Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:31 AM - Re: ch 640 (steveadams)
2. 05:47 AM - Re: XL Wing Paint Stand (steveadams)
3. 06:04 AM - Re: nylon brake lines - mine broke (steveadams)
4. 07:39 AM - Re: 601XL AL Sheet Thickness changed from .016 to .020 ?? ()
5. 11:33 AM - Re: 601XL AL Sheet Thickness changed from .016 to .020 ?? (Tom and Bren Henderson)
6. 11:46 AM - Re: 601XL AL Sheet Thickness changed from .016 to .020 ?? (Tom and Bren Henderson)
7. 12:41 PM - Re: 601XL AL Sheet Thickness changed from .016 to .020 ?? (Tom and Bren Henderson)
8. 12:59 PM - Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? (John Marzulli)
9. 01:52 PM - Re: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? (Paul Mulwitz)
10. 02:22 PM - Re: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? (Gig Giacona)
11. 02:31 PM - Re: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? (Craig Payne)
12. 02:47 PM - Re: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? (Craig Payne)
13. 03:32 PM - Re: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? (Jean-Paul Roy)
14. 06:28 PM - Re: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? (Paul Moore)
15. 06:55 PM - Re: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? (John Marzulli)
16. 07:43 PM - Re: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? (Edward Moody II)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
I did complete mine a little over a year ago. I wrote some details about it a while
back, so I'll just say I'm happy with it. If you want any more details just
send me a private message.
Steve Adams N621J
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=56043#56043
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL Wing Paint Stand |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
I painted my wings hung vertically (nose down). I clamped the spar to a sawhorse
and hung the other end by the tiedown attached to an engine lift. It may be
a little more difficult to paint vertical surfaces (you'll have to on the fuse
anyway), but you can prep, mask, and paint the whole wing this way without ever
having to move it at all. Also in a less than perfect painting environment,
you'll get less junk settling on your newly painted surfaces. I had 4 colors
on mine, so it would have been a real pain flipping it around that many times.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=56049#56049
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: nylon brake lines - mine broke |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
All of the plastic/nylon/rubber hoses used in the Zodiacs have a finite lifespan.
For the CH640 they recommend new lines every 5 years for fuel and brakes, but
for brake lines exposed to the elements the timeframe may be shorter. The tubing
is cheap and brake lines are relatively easy to replace. It's easy enough
to check by giving them a little bend during the preflight. I'd recommend everyone
make up a list of things on the airplane, (like the brake lines, hoses,
ELT battery, vacuum pump etc), that need to be changed periodically and add those
to your list of things to do during the annual condition inspection. It's
relatively inexpensive and better than waiting for problems to develop in these
critical areas.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=56052#56052
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601XL AL Sheet Thickness changed from .016 to .020 ?? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <dredmoody@cox.net>
Email or call the factory to be certain but my tail and wing skins (complete kit)
have been 6061-T6 .020" bare. I think that my aileron skins (hingless type)
were thinner, probably .016" . I have not started on the fuselage and don't have
access to the fuselage skins at this moment but I assume they will be .020"
like the wings.
Ed Moody II
Rayne, LA
601XL / 2nd wing
---- Matt Stecher <mrcc1234@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I am building my shopping list and sorting through the aluminum cut sheets
> that I found on CH601.org.
>
> These drawings show quite a few parts changed to .020 from the original,
> plans speced, .016 thickness. The document states that this is a ZAC
> approved change, but I cant find any proof of this in my documentation or
> online.
>
> Whats up?
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 601XL AL Sheet Thickness changed from .016 to .020 ?? |
Dan,
That was a question I forgot to ask you! I made it out of .025, but I can
certainly re-cut out of .016 if you'd rather. I think you'll be much happier
with the .025 from a workability standpoint though. The .016 isn't quite tinfoil,
but it is really easy to put dents and smiles in it. You'll see what I mean
when we put together your rudder.
The parts are coming along well. I've got much of the fuse done, with the
exception of some of the larger skins. The tail is nearly complete, again with
the exception of the horizontal tail skins and a few internal ribs. I'll give
you a buzz sometime this week to set a time to build that rudder and pick upi
the rest of the tail parts.
Were you able to attend the Antique Airplane Fly-In this last weekend? There
were a couple of nice 601XLs there and an HDS too. All of them were flying
the Dynon D10 (the smaller version). One XL was running the Jabiru engine (Beautiful!)
and the other two were running Rotax engines. No Corvair unfortunately.
It turned out to be a really nice fly-in.
Dan Forney <dforney@bctonline.com> wrote: v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape
{behavior:url(#default#VML);} Tom,
I was wondering how my parts are coming along. Was the rudder that I saw at
your house when I visited .016 or .025? Are you making my rudder skin out of
the .025 thickness as well?
Thanks,
Dan
---------------------------------
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom and Bren Henderson
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 6:14 PM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 601XL AL Sheet Thickness changed from .016 to .020 ??
I'm builing my Rudder and Horizontal Stab again because I wasn't happy with
the way the .016 aluminum lay on the ribs. I've been really happy with the
.025 on the rest of the fuselage, and asked Zenith about replaciong the .016
on the tail with it. Caleb at Zenith emailed back that this was no problem, and
further, that the production 601's are using .020 and .025 in the tail for
the same reason.
So. Long story short: It's ok to substitute. If it makes you feel better
to hear it from Zenith, they're pretty fast at email responses.
Matt Stecher <mrcc1234@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Matt Stecher"
I am building my shopping list and sorting through the aluminum cut sheets
that I found on
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601XL AL Sheet Thickness changed from .016 to .020 ?? |
I'm scratch building, so I don't know what the factory ships as far as fuselage
skins. The plans call for .025" with the exception of the upper rear skins
(turtledeck). Those are .016". I haven't calculated the total weight increase
in the .025 skins vs the .016 (obviously 1.5625 time more), but I do know
that I can still pick the entire front and rear fuselage sections up with one
hand. They're rivited together. I'm not thinking I'll be needing to worry about
the weight. lol
Tom Henderson
Scratch Building in Oregon
Tail Complete
Fuse getting there
Wings not started (they're the boring part!)
dredmoody@cox.net wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by:
Email or call the factory to be certain but my tail and wing skins (complete kit)
have been 6061-T6 .020" bare. I think that my aileron skins (hingless type)
were thinner, probably .016" . I have not started on the fuselage and don't have
access to the fuselage skins at this moment but I assume they will be .020"
like the wings.
Ed Moody II
Rayne, LA
601XL / 2nd wing
---- Matt Stecher wrote:
> I am building my shopping list and sorting through the aluminum cut sheets
> that I found on CH601.org.
>
> These drawings show quite a few parts changed to .020 from the original,
> plans speced, .016 thickness. The document states that this is a ZAC
> approved change, but I cant find any proof of this in my documentation or
> online.
>
> Whats up?
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 601XL AL Sheet Thickness changed from .016 to .020 ?? |
Sorry list. Obviously that one was meant for Dan. I'm helping him replace
some parts and material. I'll have to be more carefull with the replies! :
)
Tom and Bren Henderson <admin@arachnidrobotics.com> wrote: Dan,
That was a question I forgot to ask you! I made it out of .025, but I can
certainly re-cut out of .016 if you'd rather. I think you'll be much happier
with the .025 from a workability standpoint though. The .016 isn't quite tinfoil,
but it is really easy to put dents and smiles in it. You'll see what I mean
when we put together your rudder.
The parts are coming along well. I've got much of the fuse done, with the
exception of some of the larger skins. The tail is nearly complete, again with
the exception of the horizontal tail skins and a few internal ribs. I'll give
you a buzz sometime this week to set a time to build that rudder and pick upi
the rest of the tail parts.
Were you able to attend the Antique Airplane Fly-In this last weekend? There
were a couple of nice 601XLs there and an HDS too. All of them were flying
the Dynon D10 (the smaller version). One XL was running the Jabiru engine (Beautiful!)
and the other two were running Rotax engines. No Corvair unfortunately.
It turned out to be a really nice fly-in.
Dan Forney <dforney@bctonline.com> wrote: v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape
{behavior:url(#default#VML);} Tom,
I was wondering how my parts are coming along. Was the rudder that I saw at
your house when I visited .016 or .025? Are you making my rudder skin out of
the .025 thickness as well?
Thanks,
Dan
---------------------------------
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom and Bren Henderson
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 6:14 PM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 601XL AL Sheet Thickness changed from .016 to .020
??
I'm builing my Rudder and Horizontal Stab again because I wasn't happy with
the way the .016 aluminum lay on the ribs. I've been really happy with the
.025 on the rest of the fuselage, and asked Zenith about replaciong the .016
on the tail with it. Caleb at Zenith emailed back that this was no problem, and
further, that the production 601's are using .020 and .025 in the tail for
the same reason.
So. Long story short: It's ok to substitute. If it makes you feel better
to hear it from Zenith, they're pretty fast at email responses.
Matt Stecher <mrcc1234@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Matt Stecher"
I am building my shopping list and sorting through the aluminum cut sheets
that I found on
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? |
I'm thinking about getting my first GPS unit, and was considering the Garmin
396 or the Garmin 496.
Does anyone have any experience with these units? Is the XM Weather update
worth the subscription? Does the automobile navigation work well? Has anyone
used the 496 for marine navigation? Anything I'm missing that may be a
consideration?
To give a little context, my wife and I are starting to make longer
x-country flights into unfamiliar territory with our little 150. This is
going to be a main "mission" of the CH701 we are building, except into
Alaska and British Columbia for camping instead of urban centers. So I was
was thinking about going with a dash-mounted GPS, something like a Dynon
FlightDek D-180, a radio, a transponder and then call it a day.
Thanks in Advance!
--
John Marzulli
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
"Flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle... it's just a lot
harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? |
Hi John,
I don't have the answers to your question, but I do have another
question to add to the discussion.
The most recent Avweb newsletter
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/702-full.html#193011got
me looking into the collision avoidance issue with particular
attention to airborne equipment. It seems that Alaska, Oregon, and
much of the East Coast now sport ADS-B features that give high class
information to equipped aircraft about location and direction of
other aircraft. I am sure this requires new equipment, but I have
not been able to learn what equipment is needed or how much it
costs. I think there is some distant relationship between this stuff
and Mode S transponders, but I also think the mode S equipment is
about to become obsolete.
From my opinionated point of view, the issue of collision avoidance
is a much bigger one for pilots planning on mostly VFR flying than
some of the fancy weather and terrain avoidance issues addressed by
the new Garmin GPS machines. If the price were the same I would much
rather have a picture of the aircraft currently sharing my airspace
than satellite delivered weather information. I don't see how
terrain information is useful for VFR flight - especially since you
need GPS operating to get it and with a little flight planning the
GPS already gives you the capability to easily navigate around high terrain.
I can't imagine paying around $3000 for an overly fancy GPS when
there are much less expensive ones that give fine navigation
capability along with all sorts of useful database information about
airspace and airports. There is always the old fashioned method of
getting weather information - the Flight Service Stations. It seems
necessary to call the FSS anyway to learn where the latest "Pop-up"
restricted airspace is.
I would appreciate any information listers might have on the whole
ADS-B and collision avoidance equipment issue. I tried to pull it
from the net, but all I got was endless descriptions of committees.
Thanks,
Paul
XL fuselage
>I'm thinking about getting my first GPS unit, and was considering
>the Garmin 396 or the Garmin 496.
>
>Does anyone have any experience with these units? Is the XM Weather
>update worth the subscription? Does the automobile navigation work
>well? Has anyone used the 496 for marine navigation? Anything I'm
>missing that may be a consideration?
>
>To give a little context, my wife and I are starting to make longer
>x-country flights into unfamiliar territory with our little 150.
>This is going to be a main "mission" of the CH701 we are building,
>except into Alaska and British Columbia for camping instead of urban
>centers. So I was was thinking about going with a dash-mounted GPS,
>something like a Dynon FlightDek D-180, a radio, a transponder and
>then call it a day.
>Thanks in Advance!
>
>--
>John Marzulli
><http://701Builder.blogspot.com/>http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
>
>
>_
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" <wr.giacona@cox.net>
John, I got a chance to play with a 396 recently and it is by far the best thing
since sliced bread if you are going to be flying X-C. The uplinked Nexrad weather,
when used correctly, will save more lives than all the ballistic parachutes
BRS can ever build.
The real differences between the 3 & 496 are the car kit, taxi maps, a faster refresh
rate and the Airport directory.
If you are going to use it in the car as well the fact that the 496 comes with
the car kit and data reduces the price difference between the 396 & 496 by ~$250.
The Taxi maps are nice if you are going to be going into larger airports that you
aren't familiar with.
The faster refresh rate makes the GPS driven panel more useful as a backup for
the aircraft's panel.
The directory is just convenient.
Paul, Here is some info on ADS-B from Garmin http://www.garmin.com/aviation/adsb.html
You'll note that the only thing they sell that can use it is the GDL-90. This will
put it out of 601/701 class planes at least for now.
It is a pity the FAA is disabling the TIS system which a 3/496 and a GTX 330 would
give you.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=56160#56160
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? |
ADS-B will be great but will be a long time coming. For one thing to get the
most out of the system the other planes around you also need to be equipped
with ADS-B gear. At least the system will be useful without waiting for the
FAA to install equipment on the ground.
<http://www.garmin.com/aviation/adsb.html>
www.garmin.com/aviation/adsb.html
-- Craig
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? |
I have the 296. I view the 496 as an incremental upgrade to the 396 for a
relatively small price increase: $2200 to $2800 list.For that you get a
faster processor, a few more databases and improved air-space warnings. One
key difference is that the 496 comes with the road database built-in while
the nav kit for the 396 is a $250 add-on (p/n 010-10510-00). You will have
to pay $50 for the external speaker to listen to turn-by-turn directions in
your car (p/n 010-10512-00)
Either way the AirGizmos docks are a neat way to install a portable GPS in
your plane:
www.airgizmos.com/
-- Craig
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? |
Paul, give John a chance of getting good answers to his question.
Starting a new thread i soo easy. Why troubling John's water with your
question?
do not archive
J.P.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Mulwitz
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ?
Hi John,
I don't have the answers to your question, but I do have another
question to add to the discussion.
The most recent Avweb newsletter
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/702-full.html#193011got me
looking into the collision avoidance issue with particular attention to
airborne equipment. It seems that Alaska, Oregon, and much of the East
Coast now sport ADS-B features that give high class information to
equipped aircraft about location and direction of other aircraft. I am
sure this requires new equipment, but I have not been able to learn what
equipment is needed or how much it costs. I think there is some distant
relationship between this stuff and Mode S transponders, but I also
think the mode S equipment is about to become obsolete.
From my opinionated point of view, the issue of collision avoidance is
a much bigger one for pilots planning on mostly VFR flying than some of
the fancy weather and terrain avoidance issues addressed by the new
Garmin GPS machines. If the price were the same I would much rather
have a picture of the aircraft currently sharing my airspace than
satellite delivered weather information. I don't see how terrain
information is useful for VFR flight - especially since you need GPS
operating to get it and with a little flight planning the GPS already
gives you the capability to easily navigate around high terrain.
I can't imagine paying around $3000 for an overly fancy GPS when there
are much less expensive ones that give fine navigation capability along
with all sorts of useful database information about airspace and
airports. There is always the old fashioned method of getting weather
information - the Flight Service Stations. It seems necessary to call
the FSS anyway to learn where the latest "Pop-up" restricted airspace
is.
I would appreciate any information listers might have on the whole
ADS-B and collision avoidance equipment issue. I tried to pull it from
the net, but all I got was endless descriptions of committees.
Thanks,
Paul
XL fuselage
I'm thinking about getting my first GPS unit, and was considering
the Garmin 396 or the Garmin 496.
Does anyone have any experience with these units? Is the XM Weather
update worth the subscription? Does the automobile navigation work well?
Has anyone used the 496 for marine navigation? Anything I'm missing that
may be a consideration?
To give a little context, my wife and I are starting to make longer
x-country flights into unfamiliar territory with our little 150. This is
going to be a main "mission" of the CH701 we are building, except into
Alaska and British Columbia for camping instead of urban centers. So I
was was thinking about going with a dash-mounted GPS, something like a
Dynon FlightDek D-180, a radio, a transponder and then call it a day.
Thanks in Advance!
--
John Marzulli
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
_
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? |
I have had a 396 for nearly a year. I have flown with it about a dozen
times but only locally (2.5 hour Xcountry max). It is great with the
terrain info and allows you superb insight on distance to topography,
easy to calculate rate of climb necessary to clear, etc. so flying in
mountainous terrain is a breeze. I've made more of a production of the
navigation features than necessary just to flex it's power and it does
very well. Refresh rate isn't a problem, unless you fly an F-16 or
something.
I have not subscribed to the XM weather yet, since I still have not
finished my plane so flying hours are low. Several friends have, and
swear by it out here in the Southwest US where clear sky turns into
massive FL450 T-heads in about 12 seconds. I mentioned to them that
tactical avoidance is not recommended because of the time delay (not
quite "real time" weather updates) and they both thought it is plenty
real time to do a good job of picking the right altitude for tail winds,
skirting building storms, etc. They both love them and are both high
hour / very frequent flyers.
One of them just upgraded to a 495 and doesn't think the upgrade is
really worth it. The only big thing the 496 does that the 396 doesn't is
the taxi data and unless you hop between large Class B airports, it
isn't really that useful. The 396 does the airport directory as well as
weather, terrain, nav, waypoints, even warnings when approaching
airspace boundaries.
I have driven with it in ground mode more than I have flown with it and
frankly, won't travel without it. City guide is very useful but once in
a blue moon not exactly right - roads aren't there or roads that are
there aren't known in the 396 (simply database errors). Enter address
and it steers you there, accurately - turn warnings and all. It
remembers the last items you searched for so easy to jump off and
navigate to an alternate stop, then get back to your original
destination with only a button push or two. One complaint - when
searching for the nearest Italian restaurant, you can't search by
category, only by name or location so unless "Italian" is in the name,
you can't find the nearest Italian restaurant directly. Mine came with
the car kit as part of the deal so no extra cost there. I'd recommend it
if you are going to use it in the car, or on the top of your panel.
Quality of the unit is superb. Backlight is very bright but in the
brightest daylight under an XL bubble, it may be borderline, don't know.
That's why I'm mounting mine, in one of the airgizmo's mounts, right up
under the overhang on my panel. The power connector on the back
(cigarette lighter version) is very tight which is good, but even being
careful, I have pulled one apart and had to get a replacement.
All up, I'd buy it again without hesitation. I've also done the Dell
Axim with Teletype GPS map deal and it doesn't come close, even when
accounting for the large cost differential. I have held and looked at
some of the competitive products and they all look capable within their
suite of offerings. I cannot recommend for or against the 396/496 vs any
of them because I have not flown with them - so no direct comparison. It
does take some use to become fluent in it's use. I suspect any of the
electronic gadgets do - glass panels, etc. included.
Hope this is the kind of info you were looking for.
Paul Moore
Silver City, NM
XL - O200
_________________________________________________________________________
________
I'm thinking about getting my first GPS unit, and was considering
the Garmin 396 or the Garmin 496.
Does anyone have any experience with these units? Is the XM
Weather update worth the subscription? Does the automobile navigation
work well? Has anyone used the 496 for marine navigation? Anything I'm
missing that may be a consideration?
To give a little context, my wife and I are starting to make
longer x-country flights into unfamiliar territory with our little 150.
This is going to be a main "mission" of the CH701 we are building,
except into Alaska and British Columbia for camping instead of urban
centers. So I was was thinking about going with a dash-mounted GPS,
something like a Dynon FlightDek D-180, a radio, a transponder and then
call it a day.
Thanks in Advance!
--
John Marzulli
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? |
I think Paul's touched on something.
While not explicitly stated, the heart of the issue is the tremendous change
happening with avionics, and that charge is being led by experimentals.
Three months ago I thought I would never want to have GPS in my cockpit, but
after more x-country trips the idea of the safety margin of having such a
device with me is appealing, especially since it seems cheaper to have a
nice GPS than two VORs.
The amount of interaction between the gadgets in our panels is
unprecedented.. even the ELT is getting updated.
ADS-B integration is a great idea, and it will get deployed out here first.
On 8/21/06, Jean-Paul Roy <jean-paul.roy4@tlb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Paul, give John a chance of getting good answers to his question.
> Starting a new thread i soo easy. Why troubling John's water with your
> question?
>
> do not archive
>
> J.P.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
> *To:* zenith-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2006 4:53 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Zenith-List: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ?
>
> Hi John,
>
> I don't have the answers to your question, but I do have another question
> to add to the discussion.
>
> The most recent Avweb newsletter
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/702-full.html#193011got me
> looking into the collision avoidance issue with particular attention to
> airborne equipment. It seems that Alaska, Oregon, and much of the East
> Coast now sport ADS-B features that give high class information to equipped
> aircraft about location and direction of other aircraft. I am sure this
> requires new equipment, but I have not been able to learn what equipment is
> needed or how much it costs. I think there is some distant relationship
> between this stuff and Mode S transponders, but I also think the mode S
> equipment is about to become obsolete.
>
> From my opinionated point of view, the issue of collision avoidance is a
> much bigger one for pilots planning on mostly VFR flying than some of the
> fancy weather and terrain avoidance issues addressed by the new Garmin GPS
> machines. If the price were the same I would much rather have a picture of
> the aircraft currently sharing my airspace than satellite delivered weather
> information. I don't see how terrain information is useful for VFR flight -
> especially since you need GPS operating to get it and with a little flight
> planning the GPS already gives you the capability to easily navigate around
> high terrain.
>
> I can't imagine paying around $3000 for an overly fancy GPS when there are
> much less expensive ones that give fine navigation capability along with all
> sorts of useful database information about airspace and airports. There is
> always the old fashioned method of getting weather information - the Flight
> Service Stations. It seems necessary to call the FSS anyway to learn where
> the latest "Pop-up" restricted airspace is.
>
> I would appreciate any information listers might have on the whole ADS-B
> and collision avoidance equipment issue. I tried to pull it from the net,
> but all I got was endless descriptions of committees.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
>
>
> I'm thinking about getting my first GPS unit, and was considering the
> Garmin 396 or the Garmin 496.
>
> Does anyone have any experience with these units? Is the XM Weather update
> worth the subscription? Does the automobile navigation work well? Has anyone
> used the 496 for marine navigation? Anything I'm missing that may be a
> consideration?
>
> To give a little context, my wife and I are starting to make longer
> x-country flights into unfamiliar territory with our little 150. This is
> going to be a main "mission" of the CH701 we are building, except into
> Alaska and British Columbia for camping instead of urban centers. So I was
> was thinking about going with a dash-mounted GPS, something like a Dynon
> FlightDek D-180, a radio, a transponder and then call it a day.
> Thanks in Advance!
>
> --
> John Marzulli
> http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
>
>
> _
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
> **
>
--
John Marzulli
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
"Flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle... it's just a lot
harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? |
Here's my two cent's worth (probably overpriced).
I use the Lowrance Airmap 2000C. It costs less than half what a Garmin
396 does ($999 vs. $2,100+) and has a very large screen with very
bright, no-sweat-daylight-readable color. It has terrain avoidance that
displays your climb angle and ETA to terrain features and radio towers
etc. in its bottom window (as a side view) and the traditional Jeppeson
scrolling map in the upper window. It will plot and display your course
to a point dictated by cursor placemant, or you can pick an airport or
any landmark as your destination. The data base has info on all the
airports listed, runway length, number, services etc.
It will interface and communicate course and steering to and auto pilot
or wing leveler or in my case to an EFIS/EIS combo unit to display the
navigation info on that screen. It does great in land mode. I take it
along on road trips all the time. It has a fantastic database of gas
stations, restaurants, hotels, tourist's points of interest and more.
It basically does everything I'm interested in except the XM radar
display. The truth is, I would really love to have that radar display
even just here at my house to decide if I feel like going out to fly
recreationally. In the cockpit on a X-C trip it might just be priceless.
But if you don't think you want to pay for the XM weather info, you can
get pretty much all the features you want on a bigger screen for less
than half the price of a Garmin 396. Nothing at all wrong with Garmin,
mind you. It's just a lot more expensive if you don't need all its
features.
It's worth checking out before deciding,
Ed Moody II
Rayne, LA
601XL / 2nd wing
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|