![]() |
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |