Radio Replacement

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

"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

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.

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

"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