New Garmin Portables

[GAHorn]

I'm considering upgrading my Garmin GPS-196 to either a 495 or the new Aera500.
I don't intend to ever subscribe to XM weather because I don't fly in wx that nasty unless I've already fully briefed myself (at which time I've usually decided I'm going anyway and don't want to be dissuaded.)
More seriously, I'm too cheap to subsribe to XM weather and don't think I'd fly often enough in nasty wx to warrant the expenditure.....I do enough of that at work to bother with it at play.

Anyways.... since XM is not my preference, I thought I'd consider the terrain/obstacle features they both have to be a nice thing. Then I noticed that a 495 is $1400 but has taxi charts (figure I already know how to taxi) and a Aera500 is $900 and has airways, ifr mapping, and touch-screen (slightly larger screen).

Bruce, I know you are familiar with the 495. Have you thought about it's virtues versus the Aera series? Anyone got any inputs?

I'll tell you, the more I look at this ...the more I appreciate what a great value the 196 is!!!

[canav8]

George, both are very nice units. The older I get the bigger the screen needs to be. Seriously though, the only problem I see with touch screen technology and Aera specific is when your in turbulence. I found that my fingers are to fat and often had difficulty inputing the correct info the first time. Both are extremely nice. The Taxi info is limited to only large airports though. Not really a big deal for what you use your plane for really. It is aweful nice when you land unfamiliar at a big airport when the tower is more interested in your plane then giving you directions...LOL V/R Doug

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Our company just bought one of the new Garmins for our other base. I've not had my hands on it to compare it to the 496. If it works as well as my Nuvi on which it is based I'm sure it will be a good product. But I can not say if the new 500 series has any short comings when compared to the 496. BTW the 496 is really old technology in computer years compared to the new 500 series and that in itself might be a reason to go with the new product.

But first George I've got to tell you I would NEVER buy one of these without XM capability. I certainly understand your thinking and if I hadn't experienced flying with the XM weather I'd likely agree. But I have flown and do fly with it VFR and I have to tell you once you do you will not go back.

I'm not talking using it to penetrate WX. I'm talking about using it to avoid WX once you (and I) have made the decision to go. So far I credit arriving at two conventions and returning home SAFELY with an extra margin because I could see what was happening with weather fronts and watch storms and their track and either go around or get on the ground before they got to me. To be honest George once you experience the extra information you have available to make that pleasure flight just that much more pleasurable, or even doable, you might think as I have that having WX info in you cockpit is nearly as big an improvement as GPS itself was to aviation.

Yes the XM weather is an additional expense that you think you will rarely use. When I buy my receiver I will either only get a subscription for the months I'm likely to use it, like the summer, or will justify it because it will be my primary GPS for my car, my motorcycle and my airplane. And while I'm using those things I might enjoy not only having the WX but also the XM radio stations that come with it.

Bottom line George, I think it short sited to buy one of these without XM capability. You may keep it for ever and not be concerned with resale but compared to a unit with XM it will be worthless. And you may not think you want XM now but you might in a few months and you won't have it. OK I guess you could then just buy the newest one GPS on the block.

[Kyle Wolfe]

I've read some of the info on the AOPA blogs about the new Garmins, but I too would like to hear from our 170 users.

I'm a 196 user and like George think it's a good unit. But with Becky and I both flying at times I find that what I want to see isn't always what she wants to see!

I'm debating between the 510 and the 560. I'll buy the unit that has Wx, but not sure if the processor difference and terrain visuals are worth the extra $700. Anyone seen both and compared them side-to-side to see the difference?

Also, I really have not heard how well they work with gloves (it's MN - duh!). Do you have to remove a glove to make the touch screen work?

[azmuth1]

I trained with a 396 that had all the weather. Was it used?...no. When it was raining out, the XM indicated it was raining . Yes, if I was doing major X-county for an extended time, I would probably get the 396 or 496...but I'm not doing that type of flying. I fly VFR in my 170 and I don't fly at night; some people think I can't see colors.

After long debate and discussion with other aviators, I did purchase a 495...this is a 496 without XM. Weather briefing is always used on my 100 to 200 mile trips. If weather is a factor, routes are changed. Two years ago, my kids went in together and bought me the automobile program for the 495. Now, when I trip off somewhere, I can use the 495 on the ground.

I do like having the airport info option. Seams like anything about the airport you want to know is there.

A $420 yr subscription fee is pretty steep for something I may use a couple flights a year. If I knew a month to month $35 subscription fee was available for the XM, that would have changed my mind...I would have went with the 496 and XM. At the time I bought this one, there was a $700 difference .

Of course, now, the 495 and 496 are past their prime and are being reduced in price. As you know, touch screens are being marketed. They are bad-mouthing the toggle switch as a sales pitch. I haven't had a chance to use the touch screen to compare. All in all, I like my choice for my type of flying.

Just another view.
J. Edmund Taylor

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Again I have not actually had our 510 in my hands. but I do have a Nuvi from which it is based. i use the Nuvi on my motorcyle and it does work with gloves, but of course bare hands are more precise. I'd expect the 500 series to work as well as far as the touch part goes.

As far as the rocker verses the touch screen it is not so much the different device but the software behind the device. If the software behind the touch screen is cumbersome compared to the rocker I'll take the rocker.

Certainly XM weather is not needed for the afternoon fun flight. You probably don't need a GPS at all for that. But I plan to attend several fly-ins a year which are several days. They are a lot of fun and I look forward to them. If I can't make it not only might I be out money for the hotel if I get stuck or part way there I might be paying twice for the hotel and not having any fun at all.

Or I might be sitting around my house pouting because leaving without the added WX information is not worth the risk of getting stuck or turning around after I hit the weather I could have seen on the GPS. It is a another tool in the tool box to do what we like to do safely and successfully. It is not the end all and should not be relied upon without the appropriate alternate options.

Heck I wish my Nuvi had XM weather so I could ride my cycle and monitor the afternoon thundershowers and know just when to duck for cover.

I know George plans to fly his plane about the country to conventions and such. We've already heard stories of his exploits. I'll bet he would have welcomed the added information XM weather might have provided on a few of them.

[3958v]

George I amazed that you don't want the XM weather. While I am sure that you are a much more skilled pilot than me, I still can not believe you would not find the XM worth the cost on cross country trips. You can check the weather well ahead and do some of your planning as well in the air. Another benefit is that if you were to forget to check for TFRs they should show up on your GPS if you have XM. While dealing with summer storms its nice to look at the nextrad and see whats ahead and behind those clouds. Its also nice if you decide to go on top its real nice to keep track of the cloud cover ahead and weather the clouds are sct or bkn at your destination. For the $30 per month it seems like a good deal to me when I am doing cross countries and as Bruce says you can suspend coverage during the winter. While I do not think its quite as good I purchased the anywhere map system with a hand held touch screen computer for quite a bit less than a Garman unit and I have not regretted it. If you try XM for a cross country when the weather is not the best you will find it worth its weight in gold and probably never want to fly with out it. Bill K

[Watkinsnv]

Check out this site. The updates are alot cheaper and it offers alot. Hit products look at the Cheetah FL 150. Lance
http://www.aviationsafety.com/flight_cheetahfl190.html

[GAHorn]

I certainly would not want anyone to think of my past experiences as "exploits". Nor would I ever agree that I am a "more skilled pilot" than anyone else. But I appreciate the comments you guys are offering. This is exactly the input that I need to make a final determination of which unit to purchase.
Here's a bit more info on my situation:
I have a friend who will purchase my 196 from me for current value (about $500.) I can apply that towards another GPS and the choices that interest me are the 495/496 (likely soon to be discontinued despite their obvious capabilities) and the newer AERA units, such as the 500 and 510 units. After I sell my 196, I can spend $600 to get a 495 or 510... or I can get a 500 for virtually no money out-of-pocket.
Bruce has convinced me I'll have little need for taxi charts at big airports (I can always print out taxi charts beforehand) and so the remaining consideration is whether to go for terrain and color only for no money out of pocket... or to spend $600 to have the XM/Nexrad capability in addition to terrain/color.
The dilemna I am dealing with is that when widespread dangerous weather exists across my intended route I simply don't intend to fly my little airplane. I don't think having real-time depiction of widespread, dangerous wx would change my mind about that either.
However I can see that scattered TRW's might not be a problem if I had wx depiction, but I'm not sure XM wx is capable of giving real-time displays of TRWs such that one could circumnavigate them. (However I can see some value when flying at night, which I frequently do.)
The fact is that I only make a half-dozen "real important" flights a year in my 170. The rest of them are not especially important and I can either cancel or drive.
Of course, if I buy a 495 or 500 I cannot have the luxury of later changing my mind to get XM wx, while with the 510 I don't have to buy it, but have the capability to do so should I change my mind or have a special need or trip.
Then there's the matter of when I fly contract/professionally. I wonder: Would it be helpful to have XM on those long X-country trips in corporate jets? They already have radar and TCAS and I don't usually find myself looking for updates enroute that I cannot already get thru FSS, etc. In fact, when I consider that last comment... I've got to wonder if I'll EVER need XM wx in my 170, since if the wx is nasty before launch I'm not going anyways....and if it's so questionable that things could change while enroute...I can always call FSS to get updates for the destination anyways...so whats so special about XM wx?
I mean to say, that I can already get this picture while standing in the lobby of the FBO before departure....and if I'm travelling from TX to NC I can tell you I ain't going either with or without XM.

inmSIRUS_.JPG

But if I'm going from TX to Montana there's no need for any wx info other than what I already see while onl the ground, so why should I pay $400/year for what I already know?

[3958v]

George Just think of it like that baggage door and just get it and you will be glad you did. Bill K

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

George I didn't mean anything by the term "exploits" and perhaps that was a bad choice of words. Experience would have been better. The point I was thinking though is while you say you will sit home unless the weather is good, in my opinion some of your descriptions of experiences don't exactly bear that out. I'm not criticizing any of your decisions regardless.

This reminds me of many of my friends who I have given flight reviews. My favorite question is weather requirements for the different classes of airspace specifically class D and E airspace. Their first response is it won't matter because "they only fly when it is clear blue and twenty two". I of course have to point out that the breakfast flight we just return from was not in clear and blue skys.

As far as XM in the corporate world, I know a few guys that have it and find it useful.

As for calling flight service your experience is exactly opposite mine George. In twenty four years of flying I can count on one hand the amount of times I've been able to get a hold of FSS while in the air. Maybe it's because I'm at 1000ft agl. For me FSS in the air is so in effective that it doesn't really enter into my mind as an option.

As for the radar picture you showed. Well, I departed for the last two conventions flying toward exactly that type of weather showing between TX and NC. Yes I could have made several stops along the way to find a fresh NEXRAD picture but I didn't have to and was able to set a course and fly the maximum distance safely and effectively.

To be honest I find it interesting that you George are interested in the terrain obstacle ability of these units. To me, as high as most folks fly airplanes, that is the most useless information there is.

Note: Just to be clear. No comments I've made in this thread were meant to criticize anyone for their decision to fly or not to fly. We all have different experience levels and are comfortable with them. What I do for a living routinely makes a lot of people shutter yet when I think of flying in areas so devoid of people and structures such as the Alaska outback or even what I imagine some areas of Texas or the deserts of Arizonia might be, I wonder what you all are thinking. But it is done every day safely by ordinary pilots, I'm just not one of them)

[lowNslow]

If you have a smart phone you can get everything XM will give you for free.

[GAHorn]

If you have a smart phone you can get everything XM will give you for free.

Will a smart-phone show me weather relative to my present position?

Will XM show me TRWs relative to my heading/position? i.e... is it really going to be useful for navigating thru scattered lines? or is it merely helpful to avoid large areas entirely? (which I feel I can do by looking at a radar pic before takeoff)

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

If you have a smart phone you can get everything XM will give you for free.

Will a smart-phone show me weather relative to my present position?

It might if you have service in the air. Of course don't tell the FCC your doing it.

Will XM show me TRWs relative to my heading/position? i.e...

Yes George the TRWs are shown relative to where you are and their direction and speed is given as well as winds and tops. You can even get lightning strikes and it shows the difference between air to air and air to ground lightning.

.....is it really going to be useful for navigating thru scattered lines? or is it merely helpful to avoid large areas entirely? (which I feel I can do by looking at a radar pic before takeoff)

YES in fact I've used it to fly around or thru much closer than widely scattered TRWs while on the job. ( I usually limit using it to flying around or thru widely scattered TRWs for fun flying. )

Is it better than the picture which was at least 5 minutes old when you saw it 30 to 45 minutes ago that you seen to remember was in a given spot. YES because while not perfect the picture and information is not more than 12 minutes old.

My company thinks enough of it to include XM, at an install cost of several thousand dollars for the GDL69, in every helicopter they have or build for customers. Thats a lot of EMS helicopters. It is installed right next to the on board color weather radar in our new helicopter.
That color radar only gets turned on when we get within 20 miles of TWRs and if given a choice between the two, to a man all four of the pilots at our base would give up the color radar before the XM.

George you have time before this purchase I suggest you find someone with XM weather and check it out.

Look it is not perfect. The LIVE doppler radar feed I use to get when flying a news helicopter was perfect till the weather man zoomed into a street corner while I was threading a needle through TRWs 20 miles from that corner. There is only ONE XM satellite which happens to be over Texas. If your reception is blocked you won't get WX updates and that will be the exact time you decide to use it to thread a needle because it's worked perfectly for the last 50 hours.

I've used XM weather to get to nearly ever multi day fly-in that I've wanted to attend in the last 2 years. I've been very lucky in that I was able to borrow one. But my luck borrowing one will likely run out and so I plan on buying my own GPS with XM before this summer because I think it is that good. And I will be using it in my Cub (yes my Cub), my 170 (if it ever flies again or it's replacement) and my motorcycle.

All I can say is XM weather is for me. Your opinion and results, as always, may vary.

[GAHorn]

VERY helpful comments. Thank you.

I think I'll go for the Aera 510 which has IFR charting, Terrain/Obstacles, XM/Nexrad/radio.
If I don't like the XM I'm not forced to subscribe to it, and the GPS unit will at least have more value in case I later sell it.

Thanks to all. (But don't consider this msg thread closed. Keep up the conversation as it's not yet a done-deal.)