This question is for all current SR20 owners.Looking at the options package for the SR20 it appears the upgraded autopilot, electric HSI, dual alternators etc. all have distinct advantages for IFR flying. I am not sure I see he purpose of the second Garmin 430. Are you folks finding true utility of both 430’s or is the second unit being used mostly as a “back up”. I do a lot of IFR flying but fly almost exclusively planes with only one glideslope but always 2 VOR’s. With GPS, the second VOR seems unnecessary. The 430 seems to having everything one needs in one unit alone. What do you all use the second 430 for particularly with the Arnav already giving you an extra display to look at?
Thanks,
Brian
This question is for all current SR20 owners.Looking at the options package for the SR20 it appears the upgraded autopilot, electric HSI, dual alternators etc. all have distinct advantages for IFR flying. I am not sure I see he purpose of the second Garmin 430. Are you folks finding true utility of both 430’s or is the second unit being used mostly as a “back up”. I do a lot of IFR flying but fly almost exclusively planes with only one glideslope but always 2 VOR’s. With GPS, the second VOR seems unnecessary. The 430 seems to having everything one needs in one unit alone. What do you all use the second 430 for particularly with the Arnav already giving you an extra display to look at?
Thanks,
Brian
Hi Brian,
I selected the B package, since it appeared to have everything I need for IFR. (Actually I’m moving to AZ so all you really need is a plane and some sunglasses!)
At present I have one KX155 w/GS and an Northstart M3 Approach in my Warrior. This works fine for me. While it would be nice to have a backup GS via the 2nd 430, I can’t justify the difference in price for my application
Walt
This question is for all current SR20 owners.Looking at the options package for the SR20 it appears the upgraded autopilot, electric HSI, dual alternators etc. all have distinct advantages for IFR flying. I am not sure I see he purpose of the second Garmin 430. Are you folks finding true utility of both 430’s or is the second unit being used mostly as a “back up”. I do a lot of IFR flying but fly almost exclusively planes with only one glideslope but always 2 VOR’s. With GPS, the second VOR seems unnecessary. The 430 seems to having everything one needs in one unit alone. What do you all use the second 430 for particularly with the Arnav already giving you an extra display to look at?
Thanks,
Brian
One of the advantages I have found to be a great help is you can load any flight plan changes in the bottom unit and double check it before you use the cross fill function to load the new plan in the top. This is just the one I like, Any one else?..ED
Are you folks finding true utility of both 430’s or is the second unit being used mostly as a “back up”.
I fly with the B package, and the 420 is firstly there as backup - if the 430 fails you can still navigate en-route and fly non-precision approaches. However it’s also handy for other things. I usually have the 430 with the map page, and the 420 with the default nav page, so there is extra information (I turn the data fields on the map page off to get a bigger view). Also, if you are doing an approach outside controlled airspace and need to broadcast position etc. you can set the 2nd GPS onto the airfield so it constantly tells you bearing and distance from the field. Similarly for any ATC requirement where they want you to report location.
A VFR GPS would do most of that, except the IFR backup. But having two identical GPS units makes life much easier, because you only have to learn one.
Second ILS is really only useful if you need to do a lot of precision approaches and want the backup. So for my flying, I think the B package is ideal. The extra utility of the C would not be worth the money for me.
This question is for all current SR20 owners.Looking at the options package for the SR20 it appears the upgraded autopilot, electric HSI, dual alternators etc. all have distinct advantages for IFR flying. I am not sure I see he purpose of the second Garmin 430. Are you folks finding true utility of both 430’s or is the second unit being used mostly as a “back up”. I do a lot of IFR flying but fly almost exclusively planes with only one glideslope but always 2 VOR’s. With GPS, the second VOR seems unnecessary. The 430 seems to having everything one needs in one unit alone. What do you all use the second 430 for particularly with the Arnav already giving you an extra display to look at?
Thanks,
Brian
Thanks to Clyde, eb, Walt and dan for their inputs. All of you with the “B” package: Do you see any advantages to the other upgrades in the “C” package such as the better auotopilot, electric HSI and extra alternator? It seems the extra Garmin 430 really can be just as well utilized with a 420 instead.
Has anyone tried to ask Cirrus for a “C” package with only 1 430 and a 420 or is that not possible?
Brian
WALT
I too am considering the B package. In fact I also have a Warrior ,but no sunglasses,.Can anyone explain the use of the 420 in relationship to the 430 and other instruments? dan>>This question is for all current SR20 owners.Looking at the options package for the SR20 it appears the upgraded autopilot, electric HSI, dual alternators etc. all have distinct advantages for IFR flying. I am not sure I see he purpose of the second Garmin 430. Are you folks finding true utility of both 430’s or is the second unit being used mostly as a “back up”. I do a lot of IFR flying but fly almost exclusively planes with only one glideslope but always 2 VOR’s. With GPS, the second VOR seems unnecessary. The 430 seems to having everything one needs in one unit alone. What do you all use the second 430 for particularly with the Arnav already giving you an extra display to look at?
Thanks,
Brian
Hi Brian,
I selected the B package, since it appeared to have everything I need for IFR. (Actually I’m moving to AZ so all you really need is a plane and some sunglasses!)
At present I have one KX155 w/GS and an Northstart M3 Approach in my Warrior. This works fine for me. While it would be nice to have a backup GS via the 2nd 430, I can’t justify the difference in price for my application
Walt
Hi Brian,
As far as I understand, the main difference between the 430 and the 420 is the elinination of the NAV function (seperate VOR/LOC/ILS functions) in the 420.
Comm VOR LOC/GS GPS/Color-Map
420 Yes GPS No Yes
430 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Another way to look at it is that the 430 can be used for precision/non-precision approaches and the 420 can only be used for non-precision approaches. Hope this is helpful.
Walt
WALT
I too am considering the B package. In fact I also have a Warrior ,but no sunglasses,.Can anyone explain the use of the 420 in relationship to the 430 and other instruments? dan>>This question is for all current SR20 owners.Looking at the options package for the SR20 it appears the upgraded autopilot, electric HSI, dual alternators etc. all have distinct advantages for IFR flying. I am not sure I see he purpose of the second Garmin 430. Are you folks finding true utility of both 430’s or is the second unit being used mostly as a “back up”. I do a lot of IFR flying but fly almost exclusively planes with only one glideslope but always 2 VOR’s. With GPS, the second VOR seems unnecessary. The 430 seems to having everything one needs in one unit alone. What do you all use the second 430 for particularly with the Arnav already giving you an extra display to look at?
Thanks,
Brian
Hi Brian,
I selected the B package, since it appeared to have everything I need for IFR. (Actually I’m moving to AZ so all you really need is a plane and some sunglasses!)
At present I have one KX155 w/GS and an Northstart M3 Approach in my Warrior. This works fine for me. While it would be nice to have a backup GS via the 2nd 430, I can’t justify the difference in price for my application
Walt
Thanks to Clyde, eb, Walt and dan for their inputs. All of you with the “B” package: Do you see any advantages to the other upgrades in the “C” package such as the better auotopilot, electric HSI and extra alternator? It seems the extra Garmin 430 really can be just as well utilized with a 420 instead.
Has anyone tried to ask Cirrus for a “C” package with only 1 430 and a 420 or is that not possible?
Brian
According to the Cirrus web page, you can add a second alternator to the “B” package. Cost is $2,400, weight is 10 lbs.
All of you with the “B” package: Do you see any advantages to the other upgrades in the “C” package such as the better auotopilot, electric HSI and extra alternator?
the 2nd alternator is, I think, a must for serious IFR - but you can add it to the B package (we did). The fancy autopilot is not worth the difference in price (to me anyway). And the electric HSI is probably more reliable, but you do at least have a backup vacuum pump, which appears to work well. I hope that Cirrus will make the SR20 an all-electric system in the future. Surely that could not cost much more than the present system with 1 alt and 2 vacuum pumps.
Thanks to Clyde, eb, Walt and dan for their inputs. All of you with the “B” package: Do you see any advantages to the other upgrades in the “C” package such as the better auotopilot, electric HSI and extra alternator? It seems the extra Garmin 430 really can be just as well utilized with a 420 instead.
Has anyone tried to ask Cirrus for a “C” package with only 1 430 and a 420 or is that not possible?
Brian
According to the Cirrus web page, you can add a second alternator to the “B” package. Cost is $2,400, weight is 10 lbs.
Mike:
I was actually asking if you could do the opposite: Take the “C” package and then get credit for eliminating the extra Garmin 430 and put in a 420 instead. I believe the price of the electric vs the vacuum HSI are the same. The other difference is the autopilot. The s tec 55 seems nice but someone already posted earlier that Cirrus will not add a 55 to the “B” package.
Brian
I was actually asking if you could do the opposite: Take the “C” package and then get credit for eliminating the extra Garmin 430 and put in a 420 instead.
Brian,
I did ask about that when I was weighing my own decision about what to get. The answer was No. However, it wouldn’t hurt to ask - things do change.
Mike.
I was actually asking if you could do the opposite: Take the “C” package and then get credit for eliminating the extra Garmin 430 and put in a 420 instead.
Brian,
I did ask about that when I was weighing my own decision about what to get. The answer was No. However, it wouldn’t hurt to ask - things do change.
Mike.
Thanks Mike:
Is their anything on the “B” package that you would like to see added?
Brian
Thanks Mike:
Is their anything on the “B” package that you would like to see added?
Brian,
I guess the thing I really would have added to the “B” package is the dual alternator option.
Regarding your other post (asking why some chose to order C config): I got to thinking about the redundancy of the two 430s - more subtle than just equipment redundancy, although that’s a part of it; there’s the limitation on brain-space (a problem which gets worse as I get older), so learning one box is better than learning two. There’s also and what I think of as “slot” redundancy - I can put either Garmin in either slot (I hope), something which has been useful to me in the past with identical nav/comms. (Great for troubleshooting: Is the problem the nav-head, the receiver, or the slot wiring?)
Then again, maybe it’s all just a justification – convincing myself that the C config was worth it.
Mike.
Thanks Mike:
Is their anything on the “B” package that you would like to see added?
Brian,
I guess the thing I really would have added to the “B” package is the dual alternator option.
Regarding your other post (asking why some chose to order C config): I got to thinking about the redundancy of the two 430s - more subtle than just equipment redundancy, although that’s a part of it; there’s the limitation on brain-space (a problem which gets worse as I get older), so learning one box is better than learning two. There’s also and what I think of as “slot” redundancy - I can put either Garmin in either slot (I hope), something which has been useful to me in the past with identical nav/comms. (Great for troubleshooting: Is the problem the nav-head, the receiver, or the slot wiring?)
Then again, maybe it’s all just a justification – convincing myself that the C config was worth it.
Mike.
I actually thought you had the “B” package. The Garmin 420 should be interchangeble with the 430 I would think in the #1 slot for troubleshooting as I think they use the same wiring. The only thing missing in the 420 is the Vor/Loc nav functio but everything else is the same. I guess the real problem with the combo 430/420 is that if you totally lose the #1 430 then you lose all Ils/Vor capability but you still have a good IFR backup GPS.
Brian
Thanks Mike:
Is their anything on the “B” package that you would like to see added?
Brian,
I guess the thing I really would have added to the “B” package is the dual alternator option.
Regarding your other post (asking why some chose to order C config): I got to thinking about the redundancy of the two 430s - more subtle than just equipment redundancy, although that’s a part of it; there’s the limitation on brain-space (a problem which gets worse as I get older), so learning one box is better than learning two. There’s also and what I think of as “slot” redundancy - I can put either Garmin in either slot (I hope), something which has been useful to me in the past with identical nav/comms. (Great for troubleshooting: Is the problem the nav-head, the receiver, or the slot wiring?)
Then again, maybe it’s all just a justification – convincing myself that the C config was worth it.
Mike.
I actually thought you had the “B” package. The Garmin 420 should be interchangeble with the 430 I would think in the #1 slot for troubleshooting as I think they use the same wiring. The only thing missing in the 420 is the Vor/Loc nav functio but everything else is the same. I guess the real problem with the combo 430/420 is that if you totally lose the #1 430 then you lose all Ils/Vor capability but you still have a good IFR backup GPS.
Brian
If you lose the #1 430, you are in deep trouble when IFR minimums at your destination and alternate require ILS. As you know, GPS minimums are higher. Hopes of a WAAS system for your GPS that will provide minimums near ILS minimums are, unfortunately, off in the future.
If you lose the #1 430, you are in deep trouble when IFR minimums at your destination and alternate require ILS. As you know, GPS minimums are higher. Hopes of a WAAS system for your GPS that will provide minimums near ILS minimums are, unfortunately, off in the future.
Not if you declare an emergency. In a serious situation I would not hesitate to “fly the normal pattern” to a long (ILS) runway using the 420’s map at 1-2 miles resolution and the altimeter. Even if you’re 100-150 HAT instead of the normal 50 you can get down in time to land.
Thanks Mike:
Is their anything on the “B” package that you would like to see added?
Brian,
I guess the thing I really would have added to the “B” package is the dual alternator option.
Regarding your other post (asking why some chose to order C config): I got to thinking about the redundancy of the two 430s - more subtle than just equipment redundancy, although that’s a part of it; there’s the limitation on brain-space (a problem which gets worse as I get older), so learning one box is better than learning two. There’s also and what I think of as “slot” redundancy - I can put either Garmin in either slot (I hope), something which has been useful to me in the past with identical nav/comms. (Great for troubleshooting: Is the problem the nav-head, the receiver, or the slot wiring?)
Then again, maybe it’s all just a justification – convincing myself that the C config was worth it.
Mike.
I actually thought you had the “B” package. The Garmin 420 should be interchangeble with the 430 I would think in the #1 slot for troubleshooting as I think they use the same wiring. The only thing missing in the 420 is the Vor/Loc nav functio but everything else is the same. I guess the real problem with the combo 430/420 is that if you totally lose the #1 430 then you lose all Ils/Vor capability but you still have a good IFR backup GPS.
Brian
If you lose the #1 430, you are in deep trouble when IFR minimums at your destination and alternate require ILS. As you know, GPS minimums are higher. Hopes of a WAAS system for your GPS that will provide minimums near ILS minimums are, unfortunately, off in the future.
Gary & Kevin:
This is precisely the kind of discussion I wanted to generate in my original question. I think you are both right. Having a GPS with a moving map ddoes offer a lot more orientation than we are used to with just having 2 Vor units in our plane. I think it would be quite legitimate if the VOR/ILS failed in the #1 430 to use the #2 420 to get down to reasonable minimums. There would be a lot of judgement here but how often does one really fly when the weather is at minumums at on airport and no reasonable alternate within flyable distance. In this case flying to the alternate with better weather and using the #2 420 would work. Many GPS approaches give considerably low minimums.
My concern is no so much a radio failure but a nav head failure. With the “B” package there is only the HSI as I understand. If it fails there is no backup head. So with a “B” package even if the 430 were working well, all it would take is an inoperative HSI to wipe out the 430’s additional capability. With the “C” package there is a backup VOR head.
Is this worth spending an extra $15,000 for the “C” package? Gary says yes. Kevin does not think so. Any other thoughts from others?
I will say this: the “B” package with its lack of redundancy compared to “C” still has more backup capability than any plane I have flown in the last 20 years. But how much is enough?
Brian
If you lose the #1 430, you are in deep trouble when IFR minimums at your destination and alternate require ILS. As you know, GPS minimums are higher. Hopes of a WAAS system for your GPS that will provide minimums near ILS minimums are, unfortunately, off in the future.
Not if you declare an emergency. In a serious situation I would not hesitate to “fly the normal pattern” to a long (ILS) runway using the 420’s map at 1-2 miles resolution and the altimeter. Even if you’re 100-150 HAT instead of the normal 50 you can get down in time to land.
I think I’ll spend the extra money for the second 430 in config C, avoid such an emergency, and be content to know I’ve prepared for any such emergency in advance.