Garmin 496

[lowNslow]

No I have not used the terrain up north other than southern Canada, but after viewing the terrain function in both GPS, I can say they look very much the same to me. They both use the Jeppesen data bases, so I don't know why there would be any difference.

The only function missing from the Lowrance in panel mode (and I must say I don't really use that page much) is the turn indicator, but you do have a expanded compass rose, and you can still have the moving map with terrain up at the same time. Just a matter of preference I suppose.

I don't remeber the 296 having XM radio, I thought you had to move up to the 396 for that feature. Is this something new in the newer 296s?

The 296 is a great GPS with a FEW different features that are nice. The log book feature looks cool, but I don't keep much of log book anymore. The one thing that does bother me about the Garmins (other than the price) is the horizontal configuration. I like having the length of the screen along the route of flight not across it and having the controls on the bottom.

[GAHorn]

I was referring to Airspeed on the Garmin panel...not VSI (which would be subject to errors due to updrafts/downdrafts in clouds/storms, and therefore not a reliable pitch reference, in my opinion.)

Sorry George, I didn't mean to seem contradictory. I was just offering an alternative way to use the panel page for pitch control (in some circumstances, at least ). I fully agree that groundspeed in not an adequate means.

Miles

Thanks for the courteous response, Miles.... I know you well enough to realize you wouldn't be "contradictory" with me! (with Karen, maybe...but not with me.)
Here's a perfect example of how the "panel" page can be very misleading: While in level flight NW of Los Alamos, enroute to Santa Fe (returning from the convention) Jamie and I were cruising at 9500. A large, mature TRW was about 30 miles east of us, and while there was a large/long overhang about 9,000 feet above us (estimated at FL180) stretching out to the west, we were in the clear.
Quite smoothly and without a single "bump" we started gaining altitude about 700 fpm. No change in airspeed.
I reduced pwr from 2450 to 2300 and we ascended at 1000 fpm! I nosed down to 120 mph IAS and continued to go upwards at 1000 fpm. I reduced pwr to 2000 rpm and nosed further down to 140 IAS! We were passing 12500 and still going UP!
I reduced to 1500 rpm, maintained a steep nose-down attitude w/140 mph IAS and we continued upward at 1000 fpm until we were still upward at 14,500 feet in a dive!
I pointed out to Jamie that we were about to be in serious trouble, because we were about to enter the overhang of that storm which appeared to be only a couple thousand feet above us. I believed we would have 1-iced up in the cloud (despite the summer heat at 9500 MSL the temps were plummeting as we were swept upward... it felt downright cold), 2- would have passed out from lack of oxygen, losing control of the airplane,... 3-fell out of the cloud unconscious, iced up, and you guys all would have discussed further how crazy you all have thought me to be for years! and this was just proof! (Stupid idiot! Flying VFR at FL180, IFR w/o a clearance, in TRW's! ...and an Instructor at that!!!!)
Fortunately, the ascent stopped at 14,700. But the earth looked mighty distant and I was concerned about re-entry temperatures with no heat-shield.

The point is that the "panel page" mode of the GPS showed NO change in airspeed but a huge difference in VS upward...despite my 140 mph IAS and 15-degree or so downward pitch. That misinformation in clouds would likely lead to miscontrolling the aircraft, if it were the only instrument information available in clouds.

[hilltop170]

That's right, George, you have to remind yourself you are seeing groundspeed, not airspeed with the Garmin panel page, but if that's all you have, it's sure better than nothing. Hopefully if you lose your vacuum pump and electric power you'll still have your pitot working for airspeed. But except for something like you described the panel page will work pretty good by itself.

Last summer I made a 170 mile trip from just north of Anchorage to Seldovia, Alaska, under the hood with an instrument instructor safety pilot, using only the 396 with the a/c instruments covered. It was a workout but I was able not only to fly the plane but navigate to the Seldovia airport and fly a pattern to final by switching between terrain page and panel page. Neither the instructor nor I would have bet money on that outcome before we took off. The 396 updates once per second.

With the 496 updating at 5 times per second, it will almost be like real time.

BTW, I know how you felt in that updraft, I got caught in a similar one just east of Great Falls in 1985 in a PA-12 and got pushed up from 8,500' to 14,000' before it let us go just before we entered the clouds. Not a good feeling especially since it had NO instruments. I could not have imagined something like a Garmin in those days but I'm sure glad we have them now!

Richard

[futr_alaskaflyer]

No I have not used the terrain up north other than southern Canada, but after viewing the terrain function in both GPS, I can say they look very much the same to me. They both use the Jeppesen data bases, so I don't know why there would be any difference.

The only function missing from the Lowrance in panel mode (and I must say I don't really use that page much) is the turn indicator, but you do have a expanded compass rose, and you can still have the moving map with terrain up at the same time. Just a matter of preference I suppose.

I don't remeber the 296 having XM radio, I thought you had to move up to the 396 for that feature. Is this something new in the newer 296s?

The 296 is a great GPS with a FEW different features that are nice. The log book feature looks cool, but I don't keep much of log book anymore. The one thing that does bother me about the Garmins (other than the price) is the horizontal configuration. I like having the length of the screen along the route of flight not across it and having the controls on the bottom.

The terrain isn't from Jeppesen - the terrain is proprietary from each company. Garmins is better IMHO. The other thing I didn't like about the 2000 (though I did like the larger screen) was that it had hardly any battery life - it is designed to run off a power source and use battery as an emergency backup only. I prefer to be able to run mine on battery when needed.

And I meant that if I was in the lower 48 I would have bought a 396 w/ XM. As I'm not, I saved the money and bought a 296 which did everything the 396 does, w/o the XM features, which aren't available in Alaska.

You do pay a lot for the Garmin name. You also get what you pay for.

[Pavewlc]

At the risk of sticking my neck out, being a new guy and all...

I'm not sure I would label the Garmin "Airspeed" display as misinformation. In George's example of a high VVI and no change in speed, the display was, more than likely, displaying correct information. While his airspeed changed considerably, his groundspeed did not change. Garmin, as well as all other portable GPS units, measure groundspeed vs airspeed. I know it's a "duh" moment but I see this mistake often with students flying IFR approaches for the first time (or old heads sometimes). They use the GPS ground speed to figure timing for the approach(good on them), but then become over concerned with it and let airspeed drop out of the cross check....bad.
I've at some point flown with/test drove alot of the GPS units out there and most have some sort of "panel" page. I would use it if I had too, I'd be better at usuing it than flying only needle ball. But you have to understand EXACTLY what it is and isn't telling you. If you want to use it as a back up get a buddy and go fly some day/vfr approaches usuing it as the primary back-up and see what will happen.
Thanks for hearing my input, and thanks for all the help you all have given me!

Cheers,
Lee

[GAHorn]

...I'm not sure I would label the Garmin "Airspeed" display as misinformation. In George's example of a high VVI and no change in speed, the display was, more than likely, displaying correct information. While his airspeed changed considerably, his groundspeed did not change. Garmin, as well as all other portable GPS units, measure groundspeed vs airspeed. I know it's a "duh" moment but I see this mistake often with students flying IFR ...

Glad to see folks "jump in"... hopefully no one feels they'll get their head bitten off by those with different opinions...

Lee, the "panel page" did indeed show the altitude and Vertical Speed accurately... But the AIRSPEED readout was totally in error as it showed the 100 kt in it's little airspeed indicatior (which as you noted is actually groundspeed) with no changes despite the fact that my airspeed was indicating 140 indicated (because I was in a dive.) In other words, no accurate pitch information (in the traditional sense of needle/ball/airspeed) was available...but quite erroneous information was displayed in that regard.
For that reason, it's important to understand the differences in actual aircraft instrumentation and GPS panel-pages.
Having said that.... there IS a valuable function in the panel-page: The panel-page will indeed show a turn that the aircraft makes, and it will display that turn as a banked aircraft in the little "coordinator" of the panel-page. If the AIRCRAFTS actual airspeed indicator and altimeter are used IN CONJUNCTION with the gps panel-page's turn-coordinator... then the tactic of needle/ball/airspeed should still work ...even if the aircraft's electric T&B gyro shall have failed. A total electrical failure in a Cessna 170 using a battery-powered GPS panel-page turn coordinator in conjuction with the ship's airspeed/altimeter, should still be a useful way to keep an airplane in IMC rightside-up.