Piper Archer GPS

[Flaps30 3]

Hi guys,I just bought the FSX Piper Archer and have been getting familiar. I am confused with the GPS though. It seems there is no Autopilot but there is a switch for the NAV / GPS. Am I correct that the included default FSX GPS is to be flown manually since ther is no A/P for automatic guidance? If so, what is the purpose for the NAV/GPS toggle? I tried the GPS with both switch positions and there was no difference. Thanks. Regards, Tom

[stephane130281 0]

I don't have this plane but your right saying that you have to fly the aircraft manually if there is no AP!! The Nav1/GPS button is present to drive the VOR1 indication by either normal NAV1 frequency or GPS. I explain: if you set a route in the GPS, you will have to follow this route, exactly as if you want to fly a radial from a VOR station. Therefore you have a deviation indicated by the VOR1, but instead of receiving indication from a VOR station, the information is coming from the GPS.Hope it is clear!Stephane

Edited January 13, 2012 by stephane130281

[scottb613 1,186]

Hi Tom,I don't have the plane either - but - I looked at the panel on the web site... It seems the Archer doesn't have a panel mounted GPS unit ?? The only GPS I see is a handheld unit... If so - having the "NAV1/GPS" button doesn't make sense to me either... As Stephane explaned above - that would make sense for a panel mounted GPS...Regards,Scott

Edited January 13, 2012 by scottb613

[Flaps30 3]

Thanks for the help, guys. That's what's confusing to me.I can't imagine why the GPS toggle is there for a portable GPS. When you toggle GPS while tuned to a VOR it does tune out the VOR that was tuned in but has no affect on the GPS unit. Tom

[Firekitten 0]

I have the plane and yep, slaves to vor1 with that switch, all it does is swap the feed from nav1 to gps.Im not sure about the garmin 295, but I know some handheld units can have plugs to dock them so they can be slaved in/powered by the AC.Tbh, its not a big problem, most ga aircraft with a gps unit in them will be handhelds, and in the carenado aircraft like the archyer II, and 185, I love the fact its a suction cup mount rather than a glitzy gns unit... you don't see 5000 pound GPS units in every ship... As for no autopilot, most probably won't, but not having it just means you fly the course by hand, as you would a vor, either using the vor indicator, or playing follow the magenta line. I tend to program a backup flightplan in the gps, and have it incase of IMC, or certain terrain, giving me a 'thats the right valley to take' indication. Suplimentry to my map and mk1 eyeballs.

[Guest BeaverDriver]

Folks are correct when they say the GPS/NAV switch is not appropriate for an aircraft with a handheld GPS. Typically hand helds are not connected to the autopilot or any other nav equipment built into the aircraft. If it actually works (the switch), it's not an accurate representation of the aircraft.I feel I must correct some misinformation though.

most ga aircraft with a gps unit in them will be handhelds, and in the carenado aircraft like the archyer II, and 185, I love the fact its a suction cup mount rather than a glitzy gns unit... you don't see 5000 pound GPS units in every ship...

This is patently incorrect. I'm an avionics tech and former RW pilot, and I have to tell you that from (and including) 172's on up, the vast majority of aircraft we see do have panel mounted GPS' installed. Most often you see a 530 and 430 together, but some have dual 430's. So there's typically not just one, but two panel mounted GPS units in every airplane. A 530 weighs in at about 10 lbs and the 430 at about 7 lbs (approximately). Those are lighter than the old KX series radios. Indeed, I've recertified some older encoding altimeters (i.e. one instrument, never mind a radio) that were heavier than the newest GPS systems that are now going into light aircraft. The GTN750 (touch screen Garmin) is only 8 lbs that we are putting in a 182 now. That includes XM radio for weather, full display, nav/com, etc. In fact, a whole Garmin G1000 comes in at 40 lbs and includes a whole system of instrumentation and displays, and we are seeing 172's 182's, 206's, etc. with these installed. These are anything but isolated installations now, but instead mostly mainstream. So GPS units have, for the most part, replaced the old systems except for some of the older aircraft that are used strictly for weekend local spins around the field only. However, sometimes even those are found with them and I've seen a fully decked out Super Cub with a full GPS system in it. Truth be told, what Carenado is putting in their aircraft for avionics is highly typical for machines of the day, going back to the 206.

[Firekitten 0]

Folks are correct when they say the GPS/NAV switch is not appropriate for an aircraft with a handheld GPS. Typically hand helds are not connected to the autopilot or any other nav equipment built into the aircraft. If it actually works (the switch), it's not an accurate representation of the aircraft.I feel I must correct some misinformation though.This is patently incorrect. I'm an avionics tech and former RW pilot, and I have to tell you that from (and including) 172's on up, the vast majority of aircraft we see do have panel mounted GPS' installed. Most often you see a 530 and 430 together, but some have dual 430's. So there's typically not just one, but two panel mounted GPS units in every airplane. A 530 weighs in at about 10 lbs and the 430 at about 7 lbs (approximately). Those are lighter than the old KX series radios. Indeed, I've recertified some older encoding altimeters (i.e. one instrument, never mind a radio) that were heavier than the newest GPS systems that are now going into light aircraft. The GTN750 (touch screen Garmin) is only 8 lbs that we are putting in a 182 now. That includes XM radio for weather, full display, nav/com, etc. In fact, a whole Garmin G1000 comes in at 40 lbs and includes a whole system of instrumentation and displays, and we are seeing 172's 182's, 206's, etc. with these installed. These are anything but isolated installations now, but instead mostly mainstream. So GPS units have, for the most part, replaced the old systems except for some of the older aircraft that are used strictly for weekend local spins around the field only. However, sometimes even those are found with them and I've seen a fully decked out Super Cub with a full GPS system in it. Truth be told, what Carenado is putting in their aircraft for avionics is highly typical for machines of the day, going back to the 206.

Patently incorect in your AREA and FIELD Glenn. Not necessarily everywhere.At my flying club, there's two gns430 units, both on separate private aircraft, no glass units at all... vast majority of units are handhelds, several with panel munted docks, most on the yoke or windshield.Most advanced kit? an ipad with a gps system in... This is GA, you work in a different country and if i recall, more comercial clients?Plus when I said pound, I think you'll find I was refering to Sterling, currency, rather than weight. Edited January 16, 2012 by Firekitten

[Guest BeaverDriver]

"Patently incorect in your AREA and FIELD Glenn. Not necessarily everywhere."You didn't specify "in your country". Your "flying club" is an extremely small sample size. The company I work for does work for people all across North America and deal with outfits in Europe since we certify to EASA standards, and they say pretty much the same thing as us. In fact, in some areas, Europe is more advanced than we are over here."Most advanced kit? an ipad with a gps system in... This is GA, you work in a different country and if i recall, more comercial clients?"On what grounds to you say the iPad is the most advanced system? It's not by any stretch. It's just the platform it's on that is new. We deal as much with the single owner as we do commercial (and probably more at our facility). Our sister company at a major airport deals with airlines and corporate, so we span the range. I am referring specifically to General Aviation aircraft in my comments, as there is a difference between those and corporate machines.

Edited January 16, 2012 by BeaverDriver

[Firekitten 0]

I meant the Ipad was the most advanced bit of kit at my club.... not in general.And you'll see I removed the last comment because I felt it was inapropriate and not needed.As for the years in aviation pissing contest, I'm not going to join in, you know I have a massive respect for you and your experience, and infact consider myself LUCKY to read the frequent anecdotes and hints and tips you post about flying over on BP... I never once suggested the information I posted was globally relevant, Apparently I'm wrong... I rarely see the mounted combi units in aircraft I encounter, a LOT of handhelds, and to me it 'feels' more authentic than the reality... yes, the kit exists, and if you saw my 206 mod shots on bp or here, you'd see it has a 430... practicality, and Ive seen them in some... so it was a functional idea.The point in general was more that I don't like glass, I prefer steam, that unit marries practicality of navigation tech, with oldschool simplicity.

[Guest BeaverDriver]

OK, I apologise if I said anything that came out in an offensive way. Neither of us wants or needs any pissing contests regardless of who's "playing" so let's just say there was a misunderstanding and go on from there.There are certainly areas where more advanced avionics (by yesterday's standards) are prevelant for sure. It really depends on the areas. In general GPS units are more the norm now and we're even seeing second generation installs. In the bush you see them a lot because they are "you-know-who's" gift to the bush pilot who is looking for "Lake Where-in-the-Hell-Are-You" answer to navigation. For sure at the very small, local airports you don't see the kind of equipment that you see in more metropolitan and wealthier airports. Third world nations rarely see them I'd be willing to bet (although Kings tend to be the exception - they have 380's <LOL>).As for steam vs. glass - I'm with you. I'd take steam any day. It's what us old timers are used to and we sometimes think the "kids" today are spoiled rotten. I knew of one crew who wouldn't do a 300 nm flight straight up a well used airway on a severe clear day in a PC12 because their GPS was down. Everything else (VOR's, ADF's, etc) was working perfectly, and for that matter, from 25,000 feet in their PC12, they could go VFR all the way (except that's not allowed in Canada over FL180). So there's something wrong there.Anyway, we are both right in a way. I just have the luxury of seeing more of a cross section because of what I do is all. So my apologies if I came across too strong. And for those looking in who are wondering what all the hullabaloo is about, we're married - we're allowed (OK, JUST KIDDING on that one <LMAO>!!) (jeez, now what have I started :D?).

[Firekitten 0]

thanks for appologising, but I'm equally to blame... I was a little 'vague' and all encompasing with my statement.As for in general, you must have seen the docking doodars you can get for some of hte handhelds to plug them into the aircraft power and systems? One of the guys has one on his 72 here and its... erm forget the brand, but it has its mount, and a cable plugs into the unit from a tiny hole in the panel...(Anyway for the Archer its irelevant, as mine became a PA28-236 Dakota ages ago (new fde) and has an autopilot and a 430 in the stack (usually displaying data and charts / airport info as it has a bigger screen) Useful for airspace monitoring when flying in the UK's busy skies!)And if we're married, why are you having that sordid little affair with Ms Malibu!

[Guest BeaverDriver]

No sweat :)I've heard of the docking connectors but not seen them. However, that doesn't mean much as I don't work on those machines myself (when I need to know something I go ask my colleagues in the install department as I did in this case). It doesn't surprise me though. Things are changing really quickly in this field."And if we're married, why are you having that sordid little affair with Ms Malibu!"All I can say is... ooops . Busted, eh PS - seems as though there is a limited amount of time in which one can edit a post. If I could I would change the wording in my post from "patently disagree" to "respectfully disagree". Bad choice of words on my part. Unfortunately I can't now change that post, but hopefully everyone who reads that, reads this as well. Thanks :)

Edited January 16, 2012 by BeaverDriver

[rototom 198]

I didn't realize FSX distinguished between handheld and panel mounted units.

[Guest BeaverDriver]

In all honesty, I'm not sure it does. Firekitten may know as she has played with that a bit more than I, but I can give it a try tonight. If it doesn't, then it's wrong (to be blunt :) ). However, I suppose you could imagine that whatever plane you have, has one of those docking units Firekitten refers to, and voila - you have a "real" solution.

[Firekitten 0]

Fsx doesn't distinguish by default, each gps is simply a gps gauge, regardless of its 'appearance' HOWEVER, you CAN force it to distinguish by changing the autopilot settings in the aircraft.cfg, and or removing the nav/gps switch from the panel.cfg in either the 2d or the vc panel.I'll have a look and see if i can't find a link to the docking system i was referring to, definitely seen one,