Garmin 396 -- Maybe I spoke too soon...

Maule Driver wrote:

However, I think the price comparison is closer to $2500 handheld and
say $12,000 panel mount.

You need to add an extra US$5,000 plus installation in your panel mount
cost for a certified WSI or XM satellite weather downlink receiver.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Jay Honeck wrote:

- The 396 does weather better than the 430/530.

The 430/530 does *not* do weather at all without an additional $5,000
receiver.

That fact pointed out, I agree with Tom that the 430/530 are certified for
IFR flight. To counter your points about the number of pilots who fly
hard IFR with a 430/530 or a B/K certified GPS, I could name about
twenty-five including myself who do so at my home airport.

You are probably going to need a bigger sample size before I could accept
your low percentage figures.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Jay,

Sorry, I don't buy any of that.

- Sales of the 396 have virtually shut down Garmin's sales of 430s and 530s.
It is simply superior to their in-panel stuff, and far less expensive.

It's not certified, period. And that's a big deal!


- The 396 has virtually stopped sales of other aviation GPS makes.

In their dreams! Why would it? It is more capable than the others, but also WAY
more expensive.

- The 396's weather depiction and ease of use far exceed anything currently
available in corporate or airline service -- and costs tens of thousands
less -- so those guys are lining up to buy them, too.

See point one. I don't buy it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
- The 396 has virtually stopped sales of other aviation GPS makes.

In their dreams! Why would it? It is more capable than the others, but
also WAY more expensive.

LOL!

In one post, you argue for buying ANR, because to do otherwise is "going
back to the stone age". But in this thread, you argue that not everyone
needs to spend more money just to get the latest and most capable
technology.

Well, at least ONE of your personalities seems to have a clue. That's a
start...

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
[snip]
Well, at least ONE of your personalities seems to have a clue. That's a
start...


heheheh


Montblack

Peter,

In one post, you argue for buying ANR, because to do otherwise is "going
back to the stone age". But in this thread, you argue that not everyone
needs to spend more money just to get the latest and most capable
technology.


I fail to see your point, should you have tried making one.

And I fail to see the reason to get nasty at me. But if it helps your
personality...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
I fail to see your point, should you have tried making one.

No surprise there.

And I fail to see the reason to get nasty at me.

"Nasty"? You need to get out more.

It was so uncalled for nasty that I almost got whiplash. At least one
of these personalities needs a clue.

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

I fail to see your point, should you have tried making one.


No surprise there.


And I fail to see the reason to get nasty at me.


"Nasty"? You need to get out more.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Garmin truly has a winner here, but it's not quite a grand slam. It will be
when they (a) set up the unit in "portrait" mode (which is far more useful
than a "landscape" view for aviation), and (b) when they enlarge that stupid
dinky screen!

I have a 295 which has a slightly smaller screen with the same landscape
orientation. Before that I had a 195, which is portrait. When I first
got the 295, the landscape mode really bugged me. But after I got the
map screen set up the way I wanted, my map was square, so it didn't
matter. The same was true on my 195. Once you add the fields for
waypoint distance/eta, altitude, airspeed, course and track, both
orientations ended up with a square map. Given that, I find the
landscape mode easier to use; i.e. it's easier to look from the map to
the right than it is to look from the map to the top or bottom of the
screen. At least it is for me.

As for the screen size, I don't think I'll be truly happy until I get
get a 15" MFD on my panel, so while I won't argue with you that the
screen size needs to be bigger, I also realize that no handheld will be
big enough for my desire. In spite of that, my 295 screen (1.8 x 3.3
(compared to 2.1 x 3.2 on the 396)) is easy to read and I don't have any
trouble using it even in hardball IFR.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"For crying out loud, Patrick -- sit down... And enough with the
`give me the potatoes or give me death' nonsense."
-- The Far Side, Gary Larson