Garmin 495 vs Aera 500/510, screen readability?

Trying to decide on which one I'd like to buy myself for Christmas. I presently have the old monochrome 196 and frankly, it does everything for me I need, but I'd like a color screen now and faster refresh rate. The terrain and extra airport directory/ taxi diagram database stuff would be icing on the cake.

I'm leaning more towards the 495 since it's a proven model, I really have no need for XM radio or weather (Aera 510), and think I'd prefer good old fashioned hardware buttons over the touchscreen, and I'm already well-versed with navigating the buttons, menu hierarchy and user interface of the x96 family.

The Aera does have a larger screen surface, but I'm guessing the user interface and menu hierarchy will require complete re-learning. Also, the Aero would need an MCX to BNC coax adapter to connect with my already-installed external antenna, and I already have an Air Gizmos x96 panel dock as well.

So, with the 495 and Aera 510 (with XM capability, that I don't really need now, but might explore in the future) both costing average $1300 street price and the non XM Aera 500 at $800, (big price difference is tempting), the screen readability and brightness, and battery life are about the last major picking points I have to decide upon.

Being able to read the screen easily in bright Texas summer sunlight is very important to me. All the published specs for the 495 claim "daylight readable screen" and none of the published specs for the Aera 500/510 make this claim.

I couldn't care less about the automotive/marine useage modes of either GPS, it will be strictly used in the airplane for VFR flights.

Battery life of those proprietary Lithium batteries is also a concern, although I'll have the unit plugged into a cigarette lighter socket for ship's power. I've read some reviews that seem to suggest the 495 will run longer off it's battery than the 500/510, but can't find any absolute data on that.


Any further opinions that may help me decide?

I have both (496 & Aera). The screen on the 496 is better, but the Aera
is ok. If you never plan to mount either in the panel, the Aera is much
less bulky. The Aera doesn't need an exterior antenna (unless you use a panel dock).
I have mine mount under the glareshield with no reception issues. I'm so used to my 496 that I think
it flows better, but I really love the touch screen on the Aera. It is so handy
to get info and much easier than scrolling with the 496. My 496 is panel
mounted and connected to my EFIS and A/P and if I could only have one
that would be it (except maybe a 696). But if it was only going to be portable (yoke mounted),
no question I would opt for the Aera. Hope this helps.

Hey Tom,

The Aera also has a flying lead cable. I use one to drive my AP...



Hope you and the crew at Chino are doing well!!!

either one you get, cover it up when you are on the ramp in the heat, also the portable 496 antenna. the sun will zap the 496 screen readability when you get back. great piece of flying equipment.

I've been flying the 495 for several years in the Texas sun. No problems.

Brantel said:

Hey Tom,

The Aera also has a flying lead cable. I use one to drive my AP...

Click to expand...

The Chino gang is doing great..... just need to check our facts

I hauled demo units outside at Pacific Coast Avionics: B-K, 5XX, and 496. They all are awful if you expect something that reads in bright sun in any attitude. B-K was worst, worthless in my opinion, 5XXs would drive you nuts some of the time, 496 was generally o.k. but it could be difficult in some orientations. I flew a 496 in a -7 for 75 hours and in use it was generally o.k. It is a difficult unit to operate, the 5XXs much more logical, but legibility both in screen size and sunlight kept me using a 495 in the current project.

The 496 occasionally overheated and the screen would dim to sort of a gray scale almost to the point of illegibility until it cooled down.

John Siebold

The screens of the 296/396/495/496 are generally a little better than the Aera series straight on but they are terrible off axis to the sides. The Aera is much more forgiving off axis side to side.

Both of them are going to wash out at certain Sun angles but both generally remain somewhat readable with the edge going to the X9X series. Occasionally you may find yourself shielding the Sun with your hand to instantly bring back the contrast on either unit. You can improve them both by turning off the topo shading on the primary map to increase contrast. You get automatic alerts anyway and if you want to see terrain shading, go to the terrain page or turn on terrain shading on the main map.

My Aera is mounted in a dock in the center of my panel and does not require an external antenna. I must warn you that in 2+G steep turns, the GPS may freak out without an external antenna for brief moments.

Garmin really improved the connector method on the Aera. One very nice connector works for everything except the external antenna and the stereo headphone jack if you use that but you don't have to since the stereo audio is also output on the flying lead cable. This cable has a button you press to instantly release it from the Aera.

The touchscreen interface works fine on the Aera. It does take some getting used too but in about 10 minutes you will be a pro. The way you do things is a bit different but it is hard to say which is better. If you are very familiar with the X9X units, it will be harder to transition to the Aera. If you have never used either one, the Aera will not be difficult.

I have not found a way on the Aera to edit a flightplan from the map like you can with the X9X series. I also have not found a way to turn on the bearing line that the X9X series has available.

Battery life on the Aera is poor when compared to the X9X models. When using XM, this is even more apparent. I have an issue with my Aera where it will not charge (it actually runs the battery down) when on ships power. I am waiting for a good window to send it back to Garmin. They claim I am the only one to report this.

Both units can drive NMEA enabled AP's very well.

Both units can send radio frequencies to COM radio's that support this feature.

Both units can display TIS data for traffic alerts on the screen. (excluding the 296)

The X9X series units have an issue with the backup battery that keeps the time accurate in the unit. If it runs down, you are in for a real treat each time you power the unit up after a period of non use. It takes forever for it to find a sat lock. For some reason Garmin made this a rechargable Lion battery that only gets charged when the unit is powered on and plugged into external power. If you do not use the GPS frequently, it will run down and if it does, most of the time it is dead forever. It can only be replaced by opening up the unit and performing surgery or by sending it back to Garmin for a big fixed repair cost fee.

The 396 has an issue where the stereo music jack is not isolated and will cause noise in most intercom systems if you try to use it without an isolation transformer. Not sure if they fixed that with the 496 or not.

The Aera had low music volume on the flying lead outputs when listening to XM. The latest firmware sez that they made some changes but I have not had time to try them out.

Oh..the Aera dock from AirGizmo will fit the same place as the dock for the X9X models. The external antenna jack on the Aera is on the side and you might have problems adapting it to a BNC connector with just an adapter. A short cable adapter would work though. The Aera is so thin and flat, it could be just velcro'ed to a flat surface of the panel.

Thats about all I know about these two beast...

Hey Tom,

Glad to hear the gang is doing well! Not sure my RV will ever make it to Chino but maybe we will meet up again somewhere...You guys were awesome host when I was out there!

Brian C.

Chino Tom said:

The Chino gang is doing great..... just need to check our facts

Click to expand...

Excellent summary from Brantel.

As he points out, you cannot input a flight plan using the MAP on Area (you can on 296/396/495/496).
I find this a major problem the way I use the GPS, and so replaced my Area with 495.

By the way, viewable sreen area is same om Area cf X9X, as Area has +/- buttons on side od screen reducing useable area to same as x9x.

John

If I may tag on to this thread, would either of these units be suitable for motorcycle use? I'm thinking of the 510 with XM weather on a Harley Ultra Classic Electra Glide as well as in the airplane. Does the internal antenna on the 510 provide the XM wx or is there a separate antenna?
TIA

XM requires an external hockey puck antenna. The Auto mode of the Aera is pretty nice and has all the points of interest and detail maps built into it for the entire US. It also shows weather from XM in the Auto mode.

Thanks for all the responses....

Pretty much confirms my original choice of leaning towards the 495, which I think I'll be happier with.

flytoboat said:

If I may tag on to this thread, would either of these units be suitable for motorcycle use? I'm thinking of the 510 with XM weather on a Harley Ultra Classic Electra Glide as well as in the airplane. Does the internal antenna on the 510 provide the XM wx or is there a separate antenna?
TIA

Click to expand...

The Aera is based on the Zumo 660 Motorcycle GPS. The Zumo is a great MC GPS. I have one mounted on my Suzuki V-Strom. I also have an Aera 560 that I use in my planes. If I did not already have a Zumo I would use my Aera on my bike......Its a great unit.....

I have a 396 (need to sell), 496, 696 and Aera 560. I prefer my Aera unit over the 396/496......

The Aera is a much better automotive/motorcycle GPS than the 496/495....

Ralphieflies said:

The Aera is a much better automotive/motorcycle GPS than the 496/495....

Click to expand...

I would agree with this 100%