---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 08/21/06: 16 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:31:19 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: ch 640 From: "steveadams" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "steveadams" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:47:02 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: XL Wing Paint Stand From: "steveadams" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "steveadams" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:04:07 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: nylon brake lines - mine broke From: "steveadams" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "steveadams" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:39:41 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 601XL AL Sheet Thickness changed from .016 to .020 ?? --> 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 5 _____________________________________ Time: 11:33:29 AM PST US From: Tom and Bren Henderson Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:46:26 AM PST US From: Tom and Bren Henderson Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:41:24 PM PST US From: Tom and Bren Henderson Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 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 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:59:39 PM PST US From: "John Marzulli" Subject: Zenith-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:52:23 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz 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 10 ____________________________________ Time: 02:22:15 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Thoughts on the Garmin 496/396 ? From: "Gig Giacona" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:31:43 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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. www.garmin.com/aviation/adsb.html -- Craig ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 02:47:13 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:32:32 PM PST US From: "Jean-Paul Roy" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:28:52 PM PST US From: "Paul Moore" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:55:33 PM PST US From: "John Marzulli" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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 > *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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:43:22 PM PST US From: "Edward Moody II" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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