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 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

LarryRosen

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

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Jim and others,

I am also planning on putting a Garmin GPS into a panel dock.  I was 

wondering on where you were going to put/mount the antenna?  With the 

freedom we experimental builders have it sure would make sense to 

somehow mount the antenna under the cowl or canopy and not just have it 

sitting on the glare shield.



Larry

#356



James Hein wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Put "VFR GPS" in the comments box... ATC will help you out.



 -Jim



 jim(at)CombsFive.Com wrote:



> 

>

> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock.  The 

> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.

>

> Here is the response from Garmin as to why:

>

> "The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit.  The FAA has no 

> intentions to certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit.  You need to go 

> with a TSO-129 certified box if you want to an IFR GPS."

>

> Hmmm.  That really stinks!

>

> So does that mean no /G filing?

>

> Jim C

> N312F

> Finishing

>

>  

>

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

jesse(at)itecusa.org
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:11 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Here's my hidden mount on N416EC.  I don't think there has ever been a

problem with reception in 92 hours on the Hobbs.



Do not archive.



Jesse Saint

I-TEC, Inc.

jesse(at)itecusa.org

www.itecusa.org

W: 352-465-4545

C: 352-427-0285



--

DSC_7515.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

24 KB

Viewed:

427 Time(s)

DSC_7513.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

35.6 KB

Viewed:

469 Time(s)

jim(at)CombsFive.Com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:19 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

I had heard that some have mounted it out in front of the firewall at the top just behind the engine.  I do not have the unit yet and have not actually thought too much about it.  I don't mind putting it on the top of the Instrument panel (I think!).  I may change my mind after seeing it.  



Jim C

N312F



Do not archive

============================================================

From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>

Date: 2006/12/14 Thu PM 05:45:27 EST

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna






Jim and others,

I am also planning on putting a Garmin GPS into a panel dock.  I was 

wondering on where you were going to put/mount the antenna?  With the 

freedom we experimental builders have it sure would make sense to 

somehow mount the antenna under the cowl or canopy and not just have it 

sitting on the glare shield.



Larry

#356

jim(at)CombsFive.Com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

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

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:03 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

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:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 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

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:26 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Amen



On 12/14/06, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 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

 >

 >

wcurtis(at)core.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:33 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

[quote]> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock.  The  >> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.  Jim,  What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR certified?  Let's see: 1)	It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable system configuration? 2)	The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000  While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet these requirements-yes ever is a long time.  That being said, I too will have a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with the antenna mounted on the glare shield.  It will sit right below an IFR certified GNS-430W.  Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx you still would be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation, however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able to file /G.  By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530?  It also explains what took Garmin so long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530.  GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below: http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf  http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf  http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm   William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/  [quote][b]

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:48 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

The Garmin decison to reduce the TSO on the 480  sounds like a marketing decision to me. Perhaps someday Garmin will go the way  of King which they so heartliy disliked.

 [quote]   ---

jim(at)CombsFive.Com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Excellent point!  While that seems so obvious, It does need to be said.  It's right up there with measure twice, cut once. 



My plans for the panel include the AF-3500 EFIS / Engine monitor, Garmin 496 MAP/GPS, SL30 Nav/Com, Garmin 327 Transponder, AP and PE 7000B audio panel.



Thats way more function / capability that I have now in a CAP Cessna 182.



Layout / use however are clearly major points for discussion.    



Dang, I hate it when you are right!  I need to go do some work with some IFR rated pilots to make sure I get this right the first time around.



Thanks, Jim C

N312F   

============================================================

From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>

Date: 2006/12/14 Thu PM 09:02:32 EST

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna






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:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 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

 

 


	




============================================================

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:24 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

It is interesting that when you read the bulletins, which I've seen

a while back, that there are some inconsistencies.  For one, depending

on which one you read, one says that you will still be able to fly

LPV approaches, and the other talks about needing alternate equipment

and so on.  And, it does state that the "problem" is basically in

how the equipment matched up to a technical specification, not something

that they saw failures in the field over.  It's been a popular and

proven box, so it's hard to be shaken too hard over a technicality, even

if it does (or doesn't) truly limit the functionality until they come

out with a "fix".   Not too many months ago, I did get the latest

software rev v2.1, and they told me that there are always

updates in the works.  It will be interesting to see how they evolve

the 480 now that the 430/530's will have WAAS...especially when those

new models came out at even more obscene pricepoints.



Tim Olson - (with an "on", not an "en" as is being commonly written

	these days)

do not archive

David McNeill wrote:

[quote] The Garmin decison to reduce the TSO on the 480 sounds like a marketing 

 decision to me. Perhaps someday Garmin will go the way of King which 

 they so heartliy disliked.

 

     ---

jim(at)CombsFive.Com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:32 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

 	  Quote: 	
		  From my "Inexperienced" point of view:


	


- The 496 has a WAAS GPS receiver.

- It's newer than the panel mounted 430, 480, 5xx stuff

- They (Garmin) already have certified database for use



So why not make a portable receiver that meets the TSO standard? (Which I admittedly know nothing about)  



These are just questions from my viewpoint.  Just because it's portable should not mean it is not certifiable. (Again  - My opinion!)  The TSO requirements may indeed force the panel mount issue.  



As for cost, the certification costs will drive the cost of the unit up.  Fewer units sold also drive the cost up.  



This whole certification / IFR business is new to me.  So I am learning as I go.        



This is a great forum to get the questions asked and get good feedback.  



Thanks, Jim C

N312F

 ============================================================

From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com>

Date: 2006/12/14 Thu PM 09:32:41 EST

To: RV10-List(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna



 	  Quote: 	
		  > I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock.  The 

> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.


	


Jim,



What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR certified?



Let's see:

1)	It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable system configuration?

2)	The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000



While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet these requirements-yes ever is a long time.  That being said, I too will have a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with the antenna mounted on the glare shield.  It will sit right below an IFR certified GNS-430W.  Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx you still would be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation, however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able to file /G.



By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530?  It also explains what took Garmin so long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530.



GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below:

http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf



http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf



http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm

William Curtis

http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/

============================================================

jim(at)CombsFive.Com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:37 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

Dang it - All these responses are making me rethink my plans!



Jim C

N312F



============================================================

From: <jim(at)CombsFive.Com>

Date: 2006/12/14 Thu PM 10:32:19 EST

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

Subject: Re: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna






 	  Quote: 	
		  From my "Inexperienced" point of view:


	


- The 496 has a WAAS GPS receiver.

- It's newer than the panel mounted 430, 480, 5xx stuff

- They (Garmin) already have certified database for use



So why not make a portable receiver that meets the TSO standard? (Which I admittedly know nothing about)  



These are just questions from my viewpoint.  Just because it's portable should not mean it is not certifiable. (Again  - My opinion!)  The TSO requirements may indeed force the panel mount issue.  



As for cost, the certification costs will drive the cost of the unit up.  Fewer units sold also drive the cost up.  



This whole certification / IFR business is new to me.  So I am learning as I go.        



This is a great forum to get the questions asked and get good feedback.  



Thanks, Jim C

N312F

 ============================================================

From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com>

Date: 2006/12/14 Thu PM 09:32:41 EST

To: RV10-List(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna



 	  Quote: 	
		  > I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock.  The 

> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.


	


Jim,



What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR certified?



Let's see:

1)	It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable system configuration?

2)	The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000



While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet these requirements-yes ever is a long time.  That being said, I too will have a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with the antenna mounted on the glare shield.  It will sit right below an IFR certified GNS-430W.  Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx you still would be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation, however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able to file /G.



By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530?  It also explains what took Garmin so long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530.



GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below:

http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf



http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf



http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm

William Curtis

http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/

============================================================

============================================================

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:28 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

There is a minor flaw in both Garmin's logic and Avionics West's

opinion.  The manufacturer can NOT make a service bulletin mandatory

for Part 91, and they can NOT take away an FAA granted certification.

ONLY the FAA can do that. Unless you are flying a type certified

aircraft for hire, where service bulletins must be complied with, you

can ignore said service bulletin until/if the FAA decides to make it

an AD. Not sure why sole means of navigation is an issue anyway, since

the unit has VOR built in. Perhaps you would want to be extra cautious

about an LPV approach, but until more info comes out that is about all

you need to do. In fact, the document itself says it is a non-problem

in the real world:

"Garmin notified the FAA of a discrepancy in a test specification

relating to the Initial Acquisition and Reacquisition of GPS

Satellites in the presence of high noise and interference levels.

These high noise levels do not exist in any real-world situation at

this time so there is little if any impact to GNS 480 (CNX80) users.

However, Garmin is committed to resolving the issue quickly and

removing any limitations on our WAAS navigators."

KM

A&P/IA

On 12/14/06, W. Curtis <wcurtis(at)core.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   >> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The

  >> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.

  Jim,

  What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR

 certified?

  Let's see:

  1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable system

 configuration?

  2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000

  While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements

 for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet

 these requirements-yes ever is a long time. That being said, I too will have

 a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with the antenna mounted on the glare

 shield. It will sit right below an IFR certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't

 have a GNS-4/5xx you still would be able to use the portable as

 "supplemental" aid to navigation, however, no matter how you read the regs

 you definitely will not be able to file /G.

  By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the

 WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's

 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took Garmin so

 long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530.

  GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below:

  http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf

  http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf

 http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm

  William Curtis

  http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1706
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:05 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

All IFR navigation systems have to have monitoring to ensure they are on 

the air and accurate. Ground based equipment have permanent receivers 

nearby the fulfill that need and sound alarms in a tower or FSS if they 

are out of tolerance. GPS has to use RAIM or a WAAS prediction program 

to ensure enough satellites will be in view. Portables don't have that 

function. You have to have an indicator in your scan for course 

guidance...on screen indications not acceptable. You have to have an 

annunciator to tell you what mode it is in, alert you to messages and 

warnings..and other stuff in the TSO. You have to ensure no avionics 

interference, which requires a fixed location. After all that, most 

critical, the FAA has said they will never approve a portable, end of 

discussion.

jim(at)CombsFive.Com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 >From my "Inexperienced" point of view:



 - The 496 has a WAAS GPS receiver.

 - It's newer than the panel mounted 430, 480, 5xx stuff

 - They (Garmin) already have certified database for use



 So why not make a portable receiver that meets the TSO standard? (Which I admittedly know nothing about)  



 These are just questions from my viewpoint.  Just because it's portable should not mean it is not certifiable. (Again  - My opinion!)  The TSO requirements may indeed force the panel mount issue.  



 As for cost, the certification costs will drive the cost of the unit up.  Fewer units sold also drive the cost up.  



 This whole certification / IFR business is new to me.  So I am learning as I go.        



 This is a great forum to get the questions asked and get good feedback.  



 Thanks, Jim C

 N312F

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

flysrv10(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:37 am Post subject: 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:

[quote]--> 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

 	




-- 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]

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:31 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

We asked the local FSDO their opinion on this issue with the portables,

and the feedback we got is that there has been allot of conversation on

making portables Legal for IFR but the main concern is not the unit

itself, rather the antenna, and its placement, this is what makes a

portable dangerous, because some just throw the puck up on the glare

shield and it could easily fall or somehow get blocked from receiving a

signal. The last thing you want to be doing is scrambling around in zero

vis and looking for your main nav source antenna. As for the units, they

say as long as they are hooked to ships power they feel they are just as

reliable as panel mounted units.

For what it is worth, I am also putting in the 496, but it will be

backing up the Chelton Freeflight so I can file /g. This of course is

after I get my IFR ticket, I did pass the written over Thanksgiving and

am about 10 hours into the flying portion.

Dan 

N289DT RV10E

--

jesse(at)itecusa.org
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:53 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

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] 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:  

  



 

     

--> 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  

    

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][b]

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:10 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

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> 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:



 



 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!)

   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

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:16 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

I agree; having used the Loran C system, the Garmin 90, Garmin 150, Garmin 

pilot III and the Garmin 295, I found that the only time I lost a fiz was 

when the antenna was shielded and/or when the GPS satelittes were outputing 

lower power. I used to be unable to get a lock inside a wood frame house but 

now the power output is sufficent to get a lock in my living room. Another 

concern of the FAA I am sure is whether there is sufficent computing power 

in the handheld to process the incoming data and update the moving map at a 

display rate which is adequate for the speed of the aircraft (had the 295 

lockup while using the WAAS sfotware that was available). Most of the TSOed 

units will handle speeds of 900+ kts. It would probably be helpful if a 

laymens guide to the GPS theory was provided. Another concern would be the 

testing and update controls on the software. Do not  archive.

---

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:17 am Post subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna

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>

 

 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] *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:

 

 

 

 

 <mailto: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> wrote:

 

> 

> <mailto: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

 

 *

 

 

 *

Display posts from previous:

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