XM Weather - I'm Converted!

Nibs said:

Milt, Which do you like the best, the Flight Cheetah or the 396? Isn't the subscription for the FC much less expensive than the 396?

Click to expand...

The 396/496 are terrific units. For me it wasn't a matter of like best. The F1 w(with my larger than FAA body in it) has no room up front for charts or plates. The Cheetah has both the Garmins have neither.

Cheetah up front costs are greater but updates are significantly cheaper.

If you compare the Cheetah costs plus updates to a 396 plus charts, plates, and updates for all the cost is a wash at about 1 to 1and a half years.

The Cheetah with WX recirever is bulkier and less portable than the 396.

I also put my Truemap software on a tablet computer and keep it handy as an EFB.


If you do not need approach plates or charts the 396 is much more convenient , portable, and user friendly.
Having said all that I really like the Cheetah and would buy it again over the 396/496.

ADS-B

Xm may have problems if the FAA goes ahead with ADS-B. All that stuff will be free. The big problem so far is Garmin wants about $9500 for the transeiver, and their the only one making one right now. I talk with GRT about it at OSH and they are in a wait and see mode, because the FAA can't get it together, DUH!!! I was working in the Avery Booth, right next to XM and we sat and watched storms all day long! Very nice!

OK....OK... you Adamsons, I yield...sort'of...

Perhaps my use of the words "fancy avionics" was a bit strong, and probably not the right words I was searching for. What I was referring to was some of the $50,000 avionics packages I've seen installed on airplanes (RVs among them).

This technology is truly amazing and no doubt, WILL save lives. I couldn't agree with you guys more on that point. In fact, I do intend to have sort of state of the art hand held Garmin (or equivalent) with all the bells and whistles on it. I also intend to have the latest "glass" Dynon or equivalent. This stuff is more reliable, probably cheaper than all the matching steam gauges put together, and definitely easier and cheaper to maintain (no moving parts). And is without question, liable to save a lot of lives.

I suppose the point I was trying to make was that the average homebuilder has a limited budget with regard on how much he/she can spend on this new technology. One has a budget for some type of SA (situational awareness) enhancing perhaps, but then the rest is left up to that squiggly mass inside your skull.

This new stuff is great but should be recognized for whatever limitations come with that particular piece of technology. For example, the XM wx pics do have a time delay (15-20 minutes), and should recognized for that limitation. They're awesome for big picture stuff ( deviating several hundred miles away) to get around a wx system, but not as accurate when trying to "thread the needle" as it were. Onboard radar or stormscope would be much better for the close in stuff. Personally though, threading the needle with a single engine, single pilot aircraft is a bit nuts.

Without getting any more verbose than necessary, I am simply trying to advocate for the average homebuilder who has a limited budget for his/her dream ship. One can add whatever technology one can afford ( and can get by the CFO), and the rest is left to our noodles. These new things are great, but are simply more tools to use and process towards making sound (life saving) decisions. Just recognize them for what they are... and yes...the limitations that may accompany them. Remember, your brain is your absolute best "save your bacon" resource. Don't let new technology take over for good sound judgement.

My Instrument Instructor said to me on the day of my receiving my Instrument License to think of my new license not as a license to bore holes in clouds, but rather as a license to further learn when it is much smarter to leave the hangar doors closed and go hang with the locals at the FBO.

The Garmin GDL-69 XM weather receiver is listed at $3695 on the Gulf Coast Avionics web site. Still not cheap, but considerably less than the $9500 mentioned above. Having tried the XM weather on a recent trip in my buddy's Archer II (Garmin 396), there's no way I'd not have it in my RV-8. "Try it - you'll like it!"

cheetah vs 496

Milt,

You said, "396 is much more convenient , portable, and user friendly.
Having said all that I really like the Cheetah and would buy it again over the 396/496."

Is this because the Cheetah has more features and capabilities, though not as intuitive and easy to use? Have you used the flight level performance feature with Cheetah that uses winds aloft to help you determine your optimum fuel burn altitude? Have you tried the FL 190? I heard the brightnes isn't as good as the 496?

aj

N395V said:

The 396/496 are terrific units. For me it wasn't a matter of like best. The F1 w(with my larger than FAA body in it) has no room up front for charts or plates. The Cheetah has both the Garmins have neither.

Cheetah up front costs are greater but updates are significantly cheaper.

If you compare the Cheetah costs plus updates to a 396 plus charts, plates, and updates for all the cost is a wash at about 1 to 1and a half years.

The Cheetah with WX recirever is bulkier and less portable than the 396.

I also put my Truemap software on a tablet computer and keep it handy as an EFB.


If you do not need approach plates or charts the 396 is much more convenient , portable, and user friendly.
Having said all that I really like the Cheetah and would buy it again over the 396/496.

Click to expand...

Is this because the Cheetah has more features and capabilities, though not as intuitive and easy to use? Have you used the flight level performance feature with Cheetah that uses winds aloft to help you determine your optimum fuel burn altitude? Have you tried the FL 190? I heard the brightness isn't as good as the 496?

Click to expand...

The flight Cheetah 210 is larger (for my old eyes) and far brighter than the 396/496. This is the main reason. When I posted the above Zaon had not yet made an interface to put traffic on the Garmin but did on the Cheetah.
The Cheetahs will also soon be offering IFR enroute charts. They are one of the few mfgs that actually deliver promised future upgrades in a timely fashion. If you are going to fly IFR the Cheetah 210 is a better option than the 396/496. If size of the screen is important go with the Cheetah 210.

Customer Service and Support from the makers of the CHeetah is OUTSTANDING 24/7. I have also had good experiences with Garmin customer support.

I do not think you will be happy with a 190 the 396 would be a better value.


I have seen nothing brighter than a Cheetah 210.

The 190 is computer based. I have not found a pda or pc/tablet system that was comfortably visible under a bubble canopy.


The winds aloft feature in the Cheetah while sounding really useful is not really that helpful. If you check winds aloft across your route before departure nothing is going to change on the downloads significantly during any given flight to make the effort worth while. Added to that the winds aloft forecasts are innacurate enough to make this a fairly useless tool.

The PDA/tablet systems are really neat and feature packed but there is a reason they are significantly cheaper.

They are windows based and prone to crashing and freezing up. Tablets were not designed to view on sunny days under bubble canopies. Mechanical hard drives do not like thin air.

The Flight Cheetah runs on a windows 2000 software that has really been trimmed down re"services" and unnecessary components. It takes a few minutes to boot and is prone to all the vagaries of windows but I had only two crashes of the system in two years of fairly constant use. My Garmins have never crashed.

The photo below shows the Cheetah 210 directly below a BMA EFIS One taken with a flash. The EFIS is very viewable in sunlight and you can see the 210 is brighter.

N395V said:

... If you are going to fly IFR the Cheetah 210 is a better option than the 396/496.
...
... is prone to all the vagaries of windows but I had only two crashes of the system in two years of fairly constant use. My Garmins have never crashed.[/IMG]

Click to expand...

Seems like a major contradiction here! If it crashes at all, I don't want to use it for IFR. For VFR, that's a whole nuther deal...no biggie.

dan said:

Seems like a major contradiction here! If it crashes at all, I don't want to use it for IFR. For VFR, that's a whole nuther deal...no biggie.

Click to expand...

Shouldn't be relying solely on either for any info when flying IFR but if you are flying IFR and have adequate backup the Cheetah is preferable as it has enroute charts as well as approach plates many of which are geo referenced so it is a great aid to IFR flight relative to the Garmins.

Cheetah 210 portable?

Milt,

thanks for the valuable feedback! Is the Cheetah 210 portable with the xm weather option, ie., is it convenient to lug both around? Also can you use the 210 box to run any other windows programs?

ajay

ajay said:

Is the Cheetah 210 portable with the xm weather option, ie., is it convenient to lug both around? Also can you use the 210 box to run any other windows programs?

Click to expand...

The 210 would be a real PITA to move from vehicle to vehicle. You would need to move the unit, GPS ant, weather receiver, weather antenna, and power chord.

It probably would run some software but wouldn't have enough memory to use as a laptop. you would also have to add a USB keyboard and Mouse as well as an external drive. Probably not a real workable idea.

If portability is a real need and the 190 would work for you then I would recommend just a good quality tablet computer and put the truemap software on it. I did this for quite awhile in a 112 commander and it worked fine as long as I could kep the Tablet out of the sunlight.

Not even if I needed the money for a house payment!

I started flying with the 396 about a year ago, and it has done several things for me. Most importantly, the situational awareness is amazing.

There's so much value in being able to understand where the weather is, which airports are viable alternates, and what the general trend is for weather development.

Another really cool benefit is being able to highlight an airport and instantly pull up runway information, frequencies, METARs, TAFs, etc. You don't need to be a VFR pilot with your head stuck to the GPS screen. But with the 396, the amount of information available is amazing and most importantly it's VERY EASY to access. Usually only 1 or two buttons away.

I can't live without it now. It's made my flying much safer and much more enjoyable....

Phil

I flew into Charlotte NC on Thursday and by the time we were getting ready to leave, mid afternoon, the thunder cells were building fast. The weather briefing told us that if we left immediately and flew west for a while we would then be able to turn north. The cells were close and without my 496 I would not have left, even with that positive briefing. However having an actual image in the cockpit gave me the confidence to know where to fly, what to fly around and what not to. It was spot on in regards to the lightening and intensity of light rain showers. Without this tool I would have had to spend the night there so I feel that considering my time I have probably paid for half a year?s subscription with just this one flight.
However, the unit is not always right about clouds. We were caught coming back from Sun & Fun under a cloud deck that did not appear on the unit. According to the screen clear skies were just around the corner, a corner that did not appear. When I arrived home I talked to three representatives of Garmin before I got the correct answer for what happened to us. The cloud cover is a ?mosaic? of infra red satellite images. It measures the difference in ground temperature to cloud cover temperatures and paints an image of clouds based on that information. Problems occur when the clouds and the ground have the same temperature and that is what happened to us on that trip. The region that we were flying in also did not have any metar reports which compounded the situation. As a pilot I am responsible for the conditions that I fly into but this tool can have the potential to get us into trouble and we have to be aware of that. I am fortunate that it demonstrated this to me on my first flight with the unit. Now I use it for what it is, another very valuable cockpit information source. After my flight to Charlotte the other day I would be reluctant to fly long cross country flights without it.