garmin or something else

[Kelly]

I'm trying to figure out what portable device to buy to provide in-
flight weather, as well as terrain info. Electronic approach plates
and enroute charts, as well as flight planning capability, would also
be a plus, but not essential. I fly a Cessna 172 that is already
equipped with a Garmin 430. I have read about both the Garmin 396 and
496, and I borrowed the 496 to use for a couple of flights. I have
also checked out several EFB-type systems online, such as through
Anywhere Map, Voyager, and Chart Case, which can be used on a laptop
or tablet, or in some cases, a smartphone.

I would be interested to know if anyone has had good luck with either
a laptop or smartphone medium, and what software package was used.
Also, I know how the 396 and 496 differ, but would like to know if you
think the 496 is worth the extra $600. I should also mention that I
like the "6-pack" panel page on the Garmins as a potential backup in
the event of vacuum pump or electrical failure, and wonder how much
difference the faster refresh rate on the 496 makes for this page. I
guess I am leaning toward a Garmin at this point, but would first like
to hear some other comments on these issues.

Thanks in advance.
Kelly

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Kelly" wrote:


> I would be interested to know if anyone has had good luck with either
> a laptop

I used WxWorx on a laptop before the 396 came out. I loved the software but
hated using the laptop in the plane.

A 396/496 is definitely the way to go if you don't plan on getting
panel-mounted satellite weather.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dave Butler]

Kelly wrote:

> Also, I know how the 396 and 496 differ, but would like to know if you
> think the 496 is worth the extra $600. I should also mention that I
> like the "6-pack" panel page on the Garmins as a potential backup in
> the event of vacuum pump or electrical failure, and wonder how much
> difference the faster refresh rate on the 496 makes for this page.

I think the 396 and 496 both update their navigation solution at 1 Hz.

The difference in refresh rate refers only to the graphic screen update
when you (for example) slew the moving map. I stand ready to be
corrected on this point, however.

I have the 396 and it's fine for depicting nexrad. The graphic screen
update is indeed a bit slow if you're navigating with it and frequently
change scales or slew the map around with the cursor.

I think for the uses you describe, the 396 will do fine in a 172. I
wouldn't depend on either of them as a backup for vacuum in a fast,
slippery airplane.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Dave Butler wrote:
> Kelly wrote:
>
>> Also, I know how the 396 and 496 differ, but would like to know if
>> you think the 496 is worth the extra $600. I should also mention
>> that I like the "6-pack" panel page on the Garmins as a potential
>> backup in the event of vacuum pump or electrical failure, and wonder
>> how much difference the faster refresh rate on the 496 makes for
>> this page.
>
> I think the 396 and 496 both update their navigation solution at 1 Hz.
>
> The difference in refresh rate refers only to the graphic screen
> update when you (for example) slew the moving map. I stand ready to be
> corrected on this point, however.
>
> I have the 396 and it's fine for depicting nexrad. The graphic screen
> update is indeed a bit slow if you're navigating with it and
> frequently change scales or slew the map around with the cursor.
>
> I think for the uses you describe, the 396 will do fine in a 172. I
> wouldn't depend on either of them as a backup for vacuum in a fast,
> slippery airplane.

From Garmin's website.

".Faster 5 Hz GPS updating of map data and "panel page" gives a smoother,
nearly real-time presentation of turn coordinator and HSI."

I'm planning on putting a 496 in my 601XL that's only other flight
instrument is going to be a Dynon EFIS. Because of this the GPS derived
panel in the 496 is of great interest to me as an emergency pack up.

To test I went up in a 496 equipped 172, a hood and another pilot and
simulated a panel is dead and in the soup. I used the 496 Panel page and was
able to get to 500 feet and the right end of the runway with the shiny side
up. I'm sold on the thing. It is critical though to give the instrument time
to average out. Especially airspeed. Don't chase it.

[Ray Andraka]

Dave Butler wrote:
> Kelly wrote:
>
>> Also, I know how the 396 and 496 differ, but would like to know if you
>> think the 496 is worth the extra $600. I should also mention that I
>> like the "6-pack" panel page on the Garmins as a potential backup in
>> the event of vacuum pump or electrical failure, and wonder how much
>> difference the faster refresh rate on the 496 makes for this page.
>
>
> I think the 396 and 496 both update their navigation solution at 1 Hz.
>
> The difference in refresh rate refers only to the graphic screen update
> when you (for example) slew the moving map. I stand ready to be
> corrected on this point, however.
>
> I have the 396 and it's fine for depicting nexrad. The graphic screen
> update is indeed a bit slow if you're navigating with it and frequently
> change scales or slew the map around with the cursor.
>
> I think for the uses you describe, the 396 will do fine in a 172. I
> wouldn't depend on either of them as a backup for vacuum in a fast,
> slippery airplane.

The 496 also has the AOPA directory built in, which I don't believe the
396 has. I went through the same debate and settled on the 496 at OSH,
partly because it is currently the latest which means it may be
supported further into the future.

[Jay Honeck]

> > I would be interested to know if anyone has had good luck with either
> > a laptop
>
> I used WxWorx on a laptop before the 396 came out. I loved the software but
> hated using the laptop in the plane.

Jim Burns has weather on a laptop, which works amazingly well -- UNTIL
you hit turbulence. (Jim, chime in here whenever you want to...)

Looking down into your lap whilst traversing severe bumps --
especially in IFR conditions -- is a great way to make yourself very,
very ill.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[dave]

I have a garmin 430 in my airplane and I still carry my old garmin 196.
I do want to get weather so I've been thinking about the
flightcheetah 190 or a software based system that I could run on a
palmtop like the Samsung Q1. I like the idea of using the Samsung
because I could also use it for work. Here's some links
approach systems - software only - http://www.approach-systems.com/apic.asp
True Systems - both hardware and software solutions
http://www.aviationsafety.com/fl_190.htm
Flightprep - software only but apparently they'll package it with
hardware if you want
http://www.flightprep.com/rootpage.php?page=HomeEFBSW
Dave
M35


Kelly wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out what portable device to buy to provide in-
> flight weather, as well as terrain info. Electronic approach plates
> and enroute charts, as well as flight planning capability, would also
> be a plus, but not essential. I fly a Cessna 172 that is already
> equipped with a Garmin 430. I have read about both the Garmin 396 and
> 496, and I borrowed the 496 to use for a couple of flights. I have
> also checked out several EFB-type systems online, such as through
> Anywhere Map, Voyager, and Chart Case, which can be used on a laptop
> or tablet, or in some cases, a smartphone.
>
> I would be interested to know if anyone has had good luck with either
> a laptop or smartphone medium, and what software package was used.
> Also, I know how the 396 and 496 differ, but would like to know if you
> think the 496 is worth the extra $600. I should also mention that I
> like the "6-pack" panel page on the Garmins as a potential backup in
> the event of vacuum pump or electrical failure, and wonder how much
> difference the faster refresh rate on the 496 makes for this page. I
> guess I am leaning toward a Garmin at this point, but would first like
> to hear some other comments on these issues.
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Kelly
>

[NW_Pilot]

I had a chance to play with an Avmap Pro nice unit slim and fast not all the
frills of the garmin unit but nice large & clear display. Simple to use
also. I am buying one when I get the extra funds.

http://www.avmapnavigation.com/index.php?swt=1203&ipr=9


"Kelly" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'm trying to figure out what portable device to buy to provide in-
> flight weather, as well as terrain info. Electronic approach plates
> and enroute charts, as well as flight planning capability, would also
> be a plus, but not essential. I fly a Cessna 172 that is already
> equipped with a Garmin 430. I have read about both the Garmin 396 and
> 496, and I borrowed the 496 to use for a couple of flights. I have
> also checked out several EFB-type systems online, such as through
> Anywhere Map, Voyager, and Chart Case, which can be used on a laptop
> or tablet, or in some cases, a smartphone.
>
> I would be interested to know if anyone has had good luck with either
> a laptop or smartphone medium, and what software package was used.
> Also, I know how the 396 and 496 differ, but would like to know if you
> think the 496 is worth the extra $600. I should also mention that I
> like the "6-pack" panel page on the Garmins as a potential backup in
> the event of vacuum pump or electrical failure, and wonder how much
> difference the faster refresh rate on the 496 makes for this page. I
> guess I am leaning toward a Garmin at this point, but would first like
> to hear some other comments on these issues.
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Kelly
>

[NW_Pilot]

oh. APRS can be used with Icom 706 hf also.


"Kelly" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'm trying to figure out what portable device to buy to provide in-
> flight weather, as well as terrain info. Electronic approach plates
> and enroute charts, as well as flight planning capability, would also
> be a plus, but not essential. I fly a Cessna 172 that is already
> equipped with a Garmin 430. I have read about both the Garmin 396 and
> 496, and I borrowed the 496 to use for a couple of flights. I have
> also checked out several EFB-type systems online, such as through
> Anywhere Map, Voyager, and Chart Case, which can be used on a laptop
> or tablet, or in some cases, a smartphone.
>
> I would be interested to know if anyone has had good luck with either
> a laptop or smartphone medium, and what software package was used.
> Also, I know how the 396 and 496 differ, but would like to know if you
> think the 496 is worth the extra $600. I should also mention that I
> like the "6-pack" panel page on the Garmins as a potential backup in
> the event of vacuum pump or electrical failure, and wonder how much
> difference the faster refresh rate on the 496 makes for this page. I
> guess I am leaning toward a Garmin at this point, but would first like
> to hear some other comments on these issues.
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Kelly
>

[Kelly]

Thanks for all of the comments and suggestions.


> To test I went up in a 496 equipped 172, a hood and another pilot and
> simulated a panel is dead and in the soup. I used the 496 Panel page and was
> able to get to 500 feet and the right end of the runway with the shiny side
> up. I'm sold on the thing. It is critical though to give the instrument time
> to average out. Especially airspeed. Don't chase it.

I'm glad to hear that this worked out. I read a similar account in
Aviation Consumer, and it may have even been with a 396, In that
article, the point was made that the 396 (or 496) was a viable backup
in an emergency situation.

In considering the various options I have to get wx in flight, I
figure I will have to spend a minimum of $1200 or $1300, which at this
range would involve using my laptop along with a wxworx receiver, gps
receiver, and one of the less expensive flight planning/wx software
programs. When I consider this cost, it doesn't make the 396 at $1800
look so bad (or for that matter even the 496 at $2300).

One last thing -- has anyone used a smartphone communicating with a wx
receiver in flight? The approach systems software mentioned by one of
the posters has that option, as does Anywhere Map.

Kelly

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Kelly wrote:
> Thanks for all of the comments and suggestions.
>
>
>> To test I went up in a 496 equipped 172, a hood and another pilot and
>> simulated a panel is dead and in the soup. I used the 496 Panel page
>> and was able to get to 500 feet and the right end of the runway with
>> the shiny side up. I'm sold on the thing. It is critical though to
>> give the instrument time to average out. Especially airspeed. Don't
>> chase it.
>
> I'm glad to hear that this worked out. I read a similar account in
> Aviation Consumer, and it may have even been with a 396, In that
> article, the point was made that the 396 (or 496) was a viable backup
> in an emergency situation.
>
> In considering the various options I have to get wx in flight, I
> figure I will have to spend a minimum of $1200 or $1300, which at this
> range would involve using my laptop along with a wxworx receiver, gps
> receiver, and one of the less expensive flight planning/wx software
> programs. When I consider this cost, it doesn't make the 396 at $1800
> look so bad (or for that matter even the 496 at $2300).
>
> One last thing -- has anyone used a smartphone communicating with a wx
> receiver in flight? The approach systems software mentioned by one of
> the posters has that option, as does Anywhere Map.
>
> Kelly

Just for the record, while I never tried my experiment with a 396 I have
flown with one and there is a MASSIVE difference between the 1hz and 5hz
refreash rate. I doubt I could have flown the aircraft with just the 396
"panel" under the hood.

[Kelly]

On Aug 20, 4:47 pm, dave > wrote:
> I have a garmin 430 in my airplane and I still carry my old garmin 196.
> I do want to get weather so I've been thinking about the
> flightcheetah 190 or a software based system that I could run on a
> palmtop like the Samsung Q1. I like the idea of using the Samsung
> because I could also use it for work. Here's some links
> approach systems - software only -http://www.approach-systems.com/apic.asp
> True Systems - both hardware and software solutionshttp://www.aviationsafety.com/fl_190.htm
> Flightprep - software only but apparently they'll package it with
> hardware if you wanthttp://www.flightprep.com/rootpage.php?page=HomeEFBSW
> Dave
> M35
>
> Kelly wrote:
> > I'm trying to figure out what portable device to buy to provide in-
> > flight weather, as well as terrain info. Electronic approach plates
> > and enroute charts, as well as flight planning capability, would also
> > be a plus, but not essential. I fly a Cessna 172 that is already
> > equipped with a Garmin 430. I have read about both the Garmin 396 and
> > 496, and I borrowed the 496 to use for a couple of flights. I have
> > also checked out several EFB-type systems online, such as through
> > Anywhere Map, Voyager, and Chart Case, which can be used on a laptop
> > or tablet, or in some cases, a smartphone.
>
> > I would be interested to know if anyone has had good luck with either
> > a laptop or smartphone medium, and what software package was used.
> > Also, I know how the 396 and 496 differ, but would like to know if you
> > think the 496 is worth the extra $600. I should also mention that I
> > like the "6-pack" panel page on the Garmins as a potential backup in
> > the event of vacuum pump or electrical failure, and wonder how much
> > difference the faster refresh rate on the 496 makes for this page. I
> > guess I am leaning toward a Garmin at this point, but would first like
> > to hear some other comments on these issues.
>
> > Thanks in advance.
> > Kelly

[Kelly]

On Aug 20, 4:47 pm, dave > wrote:
> I have a garmin 430 in my airplane and I still carry my old garmin 196.
> I do want to get weather so I've been thinking about the
> flightcheetah 190 or a software based system that I could run on a
> palmtop like the Samsung Q1. I like the idea of using the Samsung
> because I could also use it for work. Here's some links
> approach systems - software only -http://www.approach-systems.com/apic.asp
> True Systems - both hardware and software solutionshttp://www.aviationsafety.com/fl_190.htm
> Flightprep - software only but apparently they'll package it with
> hardware if you wanthttp://www.flightprep.com/rootpage.php?page=HomeEFBSW
> Dave
> M35

Has anyone used the software from Approach Systems? I had not run
across this before Dave mentioned it, but it looks pretty good and has
an option for free 30-day trial. I was particularly intrigued by the
attitude indicator page and wonder how well that works. With a Pocket
PC, the Approach Systems software would seem to be similar in many
respects (but cheaper) to the Anywhere Map software.

Kelly

[Shirl]

Joining the discussion late and not sure who wrote:
> > > I should also mention that I
> > > like the "6-pack" panel page on the Garmins as a potential backup in
> > > the event of vacuum pump or electrical failure, and wonder how much
> > > difference the faster refresh rate on the 496 makes for this page. I
> > > guess I am leaning toward a Garmin at this point, but would first like
> > > to hear some other comments on these issues.

In regard only to the comment above about the 6-pack instrument page, I
have a tandem airplane with two Garmin 296's (one in front, one in
back). Since there are no instruments in back, that 6-pack instrument
page not only serves as the dual backup you mentioned above, it also
gives the back-seat pilot/passenger access to info he/she can't see on
the panel itself over the shoulders of the front-seat pilot/passenger.
These little hand-helds are worth their weight in gold, IMO.

[dave]

Kelly wrote:

> Has anyone used the software from Approach Systems? I had not run
> across this before Dave mentioned it, but it looks pretty good and has
> an option for free 30-day trial. I was particularly intrigued by the
> attitude indicator page and wonder how well that works. With a Pocket
> PC, the Approach Systems software would seem to be similar in many
> respects (but cheaper) to the Anywhere Map software.
>
> Kelly
>

Kelly,
Unfortunately I have not tried any of the three that I have suggested.
I never heard about approach systems until I bought my bonanza. The
guy I bought it from is one of the owners. The panel shot in the
brochure is my airplane. I think he was more of an investor and test
pilot of the product than a designer/programmer.

One other pricing issue - database updates. According to the flight
cheetah website Garmin costs about $1000/year vs. $200/year. That's a
significant cost. I'd like to go with a software solution and use an
ultra-mobile PC, UMPC, like the samsung q1. I can use the UMPC for
work which makes buying the package more valuable. Dropping $2500 for
a 496 which admittedly is a very good product doesn't make sense if I
can spend the same or less on a software solution and a UMPC that I will
use for several hours/week for other things. If I did go with a
hardware solution I'd pick the flight cheetah 190 over the garmins.

Dave
M35

[Andrew Gideon[_2_]]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:47:05 -0400, dave wrote:

> If I did go with a hardware solution
> I'd pick the flight cheetah 190 over the garmins.

That's the direction in which I'm leaning.

The 496 "panel" is nice. However, the 190 has - at a nontrivial
additional price, admittedly - a real electronic AI.

There's also the VistaNav to consider.

I'm hoping all these products are on the floor at AOPA Expo in a couple of
months. I'll get a chance to see them up close, and probably leave the
show with one or the other.

In no particular order, my thoughts one way or the other are:

* Garmin is integrated more tightly than the other solutions;
should therefore be more stable.

* Garmin has no upgrade path; the other products permit upgrades
w/o buying new hardware (at least for a while {8^)

* Screen size; bigger is better

* Unit size; smaller is better

* Garmin has AOPA directory and street mapping; Other solutions
have whatever I choose to load onto the general purpose
computer

* Garmin has option of plugging into GNS-430s in the panels behind
which I fly

* "Panel" w/o pitch information vs. AI w/o VSI (is there anything
else in the Garmin "panel" lacking from the other units?)

- Andrew

[Kelly]

I have taken my laptop with me a couple of times for local flights
lately just to see how cramped things might feel. I was also by
myself on these flights, when things are obviously least cramped
otherwise. Well, there appear to be a couple of options for a
standard size laptop -- leave it on the right seat if unoccupied, or
fold down the screen all the way and have it on my lap. I have to say
that having the computer on my lap does feel cramped and somewhat
awkward, and as Jay mentioned, having to look down at the screen seems
less than ideal, particularly if in IMC or turbulence. While the
approach plates display very nicely on a full size screen, I think the
disadvantages may outweigh the advantages.

Like Dave, ideally I would like to find a solution that would serve
more than just one purpose. If I could use the display device in the
plane and for PDA/email/computing functions on the ground, I would
feel more justified in shelling out a nice chunk of change. I looked
at the HP ipaq 5715, which seemed to be a decent pocket PC with built
in GPS for $400. It has a 3.5 inch (diagonal) screen, which is the
same size as the Garmin 396/496. Has anyone used the ipaq in the
cockpit?

Kelly

[Kelly]

On Aug 27, 2:19 pm, Bob Moore > wrote:
> Kelly wrote
>
> > Has anyone used the ipaq in the
> > cockpit?
>
> Yes, I have been using an iPAQ for several years. I have
> installed the Anywhere Map software, Pocket FMS, and the
> OziExplorer program with scans of the local TACs.
>
> It was cumbersome to use until I obtained a Bluetooth sleeve
> for my older iPAQ (3760) and a small Bluetooth GPS receiver
> to place on the glareshield. No more loss of signal. I did
> purchase a direct Lighter Plug (USB) to iPAQ power cord from eBay
> and got rid of the cumbersome power adapter from Anywhere Map.
>

Bob,

How easy is it to view charts, such as TACs, on the ipaq? Have you
used it for approach plates?

Kelly
> The bigest problem remains visibility under bright sunlight
> conditions, I would not want it mounted permanently due to
> this issue.
>
> Bob Moore

[dave]

Kelly wrote:

>
> Bob,
>
> How easy is it to view charts, such as TACs, on the ipaq? Have you
> used it for approach plates?
>
> Kelly

The ability to use approach plates is a big item to me. That's why I'm
considering something like the samsung Q1.
Dave
M35

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Kelly" < wrote

> I have to say
> that having the computer on my lap does feel cramped and somewhat
> awkward, and as Jay mentioned, having to look down at the screen seems
> less than ideal, particularly if in IMC or turbulence. While the
> approach plates display very nicely on a full size screen, I think the
> disadvantages may outweigh the advantages.

If you were building an experimental, it would seem like a possibility
would be to leave a space in the center, possibly below the radio stack, so
that a laptop could have the screen pointed towards you in a near vertical
position, with the keyboard nearly horizontal and between the seats.

It could be almost like a poor man's glass cockpit. <g>

The only issue would be screen brightness, then, I think.

Would that orientation be bad for looking down too far, in turbulence, in
your opinion?
--
Jim in NC

[Really-Old-Fart]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Mon 27 Aug 2007 02:27:25p, Kelly
> wrote:

> How easy is it to view charts, such as TACs, on the ipaq? Have you
> used it for approach plates?

I've found that my PDA has a more viewable screen during bright sunlight
situations, but you just don't have the screen real estate that you do with
a laptop. At night, a laptop can actually be too bright though. Garmin
has a 5 Hz model receiver (GPS 18) that would be great on a laptop for
aviation purposes (most GPS receivers are only 1 Hz).

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Really-Old-Fart" <> wrote

> At night, a laptop can actually be too bright though.

Nearly all laptops can be made to adjust the screen brightness, all the way
down to so dim it can hardly be seen, no?
--
Jim in NC

[Really-Old-Fart]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Mon 27 Aug 2007 05:49:59p, "Morgans"
> wrote:

> Nearly all laptops can be made to adjust the screen brightness, all
> the way down to so dim it can hardly be seen, no?

I have not been able to find such an option for my Compaq laptop. It does
get a bit dimmer if I run it on the internal battery instead of off of A/C
power.

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 04:18:04 +0200 (CEST), "Really-Old-Fart"
> wrote:

>In rec.aviation.piloting, on Mon 27 Aug 2007 05:49:59p, "Morgans"
> wrote:
>
>> Nearly all laptops can be made to adjust the screen brightness, all
>> the way down to so dim it can hardly be seen, no?
>
>I have not been able to find such an option for my Compaq laptop. It does
>get a bit dimmer if I run it on the internal battery instead of off of A/C
>power.

Unless Compaq has completely omitted the function, there should be two
keys with a sun-looking thing printed on them in (blue?) ink - either
the up or down arrows, or somewhere in the function keys. Press the
Fn and appropriate key together, it should adjust the brightness. The
half-moon looking thing is for contrast.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Peter Clark wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 04:18:04 +0200 (CEST), "Really-Old-Fart"
> > wrote:
>
>> In rec.aviation.piloting, on Mon 27 Aug 2007 05:49:59p, "Morgans"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Nearly all laptops can be made to adjust the screen brightness, all
>>> the way down to so dim it can hardly be seen, no?
>>
>> I have not been able to find such an option for my Compaq laptop.
>> It does get a bit dimmer if I run it on the internal battery instead
>> of off of A/C power.
>
> Unless Compaq has completely omitted the function, there should be two
> keys with a sun-looking thing printed on them in (blue?) ink - either
> the up or down arrows, or somewhere in the function keys. Press the
> Fn and appropriate key together, it should adjust the brightness. The
> half-moon looking thing is for contrast.

That is how it is done on my wifes Compaq.

[dave]

I finally got my hands on Samsung Q1 today. It's certainly unique.
Although I could turn it on and use the built in software, I couldn't
get on the internet to look at a chart or approach plate. I'll try to
go back to the computer store with some approach plate pdf's on a usb
drive and see how it looks. The screen size looks like it would work
for approach plates without having to zoom in and out.
Dave
M35

Kelly wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2:19 pm, Bob Moore > wrote:
>> Kelly wrote
>>
>>> Has anyone used the ipaq in the
>>> cockpit?
>> Yes, I have been using an iPAQ for several years. I have
>> installed the Anywhere Map software, Pocket FMS, and the
>> OziExplorer program with scans of the local TACs.
>>
>> It was cumbersome to use until I obtained a Bluetooth sleeve
>> for my older iPAQ (3760) and a small Bluetooth GPS receiver
>> to place on the glareshield. No more loss of signal. I did
>> purchase a direct Lighter Plug (USB) to iPAQ power cord from eBay
>> and got rid of the cumbersome power adapter from Anywhere Map.
>>
>
> Bob,
>
> How easy is it to view charts, such as TACs, on the ipaq? Have you
> used it for approach plates?
>
> Kelly
>> The bigest problem remains visibility under bright sunlight
>> conditions, I would not want it mounted permanently due to
>> this issue.
>>
>> Bob Moore
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Dave,

> The screen size looks like it would work
> for approach plates without having to zoom in and out.
>

It doesn't - at least for me. The Samsung Q1 Ultra displays the
JeppView approach charts in just too small a fashion. Also, I found the
effort to change, e.g. from the approach plate to the airport ground
map just so much higher than turning a page in a binder. That might
change with training, however. In all, I was underwhelmed with the Q1
Ultra/JeppView combo. I had expected to be wowed.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Cessna182J[_2_]]

On Aug 19, 8:34 pm, Kelly > wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out what portable device to buy to provide in-
> flight weather, as well as terrain info. Electronic approach plates
> and enroute charts, as well as flight planning capability, would also
> be a plus, but not essential. I fly a Cessna 172 that is already
> equipped with a Garmin 430. I have read about both the Garmin 396 and
> 496, and I borrowed the 496 to use for a couple of flights. I have
> also checked out several EFB-type systems online, such as through
> Anywhere Map, Voyager, and Chart Case, which can be used on a laptop
> or tablet, or in some cases, a smartphone.
>
> I would be interested to know if anyone has had good luck with either
> a laptop or smartphone medium, and what software package was used.
> Also, I know how the 396 and 496 differ, but would like to know if you
> think the 496 is worth the extra $600. I should also mention that I
> like the "6-pack" panel page on the Garmins as a potential backup in
> the event of vacuum pump or electrical failure, and wonder how much
> difference the faster refresh rate on the 496 makes for this page. I
> guess I am leaning toward a Garmin at this point, but would first like
> to hear some other comments on these issues.
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Kelly

Fujitsu 5000 series Stylistic tablet PC with tansreflective display
and integrated bluetooth running Voyager (EFB) w/ wxworx rcvr.. I use
a waas enabed BT GPS reciever (less than $100). The stylistic
transreflective is sunlight readable (the more sun the better) and the
Voyager package is outstanding. Forget the Garmin - go tablet. You
can find it all on e-bay (except Voyager)

[Kelly]

Dave (or others),

Any more experience with the Q1? Was the unit you saw a Q1 or Q1
ultra?

Kelly

[Thomas Borchert]

Kelly,

> Was the unit you saw a Q1 or Q1
> ultra?
>

The non-ultra does not have enough resolution to display JeppView, if I
understand it correctly.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[dave]

Kelly,
I brought an approach chart on a usb drive with me to the computer
store. I think the display is a little too tight to see the entire
plate. If you zoom in to about +25% the chart looks great so I think
it's probably a good product for using the plates. Samsung's website
is out of date so accurate product literature is hard to find. No one
at the computer store, Microcenter, knew anything about them.
Apparently they make a 1 GHz model but the one I was looking at was the
800Mhz model. Somebody on this board or on the aopa.org site mentioned
using a fujitsu 5000. So now I'm still undecided.
Dave
M35
Kelly wrote:
> Dave (or others),
>
> Any more experience with the Q1? Was the unit you saw a Q1 or Q1
> ultra?
>
> Kelly
>