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

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:18 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Agreed.  For people in most of the less densely populated, less 

mountainous areas, airways seems to be the exception rather than the 

rule.  For me, flying the southern atlantic seaboard, airway use is 

limited to Wash DC ADIZ and the Florida eastern shoreline FWIW.

Bill Schlatterer wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

  Realistically, in

 the south central states, it seems to be very unusual for ATC to move you

 off direct and put on an airway but it does happen.  IME



 Bill S

wcurtis(at)core.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:39 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

[quote]Is that the "only" think you can conclude? What about the objective facts? >For example, I also concluded that there are functional differences such as >"you can't enter an airway into the 430". A fact - correct? Why, after all >the diatribe, do you brush away all the facts and revert to subjective >personal opinion? Worse yet, you revert to public opinion/market economics >rather than sound science/engineering? Perhaps a proven political move - >but very bad science/engineering!  rtitsworth,  Since you haven't figured it out, that was my way of saying that this debate is pointless. Again, If you go back and RE-READ my first post, I stated this very fact--there is no need for a conclusion on that since this was never debated.  I am searching for a new fact, science/engineering in your post. Tell me what facts I have brushed away? I'm also still waiting for someone to tell me what negative or non "sound science/engineering" comments I'm made regarding the 480.   William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/  [quote][b]

wcurtis(at)core.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:41 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

[quote]More importantly, it will allow you to enter an airway that has turns along  >it without needing to enter each intermediate fix (turn). Very nice in  >areas where snaking airways are needed to provide terrain and/or airspace  >avoidance.  This sound eerily similar to what I said in my first post but you still did not answer all of Bill's question.    Bill Schlatterer wrote: >>Are you saying the 480 will let you enter an airway just like  >>you would enter a fix and then give you the closest entry point. >>That would be pretty helpful from time to time.  Yes, we know you can enter an airways as you would a fix, but will it give you "the closest entry point" or will you have to enter that too?   Please, everyone who thinks they have an opinion (or fact) either way, go back and read my original response to Kelley's post.  On 12/15/06, Kelly McMullen wrote: >>The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach.  >>If you fly where that is real world it will be great... >>An IFR tool [480] vs a VFR tool[430]. Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than the 430W..   To which part of my response was: >>"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.  And then the personal attacks started.  I've never made any comments on what the 480 can or cannot do, only what the 430 can or cannot do.   On 12/16/06, rtitsworth wrote: >>Personally, I expect more from the members of this group.  I guess having differing opinion is more than you expect.   On 12/16/06, Tim Olson wrote: >>Sorry, but it just irks me when someone with a completely one >>sided viewpoint keeps hammering on with a closed mind, when they >>don't have experience on the other end.   Talk to the points >>you know, tell the good about the items you know about, and >>any well-known flaws of the other...then leave it at that.   "Our zealots are devout, theirs infidels"  Do not archive. William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/  [quote][b]

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

William,

Sorry for my accusation of being one sided, first of all.  You may

indeed be one sided, but that doesn't have to imply anything beyond

that, and one sided people become more centralized as they learn

the other side.  My comment was more based on what Kelly pointed out

as your refusal to acknowledge the route planning differences that are

actually significant, although not necessarily better one way or

the other.  Simply because you can enter 25 fixes and duplicate

an airway does not make them equivalent at that function.  I was

trying to point out though, that while you've had some actual

info presented where one unit does something clearly better, you

choose to dispute it as a functional benefit, and rather you spend

your efforts trying to prove how a less-simple work-around is actually

just as good and presents the unit as superior.  I maintain that

really, the BEST benefit to this group, is if people will point

out the STRENGTHS of the equipment they know best, and the weaknesses

of the units they know best...and if you don't know great details,

then watch as someone who has that info fills it in.

My original comments on the 480/430 discussion started with something

like "Truthfully, either one will work fine...", and I commented

on the positives that I experienced so far.  I also corrected the

price listed because I paid substantially less than what was stated,

from a place where you all can spend the same amount.

For what it's worth, I do not agree with the statement that the

430 is a VFR tool, or that it's VFR only.  I am hoping since I've

seen so many replies since I was last online this a.m. that you

are not confusing too far what has come from me and from others.

Personally, when I chose my radios, I had to make a choice.  Looking

at the data at the time, I chose the 480, and I'm happy with that

choice.  I also seriously considered the 430.  I don't believe either

one of them is a "bad" choice.  I would have to fly some approaches

and flights with a 430, and even learn better the approach functions

of the 480 before I could really provide comment on one or the other.

What I have heard from any review I've read though is that there

are thousands of people flying both units, and that they both have

great features.  I've also heard that both of them are different

in logical function, but both are just as easy to learn.  I've

heard that they do definitely have different capabilities, and most

often I've seen that the 480 was the one that had slightly more...but

more isn't necessarily better. But at the pricepoints the old 430 and

480 were at, those feature differences were were justified by price.

What hasn't been made clear these days is how the 430W and 480 will

stand, given their current feature sets, and the much increased

pricing that is to come.

You've asked me to point out some negative comments.  Well, I can

only make slight reference to specific negative comments, but

it wasn't hard to hear the implication in your statements.

First, you posted the SB info on the GNS480's change in status...

a good thing, because this was fact, and it was great info that

could be presented.  Although you never bothered to acknowledge

that the info was really was absolutely nothing that applied to a

safety record, or how well the system functions, but

how a specification issue was uncovered.  It then ended up

with speculative bets as to if the 480 will even be around in 5

years or not.  So it didn't take too long to recognize that you

feel an apparent satisfaction from the negative of the SB info,

and anything else that can pull someone the other way.  I hope

I'm wrong on this.  I keep wondering to myself, "what is it this

guy has against anything but a 430"? since I've seen you go

after it in more than one newsgroup and thread.  It certainly

can't be that you have stock in one side, since they're both

under the same company.

Personally, I maintain that either of these GPS's would probably

be a great unit to add to anyone's panel who just wants to make

sure they have a good Nav/Com/GPS that's capable of approaches.

I would not have an iota of an issue telling a friend that they

did a great job going with a 430.  Can you say the same about

a friend buying a 480, or would you just go on defending the 430

in areas where there are differences?

So far, for the most part, it's been a creative and informative

discussion.  Hopefully we can all keep things mostly positive, or

at least accurate, and acknowledge the positives and negatives of

any type of system.  There's drastically too little info out

there, or too few PIREPS on some items, and it makes it very

hard for people to learn and weigh the benefits.  By a good

back and forth discussion, many people can learn from this list

the things that will help them in their own build.

I apologize to everyone for whom this is getting too long and

becoming a bandwidth waste.

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - 180hrs

do not archive

W. Curtis wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    >Sorry, but it just irks me when someone with a completely one

  >sided viewpoint keeps hammering on with a closed mind, when they

  >don't have experience on the other end.

 Tim,

 I understand what you are saying but what you have said is the EXACT 

 thing that got me on this "rant." Which is more on sided and/or 

 inaccurate; any of the things I've stated about the 480 or the below 

 comments about the 430?

 Comments such as:

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

  >>that is real world it will be great.

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

  >>screen.

  >>An IFR tool vs a VFR tool.

 My responses were to show why the above comments were inaccurate. Tell 

 me why you think mine are one sided and closed minded?

 William Curtis

 http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/

 *

jwt(at)roadmapscoaching.c
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

CJ,



Thanks for sharing your experience and congrats on the IFR ticket. Given all

of your night experience and thinking about lighting, would you tell us the

details of your interior lighting design?



John Testement

jwt(at)roadmapscoaching.com

40321

Richmond, VA

Finish kit - wheel fairings, cowl prep

Do not archive 



--

GRANSCOTT(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:14 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Tim my take on the two units are pretty straight forward, both will get you  from point A to point B...but the cnx 80/480 will provide you with airways and  you can calculate closest point of approach...the 480 will provide WAAS  approaches with data bases that contain these WAAS approaches.  Buttons are  slightly different as are some command words.  The next generation 430's  will have WAAS approaches and apparently Garmin will retro the current in the  field 430's to WAAS units at some point in the future with an up charge.

  

 When I talked to Garmin several years ago about the apparent disconnect on  the lack of Victor's in the 430/530 system their response was that they created  their units with direct flights in mind...now I've also heard from  others that at the time Garmin had a problem with memory and could not include  all the Victor's plus all the other items they designed.  Maybe that's why  they are now making a major modification to update the old 430/530 with the WAAS  approaches.  

  

 Like Kelly out west, when one files up here in the east one does a lot of  Victor's before you get cleared direct.  I'd think that having Victors sure  would make the routing easier than having to plug in all the way  points...but all can be done with time and charts in hand.  

  

 The MX 20 with the G1000/530 system is pretty easy but they do not have  Victor's in it either.  Or at least in the last 100 hours I've flown behind  it I've yet to find a Victor airway...maybe I've got to punch a little deeper in  the sub pages...but I don't think I'll find them...I know my partner Dan has the  Victors in his system that in the 767 he drives.

  

 Patrick

  [quote][b]

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:35 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Bill, I'm not sure about entering from the closest entry point.  I

haven't tried that.  What I meant to try to explain was that I could

put in a start fix, and a destination and when I went to choose the

airway it drew out the airway routes if you wished and you could

select multiple airway routes and it would automatically load

all of the inbetween fixes.  I wish I could answer that exact

function question, but it's not something I know.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Bill Schlatterer wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Tim, I missed something here!  Are you saying the 480 will let you enter an

 airway just like you would enter a fix and then give you the closest entry

 point.  That would be pretty helpful from time to time.  I fly a 430 and

 have to pull out the chart and find a fix to enter to get to the airway.

 Maybe I missed something in the 430 manual as well    Realistically, in

 the south central states, it seems to be very unusual for ATC to move you

 off direct and put on an airway but it does happen.  IME

 

 Bill S

wayne.e(at)grandecom.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:18 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Boy I hope we are able to conclude the 496 issue  soon, I'm getting dizzy :>}

  

 Wayne Edgerton #40336

  

 do not archive

   [quote][b]

nyterminat(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:28 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

I wonder how Jan is doing with the new Suburau engine? 

  

  

  

 In a message dated 12/17/06 08:21:10 Eastern Standard Time, wayne.e(at)grandecom.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		    Boy I hope we are able to conclude the 496 issue soon, I'm getting dizzy :>}

  

 Wayne Edgerton #40336

  

 do not archive



	
  

  [quote][b]

wcurtis(at)core.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:37 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Tim,  This is my final post on the subject.  I tried to end this yesterday and spare the readers when I thanked Kelly for his comments and agreed that we disagreed.  But then I was accused of "brush[ing] away all the facts and revert to subjective personal opinion."  So again I asked for the facts that I've overlooked.  I also asked you to point out to me where I have made negative or inaccurate statements about the 480 and if I can summarize you long post, your answer was:  1)	I brought to light the SB on the Garmin 480 2)	Your speculation that I have "an apparent satisfaction from the negative of the SB info" 3)	I speculated that the 480 will not be available in 5 years  In all those words, this is all you can come up with for your accusation of "closed minded hammering?"  All paltry at best.  You ask "what is it this guy has against anything but a 430?"  The answer is nothing.  I'll say it once again, if you RE-READ all my posts, ALL my responses have been to correct some others negative statement about the 430 in their defense of the 480-or anything else.  I myself have NEVER denigrated the 480, despite your speculation.  Again, I'm gonna ask you to point out to me in which "more than one newsgroup and thread" I've made negative comments about the 480?  When I posted the Garmin SB, I did not feel I had any obligation to "acknowledge that the info was really was absolutely nothing that applied to a safety record, or how well the system functions.."  It was for individuals to read themselves and make their own determination.  The only speculation I made was that I think that is what delayed the 430/530 WAAS certification.  Being the bearer of [bad] news, the "defense by offense crowd" went into full effect culminating with personal attacks.  Some don't seem to have any problems when others defend their product [480] by attacking the another [430] (how this all started), but any pure defense of another product [430] is construed as "closed minded hammering."  "Our zealots are devout, theirs infidels"   Now, I think  I'll go look a that Eggenfeller engine and see which Garmin it best integrates with.  We now resume you regularly scheduled RV-10 list.  The "Work Table Size" thread already in progress.  Do not archive   William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/  [quote][b]

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:26 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

I do apologize to everyone watching, involved or not involved.

Email is often hard to interpret emotions, as we all know.

I do think we had at least some useful information come out of

all of this, and to William and all involved.  I also want to

apologize to William if I read more into anything. For what it's

worth, I do feel that there were overly harsh posts on both

sides, which sometimes happens when neither side will acknowledge

what the other is saying.  I'm as guilty as anyone.  I don't

think you did anything too awful.



I did do a little digging and this same kind of heated exchange

has been going on for years, regarding these radios.



http://philip.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000toU

http://www.airtalk.org/gns430-vs-480-vs-530-vt31826.html

http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/ifr/866/Any-opinions-on-the-Garmin-GNS-480



There are more things that can be found using google too.

The problem with reading the above is twofold.

1) Opinions fly, in both directions, and it isn't all factual.

2) In at least some of the cases, the software being used at the time

	is much different than it is today.  I saw references to

	GNS-480 version 2.0 software coming out.  Well, I've upgraded

	to version 2.1 within the last few months, and more things

	have been added since.  So, there is more to the discussion	

	than what these above threads would have.



Some day, perhaps, we can get some detailed information from a true

expert who can list the differences, and we can add it all to a

web page with the list.  That way it doesn't have to get thoroughly

rehashed again.



For now, until we have said "experts", it doesn't pay to go

back and forth.   I do appreciate everyone's positive comments

though...from William and Kelly, and everyone else.  We have one

of the best, most respectful aviation lists on the net.  I know

the subie discussion got heated too, but in those messages was

buried lots of info bits that could be used on either side to

help make decisions.  Same with this 480/430 discussion.



Enough for me too, if we re-start it again some day, let's change

the subject line. 



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - 180 hours

do not archive

W. Curtis wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Tim,

 

 This is my final post on the subject. I tried to end this yesterday and 

 spare the readers when I thanked Kelly for his comments and agreed that 

 we disagreed. But then I was accused of "brush[ing] away all the facts 

 and revert to subjective personal opinion." So again I asked for the 

 facts that I've overlooked.

 

 I also asked you to point out to me where I have made negative or 

 inaccurate statements about the 480 and if I can summarize you long 

 post, your answer was:

 

 1) I brought to light the SB on the Garmin 480

 2) Your speculation that I have "an apparent satisfaction from the 

 negative of the SB info"

 3) I speculated that the 480 will not be available in 5 years

 

 In all those words, this is all you can come up with for your accusation 

 of "closed minded hammering?" All paltry at best.

 

 You ask "what is it this guy has against anything but a 430?" The answer 

 is nothing. I'll say it once again, if you RE-READ all my posts, ALL my 

 responses have been to correct some others negative statement about the 

 430 in their defense of the 480-or anything else. I myself have NEVER 

 denigrated the 480, despite your speculation.

 

 Again, I'm gonna ask you to point out to me in which "more than one 

 newsgroup and thread" I've made negative comments about the 480? When I 

 posted the Garmin SB, I did not feel I had any obligation to 

 "acknowledge that the info was really was absolutely nothing that 

 applied to a safety record, or how well the system functions.." It was 

 for individuals to read themselves and make their own determination. The 

 only speculation I made was that I think that is what delayed the 

 430/530 WAAS certification. Being the bearer of [bad] news, the "defense 

 by offense crowd" went into full effect culminating with personal attacks.

 

 Some don't seem to have any problems when others defend their product 

 [480] by attacking the another [430] (how this all started), but any 

 pure defense of another product [430] is construed as "closed minded 

 hammering."

 

 "Our zealots are devout, theirs infidels"

 

 

 Now, I think I'll go look a that Eggenfeller engine and see which Garmin 

 it best integrates with.

 

 We now resume you regularly scheduled RV-10 list. The "Work Table Size" 

 thread already in progress.

 

 Do not archive

 

 

 William Curtis

 http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/

 

 *

 

 

 *

Display posts from previous:

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