I guess I've been living under a rock. I wanted to update the VFR GPS in
the panel to an IFR model. I started getting quotes on recon GNC 300XLs.
The units themselves were about 2,500-3,000. I was shocked to find out that
I had to install an annunciator, a new indicator and approx 30 hrs labor
bringing the total cost to around 8,000. I checked several shops and got
the same story. Is it typical to spend 25% of the value of the aircraft on
just the IFR GPS? If I installed a 530, the receiver and install would
probably cost close to 80% of the value of the aircraft.

Eddie

nobody wrote:
> I guess I've been living under a rock. I wanted to update the VFR GPS in
> the panel to an IFR model. I started getting quotes on recon GNC 300XLs.
> The units themselves were about 2,500-3,000. I was shocked to find out that
> I had to install an annunciator, a new indicator and approx 30 hrs labor
> bringing the total cost to around 8,000. I checked several shops and got
> the same story. Is it typical to spend 25% of the value of the aircraft on
> just the IFR GPS? If I installed a 530, the receiver and install would
> probably cost close to 80% of the value of the aircraft.

Your absolute expense dollars sound about right. The percentage of the value of
the aircraft will, of course, depend on the value of the aircraft.

IMO, and as other have also pointed out here, the additional capability over and
above a non-certified moving map is not that great, either, unless you
frequently fly to a runway that's served only by a GPS approach. Most of the
benefit of certified GPS can be had without the certification.

Your numbers seem right. IMHO, the Garmin 430 is the better value. At an
approximately $9,300 install price, you get an ILS and save space on the
annunciators (they are included within the unit itself). You will also see a
better addition to the aircraft's resale value compared to a GNC300XL but
don't expect a $9,300 increase. Oh, and you will be able to get a terrain
database for an extra $500 available in a few months.

All that being said, it will only make fiscal sense if you plan on keeping
the plane a while.

Marco Leon
N36616

"nobody" > wrote in message
om...
> I guess I've been living under a rock. I wanted to update the VFR GPS in
> the panel to an IFR model. I started getting quotes on recon GNC 300XLs.
> The units themselves were about 2,500-3,000. I was shocked to find out
that
> I had to install an annunciator, a new indicator and approx 30 hrs labor
> bringing the total cost to around 8,000. I checked several shops and got
> the same story. Is it typical to spend 25% of the value of the aircraft
on
> just the IFR GPS? If I installed a 530, the receiver and install would
> probably cost close to 80% of the value of the aircraft.
>
> Eddie
>
>

"...the additional capability over and above a non-certified moving map is
not that great..."

That's just it. Without certification, you can't file /G, and you can't use
GPS as the primary navigation instrument. In my case, I can't legally use
the speed/dist functions for the DME portion of the approach either. I'm in
the same place with a much cheaper (portable) VFR GPS.

Ed

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1109264569.720642@sj-nntpcache-5...
> nobody wrote:
>> I guess I've been living under a rock. I wanted to update the VFR GPS in
>> the panel to an IFR model. I started getting quotes on recon GNC 300XLs.
>> The units themselves were about 2,500-3,000. I was shocked to find out
>> that I had to install an annunciator, a new indicator and approx 30 hrs
>> labor bringing the total cost to around 8,000. I checked several shops
>> and got the same story. Is it typical to spend 25% of the value of the
>> aircraft on just the IFR GPS? If I installed a 530, the receiver and
>> install would probably cost close to 80% of the value of the aircraft.
>
> Your absolute expense dollars sound about right. The percentage of the
> value of the aircraft will, of course, depend on the value of the
> aircraft.
>
> IMO, and as other have also pointed out here, the additional capability
> over and above a non-certified moving map is not that great, either,
> unless you frequently fly to a runway that's served only by a GPS
> approach. Most of the benefit of certified GPS can be had without the
> certification.

Nobody,

> If I installed a 530, the receiver and install would
> probably cost close to 80% of the value of the aircraft.
>

If you did that, I don't think you'd need an external annunciator.
There are some GPS units that don't. Aviation Consumer has done several
stories on when an upgrade makes financial sense and what kind of
upgrade does. Their archive (for a fee/subscription) is online at
www.aviationconsumer.com

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

That's why people buy Garmin 430s. They are the only GPS units to my
knowledge that have everything built it. You can find them pretty
inexpensive on ebay from those upgrading to 480s or 530s. Installation
will knock your socks off in any case.
-Robert

What about the external CDI?

The GNS430 is compatible with many CDI's on the market. There is a
requirement around the annunciator for the CDI itself where the user needs
to know if it is tracking the GPS or the VLOC (NAV). The 430 has an
indication on its display which may satisfy that requirement, I'm not sure.
The Garmin GI-106 CDI has it on the CDI face as well but the unit will run
you $1,100+. There is also an electronic CDI on the default NAV screen but
that of course has no glideslope.

Marco Leon



"abripl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> What about the external CDI?
>

The GNS430 is compatible with many CDI's on the market. There is a
requirement around the annunciator for the CDI itself where the user needs
to know if it is tracking the GPS or the VLOC (NAV). The 430 has an
indication on its display which may satisfy that requirement, I'm not sure.
The Garmin GI-106 CDI has it on the CDI face as well but the unit will run
you $1,100+. There is also an electronic CDI on the default NAV screen but
that of course has no glideslope.

Marco Leon



"abripl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> What about the external CDI?
>

The GNS430 is compatible with many CDI's on the market. There is a
requirement around the annunciator for the CDI itself where the user needs
to know if it is tracking the GPS or the VLOC (NAV). The 430 has an
indication on its display which may satisfy that requirement, I'm not sure.
The Garmin GI-106 CDI has it on the CDI face as well but the unit will run
you $1,100+. There is also an electronic CDI on the default NAV screen but
that of course has no glideslope.

Marco Leon



"abripl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> What about the external CDI?
>

Marco Leon wrote:

> The GNS430 is compatible with many CDI's on the market. There is a
> requirement around the annunciator for the CDI itself where the user needs
> to know if it is tracking the GPS or the VLOC (NAV). The 430 has an
> indication on its display which may satisfy that requirement, I'm not sure.
> The Garmin GI-106 CDI has it on the CDI face as well but the unit will run
> you $1,100+. There is also an electronic CDI on the default NAV screen but
> that of course has no glideslope.

So do you go to your trash bin and keep sending this?
>

> The GNS430 is compatible with many CDI's on the market. There is a
> requirement around the annunciator for the CDI itself where the user needs
> to know if it is tracking the GPS or the VLOC (NAV). The 430 has an
> indication on its display which may satisfy that requirement, I'm not
sure.
> The Garmin GI-106 CDI has it on the CDI face as well but the unit will run
> you $1,100+. There is also an electronic CDI on the default NAV screen but
> that of course has no glideslope.

The CDI on the GNS430 screen only shows GPS. It does not ever show VOR or
LOC deviation. The annunicator in the bottom left corner of the screen
which says either GPS or VLOC is there to tell you what the external
mechanical CDI is showing.

You wouldn't believe how many 430 users out there still think they can
follow a VOR based course deviation on the unit's display.

As long as the 430 is mounted in the radio stack near the flight
instruments, you don't need to install an external annunciator panel.

I don't know why the hell my newsreader keeps doing this!!! Whenever it
fails to upload a message because of an unreachable server, it thinks
there's another one there and sends out multiple posts. Damn annoying.

I apologize folks.

Marco Leon

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Marco Leon wrote:
>
> > The GNS430 is compatible with many CDI's on the market. There is a
> > requirement around the annunciator for the CDI itself where the user
needs
> > to know if it is tracking the GPS or the VLOC (NAV). The 430 has an
> > indication on its display which may satisfy that requirement, I'm not
sure.
> > The Garmin GI-106 CDI has it on the CDI face as well but the unit will
run
> > you $1,100+. There is also an electronic CDI on the default NAV screen
but
> > that of course has no glideslope.
>
> So do you go to your trash bin and keep sending this?
> >



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

I made the same decision against getting a IFR GPS and statyed with /U
on my plane. I did get a Garmin 196 and it works fabulously along with
my onboard VOR on IFR flights. I made this choice because nearly all
the airports that I fly IFR into have ILS.

M wrote:
> I made the same decision against getting a IFR GPS and statyed with /U
> on my plane. I did get a Garmin 196 and it works fabulously along with
> my onboard VOR on IFR flights. I made this choice because nearly all
> the airports that I fly IFR into have ILS.

Nothing wrong with this but more and more airports are getting GPS
approaches for the opposite and crossing directions to the ILS runways.

So if the wind doesn't work for the ILS runway you can make a straight
in approach instead the more dangerous circle to land from the ILS
option; lower minimums to boot.

Doug Carter wrote:

> So if the wind doesn't work for the ILS runway you can make a straight
> in approach instead the more dangerous circle to land from the ILS
> option; lower minimums to boot.

I haven't done a survey, but my impression is that the average straight in GPS
approach has higher minimums than the average ILS circling approach. I agree I'd
rather land straight in if possible, though.

DGB

Interestingly enough, it seems that on the days when the ceiling/vis is
low enough to make circling approach difficult are also likely to be
the days when the wind is either very light or lined up with the ILS
straight-in direction.



>
> Nothing wrong with this but more and more airports are getting GPS
> approaches for the opposite and crossing directions to the ILS
runways.
>
> So if the wind doesn't work for the ILS runway you can make a
straight
> in approach instead the more dangerous circle to land from the ILS
> option; lower minimums to boot.

Dave Butler wrote:
> Doug Carter wrote:
>
>> So if the wind doesn't work for the ILS runway you can make a straight
>> in approach instead the more dangerous circle to land from the ILS
>> option; lower minimums to boot.
>
>
> I haven't done a survey, but my impression is that the average straight
> in GPS approach has higher minimums than the average ILS circling
> approach. I agree I'd rather land straight in if possible, though.
>
> DGB

You may be correct but I looked at about a dozen airports in the
Southwest and in all cases the GPS approach was lower than the ILS
circling minimums.

Now that I think of it, I was looking at actual LNAV approaches, not
GPS overlays of NDB or VOR approaches. This could be a difference.