Radio Replacement

[Jonathan Goodish]

I have (2) KX170B radios which I'm very happy with, except that one of
them has been diagnosed with a bad MHz crystal on the comm side. The new
crystals are apparently no longer available from Bendix/King. The
avionics shop apparently scavenged a replacement from a used radio they
had in the shop, but they were not able to align the radio to factory
specs with this "used" crystal. They are recommending that I replace the
radio which, of course, is of the most benefit to them.

I have thought of the following options:

#1 -- Send the radio to the KX170B.com guy (Gary Glassmeyer). I've
spoken to him and he claims that he has a source for the crystals. I
estimate that this would cost me $500-$600 (including shipping),
assuming that he doesn't find anything else wrong.

#2 -- Local avionics shop is offering to install a used KX155 for $2500,
including the radio.

#3 -- Have Garmin SL30 installed. I have been told that this would
probably require an indicator replacement as well. Estimated cost $6000.

#4 -- Have Garmin 430W installed, also with new indicator. Estimated
cost $12,000.

Keep in mind that I have zero desire for the flip-flop or any of the
other nice but not compelling gizmos on newer radios. I can live without
the IFR GPS right now, though the 430W might be a nice complement to the
396 that I have on the yoke and provide me with capabilities that I do
not presently have in the panel. Not sure that the SL30 is worth it.
Keeping the KX170B (even a successfully repaired one) is probably
delaying the inevitable, but my money makes more money in the bank than
in the panel.

Any thoughts?


Thanks,
JKG

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> I have (2) KX170B radios which I'm very happy with, except that one of
> them has been diagnosed with a bad MHz crystal on the comm side. The
> new crystals are apparently no longer available from Bendix/King. The
> avionics shop apparently scavenged a replacement from a used radio
> they had in the shop, but they were not able to align the radio to
> factory specs with this "used" crystal. They are recommending that I
> replace the radio which, of course, is of the most benefit to them.
>
> I have thought of the following options:
>
> #1 -- Send the radio to the KX170B.com guy (Gary Glassmeyer). I've
> spoken to him and he claims that he has a source for the crystals. I
> estimate that this would cost me $500-$600 (including shipping),
> assuming that he doesn't find anything else wrong.
>
> #2 -- Local avionics shop is offering to install a used KX155 for
> $2500, including the radio.
>
> #3 -- Have Garmin SL30 installed. I have been told that this would
> probably require an indicator replacement as well. Estimated cost
> $6000.
>
> #4 -- Have Garmin 430W installed, also with new indicator. Estimated
> cost $12,000.
>
> Keep in mind that I have zero desire for the flip-flop or any of the
> other nice but not compelling gizmos on newer radios. I can live
> without the IFR GPS right now, though the 430W might be a nice
> complement to the 396 that I have on the yoke and provide me with
> capabilities that I do not presently have in the panel. Not sure that
> the SL30 is worth it. Keeping the KX170B (even a successfully
> repaired one) is probably delaying the inevitable, but my money makes
> more money in the bank than in the panel.
>
> Any thoughts?

I agree if you go with #1 that is $5-6 hundred that you will never get back
and you will probably have to replace the radios sooner or later anyway.

#2 Isn't a bad deal but if you look around you can probably find a KX155 for
less money. Try e-bay.

#3 I think the SL30 and it's little non-NAV brother are the coolest radios
out there. I'm putting an SL40 or maybe 30 in my kit built because panel
space is limited and I want to be able to at list listen to two freqs at
once. The 30 also has it's own CDI that can be used as a second Nav head.

#4 If you don't want or need IFR GPS that's lots of money.

But given what you've said I'd find a used KX155. Follow this link I'll bet
you find one or 10
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&satitle=KX155

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:59:11 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
> wrote:

>I have (2) KX170B radios which I'm very happy with, except that one of
>them has been diagnosed with a bad MHz crystal on the comm side. The new
>crystals are apparently no longer available from Bendix/King. The
>avionics shop apparently scavenged a replacement from a used radio they
>had in the shop, but they were not able to align the radio to factory
>specs with this "used" crystal. They are recommending that I replace the
>radio which, of course, is of the most benefit to them.
>
>I have thought of the following options:
>
I'd wait until Jim Weir checks in on why the rock is preventing the
original radio guys from tuning the rig up to spec. That sounds fishy
to me - as in there's something else bad that's going to cost you more
money in the end.

Don

[Jim Stewart]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> I have (2) KX170B radios which I'm very happy with, except that one of
> them has been diagnosed with a bad MHz crystal on the comm side. The new
> crystals are apparently no longer available from Bendix/King. The
> avionics shop apparently scavenged a replacement from a used radio they
> had in the shop, but they were not able to align the radio to factory
> specs with this "used" crystal. They are recommending that I replace the
> radio which, of course, is of the most benefit to them.

Back in my ham radio days, I had custom crystals
made for converting police band radios to 440mhz.
The custom crystals costed me about $30 each with
about a 2 week lead time. OTOH, given that every-
thing about an airplane is hard and expensive, I
suppose you couldn't get it done for less than
$500.

Given that your tech couldn't align the radio
with a scrounged crystal, I'd have to assume the
worst, that the radio is not easily fixed.

[[email protected]]

Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> > I have (2) KX170B radios which I'm very happy with, except that one of
> > them has been diagnosed with a bad MHz crystal on the comm side. The new
> > crystals are apparently no longer available from Bendix/King. The
> > avionics shop apparently scavenged a replacement from a used radio they
> > had in the shop, but they were not able to align the radio to factory
> > specs with this "used" crystal. They are recommending that I replace the
> > radio which, of course, is of the most benefit to them.

> Back in my ham radio days, I had custom crystals
> made for converting police band radios to 440mhz.
> The custom crystals costed me about $30 each with
> about a 2 week lead time. OTOH, given that every-
> thing about an airplane is hard and expensive, I
> suppose you couldn't get it done for less than
> $500.

> Given that your tech couldn't align the radio
> with a scrounged crystal, I'd have to assume the
> worst, that the radio is not easily fixed.

Custom crystals still start at about $30.

The only problem (ignoring the legalities) would be providing appropriate
specs for the crystal.

On the other hand, since crystals are generally not prone to failure and
the radio didn't work with a different crystal, I would begin to doubt
the original diagnoses.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mike Noel]

I replaced my number 1 nav/com with an SL30 + new CDI/GS head and the 6K
sounds about right. It is a great radio that doesn't require much space and
is almost the same as having 2 nav/coms. You can monitor a second nav and
com frequency while using the primaries. I don't think the little yellow
led arrays will ever need replacement either as they seem to with the Kings.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
>I have (2) KX170B radios which I'm very happy with, except that one of
> them has been diagnosed with a bad MHz crystal on the comm side. The new
> crystals are apparently no longer available from Bendix/King. The
> avionics shop apparently scavenged a replacement from a used radio they
> had in the shop, but they were not able to align the radio to factory
> specs with this "used" crystal. They are recommending that I replace the
> radio which, of course, is of the most benefit to them.
>
> I have thought of the following options:
>
> #1 -- Send the radio to the KX170B.com guy (Gary Glassmeyer). I've
> spoken to him and he claims that he has a source for the crystals. I
> estimate that this would cost me $500-$600 (including shipping),
> assuming that he doesn't find anything else wrong.
>
> #2 -- Local avionics shop is offering to install a used KX155 for $2500,
> including the radio.
>
> #3 -- Have Garmin SL30 installed. I have been told that this would
> probably require an indicator replacement as well. Estimated cost $6000.
>
> #4 -- Have Garmin 430W installed, also with new indicator. Estimated
> cost $12,000.
>
> Keep in mind that I have zero desire for the flip-flop or any of the
> other nice but not compelling gizmos on newer radios. I can live without
> the IFR GPS right now, though the 430W might be a nice complement to the
> 396 that I have on the yoke and provide me with capabilities that I do
> not presently have in the panel. Not sure that the SL30 is worth it.
> Keeping the KX170B (even a successfully repaired one) is probably
> delaying the inevitable, but my money makes more money in the bank than
> in the panel.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> Thanks,
> JKG

[Rich]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> I have (2) KX170B radios which I'm very happy with, except that one of
> them has been diagnosed with a bad MHz crystal on the comm side. The new
> crystals are apparently no longer available from Bendix/King. The
> avionics shop apparently scavenged a replacement from a used radio they
> had in the shop, but they were not able to align the radio to factory
> specs with this "used" crystal. They are recommending that I replace the
> radio which, of course, is of the most benefit to them.
>
> I have thought of the following options:
>
> #1 -- Send the radio to the KX170B.com guy (Gary Glassmeyer). I've
> spoken to him and he claims that he has a source for the crystals. I
> estimate that this would cost me $500-$600 (including shipping),
> assuming that he doesn't find anything else wrong.
>
> #2 -- Local avionics shop is offering to install a used KX155 for $2500,
> including the radio.
>
> #3 -- Have Garmin SL30 installed. I have been told that this would
> probably require an indicator replacement as well. Estimated cost $6000.
>
> #4 -- Have Garmin 430W installed, also with new indicator. Estimated
> cost $12,000.
>
> Keep in mind that I have zero desire for the flip-flop or any of the
> other nice but not compelling gizmos on newer radios. I can live without
> the IFR GPS right now, though the 430W might be a nice complement to the
> 396 that I have on the yoke and provide me with capabilities that I do
> not presently have in the panel. Not sure that the SL30 is worth it.
> Keeping the KX170B (even a successfully repaired one) is probably
> delaying the inevitable, but my money makes more money in the bank than
> in the panel.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> Thanks,
> JKG

You overlooked one more option...
Purchase a used, yellow tagged KX170 for maybe $500. Cheapest easiest
solution. A KX170 will work as good as it ever did and is a
well-respected radio.

The SL30 is a good radio (I have one) as is the KX155, but the KX170
will do anything they can do (maybe a few more steps, like finding a nav
radial).

Rich

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Rich > wrote:
> You overlooked one more option...
> Purchase a used, yellow tagged KX170 for maybe $500. Cheapest easiest
> solution. A KX170 will work as good as it ever did and is a
> well-respected radio.
>
> The SL30 is a good radio (I have one) as is the KX155, but the KX170
> will do anything they can do (maybe a few more steps, like finding a nav
> radial).


My non-working 170B is physically in near-mint condition; many of the
used 170Bs look like they've been through a couple tours in Iraq.
Nevertheless, the problem with a working 170B would be the same as the
problem I have now--if the unit dies tomorrow, repairs are going to be
uncertain at best. I really do like the 170B radios despite the lack of
some modern conveniences (like flip-flop), but if you can't get parts,
that's a huge problem.

The local avionics shop with the used KX155 is claiming that my existing
indicators are compatible, but I'm not convinced. I don't want to let
them get halfway through an install, only to find out that they're going
to stick me with an outrageous price on a new indicator.



JKG

[Dan Luke]

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

> #4 -- Have Garmin 430W installed, also with new indicator. Estimated
> cost $12,000.

Data point: A prospective buyer just told me he had decided not to buy my
airplane solely on the basis of its not having a 430 installed.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> > #4 -- Have Garmin 430W installed, also with new indicator. Estimated
> > cost $12,000.
>
> Data point: A prospective buyer just told me he had decided not to buy my
> airplane solely on the basis of its not having a 430 installed.

feh.

--
Bob Noel
(gave up lookingn for a particular sig the lawyer will)

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> "Jonathan Goodish" wrote:
>
> > #4 -- Have Garmin 430W installed, also with new indicator. Estimated
> > cost $12,000.
>
> Data point: A prospective buyer just told me he had decided not to buy my
> airplane solely on the basis of its not having a 430 installed.

While I think this is crazy, I don't doubt it. It seems that the 430 is
just about the only radio that brings any extra value to a light single.
My question is, how long will that last? Until the next great model is
released?

That all being said, I'm not planning to sell any time soon, so the
panel sans a 430 isn't a huge concern at this point.



JKG

[Tim]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> I have (2) KX170B radios which I'm very happy with, except that one of
> them has been diagnosed with a bad MHz crystal on the comm side. The new
> crystals are apparently no longer available from Bendix/King. The
> avionics shop apparently scavenged a replacement from a used radio they
> had in the shop, but they were not able to align the radio to factory
> specs with this "used" crystal. They are recommending that I replace the
> radio which, of course, is of the most benefit to them.
>
> I have thought of the following options:
>
> #1 -- Send the radio to the KX170B.com guy (Gary Glassmeyer). I've
> spoken to him and he claims that he has a source for the crystals. I
> estimate that this would cost me $500-$600 (including shipping),
> assuming that he doesn't find anything else wrong.
>
> #2 -- Local avionics shop is offering to install a used KX155 for $2500,
> including the radio.
>
> #3 -- Have Garmin SL30 installed. I have been told that this would
> probably require an indicator replacement as well. Estimated cost $6000.
>
> #4 -- Have Garmin 430W installed, also with new indicator. Estimated
> cost $12,000.
>
> Keep in mind that I have zero desire for the flip-flop or any of the
> other nice but not compelling gizmos on newer radios. I can live without
> the IFR GPS right now, though the 430W might be a nice complement to the
> 396 that I have on the yoke and provide me with capabilities that I do
> not presently have in the panel. Not sure that the SL30 is worth it.
> Keeping the KX170B (even a successfully repaired one) is probably
> delaying the inevitable, but my money makes more money in the bank than
> in the panel.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> Thanks,
> JKG


I have a 170B and a 155 in my plane. I like them both. I think you can
get slide in replacements for the 170. sl30 is a bit spendy. Looks
like a nice unit though and slim and light compared to the other two you
mention. A direct replacement might be your best bet.

Gotta be cheap used 170s out there though. I would keep looking.

[Tim]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Jonathan Goodish" wrote:
>
>
>>#4 -- Have Garmin 430W installed, also with new indicator. Estimated
>>cost $12,000.
>
>
> Data point: A prospective buyer just told me he had decided not to buy my
> airplane solely on the basis of its not having a 430 installed.
>

A red herring to anyone not thinking of selling any time soon. Besides,
even the 430 installation won't get anywhere near the money back as what
was spent on it.

Although an interesting anecdote, absolutely useless I think for
considering what radio to put in the plane in question.

[Dan Luke]

"Tim" wrote:

> Dan Luke wrote:
>> "Jonathan Goodish" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>#4 -- Have Garmin 430W installed, also with new indicator. Estimated
>>>cost $12,000.
>>
>>
>> Data point: A prospective buyer just told me he had decided not to buy my
>> airplane solely on the basis of its not having a 430 installed.
>>
>
> A red herring to anyone not thinking of selling any time soon. Besides,
> even the 430 installation won't get anywhere near the money back as what was
> spent on it.
>
> Although an interesting anecdote, absolutely useless I think for considering
> what radio to put in the plane in question.

The point was not about getting anywhere near the money back as what was
spent on it (sic).

The point is that an older airplane without a 430 is more difficult to sell
than one so equipped; hardly a useless consideration when considering a
NAV/COM upgrade.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Tim]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Tim" wrote:
>
>
>>Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>#4 -- Have Garmin 430W installed, also with new indicator. Estimated
>>>>cost $12,000.
>>>
>>>
>>>Data point: A prospective buyer just told me he had decided not to buy my
>>>airplane solely on the basis of its not having a 430 installed.
>>>
>>
>>A red herring to anyone not thinking of selling any time soon. Besides,
>>even the 430 installation won't get anywhere near the money back as what was
>>spent on it.
>>
>>Although an interesting anecdote, absolutely useless I think for considering
>>what radio to put in the plane in question.
>
>
> The point was not about getting anywhere near the money back as what was
> spent on it (sic).
>
> The point is that an older airplane without a 430 is more difficult to sell
> than one so equipped; hardly a useless consideration when considering a
> NAV/COM upgrade.
>

Um, I don't see how it is a good thing to throw money away just so that
the plane sells... If, at some time the owner wants to sell, he/she can
always put it in the panel or reduce the price.

Spending 12k on a 430 and then getting maybe 1k more on the sale over
what was in the panel originally is not really worth it - you are doing
yourself no favors.

[Ken Reed]

> > Data point: A prospective buyer just told me he had decided not to buy my
> > airplane solely on the basis of its not having a 430 installed.

> A red herring to anyone not thinking of selling any time soon. Besides,
> even the 430 installation won't get anywhere near the money back as what
> was spent on it. Although an interesting anecdote, absolutely useless I
> think for considering what radio to put in the plane in question.

Maybe, maybe not. I can tell you that when I was looking for an airplane
just over a year ago, I would not even look at one that didn't have a
Garmin 430 as a minimum. There are buyers that think that way and there
are enough airplanes out there with G430 or better that a buyer will
find one if it is important to him.

--
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

[RST Engineering]

Then you've answered your own question. You are happy with what you've got
and it is the least expensive option. The 170 series is the most
bulletproof radio yet to hit the market, and I include the venerable old
MK-12 (radios that glow in the dark).

Jan Crystal (Ft. Myers FL, google on them for a phone number) keeps an
incredible file of crystal specifications and I'd give it a 95% probability
that they have that crystal spec on file. Last time I bought a 0.003%
crystal from them it cost me about $20 plus postage, so for $50 you've got
your crystal.

Installing a crystal is about as difficult as changing your oil. Uncowling
the ******* is the hardest part, both with radios and engines. Once opened
up, finding the correct crystal to change is the hard part, but since your
radio shop just changed the crystal, I'd bet on the one that is has the
shiniest solder joints.

I've got the service manual ... WAIT JUST A FRIGGIN MINNIT ... the 170 is a
SYNTHESIZED radio; all the channels are derived from ONE MASTER
CRYSTAL...either ALL the channels work or none work, with the exception of a
dirty switch or a broken switch. Is it possible ... do ya think ... that
your radio shop is BULL****TING YOU???

You've got two crystals on the com side of the radio. One is the kHz.
crystal and one is the MHz. crystal. All the switches do is control a
digital divider that splits the single crystal into discrete channels.

Now, given that information, where do you think we should go?

Jim




"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...


>I have (2) KX170B radios which I'm very happy with

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Ken Reed > wrote:

> Maybe, maybe not. I can tell you that when I was looking for an airplane
> just over a year ago, I would not even look at one that didn't have a
> Garmin 430 as a minimum. There are buyers that think that way and there
> are enough airplanes out there with G430 or better that a buyer will
> find one if it is important to him.

Wouldn't that depend on the airplane make/model? For example, someone
looking at a Mooney or Cessna RG might expect or demand some sort of GPS,
but why would someone looking for a cessna 150 or small cherokee?

--
Bob Noel
(gave up lookingn for a particular sig the lawyer will)

[Jay Honeck]

> Now, given that information, where do you think we should go?

Ooo! Ooo! Me! Me! Jim! I know -- I know!

"To a different avionics shop?"

Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding! We've got a winnah!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tim]

Ken Reed wrote:
>>>Data point: A prospective buyer just told me he had decided not to buy my
>>>airplane solely on the basis of its not having a 430 installed.
>
>
>>A red herring to anyone not thinking of selling any time soon. Besides,
>>even the 430 installation won't get anywhere near the money back as what
>>was spent on it. Although an interesting anecdote, absolutely useless I
>>think for considering what radio to put in the plane in question.
>
>
> Maybe, maybe not. I can tell you that when I was looking for an airplane
> just over a year ago, I would not even look at one that didn't have a
> Garmin 430 as a minimum. There are buyers that think that way and there
> are enough airplanes out there with G430 or better that a buyer will
> find one if it is important to him.
>

I understand that buyers want one in the plane, however, buyers RARELY
will pay for the actual cost of putting one in. That was my point. I
was not arguing that it does not make the plane desirable - just that it
is not worth the money just so that it can sell.

[dave]

I think he said that they told him it was the MHz crystal in the
original post.
Dave
M35

RST Engineering wrote:
> Then you've answered your own question. You are happy with what you've got
> and it is the least expensive option. The 170 series is the most
> bulletproof radio yet to hit the market, and I include the venerable old
> MK-12 (radios that glow in the dark).
>
> Jan Crystal (Ft. Myers FL, google on them for a phone number) keeps an
> incredible file of crystal specifications and I'd give it a 95% probability
> that they have that crystal spec on file. Last time I bought a 0.003%
> crystal from them it cost me about $20 plus postage, so for $50 you've got
> your crystal.
>
> Installing a crystal is about as difficult as changing your oil. Uncowling
> the ******* is the hardest part, both with radios and engines. Once opened
> up, finding the correct crystal to change is the hard part, but since your
> radio shop just changed the crystal, I'd bet on the one that is has the
> shiniest solder joints.
>
> I've got the service manual ... WAIT JUST A FRIGGIN MINNIT ... the 170 is a
> SYNTHESIZED radio; all the channels are derived from ONE MASTER
> CRYSTAL...either ALL the channels work or none work, with the exception of a
> dirty switch or a broken switch. Is it possible ... do ya think ... that
> your radio shop is BULL****TING YOU???
>
> You've got two crystals on the com side of the radio. One is the kHz.
> crystal and one is the MHz. crystal. All the switches do is control a
> digital divider that splits the single crystal into discrete channels.
>
> Now, given that information, where do you think we should go?
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> I have (2) KX170B radios which I'm very happy with
>
>

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:
> You've got two crystals on the com side of the radio. One is the kHz.
> crystal and one is the MHz. crystal. All the switches do is control a
> digital divider that splits the single crystal into discrete channels.

The avionics shop said that the MHz crystal was shot, and the kHz
crystal was almost shot. Since I know that the radio has problems
during transmit, I don't know what incentive the shop would have to be
less than truthful. I did check with two other very reputable avionics
repair departments, in addition to Gary Glassmeyer (who seems to have a
decent reputation), and all of them said that the bench tech's diagnosis
was either likely or could certainly be valid.

What folks seem to disagree on is the ability to repair the radio. My
local avionics shop is telling me that it is essentially unrepairable,
which I've since determined isn't quite true. It is true that the parts
to repair it are no longer sold by Honeywell, but they are available.
Everyone is also telling me that parts are becoming more difficult to
find.

I think I've decided to have the radio fixed. I haven't completely
decided on whether to have the local avionics shop install the used
KX155 (I believe it has a GS receiver), because $2500 for the radio and
install seems like a decent deal based on the used prices I've seen for
the KX155/GS. The obvious disadvantage is that, should the KX155 fail,
I can't swap in a KX170B...so maybe that answers the question.



JKG

[Ken Reed]

> >>>Data point: A prospective buyer just told me he had decided not to buy my
> >>>airplane solely on the basis of its not having a 430 installed.

> >>A red herring to anyone not thinking of selling any time soon. Besides,
> >>even the 430 installation won't get anywhere near the money back as what
> >>was spent on it. Although an interesting anecdote, absolutely useless I
> >>think for considering what radio to put in the plane in question.

> > Maybe, maybe not. I can tell you that when I was looking for an airplane
> > just over a year ago, I would not even look at one that didn't have a
> > Garmin 430 as a minimum. There are buyers that think that way and there
> > are enough airplanes out there with G430 or better that a buyer will
> > find one if it is important to him.

> I understand that buyers want one in the plane, however, buyers RARELY
> will pay for the actual cost of putting one in. That was my point. I
> was not arguing that it does not make the plane desirable - just that it
> is not worth the money just so that it can sell.

For me it was as much about downtime as anything. I wasn't willing to
buy an airplane without the panel I required and then have it be down at
the avionics shop for weeks to months getting it the way I needed.

There are lots of buyers out there with lots of different requirements;
my point was there are some airplanes (those without a Garmin 430 as an
example) that simply would not sell at all, to me, due to this
deficiency. It wasn't that these airplanes were less desirable for me to
purchase, they were not even considered for purchase.

--
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

[Dan Luke]

"Tim" > wrote:

>>>Although an interesting anecdote, absolutely useless I think for
>>>considering what radio to put in the plane in question.
>>
>>
>> The point was not about getting anywhere near the money back as what was
>> spent on it (sic).
>>
>> The point is that an older airplane without a 430 is more difficult to sell
>> than one so equipped; hardly a useless consideration when considering a
>> NAV/COM upgrade.
>>
>
> Um, I don't see how it is a good thing to throw money away just so that the
> plane sells... If, at some time the owner wants to sell, he/she can always
> put it in the panel or reduce the price.
>
> Spending 12k on a 430 and then getting maybe 1k more on the sale over what
> was in the panel originally is not really worth it - you are doing yourself
> no favors.

You're still not getting it.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> >>>Although an interesting anecdote, absolutely useless I think for
> >>>considering what radio to put in the plane in question.
> >>
> >>
> >> The point was not about getting anywhere near the money back as what was
> >> spent on it (sic).
> >>
> >> The point is that an older airplane without a 430 is more difficult to
> >> sell
> >> than one so equipped; hardly a useless consideration when considering a
> >> NAV/COM upgrade.
> >>
> >
> > Um, I don't see how it is a good thing to throw money away just so that the
> > plane sells... If, at some time the owner wants to sell, he/she can always
> > put it in the panel or reduce the price.
> >
> > Spending 12k on a 430 and then getting maybe 1k more on the sale over what
> > was in the panel originally is not really worth it - you are doing yourself
> > no favors.
>
> You're still not getting it.

To me, it doesn't make sense to agonize over buying (or selling) a plane
based on whether it has a 430 in it or not. In my case, even if I had
the 430, there would be folks who wouldn't look at the plane because it
doesn't have leather, or it doesn't have a newer audio panel, or it
doesn't have an autopilot, or it doesn't have one thing or another that
they're looking for. If I was looking at a plane, avionics would be one
of the last things I'd look at, and when I did look at avionics, I'd
negotiate the price down if I felt that avionics work was needed. At
that point, it would be up to the seller to determine whether there was
a market for his plane at his asking price.

The reality is that, despite what some people may think, a 430 is not
required equipment in an airplane these days, even if you fly IFR.
There may be folks whose use of the plane will benefit from an IFR GPS,
but my guess is that it is a true requirement for very few.



JKG

[Jay Honeck]

> I think I've decided to have the radio fixed.

One other option, perhaps already mentioned, is the TKM MX-170B. This
digital replacement radio slides right into the KX-170B tray, and
works quite well.

When one of our KX-170Bs went TU in our old Warrior, we replaced it
with an MX-170B. It was bullet-proof, with better (and clearer)
transmission and reception than our COM 2, which was another KX-170B.

And, as I recall, it was much less expensive than fixing the
KX-170B...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The reality is that, despite what some people may think, a 430 is not
> required equipment in an airplane these days, even if you fly IFR.

The 430 today is what the Loran was when I started flying. If you
didn't have an in-panel Loran receiver in your panel in the early
'90s, you didn't have a desireable aircraft.

Now, of course, they are all boat anchors (as the 430 will be in ten
years) -- but back then, they were EVERYTHING.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke]

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

> To me, it doesn't make sense to agonize over buying (or selling) a plane
> based on whether it has a 430 in it or not. In my case, even if I had
> the 430, there would be folks who wouldn't look at the plane because it
> doesn't have leather, or it doesn't have a newer audio panel, or it
> doesn't have an autopilot, or it doesn't have one thing or another that
> they're looking for.

Wait 'til you're actually trying to sell and you might feel differently. When
I first tried to sell the plane a couple of years ago, I talked to a dealer
about trading up. His first question about my airplane? "Does it have a
430?"

> If I was looking at a plane, avionics would be one
> of the last things I'd look at, and when I did look at avionics, I'd
> negotiate the price down if I felt that avionics work was needed. At
> that point, it would be up to the seller to determine whether there was
> a market for his plane at his asking price.
>
> The reality is that, despite what some people may think, a 430 is not
> required equipment in an airplane these days,

When you're selling, what people think is everything.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Tim]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Tim" > wrote:
>
>
>>>>Although an interesting anecdote, absolutely useless I think for
>>>>considering what radio to put in the plane in question.
>>>
>>>
>>>The point was not about getting anywhere near the money back as what was
>>>spent on it (sic).
>>>
>>>The point is that an older airplane without a 430 is more difficult to sell
>>>than one so equipped; hardly a useless consideration when considering a
>>>NAV/COM upgrade.
>>>
>>
>>Um, I don't see how it is a good thing to throw money away just so that the
>>plane sells... If, at some time the owner wants to sell, he/she can always
>>put it in the panel or reduce the price.
>>
>>Spending 12k on a 430 and then getting maybe 1k more on the sale over what
>>was in the panel originally is not really worth it - you are doing yourself
>>no favors.
>
>
> You're still not getting it.
>
>


Um, pot, meet kettle.

[Tim]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Jonathan Goodish" wrote:
>
>
>>To me, it doesn't make sense to agonize over buying (or selling) a plane
>>based on whether it has a 430 in it or not. In my case, even if I had
>>the 430, there would be folks who wouldn't look at the plane because it
>>doesn't have leather, or it doesn't have a newer audio panel, or it
>>doesn't have an autopilot, or it doesn't have one thing or another that
>>they're looking for.
>
>
> Wait 'til you're actually trying to sell and you might feel differently. When
> I first tried to sell the plane a couple of years ago, I talked to a dealer
> about trading up. His first question about my airplane? "Does it have a
> 430?"
>
>
>>If I was looking at a plane, avionics would be one
>>of the last things I'd look at, and when I did look at avionics, I'd
>>negotiate the price down if I felt that avionics work was needed. At
>>that point, it would be up to the seller to determine whether there was
>>a market for his plane at his asking price.
>>
>>The reality is that, despite what some people may think, a 430 is not
>>required equipment in an airplane these days,
>
>
> When you're selling, what people think is everything.
>


SO let me get this straight: You spend $12k just to make the plane
desirable - the OP clearly stated he didn't need the equipment. Then
the buyers will pay maybe 1k to 2k over the price of the plane without
that 430 in it. And this is good advice?

Thanks, I'll pass. I can navigate with 2 VORs just fine.

[Mike]

Tim wrote:
> Dan Luke wrote:
>> "Jonathan Goodish" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> To me, it doesn't make sense to agonize over buying (or selling) a plane
>>> based on whether it has a 430 in it or not. In my case, even if I had
>>> the 430, there would be folks who wouldn't look at the plane because it
>>> doesn't have leather, or it doesn't have a newer audio panel, or it
>>> doesn't have an autopilot, or it doesn't have one thing or another that
>>> they're looking for.
>>
>>
>> Wait 'til you're actually trying to sell and you might feel
>> differently. When I first tried to sell the plane a couple of years
>> ago, I talked to a dealer about trading up. His first question about
>> my airplane? "Does it have a 430?"
>>
>>
>>> If I was looking at a plane, avionics would be one
>>> of the last things I'd look at, and when I did look at avionics, I'd
>>> negotiate the price down if I felt that avionics work was needed. At
>>> that point, it would be up to the seller to determine whether there was
>>> a market for his plane at his asking price.
>>>
>>> The reality is that, despite what some people may think, a 430 is not
>>> required equipment in an airplane these days,
>>
>>
>> When you're selling, what people think is everything.
>>
>
>
> SO let me get this straight: You spend $12k just to make the plane
> desirable - the OP clearly stated he didn't need the equipment. Then
> the buyers will pay maybe 1k to 2k over the price of the plane without
> that 430 in it. And this is good advice?
>
> Thanks, I'll pass. I can navigate with 2 VORs just fine.
We put a 430 and new KX155 (plus new audio panel) in out group owned
Archer II a couple of years ago and I'm now in the process of selling my
share of the aircraft, so I think I have some knowledge/experience in
this arena...
Let's say it cost $12K to replace the KX170B with a 430 and indicator (I
think this is a little high, but close enough for now.) From what I
have seen and read, recent avionics upgrades typically return about 75%
of what they cost when you sell an aircraft, so it certainly does not
make sense to upgrade the avionics just to make it sell better.
However, in this case it might work out OK...
If he 'fixes' the kx170 (or replaces with another kx170 or equivalent)
there is no effect (plus or minus) on the value of the aircraft. If he
upgrades to a 430, then the resale value of his plane will go up by
about $9000 (75% of $12000). So the "net cost" is about $3000. If the
cost to repair/replace the kx170 is, say, $1000, then the net cost of
the 430 is now $2000. The question then becomes whether he will get
$2000 worth of use/benefit out of the 430 during the remainder of the
time he has the aircraft. Maybe it would make more sense to repair the
kx170 and get a new handheld GPS. That is a decision only the OP can
make.
The only other comment I would make is that, based on our experience
with the old (replaced) equipment (Narco Nav/coms, ADF, DME) the old
units will continue to have problems that have to be fixed. Those units
are probably what, 30 years old?? They will continue to have problems
from now one until they are retired... Before upgrading our panel we
were putting $$$ into avionics repairs every 4 to 6 months. In the 4
years since getting the 430, we have had one loose wire (fixed for $75).
How much is it worth to not have to scrounge parts like crystals and to
have confidence in your equipment?
Mike Pvt/IFR PA28-181 N44979 at KRYY

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Dan Luke]

"Tim" wrote:

>>
>>
>> When you're selling, what people think is everything.
>>
>
>
> SO let me get this straight: You spend $12k just to make the plane
> desirable - the OP clearly stated he didn't need the equipment. Then the
> buyers will pay maybe 1k to 2k over the price of the plane without that 430
> in it. And this is good advice?

No, you don't have this straight. I'm not saying you will recover all the
cost of the upgrade. (And BTW, where did you get that 1k to 2k figure? I
suspect you made it up.) I'm saying that some buyers will not even *consider*
an airplane without a 430.

Jonathan did not mention in his OP that he does not have any intention of
selling the plane; that's why I offered the experience with a buyer for his
consideration.

> Thanks, I'll pass. I can navigate with 2 VORs just fine.

No doubt you wear a scarf and leather helmet, too.

Some pilots need to fly GPS instrument approaches; try doing that with 2
VORs.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Tim]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Tim" wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>When you're selling, what people think is everything.
>>>
>>
>>
>>SO let me get this straight: You spend $12k just to make the plane
>>desirable - the OP clearly stated he didn't need the equipment. Then the
>>buyers will pay maybe 1k to 2k over the price of the plane without that 430
>>in it. And this is good advice?
>
>
> No, you don't have this straight. I'm not saying you will recover all the
> cost of the upgrade. (And BTW, where did you get that 1k to 2k figure? I
> suspect you made it up.) I'm saying that some buyers will not even *consider*
> an airplane without a 430.

If the seller wishes to sell the plane at that point then he can
consider it, but putting in technology that is already old for some
possible buyers is not a good reason to get the avionics.

You are totally missing the point. Who cares if the plane is passed
over if the money you spent on the gps is lost. The OP stated he did
not need/want the GPS and it was pricey. Why pay for it - all lost
money - if one does not want/need it. There are plenty of buyers out
there who do not want to pay the marginal extra for the GPS, or they
would rather put in a newer model.

So how is your advice good - you agree that the cost is not recoverable
in a sale. So what good is it to sell the plane at a huge loss? I am
guessing based on the information in the post that the plane is probably
in the 40k to 60k range. You are advocating spending 1/4 of that for a
radio/gps which won't get more than a few grand in return in the sale.

I respectfully suggest that DISCOUNTING the sale without the gps is an
easier way to sell the plane and will lose the seller less money.

>
> Jonathan did not mention in his OP that he does not have any intention of
> selling the plane; that's why I offered the experience with a buyer for his
> consideration.
>
>
>>Thanks, I'll pass. I can navigate with 2 VORs just fine.
>
>
> No doubt you wear a scarf and leather helmet, too.

Um, no, I know where I am without needing a moving map with pretty
little airplane pictures on it.

>
> Some pilots need to fly GPS instrument approaches; try doing that with 2
> VORs.

No thanks, I'll take an ILS over a GPS approach any day.

[Thomas Borchert]

Tim,

> Then
> the buyers will pay maybe 1k to 2k over the price of the plane without
> that 430 in it.
>

Uh, I think the point is whether a buyer will consider the plane at all,
no matter the price.

And as a hint: you might just want to consider those anger control
pills...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Tim]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Tim,
>
>
>>Then
>>the buyers will pay maybe 1k to 2k over the price of the plane without
>>that 430 in it.
>>
>
>
> Uh, I think the point is whether a buyer will consider the plane at all,
> no matter the price.
>
> And as a hint: you might just want to consider those anger control
> pills...
>


I am still trying to figure out why buyers enter into the whole
conversation at all. The OP never made andy statements about selling,
nor did he say he wanted a GPS.

It is undisputed that owners will never recoup the cost of installation.
So, again, why the heck would you put one in just to make it
attractive to buyers?

Anger management pills? Who's angry?

[Ray Andraka]

I think it is a 'whole enchilada' thing. If you are spending the money
to replace anyway, it might be worth considering spending a little more
to put in added capability that you might find yourself needing sometime
in the future. In the case where you do end up needing to sell, the
relatively small delta cost to get more capability that you might or
might not use now might be worth it when it comes time to sell. Think
of it as the delta for the GPS install, not the full cost, if you are
already replacing a radio.

If I were replacing my airplane today, I also would not consider one
without an IFR GPS. On the other hand, I'm not rushing out to replace
my servicable dual VOR, dual glideslope and Loran stack with a GPS unit.
I'll strongly consider it when the time comes that my radios break and
are not economically repairable, however. If it happened today, I'd
probably hold off on a GPS upgrade to see how the next gen ATC falls
out, as I'd hate to have to change out new to me equipment to meet new
equipment requirements such as ADSB in a few years.

[Tim]

Ray Andraka wrote:
>
> I think it is a 'whole enchilada' thing. If you are spending the money
> to replace anyway, it might be worth considering spending a little more
> to put in added capability that you might find yourself needing sometime
> in the future. In the case where you do end up needing to sell, the
> relatively small delta cost to get more capability that you might or
> might not use now might be worth it when it comes time to sell. Think
> of it as the delta for the GPS install, not the full cost, if you are
> already replacing a radio.
>
> If I were replacing my airplane today, I also would not consider one
> without an IFR GPS. On the other hand, I'm not rushing out to replace
> my servicable dual VOR, dual glideslope and Loran stack with a GPS unit.
> I'll strongly consider it when the time comes that my radios break and
> are not economically repairable, however. If it happened today, I'd
> probably hold off on a GPS upgrade to see how the next gen ATC falls
> out, as I'd hate to have to change out new to me equipment to meet new
> equipment requirements such as ADSB in a few years.

You use words like "a little more." You also state if it was you you
would hold out. But you are also in the same post trying to suggest my
comments are off base?

This makes sense if the marginal cost difference was a couple grand, but
we're talking 5 to 7 times the cost to replace it - not just a little
bit of money! A delta of 10% to even 100% is reasonable, but come on, 5
to 7 times the amount? That's ludicrous. When the plane MAY be sold
later on, that piece of avionics that cost 12k or more to put in, will
net negative dollars and will not be the latest and greatest thing that
everyone is looking for.

People look for those radios already in the plane because they know they
are getting a bargain on the installation. So, you are advocating the
owner in this case to be a sucker so all those shopping for his plane in
the future can take advantage of his already spending waaay too much
money and giving him zip in return.

This is the part that I have trouble with. It is plain old bad advice.
Now, if the OP said he was looking to get a GPS in the first place,
then I think the advic is right. But he did not say that.

Jay Honeck and a few others had good advice. Replacement slide in.
Going with a 12k radio just because other people like it is ridiculous.

[Ray Andraka]

Tim wrote:

> You use words like "a little more." You also state if it was you you
> would hold out. But you are also in the same post trying to suggest my
> comments are off base?
>
> This makes sense if the marginal cost difference was a couple grand, but
> we're talking 5 to 7 times the cost to replace it - not just a little
> bit of money! A delta of 10% to even 100% is reasonable, but come on, 5
> to 7 times the amount? That's ludicrous. When the plane MAY be sold
> later on, that piece of avionics that cost 12k or more to put in, will
> net negative dollars and will not be the latest and greatest thing that
> everyone is looking for.
>
> People look for those radios already in the plane because they know they
> are getting a bargain on the installation. So, you are advocating the
> owner in this case to be a sucker so all those shopping for his plane in
> the future can take advantage of his already spending waaay too much
> money and giving him zip in return.
>
> This is the part that I have trouble with. It is plain old bad advice.
> Now, if the OP said he was looking to get a GPS in the first place,
> then I think the advic is right. But he did not say that.
>
> Jay Honeck and a few others had good advice. Replacement slide in.
> Going with a 12k radio just because other people like it is ridiculous.


I didn't say your comments were off base, and I didn't mean to imply
that either. I was just pointing out that the best time to consider
adding capability is when you have a radio(s) that is no longer
economically repairable, as some of the cost is sunk cost either way
then. A KX155, assuming you do not have one now, is going to run you
close to 4K by the time you get it installed. Yes, a 430 is going to
run you close to 12K for an IFR install (the quote I had was just under
11K). If I could spend a third less, then it may make sense. My other
point, is that right now I'm not sure any upgrade is sensible until we
have a better picture of what the FAA is going to mandate with NGATS.
I'll continue with my existing radios for the foreseable future (KX155
in #1, MX11 + NAV122 in #2, Foster LRN501 and a handheld GPS).

Oh, and I agree that the slide ins are good candidates too, provided
your installation is still sound. While the radio is new, the wiring,
trays and antenna are not with a slide-in replacement. TKM told me
several years ago that most of the problems with their radios is not the
radio, rather it is the old installation. Indeed, the money I've spend
on my MX11 has been outside of the radio.

The bottom line is that everyones situation is different and there are
many things to consider before repairing, replacing or upgrading a
radio. This includes factors like future mandatory requirements,
budget, your mission profile and future sales potential. It would be
foolish to install a radio just for a sale or even for an anticipated
sale. On the other hand, it also doesn't make sense to sink a third of
the price of a new radio into an install of a used 15 year old KX155
when you consider the life-cycle cost. Like it or not, the life-cycle
cost includes any increase in the value of the airframe regardless of
whether you plan to sell or not.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> > To me, it doesn't make sense to agonize over buying (or selling) a plane
> > based on whether it has a 430 in it or not. In my case, even if I had
> > the 430, there would be folks who wouldn't look at the plane because it
> > doesn't have leather, or it doesn't have a newer audio panel, or it
> > doesn't have an autopilot, or it doesn't have one thing or another that
> > they're looking for.
>
> Wait 'til you're actually trying to sell and you might feel differently.
> When
> I first tried to sell the plane a couple of years ago, I talked to a dealer
> about trading up. His first question about my airplane? "Does it have a
> 430?"

So, do you plan to now go put a 430 in your airplane so that it will
sell?





JKG

[Dan Luke]

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

>> > To me, it doesn't make sense to agonize over buying (or selling) a plane
>> > based on whether it has a 430 in it or not. In my case, even if I had
>> > the 430, there would be folks who wouldn't look at the plane because it
>> > doesn't have leather, or it doesn't have a newer audio panel, or it
>> > doesn't have an autopilot, or it doesn't have one thing or another that
>> > they're looking for.
>>
>> Wait 'til you're actually trying to sell and you might feel differently.
>> When
>> I first tried to sell the plane a couple of years ago, I talked to a dealer
>> about trading up. His first question about my airplane? "Does it have a
>> 430?"
>
> So, do you plan to now go put a 430 in your airplane so that it will
> sell?

Nope. I made a mistake 6 years ago by going cheap and putting in a factory
refurb'd B/K KLN-90B. Installing already obsolete technology was the wrong
thing to do then, but it's too late to correct it now. If I planned on
keeping the airplane for a few more years and would get some use from a WAAS
430, it would be different. I will just have to live with the consequences of
being "penny wise and pound foolish."

If you do not think you need GPS approaches, I certainly would not advise you
to install a 430 if you don't plan on selling for a long time. It only makes
sense for you if you are going to use it AND you are contemplating selling
within a couple of years or so, which is the only reason I mentioned it.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> > So, do you plan to now go put a 430 in your airplane so that it will
> > sell?
>
> Nope. I made a mistake 6 years ago by going cheap and putting in a factory
> refurb'd B/K KLN-90B. Installing already obsolete technology was the wrong
> thing to do then, but it's too late to correct it now. If I planned on
> keeping the airplane for a few more years and would get some use from a WAAS
> 430, it would be different. I will just have to live with the consequences
> of
> being "penny wise and pound foolish."

What practical capability does a 430 give you that the 90B does not? As
far as I know, nothing. Now, if you're saying that folks want WAAS
units now, I just can't believe that's the majority of the market.

For my aircraft, I doubt that many potential buyers would walk away over
the lack of GPS. Someone who can't afford a week downtime to install a
430 isn't going to be looking for an Archer.


>
> If you do not think you need GPS approaches, I certainly would not advise you
> to install a 430 if you don't plan on selling for a long time. It only makes
> sense for you if you are going to use it AND you are contemplating selling
> within a couple of years or so, which is the only reason I mentioned it.

Well, obviously GPS is the navigation technology of the future. I don't
think that the investment would necessarily be wasted, but who knows how
the comm situation is going to shake down, or what GPS units may be on
the market in 5 years or so. I don't plan to sell my airplane in the
next couple of years. Could I benefit from the 430W or 480 now? Maybe.
But probably not enough to justify the cost. I will probably abandon my
thoughts of installing a non-WAAS GPS unit, though.

I think I've narrowed down my choices for now to two options:

1 -- Replace the failed 170B with a KX155, eliminate the KN75 GS
receiver on my instrument shelf, and have the KX155 drive the KI209
indicator. If I go this route and then put a 430 or 480 in the panel in
a year or two, I will end up with two fairly new radios with two decent
indicators.

2 -- Have the KX170B repaired and forget about the KX155. The risk with
this option is that one of the 170B radios could fail again, or have a
catastrophic failure and be unrepairable, in which case I'd be forced to
either upgrade or search for a used KX170B. This is the short-term
cheapest solution that doesn't require ripping my plane apart (to run
the GS antenna, etc.) but does it make longer-term sense? I'm not so
sure.



JKG

[Dan Luke]

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

>
> What practical capability does a 430 give you that the 90B does not?

None; that's why I saved $5,000 and put in the 90B. That decision is probably
going to cost me more than that now.


> Now, if you're saying that folks want WAAS
> units now, I just can't believe that's the majority of the market.

Since Angel Flight often takes me to small airports, I very much would like to
have WAAS now. I could have had it relatively cheaply if I'd bought a 430 six
years ago.

> For my aircraft, I doubt that many potential buyers would walk away over
> the lack of GPS. Someone who can't afford a week downtime to install a
> 430 isn't going to be looking for an Archer.

I think you'd be surprised.


--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> > For my aircraft, I doubt that many potential buyers would walk away over
> > the lack of GPS. Someone who can't afford a week downtime to install a
> > 430 isn't going to be looking for an Archer.
>
> I think you'd be surprised.

As I previously pointed out, if the buyer is that particular, they're
probably going to walk away due to the lack of autopilot, or the lack of
leather interior, or the lack of some other high-end item that they want
but don't want to wait for. I can't spend more than the plane is worth
just to capture the interest of an extra few percent of the market.

I will say that Garmin has done an incredible job at marketing the
430/530 platform. I would guess that most of the folks who put them in
don't need them and rarely use them for anything that a much cheaper
alternative wouldn't deliver. Now, tell me again how light airplane
owners aren't wealthy?

Then again, this is all rather moot for me right now, because I have no
plans to sell the airplane anytime soon.



JKG

[Roger[_4_]]

On 18 Mar 2007 23:16:02 GMT, Blanche > wrote:

>Ken Reed > wrote:
>>> > Data point: A prospective buyer just told me he had decided not to buy my
>>> > airplane solely on the basis of its not having a 430 installed.
>>
>>> A red herring to anyone not thinking of selling any time soon. Besides,
>>> even the 430 installation won't get anywhere near the money back as what
>>> was spent on it. Although an interesting anecdote, absolutely useless I
>>> think for considering what radio to put in the plane in question.
>>
>>Maybe, maybe not. I can tell you that when I was looking for an airplane
>>just over a year ago, I would not even look at one that didn't have a
>>Garmin 430 as a minimum. There are buyers that think that way and there
>>are enough airplanes out there with G430 or better that a buyer will
>>find one if it is important to him.
>
>Another data point - there are many, many buyers with different
>requirements. The person wishing for a low-end aircraft for short
>flights (<500 miles) or one in an area that is fairly benign,
>may not need or want the G430. On the other hand, there are people
>who *really need* the G430 due to the type of flying they do. They
>do a fair amount of IFR (real IMC) and/or business. Ken is
>definitely in that category.

The Deb has close to a 1200 SM range plus reserves. Although I'm no
longer current (Need an IPC) I regularly flew 5 hour legs using a King
Silver Crown stack with a KNS-80 and my Garmin 296. Actually I did
virtually all the IFR flying using the 296 on a yoke mount with the
KNS80 and other radios as back up. Quite legal and the 296 was more
accurate than anything in the panel.

I've though of going with the 480, but until there are plenty of VNAV
approaches the current set up is plenty sufficient with the exception
of a badly needed storm scope. I even prefer the VOR approach as it
gets me to MDA about 3 miles out while the VNAV GPS gets me to
minimums very close to the runway even though it's a bit lower than
the VOR approach, but not much. At least here I know pretty well in
advance whether I'll be able to land or not while I don't know until
the last moment with the GPS.

OTOH having started out pre GPS I find GPS to be very handy, but not a
necessity. It's wonderful for situational awareness and great for
enroute.

>
>I'm not IFR rated. How would a G430 benefit me? How would it be
>more useful than the handheld (well, velcro'd) I have now? It
>really wouldn't. For someone like me (and there are LOTS of us!)
>the G430 is ego & status. I get my ego trip other ways.

As I said above, I find the GPS to be quite handy, but not $10,000
handy. A large screen as in MFD would be really nice and a lot handier
than my hand held, but until GPS matures and standardizes a bit more,
that hand held is plenty sufficient along with the old fashioned stuff
for flying the so called hard IFR. The only thing GPS could give me
that I don't have now with the hand held is the GPS approaches and for
my flying the ILS, VORs and the few NDBs left are plenty sufficient.

If money were no object I'd have a new glass panel put in the Deb.
(which would be worth more than the airplane) I find them easy to
follow. and I like all the flight display on one screen. The main
thing I'd really have to go back and review would be changing
(inserting and deleting) waypoints while enroute (in a timely manner)
<:-)) Actually I'd probably have to take a little time to review the
flight plan insertion as I find that when switching between systems I
quickly forget the sequences of making the entries and changes.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Blanche]

But Mike, you had multiple people participating in the cost of the
430, and multiple people using it. Your share wasn't anywhere near
the $12K, was it? It really becomes an issue of cost-effectiveness.
For a group, it was very cost-effective. And as a "part" of the
group, it will definitely be easier for you to sell a share of
the costs than the entire chunk.

This is a big advantage of 3 or more people owing an aircraft - with
shared costs, you can do more. But for a single owner, that
$12K is a cost that can be overwhelming and serious consideration.

[Mike]

Blanche wrote:
> But Mike, you had multiple people participating in the cost of the
> 430, and multiple people using it. Your share wasn't anywhere near
> the $12K, was it? It really becomes an issue of cost-effectiveness.
> For a group, it was very cost-effective. And as a "part" of the
> group, it will definitely be easier for you to sell a share of
> the costs than the entire chunk.
>
> This is a big advantage of 3 or more people owing an aircraft - with
> shared costs, you can do more. But for a single owner, that
> $12K is a cost that can be overwhelming and serious consideration.
>
>
Absolutely!! The pain is certainly much less when split across
multiple people. But I don't think that changes the "numbers" any.
I (as a 20% partner) would only have to pay 20% of the cost of the
upgrade, but I also only recover 20% of the value when the plane (or my
share) is sold.
From an "emotional" viewpoint, spending say, $3500, instead of $14000
is certainly less intimating and perhaps an easier choice. Also, if the
$14000 was a difficult 'stretch' for the single owner, it might
preclude the consideration at all. Of course, anyone who owns a private
aircraft for/by themselves better be prepared for some significant
unexpected expenses...
As has been pointed out, there are many variables in this decision and
only the OP is in the position to make the decision that is appropriate
to his circumstances...
Mike

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com