Panel Improvements

todehnal · #1 11-14-2009, 05:11 PM

For those who don't know, the RV-12 uses a 496 to drive the Dynon 180 EFIS and autopilot. The 496 does not provide gps steering with turn antisipation. I considered adding a 155xl, which will provide that feature, but I am also considering a 400w, as a replacement for both the 496 and the 155xl.

That would give me an IFR Waas Arinc unit with turn anticipation for just over $1000 more.

The quesiton is, what would I be giving up by leaving out the 496, other than a teriffic screen and simplicity of operatioin?

Thanks to you experienced users.

Tom
building an EAB RV-12

L.Adamson · #2 11-14-2009, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by todehnal

The quesiton is, what would I be giving up by leaving out the 496, other than a teriffic screen and simplicity of operatioin?

You said it, I didn't...

But I couldn't live with the stand alone screen of the Garmin 400 (panel) series. I've owned the 496, and went to the 696. In regards to graphics, resolution, and colors, the 400's just seem antiquated. But, at least you can get XM Weather on them................if you can read the small print (TFR's, etc.)

L.Adamson --- RV6A

todehnal · #3 11-14-2009, 06:15 PM

I thought about a 696, but it seems like an expensive large screen upgrade, would require an extensive panel mod, and still doesn't provide arinc. Maybe I am placing too much emphasis on arinc. The other derterant to the 696 was the annual update expence, which was stated as over $1000/yr. I can keep a 400/420 IFR current for a little over $300/yr. As you know, the screen on the 496 is very nice. I sure hope Garmin doesn't drop it like they did the 296/396. Perhaps the best deal is to stick with the 496/155xl combination.

Tom

N941WR · #4 11-14-2009, 07:39 PM

Tom,

I have 250 hours behind my D100 and 496 and about 120 hours with the Dynon AP. I never noticed the lack of turn antisipation, probably because I always fly "direct to".

SteinAir · #5 11-14-2009, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by todehnal

I thought about a 696, but it seems like an expensive large screen upgrade, would require an extensive panel mod, and still doesn't provide arinc. Maybe I am placing too much emphasis on arinc. The other derterant to the 696 was the annual update expence, which was stated as over $1000/yr. I can keep a 400/420 IFR current for a little over $300/yr. As you know, the screen on the 496 is very nice. I sure hope Garmin doesn't drop it like they did the 296/396. Perhaps the best deal is to stick with the 496/155xl combination.

Tom

This is a bit of an apples and oranges comparision....you can't throw those numbers around without realizing that the costs for updates are different yet the same. The reason the GNS's are so much cheaper is because you're not updating as much "stuff". If you choose not to update the approach plates (which the GNS doesn't have to begin with) you'll slice off a HUGE part of those costs. When you do comparisons either for yourself or for others, it's important to note that what you're comparing isn't an exact comparison. You don't HAVE to buy every single update on the 696 on a bi-weekly basis....it has a lot more "stuff". If you only update the same "stuff" that the 400 has at the same frequency of update, I'll think you'll see that the update costs are much more comparable. It's an oft used marketing twist by many people to "compare" things without actually telling the whole truth!

Next, the loss of the XM weather functionality from the x96 in my opinion FAR exceeds your benefits of turn anticipation. You can't fly coupled approaches with the Dynon AP and a 400 or 155 anyway.... So, if it's not for approaches and/or holds, then what do you gain? Take a serious look at all of your past flying and look at how many trips have multi leg flights. Most flights are fairly direct, and even without turn anticipation the AP's work just fine. The only place where GPSS (and V) are really critical are in approaches, departures, holds, etc..

Lastly, I think unless you're flying a lot of IFR, you'll find the 155 to really be a poor GPS. The screen is not good, the information not as easily disseminated as the x96, and you didn't gain much....at least that's my opinion. I think that for 99% of the flying that 99% of people are/will do in an RV12 that the 155 and/or 400 would be a poor choice. I'd go fly the plane first and see if it's really an issue before you make a final decision.

I could ramble on for quite awhile on this subject, but in reality it's an RV12, not an RV10. I say that because if you plan on using it for IFR, well-that's a whole 'nother discussion!

Cheers,
Stein

todehnal · #6 11-15-2009, 04:34 AM

Stein, You really have a great way of putting things into perspective and I really appreciate that. You are sooo right. 95+ percent of my flights are single leg. I just thought that it might be really cool to watch things happen with a coupled approach, on a clear day in my newly minted RV-12, and note the accuracy with these modern and fantastic systems. Bottom line; I think I'll stick with the 496/D180/AP74/SL40 gear that was part of the plan in the first place. They all seem to play nice with each other.

Tom