Sign in to follow this  
RLJR

Comparison Reality GNS 530 and GTN 750

Recommended Posts

Need a little help in deciding which is the best to use with the Real Air dukes. The Reality GNS 530 or the Flt 1 GTN 750.All opinions are welcome.

RLJR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

GTN all the way. GNS had its day for sure - I used that and the 430 for many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GTN series are head and shoulders above the older GNS.  Very user friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would agree, the GTN is much better, includes a nice feature set, with a lot of good information available using a touch screen. Download the trainer and play around with it. The Reality GNS 530 is also great, but just can't compare with the newer GTN 750.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GNS is the past, the GTN is the future. Consider the GTN650 too, or spring for both. The 750 is perfect for high performance aircraft like Turbine Duke, however for the A2A C182, I find the 750 too intrusive and distracting, and much prefer the 650. When the Cherokee 180 gets GTN support, I will go with 650 there too. A GTN750 in a the Cherokee is like putting modern Automobile GPS unit in a 1957 Chevy lol, whereas the 650 takes up less space and won't take away as much from the beautiful vintage look of the Cherokee.

 

Another thing to consider, as developers convert old planes and develop new planes, the 650 requires less panel redesign for them. For some planes like Civil P-51 and *potential Scout V2, the 650 will also be a great fit.

 

Cheers

TJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


The GNS is the past, the GTN is the future. Consider the GTN650 too, or spring for both. The 750 is perfect for high performance aircraft like Turbine Duke, however for the A2A C182, I find the 750 too intrusive and distracting, and much prefer the 650. When the Cherokee 180 gets GTN support, I will go with 650 there too.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that if you use the gauges as 2D popups on a touch screen, the 750 is more usable due to it's larger screen space.  Otherwise, I completely agree; the 650 is simply a better fit in some panels.

 

I wish Flight1 would make some progress on crossfill; then one could have the best of both worlds; a 650 in the panel, with a 750 as the popup, controlling the same flight plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the GTX is great, but nothing at all wrong with the Reality-XP either. I didn't like the cost of the Reality-XP package, specifically the Unlimited upgrade, but I got them years ago, I think it was worth it, and as long as I am FSX-only, I consider the gps need completely fulfilled. There is something pretty cool about the crossfill. Now if I didn't have the Reality XP already, I think I would still want to have a good 530 and 430 for my simulated airplanes, even with the existence of the GTNs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GTN is certainly more intuitive and comprehensive than GNS. Thanks to GTN 750, my Duke Turbine feels like a mini-airliner not just in performance but also avionics capability.

 

That being said, I still have GNS (530) installed in most of my planes, the GTN I've only put into the Duke Turbine.

 

My reasons are:

 

- RXP GNS has integration into more VCs.

 

- GNS is still more common in real world rental fleets

 

- GNS is more challenging to use, and GTN can become the center attraction for instruments. GNS kind of just fits into the panel without grabbing too much attention away from steam gauges.

 

- On the GTN I haven't found a way to completely disengage (despite turning off GPWS) certain warnings like sink rate. This can be really annoying if you are practicing post stall maneuvering or aerobatics. It is for this reason the GTN will never see the inside of my Lancair Legacy. GNS has an off switch. Perhaps an on/off switch never made it to the GTN due to legal concerns by Garmin. 

 

- GTN can be more performance-impacting than GNS due to having more click spots.

 

Overall, they are both great units that reflect their real life counterparts with great detail. It couldn't hurt to experience both, I feel they each compliment different aspects of flying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 750 is perfect for high performance aircraft like Turbine Duke, however for the A2A C182, I find the 750 too intrusive and distracting, and much prefer the 650.

 

Funny you mention that, because a GTN750 is about the same size as the Bendix KMD550/KLN94 combo which Cessna offered as a GPS solution in the Cessna 182T when it hit the market. I think the GTN750 is perfect for a high performance singe engine prop like the 182T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just bought the P3D GTN750 last night, did a quick test flight in the Turbine Duke v2 (that I also bought last night) and it is absolutely amazing.  Well worth the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just bought the P3D GTN750 last night, did a quick test flight in the Turbine Duke v2 (that I also bought last night) and it is absolutely amazing. Well worth the money.

Totally agree with that!! Dual GTN configs is awesome. I agree xfill with rxp would be good too though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....so ,basically, once install the GTN750 the G530 is obsolete, did I get it right ?

 

Yair    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ONLY thing I preferred on the 530 is that it showed you distance and radial from a VOR you tuned in NAV1.

 

The GTN will do this too but you waste 1 of 4 on screen variables to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..and one more thing, does any one knows if you can assign buttons to the GTN, I know that it's mostly touchscreen driven, but there few buttons after all

 

Tnx

 

Yair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.. I know  that the GTN is mostly touchscreen driven, which is good, but there are 3 or 4 buttons, can those buttons be mapped, mean can I assign buttons ??

 

Cheers

 

Yair  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some times I kind of like the older units just because of the extra work required....especially in slower planes where you have the extra time anyway.  

 

If you are shooting for ultra 'realism', lets face it, in real life, the average rental Cessna or Piper that is 40-50 years old, will not have a brand new GTN.  Think about it, no aircraft owner who owns a $30K Cherokee will spring for a $25K GTN system, especially if they already have a GNS or KING system that already has most of the GTN fuctions (the important ones at least).  If the Cherokee or 172 it even has a GPS, it will likely be an older unit like a KLN or GNS of some sorts.

 

So for that reason, its good to keep the GNS around in a Cherokee or 172, just for the sake of proficiency.  

 

But use whatever works best for you.

 

Cheers

TJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know... the GTN seems to be catching on.  I flew in an older late 70's skyhawk recently that had a GTN 650.  Strangely enough in real world I prefer the 430 over the 650.  But I also prefer the 750 over the 530W in rw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure there are a few.  I image that older 172 you flew probably had no GPS prior to having a GTN installed.  I don't think any owner of a 172/Cherokee...etc would replace a GNS/KLN with a GTN unless they got a seriously good deal on one.  

 

I know the GTNs are popular in FS, because FS is a mouse-point n click world.  Touch screens make much more sense.  My only beef with touch screens in planes is having to use them while bouncing around in turbulence, its nice to have actual knobs to anchor your fingers.  

 

Another thing to consider for the sake of proficiency, is if you are going to be using a G1000 system.  The page/menu system of the G1000 is based on that of the GNS, so staying proficient with the GNS might make any transition to G1000 easier.

 

As you say, each one has pros and cons, it just depends on which style of operation and display you like.  I find it depends on the airplane and the type of flying involved for which one is preferable.  For training/currency stuff, I want things less automated, I want to do more of the work, for the sake of practice.  If I am transporting loved ones, actual A-B flying, I welcome all the automation and GTN/G1000 extra goodies.

 

Anyway, its all good, I guess we are lucky to even have realistic Garmin units of any sorts in FSX.  I am with you, tho, any FS release that uses the default GPS must have either an RXP or GTN option.  The ability to alter a flight plan midflight is critical, along with realistic OBS function.  

 

BTW finally got back into painting lol.  I had some Legacy and T Duke paints I did before I got pulled away from FS for a while, I'll get them uploaded soon, right now I'm working on a Connie paint.

 

Cheers

TJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some times I kind of like the older units just because of the extra work required....especially in slower planes where you have the extra time anyway.  

 

If you are shooting for ultra 'realism', lets face it, in real life, the average rental Cessna or Piper that is 40-50 years old, will not have a brand new GTN.  Think about it, no aircraft owner who owns a $30K Cherokee will spring for a $25K GTN system, especially if they already have a GNS or KING system that already has most of the GTN fuctions (the important ones at least).  If the Cherokee or 172 it even has a GPS, it will likely be an older unit like a KLN or GNS of some sorts.

 

So for that reason, its good to keep the GNS around in a Cherokee or 172, just for the sake of proficiency.  

 

But use whatever works best for you.

 

Cheers

TJ

I, personally, think the Slow & Low where you do not have all those Fancy Shemcy Gauges, there is less "Spare time" cuz you dealing with actual flying where on the Heavier ones you "Engaging" & letting all the Gauges taking over, giving you the time to fool with all those LCD Screen ...

... the GA AC fleet in the US is aging, we do not build AC anymore the numbers are staggering something like 27,000 in 1977 and about 1,700 2014, & Gauges are becoming in away more affordable, so you do see more and more 40 50 & even 60 years old AC which are going through Face Lifting and more and more "Plastic Surgeon" getting into this business

 

Cheers

..have a G530 on a C172SP 2002 but hardly use it.

 

In the Sims world I use the G500 manly as a per of eyes to cover the luck of peripheral vision, give me a sense f orientation too   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a slow plane like 172 you have time to think about things you should be thinking about...where you are, what your fuel burn is, how far is my TOD, ETA to next waypoint...etc..while flying the plane and being aware of whats going on.  That's why they are trainers, you are supposed to develop those senses and practice aviation 'math' in your head in those kinds of planes.  At 120kts(2 nm/min), you have plenty of time to figure ETA, VNAV...etc in your head.   In a P-51 or Turbo Legacy, Turbine Duke..etc you are cruising around 300kits (5nm/min), you have much less time to calculate those things, thus the GTN/GNS/AP make life a little easier.  That being said, weather conditions might favor turning off the AP, so you should be able to fly Legacy/P-51...etc Instrument Approach by hand in IMC no problem.   

 

I think a lot of casual simmers get the idea that the Autopilot is there so pilot can read the paper, and watch youtube videos...etc.  Maybe in a 777 on a long cruise...but in those planes you also have an extra crew member or two.  Many think the AP will save your life from unusual attitudes.  It wont, that's your job.  Most APs have limited tolerances, and are useless during certain conditions and pitch attitudes.  AP is like cruise control in your car, it's there to assist you and give you some relief, but it won't take over, nor will it save you from you not paying attention to changing road conditions.  In fact turbulent weather, icing conditions are all reasons to turn OFF the AP.  You need your hands on the controls, so you can 'feel' whats going on out there.

 

If you are flying solo, or flying with companions who are not pilots, your 'brain' needs to be in the plane 100% of the time, regardless of AP/GPS capabilities.  

 

You may have noticed this too, if you fly something like a Connie using the Sperry AP, where you have to manually set the pitch attitudes for holding, adjust headings to follow track and manually adjust for wind.  You are more aware of what is going on in the plane and can handle an emergency much more smoothly.  If you are reading the paper while the AP is locked to a magenta line, your brain isn't in the game as much, so when an emergency happens, it takes you longer to react.   

 

Aviation psychology is an interesting subject, especially in regards to technology.  Like any tool, if the technology is used properly and responsibly it is great, if it is used improperly and irresponsibly, it causes problems.  In the end tho, its not the fault of the technology.   The smart phone is great, but how many do you see people buried in their phones, unaware of things happening beside them.  It's not the fault of the smartphone, but fault of the user for loosing control and having the phone control them.  As pilots, you always have to be the one in charge and have ultimate say how the technology is used in an airplane.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

 

The biggest benefit I find from the GTN over the GNS is that the GTN has a full airway database installed which in and of itself greatly speeds flight plan entry for IFR flights... Select your entry point and exit point for "J75" and the GTN automatically adds all the checkpoints in between... The GNS you have to add every point by tedious point on a much more cumbersome interface...

 

Regards,
Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the airway feature is awesome, thats why the crossfill would be nice,  but not that big of deal because flight plan entry is so fast.  Lol I've noticed in the Connie, with its 3000nm some odd range, I am actually filling out long flight plans in the GTN, it is really useful there.  With Cherokees, 182s...you never really fly far enough or high enough to plug in the long jet routes.

 

Tho I think with the old GNS (and old KLNs) system, you aren't supposed to enter every single intersection from your flight plan.  You just have to put in the points that have a change in direction.  Remember, the GPS just tells your CDI/HSI what direction to go, so there is no need for all the intersections along the route.  You can save a lot of time by just entering the departure point, destination, then either a DP or the first few waypoints listed on the flight plan (usually just the VOR waypoints and INTs that have heading changes), then enter the rest enroute.  Then if ATC requests you report crossing a waypoint, you can just enter that in at the time while enroute.

 

IPADS and Tablets these days have all kinds of flight planning apps available too.  In fact Garmin has an app that turns your tablet/smart phone essentially into a GTN (minus the com/nav radio part).  I wouldn't recommend it for flight sim because they charge real aviation prices for it lol.  I've seen a lot of pilots simply use a setup like that, they use the IPAD for their 'moving map', flight plan info, or airport info stuff while keeping their GNS, KLN or whatever set to course guidance.

 

CHeers

TJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this