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
