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

"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

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

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

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.

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