496 beats G1000...

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

....in at least five ways that I've found so far:

o The 496 allows extensive customizing of displayed data fields. The G1000
is very limited in this respect.

o The 496 automatically records each flight's origin, destination, time
and distance. The G1000 lacks this feature.

o The 496 can records each flight's track. The G1000 lacks this feature.

o The 496 can provide continuous update of nearest altimeter, dewpoint,
humidity and/or temperature in dedicated data fields. The G1000 lacks this
feature.

and biggest of all:

o The 496 can animate NEXRAD. The G1000 cannot.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Kobra[_3_]]

Dan,

the 496 can be popped out and put in your rental car or crew car and
navigate you to the restaurant, hotel or local attraction you flew in to
enjoy.

the 496 has XM radio included in the base price...the G1000 does not (afaik)

the 496 comes with the XM weather receiver included in it's base
price....the G1000 does not

the 496 comes with terrain and obstacles included in it's base price...the
G1000 does not

the 496 can be popped out and put in your boat...the G1000 can not

however...

the G1000 can provide RAIM prediction, IAF's, holding procedures, MAP's and
full legal RNAV approaches...the 496 can not...'nuff said.

Is it worth the difference in price? Absolutely NOT!! Will I and a lot of
people in this group bend over and buy one (or similar product) some day?
Most likely.

Kobra


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> ...in at least five ways that I've found so far:
>
> o The 496 allows extensive customizing of displayed data fields. The
> G1000 is very limited in this respect.
>
> o The 496 automatically records each flight's origin, destination,
> time and distance. The G1000 lacks this feature.
>
> o The 496 can records each flight's track. The G1000 lacks this
> feature.
>
> o The 496 can provide continuous update of nearest altimeter, dewpoint,
> humidity and/or temperature in dedicated data fields. The G1000 lacks
> this feature.
>
> and biggest of all:
>
> o The 496 can animate NEXRAD. The G1000 cannot.
>
> --
> Dan
> T-182T at BFM
>
>
>
>
>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

G1000..............IFR
496...................VFR


"Curator"



"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> ...in at least five ways that I've found so far:
>
> o The 496 allows extensive customizing of displayed data fields. The
> G1000 is very limited in this respect.
>
> o The 496 automatically records each flight's origin, destination,
> time and distance. The G1000 lacks this feature.
>
> o The 496 can records each flight's track. The G1000 lacks this
> feature.
>
> o The 496 can provide continuous update of nearest altimeter, dewpoint,
> humidity and/or temperature in dedicated data fields. The G1000 lacks
> this feature.
>
> and biggest of all:
>
> o The 496 can animate NEXRAD. The G1000 cannot.
>
> --
> Dan
> T-182T at BFM
>
>
>
>
>

[Road Dog]

Kobra wrote:
>
> the 496 can be popped out and put in your boat...the G1000 can not

I was surprised to learn of the 496's sonar capability.
With the auto navigation, etc. I didn't need any more features
to buy it. Makes me want to go out and buy a seaplane just
so I can throw a line over the side and catch some dinner. :)

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Kobra" > wrote:
> however...
>
> the G1000 can provide RAIM prediction, IAF's, holding procedures, MAP's and
> full legal RNAV approaches...the 496 can not...'nuff said.

I don't think that was Dan's point. And, you don't need a G1000 to get
an approach capable IFR GPS.



JKG

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 18, 6:15 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> ...in at least five ways that I've found so far:
>
> o The 496 allows extensive customizing of displayed data fields. The G1000
> is very limited in this respect.
>
> o The 496 automatically records each flight's origin, destination, time
> and distance. The G1000 lacks this feature.
>
> o The 496 can records each flight's track. The G1000 lacks this feature.
>
> o The 496 can provide continuous update of nearest altimeter, dewpoint,
> humidity and/or temperature in dedicated data fields. The G1000 lacks this
> feature.
>
> and biggest of all:
>
> o The 496 can animate NEXRAD. The G1000 cannot.
>
> --
> Dan
> T-182T at BFM

I'm sure some of the limitations of the G1000 are a result of it being
certified. JPI tells me I can have my EDM certified to replace my
stock CHT gauge but I have to send the unit in to disallow me from
changing the alarm limits.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 18, 9:02 pm, "Kobra" > wrote:
G1000 does not
>
> the 496 comes with terrain and obstacles included in it's base price...the
> G1000 does not

I don't think we paid extra for terrain in the G1000.

-robert

[Jay Honeck]

> G1000..............IFR
> 496...................VFR

Why should this automatically translate into "the 496 can do more that
the G1000"??
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Jay Honeck > writes:

> > G1000..............IFR
> > 496...................VFR

> Why should this automatically translate into "the 496 can do more
> that the G1000"??

It's not entirely automatic, but sensible if you think about it.
Software written for IFR GPSs needs to be certified, amongst other
requirements for the RTCA DO-178B standards. It's onerous - I
sometimes wish the software I write needed to be that reliable. On
the other hand, handhelds may have any old code in them because they
are deemed non-critical, so their manufacturer can easily experiment
with new features. (I expect an analogous conservatism occurs with
respect to their *hardware* too, which suggests that the computational
resources available within certified avionics are also smaller.)

- FChE

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Certification.

It costs to be reliable.

"Curator"


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> G1000..............IFR
>> 496...................VFR
>
> Why should this automatically translate into "the 496 can do more that
> the G1000"??
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
> Certification.
>
> It costs to be reliable.
>
> "Curator"

And it costs to _prove_ you are reliable, and if a problem pops up-start
over- and test again, and if a prob......

You get the picture.
--
Jim in NC

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>> o The 496 can . The G1000 cannot.

> I'm sure some of the limitations of the G1000 are a result of it being
> certified.

No doubt. Hard to see how that prevented the animated NEXRAD feature from
being implemented, though; that really gripes me.

Could be a processor/memory resources issue, I suppose.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 20, 5:56 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
> >> o The 496 can . The G1000 cannot.
> > I'm sure some of the limitations of the G1000 are a result of it being
> > certified.
>
> No doubt. Hard to see how that prevented the animated NEXRAD feature from
> being implemented, though; that really gripes me.
>
> Could be a processor/memory resources issue, I suppose.

Its hard to tell and Garmin would never give you an honest response.
When I asked them why the G1000 doesn't have airways (shouldn't a
glass cockpit aircraft be set up to fly IFR w/o enroute charts?), they
responded that it would take an "enormous" amount of memory to store
all the airways in the U.S. I guess its lucky that it doesn't take
memory to know the terrain at every point on the earth! ;)

-Robert

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:23:23 -0700, Robert M. Gary wrote:

>> Could be a processor/memory resources issue, I suppose.
>
> Its hard to tell and Garmin would never give you an honest response. When
> I asked them why the G1000 doesn't have airways (shouldn't a glass cockpit
> aircraft be set up to fly IFR w/o enroute charts?), they responded that it
> would take an "enormous" amount of memory to store all the airways in the
> U.S.

I've found that with Garmin too, and I find it surprising as well as
annoying. What would be the harm from an honest answer (ie. "it's not
cost effective" or "it would require that we spend X in recertification"
or whatever the answer needs to be)?

I wonder if we're not hearing "Garmin's" "thoughts" but the thoughts,
opinions, and even guesses of individual employees. In my case, I'd asked
on the tech support line a while back whether the WAAS upgrade to the
430/530 line (which was still mythical at the time but which was known to
require significant hardware as well as software changes) would include
the airway-based flight plan entry mechanism found on the 480. The answer
was that this was too difficult for pilots to use.

Since that's exactly how we express clearances, I was shocked at the
answer. In retrospect, it's probably not a bad guess if someone is
familiar only with VFR flying. But I'd expect the company as a whole to
know that we IFR-ers are out there too.

Though perhaps there aren't enough of us using Garmins to make it cost
effective for them to add this. Or perhaps we already buy Garmins, so
there's no additional need for this feature from Garmin's perspective. I
don't like either answer, of course, but at least it would make sense.

- Andrew

[Hilton]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>> >> o The 496 can . The G1000 cannot.
>> > I'm sure some of the limitations of the G1000 are a result of it being
>> > certified.
>>
>> No doubt. Hard to see how that prevented the animated NEXRAD feature
>> from
>> being implemented, though; that really gripes me.
>>
>> Could be a processor/memory resources issue, I suppose.
>
> Its hard to tell and Garmin would never give you an honest response.
> When I asked them why the G1000 doesn't have airways (shouldn't a
> glass cockpit aircraft be set up to fly IFR w/o enroute charts?), they
> responded that it would take an "enormous" amount of memory to store
> all the airways in the U.S. I guess its lucky that it doesn't take
> memory to know the terrain at every point on the earth! ;)

Perhaps he was just guessing... We recently added Victor airways and
Jetways to WingX and the database size increased very very marginally. It
really isn't that much data. OK, we have an excellent compression
algorithm, but still... I'm absolutely amazed that such a sophisticated
device does not have Airways. The whole memory thing doesn't cut it. Right
now on my Cingular Blackjack (cell phone), using WingX I have every NACO
chart in the US (app, ID, STAR, MINs etc), every public and private airport,
airways, fixes, intersections, comprehensive AF/D, etc, and I'm not even
using 1/4 of my 2GB SD card. FYI: The database to store everything
mentioned above (excluding charts) on WingX is less than 5MB.

I'm hoping this Garmin chap was just guessing.

Hilton

[Gilbert Smith]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:23:23 -0700, Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>>> Could be a processor/memory resources issue, I suppose.
>>
>> Its hard to tell and Garmin would never give you an honest response. When
>> I asked them why the G1000 doesn't have airways (shouldn't a glass cockpit
>> aircraft be set up to fly IFR w/o enroute charts?), they responded that it
>> would take an "enormous" amount of memory to store all the airways in the
>> U.S.
>
>I've found that with Garmin too, and I find it surprising as well as
>annoying. What would be the harm from an honest answer (ie. "it's not
>cost effective" or "it would require that we spend X in recertification"
>or whatever the answer needs to be)?
>
>I wonder if we're not hearing "Garmin's" "thoughts" but the thoughts,
>opinions, and even guesses of individual employees. In my case, I'd asked
>on the tech support line a while back whether the WAAS upgrade to the
>430/530 line (which was still mythical at the time but which was known to
>require significant hardware as well as software changes) would include
>the airway-based flight plan entry mechanism found on the 480. The answer
>was that this was too difficult for pilots to use.
>
>Since that's exactly how we express clearances, I was shocked at the
>answer. In retrospect, it's probably not a bad guess if someone is
>familiar only with VFR flying. But I'd expect the company as a whole to
>know that we IFR-ers are out there too.
>
>Though perhaps there aren't enough of us using Garmins to make it cost
>effective for them to add this. Or perhaps we already buy Garmins, so
>there's no additional need for this feature from Garmin's perspective. I
>don't like either answer, of course, but at least it would make sense.
>
> - Andrew

There is software out there which you can use to add all the Victor
airways to your aviation database. Trouble is that Garmin units
display all the airspace instead of just those parts near your flight
level, which makes the whole thing too cluttered to be usable. We even
tried making them very narrow, but it was better without them.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:01:22 +0100, Gilbert Smith wrote:

> Trouble is that Garmin units display
> all the airspace instead of just those parts near your flight level, which
> makes the whole thing too cluttered to be usable.

I can see some benefit to displaying airways...but I view that as quite a
bit less advantageous than airway-based data entry. Esp. when making a
routing change in the air, this makes the difference between a no-chart
entry of the change and requiring that the pilot review the chart(s) to
determine the waypoint list before entry. That's "head down" time that
could be avoided by a better user interface.

Airway-based data entry does not require display of airways. What will
happen by display of the entered flight plan - presuming that it uses
airways - is that *those* airways will be displayed. But that's display
of the flight plan; not display of airways.

- Andrew

[Gilbert Smith]

"Hilton" > wrote:

>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>>> >> o The 496 can . The G1000 cannot.
>>> > I'm sure some of the limitations of the G1000 are a result of it being
>>> > certified.
>>>
>>> No doubt. Hard to see how that prevented the animated NEXRAD feature
>>> from
>>> being implemented, though; that really gripes me.
>>>
>>> Could be a processor/memory resources issue, I suppose.
>>
>> Its hard to tell and Garmin would never give you an honest response.
>> When I asked them why the G1000 doesn't have airways (shouldn't a
>> glass cockpit aircraft be set up to fly IFR w/o enroute charts?), they
>> responded that it would take an "enormous" amount of memory to store
>> all the airways in the U.S. I guess its lucky that it doesn't take
>> memory to know the terrain at every point on the earth! ;)
>
>Perhaps he was just guessing... We recently added Victor airways and
>Jetways to WingX and the database size increased very very marginally. It
>really isn't that much data. OK, we have an excellent compression
>algorithm, but still... I'm absolutely amazed that such a sophisticated
>device does not have Airways. The whole memory thing doesn't cut it. Right
>now on my Cingular Blackjack (cell phone), using WingX I have every NACO
>chart in the US (app, ID, STAR, MINs etc), every public and private airport,
>airways, fixes, intersections, comprehensive AF/D, etc, and I'm not even
>using 1/4 of my 2GB SD card. FYI: The database to store everything
>mentioned above (excluding charts) on WingX is less than 5MB.
>
>I'm hoping this Garmin chap was just guessing.
>
>Hilton
>
The 496 has a massive amount of unused memory waiting for larger
aviation databases, so airways are a drop in the ocean.

Adding airspace to routes would be quite a different matter, as they
would have to take on the attributes of two waypoints - a big software
change.