Re: GPS Models -- Pros and Cons

[Aviv Hod]

Jay,
The guy that I bought my Garmin 195 from also had a ControlVision setup
for the same price. I asked him which one was better and he unequivocally
recommended the Garmin. He said that although the CV product had some nice
features, it's not as reliable and really is a mess in the cocpit. Sunlight
readability is also a factor he said was an advantage for the Garmin. I
just don't think he was all that impressed with the CV setup, although he
liked the CV software.

Another thing that you should think about is that you will most definitely
not get the kind of service out of HPaq as you will from Garmin or even
Lowrance. At least Garmin or Lowrance will know the product you're talking
about when you call them. When was the last time you heard someone raving
about the quick and cheerful service they got from HP/Compaq/Sony/ et. al. ?
In three years, when the screen fritzes out or your buttons fall out, and
they will, (have you noticed how fragile those things feel at the store?)
don't count on anyone fixing it. This may not be a big deal if you get an
extended warranty on the Ipaq, but I would not expect the reliability of
stand alone GPS's. Another issue is that you won't be able to sell the CV
setup on eBay for half of what you paid for it, which you can do with the
stand alone GPS's.

However, there are some really nice features that CV offers that make me
think twice about getting it, like the backup solid state AI that can
interface to it. Maybe it would make sense for you, since you own your
plane and can keep the wire clutter down by judicious use of velcro. Your
call. But my gut feeling is that you would be happier with a less
complicated setup, and that points to the stand alone units.

Did this help?

-Aviv


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:K_DSa.107706$ye4.80571@sccrnsc01...
> I've been leaning towards a Garmin 196 to replace our ailing Lowrance
Airmap
> 300. However, now that Garmin has announced they are no longer going to
> support the Garmin 90, it appears that they are no better at support than
> Lowrance -- who recently "orphaned" my Airmap from all technical support.
> (This occurred right before it started acting flaky, naturally.)
>
> So, I'm now thinking about one of these Compaq Ipaq/GPS combinations. One
> of our guests at the inn gave me a 15 minute "tour" of his, and I was
fairly
> impressed with:
>
> - The color screen.
> - The strength of the software.
> - The fact that it just doesn't sit in the plane, but is actually useful
> beyond flying.
>
> Apparent downsides were:
>
> - The screen didn't look bright enough in direct sunlight
> - The "pen" interface seemed like a tough thing to handle, especially in
> turbulence.
> - The clutter of wires in the cockpit sounds like a mess.
>
> What says the group? Anyone out there care to comment on the various
> strengths and weaknesses? I've only got about ten days left to make up my
> mind!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[John T]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:K_DSa.107706$ye4.80571@sccrnsc01
>
> So, I'm now thinking about one of these Compaq Ipaq/GPS combinations.

I rent. Most of the planes I rent have GPS models of one sort or another,
but some of the older planes have either LORAN or just VOR/ADF. With that
in mind, and the remote possibility of a power failure while enroute on a
long-ish XC, I wanted an independently powered GPS system.

I settled on the iPAQ/AnywhereMap system for much the same reasons as you
mentioned: color, features of the software, and usability of the PDA outside
the plane (and I use it much more outside the plane than in). I got the AWM
system with the iPAQ 3955 and Sentinel GPS receiver. The only wire I have
in the cockpit is the wire to the remote antenna and I can route that out of
the way pretty quickly when prepping for a flight. I have heard of a couple
of users that have a Bluetooth GPS receiver which eliminates all except any
extra power wires.

I purchased an external battery pack (small, 4 AA cell unit) for any really
long XC's I might take with the system, but I haven't used it, yet. I've
used the iPAQ/AWM on full screen brightness for probably the better part of
a two hour flight and still had 40% battery life left on just the internal
battery. Setting the backlight to go off after a couple of minutes gets me
even more juice.

While it is certainly an issue, sun glare can be dealt with fairly easily.
I've found that the screen protectors like WriteRight cut down the glare
*considerably*. Also, I've found the screen quite readable in all but a
couple of angles - and even then it was readable when I removed the
sunglasses. I've used the iPAQ in direct sunlight many times and I've found
its screen to be the most sun-readable I've used on any handheld/laptop
device.

I'm quite satisfied with the purchase and would recommend anybody to
seriously consider it. I've never had a problem with AWM either on the
ground (just playing with it in the car while dri...um, riding) or in flight
and I consider it a good backup system.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
_______________

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> Apparent downsides were:
>
> - The screen didn't look bright enough in direct sunlight
> - The "pen" interface seemed like a tough thing to handle, especially in
> turbulence.
> - The clutter of wires in the cockpit sounds like a mess.

Strike 1-2-3.

> What says the group? Anyone out there care to comment on the various
> strengths and weaknesses? I've only got about ten days left to make up my
> mind!

I've had three Garmin portables and they have all been excellent. I sold my
III Pilot and 195 for good prices each time I moved up, and both models are
still in demand. The 295 I have now is splendid. The 196 looks nice and I'll
give it a look at OSH, but I doubt if it will be enough to replace my 295.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Gerry Caron]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:K_DSa.107706$ye4.80571@sccrnsc01...
> I've been leaning towards a Garmin 196 to replace our ailing Lowrance
Airmap
> 300. However, now that Garmin has announced they are no longer going to
> support the Garmin 90, it appears that they are no better at support than
> Lowrance -- who recently "orphaned" my Airmap from all technical support.
> (This occurred right before it started acting flaky, naturally.)
>

Jay,

You may be a bit harsh on them. They haven't "orphaned" the 90, just
stopped providing database updates. They still provide tech support and
repair service for almost everything they've made over the years. Their
service is outstanding. And the units are very reliable. HP/Compaq can't
compare in either service or reliability.

I'll admit their decision isn't the swiftest move, but it was likely an
economic decision based on how many updates they were selling (an indicator
of demand) and the expense to work around some really ancient (in GPS
chronology) technology. The 90 was one of the last 8-channel units and had
only about 1/2 the memory of the 92. If they get enough complaints, maybe
they'll reconsider.

As for your options: I bought the 196 last year and love it. Battery life
is decent, even though I normally use the power adapter in the Cheetah. The
display is excellent and highly readable in almost any light. It's easy to
use and I've never had a problem. I don't think you'd be disappointed.

I also got the auto kit. It includes the portable dash mount, City Select
CD, and a 64 Meg datacard for the City Select data. It does a great job of
auto routing. Considering my wife's navigational skills (almost nil), it's
a godsend for her in the car. It doesn't do voice prompts like the SP III,
but it does chime with a pop-up prompt screen.

I looked at the CV solution. It just seemed like too much hassle for too
little benefit. The Garmin is simple, reliable, and does everything I need.

Gerry

[Richard Kaplan]

The software is great but the pen interface really is not practical
in-flight. CBAV is tough enough but you only need to access that once in a
while; a GPS requires far more frequent button-pushing and becomes much more
a part of your routine -- with a Garmin 196 you will essentially gain not
only a GPS but also an HSI.

Go with a dedicated aviation GPS.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Nosegear]

Just go for the iPAQ/GPS combination, I never have any regrets that I
made that choice. I use an (old) iPAQ 3630 with a NavMan 3000 GPS sleeve
and PocketFMS software (http://www.pocketfms.com). BTW, the very best
software for this purpose I've been able to find, and it's shareware . .

The sleeve-type GPS will assure a minimum of wiring, and you don't have
to worry about readablilty of the screen, especially when you mount the
device in an upright position using say a RAM mount (http://www.ram-
mount.com).

Also, with properly designed software the pen interface need not be a
problem: you do the miniscule work when safely on the ground, and all
other functions are easily activated by using your finger on the touch-
screen. When you'd use PocketFMS, you can do the pre-flight part on your
home PC and transfer everything to your iPAQ when finished.

Last advantage I can think of is also a disadvantage: you do not pay for
certification of the equipment (I'm sure Garmin and others have some
percentage for that in the price), downside is that it *isn't* certified
equipment. Not a problem, as long as you don't rely on it as a sole means
of navigation. Which, BTW, goes for professional GPS's as well: you
always need to have a backup means of navigation (mostly a chart ;-)

Wisdom and flying fun!

Nosegear


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:K_DSa.107706$ye4.80571@sccrnsc01:

> I've been leaning towards a Garmin 196 to replace our ailing Lowrance
> Airmap 300. However, now that Garmin has announced they are no longer
> going to support the Garmin 90, it appears that they are no better at
> support than Lowrance -- who recently "orphaned" my Airmap from all
> technical support. (This occurred right before it started acting
> flaky, naturally.)
>
> So, I'm now thinking about one of these Compaq Ipaq/GPS combinations.
> One of our guests at the inn gave me a 15 minute "tour" of his, and I
> was fairly impressed with:
>
> - The color screen.
> - The strength of the software.
> - The fact that it just doesn't sit in the plane, but is actually
> useful beyond flying.
>
> Apparent downsides were:
>
> - The screen didn't look bright enough in direct sunlight
> - The "pen" interface seemed like a tough thing to handle, especially
> in turbulence.
> - The clutter of wires in the cockpit sounds like a mess.
>
> What says the group? Anyone out there care to comment on the various
> strengths and weaknesses? I've only got about ten days left to make
> up my mind!

[JerryK]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 21:39:54 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

> I've been leaning towards a Garmin 196 to replace our ailing Lowrance Airmap
> 300. However, now that Garmin has announced they are no longer going to
> support the Garmin 90, it appears that they are no better at support than
> Lowrance -- who recently "orphaned" my Airmap from all technical support.
> (This occurred right before it started acting flaky, naturally.)
>

I would avoid the non-dedicated GPS. I have a Garmin 195 and the
AnywhereMap. I put the AnywhereMap back in the box after a few hours. It
is hard to be dedicated controls and the convenience of the 195.

jerry

[C J Campbell]

Having seen the iPaq (who comes up with these weird spellings, anyway) and
most of the GPS units I would say that the iPaq is a pretty good deal. The
screen is brighter than that on most GPS units. The wire clutter is no worse
than in any handheld GPS and in some cases actually better. You do not have
to use the pen. The actual downside is that it is slower than the newer
handhelds.

[Jim Weir]

Jay...

Before you do anything wait to see the sanitary installation and pilot report on
the Garmin color 295 when we get to IOW. My whole tech forum this year is on
the neat, clean installation of a portable GPS into an airplane.

Jim
Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Ryan Ferguson]

Jay,

A Garmin 295 lives on my copilot yoke. I like it quite a bit - use it for
backup, mainly, and for landmark identification once in awhile.

Once upon a time it was the ONLY GPS in my airplane. (Now I have an
IFR-certified GPS.) I used it a lot. Would I have found the AnywhereMap nearly
as functional? In a word, no. Excusing the wire mess and the fact that it's a
fragile, non-aviation device for use in a pretty rugged environment, the real
problem is interfacing with the damn thing. I have a cheap-o Palm Pilot VIIx
that I've written about on the newsgroups a few times, and I love it. I've used
it for a year now and have told everyone and their brother how cost-effective it
is to get in-cockpit weather with CBAV. But I only have to use it to get
weather images and such, so I tap in a few characters, sit the unit on the
glareshield and wait a moment to retrieve the data I want. Using an iPaq for
regular GPS usage - no way - or, I'd rather not, anyway. The AnywhereMap WX has
such attractive features. I just wish they'd build it all into a portable box
designed to work in the airplane - voila, an aviation GPS with weather
detection built in. If they made it, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. For GPS alone,
I really don't see the advantage of the AnywhereMap system. I evaluate aviation
products for use in an aviation environment, and while getting the extra
features of an iPaq for non-aviation tasks is nice, losing the robustness of the
built-like-a-tank Garmins is a poor tradeoff in my opinion.

Another significant downside to the interface problem is your head-down time.
The amount you spend looking inside with the PDA vs. the GPS will be greater.

Best,

Ryan



Jay Honeck wrote:

> I've been leaning towards a Garmin 196 to replace our ailing Lowrance Airmap
> 300. However, now that Garmin has announced they are no longer going to
> support the Garmin 90, it appears that they are no better at support than
> Lowrance -- who recently "orphaned" my Airmap from all technical support.
> (This occurred right before it started acting flaky, naturally.)
>
> So, I'm now thinking about one of these Compaq Ipaq/GPS combinations. One
> of our guests at the inn gave me a 15 minute "tour" of his, and I was fairly
> impressed with:
>
> - The color screen.
> - The strength of the software.
> - The fact that it just doesn't sit in the plane, but is actually useful
> beyond flying.
>
> Apparent downsides were:
>
> - The screen didn't look bright enough in direct sunlight
> - The "pen" interface seemed like a tough thing to handle, especially in
> turbulence.
> - The clutter of wires in the cockpit sounds like a mess.
>
> What says the group? Anyone out there care to comment on the various
> strengths and weaknesses? I've only got about ten days left to make up my
> mind!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Before you do anything wait to see the sanitary installation and pilot
report on
> the Garmin color 295 when we get to IOW.

Wilco!

Now if only I could afford the color...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The actual downside is that it is slower than the newer
> handhelds.

Could you expand on that a bit? Slower in what way?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jeff]

I have a garmin 295 right now (untill I upgrade my panel), my old plane I sold a
few months ago I had put a garmin 430 in it. I have friends who have garmin
196's and they like it alot. I prefer the 295 because its color.

But generally I think handhelds are mostly the same, only exception would be
any unique features you may want, like I would prefer a gps to show the screen
like a sectional, where it shows terrain hieght and such for avoiding mountains
at night. The 295, you can also purchase additional data bases for it for use in
a car and so on. But it does every thing from flight planning to showing you how
much fuel you will need for a leg.

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I've been leaning towards a Garmin 196 to replace our ailing Lowrance Airmap
> 300. However, now that Garmin has announced they are no longer going to
> support the Garmin 90, it appears that they are no better at support than
> Lowrance -- who recently "orphaned" my Airmap from all technical support.
> (This occurred right before it started acting flaky, naturally.)
>
> So, I'm now thinking about one of these Compaq Ipaq/GPS combinations. One
> of our guests at the inn gave me a 15 minute "tour" of his, and I was fairly
> impressed with:
>
> - The color screen.
> - The strength of the software.
> - The fact that it just doesn't sit in the plane, but is actually useful
> beyond flying.
>
> Apparent downsides were:
>
> - The screen didn't look bright enough in direct sunlight
> - The "pen" interface seemed like a tough thing to handle, especially in
> turbulence.
> - The clutter of wires in the cockpit sounds like a mess.
>
> What says the group? Anyone out there care to comment on the various
> strengths and weaknesses? I've only got about ten days left to make up my
> mind!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:cwVSa.112586$ye4.83381@sccrnsc01...
| > The actual downside is that it is slower than the newer
| > handhelds.
|
| Could you expand on that a bit? Slower in what way?
| --

It appears to me (and this is a subjective observation) that the iPaq
updates its screen more slowly than a handheld GPS. Of course, this can be
dependent on the particular model of iPaq, too.

[Dan Luke]

"Nosegear" wrote:
> Last advantage I can think of is also a disadvantage: you do not pay for
> certification of the equipment (I'm sure Garmin and others have some
> percentage for that in the price)

Nope. Portable GPS's aren't certified.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

> BTW did you get your hotel in the flight guide I mentioned awhile back?

Yep! Thanks for the tip! (We're supposedly going to be in the next issue.
Please let me know if you see it...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[BM]

You could try using the PocketAI shareware that runs on the
Pocket PC to make your decision faster. It's free to download
and functional even if you don't buy it. The programs makes it
very easy to weigh various factors and then rate each of your
alternatives. This way you know exactly which one comes out on
top and why.

Give it a try... http://www.3dnetproductions.com/pocketai/

Cheers,
BM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<K_DSa.107706$ye4.80571@sccrnsc01>...
> I've been leaning towards a Garmin 196 to replace our ailing Lowrance Airmap
> 300. However, now that Garmin has announced they are no longer going to
> support the Garmin 90, it appears that they are no better at support than
> Lowrance -- who recently "orphaned" my Airmap from all technical support.
> (This occurred right before it started acting flaky, naturally.)
>
> So, I'm now thinking about one of these Compaq Ipaq/GPS combinations. One
> of our guests at the inn gave me a 15 minute "tour" of his, and I was fairly
> impressed with:
>
> - The color screen.
> - The strength of the software.
> - The fact that it just doesn't sit in the plane, but is actually useful
> beyond flying.
>
> Apparent downsides were:
>
> - The screen didn't look bright enough in direct sunlight
> - The "pen" interface seemed like a tough thing to handle, especially in
> turbulence.
> - The clutter of wires in the cockpit sounds like a mess.
>
> What says the group? Anyone out there care to comment on the various
> strengths and weaknesses? I've only got about ten days left to make up my
> mind!

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Nosegear wrote:

> Also, with properly designed software the pen interface need not be a
> problem: you do the miniscule work when safely on the ground, and all
> other functions are easily activated by using your finger on the touch-
> screen. When you'd use PocketFMS, you can do the pre-flight part on your
> home PC and transfer everything to your iPAQ when finished.

Um, I dunno about you, but it's not unknown for us to wind up
diverting enroute due to weather. Usually under conditions
which make it both highly desireable to navigate accurately,
and highly difficult to use the pen interface on a Palm (which
one of us is usually doing, to check CBAV).

ie, we may start out doing the "miniscule" work safely on the
ground but it can't be counted on to end there.

I don't know how PocketFMS works: if it has the equivalent of
a red "nearest" button which will let you toggle quickly through
the 20 nearest airports or navaids, that'd suffice for most situations
I can think of.

Cheers,
Sydney

[john smith]

> Usually under conditions
> which make it both highly desireable to navigate accurately,
> and highly difficult to use the pen interface on a Palm (which
> one of us is usually doing, to check CBAV).

What is CBAV?

[John T]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message

>
> It appears to me (and this is a subjective observation) that the iPaq
> updates its screen more slowly than a handheld GPS. Of course, this
> can be dependent on the particular model of iPaq, too.

....and the software and how many other apps are currently running.

My experience is that the AnywhereMap software will paint the screen very
quickly once a second with the Sentinel GPS. I also try to keep it as the
only software running at the time to help ensure it has all the RAM it needs
(although my iPAQ has far more than necessary).

With all that said, a dedicated GPS unit has only one function so they can
tweak the hell out of it to do that one function very well.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[John T]

"Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message

>
> Another significant downside to the interface problem is your
> head-down time. The amount you spend looking inside with the PDA vs.
> the GPS will be greater.

Not necessarily.

Using just the moving map display on both units, for example, will not show
a difference in head-down time.

Depending on the type of activity you're doing, either unit can cause more
head-down time than the other.

The fact remains that the only way to truly evaluate the difference is to
take a flight with both units.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[Nosegear]

Thanks, you're right. Does that also go for built-in aviation GPS's/Moving
Maps? I assume there is some sort of certification there?

Nosegear

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in news:vhon26on7bqm72
@news.supernews.com:

> "Nosegear" wrote:
>> Last advantage I can think of is also a disadvantage: you do not pay for
>> certification of the equipment (I'm sure Garmin and others have some
>> percentage for that in the price)
>
> Nope. Portable GPS's aren't certified.

[Dan Luke]

"Nosegear" wrote:
> Thanks, you're right. Does that also go for built-in aviation
GPS's/Moving
> Maps? I assume there is some sort of certification there?

Yes. There are various levels of certification for units installed in
certified aircraft.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM