Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Garmin 496 -Antenna
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:42 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

like I said the SB on the 480 was a marketing decision to depreciate the 480 

in the eyes of the uniformed to sell the higher price lower feature 430W.

---

rleffler

Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 680

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:47 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 One benefit to the 480 is that you can couple it to the TruTrak's

 and it will fly both laterally and vertically, so it does have

 that one upside.




	


Now that the 430w is available, I would think that this is no longer a differentiator.

_________________
Bob Leffler
N410BL - Phase I
http://mykitlog.com/rleffler

flysrv10(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:49 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Thanks Jesse for your opinion.  I will consider it seriously.  Is there anything you do not like about the 430?

Do not archive

 Rob Kermanj



 



On Dec 15, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:

[quote]

Don’t know almost anything about the 480, but I have used the 430 quite a bit.  First of all, it seems to be about the industry standard for pre-G1000 panels.  They are everywhere and TONS of pilots know how to run them.  That it a benefit in itself, IMHO.  Even all the new Cirrus planes have one or two of them, I believe, along with the Avidyne glass.  It is quite intuitive and is very stable.  The screen quality leaves a little to be desired, and getting weather on the screen is not my recommendation because of the low resolution, size of the screen, and limited functionality of the weather it can display.

 

The controls are easy to use and it is easy to navigate.  Once an approach is selected, it is hard to accidentally take it off that approach, unlike some handhelds I have used.  It flies the TruTrak auto pilots beautifully, only horizontally, of course.

 

The COM and NAV are second to none in my experience, which is not very broad.  The power output of the COM and the sound quality are great.  The only thing I know about the 480, probably, is that the COM output power is not as high, but I can’t give any more details.

 

Overall, I would not say “Don’t do the 480”, but I know the 430 is extremely widely used and the $6,000 price tag is not too bad either.

 

Jesse Saint

I-TEC, Inc.

jesse(at)itecusa.org (jesse(at)itecusa.org)

www.itecusa.org

W: 352-465-4545

C: 352-427-0285

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Rob KermanjSent: Friday, December 15, 2006 6:37 AMTo: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)Subject: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna



 

Speaking of IFR stuff...I would like an honest opinion regarding Garmin 480 and Garmin 430 from those flying them.  Some people say that 480 is not intuitive.  I have not fond customer review on either model, only magazine reports.

 



I have decided that I will not wait for GRT for their IFR GPS as they are estimating another year to get it to the customers,

 



Thanks



do not archive

Rob Kermanj



 



 

On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:

--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com (Tim(at)MyRV10.com)>



 



Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel



planning and IFR ops.   It's just my opinion, but I really, truly



believe that a person will make better choices in all of the



panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR



rating *before* they lay out their panel.  I know it's a downer



when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will



not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical



some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have



spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.



It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have



to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you



to actually get there safely.



 



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying



do not archive



 



 



jim(at)CombsFive.Com (jim(at)CombsFive.Com) wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

--> RV10-List message posted by: <jim(at)combsfive.com (jim(at)combsfive.com)>



Jesse,



Excellent!  I like that mount!



I am not IFR rated (Yet).  The plans are to add that after I get



flying.  I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the



flight plan is the way to go.  It stays FAA legal and still provides



a cost effective panel in the airplane.



Jim C



Do not archive

	


 



(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)



the Contribution link below to find out more about

this year" s="" terrific="" free="" incentive="" gifts="" provided

by:



* The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com

* Aeroware Enterprises 

* HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com



-Matt Dralle, List Admin.



  --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List



www.homebuilthelp.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/cto browse Archive Search more: href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ===========

--12/14/2006 7:28 PM



--12/14/2006 7:28 PM 	  Quote: 	
		        -- Please Support Your Lists          (And Get Some AWESOME FREE  November is the Annual List Fund Raiser.  Click class="Apple-converted-space"> the Contribution link below to  this year's Terrific class="Apple-converted-space">       * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com     * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com   * Aeroware Enterprises www.kitlog.com     * HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com   --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution   Thank you for your generous class="Apple-converted-space">                                    - The RV10-List Email Forum - class="Apple-converted-space"> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	


[b]

Vern(at)teclabsinc.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:14 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

I wonder if Garmin will discontinue the 480, now that they are bringing

on the 430 and 530 in WAAS. I bring this up only because of what they

did with the rest of the UPS/Apollo line that duplicated the Garmin in

panel GPS line.



Vern (#324 Fuselage)   



--

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:19 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

I wouldn't say that, without some additional research.  It's my

understanding that the Vertical integration for commanding

the TruTrak AP's like the Digiflight IIVSGV, has only been written

by TruTrak for the GNS-480, the Chelton, and I *think* they're

done with the Grand Rapids system (not sure on that though

if they've actually delivered on that one).

So this being a limitation of the autopilot, not the Nav/Com/GPS,

still leads me to think the 480 is different in that

regards.

You may want to verify with TruTrak before buying one way

or the other, to see if they have this working with the 430/530W.

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

rvmail(at)thelefflers.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

> One benefit to the 480 is that you can couple it to the TruTrak's

> and it will fly both laterally and vertically, so it does have

> that one upside.

>

 Now that the 430w is available, I would think that this is no longer a differentiator.

flysrv10(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:36 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Thanks for your input as well.  With the 430W available now, the vertical guidance is no longer an issue.  The thing that really bothers me about the 430 is the screen size and I am too cheap to spend a few thousand more for a 530 to get more real estate.  

It is also a little curious that WASS is now available for the 430 since there already is a WAAS GPS on the market.

do not archive

 Rob Kermanj



 



On Dec 15, 2006, at 10:17 AM, Tim Olson wrote:

[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com (Tim(at)MyRV10.com)>

I don't think that either the 430 or 480 would be a bad choice. They're

both good, despite their differences.  I have heard that the 480

is better at route planning, and is more of a flight management

system, but personally I think that between those 2 systems, you'll

get used to either.

One benefit to the 480 is that you can couple it to the TruTrak's

and it will fly both laterally and vertically, so it does have

that one upside.

I do find that the amount of data you can get out of the 480 is

pretty great.  In fact, I just added a CO Guardian CO monitor

to my plane, and it interfaces serially to the GNS480 and I can

get onscreen display of Cabin Pressure, Cabin Temp, and CO level

in ppm.  Totally didn't expect to ever have that one.

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive





Jesse Saint wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Don’t know almost anything about the 480, but I have used the 430 quite a bit.  First of all, it seems to be about the industry standard for pre-G1000 panels.  They are everywhere and TONS of pilots know how to run them.  That it a benefit in itself, IMHO.  Even all the new Cirrus planes have one or two of them, I believe, along with the Avidyne glass.  It is quite intuitive and is very stable.  The screen quality leaves a little to be desired, and getting weather on the screen is not my recommendation because of the low resolution, size of the screen, and limited functionality of the weather it can display.

 The controls are easy to use and it is easy to navigate.  Once an approach is selected, it is hard to accidentally take it off that approach, unlike some handhelds I have used.  It flies the TruTrak auto pilots beautifully, only horizontally, of course.

 The COM and NAV are second to none in my experience, which is not very broad.  The power output of the COM and the sound quality are great.  The only thing I know about the 480, probably, is that the COM output power is not as high, but I can’t give any more details.

 Overall, I would not say “Don’t do the 480”, but I know the 430 is extremely widely used and the $6,000 price tag is not too bad either.

 Jesse Saint

I-TEC, Inc.

jesse(at)itecusa.org <mailto:jesse(at)itecusa.org (jesse(at)itecusa.org)>

www.itecusa.org <http://www.itecusa.org>

W: 352-465-4545

C: 352-427-0285

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] *On Behalf Of *Rob Kermanj

*Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2006 6:37 AM

*To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

*Subject:* Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna

 Speaking of IFR stuff...I would like an honest opinion regarding Garmin 480 and Garmin 430 from those flying them.  Some people say that 480 is not intuitive.  I have not fond customer review on either model, only magazine reports.

 I have decided that I will not wait for GRT for their IFR GPS as they are estimating another year to get it to the customers,

 Thanks

do not archive

Rob Kermanj

  On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:

--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com <mailto:Tim(at)MyRV10.com (Tim(at)MyRV10.com)>>

 Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel

planning and IFR ops.   It's just my opinion, but I really, truly

believe that a person will make better choices in all of the

panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR

rating *before* they lay out their panel.  I know it's a downer

when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will

not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical

some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have

spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.

It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have

to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you

to actually get there safely.

 Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

  jim(at)CombsFive.Com <mailto:jim(at)CombsFive.Com (jim(at)CombsFive.Com)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: <jim(at)combsfive.com <mailto:jim(at)combsfive.com (jim(at)combsfive.com)>>

Jesse,

Excellent!  I like that mount!

I am not IFR rated (Yet).  The plans are to add that after I get

flying.  I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the

flight plan is the way to go.  It stays FAA legal and still provides

a cost effective panel in the airplane.

Jim C

Do not archive

 	
 (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)

the Contribution link below to find out more about

by:

* The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com <http://www.buildersbooks.com>

* HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com>

-Matt Dralle, List Admin.

< /DIV>

< /DIV>

  --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/cto browse Archive Search more: href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ===========

--

12/14/2006 7:28 PM

--

12/14/2006 7:28 PM

*

*

 	




-- Please Support Your Lists This Month --

(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)

  November is the Annual List Fund Raiser.  Click on

the Contribution link below to find out more about

this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided

by:

    * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com

* The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com

* Aeroware Enterprises www.kitlog.com

* HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com

  List Contribution Web Site

--> http://www.matronics.com/contribution

Thank you for your generous support!

-Matt Dralle, List Admin.

          - The RV10-List Email Forum -

  --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 [b]

jesse(at)itecusa.org
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:37 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Probably the thing I don't like the most is the screen.  The resolution is

low and I have experienced a number of screens that are not extremely

clear (ghosting from other screens on the one you are viewing - burn-in?).

 With the auto-pilot and the other instruments, however, the screen itself

is not used a whole lot under normal conditions, so it doesn't become much

of a bother, IMHO.



Jesse



 	  Quote: 	
		   Thanks Jesse for your opinion.  I will consider it seriously.  Is

 there anything you do not like about the 430?



 Do not archive
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   Rob Kermanj



 On Dec 15, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:



> Don’t know almost anything about the 480, but I have used the 430

> quite a bit.  First of all, it seems to be about the industry

> standard for pre-G1000 panels.  They are everywhere and TONS of

> pilots know how to run them.  That it a benefit in itself, IMHO.

> Even all the new Cirrus planes have one or two of them, I believe,

> along with the Avidyne glass.  It is quite intuitive and is very

> stable.  The screen quality leaves a little to be desired, and

> getting weather on the screen is not my recommendation because of

> the low resolution, size of the screen, and limited functionality

> of the weather it can display.

>

> The controls are easy to use and it is easy to navigate.  Once an

> approach is selected, it is hard to accidentally take it off that

> approach, unlike some handhelds I have used.  It flies the TruTrak

> auto pilots beautifully, only horizontally, of course.

>

> The COM and NAV are second to none in my experience, which is not

> very broad.  The power output of the COM and the sound quality are

> great.  The only thing I know about the 480, probably, is that the

> COM output power is not as high, but I can’t give any more details.

>

> Overall, I would not say “Don’t do the 480”, but I know the 430 is

> extremely widely used and the $6,000 price tag is not too bad either.

>

> Jesse Saint

>

> I-TEC, Inc.

>

> jesse(at)itecusa.org

>

> www.itecusa.org

>

> W: 352-465-4545

>

> C: 352-427-0285

>

> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-

> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj

> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 6:37 AM

> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

> Subject: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna

>

> Speaking of IFR stuff...I would like an honest opinion regarding

> Garmin 480 and Garmin 430 from those flying them.  Some people say

> that 480 is not intuitive.  I have not fond customer review on

> either model, only magazine reports.

>

> I have decided that I will not wait for GRT for their IFR GPS as

> they are estimating another year to get it to the customers,

>

> Thanks

>

> do not archive

>

> Rob Kermanj

> On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:

>

>

> 

>

> Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel

>

> planning and IFR ops.   It's just my opinion, but I really, truly

>

> believe that a person will make better choices in all of the

>

> panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR

>

> rating *before* they lay out their panel.  I know it's a downer

>

> when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will

>

> not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical

>

> some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have

>

> spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.

>

> It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have

>

> to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you

>

> to actually get there safely.

>

> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

>

> do not archive

>

> jim(at)CombsFive.Com wrote:

>> 

>>

>> Jesse,

>>

>> Excellent!  I like that mount!

>>

>> I am not IFR rated (Yet).  The plans are to add that after I get

>>

>> flying.  I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the

>>

>> flight plan is the way to go.  It stays FAA legal and still provides

>>

>> a cost effective panel in the airplane.

>>

>> Jim C

>>

>> Do not archive

> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)

>

> the Contribution link below to find out more about

>

> by:

>

> * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com

>

> * HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com

>

> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

>

>   --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

>

> www.homebuilthelp.com href="http://www.matronics.com/

> contribution">http://www.matronics.com/cto browse Archive Search

> more: href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://

> www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ===========

> --

> 12/14/2006 7:28 PM

> --

> 12/14/2006 7:28 PM

>



 Annual



> ========================List



> ========================>


	




Jesse Saint

I-TEC, Inc.

jesse(at)itecusa.org

www.itecusa.org

flysrv10(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:37 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Thanks.  Good points.  I will have to check the 480 prices.

do not archive

 Rob Kermanj



 



On Dec 15, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)>

The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where

that is real world it will be great.

The 480 is design for the busy IFR system where you fly departures,

airways and approaches. It has all the airways in it, the 430 doesn't.

So you can enter your flight plan just as the clearance is read,

instead of every single waypoint. Yes, it will take a bit more to

learn, but CFIIs I know that mastered it say it is like night and day.

An IFR tool vs a VFR tool. Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than

the 430W and has a bigger screen.

On 12/15/06, Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com (flysrv10(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Speaking of IFR stuff...I would like an honest opinion regarding Garmin 480

and Garmin 430 from those flying them.  Some people say that 480 is not

intuitive.  I have not fond customer review on either model, only magazine

reports.

I have decided that I will not wait for GRT for their IFR GPS as they are

estimating another year to get it to the customers,

Thanks

do not archive

Rob Kermanj

On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:

--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com (Tim(at)MyRV10.com)>

Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel

planning and IFR ops.   It's just my opinion, but I really, truly

believe that a person will make better choices in all of the

panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR

rating *before* they lay out their panel.  I know it's a downer

when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will

not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical

some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have

spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.

It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have

to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you

to actually get there safely.

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive





jim(at)CombsFive.Com (jim(at)CombsFive.Com) wrote:

--> RV10-List message posted by: <jim(at)combsfive.com (jim(at)combsfive.com)>

Jesse,

Excellent!  I like that mount!

I am not IFR rated (Yet).  The plans are to add that after I get

flying.  I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the

flight plan is the way to go.  It stays FAA legal and still provides

a cost effective panel in the airplane.

Jim C

Do not archive

(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)

  November is the Annual List Fund Raiser.  Click on

this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided

    * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com

www.buildersbooks.com

www.kitlog.com

www.homebuilthelp.com

  List Contribution Web Site

--> http://www.matronics.com/contribution

Thank you for your generous support!

          - The RV10-List Email Forum -

  --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 	




-- Please Support Your Lists This Month --

(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)

  November is the Annual List Fund Raiser.  Click on

the Contribution link below to find out more about

this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided

by:

    * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com

* The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com

* Aeroware Enterprises www.kitlog.com

* HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com

  List Contribution Web Site

--> http://www.matronics.com/contribution

Thank you for your generous support!

-Matt Dralle, List Admin.

          - The RV10-List Email Forum -

  --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 [b]

flysrv10(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:36 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Thanks.

do not archive

 Rob Kermanj



 



On Dec 15, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:

[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org (jesse(at)itecusa.org)>

Probably the thing I don't like the most is the screen.  The resolution is

low and I have experienced a number of screens that are not extremely

clear (ghosting from other screens on the one you are viewing - burn-in?).

 With the auto-pilot and the other instruments, however, the screen itself

is not used a whole lot under normal conditions, so it doesn't become much

of a bother, IMHO.

Jesse

  	  Quote: 	
		  Thanks Jesse for your opinion.  I will consider it seriously.  Is

there anything you do not like about the 430?

 	
 Do not archive

  	  Quote: 	
		  Rob Kermanj

On Dec 15, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Don’t know almost anything about the 480, but I have used the 430

quite a bit.  First of all, it seems to be about the industry

standard for pre-G1000 panels.  They are everywhere and TONS of

pilots know how to run them.  That it a benefit in itself, IMHO.

Even all the new Cirrus planes have one or two of them, I believe,

along with the Avidyne glass.  It is quite intuitive and is very

stable.  The screen quality leaves a little to be desired, and

getting weather on the screen is not my recommendation because of

the low resolution, size of the screen, and limited functionality

of the weather it can display.

The controls are easy to use and it is easy to navigate.  Once an

approach is selected, it is hard to accidentally take it off that

approach, unlike some handhelds I have used.  It flies the TruTrak

auto pilots beautifully, only horizontally, of course.

The COM and NAV are second to none in my experience, which is not

very broad.  The power output of the COM and the sound quality are

great.  The only thing I know about the 480, probably, is that the

COM output power is not as high, but I can’t give any more details.

Overall, I would not say “Don’t do the 480”, but I know the 430 is

extremely widely used and the $6,000 price tag is not too bad either.

Jesse Saint

I-TEC, Inc.

jesse(at)itecusa.org (jesse(at)itecusa.org)

www.itecusa.org

W: 352-465-4545

C: 352-427-0285

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list- ([email]owner-rv10-list-[/email])

server(at)matronics.com (server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj

Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 6:37 AM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

Subject: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Speaking of IFR stuff...I would like an honest opinion regarding

Garmin 480 and Garmin 430 from those flying them.  Some people say

that 480 is not intuitive.  I have not fond customer review on

either model, only magazine reports.

I have decided that I will not wait for GRT for their IFR GPS as

they are estimating another year to get it to the customers,

Thanks

do not archive

Rob Kermanj





On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:

--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com (Tim(at)MyRV10.com)>

Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel

planning and IFR ops.   It's just my opinion, but I really, truly

believe that a person will make better choices in all of the

panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR

rating *before* they lay out their panel.  I know it's a downer

when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will

not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical

some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have

spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.

It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have

to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you

to actually get there safely.

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive





jim(at)CombsFive.Com (jim(at)CombsFive.Com) wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: <jim(at)combsfive.com (jim(at)combsfive.com)>

Jesse,

Excellent!  I like that mount!

I am not IFR rated (Yet).  The plans are to add that after I get

flying.  I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the

flight plan is the way to go.  It stays FAA legal and still provides

a cost effective panel in the airplane.

Jim C

Do not archive

 	




(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)

the Contribution link below to find out more about

by:

* The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com

* HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com

-Matt Dralle, List Admin.

  --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

www.homebuilthelp.com href="http://www.matronics.com/

contribution">http://www.matronics.com/cto browse Archive Search

more: href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://

www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ===========





--

12/14/2006 7:28 PM





--

12/14/2006 7:28 PM

 	




Annual

  	  Quote: 	
		  ========================List

 	




  	  Quote: 	
		  ========================>

 	




 	




Jesse Saint

I-TEC, Inc.

jesse(at)itecusa.org (jesse(at)itecusa.org)

www.itecusa.org

-- Please Support Your Lists This Month --

(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)

  November is the Annual List Fund Raiser.  Click on

the Contribution link below to find out more about

this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided

by:

    * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com

* The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com

* Aeroware Enterprises www.kitlog.com

* HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com

  List Contribution Web Site

--> http://www.matronics.com/contribution

Thank you for your generous support!

-Matt Dralle, List Admin.

          - The RV10-List Email Forum -

  --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 [b]

CJohnston(at)popsound.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:53 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Hey all - 



I'm actually a builder that's a low time pilot who took the time (and

money!) to get my instrument rating after starting building, and before

finishing.  Here's my take...  I chose to go to a part 141 school,

partly due to my low hours (I don't have enough PIC Xcountry time) and

partly so that I could get it done in very rapid fashion.  I was at the

airport Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 5pm after work, and sometimes

didn't get home from flying til midnight or 1am.  I did this for two

months solid.  Just so you get the picture, I also did this in a two

month period where California got more rainfall than has ever been

recorded since the early 1900s.  so basically, I did all my training at

night (I never flew during the day til my check ride!) and in mostly in

actual IMC.  Hardly ever had to wear the hood!  It was the hardest thing

I've ever done in my life by far.  This is partly because I'm such a low

time pilot, that there's really no point in a flight where I'm relaxing

because everything seems comfortable or familiar.  Turbulence, icing,

pouring rain, approaches to minimums, HAVING to go missed - not for

training, but because we had to!  Forgot pitot heat in icing conditions

and lost my ASI!  All very good training, but hard.  Now, I'm an

instrument rated pilot and I have about 106 hours.  I have no desire to

go barreling through "hard" IMC at the moment, but I do fly tower

enroute occasionally in VFR conditions, and enjoy the challenge.  Oh,

and I did a few GPS approaches, but never used anything close to an

EFIS, all stem gauges and needles with a KLN94.  The experience has made

me a much better pilot, and has taught me that I need to go slowly, have

a LOT to learn, and even more to practice.  Also, it had a PROFOUND

effect on the panel and also the interior lighting design for my 10.  I

spent a lot of time thinking about what was so dammed hard about the

evening's flight, and how I could improve things in my own aircraft.

Here's an example:



Flying around the LA area in actual IMC at night, got my knee board and

pencils and pens at the ready, got a red LED light stuck to the side of

my headset, on all the time.  got a small red flashlight between my legs

to find the switches behind the yoke, and to help illuminate the wet

compass and engine gauges that had inop or dim lighting, and a bigger

flashlight also between my legs to shine out the window to check for ice

on the tires or wing strut.  Turbulence.  Pesky approach plates that

seem to take me forever to read when I look down and focus on them, even

on the yoke.  Struggle, struggle, struggle.  Land, debrief, get into the

car.  NOW, turn on the car, and everything is in a logical place, when I

turn on the lights, every switch and control is illuminated, and I can

see everything.  Pop the map light on for a second to fiddle with

something.  Turn it off without having to search.  And I think for

seemingly the hundredth time...WHY CAN'T AN AIRPLANE BE LIKE THIS?

answer: it can.  If you build it that way.



Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to paint a picture...  there's a

hundred things that seem small, but for a low time pilot in IMC, every

advantage is significant.  SEE the switches.  LOGICAL order and

placement.  Centralized warning indicators.  These are things that I

might not have paid such close attention to without the experience of

going through IFR training during the build.



As always, these are just things that I think.  I don't know anything.



Cj

#40410

fuse

www.perfectlygoodairplane.net



--

Rick S.

Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 347
Location: Las Vegas

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:50 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Good writeup Cj.



Nuff said...good writeup.



Rick S.

40185



do not archive

_________________
Rick S.
RV-10
40185

flysrv10(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:00 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

I will go flying with you anytime!  It looks like you got your money's worth.

do not archive.

 Rob Kermanj



 



On Dec 15, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Chris Johnston wrote:

[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston(at)popsound.com (CJohnston(at)popsound.com)>

Hey all - 

I'm actually a builder that's a low time pilot who took the time (and

money!) to get my instrument rating after starting building, and before

finishing.  Here's my take...  I chose to go to a part 141 school,

partly due to my low hours (I don't have enough PIC Xcountry time) and

partly so that I could get it done in very rapid fashion.  I was at the

airport Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 5pm after work, and sometimes

didn't get home from flying til midnight or 1am.  I did this for two

months solid.  Just so you get the picture, I also did this in a two

month period where California got more rainfall than has ever been

recorded since the early 1900s.  so basically, I did all my training at

night (I never flew during the day til my check ride!) and in mostly in

actual IMC.  Hardly ever had to wear the hood!  It was the hardest thing

I've ever done in my life by far.  This is partly because I'm such a low

time pilot, that there's really no point in a flight where I'm relaxing

because everything seems comfortable or familiar.  Turbulence, icing,

pouring rain, approaches to minimums, HAVING to go missed - not for

training, but because we had to!  Forgot pitot heat in icing conditions

and lost my ASI!  All very good training, but hard.  Now, I'm an

instrument rated pilot and I have about 106 hours.  I have no desire to

go barreling through "hard" IMC at the moment, but I do fly tower

enroute occasionally in VFR conditions, and enjoy the challenge.  Oh,

and I did a few GPS approaches, but never used anything close to an

EFIS, all stem gauges and needles with a KLN94.  The experience has made

me a much better pilot, and has taught me that I need to go slowly, have

a LOT to learn, and even more to practice.  Also, it had a PROFOUND

effect on the panel and also the interior lighting design for my 10.  I

spent a lot of time thinking about what was so dammed hard about the

evening's flight, and how I could improve things in my own aircraft.

Here's an example:

Flying around the LA area in actual IMC at night, got my knee board and

pencils and pens at the ready, got a red LED light stuck to the side of

my headset, on all the time.  got a small red flashlight between my legs

to find the switches behind the yoke, and to help illuminate the wet

compass and engine gauges that had inop or dim lighting, and a bigger

flashlight also between my legs to shine out the window to check for ice

on the tires or wing strut.  Turbulence.  Pesky approach plates that

seem to take me forever to read when I look down and focus on them, even

on the yoke.  Struggle, struggle, struggle.  Land, debrief, get into the

car.  NOW, turn on the car, and everything is in a logical place, when I

turn on the lights, every switch and control is illuminated, and I can

see everything.  Pop the map light on for a second to fiddle with

something.  Turn it off without having to search.  And I think for

seemingly the hundredth time...WHY CAN'T AN AIRPLANE BE LIKE THIS?

answer: it can.  If you build it that way.

Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to paint a picture...  there's a

hundred things that seem small, but for a low time pilot in IMC, every

advantage is significant.  SEE the switches.  LOGICAL order and

placement.  Centralized warning indicators.  These are things that I

might not have paid such close attention to without the experience of

going through IFR training during the build.

As always, these are just things that I think.  I don't know anything.

Cj

#40410

fuse

www.perfectlygoodairplane.net

--

wcurtis(at)core.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:19 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

[quote]The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where >that is real world it will be great.  Huh?  How do you come up with a statement like that?    I fly a 430 IFR in the busy Northeast where you NEVER (at least I've never) get to fly direct.  "It doesn't have airways" only means that you can't enter an airway in the flight planning section and they are not displayed on the map.  In practicality this only means that on the 430, you can't put in MIV V1 JAX and have it determine all 12 intermediate points.  With proper flight planning you should have all these points anyway and not have to let a navigator determine them for you.  Otherwise, the flight planning section in the 430 is pretty good. Get to know it and see for yourself.  So I guess I don't understand you statement about the 430 designed only "to go direct" and "a VFR tool."  If this is the way you are using a 430 then you are not using it to even a small amount of its potential.  I think a truer statement is that a 430 is a effective VFR AND and IFR tool, while a 480 in ONLY a IFR tool.  >Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than the 430W and has a bigger screen.  Let's see, the 430W will list for $10,750, the 530W $16,495. The 480 used to lists for $12,000.  ???? The economies of scale will make the 430W MUCH less expensive than the 480.  I've had my 430 since '99 and there are over 40,000 now in service and continue to sell.  Anyone care to wager on the 480 being available new in 5 years?  William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/  [quote][b]

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:00 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Chris, that is excellent experience you had, congratulations for

doing it!



One thing that I just thought of now, that fits into this discussion

of IFR ticket before or after RV-10 flying is this:



An Instrument rating is usually THE NUMBER ONE thing you can do to

lower your insurance rates.  In fact, some people will tell you

their insurance companies REQUIRED an instrument rating for

them on their RV-10.  Getting your rating done ahead of time will

not only boost your total time, which may lower your rate, but will

give you that rate reduction.  This in addition to the other benefits

we've discussed.   The insurance companies aren't treating the RV-10

like a plain old day VFR cruiser, which is only natural, seeing as

an old informal poll showed that the vast majority of RV-10's are

being built as high-speed X-country IFR equipped planes.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Chris Johnston wrote:

[quote] 

 

 Hey all - 

 

 I'm actually a builder that's a low time pilot who took the time (and

 money!) to get my instrument rating after starting building, and before

 finishing.  Here's my take...  I chose to go to a part 141 school,

 partly due to my low hours (I don't have enough PIC Xcountry time) and

 partly so that I could get it done in very rapid fashion.  I was at the

 airport Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 5pm after work, and sometimes

 didn't get home from flying til midnight or 1am.  I did this for two

 months solid.  Just so you get the picture, I also did this in a two

 month period where California got more rainfall than has ever been

 recorded since the early 1900s.  so basically, I did all my training at

 night (I never flew during the day til my check ride!) and in mostly in

 actual IMC.  Hardly ever had to wear the hood!  It was the hardest thing

 I've ever done in my life by far.  This is partly because I'm such a low

 time pilot, that there's really no point in a flight where I'm relaxing

 because everything seems comfortable or familiar.  Turbulence, icing,

 pouring rain, approaches to minimums, HAVING to go missed - not for

 training, but because we had to!  Forgot pitot heat in icing conditions

 and lost my ASI!  All very good training, but hard.  Now, I'm an

 instrument rated pilot and I have about 106 hours.  I have no desire to

 go barreling through "hard" IMC at the moment, but I do fly tower

 enroute occasionally in VFR conditions, and enjoy the challenge.  Oh,

 and I did a few GPS approaches, but never used anything close to an

 EFIS, all stem gauges and needles with a KLN94.  The experience has made

 me a much better pilot, and has taught me that I need to go slowly, have

 a LOT to learn, and even more to practice.  Also, it had a PROFOUND

 effect on the panel and also the interior lighting design for my 10.  I

 spent a lot of time thinking about what was so dammed hard about the

 evening's flight, and how I could improve things in my own aircraft.

 Here's an example:

 

 Flying around the LA area in actual IMC at night, got my knee board and

 pencils and pens at the ready, got a red LED light stuck to the side of

 my headset, on all the time.  got a small red flashlight between my legs

 to find the switches behind the yoke, and to help illuminate the wet

 compass and engine gauges that had inop or dim lighting, and a bigger

 flashlight also between my legs to shine out the window to check for ice

 on the tires or wing strut.  Turbulence.  Pesky approach plates that

 seem to take me forever to read when I look down and focus on them, even

 on the yoke.  Struggle, struggle, struggle.  Land, debrief, get into the

 car.  NOW, turn on the car, and everything is in a logical place, when I

 turn on the lights, every switch and control is illuminated, and I can

 see everything.  Pop the map light on for a second to fiddle with

 something.  Turn it off without having to search.  And I think for

 seemingly the hundredth time...WHY CAN'T AN AIRPLANE BE LIKE THIS?

 answer: it can.  If you build it that way.

 

 Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to paint a picture...  there's a

 hundred things that seem small, but for a low time pilot in IMC, every

 advantage is significant.  SEE the switches.  LOGICAL order and

 placement.  Centralized warning indicators.  These are things that I

 might not have paid such close attention to without the experience of

 going through IFR training during the build.

 

 As always, these are just things that I think.  I don't know anything.

 

 Cj

 #40410

 fuse

 www.perfectlygoodairplane.net

 

 --

DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:18 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

I HAVE USED THE 430 IN THE LAST 3 RV'S. NOW HAVE THE 480 AND U  R CORRECT....IT IS MORE COMPLEX, BUT, THE MORE I USE IT AND LEARN IT, THE BETTER  I LIKE IT. IT IS MORE LIKE THE FMS WE USE IN THE CORPORATE JETS. I AM ALSO GOING  TO USE THE 480 IN MY RV10.

 GOOD LUCK

  

 DO NOT ARCHIVE

  

 DOUG PRESTON

 RV-7A 

 N196VA

  

  

  [quote][b]

MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

I"d love to see the design when you're ready. 



Chris Johnston wrote:

[quote] 



 Hey all - 



 I'm actually a builder that's a low time pilot who took the time (and

 money!) to get my instrument rating after starting building, and before

 finishing.  Here's my take...  I chose to go to a part 141 school,

 partly due to my low hours (I don't have enough PIC Xcountry time) and

 partly so that I could get it done in very rapid fashion.  I was at the

 airport Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 5pm after work, and sometimes

 didn't get home from flying til midnight or 1am.  I did this for two

 months solid.  Just so you get the picture, I also did this in a two

 month period where California got more rainfall than has ever been

 recorded since the early 1900s.  so basically, I did all my training at

 night (I never flew during the day til my check ride!) and in mostly in

 actual IMC.  Hardly ever had to wear the hood!  It was the hardest thing

 I've ever done in my life by far.  This is partly because I'm such a low

 time pilot, that there's really no point in a flight where I'm relaxing

 because everything seems comfortable or familiar.  Turbulence, icing,

 pouring rain, approaches to minimums, HAVING to go missed - not for

 training, but because we had to!  Forgot pitot heat in icing conditions

 and lost my ASI!  All very good training, but hard.  Now, I'm an

 instrument rated pilot and I have about 106 hours.  I have no desire to

 go barreling through "hard" IMC at the moment, but I do fly tower

 enroute occasionally in VFR conditions, and enjoy the challenge.  Oh,

 and I did a few GPS approaches, but never used anything close to an

 EFIS, all stem gauges and needles with a KLN94.  The experience has made

 me a much better pilot, and has taught me that I need to go slowly, have

 a LOT to learn, and even more to practice.  Also, it had a PROFOUND

 effect on the panel and also the interior lighting design for my 10.  I

 spent a lot of time thinking about what was so dammed hard about the

 evening's flight, and how I could improve things in my own aircraft.

 Here's an example:



 Flying around the LA area in actual IMC at night, got my knee board and

 pencils and pens at the ready, got a red LED light stuck to the side of

 my headset, on all the time.  got a small red flashlight between my legs

 to find the switches behind the yoke, and to help illuminate the wet

 compass and engine gauges that had inop or dim lighting, and a bigger

 flashlight also between my legs to shine out the window to check for ice

 on the tires or wing strut.  Turbulence.  Pesky approach plates that

 seem to take me forever to read when I look down and focus on them, even

 on the yoke.  Struggle, struggle, struggle.  Land, debrief, get into the

 car.  NOW, turn on the car, and everything is in a logical place, when I

 turn on the lights, every switch and control is illuminated, and I can

 see everything.  Pop the map light on for a second to fiddle with

 something.  Turn it off without having to search.  And I think for

 seemingly the hundredth time...WHY CAN'T AN AIRPLANE BE LIKE THIS?

 answer: it can.  If you build it that way.



 Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to paint a picture...  there's a

 hundred things that seem small, but for a low time pilot in IMC, every

 advantage is significant.  SEE the switches.  LOGICAL order and

 placement.  Centralized warning indicators.  These are things that I

 might not have paid such close attention to without the experience of

 going through IFR training during the build.



 As always, these are just things that I think.  I don't know anything.



 Cj

 #40410

 fuse

 www.perfectlygoodairplane.net



 --

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:15 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

ou may be used to the 430, obviously you don't know the 480. Fact

remains that you can't enter more than one segment of an airway at a

time on the 430. If you get a reroute, you will be doing a lot of

heads down time, or just entering one or two fixes ahead at a time.

The 480 can do everything the 430 does in spades and more, whether VFR

or IFR.

Also kind of hard to fly an offset to an airway when you don't have

it, piece of cake for the 480. Flying in the Northeast means

relatively short flights. Maybe the 430 is right for you. I routinely

fly coast to coast and having airways mapped is extremely useful.

See Doug Preston's comments as one who has owned both units.

Not to mention it is available now. What do you suppose the delivery

on a 430W is, given there is a 6 month or more backlog for upgrades?

Not to mention that the 430 is a considerably older design, and much

of it will remain older even with the upgrade. It looks like from

various on-line vendors you are within $500 of each other right now,

although most listings are for the 430, not the 430W, appearing

discounted about $2000 from the 430W. Not hard at all to find the 480

advertised for $9000, probably less on unadvertised price.

On 12/15/06, W. Curtis <wcurtis(at)core.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   >The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where

  >that is real world it will be great.

  Huh? How do you come up with a statement like that?

  I fly a 430 IFR in the busy Northeast where you NEVER (at least I've never)

 get to fly direct. "It doesn't have airways" only means that you can't enter

 an airway in the flight planning section and they are not displayed on the

 map. In practicality this only means that on the 430, you can't put in MIV

 V1 JAX and have it determine all 12 intermediate points. With proper flight

 planning you should have all these points anyway and not have to let a

 navigator determine them for you. Otherwise, the flight planning section in

 the 430 is pretty good. Get to know it and see for yourself. So I guess I

 don't understand you statement about the 430 designed only "to go direct"

 and "a VFR tool." If this is the way you are using a 430 then you are not

 using it to even a small amount of its potential.

  I think a truer statement is that a 430 is a effective VFR AND and IFR

 tool, while a 480 in ONLY a IFR tool.

  >Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than the 430W and has a bigger

 screen.

  Let's see, the 430W will list for $10,750, the 530W $16,495. The 480 used

 to lists for $12,000. ????

  The economies of scale will make the 430W MUCH less expensive than the 480.

 I've had my 430 since '99 and there are over 40,000 now in service and

 continue to sell. Anyone care to wager on the 480 being available new in 5

 years?

  William Curtis

  http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:39 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

I paid under $9K for my GNS-480, brand new of course.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 ou may be used to the 430, obviously you don't know the 480. Fact

 remains that you can't enter more than one segment of an airway at a

 time on the 430. If you get a reroute, you will be doing a lot of

 heads down time, or just entering one or two fixes ahead at a time.

 The 480 can do everything the 430 does in spades and more, whether VFR

 or IFR.

 Also kind of hard to fly an offset to an airway when you don't have

 it, piece of cake for the 480. Flying in the Northeast means

 relatively short flights. Maybe the 430 is right for you. I routinely

 fly coast to coast and having airways mapped is extremely useful.

 See Doug Preston's comments as one who has owned both units.

 Not to mention it is available now. What do you suppose the delivery

 on a 430W is, given there is a 6 month or more backlog for upgrades?

 Not to mention that the 430 is a considerably older design, and much

 of it will remain older even with the upgrade. It looks like from

 various on-line vendors you are within $500 of each other right now,

 although most listings are for the 430, not the 430W, appearing

 discounted about $2000 from the 430W. Not hard at all to find the 480

 advertised for $9000, probably less on unadvertised price.

 

 On 12/15/06, W. Curtis <wcurtis(at)core.com> wrote:

> >The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where

>  >that is real world it will be great.

>

>  Huh? How do you come up with a statement like that?

>

>  I fly a 430 IFR in the busy Northeast where you NEVER (at least I've 

> never)

> get to fly direct. "It doesn't have airways" only means that you can't 

> enter

> an airway in the flight planning section and they are not displayed on 

> the

> map. In practicality this only means that on the 430, you can't put in 

> MIV

> V1 JAX and have it determine all 12 intermediate points. With proper 

> flight

> planning you should have all these points anyway and not have to let a

> navigator determine them for you. Otherwise, the flight planning 

> section in

> the 430 is pretty good. Get to know it and see for yourself. So I guess I

> don't understand you statement about the 430 designed only "to go direct"

> and "a VFR tool." If this is the way you are using a 430 then you are not

> using it to even a small amount of its potential.

>

>  I think a truer statement is that a 430 is a effective VFR AND and IFR

> tool, while a 480 in ONLY a IFR tool.

>

>  >Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than the 430W and has a bigger

> screen.

>

>  Let's see, the 430W will list for $10,750, the 530W $16,495. The 480 

> used

> to lists for $12,000. ????

>  The economies of scale will make the 430W MUCH less expensive than 

> the 480.

> I've had my 430 since '99 and there are over 40,000 now in service and

> continue to sell. Anyone care to wager on the 480 being available new 

> in 5

> years?

>

>  William Curtis

>  http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/

>

>

Bill Schlatterer

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 195

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:48 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Dan, maybe the local FDSO knows something but it goes deeper than that with

the 396/496.  Questions on filing /g with a non-certified unit assume that

it is used only on the enroute phase(not sure it's legal but some do

anyway).  I may be wrong on this point, but when you file /g you are telling

ATC that you have equipment on board capable of flying a full GPS approach

and not just the enroute leg.  The AIM says that /g means "GPS with enroute

AND terminal capability".  Since the 396 and 496 don't show anything other

than the FAF segment, it doesn't appear that you have the "terminal"

capability required to fly the full approach. Until Garmin adds the full

approach procedures to the 396/496 all the other questions would seem moot.

Of course, it is a chicken and the egg thing so maybe if the FDSO loosened

up some, Garmin might add them. 



Does the Chelton Freeflight have certified a GPS built in?  If so back up

with the 496 is gold, if not it's just two x non-certified.



Maybe some AIM scholar will weigh in 



Just my .02

Bill S

7a engine



--

LarryRosen

Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 415
Location: Medford, NJ

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:51 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Well sort of.

The Chelton system (SV-Sport) is not certified.  Built into the Pinpoint 

GADAHRS is a GPS.  The optional FreeFlight 1101 WAAS GPS has full 

integrity monitoring.  The Chelton SV-Sport is "based" on their 

certified system.  The FreeFlight 1101 GPS according to Chelton is the 

same as the certified 1201 but without the TSO sticker.  So, it is not 

certified.  I believe it meets the standard, but you can decide for your 

self.  The closest Chelton will come to saying if you can legally fly 

IFR with there system is this, "As an option, add to your SV-10 the 

FreeFlight WAAS GPS with full integrity monitoring, and your SV-10 can 

be used for  stand-alone IFR GPS navigation.



Larry Rosen

#356



 

Bill Schlatterer wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 ..... 



 Does the Chelton Freeflight have certified a GPS built in?  If so back up

 with the 496 is gold, if not it's just two x non-certified.



 Maybe some AIM scholar will weigh in 



 Just my .02

 Bill S

 7a engine

_________________
Larry Rosen
#40356
N205EN (reserved)
<http>

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum