ASA CX3 flight computer or cellphone app?

[455tt]

If it’s as bad as the simulator it’s still a pile of turd, and I still think an E6B is better.

So by your use of the word "if", are we to assume you've never even tried out a CX3 before?

If not, do you dislike new technology in general, or just electronic flight computers?

[photofly]

It’s not possible for a CX3 to be much different to a CX2. If it was it would be called a QR27, or something. But, it’s called a CX3, being an upgrade to the turd-like CX2.The simulator proves the point. They’re both a pile of steaming turd compared to an E6B.

For the third time in this thread, I will sing the praises of using an iPad for all sorts of things both as a student pilot and in “real” flying. Clearly, I am not anti-technology. I long for the day that NavCanada ceases to publish paper charts and everyone is forced to to use a tablet. And there I will be, as I do today, with a tablet by my side as I fly. And next to the tablet will be ... an E6B.

[praveen4143]

It’s not possible for a CX3 to be much different to a CX2. If it was it would be called a QR27, or something. But, it’s called a CX3, being an upgrade to the turd-like CX2.The simulator proves the point. They’re both a pile of steaming turd compared to an E6B.

Oh come on, photofly. I have come to expect higher standards of arguments from you!! Are you saying that the iPad from this year or the previous generation is not better than the OG iPad? Try using an OG iPad today and it will screech to a halt moments after you click on the Foreflight or FltPlan app and freeze up on you.

I agree with you that the simulator is buggy but the real thing is much more fluid. Getting the numbers figured out for a cross country leg on the CX-3 took less than half the time it would have taken on a CX-2 when I tried it out about a week ago on a student's device. If I had done the same calculations on the E-6B, I would have taken a few seconds longer than on the CX-3 and I used to swear by the E-6B until I first came upon the CX-3.

[photofly]

Oh come on, photofly. I have come to expect higher standards of arguments from you!! Are you saying that the iPad from this year or the previous generation is not better than the OG iPad?

The iPad is really irrelevant to whether an E6B is better than a CX3. I mentioned the iPad only to make it clear that I have no bias against advanced technological solutions.

I'm happy to use a regular pocket calculator for flight planning (time, speed and distance). Why? Because you have to think, when you use a regular calculator, which number to divide (or multiply) by which number. If you type into fields marked "distance", "groundspeed" and/or "time" then it removes the mental exercise of understanding the calculation that's being performed. But an E6B is just as good.

Another example: indicated vs true airspeed: when you set the dial correctly for density altitude on the E6B you have in front of you a device that can instantly convert any TAS you like. No need to type in more digits. Want to know what 100KIAS is? Look at the dial. 105KIAS? Look at the dial. Want to know what IAS you need to make 110TAS? Look at the dial. It's all in front of you.

Monitoring your cross country progress: once the dial is set to match your ground speed, nothing more to do. Just reference distance to next checkpoint, and the time is right there in front of you. No hands needed to type in data. Change of groundspeed? Thumb and forefinger adjusts the dial. Turn the dial to the left, that means your ground speed is decreasing. Turn it to the right - increasing. Turn it a little - small change in groundspeed. Turn it a lot - big change in groundspeed. It's visceral and immediate.

Another example: wind triangles: type in data into a device is a poor substitute for the diagram that you get on the back of an E6B, that let's you *see* the crosswind affecting your ground track.

Flying isn't about digital data; it's an inherently analogue activity. There's a basic disconnect between typing numbers in, and going somewhere in an airplane. The E6B doesn't have that problem. It's an analogue device.

[digits_]

I have a lot respect for the E6B, it is a beautiful piece of equipment. But I've never really used it other than for a few pre flight prep exercises, groundschool and the mandatory flight tests. Once I got the license, I've never used it anymore. And that was in airplanes without a GPS.

If you are mainly buying one for the flight test, a digital one would be recommended, as you don't need the analogue advantage described above.

When preparing actual flights as a PPL student and pilot, I found it much easier to place 1 or 2 minute tick marks on my route on my map, based on the expected groundspeed and winds. Your actual groundspeed doesn't really matter anymore once flying. The only thing you care about is time. You have X amount of time in your tanks, so figure out where you can go.

Then while flying you keep track. After 2 minutes I should be here, but it took me 2 minutes and 10 seconds, so for every tick mark I'm 10 seconds behind. Wether that's because of wind direction change, wind speed change or airplane performance: you don't really care.

It works really well, you don't need to be spinning dials while flying, and you focus more on the map vs on the E6B.

But whatever works for you of course!

[imcool]

thank you so much for providing answers with such a depth of knowledge. You all are amazing.

[ahramin]

I love my E6B but I also really like the CX3. I'd much prefer an app equal in useability to the CX3 but all the apps I have seen are limited and clunky.

One thing to keep in mind though is ASA's track record on quality. I've got two CX2s here that have seen very little use and both are dead. I've heard similar stories from other CX2 owners. A CX3 is $150 and might not last the couple years it takes to get your licences. An E6B is $37 and will last a few hundred years at least.

[Flightgame]

No offence to anyone. But I personally feel that CX-3 really rocks. The batteries don't die out suddenly. There is always an indication. And cold doesn't affect it much. Have been flying with it in prairie winters. Having a CX-3 is a huge advantage during TC exams. Even helps to quickly recollect standard temperatures, Hpa values for altitudes etc etc when you have a brain fart.

I am a big fan

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I'm at the point in my training where I'm beginning the cross country preparations and I'll be teaching myself to do it with both. I'll report back.

So far I'm finding the CX3 is great for multiple legs, and it's pretty amazing with its weight & balance calculations. One function I've found lacking on the CX3 is drift correction - it has no native function for that. You can use the wind correction function with some mental gymnastics, but it's not intuitive; the E6-B on the other hand can do this in a matter of seconds (it's not altogether accurate at it, but that's a subject for another thread).

Most of the arguments against it fall flat I find. Batteries dying? Come on, carry spares (okay, changing them midflight is a hassle). Leaking batteries? Come on, when was the last time your headset batteries leaked? One handed operation? Come on... I can operate a pocket calculator and a CX3 with one hand just fine. Spilling coffee? I hope you're not relying on an iPad if you're making that argument (besides, any coffee mug I take in an aircraft, or a car, is spillproof ).

It does require less fiddling - spin a dial once, and you're set. But on the other hand, my eyes are 40 years old now, and that's some awfully fine print to read on the E6-B. The CX3 is far easier to read. But while the CX3 sucks for drift corrections, the E6-B can't do weight and balance calculations. They both have strengths and weaknesses.

This debate reminds me of the handheld GPS vs map&compass debate with backcountry travel. Sure, I carry a handheld GPS unit. But I damned sure know how to use a map&compass - and there's some things I can do with a map&compass that will take much longer to do with a GPS unit. But then again, a map&compass don't have a Big Red Button that calls the cavalry, and can't give me a weather forecast. Both have their individual strengths and weaknesses.

My advice is this - use both. Time permitting, use both of them to calculate the answers to every question that needs them. If they agree, you can be reasonably certain you have the correct answer. If they disagree, you definitely did something wrong somewhere.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I've written a few practice exams now and it really depends on the format of the questions. I'll say this though - once you grok the E6-B, you grok it. It's fast and simple and accurate enough.

I do find reading an E6-B to be a bit difficult - if I'm wearing contacts, I need reading glasses, and if I'm wearing glasses, they're down on the soft part of my nose as I peer over them to read the E6-B (I am nearsighted with otherwise healthy eyes). This likely doesn't apply to most students. and I also use one of the smaller pocket-sized E6-B's.

Exam questions are phrased well enough that you can be off by 10% or so, which is important with a slide rule (and an E6-B is a circular slide rule), and you don't need the accuracy of a CX3.

But one thing a CX3 can do, once you grok it, is the weight and balance calculations. Way above and beyond what you can do in your head and with scrap paper, and beyond even the realm of possibility for an E6-B.

The CX3 can also do multiple legs - which isn't actually that important; for your flight test, you'll just need to make it to a set heading point and prove you can calculate drift and airspeed (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this). So while storing multiple legs is great, you don't need it for training, at least not PPL training - and after that, you have GPS.

Bottom line so far? If you've got the budget (and I assume you do, if you're in flight training), drop the $150 or so on the CX3. It's a great way to double check your results while you're figuring out the E6-B. But once you've got the E6-B figured out, you'll use the CX3 less and less, weight and balance notwithstanding.

[gooseinbc]

I did my training in the last 5 years and completed my last ATPL exam end of 2019.

I never bothered buying the CX-3 simply because I am cheap. I used my buddies a few times and yeah they are great. Really if you have the CX-3 you can probably afford a paper e6b as backup anyways. Its silly to argue that having a CX-3 would not make life easier at some point during training.

However I’m no wizard, and using just the E6B was totally fine through all of the exams. As previous posters have mentioned, many questions on the exams can be solved on a simple calculator if you remember your rules of thumb to double check your answers.

If you have the cash and want a cool toy you can bring into your exams get a CX-3. I like to think I was happier using that 300$ or whatever those things cost as beer money.

Typically when solving something in the airplane (no-FMS) at work now, for me rules of thumb come first and then on to the calculator to double more important things.

My calculator of choice now that TC exam people don’t have a say in what I use is an E6B app on my iphone (blue icon with paper plane). I think it was a couple of bucks. Its great for checking TAS, estimating wind, and doing fuel/weight conversion, and one less thing to carry around. Highly recommend.

[co-joe]

Use whatever gets you through the TC exams, you will never use it again after that. I have a CX something buried in a drawer somewhere, a CR computer which you needed for RAT rise and Mach # calculations for the ATPL exams back then, and I think I threw out or gave away the E6B whiz wheel which I only ever used for the PPL.

[Beefitarian]

Question through the chair for photofly.

What’s the best E-6b app?