Garmin 76csx vs 60csx vs Vista Hcx vs ???
Dana M. Hague
Currently I'm using a Garmin Geko 301 which I've been very happy with.
This is the smallest GPS around, and includes the barometric altimeter
and magnetic compass, but its tiny screen is getting smaller as my
eyes age. :)
I use the GPS for flying both ultralights and powered paragliders as
well as hiking/hunting. The tiny size of the Geko is great to keep the
weight down when I'm carrying it all on my back, but it's also getting
hard to see it in the dim light of sunrise when I'm in the woods, or
where it's mounted on the plane.
Anyway, I'm looking at the [76Csx, 60Csx, and the eTrex Vista Hcx. All
have the altimeter and compass, which I need, and can display vertical
speed and glide ratio, as well as the ability to download maps. The
eTrex is smaller (better for hiking) and cheaper, but the side buttons
seem a lot less convenient, especially when it's mounted in the plane
or on my PPG frame. The 76 and 60 seem to have (at least from the side
by side comparison I did in Campmor this morning) a slightly better
display than the eTrex. The 76 is slightly larger than the 60 and has
more internal memory (which hardly matters as both accept memory
cards), but otherwise there seems to be little difference other than
ergonomics.
It seems that if it were just for flying the ultralight, I'd go with
the 76. Just for hiking, I'd go with the eTrex. For PPG, hard to say,
but I might keep using the Geko there... I use it mostly for logging
and ETA in the PPG.
I don't want/need to spend the extra $$$ for an aviation unit, which
wouldn't be all that much more useful to me anyway, and they're not
waterproof, which would be bad in the woods on a rainy day.
So, opinions? Alternate suggestions?
-Dana
--
When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced...
Live your life so that when you die, the world cries and you rejoice.
-- Cherokee saying
Einar Ryeng
Hi,
Dana M. Hague <d--m--hague@comcast-.net> writes:
> Anyway, I'm looking at the [76Csx, 60Csx, and the eTrex Vista Hcx. All
> have the altimeter and compass, which I need, and can display vertical
> speed and glide ratio, as well as the ability to download maps. The
> eTrex is smaller (better for hiking) and cheaper, but the side buttons
> seem a lot less convenient, especially when it's mounted in the plane
> or on my PPG frame. The 76 and 60 seem to have (at least from the side
> by side comparison I did in Campmor this morning) a slightly better
> display than the eTrex. The 76 is slightly larger than the 60 and has
> more internal memory (which hardly matters as both accept memory
> cards), but otherwise there seems to be little difference other than
> ergonomics.
All three units are approximately equal feature-wise. I've only used
the 60 CSx and Vista HCx, so i cannot say much about the 76, but the
main differences between the units I've used are:
- The Vista has a smaller screen, which can be hard to read at a
distance. 60 CSx is better in this respect.
- The 60 CSx have shorter battery life. Usually not of primary
importance as it still run well above 15 hours on a set of
batteries. I guess this is mostly due to the larger screen.
- The placement of buttons on the Vista are great when you hold it in
your hand, but they are hard to use when mounted. Having the buttons
on the front of the unit is definately best if you are intending to
mount it. (I've never tried paragliding, but I've got both a bicycle
mount and a car mount for my Vista and none of them give good
ergonomics)
- 60 CSx can use an external antenna (should be irrelevant for your
use cases).
- The Vista is smaller, lighter, and easier to fit in a random pocket
when hiking. This is mostly relevant if you use it frequently for
navigation. If you intend to use it mostly for track logs it should
be in the lid of your backpack anyway.
My two cent conclusion is that you'd be happier with the 60 CSx.
--
Einar Ryeng
Dan Anderson
> It seems that if it were just for flying the ultralight, I'd go with
> the 76.
I think this is the key point. For your usage, the 76CSx might be
the all around best choice. You could continue to use the Geko
for hiking if you don't like the extra weight of the 76.
--
Dan
Personal: www.gpsmap.net
Business:
Western Maps LLC
www.westernmaps.us
Terje Mathisen
> display than the eTrex. The 76 is slightly larger than the 60 and has
> more internal memory (which hardly matters as both accept memory
> cards), but otherwise there seems to be little difference other than
> ergonomics.
The 76 and 60 series have always been identical internally, they even
use the same firmware.
The size difference (same weight) is so that the 76 will float in water,
i.e. it contains a bit more air.
Terje
(Who currently use a 76 CSx, plus a Quest in my car and in rental cars.)
--
- <Terje.M...@hda.hydro.com>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person Terje Mathisen <terje.m...@hda.hydro.com> said
>Dana M. Hague wrote:
>> display than the eTrex. The 76 is slightly larger than the 60 and has
>> more internal memory (which hardly matters as both accept memory
>> cards), but otherwise there seems to be little difference other than
>> ergonomics.
>
>The 76 and 60 series have always been identical internally, they even
>use the same firmware.
>
>The size difference (same weight) is so that the 76 will float in
>water, i.e. it contains a bit more air.
They also both come with the same memory card now I believe, since the
small (64MB?) one that should come in the 60 costs more than the larger
one these days.
As I said on the yahoo group, I've tried a Legend HCX recently and
performance wise it is pretty comparable to the 60CSX .. it doesn't take
an external antenna (and doesn't usually need one), has no power/serial
interfaces, just USB, and the ergonomics is different .. I find the 60C
buttons but easier to use (but then I have a lot of practise).
Micro SD card mounting is much saner in the eTrex, but hey, you probably
only do it once, field changing them (even with the eTrex) is plenty
risky if it's a 100$+ pre-programmed card.
In this part of the world the eTrex is a bunch cheaper than the 60, so
if cost mattered I'd probably get the eTrex .. for ultimate performance
/ features the 60 or 76 still has an edge (although the eTrex seemed
much more willing to lock the local EGNOS (=WAAS) satellites than my
60CSX is.)
As for the 76/60 debate - try before you buy, it all comes down to how
you hold it. As for floating, in a river I'd rather it sank anyway,
probably. I'd =really= rather it stayed on the lanyard. !!
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
13,113 Km walked. 2,500 Km PROWs surveyed. 45.1% complete.
Roy Lewallen
> Dana M. Hague wrote:
>> display than the eTrex. The 76 is slightly larger than the 60 and has
>> more internal memory (which hardly matters as both accept memory
>> cards), but otherwise there seems to be little difference other than
>> ergonomics.
>
> The 76 and 60 series have always been identical internally, they even
> use the same firmware.
>
> The size difference (same weight) is so that the 76 will float in water,
> i.e. it contains a bit more air.
>
> Terje
> (Who currently use a 76 CSx, plus a Quest in my car and in rental cars.)
The 76Cs had more internal memory than the 60Cs (115MB vs 56MB), which
was important since neither had any provision for using a memory card.
Otherwise they were functionally identical as far as I know. I think
that was true of the other 60 and 76 series units until the Csx. The Csx
units take a memory card so there's no longer any memory or other
functional distinction between the two. I had a 76Cs because of the
larger memory, then replaced it with a 60Csx because of the form factor.
Roy Lewallen
Nano117
60Csx: I didn't like the button layout. With the curved bottom and
buttons down there it was really awkward. With sweaty/wet hands it
would want to slip out. Didn't like the swivel type belt clip, which
unclipped on me and was responsible for losing the unit during a long
arduous hike.
76Csx: Replacement for my lost 60Csx. Great unit with the same
quadrifilar type antenna as the 60Csx but it's enclosed, rather than a
stub. Much better button layout. It's a bit large though and can be
awkward carrying in your pocket. It has an external antenna connector
which is useful for long period averaging, etc.
eTrex Vista Hcx: Originally got this one to play around with the new
Mediatek chipset and see how it compared to my Sirf 76Csx. They're
about equal in sensitivity. The screen is smaller, but it's not much
of an issue. I use the "big numbers" option on the trip computer page
to display 3 key values and they're easily readable at a distance,
like driving.
I fell in LOVE with the eTrex Vista Hcx due to it's amazing battery
life. With 2 PowerEx 2700mAh AA Rechargeable NiMh batteries I'm
averaging 29-30 hours of battery life with WAAS on, 1 second track
logging to a 4GB MicroSD card, compass & altimeter on. As a result I
run the unit 24/7/365, only having to fiddle with batteries once a day
with power to spare. I was only getting 16 hours (everything on) on my
76Csx, 60Csx and would have to carry spare batteries in order to run
24/7. I use GPS to geotag photos, so it's nice to run 24/7.
For mapping with the eTrex Vista Hcx. I'd recommend getting the non NT
versions of maps. The map scrolling performance is much better, even
when the detail is set to most. They're a bit harder to find but worth
it.
Good luck,
Brian
mi...@sushi.com
Then there is me who doesn't like the buttons on the 76, but likes the
layout of the 60. Buttons in the middle of the unit (on the 76) seems
awkward to me.
A
> I use the GPS for flying both ultralights and powered paragliders [...]
> Anyway, I'm looking at the [76Csx, 60Csx, and the eTrex Vista Hcx. All
> have the altimeter and compass, which I need, and can display vertical
> speed and glide ratio
I'm very happy using my 60Cx in my ultralight (Pegasus Quantum), which has
its own compass and altimeter, so I don't need those in the GPS too -
though I guess in a paramotor you want to cut down the number of gadgets
strapped to your body.
(Also my GPS is clipped vertically on the panel (on a RAM mount), and AIUI
the Garmin solid state compasses only work with the unit held flat)
The other reason I don't need the solid state compass is because
*I'VE GOT A GPS!*
;-)
When flying my main display is the map page with four data fields (bearing,
heading, speed and Dist-to-next)
Making bearing == heading perfectly corrects for crosswinds; The speed
shows how much of a headwind I'm suffering.
I also made a map with cgpsmapper and mapsettoolkit to show airspace. It's
not a 496, but it's good enough :-)
Jack Bunce
> Making bearing == heading perfectly corrects for crosswinds
Were it only so. That will get you where you are going but your bearing
to the station will be changing the whole time. Shortest way is to
correct into the crosswind just enough to stop the bearing from changing;
then your course over the ground will be a straight line directly to your
nav point. Ortherwise, it will be a spiral like ground track.
Read up on ADF procedures -- you are using your GPS as an ADF.
Peter Bennett
If you are heading to a waypoint (or a known destination that you can
enter as a waypoint), do a GOTO that waypoint, then watch cross-track
error (XTE), and adjust your heading to minimize XTE - that will keep
you on (or very near) the straight line from the point you did "GOTO"
to the destination waypoint.
--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI
peterbb4 (at) interchange.ubc.ca
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca
A
>> Making bearing == heading perfectly corrects for crosswinds
>
> Were it only so. That will get you where you are going but your bearing
> to the station will be changing the whole time. Shortest way is to
> correct into the crosswind just enough to stop the bearing from changing;
> then your course over the ground will be a straight line directly to your
> nav point. Ortherwise, it will be a spiral like ground track.
Eh? I've been doing it this way for a few years, and haven't been aware of
flying any spirals. At least, not as a consequence of this method :-)
If the GPS says bearing is 270 (ie, my destination is due West), and I
point the aeroplane so that the GPS says heading is 270 (ie, I'm flying due
West), then I'll get there in a straight line.
Perhaps your confusion is caused by Garmin using "heading" differently from
convention:
AIUI in conventional navigation, "heading" is the direction I'm pointing,
and "track" is the direction I'm moving;
in Garminland, "heading" is the direction I'm moving, and (on my 60Cx
without a solid state compass) it doesn't know which direction I'm pointing.
So displaying bearing and heading on a 60Cx, and steering so those numbers
are the same, will take you in a straight line to your waypoint.
Do the Garmin chartplotters use this "wrong" meaning of heading too? I
think I'll waste a bit of morning downloading the manuals :-)
Dana M. Hague
>I've had all three units the 76Csx, 60Csx, and the eTrex Vista Hcx.
>
>60Csx: I didn't like the button layout...>
>76Csx: ...Much better button layout. It's a bit large though and can be
>awkward carrying in your pocket...
>eTrex Vista Hcx: ...I fell in LOVE with the eTrex Vista Hcx...
>For mapping with the eTrex Vista Hcx. I'd recommend getting the non NT
>versions of maps. The map scrolling performance is much better,..
Thanks for the information. If I was getting it only for hiking I'd
go with the eTrex, too, but the side buttons would be awkward when
it's mounted in the plane, so I've ruled that one out. I think I'll
drop by West Marine again tonight and compare how the other two fit in
my hand (I figure I'll buy after Christmas, when I can either get one
on sale or on eBay from somebody who didn't get what they wanted for
Christmas) :)
What do you mean by the "non NT" versions of maps?
-Dana
--
Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.
Dana M. Hague
>I'm very happy using my 60Cx in my ultralight (Pegasus Quantum), which has
>its own compass and altimeter, so I don't need those in the GPS too -
>though I guess in a paramotor you want to cut down the number of gadgets
>strapped to your body.
The altimeter is nice in the PPG (though I also have a Suunto
altimeter watch), but it also makes the altitude indication much more
accurate, which is nice when I'm analyzing tracks I've downloaded to
the computer.
>(Also my GPS is clipped vertically on the panel (on a RAM mount), and AIUI
>the Garmin solid state compasses only work with the unit held flat)
Yes, the compass is useless in the plane, but it's very nice to have
in the woods.
>I also made a map with cgpsmapper and mapsettoolkit to show airspace. It's
>not a 496, but it's good enough :-)
Yes, I figured to use bitmaps of the sectional charts for the areas I
fly and stuff them into the GPS, which is actually easier to interpret
than the simplified aviation database of the aviation units.
Jack Bunce
...
> Perhaps your confusion is caused by Garmin using "heading" differently
> from convention...
No, not just Garmin, but you, too. :) You used the term "heading" to mean
the indication at the top of the rotating compass ring while Garmin
claims that the rotating compass ring shows your TRACK, i.e., COURSE over
the ground. (pg 48 in the 478 manual) The direction to the destination is
the "Bearing" and is shown by the ARROW. I took the meaning of heading to
be in the "which way the airplane is pointing" sense.
TRACK or COURSE can be the same as the HEADING in no wind or parallel
wind conditions, but, as a pilot you know how often that happens --- 10
percent of the time or less!
HEADING, defined as the direction the airplane is pointing is not shown
on a GPS without a built in compass.
> So displaying bearing and heading on a 60Cx, and steering so those
> numbers are the same, will take you in a straight line to your waypoint.
If you change the above to:
"... displaying bearing and track on a 60Cx, and steering (changing the
heading) so those numbers are the same, will take you in a straight line
to your waypoint"
then I will agree with the statement, although if I were actually flying
the aircraft using a 60Cx as an aid to navigation I would flip it into
Marine Mode (assuming it has one) and keep an eye on my Cross Track error
on the Marine version of the Compass Page.
As an aside, Garmin's use of the term heading in its manuals is
appallingly confusing as well as incorrect. Very, very sloppy. I haven't
looked at the 496 manual but I sure hope it is written in a more
technically precise manner.