What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Garmin? Unveils the Next Generation of All-in-One ADS-B Transponders

DeltaRomeo

DeltaRomeo

doug reeves: unfluencer
Staff member
In my inbox last night:
http://newsroom.garmin.com/press-re...ls-next-generation-all-one-ads-b-transponders

VAF_978%20Feb.%2008%2017.33.jpg



Pictures and pricing:
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/general-aviation/transponders/gtx-345/prod140949.html
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/general-aviation/transponders/gtx-335/prod140939.html

garmin-pilot.jpg

.
.
.
 
Last edited:
Looks very promising. Now we need the price for the In/Out GPS unit to drop well below the MSRP of $5,795 USD.

:eek:
 
Interesting! I'll have to read up more thoroughly but I hope the $2k price difference between the two covers more than just ADSB-IN functionality and wireless connectivity with tablet apps.

That is a very cool feature but one that can be had for quite a bit less money with other products.

This type of thing is what those of us with aging certificated aircraft need to keep flying and to be able to sell them for a reasonable price once we finish building our RVs!
 
Wow ,but it was Wow X2 after I looked at the price. But the tech has got to start somewhere. Remember when the price of a calculator that would +_ X / and maybe Sq root was $300 ?
 
Auburntsts said:
I don't follow. Are you wanting an all-in-one IFR GPS/Transponder/ADS-B In & out box?
Click to expand...

Not as much for all of us in Experimental land because we have lots of options (and will only have more as time progresses)...but if you have an older Certified airplane or limited room for upgrading, the options are much more limited...hence these new batches of "all in one boxes" from various mfgr's tend to make fairly decent sense.

As I've told people before there is no reason to get into a huge rush because things are always changing! :)

Cheers,
Stein
 
So Stein,

I have explored installing a 330 in the place of my 327 plus adding the GPS feed from my 430w. Would also have to upgrade the software on the 430. I have the Sdyradar box for IN already.

Is this new 335 a better option? The cost looks reasonable but how much wire will I have to change? I think this is more important than dollars, up to a point.

Or do I want to junk the Skyraidar and go all the way with an IN/OUT unit and just be done with it? More robust?
 
Auburntsts said:
I don't follow. Are you wanting an all-in-one IFR GPS/Transponder/ADS-B In & out box?
Click to expand...

No, I want a GPS that will feed the Dynon SkyView and allow me to legally file /G for IFR flights without spending a small fortune on a GTN 625 or a used 430W.
 
N941WR said:
No, I want a GPS that will feed the Dynon SkyView and allow me to legally file /G for IFR flights without spending a small fortune on a GTN 625 or a used 430W.
Click to expand...

OK -- But there's way more to a TSO'd IFR GPS navigator than just the WAAS-GPS engine. There's no free lunch here.
 
N941WR said:
No, I want a GPS that will feed the Dynon SkyView and allow me to legally file /G for IFR flights without spending a small fortune on a GTN 625 or a used 430W.
Click to expand...

i don't understand that mentality- please give me the cheapest possible option to have my personal airplane receive and decode multiple signals from geostationary satellites and calculate my location within 1 meter while going 200mph+ in pitch black darkness/IMC/etc and guide me and my loved ones safely to the ground

even if they offered a "budget" solution for this, would you trust the number of them flying versus the number of GNS or GTN's or Avidyne units flying? you can get a GNS430W for $6000~, around 10% of the value of most RV's, heck you'll spend $6000 in 10 years of updates for the thing

Just a different perspective I guess, nobody likes the high price tags of these things but i can't rationalize tapping into a transponder to receive my primary signal guidance
 
bkthomps said:
i don't understand that mentality- please give me the cheapest possible option to have my personal airplane receive and decode multiple signals from geostationary satellites and calculate my location within 1 meter while going 200mph+ in pitch black darkness/IMC/etc and guide me and my loved ones safely to the ground

even if they offered a "budget" solution for this, would you trust the number of them flying versus the number of GNS or GTN's or Avidyne units flying? you can get a GNS430W for $6000~, around 10% of the value of most RV's, heck you'll spend $6000 in 10 years of updates for the thing

Just a different perspective I guess, nobody likes the high price tags of these things but i can't rationalize tapping into a transponder to receive my primary signal guidance
Click to expand...

If the high prices were necessarily indicative of high quality engineering and construction, I would have no problem agreeing with you (the price effect of relatively small demand is understood for all avionics). The significant price premium associated with regulatory paperwork is less of an assurance of quality, however.

Not saying that Garmin, et al, are not high quality, simply that regulatory compliance and its attendant costs are no guarantee in themselves of quality.
 
1001001 said:
Not saying that Garmin, et al, are not high quality, simply that regulatory compliance and its attendant costs are no guarantee in themselves of quality.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more with this, I've got cutting edge everything and I still get my fair share of issues, Garmin is insistent this is an installation issue, however, I'm using the same GPS antennas (literally), mounting locations (literally) and cabling as my GNS stack, and occasionally my GTN goes awol

Yj7aAjo.jpg


i'm glad to know that I have some redundancy and that I'm using the same software/hardware as thousands of other planes flying, i just can't imagine having one source and it being something intended for another purpose
 
bkthomps said:
i don't understand that mentality- please give me the cheapest possible option to have my personal airplane receive and decode multiple signals from geostationary satellites and calculate my location within 1 meter while going 200mph+ in pitch black darkness/IMC/etc and guide me and my loved ones safely to the ground

...
Click to expand...

If the ADS-B antennas have to be as accurate and reliable as the Fed's require, why can't we use that lat, long, and alt to drive a SkyView, GRT, AFS, etc EFIS'S that many of us already have installed?

It isn't about being cheap, it is about getting value for my money. Very few IFR equipped RV'S are ever flown in the clouds so to drop $10 grand on the equipment isn't worth it, to me. However, if I could equip my plane for a reasonable amount, it might be worth it to install, stay current, and file.

Redundancy is a different issue and can be easily addressed.
 
Last edited:
N941WR said:
If the ADS-B antennas have to be as accurate and reliable as the Fed's require, why can't we use that lat, long, and alt to drive a SkyView, GRT, AFS, etc EFIS'S that many of us already have installed?

It isn't about being cheap, it is about getting value for my money. Very few IFR equipped RV'S are ever flown in the clouds so to drop $10 grand on the equipment isn't worth it, to me. However, if I could equip my plane for a reasonable amount, it might be worth it to install, stay current, and file.

Redundancy is a different issue and can be easily addressed.
Click to expand...

Bill are you instrument rated? I ask because again there's more than just position accuracy that makes an IFR GPS legal for IFR flight. Without getting into the TSO stuff which is beyond my expertise, the relevant operations criteria are clearly described in the AIM. Simply hooking a WAAS GPS up to a EFIS doesn't cut it.

Oh and I fly my RV-10 in IMC all of the time as do many other RV pilots that I know.
 
DeltaRomeo said:

.
.
.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting DR.

I've been saving up to buy a Garmin GTX 330ES to go with my Garmin 430 W Navigator and AFS 4500 EFIS. My thought was to get a dual ADS-B in receiver as well to work with my Foreflight which I like a lot.

This announcement gives me some pretty cool options. If I were to just replace my current GTX 327 with a new Garmin GTX 335 I would be money ahead over the GTX 330ES choice. I would still need ADS-B in.

I really like that the Garmin GTX 345 is integrated. Saves weight and possibly complexity. It also is nice to see it plays nice with Foreflight.

The Garmin GTX 345 is priced at $4,995 right now.

Comparably a GTX 330 ES is approx. $3,500 + a Stratus II or GDL 39R would be about $800 = $4,300 a difference of approximately $700.

Maybe I missing something? Oh yeah, money. I'll need some of that. But hey, I'm worth it!

Pretty cool.
 
Garmin 330

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the GTX330 or 330ES does not slide into
a GTX327. The tray is longer on a 330 and the plugs are different ( I think).
Might be a good idea to buy a new encoder too. The wiring to the 430/GTN
is not much though, I believe. It's just money.......and lots of it. John
 
Flyingleap said:
Please correct me if I'm wrong but the GTX330 or 330ES does not slide into
a GTX327. The tray is longer on a 330 and the plugs are different ( I think).
Might be a good idea to buy a new encoder too. The wiring to the 430/GTN
is not much though, I believe. It's just money.......and lots of it. John
Click to expand...

That's how I understand it as well.

I have to go back and read on the GTX 335 & 345 to see if those will slide directly into a 327 tray.
 
Auburntsts said:
Bill are you instrument rated? I ask because again there's more than just position accuracy that makes an IFR GPS legal for IFR flight. Without getting into the TSO stuff which is beyond my expertise, the relevant operations criteria are clearly described in the AIM. Simply hooking a WAAS GPS up to a EFIS doesn't cut it.

Oh and I fly my RV-10 in IMC all of the time as do many other RV pilots that I know.
Click to expand...

I get all that but if what I am proposing is legal, I suspect it won't be long until Dynon and the others update their software and hardware to match the needs of IFR flight.

FYI, I know a few people who have confided in me that they are already flying IFR with their Dynon's and GRT's w/ no "certified nav source." I'm not saying I like or approve the practice, just acknowledging it is happening and these systems aren't causing accidents.
 
Last edited:
N941WR said:
I get all that but if what I am proposing is legal, I suspect it won't be long until Dynon and the others update their software and hardware to match the needs of IFR flight.

FYI, I know a few people who have confided in me that they are already flying IFR with their Dynon's and GRT's w/ no "certified nav source." I'm not saying I like or approve the practice, just acknowledging it is happening and these systems aren't causing accidents.
Click to expand...

Come on, Bill!! Just break out the checkbook and spend the extra $8, 10, 15,000 on a proper system. Seems to propose anything less might imply you're "unsafe," or simply not being realistic. For that matter, if you want to do it properly, go certified.
 
Low Pass said:
Come on, Bill!! Just break out the checkbook and spend the extra $8, 10, 15,000 on a proper system. Seems to propose anything less might imply you're "unsafe," or simply not being realistic. For that matter, if you want to do it properly, go certified.
Click to expand...

You are right Bryan, I guess I should open my wallet and buy a Garmin and install it in a PA-140 so it is all certified and safe and stuff.
 
From Garmin.

"GPS position data and back-up attitude information on the popular Garmin Pilot? and ForeFlight Mobile apps via Bluetooth? and Connext? wireless technology."

Is the Connext wireless system already inside the GTX 345 or does that have to be purchased separately for an additional $1,000.00 in order to actually use the ADS-B in function?
 
N941WR said:
If the ADS-B antennas have to be as accurate and reliable as the Fed's require, why can't we use that lat, long, and alt to drive a SkyView, GRT, AFS, etc EFIS'S that many of us already have installed?
Click to expand...

You can do that right now, just not legal IFR. Why you ask? Simple, because displaying a super accurate position does not make your "box" a NAVIGATOR. A whole lot more than just lat/lon and altitude is needed. Adding the "rest of the story" and proving it works up to FAR requirements is an entirely different issue. Don't you think that if it was that easy some "upstart" company would have jumped on it by now? Just look over in the Dynon forum and you will see this very issue discussed ad-nauseum.

But I will join you in wishing it will happen. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, just not holding my breath.

;)
 
Last edited:
Auburntsts said:
Bill are you instrument rated? I ask because again there's more than just position accuracy that makes an IFR GPS legal for IFR flight. Without getting into the TSO stuff which is beyond my expertise, the relevant operations criteria are clearly described in the AIM. Simply hooking a WAAS GPS up to a EFIS doesn't cut it.

Oh and I fly my RV-10 in IMC all of the time as do many other RV pilots that I know.
Click to expand...


Huh? What am I missing here? I thought hooking a 625 to GRT's HXr with their mini AP as redundancy was OK.:confused:
 
donaziza said:
Huh? What am I missing here? I thought hooking a 625 to GRT's HXr with their mini AP as redundancy was OK.:confused:
Click to expand...

It is. I was referring to something akin to the WAAS GPS in the new Garmin transponders which is not an IFR GPS, and not certified IFR navigators like the GNS's and GTN's like you are referring to.

WAAS GPS is not synonymous with IFR navigator
 
Auburntsts said:
It is. I was referring to something akin to the WAAS GPS in the new Garmin transponders which is not an IFR GPS, and not certified IFR navigators like the GNS's and GTN's like you are referring to.

WAAS GPS is not synonymous with IFR navigator
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up Todd. Just about to lay out a ton of $$ to GRT.:eek: Didn't wanna mess that up.
 
Auburntsts said:
...WAAS GPS is not synonymous with IFR navigator
Click to expand...
Exactly my point Todd.

However, I would suspect that the GPS receivers required for accurate ADS-B reporting is close to, equal to, or better than what is in a GTN.

Couple that with the database and other information stored in any of the modern EFIS's and we are not that far away from using the combination for IFR flight.
 
N941WR said:
Exactly my point Todd.

However, I would suspect that the GPS receivers required for accurate ADS-B reporting is close to, equal to, or better than what is in a GTN.

Couple that with the database and other information stored in any of the modern EFIS's and we are not that far away from using the combination for IFR flight.
Click to expand...

The problem is that all the functions that go into making an IFR area nav system have to meet certifcation standards whether it's all in one box or separated into LRUs. Can what you propose work -- sure but well enough to bet your life on it? To insure performance (lateral and vertial accuracy, database integrity, waypoint sequencing, mode annuciation, error checking, etc) you have to prove it via the certification process. Certification against the applicable TSOs isn't just about fillIng out a bunch of FAA paperwork. You know what you get when you certify the architecture you propose? A G1000.
 
Chkaharyer99 said:
Thanks for posting DR.

I've been saving up to buy a Garmin GTX 330ES to go with my Garmin 430 W Navigator and AFS 4500 EFIS. My thought was to get a dual ADS-B in receiver as well to work with my Foreflight which I like a lot.

This announcement gives me some pretty cool options. If I were to just replace my current GTX 327 with a new Garmin GTX 335 I would be money ahead over the GTX 330ES choice. I would still need ADS-B in.

I really like that the Garmin GTX 345 is integrated. Saves weight and possibly complexity. It also is nice to see it plays nice with Foreflight.

The Garmin GTX 345 is priced at $4,995 right now.

Comparably a GTX 330 ES is approx. $3,500 + a Stratus II or GDL 39R would be about $800 = $4,300 a difference of approximately $700.

Maybe I missing something? Oh yeah, money. I'll need some of that. But hey, I'm worth it!

Pretty cool.
Click to expand...

If nothing else, you might be able to pick up a slightly used GTX 330ES and a GDL39 for far less than new if you wait a few months,
"[GTX 345] Compatibility is extended to the G3X? Touch glass flight display and is expected in Q3 2016."
 
Auburntsts said:
The problem is that all the functions that go into making an IFR area nav system have to meet certifcation standards whether it's all in one box or separated into LRUs. Can what you propose work -- sure but well enough to bet your life on it? To insure performance (lateral and vertial accuracy, database integrity, waypoint sequencing, mode annuciation, error checking, etc) you have to prove it via the certification process. Certification against the applicable TSOs isn't just about fillIng out a bunch of FAA paperwork. You know what you get when you certify the architecture you propose? A G1000.
Click to expand...

I make my living by questioning things and that is exactly what I'm doing.

There is no reason this couldn't work, with the right software and hardware.

So, what's the difference between have a GTN feeding an experimental EFIS?

The GTN can plot your flight path, not just your location, based on a either a direct to waypoint or a series of waypoints calculated based on an approach plate. All things a modern EFIS can do, if programmed properly.

Heck, the SkyView can display an approach plate and your position on that approach plate with enough accuracy that I would fly an approach, should I get stuck on top in my "VFR" ship. (Thank God I have never been in the position to do that nor do I ever plan on putting my self in such a position.) I'm just saying, they are that accurate and yes, I would trust my life, and that of my family on it.

My point is, that modern EFIS's are much more accurate and reliable than VOR's / ILS's, NDB's, etc. that were used for decades.

My question is, why can't we use them? (Rumor is that the FAA's spec was written with assistance from Garman, thus making it more difficult for other's to produce similar products.)

Price does not dictate quality. I have driven many different cars, on and off the track, from many different manufactures and am convinced that price does not dictate performance and quality.
 
N941WR said:
I make my living by questioning things and that is exactly what I'm doing.
Click to expand...

And my post was not directed solely at you, but rather the larger mindset in experimental aviation which leads to guys taping iPads to their dash and filing /G, there's nothing wrong with a constructive conversation about what you're actually paying for when you buy the certified stuff- just want to make sure it is well thought out and fully consider all angles

N941WR said:
So, what's the difference between have a GTN feeding an experimental EFIS?
Click to expand...

Is there an EFIS GPS that accurately calculates RNAV to Term, enroute, and approach accuracy levels? I think that's one of the biggest factors

N941WR said:
Price does not dictate quality. I have driven many different cars, on and off the track, from many different manufactures and am convinced that price does not dictate performance and quality.
Click to expand...

I agree completely- Garmin does stand out from the rest with quality however.
 
bkthomps said:
And my post was not directed solely at you, but rather the larger mindset in experimental aviation which leads to guys taping iPads to their dash and filing /G, there's nothing wrong with a constructive conversation about what you're actually paying for when you buy the certified stuff- just want to make sure it is well thought out and fully consider all angles
Click to expand...
There is a big difference between using a certified GPS antenna and an iPad.
Take some time and go read the requirements for the ADS-B GPS accuracy and self checking. No iPad or cobbled together system could provide that accuracy.

bkthomps said:
Is there an EFIS GPS that accurately calculates RNAV to Term, enroute, and approach accuracy levels? I think that's one of the biggest factors
Click to expand...
Today? No, there is not but that doesn't mean tomorrow there can't be.

bkthomps said:
I agree completely- Garmin does stand out from the rest with quality however.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with that statement and other than an 496 that I bought when the first came out, my panel is Garmin free. I continue to be impressed by my OTG panel.

Remember, Garmin was late coming to the E-AB party and only jumped when it became obvious that the experimental EFIS's were cutting into their profits.

I don't see the value / benefit ratio of buying Garmin that you do. If flying IFR is truly safer, even on VFR days, then we should encourage everyone to file. The only way that is going to happen will be to put out realistic standards and equipment.

Are you aware that VOR's are certified every time you perform a check and log it? It has nothing to do with the brand. With that standard, you can legally fly an ILS approach with a Sporty's handheld. Why can't we self certify our GPS equipment like we do with VOR's or our entire airplanes?
 
Last edited:
Don't want to participate in "hijacking" this thread, but.... My understanding is most all the EFIS systems use WAAS qualified GPS positioning, and as such, can be legally used for IFR navigation during the ENROUTE segment (to the IAF). They just aren't qualified for the APPROACH portion, primarily because they lack RAIM check capability. All you need is a VOR/LOC/ILS receiver to get into many airports and use the EFIS/iPad GPS as positional awareness for backup.

The reality is I would trust my off the shelf EFIS & iPad GPS ForeflightPro approach plates any day of the week over a swinging needle VOR / NDB approach!!!!

Back to the thread, what I would HOPE for is an all in one Transponder option that would slip into the same tray as the 327, which so many people started out with. I can't fit a 330ES in my -9A without MAJOR changes under the panel because it's so much longer, and that just ain't gonna happen. If these new Garmin transponders are bigger than the 327, then they might as well be boat anchors to me.
 
Last edited:
what makes the IFR Nav box a IFR nav box in not the GPS reciever. the gps2020 from dynon has that accuracy. even the GPS250 does. what makes it an IFR NAV box is the software and the error checking that it does. to be a legal IFR box the approach data must be in the data base, the box must check the accuracy ect ect ect.. that is what makes the box and IFR nav unit. dynon and the rest could make their units TSO nav boxes if they want, the chips will do the job. they have decided that the cost to meet the TSO does not fit in their business plan at the moment. It takes a lot of cash to test to the TSO and if they feel that the return on investment is not there they will not go in that direction. however, if they feel that it is you may see IFR boxes from them. I would love to see garmins lock on the market go away, i personally do not like the way garmin does business, but thats me. I hope someday dynon does build an IFR nav box, but they would have to see the return on investment be there before they jump in that game.

bob burns
RV-4 N82RB
 
rv9av8tr said:
Don't want to participate in "hijacking" this thread, but.... My understanding is most all the EFIS systems use WAAS qualified GPS positioning, and as such, can be legally used for IFR navigation during the ENROUTE segment (to the IAF). e.
Click to expand...

This is just plain wrong. How do these crazy ideas get started?
-----------
Surprised no one has mentioned the Trig TT-22 and -33 transponders. Mode S-ES, can read Garmin's ADSB+ protocol out of its gps navigators, tray is shorter than 330's, and cost less than these new boxes. Special TT-22 controlled by a GRT Hx is something like $2200.
 
On a side note.....

Garmin ads have been conspicuously missing from Sport Aviation the last couple of months. That seems strange with Sport Aviation being the primary publication for the EAA.

Any of you guys with the Garmin tattoos know what's going on? Just curious.

The new offering looks nice but pretty pricy. Should come down with time and as the 2020 time frame creeps up.
 
N941WR said:
I make my living by questioning things and that is exactly what I'm doing.

There is no reason this couldn't work, with the right software and hardware.

So, what's the difference between have a GTN feeding an experimental EFIS?

The GTN can plot your flight path, not just your location, based on a either a direct to waypoint or a series of waypoints calculated based on an approach plate. All things a modern EFIS can do, if programmed properly.

Heck, the SkyView can display an approach plate and your position on that approach plate with enough accuracy that I would fly an approach, should I get stuck on top in my "VFR" ship. (Thank God I have never been in the position to do that nor do I ever plan on putting my self in such a position.) I'm just saying, they are that accurate and yes, I would trust my life, and that of my family on it.

My point is, that modern EFIS's are much more accurate and reliable than VOR's / ILS's, NDB's, etc. that were used for decades.

My question is, why can't we use them? (Rumor is that the FAA's spec was written with assistance from Garman, thus making it more difficult for other's to produce similar products.)

Price does not dictate quality. I have driven many different cars, on and off the track, from many different manufactures and am convinced that price does not dictate performance and quality.
Click to expand...

OK here's the bottom line. To be approved for IFR operations GPS avionics have to meet either TSO 129/196 for non-WAAS or TSO 145/146 for WAAS. If you can get the FAA to change the rules, I'm all for it -- good luck.

In the meantime, I suggest you ask Dynon or Garmin why they haven't produced a cheap IFR navigator.
 
Garmin bashing

So Garmin announces a product that is intended for the certified market. A product that allows a plane to be 2020 compliant without having to buy an expensive "navigator" and you guys still find a way to bash them. Good grief!
 
While this thread may fragment and go off course, I have been evaluating the options around this for my certified plane as well.

The new transponder seems like a decent box and certainly may cause companies late to the party like the still unreleased Appareo transponder to reconsider, the market has lots of options. In the spreadsheet my partner and I put together something like a GDL-84 with a Flightstream 210 gets us an AHRS in addition to what the GTX-445 provides and the ability to send flightplans to/from our Garmin 430. It comes installed for just about the same price, potentially a little less.

In my case I am glad this came out, it just makes the whole market more competitive.
 
Garmin

First, I know it isn't legal, but I have tested my 696, GRT's and my auto pilot to IFR MINIMUMS on many approaches and they worked every time for the last 3 years. Lower minimums than most VOR approaches and just as good as the 50 thousand dollar airline units. All of mine done in a RV6A. I have also made hundreds of approaches in certified units. In my opinion this whole thing is CYA for the FAA and money for certified units.
 
rv9av8tr said:
My understanding is most all the EFIS systems use WAAS qualified GPS positioning, and as such, can be legally used for IFR navigation during the ENROUTE segment (to the IAF). They just aren't qualified for the APPROACH portion, primarily because they lack RAIM check capability.
Click to expand...

BobTurner said:
This is just plain wrong. How do these crazy ideas get started?
Click to expand...

It is started by people that don't know the regulations and assume this should be true. Then others hear this wrong idea and repeat it without verifying it. When people hear the same thing enough times from enough people then they assume it must be true. After that, it takes on a life of it's own.

I do have to say this incredibly wrong "understanding" is more prevalent than you think, especially in the experimental world.

:confused:
 
jthocker said:
So Garmin announces a product that is intended for the certified market. A product that allows a plane to be 2020 compliant without having to buy an expensive "navigator" and you guys still find a way to bash them. Good grief!
Click to expand...

+1 :D

This is just the box I've been waiting for. I'll still wait a little longer though!
 
The bottom line...

The new Garmin 335 is not much more than a Garmin 330ES, just a little cheaper.
It gets rid of all the wires in my cockpit(floating around) from the portable GPS
bluetooth to the Ipad. Is the 345 much more than that? But, can I file IFR /G with the new Garmin unit. I don't see the relevant TSO's for /G and app certified.

I say NO...please tell me I'm wrong. John
 
Flyingleap said:
The new Garmin 335 is not much more than a Garmin 330ES, just a little cheaper.
It gets rid of all the wires in my cockpit(floating around) from the portable GPS
bluetooth to the Ipad. Is the 345 much more than that? But, can I file IFR /G with the new Garmin unit. I don't see the relevant TSO's for /G and app certified.

I say NO...please tell me I'm wrong. John
Click to expand...

Neither of the units let you file /G on their own. They're just transponders, optionally with their own ADS-B compliant GPS source.

You need an IFR *NAVIGATOR* for that, and clearly neither transponders or apps are IFR navigators.
 
/G

OK J.F. I have an old GNS430 and a Garmin 330 . My problem is to make
it both 2020 compliant and have /G.(have that now) The cost is $3600 to convert the 430 to WAAS and $1200 to convert the 330 to ES and I get ADSB out and make /G better. That's $4900! + dealer addon.

I could buy a 345 ($5700) sell 330, My guess is that 335/345 is not plug compatible but they imply it. That would get ADSB out with W but the 430 does not get the upgrade to "W".

This can't get anymore confusing!
 
From my perspective, owning a certified non-IFR single and needing ADS-B compliance, the 335 sounds very appealing. It lets me replace my current transponder with one that complies and the major complication is needing to hang the GPS antenna (and perhaps another ADS-B antenna?) out in the breeze.

Dave
 
David Paule said:
From my perspective, owning a certified non-IFR single and needing ADS-B compliance, the 335 sounds very appealing. It lets me replace my current transponder with one that complies and the major complication is needing to hang the GPS antenna (and perhaps another ADS-B antenna?) out in the breeze.

Dave
Click to expand...

I doubt you can get away with not installing a GPS antenna. No additional ADS-B antenna, maybe, but GPS, I doubt it. However I could be wrong.

:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top