Currently I have the G496 in the yoke.
The flimsy plastic 9-pole circular connector has broken off (as most of them have done) but fortunately I have located a used spare lead which is not quite broken so can be superglued before it does break.
But I need to look at a replacement at some stage...
The Aera 500 and 550 both suggest they have the same functionality i.e. an external antenna input and a speaker output, but it isn't clear whether they output terrain warnings on the speaker output. That specific capability was one thing which the 496 did but the 296 didn't, for example.
Also the 550 claims to contain a more accurate terrain database, with "9 arc-second detail". How would that compare with the 496? I have not found any figures but a 396/496 comparison says "With over ten times as much data as the 396’s terrain database, the 496 provides even more visual reference"...
On a quick play, I found the touch screens on these two very nonresponsive - even worse than the RNS-510 satnav in my car, and totally unlike any other touch screen I have ever used.
I used to have a GPS196 on my yoke, and have had an Aera 500 instead for the past couple of years. Fantastic setup. Much flatter and compact that the GPS196 which I already found was a great unit. I used to have two cables (antenna and power) clipped onto it , whereas now the little flat mount connector is directly on the yoke, is very handy to quickly release the unit and everything is much tidier, and far less bulky than some of the yoke mounts (although I had a neat RAM one for the GPS196 directly on the yoke too).
I have the audio output wired via the 3.5mm aux jack of one of the KMA20 panel unswitched inputs. I have terrain warnings, fast sink rates, and 500ft AGL warnings clearly audible.
I have found the touch screen perfectly responsive in all kinds of conditions. I use it a lot, as I only have 1980s 90s vintage avionics in the panel (old but certfied GPS155xl and kns80).
In short , a fantastic unit , greatly recommended. Sometimes I wonder if I should replace it with a Moving Terrain unit, or an Ipad Mini, but I like the ruggedness of the little aera , perfect size for a yoke mount.
I would go for the 500, not the 550. IMOH if you are relying on a gps terrain database in bad visibility you are halfway to your funeral. If you are using it in VMC then the higher resolution is not a factor.
If you are wanting to use the Aera in a car as well, the 550 has HD Traffic
Thank you all for the great responses.
I agree about the funeral, Peter, but a GPWS is the last line of defence against a Grade A cockup under IFR - as the dramatic reduction in airliner CFITs (since GPS-based GPWS was made mandatory) shows. That's all I want that feature for. I've never made a serious cockup when flying but you only need the one... All the IR holders I know of who got killed this way would have been alive if they had this cheap box and had it wired to their intercom.
Obviously the GPS makes a perfect "DCT box" for a backup for IFR and that is the other 50% of it's use. The G496 is next to useless for primary VFR nav because the stuff on the map is barely identifiable.
But specifically I wonder what the value of the higher-res terrain of the 550 is. Do they refer to the map, or do they refer to the TAWS database? They imply the latter but I guess it must be the former because that is what sells, in which case it's not relevant to me. The price of the 550 is much higher.
It's always been the case with the Garmins that the specs are hard to compare.
I have an Aera 500....I find that with Bose headset the call-outs are quite audible without having to wire it into the intercom....and yes the 550 has a better car navigator, but I used the 500 in the US and found it's directions very intuitive
I don't like the Garmin car navigators, prefer TomTom or Copilot on my iphone. Hence for me it did not justify the price difference between the 500 and the 550. The refresh rate on the 500 is already pretty good.
I was based at a small airfield for a couple of years with lots of rising terrain. Of course you should never use the crude taws on these units as terrain avoidance, but it helped a lot in building confidence when flying in marginal vfr a previously planned route with minimum safe altitudes clearly planned and marked. You have an option to have a little extended line that tells you where you headed in 5 minutes flying, and if that points to a yellow area , then you know you're getting a bit too close for comfort. Of course you should not rely on it. There is a video somewhere with someone in the US flying a Bonanza with a similar gps based terrain system, and he is flying down a valley relying on the thing to avoid terrain, ended up with half a tree sliced by his wing, and miraculously stayed airborned and landed back at home.
It has lots of useful features that other handheld GPSs have (and I guess the 496) such as the extended centrelines and vertical planning, very handy. It can also interface with a Zaon.
I guess you could also fit an ipad mini and run Skydemon or such. However ever since I started experimenting with ipaq+gps years ago (of course Ipads are much better) , I much prefer having a 'proper' aviation designed unit, much more rugged and clearly designed, as my main GPS for flying, although I often also have the ipad for charts and approach plates.
I have exactly the same setup with the Garmin 695 -- it's mounted on my yoke and hooked up to the intercom. It gives me the "terrain" callouts, later then "pull up, pull up" as well as "five hundred". The only issue is that my home aerodrome is next to a ridge and I get those callouts every time on the base leg.
I'd prefer something that is not any worse than the G496.
It's not easy to compare the different models.
Previous to joining my current syndicate, I owned a 496. The syndicate has an Aera 500, so I sold my 496 on eBay (for nearly the price of a new Aera, go figure).
We have the Aera connected to input 1 of the GMA340 via a jack plug. Be aware that, at least in this installation, any received radio comms will silence the input (it's designed for music) so you may not hear a warning if it coincides with R/T chatter. With that caveat, it provides an excellent audio warning of terrain, sink rate and 500' on approach.
In all honesty I think the Aera is slightly less responsive than the 496. I can't quite put my finger on it (pardon the pun), but the touch screen is sometimes either a bit laggy or very particular about accuracy of clicking. This may be because it is mounted up and to my left and I am right-handed, so could be down to user error and may be better if yoke-mounted directly ahead.
That said, the negative is not significant, and the benefit is a smaller and lighter form factor that enables suction-mounting at eye level. Not exactly a HUD but easier to scan than on the yoke. Occasional issues with sunlight readability in this location, but not a show-stopper. And the Aera supports airways, which I don't think the 496 does.
On balance, the Aera is a reasonable replacement for the 496, but I wouldn't call it an upgrade.
