Garmin versus Garmin

[Genghis the Engineer]

Like, I suspect most of us these days, I owned or used a selection of GPS units for various purposes. By now I've come to the conclusion that I've sooner or later regretted buying anything that wasn't made by Garmin.

So, I'm going to replace my deeply unimpressive pocket flymap. I fly various aeroplanes, mostly VFR, and am looking to simplify nav, reduce workload and enhance my situational awareness - the usual stuff, plus I'll probably link to something like NavBox ProPlan to flight plan and to download flight data . I have a perfectly good Garmin Nuvi in my car, so don't care about driving functions. The 695 is gorgeous, but I don't think I can justify the price to myself.

So, this seems to come down to the Aera 500, Aera 550, or the GPS495. On the face of it, they're all pretty similar - the 550, has apparently better terrrain mapping whilst the 495 apparently has better a much better battery life.

Has anybody got any experience of flying with these, especially comparing them? I'd appreciate any informed opinions.

G

[IO540]

I have a 496 yoke-mounted, mainly as an emergency "DCT box" and with the audio terrain warnings going to the audio system. Works very well.

However, IMHO, this unit is too small to be one's sole GPS. The screen is simply too small. The mapdata is pretty crap on such a small screen.

Get the 695/696. Vastly better.

[24Carrot]

I have an Aera500 and an older GPSmap 296, which may be similar enough to a 495 to help.

The Aera is smaller, and touch screen instead of buttons, and I prefer the interface.

Both databases are up to date, but the Aera 500 seems to have loads more waypoints than the 296.

The GPSmap has the venerable Garmin proprietary USB interface, which is widely supported in many flight planning programs for track download, waypoint up/down load etc. The Aera has a usb port, but a PC sees it as an external disk drive, with a ".gpx" file. This does contain all the tracks, waypoints etc but buried within mind-numbing layers of XML. I don't know how well it is supported by flight planning programs (yet).

I still draw lines on charts, measure the lengths and tracks, and then cross compare with the GPS 'flight plan' to check. By cross-checking it this way, I feel perfectly safe entering the supposedly lethal user lat/lon waypoints, but with the Aera I seldom need to.

I prefer the Aera.

edited to mention the screen: Personally, I found the screen size fine for 'situational awareness', but then I haven't used a 695 yet!

[englishal]

I have a 496 and the Aera 550. The 496 is primary nav in our Rallye and it works exceedingly well. The Aera is better as it has the bigger, touch sensitive screen but it is essentially the same software and same mapping functions (which I am glad about). I got the 550 as the TAWS is higher resolutionthan the 500 (same as the 496) and also it has the capability to display traffic info on it, which I *believe* the 500 didn't. The 550 will be backup to a 430W.

Both great units, the 550 is much slimmer and can be mounted on a panel in a semi permanent fashion whereas the 496 has an odd shaped case and is too fat and needs to be sunk into the panel (CAA concerns there). The G696 is just too big to manhandle around the cockpit in my view, would be ok if it was panel mounted.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I have a 496 and the Aera 550. The 496 is primary nav in our Rallye and it works exceedingly well. The Aera is better as it has the bigger, touch sensitive screen but it is essentially the same software and same mapping functions (which I am glad about). I got the 550 as the TAWS is higher resolutionthan the 500 (same as the 496) and also it has the capability to display traffic info on it, which I *believe* the 500 didn't. The 550 will be backup to a 430W.



That's really useful - one question: how much better/worse are the terrain mapping on the 550 versus the 500? That seems to be the big difference between the two - from my perspective at-least, and the question of whether the extra resolution is really worth the extra £480?

G

[OpenCirrus619]

Ghengis,

I bought a 500 a few months ago - can't fault it. One really "neat" feature is that, when using it in a car, it will actually (try to) read the road names - "Turn right on High Street".

When I bought it I also got:
- A hard carry case
- A spare battery and mains charger
(I've never needed the spare battery - I usually manage to power it off the aircraft electrics)

You can find the manual for the Aera range at: http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/aera500_PilotsGuide.pdf

As far as the difference in Terrain Mapping: I don't think it will make any difference - unless you are trying to fly down valleys with it. I knew I had seen some numbers giving the difference - I finally found them on the Transair web-site:

500 (http://www.transair.co.uk/product4.asp?SID=2&Product_ID=8660) "with terrain/obstacle data shown at standard 30 arc-second resolution, you'll enjoy a surprising level of detail on the display"

550 (http://www.transair.co.uk/product4.asp?SID=2&Product_ID=8661) "Terrain/obstacle data shown in higher resolution 9 arc-second detail"

Hope that helps.

OC619

P.S. It's great doing PFLs - "Terrain ... Terrain ... Pull Up ... Pull Up" in the background :eek:

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'd looked all over for that - thank you. I make that a 900m grid versus a 280m grid. Clear enough, and whilst I can see the appeal of the finer grid, I hope that I don't do any flying that would justify it.

This all, for me, does seem to be homing in on the 500, with the better screen but not expending money on the nice but unnecessary fine grid. And probably a spare battery - since I know that I will fly quite a few aeroplanes without easily accessible power, sometimes on long trips.

G

[englishal]

Yea the 9 arc second TAWS function is nice to have but not essential (IIRC 9 arc second is the same as the 496) unless you use it to monitor an IFR approach. The main reason we went for the 550 as opposed to the 500 was that I couldn't find anywhere about interfacing the ZAON PCAS to the 500 whereas I found some articles about interfacing it to the 550. I expect you can i/f to the 500 but I didn't want to take the chance that I couldn't.

Our 550 also came with a yoke mount and dashboard mount and we bought the bare wire kit to wire it into various places (audio panel / zaon / power).

One neat feature of the 550 is the way it clips into devices such as the yoke mount / bare wire kit. The 496 you have to plug the cable in, in the Aera you just clip it in and all the connections are made, bit like a TomTom. As it is slim you could mount the "bare wire" kit connector on the panel somewhere and then just clip the GPS in and out as nescessary. Useful if you use it in one aeroplane more often.

[S-Works]

I have the 696 and 496 and the 496 is vastly superior. Battery life is vastly better, it has never been a problem to use in any aircraft I have flown. The 696 battery is crap, you can't mount it anywhere in short it's a pain in the ass.

I find the 496 display easy to read and plenty of information without being cluttered.

If buying again I would buy the 495 as I have never used the XM or the marine,car functions.

[24Carrot]

Apologies for possible drift thread, but has anybody any experience of using the Aera 500 with an external antenna? I did a weeks touring recently in a C172 and it worked fine without. I always meant to get one, but the only one I can find has a built-in magnet, and I am cautious about putting that anywhere near the panel.

[ProfChrisReed]

A solution which you might want to consider at minimal cost, though non-Garmin if you want portability, is a standard iPaq-type PDA with a GPS mouse, running an open source gliding program like XCSOAR.

I mention this because if you already have a PDA you can buy a GPS mouse for £20 or so from eBay and try it out. Fits easily into a car phone suction mount which can attach to the screen.

What you get from the software is a moving map which you can zoom in and out, airspace configurable to appear when close and disappear when not, logging in .igc format, ground speed, climb/sink last 30 secs, height AGL, height GPS, track over ground, track lines for your entered route, and a whole load of other configurable stuff to do with gliding that you're probably not interested in. Terrain files at various levels of detail can also be added in, all for free.

I run this setup on my glider, though with a Garmin GPS 12 (always set on the "That way, stupid!" arrow), and it's worked with no glitches for the last 5 years or so. However, my system requires two mounts and a connecting cable, so would be less portable.

I know someone flying with the GPS mouse setup (just rests the mouse on top of the panel), and he has had no problems with it.

The downside is you don't get the CAA chart, but the upside is that you can turn on/off different terrain features - I prefer a pretty uncluttered map which gives me airfields, major towns, railways and major roads.

From what I can tell this kind of setup offers much greater and more flexible functionality than the functions built into all but the most expensive Garmins. However, it's only of any real use for VFR flights.

I believe one or two power pilots have started using this - maybe one of them will read this thread and say whether it's suitable for their needs.

[Mark 1]

I bought a 695 on Ebay at a good price and don't regret it.

One big advantage is the screen brightness. In full sun under a bubble-top canopy it is still easily readable. The touch screens especially are noticably less bright. I use the knee pad mount as there isn't a great deal of room in a tandem cockpit, but experimenting with the ball mount.

This picture was taken in the cockpit at 11000' under clear skies:
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t50/alberym/Oshkosh%202010/P1000155.jpg

[24Carrot]

Talking of mounts, I tried a friction mount on the C172 coaming for the Aera 500, but it definitely moved the compass. Or was right in my view. Or right outside it!

[flybymike]

P.S. It's great doing PFLs - "Terrain ... Terrain ... Pull Up ... Pull Up" in the background

But extremely irritating when on finals to a small grass strip not in the database!

[AN2 Driver]

Ghengis,

my aircraft came with a Garmin 430 installed. Nevertheless I got a Garmin 296 as backup and track recorder. I must say I am very happy with it, a lot of GPS for the money. It will do Terrain and accepts flightplans from Pocket FMS, which I use as my route planner right now. I also use Pocket FMS in flight, since I finally got a GPS equipped Windows Mobile device which will run it well. I must admit that had I had it before, I might have stuck with it. The Pocket FMS database is close to perfect for VFR and very easy to use.

For what I need, I find the 296 great, so I'd assume the 496, which has the larger resolution, should be super too.

[nick ritter]

Genghis,

I am a recent PPL so have limited experience on the different types of GPS

That said my first and only GPS to date is the Garmin 495. As far as I am concerned it is immense. It greatly simplifies my nav work load and really enhances my own confidence in my situation awareness. I find the unit to be very user friendly in terms of entering new routes as well as finding a ton of information quickly when flying should you need it. The unit is easy to throw into a flying bag and takes up no space at all really when mounted onto a yoke

The battery life to my knowledge is around nine and a half hours when fully charged although this reduces if you increase the backdrop light setting. I believe that it is very easy to hook up with navigational software as well where you just plan your route on a home PC before dropping the route direct into your garmin – although I haven’t used this yet

I have nothing to compare it with being very new to flying – but for me I love my 495 and find it invaluable

Hope helps
Nick

[Brooklands]

Genghis,

I have the Aera 500, and I'm very happy with it. It did need a software upgrade to fix a bug, but since then its been fine.

It would be quite easy to make up an external battery pack to power it via the external power lead that comes with it if you don't have a power socket in the aircraft.

Genghis - You have a PM

Brooklands

[Miroku]

To replace my Pilot 3 I looked at the Aera 500 and the Airbox Clarity.

The Aera seemed too complicated to me and two distributors I visited were unable to show me how to put in a simple flight plan.

The Clarity (which I bought) is simple and tells me everything I need to know when flying VFR. If you decide to change your plan everything is simplicity itself. Plus you're looking at a half mil chart.

[Pilot DAR]

Hi Genghis,

I got a Aera 500 on lone/trail a few months back, quite liked it, and decided to keep it. At the time, I had not researched all of the features of the 500 series relative to each other. That said, I was not looking for all the fancy features anyway, so it worked out well.

The only aviation feature I wish it had (which I suppose is reserved for the pricier Garmins), is that I came to like on the G1000, where a magenta line shows you where you will be in one minute, all things unchanged. The manual lead me to expect this, and it is not available. Other than that, and the references to verbal warnings into grass strips, I am entirely happy with the avaiation side.

The automotive side has presented a couple of dissapointments. I have just completed a 6700 km driving trip in the United States, and used it the whole way. In some cases, the data base did not account for changes in routings and detours. The result was that when I could not maintain the prescribed route, and GPS took long enough recalculating that I had already missed the next turn, before the GPS had computed it. with expressway on and off ramps close toggether, it was a problem a few times. Also, even with the map selected with the most detail, zooming out will cause smaller roads to no longer be displayed. This can lead to driving across an empty white display, if the local area is not too populated!

Also, the English woman who hides inside there, was commanded to be silent very early on. She was not very patient, and has bizaar pronunciation for some of the local roads. My first venture onto our local "Highway 11" was presented to me as: " Your are now entering H...W...Y...one...one". Unfortunaely, when you command her silence, it also takes away the speaker audio for the bluetooth phone. Someone will phone, and when you answer, they hear the string of profanity you speak, as you try to get the mute off, so you can hear them. Hearing their laughter when you finally do un mute, can be funny though.

All in all, I am very happy with it though, and would highly recommend it. You never know whe you might have to find your way to some place like Haselmere!

Cheers, Jim

[flybymike]

The only aviation feature I wish it had (which I suppose is reserved for the pricier Garmins), is that I came to like on the G1000, where a magenta line shows you where you will be in one minute, all things unchanged.

My Aera 500 has an optional extended track feature the length of which can be adjusted. On my unit it is a white extension line, not Magenta, which is reserved for the actual route being flown. As far as I know that is a standard feature.

[G-UAVA]

When I was looking at both 495 and Aera models side by side, the viewing angle was much better on the 495. I personally thought the screen appearance clearer overall on the "old" units.

[Justiciar]

I personally thought the screen appearance clearer overall on the "old" units

Is that because of the design of a touch screen, making the image less clear?

[Pilot DAR]

Many thanks Flybymike!

I dug into the menu layers of my Aera 500, and sure enough, the line is available! In selecting the 2 minute length for the line, I amused myself by making it dissapear, when turning into today's rather intense wind at altitude, and entering slow flight. With an 11 MPH ground speed, the line disappears under the airplane symbol.

I am pleased this feature is available, and appreciate your information...

Cheers, Jim