Best IFR GPS? or GS/LOC/VOR better?

What are the best choices in IFR GPS: Approach? Enroute?
I would prefer one that has integrated annunciation and does not require a separate NAV head. My "mission" would be occasional IFR, depart IFR for enroute VFR or IFR enroute climb or decent.

Second question: Is a stand alone VOR/GS/LOC still a good choice over an IFR GPS?

1) Old school: Get a Val GS/LOC/VOR/MB all in one nav unit: http://valavionics.com/p_ins422.html
Down side is adding two antennas for VOR/GS/LOC & MB. The good side is for $2000, plus installation, you have enroute Nav and approaches down to 200 & 1/2 possible, with some paper enroute charts and approach plates. You can still use a VFR GPS map display for situational awareness and help "assist" flying direct, if ATC gives you a vector, "fly direct to XYZ on heading #".

2) New School: Approach capable IFR GPS only - Plus side is compact, accurate. The down side is cost of equipment and required electronic NAV updates. I am not sure, but the lowest GPS approach mins are higher than an ILS 200 & 1/2.

3) Super New School: The diamond-encrusted gold plate integrated GPS/ILS/VOR/MB/COM - May be a little more than I want ($$) or need for occasional IFR to depart IFR to VFR or IFR enroute decent. May be this is the best and most cost effective way to go?

Any suggestions, lessons learned or theories appreciated, Cheers George

DME necessary/helpful/important?

Can I tag on a related question? (Sorry, no answers here, only more questions.) If one does go with the non-GPS setup, is DME still important? I know there are a few approaches that require it, but is having an IFR aircraft without DME a huge hinderance?

The Garmin GNC 420 is a nice IFR GPS with a good comm built in. If you need GS/VOR/LOC go for the GNS 430 or 480 and add the indicator. Most of the standalone VOR/LOC/GS units aren't that good and will require cutting into your subpanel to fit. Lot's of choices and none of the good ones will come cheap.

IFR without DME is not a huge hinderance, maybe inconvenient. I did IFR in a Cherokee equiped with steam gages, dual VOR/LOC, one GS, Dual comms, NDB, and Marker beacons. It's just nice to know how far you are from a nav point without going through a lot of triangulation.

Roberta

gmcjetpilot said:

3) Super New School: The diamond-encrusted gold plate integrated GPS/ILS/VOR/MB/COM - May be a little more than I want ($$) or need for occasional IFR to depart IFR to VFR or IFR enroute decent. May be this is the best and most cost effective way to go?

Click to expand...

FWIW, I do fly IFR in my RV, and I would not be happy with an all-in-one box due to workload. I highly recommend an SL30 plus whatever simple IFR GPS you feel like spending $$$ on. People think fancy GPSs are the cure-all. The SL30, "just" a nav-com, is all that and a bag of chips. 2 navs + 2 coms in one.

I'm sure the GNS-encrustimus and CNX-maximus are great radios with pretty screens, but when it comes to shooting approaches, I'm much happier with my SL30 as a separate box with lots of redundancies -- in addition to a very simple IFR GPS.

The question I think more people need to ask is -- how much work are you willing to do in order to do simple things? The all-in-one boxes implicitly require more work for trivial operations. Just combining com with a GPS turns a simple box into something that is more difficult to use, let alone piling VOR/LOC functionality into that same box. Are you really getting more functionality by piling more responsibility into a single box? I'm of the school that thinks "no."

I know there are lots of people who are very happy with GNS and CNX boxes, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. But my philosophy is: get two very simple boxes that talk to each other, and you'll get more for your money, your workload decreases, etc.

I personally feel that all-in-one boxes are kinda like RVs. 2nd at lots of things, 1st at none. Buy the best dedicated tools for the job (if you can afford them, which I can't).

)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com

Brian130 said:

If one does go with the non-GPS setup, is DME still important? I know there are a few approaches that require it, but is having an IFR aircraft without DME a huge hinderance?

Click to expand...

DME important? Nahh. Nice to have? You betcha.

When I was a night freight puke hauling cancelled checks in C-310s, we had several ships in the fleet with radio packages straight out of a C-150. 2 nav/coms, ADF, transponder. That's it, nothing else. But they had full de-ice equipment so we were good to go in known icing! We'd fly those things all night in crappy weather, shooting ILSs down to 200 and 1/2, 5-6 times per night, no sweat. The only thing we really couldn't do was a DME arc transition to an ILS or VOR final approach course. No biggie, that's what the radar controllers are for... unless you're out in the middle of nowhere, New Mexico.

But there was this one cold and nasty night, going into Chicago Midway, I had to hold at an intersection... now that sucked. I would've killed for a DME equipped ship on that run...

My plan for a basic, IFR equipped machine is a KX-125 nav/com and a transponder with a Garmin 296 for the big picture. That's it. I don't need to be doing ILSs down to mins, sniffing for the runway; if I can't get in with VOR or LOC minimums, I don't need to be going. I've thought about the IFR GPS route, but by the time you buy the GPS itself plus the external indicator, it just drives the cost thru the roof. No thanks. I'd love to have an SL-30, that'd be ideal, but again, too much $$. I'm trying to keep it simple, light, and cheap.

John
B-737 FO
Houston, TX

GNS480 and MX20 hard to beat!

I'll chime in on this one as I feel strongly about it. The GNS480 when combined with an MX20 MFD is a powerful combination that you cannot beat for IFR in a GA airplane. It is light years ahead of the 430/530 units.

When combined with a good GPSS capable Trutrak and some real training in the proper use of it, you will have a plane that can be safely flown in lousy weather, down to minimums, as long as you stay away from ice.

The 480 will generate a magenta line that your GPSS autopilot will follow through IFR departures, enroute, arrivals, holding entries and patterns, approach transitions, approaches, and missed approaches. Properly flown, you can monitor the aircraft and that package will fly it.

Add the Jeppe$$en Chartview option and you have all the IFR charts onboard. As of a week ago you don't have to have the paper ones onboard. You may still want some, however. Chartview is VERY cool.

As for the all-in-one box concept, your backup is radar guided descents, if you have a 2nd comm. Without that, you may want to choose carefully your routes and weather. In an emergency you can do a lot with a handheld comm. Add a handheld GPS (mine is in the back seat) and you have even more capability. You will NEED the autopilot for this.

A case can be made for separate units. A comm failure won't keep you from shooting an approach and a NAV failure won't keep you from getting radar guidance. You have to decide if it is worth it.

For me, the capabilities of the 480 are so far past any other reasonable option I wouldn't consider anything else. I do, qualify that with the requirement that it be paired with the MX20.

My opinions only! Your milage may vary!

Russ
HRII

Help me understand!

I have a question about the principles that stand behind the vor/loc/gs indication provided by some GPS systems.

What I need to know is how indication gets to the vor/loc/gs indicator...
That's general !

More specific, it's about the Garmin 500 with the Garmin GI-106A VOR/LOC/GS/GPS Course Deviation Indicator (CDI). First, I thought that this indication is coming as a parallel indication from the VOR/ILS receiver (KURS MP 2), but it's not.

I think (but it's more a guess and I didn't find any documentation at the first research) that the GPS being all about the positions, it could compute an ideal landing track, knowing of course the position of the runway (at least two points of interest).

About the precision, I personally think you cannot compare this kind of indication with the one provided by a classic VOR/ILS receiver.

I kinda combined the two--GNS-430W going to a VAL 429 for the readout. The 429 alone is a nice piece of equipment. Add the 430W later if the price is a problem. Stay away from the 422 if you have any thought of ever adding the 430 (which you will really want/need at some point.) I added the 430 this year and am quite happy with the combination. The 429 isn't that much more than the 422 and gives you lots more capability.

Bob Kelly

Minimal IFR Equip today?

My thinking is to stick with the current/state of the art stuff from a major manufacturer, and keep the AMOUNT of equipment to a minimum. The Garmin "big boxes" have incredible reliability and long MTBF. Unified boxes mean reduced wiring connections, reduced pilot scan, and less interface problems between any autopilot and similar equipment. Why buy old tech, particularly at the rate of change in panel avionics? The 430W will be upgradeable for a long time. I think you can expect that the newest stuff has lower lifetime repair costs, too.

My recommendation on lowest acceptable cost for IFR ready single engine, FWIW, is a 430W (with battery backup) and a separate comm -- preferably the SL40. A handheld aviation, Garmin has some in the several hundred $ range -- or you can go to the 396 - very powerful, well supported by Garmin, and available at a decent price used, provides navigation redundancy and the ability to do "other navigation" tasks. After that, a good autopilot and XM Wx are high on the list.

One guys opinion.

Low cost IFR

All IFR GPSs I'm aware of require a separate NAV head and annunciators, however many EFIS units are capable of providing those displays.
I have the least expensive IFR panel available at the time (2006) that met my redundancy requirements (dual COMMs, dual different NAVs, no separate nav head). See my signature for my equipment list. It is not fancy and not upgradeable to WAAS (which is what it takes to get you down to ILS minimums), but it gets the job done.
Remember, unless you have WAAS you still need an operational non GPS NAV system (VOR), and your alternate needs to have a non-GPS approach you can fly.
So, these days, the choice is really: a WAAS GPS, or a non-WAAS GPS and an SL30.

khaos1ft said:

I have a question about the principles that stand behind the vor/loc/gs indication provided by some GPS systems.

What I need to know is how indication gets to the vor/loc/gs indicator...
That's general !

More specific, it's about the Garmin 500 with the Garmin GI-106A VOR/LOC/GS/GPS Course Deviation Indicator (CDI). First, I thought that this indication is coming as a parallel indication from the VOR/ILS receiver (KURS MP 2), but it's not.

I think (but it's more a guess and I didn't find any documentation at the first research) that the GPS being all about the positions, it could compute an ideal landing track, knowing of course the position of the runway (at least two points of interest).

About the precision, I personally think you cannot compare this kind of indication with the one provided by a classic VOR/ILS receiver.

Click to expand...

You really should start a new thread with these questions instead of resurrecting a 5 year old thread. Mainly because, as you see, many people will not see your post and answer the original question.

I believe most analog indicators use either composite input (and have a built-in converter) or take in voltage signals that control the needles. Some GPSs will work with these, not sure about Garmin 500. The manual should have the pinouts.