For only $1500 more...

EdFred

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
30,652
Location
Michigan
Display Name

Display name:
White Chocolate
...why would I NOT get a 480 vs a 430W ?

I've got the Comanche search narrowed down, and there will be a panel upgrade, so for "only" 1500 more, what's the down side to the 480?
 
...why would I NOT get a 480 vs a 430W ?

I've got the Comanche search narrowed down, and there will be a panel upgrade, so for "only" 1500 more, what's the down side to the 480?

I've enjoyed reading this guy's blog entries, and he had a page dedicated to that question. Might give you some insights...

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


Also, Aviation Consumer did a "shoot-out" article on this; you can gain access to that article here if you can't find somebody who has a copy:

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-6770822_ITM

P.S.--It's gotta be fun thinking about what to do with "your" plane....
 
Last edited:
Thanks Troy,

That second link, I don't have an account, so I couldn't read the whole thing, so I guess the question is....is $1500 worth Victor Airways?
 
Thanks Troy,

That second link, I don't have an account, so I couldn't read the whole thing, so I guess the question is....is $1500 worth Victor Airways?

Are you planning on installing the MX20 or its new equivalent? You need it to get many of the 'features' that the 430W or 530W would inherently display, and I've heard talk of software issues with the external MFD; I know some pilots on this board have real-world experience with the Apollo/Garmin MFD and can provide better details or opinions.

My concern would simply be continued support. The 480 brought WAAS to the table for Garmin; now that the 430W and 530W have it, will the 480 with it's slower sales be relegated to the wastebin? I hope not, but still I feel the 430/530 series will be supported for a much longer time, and be known more intimately by more avionics shops, than the 480 ever will be.

I'd certainly factor that into the consideration...
 
Yeah, probably end up with the 430W anyway after reading the manual. I bet there's a 4.0 software update with V-ways for the 430W on the way anyway.

I'll probably put in a 430W + SL30 + GTX327.
 
Yeah, probably end up with the 430W anyway after reading the manual. I bet there's a 4.0 software update with V-ways for the 430W on the way anyway.

I'll probably put in a 430W + SL30 + GTX327.


Good choice. I bet that would have better resell value when you go to upgrade from the Comanche to something else, too...
 
I have the 430W and am very pleased with it. Like Troy W said, I believe the 480 will drift into the sunset and support will disappear.
 
No doubt my opinion may be clouded by wishful thinking, but several sources at Garmin and GarminAT have stated that both the 480 and 430 products will continue to be "current" in the forseeable future. The two units appeal to different folk and while there are a lot more 430/530 units in the field, 480 sales are said to be strong. Given that most of the NRE has already been expended I don't see much incentive for Garmin to drop the line either.

Bottom line: There are plenty of reasons for picking one over the other, but I don't think that continued support is one of them.
 
As TW said, a 480 is incomplete without an MFD of some sort, such as an MX20. Add that to the price tag and the difference is rather more than $1500. One alternative to the MX20 is to have a 496 docking bay installed and wired to the 480 -- this will provide all the MFD features you want plus weather downlink for about half the cost of an MX20 (albeit with about half the screen size, but with portability if you ever need that). Personally, I chose a 530 rather than 480/20 combo in order to get the big display screen without exceeding my available stack space, but it will cost me another $5K to get the GDL69 data link box -- a 480/496 combo would have been about the same cost as the 530 without the data link.

Also, the 480 is rather more complicated to use, and many nonprofessional pilots find the 430/530 much more user-friendly to those who don't have the experience, time, and inclination to learn the 480.
 
...why would I NOT get a 480 vs a 430W ?

I've got the Comanche search narrowed down, and there will be a panel upgrade, so for "only" 1500 more, what's the down side to the 480?

Ed, I think the biggest consideration is whether or not you will be adding a MFD (GMX200 or EX500) and/or terrain, XM-Wx, or active traffic in the not too distant future. Without a MFD the GNS480 is pretty limited WRT what can be displayed on the screen. There's no way to put XM or terrain on it and the only options for traffic are TIS (Garmin 330/33 xpndr) or Skywatch. In addition the 480 lacks the E6B and programmable VNAV functions found in most GPS navigators including the 430. About the only other downside to the 480 is that since there are many more 430/530s installed you are much more likely to find the latter in a rental or CFI client's airplane making your experience behind the 430 more valuable in that regard.

But the 480's list of advantages is significant:

30% larger map with more detail.
Airways on the map
Airway routing (more on this below)
50 stored flight plans vs 10
Stores multiple FPs between the same two airports
Roll steering for nearly all segments of any approach*
Programmable hold at any waypoint
Roll steering during hold entry
Roll steering during holding turns and both legs
Recall of last 10 Com and Vor frequencies used
Save and recall (with names) of frequently use freq's
NOAA wx receiver
Remote control of Garmin xpndrs
Auto Standby/Alt control of Garmin xpndrs
Configurable data fields for three Map plus HSI pages
Separately selected range for four map displays
Eight Direct options
Runway pointer during approach
Alternate airport selection
Display of radial/bearing/ID/Distance for any VOR on map
Heading numeric and graphical display
Automatic sequencing based on altitude during missed
Single button return to Map display
Audio callout at 500 AGL on approach
Displayed OBS course on map.
Monitor standby comm and vor frequency.

*note: Current software cannot provide guidance on heading based legs but the soon to be released version will do that. The 480 does provide guidance through any procedure turn as well as the entry and pattern to any hold.

WRT airways, the 480 provides three useful functions the obvious one being the display of airways on the maps. The less obvious functions are the ability to include all waypoints along an airway into a flight plan automatically (this is a BIG advantage if you fly airways) and the automatic prompting for the airway entry and exits available from any waypoint in a flight plan.

You will hear lots of folks say that the 480 is more difficult to learn than a 430/530 but that's mostly untrue. The truth is that there is more to learn on the 480 because it offers more (see list above). Also the user interface is different than that used by other Garmin products but it's very logical and relatively intuitive. One very nice aspect of this is that you can access virtually every feature by pushing buttons with the rotary knobs used only for selecting digits, characters, and items from lists and most items are located within two levels of the top menus.

Overall, I'd say that the 480 is better suited to IFR flying and users who like to extract the full benefits from any equipment they use whereas the 430 is more attractive to VFR flying and casual IFR use. That's not to say the 430 isn't adequate for significant IFR flying, just that the 480 is better. And IMO the biggest advantage the 430 has is it's terrain feature.

BTW, I was under the impression that the 430W was about price neutral with the 480 (the 430 non WAAS was less).
 
As TW said, a 480 is incomplete without an MFD of some sort, such as an MX20. Add that to the price tag and the difference is rather more than $1500. One alternative to the MX20 is to have a 496 docking bay installed and wired to the 480 -- this will provide all the MFD features you want plus weather downlink for about half the cost of an MX20 (albeit with about half the screen size, but with portability if you ever need that). Personally, I chose a 530 rather than 480/20 combo in order to get the big display screen without exceeding my available stack space, but it will cost me another $5K to get the GDL69 data link box -- a 480/496 combo would have been about the same cost as the 530 without the data link.

Also, the 480 is rather more complicated to use, and many nonprofessional pilots find the 430/530 much more user-friendly to those who don't have the experience, time, and inclination to learn the 480.

I disagree with the oft expressed opinion that the 480 without a MFD is inferior to a 430W. There's some truth if one's plans/needs include the display of terrain and/or uplinked Wx although even then a MFD (or 530W) provides a much better display of this than the tiny screen of the 430. But if you're intentions don't include the display of terrain or Wx on a panel mounted display (the 496 does a fine job of this on a handheld for a lot less money and panel space) then a 480 without MFD offers significant advantages over 430W without a MFD.
 
30% larger map with more detail.
The 530 is bigger than that -- much bigger.
Roll steering during hold entry
Roll steering during holding turns and both legs
The WAAS versions of the 430/530 have that.
Configurable data fields for three Map plus HSI pages
The 430/530 have that.
Separately selected range for four map displays
The 430/530 have that for the map pages they display.
Automatic sequencing based on altitude during missed
WAAS 430/530 include altitude-based MA procdural guidance.
Single button return to Map display
Standard on 430/530 -- push and hold the Cancel button.
Displayed OBS course on map.
Standard on 430/530
You will hear lots of folks say that the 480 is more difficult to learn than a 430/530 but that's mostly untrue.
Having trained folks on both, I disagree. There are several areas which require significantly more button-pushing on the 480, and folks seem to learn the 430/530 much faster.
Overall, I'd say that the 480 is better suited to IFR flying and users who like to extract the full benefits from any equipment they use whereas the 430 is more attractive to VFR flying and casual IFR use. That's not to say the 430 isn't adequate for significant IFR flying, just that the 480 is better.
A full FMS is also "better" for IFR flying, but for the average nonprofessional pilot in a light GA aircraft, the 430/530 are more than adequate, and give you more bang for the buck/panel space.
 
I don't know if the 480 is more difficult or just different. Being a 430W owner, switching to the 480 in the 206 always takes a few moments for me to catch up to it. Prior to the WAAS upgrade, the processor in the 480 was WAYYY faster. The map refreshes when turning or taxing were noticeable. The 430W is pretty darn snappy now.

IIRC the 480 had a 'second' receiver which let you monitor a 2nd COM freq. (Its at the end in Lance's list.)
 
...why would I NOT get a 480 vs a 430W ?

I've got the Comanche search narrowed down, and there will be a panel upgrade, so for "only" 1500 more, what's the down side to the 480?


No clue, I sure would.
 
I'll probably put in a 430W + SL30 + GTX327

Comment from a newbie here: I find that the extra features of the SL30 are not worth the poor human factors involved in using the basic navcom functions. I would go with a KX155 that displays both nav and com frequencies simultaneously. When you are busy, the extra thinking required by the SL30 user interface makes it very easy to punch the wrong buttons.
 
The 530 is bigger than that -- much bigger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lancefisher
30% larger map with more detail.

The 530 is bigger than that -- much bigger.

I thought we were comparing the 480 to the 430W not the 530W.

Quote:
Roll steering during hold entry
Roll steering during holding turns and both legs
The WAAS versions of the 430/530 have that.

Not according to my sources.

Quote:
Configurable data fields for three Map plus HSI pages
The 430/530 have that.

On the ONE map page and not on the HSI page. In addition the 480 displays much more useful info in the corners of the map itself allowing a total of 8 or more data fields compared to the 430's 4-5.

Quote:
Separately selected range for four map displays
The 430/530 have that for the map pages they display.

Well yeah, you can select the range for the ONE map page.

Quote:
Automatic sequencing based on altitude during missed
WAAS 430/530 include altitude-based MA procdural guidance.

You might have me on that one, as I haven't spent much time with a 430W. Are you saying that for a missed approach procedure that calls for a climb on runway heading to 500 AGL followed by turn to a direct course to the holding fix from wherever you are when you hit that altititude will cause the 430W to plot and guide you on that direct course when you reach 500 AGL with no pilot input? The 480 does.

Quote:
Single button return to Map display
Standard on 430/530 -- push and hold the Cancel button.

On the 430 simulator that takes you to one of the NAV pages but not necessarily the map page.

Quote:
Displayed OBS course on map.
Standard on 430/530

First, when you select OBS mode on the 430 it puts a dialog box on top of the map making it impossible to see anything useful until you select the course. And it looks like with the OBS mode active the course line doesn't follow changes in the actual CDI or HSI course selector. This could be just a limitation of the simulator but I could swear that at least one 430 installation behaved that way as well. Maybe the 430W improved on that?

Quote:
You will hear lots of folks say that the 480 is more difficult to learn than a 430/530 but that's mostly untrue.
Having trained folks on both, I disagree. There are several areas which require significantly more button-pushing on the 480, and folks seem to learn the 430/530 much faster.

I agree that some of the simpler functions on the 480 like comm frequency selection and swapping require one or two extra button pushes but I don't see that as a big deal. In fact I've learned to use the com mode selection as an indicator that I haven't successfully checked in on a new frequency. And for many other (more complicated) functions, the 480 requires less input from the user. So IMO for someone who never goes very far beyond flying "Direct To" the 430 is easier but for a pilot who takes the time to extract most of the capabilities of a navigator, the 480 is as easy to master and provides more. I specifically don't think it's fair to say the 430(W) is easier simply because there's less to learn due to it's functional limitations. That's like saying an airplane with limited fuel capacity is easier to flight plan because you can't trade range for payload.

Quote:
Overall, I'd say that the 480 is better suited to IFR flying and users who like to extract the full benefits from any equipment they use whereas the 430 is more attractive to VFR flying and casual IFR use. That's not to say the 430 isn't adequate for significant IFR flying, just that the 480 is better.

A full FMS is also "better" for IFR flying, but for the average nonprofessional pilot in a light GA aircraft, the 430/530 are more than adequate, and give you more bang for the buck/panel space.

I think you have a valid point there and I think I've been saying something similar. There's no doubt that a 430W is adequate, for IFR and certainly for the VFR pilot. And for any pilot who never tries to learn anything about their equipment beyond the basics their level of "mastery" will come easier on a 430 than a 480. OTOH I don't believe one needs to be a "professional pilot" to take advantage of the advanced capabilities found in the 480. As to the applicability of this to your "average pilot" I'll leave that to you.
 
...why would I NOT get a 480 vs a 430W ?

I've got the Comanche search narrowed down, and there will be a panel upgrade, so for "only" 1500 more, what's the down side to the 480?
The ONE feature that the 480 gives you is the ability to programm to intercept airways. Of course we do that manually. And if you fly high, we NEVER fly airways....

My take, having flown both, is that if you come from the button pushing world of FMS systems you'll like the 480 better. GA guys, like the 430/530.

The microprocessor on the 430W is now lightning fast- there are five position upgrades per second, it's faster than the 480 I flew (or at least it seems so). The 480 is also far less flexible as an MFD. It was not designed to be that.
 
Last edited:
I think the question of the adequacy of the 480 as an MFD is a red herring. If you're flying IFR you should be bringing along a portable GPS as backup. The weather and terrain available on the 396 is better than the weather and terrain on any of the panel-mount GPS's (with the exception of the 530W) and costs a fraction of the installed GDL69 needed to feed weather to the panel-mounts. No matter what kind of GPS you get, it's going to make sense to get a 396 for your backup GPS and weather. So if you get a 396 and put it to work, what does the 480 need an MFD for?

Answering my own question a bit: I love the Chartview approach charts on my MX20. Approach chart depiction is only available on dedicated MFD's - not on any of the GPS/Nav/Comms. So that doesn't help us differentiate the GPS/Nav/Comms much. (The 480/MX20 combination lets you show approach charts track up, a benefit if you're a track-up kind of pilot.)

With the main remaining differentiator between the 430W and the 480 being airways support, I think Ed needs to decide how important that question is to him. Also, I strongly suggest downloading the simulators of both and taking them out for a spin. I personally can't stand the interface on the 430/530, finding it difficult and confusing to do anything more than "direct to". And I found the 480 easy to pick up. Shrug, I've always been different.

Regards,
Joe
 
Like most stories, there's yours, mine, and the truth... So here's the in-between from my experience with the 430 and now 430W (our W upgrade was one of the first, I've been flying it for a while.)

Lance: 30% larger map with more detail.
Ron: The 530 is bigger than that -- much bigger.
Lance: I thought we were comparing the 480 to the 430W not the 530W.

According to the OP, it was between the 430W and 480.

Lance: Roll steering during hold entry
Lance: Roll steering during holding turns and both legs
Ron: The WAAS versions of the 430/530 have that.
Lance: Not according to my sources.

Lance, your sources are wrong. Of course, you do need an autopilot with GPSS capability, but the 430W (not the straight 430, the 430W) will provide roll steering during hold entries, holds, and procedure turns.

Lance: Configurable data fields for three Map plus HSI pages
Ron: The 430/530 have that.
Lance: On the ONE map page and not on the HSI page. In addition the 480 displays much more useful info in the corners of the map itself allowing a total of 8 or more data fields compared to the 430's 4-5.

Lance is right, there's only one real map page on the 430W.

Lance: Separately selected range for four map displays
Ron: The 430/530 have that for the map pages they display.
Lance: Well yeah, you can select the range for the ONE map page.

Again, Lance is correct. Only one map page on the 430W.

Lance: Automatic sequencing based on altitude during missed
Ron: WAAS 430/530 include altitude-based MA procdural guidance.
Lance: You might have me on that one, as I haven't spent much time with a 430W. Are you saying that for a missed approach procedure that calls for a climb on runway heading to 500 AGL followed by turn to a direct course to the holding fix from wherever you are when you hit that altititude will cause the 430W to plot and guide you on that direct course when you reach 500 AGL with no pilot input? The 480 does.

Lance is right again on this one. The 430W does NOT automatically sequence to the missed approach based on altitude. It even says so right on page 88 of the manual: "The 400W-series continues to give guidance along an extension of the final course segment (FAF to MAP) until you manually initiate the missed approach procedure."

Lance: Single button return to Map display
Ron: Standard on 430/530 -- push and hold the Cancel button.
Lance: On the 430 simulator that takes you to one of the NAV pages but not necessarily the map page.

Lance gets this one too. On all of the 430/530/W's, it's the Clear (CLR) button and that, when held, will take you back to the Default Nav page which shows data fields and a CDI. To get to the map page, you have to twist the small knob to the right a click. However, it's not really THAT hard to do.

Lance: Displayed OBS course on map.
Ron: Standard on 430/530
Lance: First, when you select OBS mode on the 430 it puts a dialog box on top of the map making it impossible to see anything useful until you select the course. And it looks like with the OBS mode active the course line doesn't follow changes in the actual CDI or HSI course selector. This could be just a limitation of the simulator but I could swear that at least one 430 installation behaved that way as well. Maybe the 430W improved on that?

Dunno on that one for sure, hardly ever used it. However, IME, the course line does follow course selection changes. I'll have to play with it in the plane.
 
OTOH I don't believe one needs to be a "professional pilot" to take advantage of the advanced capabilities found in the 480.
I agree that there are plenty of nonprofessional pilots who fly enough and study enough to properly learn and take advantage of the 480. However, my experience training folks who fly for not for hire, but only for business and pleasure in their own airplanes, suggests that generally they lack either the motivation or the time to do that. I believe the vast majority of nonprofessional (not to be confused with "unprofessional") pilots will more completely learn and use a 430/530 than a 480.

That said, I would guess that Ed falls in the minority of pilots who would fully learn and use the 480. However, I think he will be disappointed in the totality of the package unless he adds an MFD, which runs the cost up another $8K+ (not to mention finding the space for the package in a Comanche panel) or at least an interconnected 496. Do that, and the cost difference becomes much larger than $1500. Me? I'm very happy with my soon-to-be-WAAS'd 530, which I chose over a 480/20 combo, although I would like to find the cash to add a GDL69 XM datalink to the package (don't have the panel space left for a 496 dock in any reasonable location).
 
I agree that there are plenty of nonprofessional pilots who fly enough and study enough to properly learn and take advantage of the 480. However, my experience training folks who fly for not for hire, but only for business and pleasure in their own airplanes, suggests that generally they lack either the motivation or the time to do that. I believe the vast majority of nonprofessional (not to be confused with "unprofessional") pilots will more completely learn and use a 430/530 than a 480.

That said, I would guess that Ed falls in the minority of pilots who would fully learn and use the 480. However, I think he will be disappointed in the totality of the package unless he adds an MFD, which runs the cost up another $8K+ (not to mention finding the space for the package in a Comanche panel) or at least an interconnected 496. Do that, and the cost difference becomes much larger than $1500. Me? I'm very happy with my soon-to-be-WAAS'd 530, which I chose over a 480/20 combo, although I would like to find the cash to add a GDL69 XM datalink to the package (don't have the panel space left for a 496 dock in any reasonable location).

I didn't voice it but my impression is that Ed is indeed the type of pilot who'd take the time to learn the ins and outs of whatever GPS he installed. WRT the rest of the pilots out there I can only say I've been surprised at how many can't get beyond the "Direct To" function so your "average" is probably right on.

But back to the 430W vs 480 game, I don't really think that a 430W is any more useful as a MFD substitute than a 480 even though it is capable of accommodating more overlay inputs because the screen is just too small. So IMO a 480+496 would be a far better choice FOR ED than a 430W+496.
 
I personally can't stand the interface on the 430/530, finding it difficult and confusing to do anything more than "direct to". And I found the 480 easy to pick up. Shrug, I've always been different.

Regards,
Joe

I'm glad I'm not the only one that finds that.... I was "told" how bad the interface on the 480 was compared to the 430/530 and having used the 530 and gotten used to it I thought "Dang, then how f-ing screwed up must the 480 be?" so I downloaded the simulator and found it quite intuitive. One thing I found as a shortcoming with ALL these units is not having a yoke mountable keypad.
 
Yoke mounted keypad, that would be awesome. Or voice activated entry.
 
:hairraise::hairraise::hairraise::hairraise: It would be sweet, but voice recognition software requires more improvement.

True, but if there were a calibration function where you record the phonetic alphabet and numbers along with "direct to", "go missed", "activate" and "load" as part of the software setup, I bet you could get it to work 99+% of the time.

Hmmmmmmm.....I do work with guys who build avionics for home builts.
 
True, but if there were a calibration function where you record the phonetic alphabet and numbers along with "direct to", "go missed", "activate" and "load" as part of the software setup, I bet you could get it to work 99+% of the time.

Hmmmmmmm.....I do work with guys who build avionics for home builts.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have it, we should have it. I'd love to have a voice command input for a 480 connected to a Blue Mountain unit...
 
Back
Top