GPS lets you go direct quite a bit more.

[Carl S]

Since the Anywhere map was brought up (as a secondary reference instrument)

Does anyone have experience with the FLight Cheetah line of products? Can you compare them with the AWM or G-brand?

http://www.aviationsafety.com/products1/products.htm

[Immelman]

I will weigh a dissenting opinion not because I don't *want* a garmin 430/530, but because I suggest looking at the equiptment question with respect to your operating mission and how you will use it. There is no doubt the features offered by the 4/530 are great -- the question is: Will the type of flying you do justify the purchase expense? What about the money lost when it comes time to sell the airplane (they say its always cheaper to buy it how you want it than to install brand new equiptment). Finally, it is very easy to spend loads of money -- money that might be the majority of what the airplane is worth -- on these sorts of upgrades. If you have that kind of disposable cash that's fine, but I would look at it as what is the investment buying me.

Here are some personal observations: My airplane is /A equipped (good king digital radios, hsi, dme, etc). The approaches near my home airport have lowest minma using ILS, localizer, and VOR/DME. The GPS approaches are cool but don't get me any additional functionality. If, however, a WAAS approach was available that had lower minma it would be a strong sell because of the summertime coastal fog at my location.

Next, how much IMC will you be flying? That to me addresses the GPS steering issue. My airplane has a 2 axis autopilot and simply doing heading & altitude hold is more than enough of a workload reduction for me to feel comfortable single pilot IFR. However, my mission does not involve that much time in continuous IMC in the terminal context. En route, I think heading and altitude hold is fine. My autopilot can also track a radial but find heading hold is more accurate. For precision approaches, the autopilot tracks the localizer beautifully (though most of the time I hand fly it to stay sharp). Also, in the terminal environment -- where I am -- its seldom to get a hold or fly an approach own-nav -- I'm vectored. One more reason why GPSS would not do me any good.

Finally, will being /G equipped be any good use? If you are flying long-distance IFR then I would imagine it would be. However, here's something interesting I've noticed: I look at flightaware tracks for amusement once in a while. I notice that an awful lot of /G equipped GA airplanes file and fly regular airway routings! Some of which I've seen and have met the owners of, and I know they are well equipped with 530 and all other sorts of goodies. But for whatever reason, they don't fly routes any differently than would be done with a VOR and low altitude en route chart. Bizarre.

If you have a cooperative controller (and a VFR GPS) you can always request a vector to xyz vor then 'direct when able' -- maybe even suggest a vector for them -- and they can give it to you.

Based on these criteria, I would rather spend the money on a 696 first.

[FlyingAggie]

After looking at a lot of panels, I came to the conclusion that having a single 530 or 430 and a panel docked GPS offered the best feature set and most flexibility for the buck.  Although dual GPS/NAV/COM setup appears to provide better redundancy for those inclined for hard IFR.

I really like the features of the Garmin 480 and the better display, but IIRC it is unable to display wx, so it is often teamed up with the MX20. I was disappointed with the quality of the display on the MX20 or at least the one had opportunity to use.

Upgrading the panel docked GPS to the latest and greatest new portable GPS appears to be more cost effctive than upgrading intergrated GPS/NAV/COM units.

Does anyone know if it is possible to feed weather to two portable GPS at the same time?

Alan

[mooniac58]

The handheld/panel mount GPSs are not legal for IFR navigation (only as an aid to situational awareness).  For example it is illegal to fly an IFR RNAV/GPS approach using the handheld device...it would also be illegal to track an airway via the handheld during IFR (although I am sure many do this!)

I agree with the notion of having one certified installed GPS along with a panel mounted handheld.  I think this gets you the best of both worlds and keeps you legal.

 

[Jeff_S]

Carl asked about the FlightCheetah and I've been a happy user for three years. I've written extensively about it over on the Piper Forum so rather than repeat all that here, I'll put a link to one of the threads:

http://forums.piperowner.org/read/2/79987

There are a few others going over there but this one has stayed alive for a few years. In short, I think the FL190 is still a great device, although facing stiffer competition from the 696 and the BK Aviator ACE than it had before. Still, worth a look and a very dependable system.

[byrdflyr]

I installed a GNS 430 with WAAS, and a 496 in a gizmo 15 degree angle panel dock.

See new panel in photo gallery.

It is a great combo. With the 430, you get legal and very accurate IFR guidance, including instrument procedures, and you can overlay an ILS or other approaches.  It anticipates turns, keeps you on track, and you download the approaches periodically from Jepp, so it stays current. You can also update the terrain from Garmin (but so far I haven't done that).  I highly recommend a panel-mounted fuel monitor (e.g., JPI FS 450) integrated to your GNS 430, tells you how much fuel your burning, have on board, need to destination (or waypoint), reserve at destination, and other info based on data fed from the 430. I don't think the 496 or 696 integrate with the fuel computer.

I wish Garmin and Jepp could work it out so that you could update both terrain and approaches from the same site, but that is another subject.

The 496 in the panel is AWESOME because of the XM weather (which is up to 5 minutes delayed), but I've found it to be very accurate in real time, picking through build up. You can see a towering cloud (one side of it) in the distance, look over at the 496, and see the bigger picture and intensity. The 496 also is easier to navigate and interpret for "nearest airport" and displays updated METARS as you fly cross country. I don't see any advantage to an additional panel mounted display and GL69 for weather, which is thousands more.  You also get airport diagrams and current position which is helpful if you fly into a big airport now and then (777's don't have that, I'm told, but they have a microwave oven, which is nice). And, with a 4 plc intercom, you and your passengers can choose to listen to news shows, live sports, Willie's Place (my favorite) or French hip hop (not my favorite). I'm still very impressed.

Add a Kindle DX and you bring all of your full-size approach plates, SIDs, STARS, alternate mins, etc., in a skinny e-book. 

With this set-up, I feel about as situationally aware as anyone can be. The only thing I can't figure out is whether to serve peanuts or pretzels?

[FlyDave]

Quote: Buster1

Any experience with this decision?  I am looking at a few birds with various avionics.  Some have no "glass" at all, and I wonder, why spend $10K+ to upgrade to a G430/530 when I can get a 696 and panel mount it?

Is the main difference that ability for the 430/530 to have WAAS and shoot an approach?

Thanks.

[dlthig]

Buster,

     I'd want the ability to file /G and fly direct.  I don't know about the F-16, but the C-17 is /G and we go direct as much as possible.  I once got direct Anchorage, AK from over Atlanta, GA.  The Arrow that I currently rent has an expired /G GPS and if I'm VMC to my destination I 'll get flight following and ask for Direct.  I don't care as much about the GPS approaches, for now. 

[KSMooniac]

Flying /G and getting direct is certainly dependent on the part of the country...out here in the plains I usually get direct so I use it all the time.  When I was flying out in CA I got airways, and I'm sure the NE is the same way, so that is certainly a factor in the decision. 

Regarding the database cost, Jepp actually gives a reasonable discount for a combo package...I think my renewal this past fall was ~$500/yr for two WAAS data subscriptions.  A single is $350 or $400 I think.  Still damn painful since all they do is pass gov't data thru to us.  Grrrrr.

[mooniac58]

Googled around and it seems that you cannot file /G on your IFR plans unless you have a IFR certified GPS.

Source: http://www.warmkessel.com/jr/flying/td/jd/11.jsp  : Quote: "The /I designator is only used if you truly have an approved Area Navigation system, which can be the old King KNS-80, or an approved IFR Loran. The /G is used only for an IFR-approved GPS. There are other systems, but they are not usually found in the GA world. "

Not an FAA source of course, but other pages that came up in my searches seemed to be re-instating that you cannot file /G without the IFR cert GPS.

Hope this helps!

[KSMooniac]

Craig, you are certainly correct in that you cannot file /G without an IFR-approved panel-mounted receiver.  However, in the mainland, it is not uncommon to get cleared direct with some help from ATC while in radar coverage.  You can always ask for it and suggest a heading (from your handheld or VFR-only receiver) and often times they'll give it to you.  Technically you will be flying a vector, even if it is for 500 miles, and thus you are still legal.    Obviously this applies for en-route flying only, and not terminal procedures.

[N6784N]

does the cheetah have xm radio also or just weather? also is it legal to panel mount the non certified gps in a certified aircraft or just have it in the cockpit?

[mooniac58]

Quote: N6784N

does the cheetah have xm radio also or just weather? also is it to panel mount the non certified gps in a certified aircraft or just have it in the cockpit?

 If you are asking if it is legal to panel mount a handheld in a certified aircraft this is a big debate.  I think most people side with yes it is - but I guess that is not really enough to make it legal ;-)

If you really want to "legalize" it then get a 337 after you do it from your local FSDO (or any FSDO that you can get to bless it!)

I have a 496 Garmin panel mounted in my aircraft (see attached at far right!).  I did not get my 337 done - but I probably should have to cover my butt!

[Jeff_S]

FlightCheetah supports XM WX but does not have any facility for also including the radio entertainment.