Garmin GPS 96C

[Richard Mole]

I am thinking of buying a used 96C.
I need a GPS that is about the same size as the older 90 (and 92) with a vertical rather than horizontal case, and most importantly that is easier to read - isn't ageing a nuisance!
So I would welcome any comments from people who have used them.
I'd rather not go to the hassle of installing the horizontal case 196 or 296 unless there is negative feedback on the 96 or 96C.

Many thanks in anticipation

[hbemz]

I own a Garmin 96C since 2005 and use it a lot.
On the plus side:

- It is truly a handheld unlike its larger brothers, easy to handover to a copilot or passenger. Easy to use in different aircraft.
- In a wooden aircraft the receiver worked always well without an external antenna but still has external antenna capability.
- The color display is easier readable than the cheaper monochrome Garmin 96 without the "C"
- Well readable in sunlight
- Intuitive user interface (at least to me)
- plenty of storage for routes and tracks
- it uses standard alkaline batteries - convenient for trips without the possibilty to recharge accumulators. A set of two AA batteries lasts for about 10 hours.
- The unit is quite rugged
- easy chart update

On the minus side:

- Sometimes it takes a long time to refresh the screen
- It shows a lot of useless airspace info (e.g. from FL120 to FL195 while cruising at 6500 ft) or maybe I just didn't RTFM.
- overpriced automobile map package. I do not own it an can not give any opinion as to its quality.

All in all I can recommend this unit without reservation and I would buy it again.

Toni

If you should aquire one of the larger units, then by all means go for the 495 or 496 because their screen refresh rate is much better than the one of the 296. Also their software capabilities are better.

[Richard Mole]

Toni,

very many thanks for your very helpful post. The 96C is confirmed at the top of my wish list (and if anyone wants to partwith theirs please send me a PM).

[PB]

I am also a 96C user. Without going over the above again, excellent and highly recommended.

[Richard Mole]

PB,

many thanks for the feedback. Its also a 'good' sign that the ebay prices for used 96Cs are about 3/4 the new price. Owners are clearly hanging on to most of them and the few that are on offer seem to get snapped up by keen buyers. Given the cost of updating the database and the benefits of the first year warranty (just guessing that there would be one) there seems a strongish case for buying new.

Richard

[hbemz]

Ebay prices are often much too high for all kinds of goods, not only aviation related (sometimes higher than new prices!). I agree completely, that before buying one at 3/4 new price with unknown history a little shopping around will be preferable.

Concerning database updates: When buying new you ususally should get one free update. As the 96C is a VFR GPS it will be sufficient for most applications to only get an update once a year in springtime when the big airspace changes happen.

[PB]

The benefits of the warranty should not be under rated. I owned mine for a year before I used it in anger (it's a long story) and six months later the receiver became sluggish in acquiring satellites.

I took it back to Garmin who replaced the whole thing no questions asked.

In my experience of dealing with Garmin professionally, they are a 100% first-rate operation.

The database updates are about £30 and a bit fiddly to do. I only update mine when there are updates to airspace or other similar important changes in a part of the country I will be flying in. Most of the rest of it is just obscure frequency changes.

I am a complete convert and despite all the rantings of the steam navigation brigade, if used sensibly it is a huge benefit.

[Richard Mole]

PB and Toni,

again many thanks for the feedback. The Garmin 90 and then the 92 (when the 90 database could not be updated) have served me well for at least ten years now and about 1,300 hrs. If the 96C does a half of that, it will be money well spent.

I do think that the purchase of the spring 1/2 million (I am based in the midlands and use the Southern UK chart) plus a GPS database update plus a new Pooleys is the minimum required for responsible local navigation. I also think it an ample sufficiency! When you add in the new charts for my annual visits to the West coast of Scotland and to most of French airspace, with the occasional more ambitious tour, the total cost is non-trivial. Thanks goodness I only burn about 13L/hour!

[Richard Mole]

Well a nice new 96C arrived as a combined birthday & Chrissie present!
The screen resolution is excellent and the display is easy to read.

The Garmin website shows that the 96C and 92 have the same power/data cable so I used the existing cable for my old 92 which certainly powers up the 96C, but alas the Skyforce Locator doesn't work.

Either
its not getting the data stream at all (unlikely - unless the 96C has swopped the data-in and data-out pins compared to the 92, which I think is hardly likely).
or
the NMEA 0183 Version 3.01 data output from the 96C in unintelligible to the Locator - the Garmin 92 produces NMEA 0183 Version 2.

I know that a position report is available at the bottom of the Position Page of the 96 but the grid is much too coarse for my liking. It told me yesterday that I was 20 odd nm east of an airfield for example (unless the grid is a user changeable option???).

So I would like to continue using the Locator if possible. Has anyone else interfaced the Skyfore Locator to the Garmin 96 ?

Richard

PS I think the identification of the pins of the 'unit connector view' on page 128 pilot's guide is wrong. I think all the labels should be rotated 90 deg to the next pin.

[Bill McCarthy]

Richard, since you are on, how is the "Mole Mite" coming on ?

[Richard Mole]

Bill,

I have just received LAA approval to build the fuselage - all 15.5 kg of it! - to Issue 4 drawings. That probably doesn't convey the fact that I have spent countless hours with many many more in prospect! The undercarriage drop test Report is accepted, and the carbon pultrusions for the wing spars has passed the material acceptance tests.

All I have to do now is to finish the wing design, build and test a spar to 1.875*limit loads (thats 7.125g) and build and test a completed wing to 1.5*limit load (that's 5.7g). Oh and load test the completed fuselage. And did I mention the control surface stressing and systems design?

So its all go go go

Richard