396 or 496?

[bstratt]

I have previously read about how the 396 has a much slower XM Weather refresh rate than the 496.

One of my partners has a 396 and has offered to leave it in the plane if the rest of us split the XM weather subscription cost. While I have been seeking a weather solution for the plane for some time I am a little concerned over what I remember reading in the past. Another alternative would be to sell the 396 and purchase a 496 (with the other partners paying the difference) however the difference in price is looking like $1,400.

For those of you that know, would you use the 396 or would you insist on trading up? The idea is not to pick your way real time through cells but to simply avoid blundering into them when you're in the soup.

 

[jason]

AFAIK, when they talk about refresh on the 396 vs. refresh on the 496, they're not talking about the speed of the XM WX, they're talking about the screen refresh. Meaning that the screen refreshes more times per second on the 496. If you turn, for instance, it shows up much more quickly on the 496.

I have a 396 and haven't had a problem with lag.

The two other major additions to the 496 were airport diagrams and road maps (for when you're in the car). I had to buy a memory card and the Garmin software to add road maps to my 396 and now it is a full auto GPS as well. The 496 gives you all of that out of the box.

I'd say go for it. If it's staying in the plane, then there isn't much of a difference for you in having the 496 over the 396.

 

[mantakos]

..AFAIK, when they talk about refresh on the 396 vs. refresh on the 496, they're not talking about the speed of the XM WX, they're talking about the screen refresh...

The only rate that's mentioned in the specs is the rate at which the unit calculates its position. The 396 calculates its position once per second, the 496 calculates it 5 times per second. If you find yourself behind a 396 thinking "sure, that's where I was .2 seconds ago, but where am I _right now_?", then you might want to consider a 496.

Really, about the only practical value I can think of for this is that it might make flying purely by the simulated panel slightly easier, as the instruments will update more often.

The screen's refresh rate is really only an issue when zooming or panning. There's nothing in the specs that suggests that the 496 computes this faster, and I've never found my 396 to be slow to do this, but it wouldn't particularly surprise me if the 496 was faster in this respect, though I've never bothered to compare them side to side.
-harry

 

[CJones]

I haven't flown with the 496, but I have several hours behind the 396. As mentioned above, the only 'performance' difference is the page refresh rate. I have flown simulated full approaches with the 396 and it wasn't "slow" enough to make a difference to me. If you're flying a 300kt airplane, then the extra refresh might be nice, but in a standard 4-place single engine, I doubt the increased 'performance' would be worthwhile. Considering you would be leaving it in the plane anyway, the 496's included road maps really wouldn't help you much, either.

Just my .02.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

We've had a 396 and now have the 496. Most of the differences have been discussed, except the AOPA directory is also on the 496. I'd suggest each is much better than flying without one. In general, I don't think the 496 upgrade is really worth it unless you do quite a bit of flying. But it depends on what you use it for. I haven't found the taxi diagrams to be that useful, but, I usually have the instrument charts with me and they are on there. I have used the airport directory several times to get FBO frequencies or to search for services when diverting ( I know that if it's my destination).

Either is worthwhile. You just have to weigh weather the extra features on the 496 are worth the extra cost.

Best,

Dave

 

[bstratt]

Thanks guys. Your comments make me feel a lot better. Based on the above I'll probably vote to go with his 396.