Garmin 530 & Apollo SL30 for SR22? Long.

After I read the article on avweb by Mike Busch about the Garmin 530 I started thinking about ways to incorporate this unit in the SR22. My first thought was the possibility of relocting the Garmin 340 audio panel or the Garmin 327 transponder. I can’t think of a place to put these units. The only possibility might be to relocate the audio panel above the basic flight instruments, but this would interfere with my eventual plans to mount the Insight air data computer and the Trimble radar altimeter there. Even this change would require a relocation of the annunciator light unit. I would hope that the annunciator light unit could be mounted above the ARNAV display on the bottom side of the glareshield.

I sent an email to Garmin regarding this specifically asking if they had a com/nav/loc/gs unit in the works. I thought that this would give one certified GPS and a backup com/nav/loc/gs unit. Garmin says they have no plans for a “slim line” com/nav/loc/gs unit.

There is only possibility, however. There is an Appollo SL30 com/nav/loc/gs unit. It is 1.3" high, 6.25" wide and 10.5" deep. Further information is at www.upsat.com/sl30des.html.

This would make the avionics stack as follows: Garmin 340 audio 1.3", Garmin 530 4.58", Apollo SL30 1.3", STEC control/display 1.5", Garmin 327 transponder 1.63". Total height 10.31".

The SR22B configuration is: Garmin 340 audio 1.3", Garmin 430 2.65", Garmin 430 2.65", STEC control/display 1.5", Garmin transponder 1.63". Total height 9.73".

The new configuration would be .58" higher.

The plus factors would include (1) the larger screen and resolution of the 530. This is, of course the major factor in this whole matter. If you haven’t seen Mike’s article, take a look at it now at www.avweb.com (2) more nav information on the 530, combining the nav 1 and nav 2 pages of the 430 and adding the compass arc display (3) a somewhat smaller data maintenance expense from Jeppesen with only one unit instead of two to maintain (4) total cost probably a little less for the Garmin 530/Apollo SL30 compared to a Garmin 430/430 pair. I don’t have the cost of the Apollo SL30 available.

The minus factors would include (1) only com/nav/loc/gs redundency - no GPS redundency (2) no frequency database for the Apollo SL30 for nav/com/loc (except that it does store 250 4 character names/frequency type pairs in it’s own database, see owner’s manual at above website for details). Thus, unless the frequencies were saved and named, you would have to rely on paper charts for the data (which you have anyway!) (3) no separate map display for Stormscope or TCAS information other than the 530 and (hopefully) the ARNAV mfd and (4) possible other disadvantages from mixing the Garmin and Apollo avionics that I don’t know about.

Finally, I don’t know how much flexability there is in the Cirrus SR22 as regards the physical height. I don’t know if there is another .58" available.

Assuming that the Garmin 530/Apolllo SL30 could be made to fit, is this a good idea or not?

FWIW a Sl-30 costs about $2985.

Have to think about your suggested configuration. As much as I love the 530, and thought that article was great, I am not so convinced that the advantages of a 530 over a 430 are as substantial once you have a Sandel. Obviously, it works great, but my sense from talking to people who have Sandels is that the unit really shines in Harder IFR as a Primary display. Without a Sandel, that one-sceen bonus of the 530 is spectacular. But with it… I think I’d still spend the majorty of my time flying the approach on the Sandel. After all, it will display everything you need, including radials, GS, DME, waypoint info, and on and on and on. Perhaps someone already using a Sandel in their SR20 or 22 can add their 2 cents.

I can tell you that as a Nav/com the SL30 is by far the best thing out there, for many reasons not the least of which is it can actually track the standby freq. as well as the active – essentially giving you two navs for the price of one…

Wow, someone more nuts about avionics than I am… :slight_smile:

For what it’s worth, don’t do it. Did you read the end of Mike Busch’s (avweb mike busch, not cirrus mike busch) article?

Look at the differences between the 430 and the 530! There are hardly any, and for those that there are, you can run one 430 as a map, and the other as a data display and get identical information!

The nice thing is that with the dual GPS setup, you have redundancy, and you can also set your GPSes up like I do. GPS 1 auto-cross-fills into GPS 2. I do my “real” plans in GPS 1. If I need to make changes in-flight, or want to play what-if games, then I do them in GPS 2. If my what-if becomes reality, I manually cross-fill into GPS 1. If I want to punt on playing games, I haven’t messed with my existing flight plans or screwed with the auto-pilot.

Yes, the 530 screen is nice, but if I had to go with a 530 + non-garmin nav/com unit, vs dual 430s, I would take the 430s any day, hands down.

Paul

p.s. You didn’t mention TCAD/TCAS in your wish list.

While waiting for my SR22 I have been flying a 1999 Saratoga which is equipped with a Garmin 530 and 430. The HSI is conventional. To me the 530 is a superb unit. What I especially like is the ability to use the “arc display”. This puts your navigational situation in pictorial form along with a compass arc on top. The Sandel unit in the SR22 will do exactly the same thing. To me, the 2 430s and Sandel are at least as functional as a 530 installation. To totally reconfigure the avionics in a new aircraft is expensive at best and asking for all sorts of aggravation. Check out the Sandel and you’ll agree that while the 530 is great, 2 430s and the Sandel are more than adequate. Also remember that the ARNAV can display a “big picture” nav situation as well.

Have to think about your suggested configuration. As much as I love the 530, and thought that article was great, I am not so convinced that the advantages of a 530 over a 430 are as substantial once you have a Sandel. Obviously, it works great, but my sense from talking to people who have Sandels is that the unit really shines in Harder IFR as a Primary display. Without a Sandel, that one-sceen bonus of the 530 is spectacular. But with it… I think I’d still spend the majorty of my time flying the approach on the Sandel. After all, it will display everything you need, including radials, GS, DME, waypoint info, and on and on and on. Perhaps someone already using a Sandel in their SR20 or 22 can add their 2 cents.

I can tell you that as a Nav/com the SL30 is by far the best thing out there, for many reasons not the least of which is it can actually track the standby freq. as well as the active – essentially giving you two navs for the price of one…

Dean,

I use my Sandel as a dumb HSI. Actually, as a very sexy HSI with two RMIs, but that’s about it.

I’ve turned on the map mode, I’ve played with all of the bells and whistles, and frankly, with that big honking 10.4" arnav screen, I’d rather use THAT as my situational-awareness display than use the dinky HSI.

Al$o, don’t forget that the H$I map di$play i$ yet one more databa$e you mu$t pay outrageou$ fee$ to update.

Paul

p.s. I’m really pissed off at ARNAV again. I have a recent up-to-date ARNAV database and it doesn’t have the MAJOR changes made to SFO’s class B, even though they are >6 mos old. Someone needs to get shot for this screw-up.

“To me, the 2 430s and Sandel are at least as functional as a 530 installation.” Just got of the phone with a friend of mine with a Bonanza with a 530/430 and a Sandel and he said the exact same thing.

This airplane will be at the San Luis Obispo, CA fly-in on Sunday if anyone would like to take a look.

Chris SR22 #95

While waiting for my SR22 I have been flying a 1999 Saratoga which is equipped with a Garmin 530 and 430. The HSI is conventional. To me the 530 is a superb unit. What I especially like is the ability to use the “arc display”. This puts your navigational situation in pictorial form along with a compass arc on top. The Sandel unit in the SR22 will do exactly the same thing. To me, the 2 430s and Sandel are at least as functional as a 530 installation. To totally reconfigure the avionics in a new aircraft is expensive at best and asking for all sorts of aggravation. Check out the Sandel and you’ll agree that while the 530 is great, 2 430s and the Sandel are more than adequate. Also remember that the ARNAV can display a “big picture” nav situation as well.

Have to think about your suggested configuration. As much as I love the 530, and thought that article was great, I am not so convinced that the advantages of a 530 over a 430 are as substantial once you have a Sandel. Obviously, it works great, but my sense from talking to people who have Sandels is that the unit really shines in Harder IFR as a Primary display. Without a Sandel, that one-sceen bonus of the 530 is spectacular. But with it… I think I’d still spend the majorty of my time flying the approach on the Sandel. After all, it will display everything you need, including radials, GS, DME, waypoint info, and on and on and on. Perhaps someone already using a Sandel in their SR20 or 22 can add their 2 cents.

I can tell you that as a Nav/com the SL30 is by far the best thing out there, for many reasons not the least of which is it can actually track the standby freq. as well as the active – essentially giving you two navs for the price of one…

Al$o, don’t forget that the H$I map di$play i$ yet one more databa$e you mu$t pay outrageou$ fee$ to update.

Yes. That’s true. How long 'til somebody puts us all out of our misery with all these different data bases (I know, I know…paper charts)

p.s. I’m really pissed off at ARNAV again. I have a recent up-to-date ARNAV database and it doesn’t have the MAJOR changes made to SFO’s class B, even though they are >6 mos old. Someone needs to get shot for this screw-up.

This to me is shocking. I realize somewhere on the ARNAV is a big VFR only warning (right?) but still I’d almost venture a guess that this was close to some kind of violation. Consider, you wander into the BRAVO, using your ARNAV, which tells you you are ok. (I know the 430 would tell you otherwise, but go with me here) If that happened and then you got violated that would suck. What is the point of having it on there in the first place if it is WRONG. Putting on mountains that don’t exist is bad enough, but messing up the bravo is worse because while the ARNAV doesn’t hold itself out to be Terrain Awareness accurate, I was certianly under the imperssion you could count on it for airspaces, particularly Bravo spaces of which there are less than 35 and which are pretty important unless you want to take out a 747!

Extremely disappointed to hear this. To me it is a real confidence buster. Go look back at all the posts defending ARNAV (mine included) and they say “boy I sure want the big screen in the Bravo here in LA or in SF or in NYC…” Well – Surprise! Please call the FAA when you land!

Sorry for the rant, but this really bummed me out to read!

Dean

Paul - What is the date and version of your ARNAV data base? ARNAV is not very good about letting you know about updates. We have a 1999 version in 5841. I have found that many of the airport abreviations are wrong.

Paul: TCAS is definately on the list. There was an article in IFR a while ago about the priorities in avionics installations. The specifics were in a post I made some while ago. The summary is that Stormscope, backup attitude indicator, and radar altimeter are, in least per the judgment of the IFR article author, a priority over TCAS. These three should make a real reduction in the possibility of blundering into WX, IFR loss of control and CFIT. Statistically these items are probably greater than the possibility of a midair.

In addition, other than the fairly substantial cost of the Stormscope, the cost of the backup AI and radar altimeter are fairly modest. I understand that the cost of the AFGoodrich AIM 2" AI is about $2,000 plus installing it and a switch and backup battery. The cost of the Trimble radar altimeter is about $3,000 as I remember, plus a more complex installation.

The cost of the Ryan for a 9900B is substantially more and the installation is also going to be substantial, so both on a cost and on a risk-reduction analysis the other items should come first.

On the subject of TCAS, the recent information from ARNAV (I know!) is that they are not supporting the ARINC data format that is used by BFGoodrich Skywatch so that the choice is the Ryan system if you want to see the TACS data on the ARNAV (right there along with the CHT & EGT they are promising). There is at least one Ryan TCAS installation underway, and hopefully that will result in a STC that should make the process easier in the future. After the three items above are in place (Stormsope already, backup AI and radar altimeter in the future) I certainly plan the Ryan TCAS installation.

I appreciate all of the replies on the Garmin 530/Apollo SL30 question. I thought the idea was a little shakey and I’m glad to see that those with hands on experience would choose the dual 430 configuration.

More nuts :-)))

Wow, someone more nuts about avionics than I am… :slight_smile:

For what it’s worth, don’t do it. Did you read the end of Mike Busch’s (avweb mike busch, not cirrus mike busch) article?

Look at the differences between the 430 and the 530! There are hardly any, and for those that there are, you can run one 430 as a map, and the other as a data display and get identical information!

The nice thing is that with the dual GPS setup, you have redundancy, and you can also set your GPSes up like I do. GPS 1 auto-cross-fills into GPS 2. I do my “real” plans in GPS 1. If I need to make changes in-flight, or want to play what-if games, then I do them in GPS 2. If my what-if becomes reality, I manually cross-fill into GPS 1. If I want to punt on playing games, I haven’t messed with my existing flight plans or screwed with the auto-pilot.

Yes, the 530 screen is nice, but if I had to go with a 530 + non-garmin nav/com unit, vs dual 430s, I would take the 430s any day, hands down.

Paul

p.s. You didn’t mention TCAD/TCAS in your wish list.