Garmin Aera 660 vs ifly 720

[[email protected]]

So my Garmin 196 gave up the ghost and is not updatable anyway. So Im looking to replace it with one of the two above. One big question is (and I searched both manuals before asking this) do either of them give the current required glide ratio to a point? My 196 did and I had it on my custom field. It was extremely helpful for final glides. Both of the units Im looking at have VNAV functions but cant tell if the have what Im looking for in the size the come in. Any one have experiance with either of these? Thanks

Cliff Hilty ASW27 CH

[2G]

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 5:40:11 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> So my Garmin 196 gave up the ghost and is not updatable anyway. So Im looking to replace it with one of the two above. One big question is (and I searched both manuals before asking this) do either of them give the current required glide ratio to a point? My 196 did and I had it on my custom field.. It was extremely helpful for final glides. Both of the units Im looking at have VNAV functions but cant tell if the have what Im looking for in the size the come in. Any one have experiance with either of these? Thanks
>
> Cliff Hilty ASW27 CH

The Aera 660 can display glide ratio in a user-defined data box. It also has a vertical nav (VNAV) feature that is similar to a glide computer. All of this is explained in its manual:

http://static.garmin.com/pumac/190-02017-20_e.pdf

I have seen the 660, and the display is quite bright in direct sunlight. A friend has one that he uses to display XM weather (needs the GDL-52 receiver).

Tom

[[email protected]]

I read that Tom, but it seems it only displays what you are getting for a glide ratio not what you need to a fixed point. I do like the look and ease of ops with the aera 660. I talked with tech support for both units and niether will do what the 196 did, but Ifly is working on that in a next gen software. I also like the ipad/ foreflight that now has the amoeba for reachable glide. Its just alittle big in my limited cockpit space. In the mean time I found a used 196 for a 100 bucks on ebay :)

[2G]

On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 3:05:01 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> I read that Tom, but it seems it only displays what you are getting for a glide ratio not what you need to a fixed point. I do like the look and ease of ops with the aera 660. I talked with tech support for both units and niether will do what the 196 did, but Ifly is working on that in a next gen software. I also like the ipad/ foreflight that now has the amoeba for reachable glide. Its just alittle big in my limited cockpit space. In the mean time I found a used 196 for a 100 bucks on ebay :)

The VNAV feature is a glide to a waypoint.

Tom

[[email protected]]

True but it is given in fpm descent not glide ratio.

[2G]

On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 3:42:54 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> True but it is given in fpm descent not glide ratio.

So what? Can't you do a simple conversion?

[[email protected]]

Sure, I can always go back to the whiz wheel too :) Isnt that the point of technology, not to have to do the conversions?

[Ramy[_2_]]

Not sure why not using one of the many flight computers available to us which do these calculations and so much more, some of them are even free?
I never used Garmin nor I ever felt the need for it.

Ramy

[[email protected]]

I am using a SN10B, the garmin is a backup, with the added advantage of having the faa database with all of the info for airports in the united states.. As well as glide ratio to a point. I guess its just what Im used to and know how to use without a large learning curve. I have tried XC soar and use it on my phone as a logger when flying club ships but it is not intuittive and screen brightness on most devices(with the exception of Eink readers) is limiting.

CH

[2G]

On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 9:01:44 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Sure, I can always go back to the whiz wheel too :) Isnt that the point of technology, not to have to do the conversions?

My, my. Aren't we a bunch of techno-illiterates?

1 nm = 6076 ft
1 kt = 6076 ft/min

6072 ft/min
------ = 61:1 glide angle
100 ft/min

6072 ft/min
------ = 30.5:1 glide angle
200 ft/min

I bet you can do the rest - if you tried.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 21:34:59 -0700, 2G wrote:

> On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 9:01:44 AM UTC-7,
> wrote:
>> Sure, I can always go back to the whiz wheel too :) Isnt that the point
>> of technology, not to have to do the conversions?
>
> My, my. Aren't we a bunch of techno-illiterates?
>
> 1 nm = 6076 ft 1 kt = 6076 ft/min
>
Err, no!

1kt is 6076 feet per hour or (for all practical purposes) 100 ft/min.

--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[AS]

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 7:20:41 AM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 21:34:59 -0700, 2G wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 9:01:44 AM UTC-7,
> > wrote:
> >> Sure, I can always go back to the whiz wheel too :) Isnt that the point
> >> of technology, not to have to do the conversions?
> >
> > My, my. Aren't we a bunch of techno-illiterates?
> >
> > 1 nm = 6076 ft 1 kt = 6076 ft/min
> >
> Err, no!
>
> 1kt is 6076 feet per hour or (for all practical purposes) 100 ft/min.
>
> --
> Martin | martin at
> Gregorie | gregorie dot org

Ahhh - God bless the metric system!
Wait wait - let me get into my Nomex suit first! ;-)

Uli

'AS'

[BobW]

On 8/9/2019 6:40 AM, AS wrote:
> On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 7:20:41 AM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 21:34:59 -0700, 2G wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 9:01:44 AM UTC-7,
>>> wrote:
>>>> Sure, I can always go back to the whiz wheel too :) Isnt that the
>>>> point of technology, not to have to do the conversions?
>>>
>>> My, my. Aren't we a bunch of techno-illiterates?
>>>
>>> 1 nm = 6076 ft 1 kt = 6076 ft/min
>>>
>> Err, no!
>>
>> 1kt is 6076 feet per hour or (for all practical purposes) 100 ft/min.
>>
>> -- Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
>
> Ahhh - God bless the metric system! Wait wait - let me get into my Nomex
> suit first! ;-)
>
> Uli

Bwa ha ha!!! Uli, you demonic, bomb-throwing, scum. May your next 1000K flight
be at a very slow rate of knots.

Bob - feeling my humor oats this AM - W.

P.S. Clearly both the Aera 660 and ifly720 are devil-instruments, unsuited for
the soaring world.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 07:47:32 -0600, BobW wrote:

> On 8/9/2019 6:40 AM, AS wrote:
>> On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 7:20:41 AM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 21:34:59 -0700, 2G wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 9:01:44 AM UTC-7,
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Sure, I can always go back to the whiz wheel too :) Isnt that the
>>>>> point of technology, not to have to do the conversions?
>>>>
>>>> My, my. Aren't we a bunch of techno-illiterates?
>>>>
>>>> 1 nm = 6076 ft 1 kt = 6076 ft/min
>>>>
>>> Err, no!
>>>
>>> 1kt is 6076 feet per hour or (for all practical purposes) 100 ft/min.
>>>
>>> -- Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
>>
>> Ahhh - God bless the metric system! Wait wait - let me get into my
>> Nomex suit first! ;-)
>>
>> Uli
>
> Bwa ha ha!!! Uli, you demonic, bomb-throwing, scum. May your next 1000K
> flight be at a very slow rate of knots.
>
In the UK soaring community we use a much more eclectic mix of units than
is common in the USA.

Glider instruments use ICAO units (knots for airspeed and climb rate,
feet for height, Centigrade temperatures, millibars for atmospheric
pressure and altimeter settings and bars for other pressures, e.g. tyre).

OTOH tasks are metric (kilometers and meters for distance, km/h for
speed).

Everybody, even now XC pilots, seem to do this without undue mental
strain.

European gliding is entirely metric. I've flown gliders at Wiener Nuestadt
(Austria) and the Wasserkuppe (Germany) without numeric confusion because
the ASI is the right way up and speed bar markings are the same colours,
though I do tend to misunderstand climb rates in m/s - 1m/s approximates
2kts.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org