shameless plug - I also know where there's a good deal on a= gmx200 if you are ready to upgrade your mx20. send me a p-email.

Colyn

On Sep 9, 2013, at 7:5= 4 AM, George Wehrung wrote:

I would be interested in this too. = My main problem is that our interior is not finished yet so I don't have su= n shades or visors. The other part of my problem is that I am still u= sing ForeFlight on my first generation iPad. I have heard that the ne= wer generation iPads have a much brighter display.

I wou= ld also be curious to know if anyone is using ForeFlight on the iPad mini? =

In our situation, I like using the MX-20 (r= eceiving data from a GNS430W) for real-time navigation, terrain, traffic av= oidance, and airspace positioning. I am predisposed to using my iPad = for flight planning, filing flight plans (when wifi connected), enroute cha= rts, approach plates, and taxi diagrams (parking close to the FBO/Restauran= t).

So, I guess for me, I am looking at the = mini or at least a newer version of the iPad as I know the processor is sta= rting to bog down because the apps such as ForeFlight are utilizing so much= more data.

George

On Sep 9, 2013, at 4:13 AM, "William A. Hogarty" <billhogarty@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm enjoying this discussion... Learn= ing a lot. But I haven't learned the trick to
using = my Ipad 1. Cant see the display in the cockpit because of sunlight.&n= bsp; Installed
a glareshield on the Ipad. Still cant read t= he display in the daylight.

Obviously, I'm missing something pretty basic. = Can anyone help me out?

Thanks, Bill Hogarty

On Fr= i, Sep 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Paul Miller <pjdmiller@gmail.com> wrote:

I lead nobody astray. But I suspect y= ou might be optimistic about the reality of the label of "certified" in day= to day use. It's no solution to potential failure. Having electronic= s subjected to a battery of lightning and water tests has no bearing on whe= ther they will or will not fail. They still fail. And they fail witho= ut being subjected to lightning and water too. Many Garmins go back = to the shop for chips, buttons, screens, knobs, memory and other failures. = You can't send one back unless you shell out more than three iPads! &= nbsp; How economical is that especially when you look at the cost of derivi= ng that model and delivering it to the panel?

Almost every high-cost piece of certified equipment I've owned has failed o= r required expensive factory repairs or an expensive warranty to backstop p= otential repairs. There aren't many certified manufacturers that give you a= warranty much past the burn in period are there? Certified boxes fa= il and sometimes they aren't even in sunlight when they fail. Chelton= s fail, Avidynes fail, Garmins fail. They all fail. You are mak= ing a silly argument suggesting iPad can't be used in sunlight. In th= e same extreme sunlight, I will get my face, arm and lips burned. It = is simply a matter of keeping temps down in a reasonable range and out of d= irect sunlight and that goes for this pilot too. Suggesting an iPad = "predictably fails" is no different than any other device that exceeds the = operating specs. But suggesting they aren't for use in the cockpit is reall= y over the top Colyn. Probably hundreds of thousands are in use ever= y day in sunlight and they continue to provide the airlines and this pilot = much more information at a small fraction of the cost of the "certifi= ed" devices. And, they are better. Having a second in the bag = is an affordable and easy backup.

These boxes and iPads both have a place. One costs an incredible amou= nt and can't be updated easily and the other comes off the shelf, is inexpe= nsive to own and duplicate and=E2=80=A6is used by the airlines. Go fi= gure. An uncertified iPad providing guidance in a certified jet. &nbs= p;Who would have thought?

If you have stats that show Garmins or any other brand have an economically= better failure rate than consumer electronics like the iPad I'd like to se= e it. I'm betting if you double up on the iPad for an extra $300-$400 your = panel device loses in all categories of reliability and usefulness. = I could be wrong.

Paul

On 2013-09-06, at 5:55 PM, Colyn Case <colyncase@earthlink.net> wrote:

> No that is not an insane comment.
> A Garmin fails because either you exceeded the fairly stringent enviro= nmental specs, or there was a chip that was in a bad corner of the toleranc= e matrix, or something else that is statistically fairly low probability. > An ipad fails reliably because it wasn't designed to sit in the sun. >
> Having two garmins definitely lowers the probability of having both fa= il if they are in their intended environment.
>
> Having two ipads does nothing if they are not in their intended enviro= nment.
>
> You are leading people astray if you are implying that the fact that g= armins fail sometimes makes them no better than an ipad subjected to the sa= me environment.
>
> On Sep 6, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Paul Miller wrote:
>
> Well that's just an insane comment. Might as well say if I disco= nnect the cooling air from two Garmins they will both overheat. So w= hat Colyn?
>
> Paul
> On 2013-09-06, at 8:49 AM, Colyn Case <colyncase@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> kinda.
>> If you put two ipads on your glare shield in the sun, likely both = will behave the same.
>
>
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/= lml/List.html
>
>
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/= lml/List.html

--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/L= ist.html