Garmin 296 worth the money?

I know after reading this newsgroup for over three years that many
questions have been asked regarding the "best" GPS for the money...so
forgive me but the Garmin 296 is so new I can't find out much about it.
Lots of old articles about older models of GPS receivers.

I've been using the Lowrance 300 for the last 4 years and like it very
much and it's features. Only thing is the screen contrast leaves a
little to be desired as it is difficult to see at times.

As of now, I'm considering the Lowrance 2000c, Garmin 196 or Garmin
296. Don't know of any others unless someone has recomendations. I'm
not sure I'd use the terrain avoidance feature that the Garmin 296 has
but I do like the "obstructions" database that my Lowrance 300 has. I
do want crystal clear picture in sunlight or dark with ease of
operation.

Now that the Garmin 296 has been out for a little while, anybody have
comments good or bad? I am a little leary about spending $1800 on a new
GPS that might have "bugs" that need to be worked out before it is a
really good unit.

Thanks for any input and be safe out there....

Terry
N6401F
Flightstar 782

"Terry" wrote in message
...

Now that the Garmin 296 has been out for a little while, anybody have
comments good or bad? I am a little leary about spending $1800 on a new
GPS that might have "bugs" that need to be worked out before it is a
really good unit.

So don't spend $1800 on it. The street price is more like $1700.

Is it worth $400 more than the 295? I think so, just because of the marine
and automobile capabilities, as well as the terrain avoidance feature. The
chief bug is getting it to talk to Jeppesen FliteStar, which is more a
feature of FliteStar's outdated communication capability than it is a
problem with the GPS. FliteStar has never been able to really use other GPS
units, either -- it sort of simulates talking to them and I consider some
'features' of this program to be actually dangerous. Even if the 296 could
talk to FliteStar without problems you would still be left with FliteStar's
inherent weaknesses, including the fact that FliteStar creates and
substitutes user waypoints for the GPS unit's database waypoints, often
misplacing them and losing essential information in the process. It is far
better to enter your flight plan into a GPS manually.

But, if you have a 295 already, is it worth upgrading to the 296? The 296
has somewhat better battery life, but uses a proprietary battery. If you
already have a 295, the question is the 296 really worth $1700 more than the
295? I don't think so, not by a long shot. In fact, if you have a 196 it
probably is not worth upgrading to the 296. The 296 is not worth $1700 more
than the 196.

The 296 should have full approaches in it, not just the final approach
segments. Sure, it is not certified for IFR flight, but it would be a fine
emergency backup tool in the event of the loss of primary aircraft systems.
Garmin obviously has chosen not to include full approaches for several
reasons:

1. It would compete with Garmin's panel mounts.
2. The FAA would object on the grounds that pilots would use handhelds to
fly approaches even when there is not an emergency (the old "better that a
few should die in real emergencies rather than let people get away with
saving money" argument).
3. The people who buy the 296 probably would not keep the database updated.

The last argument is probably both the weakest and the strongest. The 296
includes terrain and tower information, which means that the database should
be kept current for the terrain avoidance feature to be anywhere near
reliable. Since the database is only good for 28 days few people will
subscribe to any sort of service to keep it current. The cost of database
updates with approaches would exceed the initial cost of the unit in just a
couple of years.

One other argument, that the 296 does not have the memory to include IFR
procedures, might also be valid, except there is no excuse for putting such
a small memory in GPS units in the first place. For the money manufacturers
charge for them, the things ought to have a gigabyte of memory.

I make it a practice to play with every GPS I can get my hands on. The one I
use is the 296. Overall, it is easy to use, has a very good display, and has
reasonable battery life. I like its features and I really like the terrain
awareness feature. The automobile navigation system is mediocre at best, but
far better than what the 295 had. It is at least marginally useful. The
marine system is pretty good. This is finally a GPS that is something I can
actually use in my day to day work as a flight instructor.

Thank You Chris....just the kind of information I was looking for.
Thanks for taking the time.

Terry

C J Campbell wrote:
: But, if you have a 295 already, is it worth upgrading to the 296? The 296
: has somewhat better battery life, but uses a proprietary battery. If you
: already have a 295, the question is the 296 really worth $1700 more than the
: 295? I don't think so, not by a long shot. In fact, if you have a 196 it
: probably is not worth upgrading to the 296. The 296 is not worth $1700 more
: than the 196.

I have a 295 and concur.

: The 296 should have full approaches in it, not just the final approach
: segments. Sure, it is not certified for IFR flight, but it would be a fine
: emergency backup tool in the event of the loss of primary aircraft systems.
: Garmin obviously has chosen not to include full approaches for several
: reasons:

Until about 18 months ago, the 295 had full GPS approaches in it. When the
GPS approach into 1B9 was changed, I updated my 295. Lo and behold, the
approach was gone, leaving only one IAF and the FAF. It appears that Garmin
or Jeppesen removed all intersections that are not either (1) on the en-route
charts, or (2) the closest IAF and the FAF of an approach.

: One other argument, that the 296 does not have the memory to include IFR
: procedures, might also be valid, except there is no excuse for putting such
: a small memory in GPS units in the first place. For the money manufacturers
: charge for them, the things ought to have a gigabyte of memory.

My 8 year old Northstar M3 has all of the GPS approaches, intersections,
NDB, VOR, airports, and all of the appropriate frequencies for the US on its
2 MB data card (it does not contain SID/STAR, you have to generate those
manually in a flight plan). The excuse that the 296 can't hold the approaches
because of memory size is just that: an excuse.

--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

The question really is, is the 296 worth $1700 minus the value of your
current GPS.
I know my 196 is worth $700+ to tropicaero as a trade up, "value add" must
only be $1000,
not $1700. Despite the proprietary battery, the unit recharges itself while
plugged in to the plane's DC power (and continues to function too), which I
think increases its relative value if you have a power socket available.

What I really want to know is whether they are going to add on XM satellite
weather capability, like Lowrance is doing with their upcoming model. This
would make it a no brainer for me.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Terry" wrote in message
...

Now that the Garmin 296 has been out for a little while, anybody have
comments good or bad? I am a little leary about spending $1800 on a new
GPS that might have "bugs" that need to be worked out before it is a
really good unit.

So don't spend $1800 on it. The street price is more like $1700.

Is it worth $400 more than the 295? I think so, just because of the marine
and automobile capabilities, as well as the terrain avoidance feature. The
chief bug is getting it to talk to Jeppesen FliteStar, which is more a
feature of FliteStar's outdated communication capability than it is a
problem with the GPS. FliteStar has never been able to really use other
GPS
units, either -- it sort of simulates talking to them and I consider some
'features' of this program to be actually dangerous. Even if the 296 could
talk to FliteStar without problems you would still be left with
FliteStar's
inherent weaknesses, including the fact that FliteStar creates and
substitutes user waypoints for the GPS unit's database waypoints, often
misplacing them and losing essential information in the process. It is far
better to enter your flight plan into a GPS manually.

But, if you have a 295 already, is it worth upgrading to the 296? The 296
has somewhat better battery life, but uses a proprietary battery. If you
already have a 295, the question is the 296 really worth $1700 more than
the
295? I don't think so, not by a long shot. In fact, if you have a 196 it
probably is not worth upgrading to the 296. The 296 is not worth $1700
more
than the 196.

The 296 should have full approaches in it, not just the final approach
segments. Sure, it is not certified for IFR flight, but it would be a fine
emergency backup tool in the event of the loss of primary aircraft
systems.
Garmin obviously has chosen not to include full approaches for several
reasons:

1. It would compete with Garmin's panel mounts.
2. The FAA would object on the grounds that pilots would use handhelds to
fly approaches even when there is not an emergency (the old "better that a
few should die in real emergencies rather than let people get away with
saving money" argument).
3. The people who buy the 296 probably would not keep the database
updated.

The last argument is probably both the weakest and the strongest. The 296
includes terrain and tower information, which means that the database
should
be kept current for the terrain avoidance feature to be anywhere near
reliable. Since the database is only good for 28 days few people will
subscribe to any sort of service to keep it current. The cost of database
updates with approaches would exceed the initial cost of the unit in just
a
couple of years.

One other argument, that the 296 does not have the memory to include IFR
procedures, might also be valid, except there is no excuse for putting
such
a small memory in GPS units in the first place. For the money
manufacturers
charge for them, the things ought to have a gigabyte of memory.

I make it a practice to play with every GPS I can get my hands on. The one
I
use is the 296. Overall, it is easy to use, has a very good display, and
has
reasonable battery life. I like its features and I really like the terrain
awareness feature. The automobile navigation system is mediocre at best,
but
far better than what the 295 had. It is at least marginally useful. The
marine system is pretty good. This is finally a GPS that is something I
can
actually use in my day to day work as a flight instructor.

Jeremy Lew wrote:
The question really is, is the 296 worth $1700 minus the value of your
current GPS.
I know my 196 is worth $700+ to tropicaero as a trade up, "value add" must
only be $1000,
not $1700. Despite the proprietary battery, the unit recharges itself while
plugged in to the plane's DC power (and continues to function too), which I
think increases its relative value if you have a power socket available.

What I really want to know is whether they are going to add on XM satellite
weather capability, like Lowrance is doing with their upcoming model. This
would make it a no brainer for me.

Do you have a URL about this? There is no mention of it on the website
for the Airmap 2000...

Although you'd need to fly quite a bit to justify the $50 a month
subscription for that, plus the cost of the required XM gear...

http://www.xmradio.com/weather/service_and_pricing.html

Interestingly, the source where I first heard of this [1] is no longer
claiming XM compatibility. It used to say that both TAWS-like capability
and XM weather would be supported via a free firmware upgrade some time
after shipping . Now they only mention the terrain stuff.

I'm in a 10-pilot club, so $50/mo. isn't a deal breaker. As far as the "XM
gear" goes, the original claim was that it would all be built in to the
airmap. Who knows now...

[1] http://www.avshop.com/catalog/produc...productid=6054

"Darrel Toepfer" wrote in message
...
Jeremy Lew wrote:
The question really is, is the 296 worth $1700 minus the value of your
current GPS.
I know my 196 is worth $700+ to tropicaero as a trade up, "value add"
must
only be $1000,
not $1700. Despite the proprietary battery, the unit recharges itself
while
plugged in to the plane's DC power (and continues to function too),
which I
think increases its relative value if you have a power socket available.

What I really want to know is whether they are going to add on XM
satellite
weather capability, like Lowrance is doing with their upcoming model.
This
would make it a no brainer for me.

Do you have a URL about this? There is no mention of it on the website
for the Airmap 2000...

Although you'd need to fly quite a bit to justify the $50 a month
subscription for that, plus the cost of the required XM gear...

http://www.xmradio.com/weather/service_and_pricing.html

"Jeremy Lew" wrote:
What I really want to know is whether they are going to add
on XM satellite weather capability,

The thought of this just makes me drool.

I love WxWorx's XM satellite weather and I love the 296. Putting them
them together would let me get rid of that damned notebook pc that's
cluttering up my airplane right now. I hope Garmin is developing this.
I've sent them an e-mail begging for it.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Terry" wrote:
Now that the Garmin 296 has been out for a little while,
anybody have comments good or bad?

I sold my 295 and bought a 296 about a month ago. Overall, I'm pleased.

Good:
Terrain & obstacles!!!!
L-Ion battery that recharges from aircraft power
"Panel" page
Flight recorder page & Flightbook software
High def. display
Faster processor
Street nav


Bad:
Cannot create user waypoints on airport runways!!!!!
More difficult than 295 to install to and remove from yoke mount
Flight recorder has bug that records phantom landings
In some lighting conditions, display looks more faded than 295
No "Route" button, as on 295
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Jeremy Lew" wrote in message ...
....
What I really want to know is whether they are going to add on XM satellite
weather capability, like Lowrance is doing with their upcoming model. This
would make it a no brainer for me.


What upcoming model from Lowrance? Please refer me to some info on that.

Steve M