XM question for Garmin 396/496 owers

"Mike" wrote in message
news:EQWsk.782$5C.657@trnddc02...
"Shirl" wrote in message
...
Jay, thank you for taking the time to write such a thorough answer to my
question. I hadn't seen your previous review of the 496. I haven't done
the kind of long/far x-c flying that requires having weather on board,
so I haven't had the weather-related needs from the GPS. I've heard the
complaint about the small screen and also about seeing the color screen
in the sun, but I haven't experienced problems in either of those areas.
A friend showed me the Lowrance, and I have to agree, the size of that
screen is terrific; but in a small, tandem-seat cockpit, there isn't as
much room, either...the Garmin fits perfectly. I'm not sure where I
could put the Lowrance and have it be as out of the way yet readily
visible. I'd love to try the Lowrance or AvMap one day, though.

What you should understand is that Jay's opinion regarding the 496 is very
much in the minority. Everyone else I've heard of would never consider
going from a Garmin product to any of the others he mentioned. The
interface to the 496 is far more intuitive than any of the others he
mentioned, and as you've already noted, screen size (which is his biggest
complaint) is a non-issue. The scrolling issue is also not a problem for
those who are more concerned with flying the airplane than screwing with a
GPS. Set the thing up and forget about it. Use the nearest function if
you need METAR updates.

mucho snippage

I'm with Jay in preferring Lowrance products over Garmin, primarily because
of the screen aspect ratio. Unfortunately, Lowrance seems to be quitely
abandoning the Aviation GPS market. They are not *telling* anyone they have
stopped developing new products (particularly one with XM), but their
absence in the market with new products is telling.

That said, I prefer the Lowrance 600C over the 2000C. The 2KC is just too
darned big for my cockpit. Now if I was in a big 'ol load hauling airplane,
I'd probably have space, but I'm in an RV where space is limited and there
are no yokes.

KB

"Mike" :
What you should understand is that Jay's opinion regarding the
496 is very much in the minority. Everyone else I've heard of
would never consider going from a Garmin product to any of
the others he mentioned.

I am open to TRYING another, but the reason I asked Jay what
specifically he felt makes the Garmin "laughable" is because in 3 years
of use, I've never had ONE complaint with mine...though as I've said, I
don't use it for weather.

The scrolling issue is also not a problem for those who are more
concerned with flying the airplane than screwing with a GPS. Set
the thing up and forget about it.

That's pretty much how I use it...set it up before taking off. I look at
it frequently, but only change it if I need to divert (not often).

Like the other poster said, with no yoke and a tandem-seat cockpit,
there isn't a lot of room. Though a bigger screen is a nice feature, the
Garmin fits perfectly in the limited space, and the size of its screen
has never been an issue with me. I've heard people say the screen is too
small, and that the color in the sun was an issue, but that hasn't been
my experience. It has my vote, 100%.

The scrolling issue is also not a problem for those who are more
concerned with flying the airplane than screwing with a GPS. Set
the thing up and forget about it.

That's pretty much how I use it...set it up before taking off. I look at
it frequently, but only change it if I need to divert (not often).

Which Garmin GPS do you have, Shirl?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Quit whining and learn how to use the thing! You have had it three years
now and still haven't learned the following:

1) Press the NRST button
2) Bump the rocker switch on tab to the right (WX)
3) Scroll down the list of closest airports and select any with the
flag indicating there is a METAR.

That's a great feature to use when you're in familiar territory. On a long
cross-country flight, however, it's pretty much useless, since "nearest"
might (and probably will) bring up an airport that's no where near your
course line. Hell, it might even be behind you, which doesn't do you a
tinker's damn worth of good when you're flying toward deteriorating
conditions.

Face it -- it's a stupid box, with a stupidly slow processor. The 496
COULD be awesome, but Garmin hasn't done a thing to improve it in several
years -- nor will they, until some other manufacturer forces their hand.

Mark my words -- as soon as AvMap (or ANYONE) comes out with a GPS with
integrated weather, the new Garmin 596 (or whatever they call it) will
address every one of the issues we're discussing.

Until then, why spend the money on R&D? As a stockholder, Garmin's approach
makes perfect sense. As a user, it sucks.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
Which Garmin GPS do you have, Shirl?

I have the old 296. It does everything I need it to, but I admit, I
seldom do long x-cs to unknown places. A friend I used to fly with
frequently has a 396 -- I saw how the weather works. To be honest, he's
never had any complaints with his either -- he uses it as a back-up to
an old, panel-mounted GPS and relied on the 396 and its weather on
several flights to and from AZ to Little Rock, AR (in a Bonanza F33A),
said it was great.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:OQ4tk.260588$TT4.229677@attbi_s22:

Quit whining and learn how to use the thing! You have had it three
years now and still haven't learned the following:

1) Press the NRST button
2) Bump the rocker switch on tab to the right (WX)
3) Scroll down the list of closest airports and select any with the
flag indicating there is a METAR.

That's a great feature to use when you're in familiar territory. On a
long cross-country flight, however, it's pretty much useless, since
"nearest" might (and probably will) bring up an airport that's no
where near your course line. Hell, it might even be behind you, which
doesn't do you a tinker's damn worth of good when you're flying toward
deteriorating conditions.

Face it -- it's a stupid box, with a stupidly slow processor. The
496 COULD be awesome, but Garmin hasn't done a thing to improve it in
several years -- nor will they, until some other manufacturer forces
their hand.

Mark my words -- as soon as AvMap (or ANYONE) comes out with a GPS
with integrated weather, the new Garmin 596 (or whatever they call it)
will address every one of the issues we're discussing.

Until then, why spend the money on R&D? As a stockholder, Garmin's
approach makes perfect sense. As a user, it sucks.


You're an idiot.

Bertie

In article OQ4tk.260588$TT4.229677@attbi_s22,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

That's a great feature to use when you're in familiar territory. On a long
cross-country flight, however, it's pretty much useless, since "nearest"
might (and probably will) bring up an airport that's no where near your
course line. Hell, it might even be behind you, which doesn't do you a
tinker's damn worth of good when you're flying toward deteriorating
conditions.

Have you even looked at the NRST page? The very first tab gives you
airport, heading and range from your present position. Take your pick.

Look at your sectional (you do carry and use a current sectional don't
you?), look at the 496 NAV page with weather overlay, look at the NRST
page and select your airports and METARs. No scrolling is necessary.
Zooming out gives you the big weather picture along your route of
flight.

Why do you insist on making it so difficult?

Mark my words -- as soon as AvMap (or ANYONE) comes out with a GPS with
integrated weather, the new Garmin 596 (or whatever they call it) will
address every one of the issues we're discussing.

And tell us again how many years "the others" have been promising that
XM WX was imminent?

Which Garmin GPS do you have, Shirl?

I have the old 296. It does everything I need it to, but I admit, I
seldom do long x-cs to unknown places. A friend I used to fly with
frequently has a 396 -- I saw how the weather works. To be honest, he's
never had any complaints with his either -- he uses it as a back-up to
an old, panel-mounted GPS and relied on the 396 and its weather on
several flights to and from AZ to Little Rock, AR (in a Bonanza F33A),
said it was great.

And it is. There is simply NO substitute for on-board weather on a long
flight, which is why I bought the danged thing in the first place. It's a
fantastic enhancement to safety, and makes long cross-country flights much
more doable and relaxing.

We're talking about matters of degree here. Is the 496 a perfectly
functional GPS? Sure. Does it work as a weather avoidance tool? You bet.
What I'm complaining about is the fact that for three THOUSAND dollars, I
purchased a tool that requires "work-arounds" to make the thing usable. To
put that in perspective, I could purchase SEVEN laptops (like the one I'm
typing on) for the same price.

For that kind of money, I don't want to screw around with "work-arounds". I
want a tool that works the way it should -- and could -- right out of the
box. I've already outlined the things the 496 does right, and they are
legion. However, my advice (FWIW): If you want weather and haven't bitten
the bullet yet, wait for the next generation of weather-integrated GPSs.
As with all things computerized, they'll be faster, better, and (maybe)
cheaper.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:Byctk.261087$TT4.35918@attbi_s22:

Which Garmin GPS do you have, Shirl?

I have the old 296. It does everything I need it to, but I admit, I
seldom do long x-cs to unknown places. A friend I used to fly with
frequently has a 396 -- I saw how the weather works. To be honest,
he's never had any complaints with his either -- he uses it as a
back-up to an old, panel-mounted GPS and relied on the 396 and its
weather on several flights to and from AZ to Little Rock, AR (in a
Bonanza F33A), said it was great.

And it is. There is simply NO substitute for on-board weather on a
long flight, which is why I bought the danged thing in the first
place. It's a fantastic enhancement to safety, and makes long
cross-country flights much more doable and relaxing.


Ever heard of Flight service, fjukkwit?


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:Byctk.261087$TT4.35918@attbi_s22:

Which Garmin GPS do you have, Shirl?

I have the old 296. It does everything I need it to, but I admit, I
seldom do long x-cs to unknown places. A friend I used to fly with
frequently has a 396 -- I saw how the weather works. To be honest,
he's never had any complaints with his either -- he uses it as a
back-up to an old, panel-mounted GPS and relied on the 396 and its
weather on several flights to and from AZ to Little Rock, AR (in a
Bonanza F33A), said it was great.

And it is. There is simply NO substitute for on-board weather on a
long flight, which is why I bought the danged thing in the first
place. It's a fantastic enhancement to safety, and makes long
cross-country flights much more doable and relaxing.


Ever heard of Flight service, fjukkwit?

ATC can provide weather information as well, and now that the centers have
NEXRAD overlays, that information is even better.