If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Radio Replacement
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Radio Replacement
"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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Radio Replacement
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Radio Replacement
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Radio Replacement
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. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Radio Replacement
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
737 Replacement | john smith | Piloting | 26 | October 22nd 06 05:21 AM |
TKM 170 as a replacement radio | Ian Taylor | Owning | 12 | September 10th 05 11:29 PM |
F-15J Replacement | Prowlus | Military Aviation | 8 | April 28th 04 02:16 PM |
EP-3 replacement? | user | Naval Aviation | 23 | December 6th 03 09:46 PM |
FA OLD AIRCRAFT RADIO TRANSMITTER STANDARD RADIO | Ron | Restoration | 0 | October 26th 03 12:02 AM |