M20J Installation of a Garmin 430 and a Garmin 530

[FAADAR]

Hi All

I have a Mooney M20J, in which I would like to install a Garmin 430, and a Garmin 530 in the panel.

I am worried about the space behind the panel. My Serial Number is 24-0764. I was told by another IA friend of mine that this could pose a problem because of the structure and tubing behind the panel.

Have any of you Mooneyiacs made such a modification and have you any tips or tricks?

Would appreciate your input greatly since I have these units.. and I have ordered my Fast Stack approach for the interconnections which has now become a design stop for me so I am not interested in the Garmin fantastic 600 or such ( although I need to issue an AW cert on a mooney in Germany who just did this mod.I am jealous and will probably not certify his plane cause it looks better than mine)

Besides all that I will be installing a WX 500 to display on the 530 and a Garmin 695 on in the co pilots side as a nice cheap glass addition.

 

All the best

Lloyd

[Magnum]

A 430 or 530 isntallation shouldn't be a problem. Call Avionik Straubing (+49-9429-94240), they do a lot of Mooney installations, IMHO they are the best avionics shop in Europe. They just did my Aspen installation, took them 10 days. You can see the installation in my gallery. Unfortunately I am now waiting 2 months for the EASA STC, I hope to get it next week...

[Guillaume]

Quote: Magnum

A 430 or 530 isntallation shouldn't be a problem. Call Avionik Straubing (+49-9429-94240), they do a lot of Mooney installations, IMHO they are the best avionics shop in Europe. They just did my Aspen installation, took them 10 days. You can see the installation in my gallery. Unfortunately I am now waiting 2 months for the EASA STC, I hope to get it next week...

[FAADAR]

Thanks for that I will check the Gallery. as for Straubing. I am going there tomorrow to US certify a M20K with the New Garmin Panel . as mentioned I will be jealous!!! 

[FAADAR]

Quote: Magnum

A 430 or 530 isntallation shouldn't be a problem. Call Avionik Straubing (+49-9429-94240), they do a lot of Mooney installations, IMHO they are the best avionics shop in Europe. They just did my Aspen installation, took them 10 days. You can see the installation in my gallery. Unfortunately I am now waiting 2 months for the EASA STC, I hope to get it next week...

[Magnum]

Quote: FAADAR

If you wish I can get you US certified, the Aspen is a US STC and EASA sucks? I have connections to a trust and the certification I can do to issue you an FAA Airworthiness certificate. Will be in Straubing tomorrow on N800RA if you have time would love to chat

Lloyd 

[Magnum]

Quote: Guillaume

Good afternoon,

I noticed that you kept your Directional Gyro with your Aspen installation. Is it your choice or is it imposed by EASA ?

By the way, if you browse the gallery you will see that there are some M20J with a 530+430 installation.

[KSMooniac]

I have a 530W & 430W in my early M20J, thanks to the previous owners.  The original added the 430, the second addded the 530, and I upgraded both to WAAS.  In my plane, the 430W is on the right side of the panel...not optimal but it works just fine.  There was enough room/height in the center stack to put the 430W under the 530W.  If/when I add an Aspen or G500, I will likely do a full custom panel and try to get the audio panel, 530/430 and transponder all stacked together.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: KSMooniac

 I will likely do a full custom panel and try to get the audio panel, 530/430 and transponder all stacked together.

[KSMooniac]

The 430 isn't hard to read, but my typical setup is Nav 1 page on both units, which is the arc/map view on the 530 and the 6 numerical fields on the 430.  On my 530, I have fuel flow and Track Angle Error displayed, and I find myself wanting to reference some of the other fields that are showing on the 430 while on an approach.  So, while it isn't hard to read, it is a long way to look "over there" while trying to scan my 6-pack plus the CDI.  Getting a PFD would likely allow me to keep my eyes straight ahead, but who knows.  It would be cleaner, certainly, to put everything in the center and then I could put my 496 in a dock on the right panel and get it off my RAM mount on the glareshield.  I also want to add a primary engine instrument/monitor and ditch all of the old gauges too....

One day when I trip over a stack of $100 bills on my way to work I'll go ahead and schedule all this work. 

[FAADAR]

Quote: KSMooniac

I have a 530W & 430W in my early M20J, thanks to the previous owners.  The original added the 430, the second addded the 530, and I upgraded both to WAAS.  In my plane, the 430W is on the right side of the panel...not optimal but it works just fine.  There was enough room/height in the center stack to put the 430W under the 530W.  If/when I add an Aspen or G500, I will likely do a full custom panel and try to get the audio panel, 530/430 and transponder all stacked together.

[FAADAR]

Quote: Magnum

If you wish I can get you US certified, the Aspen is a US STC and EASA sucks? I have connections to a trust and the certification I can do to issue you an FAA Airworthiness certificate. Will be in Straubing tomorrow on N800RA if you have time would love to chat

Lloyd 

[KSMooniac]

Oops, I typo'd in my first response...in my plane currently there was NOT enough room to put the 430 under the 530.  I hope to rectify that if/when I do a full panel overhaul down the road.

[Magnum]

Quote: FAADAR

Airplane is still outside, however Rudi Bichlxxxx asked them to put the plane in somewhere.

Hope this helps

 

Lloyd

 

[PTK]

Before you buy the Garmins read this very good review article.  http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/garmin-gps

 It changed my mind!  I educated myself on these units from a real pilot workload perspective and decided against them.  In my opinion they are way too expensive and very very limited in functionality.  The whole reason we buy these things is for a REDUCTION in workload.  They fail miserably in that regard.  I'm waiting for the new King KSN 770.  I'm not sure how it will perform either but from all the reading I've done it seems a huge improvement over the Garmins. 

[danb35]

I don't agree that the Greenspun article is a particularly good review--the biggest hole is what is it compared to.  There's simply nothing else on the market that competes with the 430/530 line.  There was the 480, which I understand did a lot of things better, but it's long since discontinued.  There's the King unit, but it's been "real soon now" for something like the last 4 years.

Fact is, if you are looking for an IFR GPS/COM today, you're looking for a Garmin.  If you want a WAAS GPS, you're looking for a Garmin.  There's simply no competition out there.  I think there should be, but wishing doesn't make it so.  If King ever gets their product to market, hopefully that will benefit both of their products, and drop prices, but it isn't there yet.

[KSMooniac]

I bet the Garmin replacement to the 400/500-series boxes will be out before King ever gets the 770 done.

[Buster1]

Other than being VFR and no WAAS, the 696 line seems awesome.  I bet they'll have WAAS and more in those sometime soon.

[KSMooniac]

I think the 696 is WAAS-enabled, otherwise the SafeTaxi wouldn't work too well.  My 496 is WAAS.

[MB_M20F]

I agree with danb35 (and KSMooniac) on the Garmin 430W/530W. I have been holding out for quite some time because I felt these were "dated" products (although the WAAS upgrade admittedly helped) and I was hoping either the King 770 would come out or Garmin would release its next generation boxes. (One difference between Garmin and Bendix-King is you won't see Garmin announcing their next-gen boxes 3-4 years before they are certified...) But I finally broke down and installed a 430W (getting the plane back this afternoon, in fact) mainly because there are no other options available. Other factors I considered were (i) the Garmin boxes have been out for so long that the bugs have all been worked out and the produt quality is proven, and (ii) these boxes are installed in nearly every aircraft out there, suggesting every cool gadget to be released over the next decade should be compatible with the 430/530.

[Buster1]

Sorry...696 is WAAS enabled.

[PTK]

Quote: danb35

I don't agree that the Greenspun article is a particularly good review--the biggest hole is what is it compared to.  There's simply nothing else on the market that competes with the 430/530 line.  There was the 480, which I understand did a lot of things better, but it's long since discontinued.  There's the King unit, but it's been "real soon now" for something like the last 4 years.

Fact is, if you are looking for an IFR GPS/COM today, you're looking for a Garmin.  If you want a WAAS GPS, you're looking for a Garmin.  There's simply no competition out there.  I think there should be, but wishing doesn't make it so.  If King ever gets their product to market, hopefully that will benefit both of their products, and drop prices, but it isn't there yet.

[danb35]

I installed a 430W in '48Q almost 2 years ago.  If I hadn't, the LORAN in the panel wouldn't work any more, so I'd be down to a 155 and a 170.  Not the end of the world by any means, but far from optimal.  Yes, the King 770 looks nice.  If they ever get it to market, and the price they list on their web site actually holds, I expect it will be very popular.  I'm somewhat skeptical of both of those contingencies, though--the product has been vapor for nearly three years (not four years, as I'd previously mentioned).

I'm not a Garmin apologist, but I think it's pointless to call the 430/530 "overpriced" when there's nothing else on the market that does what it does--your only frame of reference for "overpriced" is what you feel like it ought to cost.  I'd like to see some competition out there--it should reduce prices and improve the products.  But for now, and until you can go to your local avionics shop and hold a KSN770 in your hand, if you want a WAAS GPS, you want a Garmin.

[PTK]

Quote: danb35

I installed a 430W in '48Q almost 2 years ago.  If I hadn't, the LORAN in the panel wouldn't work any more, so I'd be down to a 155 and a 170.  Not the end of the world by any means, but far from optimal.  Yes, the King 770 looks nice.  If they ever get it to market, and the price they list on their web site actually holds, I expect it will be very popular.  I'm somewhat skeptical of both of those contingencies, though--the product has been vapor for nearly three years (not four years, as I'd previously mentioned).

I'm not a Garmin apologist, but I think it's pointless to call the 430/530 "overpriced" when there's nothing else on the market that does what it does--your only frame of reference for "overpriced" is what you feel like it ought to cost.  I'd like to see some competition out there--it should reduce prices and improve the products.  But for now, and until you can go to your local avionics shop and hold a KSN770 in your hand, if you want a WAAS GPS, you want a Garmin.

[MB_M20F]

 

Because Garmin is the only one right now is not, in my opinion, reason to pay what they ask for a box that lacks functionality and inherently INCREASES pilot workload!  It has no terrain info, no airways, no vertical guidance on approaches, just to name a few.

Uhm, I don't believe that's accurate. I just had a 430 WAAS installed and while it does not do airways in the sense that it displays them or permits flight plan entry by reference to airway numbers (i.e., you need to input the waypoints, unless they are part of a published procedure), it certainly has both terrain and vertical guidance on approaches. (I'm going to go try first LPV approach today...) I've only flown with it a couple of times but I find that it absolutely decreases workload. I'm not sure what avionics equipment you are comparing the Garmin box to when you say that it increases pilot workload; I find it wonderfully convenient that I can select the departure procedure, arrival and approach and watch the plane fly the cleared route itself (via GPSS steering). And when ATC calls an audible, conveying the amended instructions to the Garmin seems pretty straight forward. It even flies the missed approach at the push of one single button, and it flies procedure turns and holds. (I do have to manage power and attitude manually as my autopilot is limited to altitude hold.) I'm not sure how intuitive one might objectively rank the UI, but after playing with the simulator and user manual for a bit, I felt that I got up to speed rather quickly and am already comfortable flying in the soup.

Sure, the screen technology is dated; this thing is not an MFD by any means. It's not great for displaying weather, and it can't display Jeppesen charts, airways, sectional-type charts, etc. But when coupled with a MFD that fills in those gaps, I think it's a fantastic IFR navigator.

Just my 2 cents.