That’s exactly why the IFD440 is nicer. Max 3 clicks to any screen, buttons AND touchscreen.
However, how much of the route picture remains visible when you do just about anything?
On the IFD440, probably close to zero, as on the GNS430. But then nobody expects that on the very small combined boxes.
Interesting thought about MFDs.
I recently added a dumb iPad mount in my panel, with certified USB power. The iPad is running Garmin Pilot. Backup situational awareness only, primary nav on the panel 430W. The next step is to add a Garmin Flight Stream box which will integrate the iPad with the 430W i.e. upload and download flight plans and changes made enroute. Thus the iPad effectively becomes an MFD and an input device for the 430W. Yes it’s uncertified, the 430W remains primary, but much of the situ awareness of an expensive MFD is there at a fraction of the cost. Given the functionality of Garmin Pilot, with map, flight plan (including airways input), ADS/B traffic, synvis, terrain, flitecharts, safe taxi etc., I would not invest in a standalone MFD now.
NeilC wrote:
Given the functionality of Garmin Pilot, with map, flight plan (including airways input), ADS/B traffic, synvis, terrain, flitecharts, safe taxi etc., I would not invest in a standalone MFD now.
I am doing the same with ForeFlight. The iPad has become pretty much the main nav tool (mind you, all VORs are tuned in and the 430 set up correctly!). I now use the 430 largely as a comm box with the FP (or a direct-to) loaded. The split-screen synvis is awesome, I used it just a few days ago to x-check a mountain crossing at night.
I too agree that tablets have made the typical middle stack MFDs obsolete. You get outdated hardware with very limited functionality (which is static for years) and pay a very high price.
For anything “MFD” I use an external cheap device which offers a lot more. The certified stuff feeds the autopilot, no more.
With the new iPad mini anti glare screens, the usefulness is increased. (haven’t tried it myself, but reports are very good)
I have 2 iPads connected to my GTN over the FlightStream 210. I do most of the navigation and flight plan playing/modification on the iPads, not the GTN itself.
I understand Peters worry about loosing the screen on the GTN. Im personally upgrading to the GTN-750 and the internal intercom 35C soon. Only backup is as earlier mentioned the fallback to Com box 2.
I have only read about 1 GTN installation where the screen was lost. Would come back after a restart, but crash again after about 15 min. So it can happen, but the Garmin boxes are of good quality.
I (because i have one?) find the MFD great: active IAP Charts, Maps, Terrain, Traffic,Stormscope, Engine Instruments, Fuel, Electrics, Trip page, download of all flight data … all on one solid device in the field of view.
I recently added a dumb iPad mount in my panel, with certified USB power. The iPad is running Garmin Pilot. Backup situational awareness only, primary nav on the panel 430W. The next step is to add a Garmin Flight Stream box which will integrate the iPad with the 430W i.e. upload and download flight plans and changes made enroute. Thus the iPad effectively becomes an MFD and an input device for the 430W. Yes it’s uncertified, the 430W remains primary, but much of the situ awareness of an expensive MFD is there at a fraction of the cost. Given the functionality of Garmin Pilot, with map, flight plan (including airways input), ADS/B traffic, synvis, terrain, flitecharts, safe taxi etc., I would not invest in a standalone MFD now.
I agree, but you need the room. And charging provision, etc.
The certified stuff feeds the autopilot,
That’s another thing.
It also not very good to pay $14k for a combined box, only to end up having to pay more for a bluetooth interface box (interference??) and have an Ipad kicking around the cockpit to make up for the user interface deficiencies of the $14k box which you had to have anyway. The Ipad is only “consumer electronics grade”, an accidental touch produces another “WTF is it doing now” moment, etc.
IMO people are expecting too much from the smaller units (GTN650 for example), these units should just be seen as a control head for a large ND such as the G500.
IMO people are expecting too much from the smaller units (GTN650 for example), these units should just be seen as a control head for a large ND such as the G500
I agree, though it’s a pity that they are “required” for the GTN750 and the IFD540 too.
Obviously it’s better to fit 2×GTN750 but it needs an awful lot of vertical space. 2x IFD540 needs less space (and that’s my longer term plan) but it’s early days for that product, IMHO, currently.
