Making a VFR C152 IFR
Paul Folbrecht
consist of a single nav/com and xponder. That's it.
At some point in the next year or two I am going to want to get my
instrument ticket in this aircraft, so I'm already starting to think
about the best way to do that. Trouble is I know precious little about
IFR equipment at the moment. If someone has some good resources/links
that could get me up to speed I'd appreciate it.
Actually, I already started buying stuff. I bought an IFR Garmin 300XL
GPS on ebay (it was a steal). That's my start. I'm completely open to
suggestions on where to go from there.
Maybe a B/K 80 nav? Has everything else I need, right? I know I need
an audio (switch) panel and at least one more CDI.
I'll be searching for an avionics shop soon to install the GPS, but
until then any idea what that will cost me? Might it make some sense to
have them do a VFR-only install initially and then do it IFR when I have
the rest of my equipment? (I want a GPS now, of course, for VFR flight.)
TIA.
Blanche
to have 2 NAV/COMs.
step 2: decide what type of IFR flying you will do in the 152. What
equipment makes sense and is economically viable?
step 3: talk to other 152/IFR owners about what they would do
differently or the same.
Nathan Young
1. You will need an updated database for the GPS.
2. GPS will need a CDI and annunciator panel
3. Pitot/Static & Transponder/Encoder certification
Avionics installs are not cheap. Expect a thousand dollars for an
audio panel install. Several thousand for a GPS install.
Here's a pricelist for installed new equipment by Penn Avionics.
http://www.pennavionics.com/Garmin_price_list.jpg You can probably
find the list prices for the equipment and work backwards to get an
idea of the install cost. As well, a lot of shops don't want to
install radios from 'outside' sources, particularly used ones off of
eBay.
If you buy an audio panel - I'd get one with an integrated intercom
(if you don't already have) & one with integrated marker beacon
receiver.
Does your existing nav/com have LOC/GS? If not, it may make sense to
sell it and look for a used KX155.
Alternatively, you could sell all your stuff and put in a GNS430.
NAV/COM/LOC/GS/GPS all in one box, and it doesn't require the
annunciator panel. There are redundancy issues with this approach,
but you can cheaply add some redundancy via handheld GPS and radio.
-Nathan
Blanche
[snip]
>Alternatively, you could sell all your stuff and put in a GNS430.
>NAV/COM/LOC/GS/GPS all in one box, and it doesn't require the
>annunciator panel. There are redundancy issues with this approach,
>but you can cheaply add some redundancy via handheld GPS and radio.
Yup. And at this point you've now spent almost/as much as the
152 is worth.
Dave Butler
Yup again. That's the difficulty with this whole concept. The 152 is never going
to be a serious IFR cross-country airplane. The only thing it would be usable
for IFR is training. So equip it with the minimum equipment required. One VOR
receiver. Get the static/transponder system certified. OK, add a glide slope
just for training purposes. Anything more is just putting too much money into an
airplane that isn't going anywhere. IFR GPS is going to be way more expensive
than you can justify.
Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
Andrew Sarangan
You don't need two nav's (or any nav at all), although that would be
nice. The FAR outlines what you need to fly IFR. Besides the regular
six pack instruments (except the VSI), your altimeter must be accurate
to within 75 ft, and your transponder's altitude encoder must have
been inspected to IFR standards.
Paul Folbrecht <paul.fo...@spammersdie.pobox.com> wrote in message news:<YMs8c.5554$V66....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
papenfus...@juneaudotmedotvt.edu
:> Yup. And at this point you've now spent almost/as much as the
:> 152 is worth.
: Yup again. That's the difficulty with this whole concept. The 152 is never going
: to be a serious IFR cross-country airplane. The only thing it would be usable
: for IFR is training. So equip it with the minimum equipment required. One VOR
: receiver. Get the static/transponder system certified. OK, add a glide slope
: just for training purposes. Anything more is just putting too much money into an
: airplane that isn't going anywhere. IFR GPS is going to be way more expensive
: than you can justify.
That's pretty much the way to go. A 152 doesn't have the range or climb
performance to much real IFR. For training purposes, at least 50% is basic airwork
under the hood, with some tracking thrown in. For equipment, you need one precision,
and two other types. ILS, LOC, and VOR will make it a legit checkride. Put in a
glideslope and get the pitot/static check done. Some sort of GPS is really nice to
have, but getting one IFR-certified installed is where the big bucks are. Talk to
your instructor about using a VFR GPS as a DME for training (in VMC). Then you've got
four different types of approaches you can practice. The hard part is learning how to
control the plane and what's necessary to do *an* approach. The actual equipment and
type of approaches don't matter as much.
-Cory
--
*************************************************************************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
*************************************************************************
Marc J. Zeitlin
> At some point in the next year or two I am going to want to get my
> instrument ticket in this aircraft.......
> Actually, I already started buying stuff. I bought an IFR Garmin
300XL
> GPS on ebay (it was a steal). That's my start. I'm completely open
to
> suggestions on where to go from there.
As others have pointed out, you don't need a heck of a lot more to make
the plane legal for IFR training/flight. Here's what __I'd__ do if I
were you. I'd sell the 300XL (since you got it for a steal, you should
at least get your money back) and buy a used NARCO NAV-122A on Ebay.
You can get a yellow tagged one for about $1300. This is the ONLY piece
of equipment you will need to be able to fly IFR legally - it's a VOR,
LOC, GS, MKR and CDI all in one 3 1/8" hole. You can then legally do
ILS, LOC, and VOR approaches.
I did exactly this in order to make my COZY MKIV IFR capable (for
training purposes and light IFR). Even if you have to pay someone $500
to install it, it's still the cheapest way there, using the least panel
space.
--
Marc J. Zeitlin email: marc_z...@alum.mit.edu
Mark Astley
instruments), you're probably only an inspection away from being "legal" for
IFR (see the other poster's note about reading the FARs). In particular,
one nav/com and xpdr can be legal.
More practically, you should figure out what you'll need for the type of
flying you plan to do, and don't forget that there are certain requirements
for the IFR checkride. Namely, you'll need to demonstrate both precision
and non-precision approaches (I'm assuming here that you'll be using your
plane for the checkride). That means, for example, if you don't already
have a glideslope receiver and appropriate CDI, then you should probably get
one.
Since you mentioned IFR GPS, you should know you'll need at least two other
instruments to be IFR legal. One is a CDI which can accept input from the
GPS, and the other is an annunciator for the approach (with a Garmin 430 you
could have avoided the latter).
Here's my setup, which I also arranged for IFR training in my PA28-140:
KMA20 audio
GNC-300XL GPS/comm (same as yours)
KX-175B with glideslope receiver
Narco AT50A xpdr
Garmin GI-106A cdi with glideslope shared between GPS and nav/comm
MidContinent GPS annuniciator
For serious IFR, this isn't the best panel, but it's enough for training,
currency, and the occasional weather flying I do.
best of luck,
mark
"Paul Folbrecht" <paul.fo...@spammersdie.pobox.com> wrote in message
news:YMs8c.5554$V66....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Paul Folbrecht
machine. I intend it be equipped for short-to-medium X-Cs in less than
perfect VFR weather. No hard IMC for me - ever, most likely.
See my soon-to-be post further down for what I'm leaning towards now...
Paul Folbrecht
isn't real-world. Right? To fly approaches you need substantially more
equipment than that, of course. The different types of approaches and
equipment make the subject complex at first sight to the neophyte.
Paul Folbrecht
talked to a friend of mine and the local avionics shop and they both
told me that Narco has a bad rep for service and gouges you badly to fix
a 122 - and they do break.
Paul Folbrecht
discouraged!
- 300XL installed *VFR only*.
- PSE 6000 Audio panel with marker beacons.
- KX-155 nav/com - there's one on Ebay right now I may pick up.
- KX 209 Indicator.
Local shop tells me no more than $3500 or so for this install, including
antenna for 2nd com. Does that sound right? I'd be ditching the 385
nav/com that's in there now, of course.
Full cost of this setup assuming used KX-155 and 209 and new audio panel
should be $9-$10K. While this is definitely more money than I wanted to
spend or figured I'd have to spend, I think it may be worth it. I
actually ran a price quote on my plane (aeroprice) with this equipment
installed and was pleased to see the value go up by 80% or so of what
I'd be putting into it. I plan to keep the plane for probably 4-5 years
(until I build my RV-9).
Again, what I want to do here is have an aircraft in which I can get my
instrument ticket and be able to practice real-world instrument
approaches. Subsequent to that, I don't see myself flying hard IMC, but
being able to do a lot more flying on those marginal VFR days that keep
me grounded now. (MVFR can turn into IFR too damn easily - I've already
discovered that.)
Tell me if I'm all wet (please).
Ray Andraka
where the bad rep comes from, the 122 is a solid unit and I've only had good
experiences with Narco. My 122 has been to Narco twice. Once in 1996 when it
was intermittently losing the localizer. It turned out to be a cracked
resistor. That fix was actually two trips to Narco. The first trip, they
only saw the problem briefly and after cleaning up the unit and recalibrating
it could not reproduce it. After getting it back in the plane, it got more
intermittent so it went back. Narco had the unit a total of 8 days including
time in shipping. It was 11 days from when I first took it out till I had it
back in and working, and a grand total of $152 to fix. There was no charge on
the second trip because once they see it, the whole unit goes under warranty.
The second time was summer 2003 for a PROM that had gone bad after an
alternator overvoltage. The symptom in that case was no localizer on
frequencies that ended with .9x and no glide slope on two frequencies (don't
recall which ones now). Took them about six weeks and cost me $225. My usual
avionics shop told me it wasn't worth repairing and convinced me to replace it
with a KX155/KI209. I figured I would send it to Narco for their $90 eval
(they'll eval a unit for $90 and then call you to see if you want to repair
it, and the $90 is applied to the repair) to see if it could be resurrected to
give me a second glideslope. It is back in my airplane now. I've noticed
that it is noticibly more sensitive than the KX155 for picking up VORs as well
as localizers. Shop measured it to be about 11db more sensitive. The only
thing I like better about the kx155 is the digital flip-flop which allows you
to set up a second frequency ahead of time. One of the nice things about the
122 is that it will cost you next to nothing to get it installed. It is
all-in-one and goes in a standard 3.5" round hole. You just have to hook up
power, audio panel, and the antennas. Oh, it also has a marker beacon
recevier built in if you don't have one in your audio panel. For about $2200
you could have a Narco rebuild installed.
I did my primary instruction and part of my instrument in a BE-77 (beech
skipper) that had a single KX-170 nav-com with no glideslope or markers but
was IFR certified. The cert was OK for picking up an emergency IFR clearance
to get you on the ground, but that's about it. It would be next to reckless
launching off into IFR with such a minimal panel. You can't shoot an ILS with
it (you can do a localizer only approach though), and identifying
intersections requires retuning the NAV and turning the OBS. That is a
prescription for disaster when shooting an approach in worse than anticipated
weather, especially as a low time instrument pilot. The fact that you don't
intend to fly much if any IFR with it should underline that concern. At an
absolute bare minimum, you should have at least something with a digital
flip-flop NAV/COM so that you can set it up to identify intersections and also
to set up your tower/departure frequencies ahead. Even that, is probably
going to be too little when the chips are down. Put the Narco 122 in, that'll
give you a full ILS capability in one instrument, and your existing Nav/comm
will still be there to help with identifying intersections. If your comm is
not a digital flip-flop, you should probably also consider a second comm. I
think this approach will get you a minimal IFR capability for less than the
cost of getting an IFR install on the GX-300
Paul Folbrecht wrote:
--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email r...@andraka.com
http://www.andraka.com
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Brad Z
Heck, a $300 handheld would beat the 300xl in screen size and features. The
difference could buy a nice handheld com radio to use as a backup, with a
external antenna wired in.
I'm not trying to poop on a decision already made, but if you knew you were
going to be using this as a IFR training plaform, why didn't you search out
a bird with the necessary avionics? Just curious:)
I can't count the number of folks who get their private certificate and go
out and buy a 150/152, only to wish they bought just a bit more for
instrument training, trips, passengers, etc.
"Paul Folbrecht" <paul.fo...@spammersdie.pobox.com> wrote in message
news:CkM8c.784$NL4...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Paul Folbrecht
GS with the setup I proposed - I will. But I see your point in
retaining a 2nd nav. Trouble is, I don't have the panel space - unless
I go with an all in one unit such as the 122.
Paul Folbrecht
mid-time engine with full logs. That I got.
As for going handheld GPS - doesn't the integration with the COM help a
lot? Autoselecting frequencies and such? I already have a GPS 295 - I
was planning on selling it. They fetch nearly $1000 used still.
Brad Z
have the database that contains runways and frequencies, I don't recall the
300XL doing any frequency autoselection. My personal opinion is that if
you're not using it as an IFR installation, it's wasting space on the panel
that could be used for a useable navcom.
I think you'll be sorely disappointed if you trade your color 295 for a tiny
green screen 300xl.
"Paul Folbrecht" <paul.fo...@spammersdie.pobox.com> wrote in message
news:GnN8c.846$NL4...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Paul Folbrecht
the quality of the display would pale compared to my 295 (although I
knew I'd lose the color - not a big deal to me - I've seen several
grey-scale handhelds that I thought were fine).
This is more food for thought.
Nathan Young
<paul.fo...@spammersdie.pobox.com> wrote:
>Ok, here's what I'm thinking now. Critisism of this setup not
>discouraged!
>
>- 300XL installed *VFR only*.
>- PSE 6000 Audio panel with marker beacons.
>- KX-155 nav/com - there's one on Ebay right now I may pick up.
>- KX 209 Indicator.
>
>Local shop tells me no more than $3500 or so for this install, including
>antenna for 2nd com. Does that sound right? I'd be ditching the 385
>nav/com that's in there now, of course.
>
>Full cost of this setup assuming used KX-155 and 209 and new audio panel
>should be $9-$10K. While this is definitely more money than I wanted to
>spend or figured I'd have to spend, I think it may be worth it. I
>actually ran a price quote on my plane (aeroprice) with this equipment
>installed and was pleased to see the value go up by 80% or so of what
>I'd be putting into it. I plan to keep the plane for probably 4-5 years
>(until I build my RV-9).
Paul,
I see little value add by installing the 300XL VFR only. Did you get
a quote to see how much more an IFR install would be?
-Nathan
Dave Butler
Sure, get the quote, but I predict the IFR install is going to push the cost up
to where the avionics cost will start to be asignificant fraction of the value
of the airframe. Much of the cost of an IFR GPS is in the installation and
certification. For the intended use, the value/cost ratio won't be there.
Consider also the cost of datbase updates to keep it certified.
About the other poster who said you'll get more utility with a handheld GPS: I'd
say there's value in having it in the panel instead. I dislike having wires
strung all over the cockpit for antennas and power connections, etc.
Doug
when the radios do, never needs battery changes and the twist knobs
are easier to use. I have a panel mount (KLN90B) and although the
handhelds show stuff my King doesn't, the King gets used. The 195 only
comes out occasionally.
Paul Folbrecht <paul.fo...@spammersdie.pobox.com> wrote in message news:<HpO8c.1276$yN6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
papenfus...@juneaudotmedotvt.edu
different from ours in our Cherokee a year or so ago. We got a good deal (local) on a
KLX-135 (King VFR GPS/COM), and ebay'd up a KY-197 and KN-53 (no GS)... basically a
KX-155 in two separate boxes. So, we needed the ILS to make it IFR trainable/flyable,
so we found a deal on a KNS-80. I'd assume panel space is a bit of an issue in a 152
so it might be a bit big, but I still maintain that a KNS-80 is great
bang-for-the-buck in used avionics now. Digital VOR/LOC/GS/DME/RNAV... GREAT for ifr
training. If the 300XL weren't also a COM, I might agree with the handheld GPS crowd,
but it's a lot of functionality, and it's more reliable in the panel. My GPS isn't
moving map, but aside from airspace visualizations, I don't miss it.
The trouble with the KX-155 is that it's very popular... thus overly
expensive. Maybe a KN-53 with GS for a stand-alone NAV to go with the GPS/COM.
Sorry for rambling, but it's difficult to find any sort of deal in avionics. My
experience is a bit skewed from most since my installation expenses were very
minimal... :)
-Cory
Paul Folbrecht <paul.fo...@spammersdie.pobox.com> wrote:
: Ok, here's what I'm thinking now. Critisism of this setup not
: discouraged!
: Paul Folbrecht wrote:
--
Brad Z
152.
"Doug" <anoth...@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:1b3f4ae6.04032...@posting.google.com...
Andrew Sarangan
on a regular basis, you can get by with the minimum equipment. A
handheld GPS and a heldheld radio will serve as good backups in case
you lose electricals. A handheld device is a better backup than a
panel mount device due to the independent power source. In my view
people spend way too much money on these things for the conditions
they are likely to fly in.
Paul Folbrecht <paul.fo...@spammersdie.pobox.com> wrote in message news:<lcM8c.773$NL4...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
Paul Folbrecht
single com and nav VOR with CDI? No glidescope, no marker beacons??
Andrew Sarangan
to be flying in low IFR conditions (ie ILS minimums), you would not
need a glideslope. How many non-commercial pilots do you know who
frequently fly ILS approaches to the minimums? In my case, I will be
lucky to find such conditions about once or twice a year, even though
I fly quite a bit and I actively look for such conditions. A VOR/LOC
approach will bring you down to 500ft. Most of the low weather
conditions are out of reach for us anyway because of ice or
thunderstorm. In a 152, that's an even bigger factor due to the lower
climb performance. Also, in a 152 you are unlikely to go very far, so
it may not be necessary to equip the airplane for all possible
scenarios. Install only the equipment you need for the airports you
are most likely to fly into. Strictly from a utility point of view, I
would be happy to fly a 152 in light IFR conditions with a single NAV.
If I lose NAV, I would request a surveillance approach. If a marker
beacon is required for the approach, then you would need to have it. A
lot of times, ATC radar can substitute for the marker. Many markers
also have a cross radial. If your radio has a standby frequency, then
it is easy to monitor the intersection. It is inconvenient, of course,
but I would not invest thousands of dollars for the inconvenience. On
the other hand, if you want to use the 152 for training purposes, then
you would need more than the minimally equipped airplane. That is just
my personal view.
Paul Folbrecht <paul.fo...@spammersdie.pobox.com> wrote in message news:<1_89c.1788$NL4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
Tim Witt
MK-12D that has Mkrs, GS and DME and a ARC ADF and a Narco LORAN. I
thought about replacing the Loran with a GPS and decided a handheld
was good enough for VFR/SA--an IFR GPS is too expensive to install and
too expensive to maintain with a current database (on a C-150 budget).
I bought a second Narco Mk-12D (vor/loc only) and plan on removing
the Loran. I'm conflicted about retaining the ADF as it still works
but is such a boat anchor I'll probably either remove it or move it
and its indicator to the glove box area. If relocating it costs
significantly, it will be tossed. This will give me room to move the
transponder to the center stack (from the glove box area), have two
nav/coms and a new audio panel all close at hand in the center. Two
comm radios makes it nice to monitor ATIS without having to go off
freq with ATC. Two navs simplifies the 30 day VOR check as well as
making intersection ID much easier. IFR GPS is certainly nice but I
couldn't justify it in a C-150. I already have DME (IDME 891) so
there is less of a requirement for the IFR GPS. The Cessna 150/152
panel is certainly space challenged, but maybe that's a good thing :)
Paul Folbrecht
> I think that this would be a pretty good plan. Your situation isn't all that
> different from ours in our Cherokee a year or so ago. We got a good deal (local) on a
> KLX-135 (King VFR GPS/COM), and ebay'd up a KY-197 and KN-53 (no GS)... basically a
> KX-155 in two separate boxes. So, we needed the ILS to make it IFR trainable/flyable,
> so we found a deal on a KNS-80. I'd assume panel space is a bit of an issue in a 152
> so it might be a bit big, but I still maintain that a KNS-80 is great
> bang-for-the-buck in used avionics now. Digital VOR/LOC/GS/DME/RNAV... GREAT for ifr
Agreed, used KNS-80s offer a high bang/buck ratio.
> training. If the 300XL weren't also a COM, I might agree with the handheld GPS crowd,
> but it's a lot of functionality, and it's more reliable in the panel. My GPS isn't
> moving map, but aside from airspace visualizations, I don't miss it.
I'm still debating whether or not to install it or sell it. I need to
find out the install price difference - how much I'd save with just
having the 155/indicator/audio panel installed. I'd have to guess it's
not much.
> The trouble with the KX-155 is that it's very popular... thus overly
> expensive. Maybe a KN-53 with GS for a stand-alone NAV to go with the GPS/COM.
I picked up a yellow-tagged 155 with glidescope AND a 209 indicator for
$2K.
> Sorry for rambling, but it's difficult to find any sort of deal in avionics. My
> experience is a bit skewed from most since my installation expenses were very
> minimal... :)
Wish I had that advantage.
Richard Kaplan
portable/battery GPS on Ebay would be much cheaper and would additionally
serve as a battery backup in case you lost your electrical system while IFR.
A used Garmin 196 would be an excellent choice since it has a "partial
panel" page that is a good backup in case of gyro failure; it can even help
you to monitor your IFR approaches via its moving map and thus is more
helpful under IFR than many panel-mount GPS units.
--
Richard Kaplan, CFII
rka...@flyimc.com
www.flyimc.com
Richard Kaplan
"Paul Folbrecht" <paul.fo...@spammersdie.pobox.com> wrote in message
news:GnN8c.846$NL4...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> As for going handheld GPS - doesn't the integration with the COM help a
> lot? Autoselecting frequencies and such? I already have a GPS 295 - I
> was planning on selling it. They fetch nearly $1000 used still.
Keep the GPS 295 and do not install a panel GPS. Autoselecting frequencies
is of only marginal help while IFR; backing up your approach on the movign
map of the 295 is very helpful, and having a backup for electrical failure
in IMC is priceless. A panel-mount GPS will give you no more utility.
For what it is worth, I fly low IMC in known-icing conditions in my
airplane, and the only GPS I have is a Garmin 295; until the precision WAAS
IFR GPS receivers come out later this year, I see no operational advantage
to a panel-mount GPS in my airplane.
Richard Kaplan
"Dave Butler" <flym...@hotIRmail.Tcom> wrote in message
news:40644818...@hotIRmail.Tcom...
> > I see little value add by installing the 300XL VFR only. Did you get
> > a quote to see how much more an IFR install would be?
Even an IFR GPS would provide minimal functional improvement over a Garmin
295 unless he plans to fly under IMC into airports with only GPS approaches.
If he is in radar contact, he can do direct with a Garmin 295.
If he is not in radar contact, he cannot go direct even with an IFR GPS.
What is the advantage of an IFR GPS in this situation?
> About the other poster who said you'll get more utility with a handheld
GPS: I'd
> say there's value in having it in the panel instead. I dislike having
wires
> strung all over the cockpit for antennas and power connections, etc.
Replace the batteries and then there is no power connection necessary.
My Garmin 295 works fine in my airplane with its internal antenna.
The value of a battery backup for IFR flight is priceless.
Dan Luke
> I see no operational advantage
> to a panel-mount GPS in my airplane.
*No* operational advantage? Evidently you don't fly IFR to many small
airports.
An approach-certified GPS has enabled completion of two Angel Flights
for me.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)
Richard Kaplan
news:1070vbl...@news.supernews.com...
> *No* operational advantage? Evidently you don't fly IFR to many small
> airports.
If I were to fly to airports with only GPS approaches and nothing else then
yes, an IFR approach GPS would be helpful. My own home airport will indeed
fall into that category early early next year when an approach is
commissioned and that will be an excellent reason for me to upgrade.
But the fact is that airports with only GPS approaches are rare. How often
in a year do I go such an airport when conditions are IMC? Very rarely.
In fact, of the pilots I meet with approach IFR GPS units, I would guess
that at most 25% have ever flown an actual GPS approach in IMC weather. I
bet at most a third even keep the database up to date to permit flying a GPS
approach.
Richard Kaplan
sense to maintain a current database in an IFR approach GPS installed in a
C152 is nil.
Dave Butler
> "Dave Butler" <flym...@hotIRmail.Tcom> wrote in message
> news:40644818...@hotIRmail.Tcom...
>>say there's value in having it in the panel instead. I dislike having
>
> wires
>
>>strung all over the cockpit for antennas and power connections, etc.
>
>
> Replace the batteries and then there is no power connection necessary.
>
> My Garmin 295 works fine in my airplane with its internal antenna.
>
> The value of a battery backup for IFR flight is priceless.
Good point, Richard.
I agree having battery powered navigation is valuable. I've been running a power
cord for the 196 to avoid replacing batteries all the time, but now that you
mention it, maybe I'd rather replace batteries than have the power cord. I'll
try that next time. At least I can get rid of the most annoying cord.
The internal antenna on my 196 doesn't work worth a flip when mounted on the
yoke in the Mooney, though.
Richard Kaplan
"Dave Butler" <flym...@hotIRmail.Tcom> wrote in message
> The internal antenna on my 196 doesn't work worth a flip when mounted on
the
> yoke in the Mooney, though.
OK, to be fair, I put my 295 on my glareshield where it gets great
reception. The tradeoff is slight obstruction of vision on the glareshield
(and good reception from the internal antenna) vs. extra weight on a yoke
(which gets me a bit concerned re: whether it is designed to handle that
weight over time).
Ray Andraka
radio stack in the horizontal display orientation. The only thing it blocks is
the view of the top of my cowl, so it is as close to ideal set up as you can
get without having it panel mounted. The others I have looked at are quite a
bit bigger, so they block something regardless of where they are mounted.
Richard Kaplan wrote:
--
Dan Luke
"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
> In addition to the other factors, the likelihood that it would
> make economic sense to maintain a current database in an
> IFR approach GPS installed in a C152 is nil.
I thought you said your airplane.
If you fly much IFR, you need an approach GPS, in my opinion, unless you
restrict yourself to ILS equipped airports.
Richard Kaplan
> If you fly much IFR, you need an approach GPS, in my opinion, unless you
> restrict yourself to ILS equipped airports.
I "restrict" myself to airports with ILS, LOC, VOR, NDB, VOR/DME RNAV, SDF,
LDA, or ASR approaches. That tends not to be too restrictive at all.
The point will very soon be moot though with WAAS GPS precision
approaches -- my avionics shop knows I want to be first in line to get such
a box installed in my airplane.
Tarver Engineering
"Richard Kaplan" <rka...@flyimc.com> wrote in message
news:df3656622bb0bd63...@news.teranews.com...
>
> "Dan Luke" <c17...@pantsbellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:10740o1...@news.supernews.com...
>
> > If you fly much IFR, you need an approach GPS, in my opinion, unless you
> > restrict yourself to ILS equipped airports.
>
> I "restrict" myself to airports with ILS, LOC, VOR, NDB, VOR/DME RNAV,
SDF,
> LDA, or ASR approaches. That tends not to be too restrictive at all.
>
> The point will very soon be moot though with WAAS GPS precision
> approaches -- my avionics shop knows I want to be first in line to get
such
> a box installed in my airplane.
The CNX-80 is about the limit of the technology; without adding an air data
computer and perhaps a radar altimeter.
Richard Kaplan
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
news:_OOdndELh4m...@sti.net...
> The CNX-80 is about the limit of the technology; without adding an air
data
> computer and perhaps a radar altimeter.
I plan a Garmin 430 which is much more economical than the CNX-80 but will
still be able to fly the precision WAAS approaches when the unit is upgraded
later this year. An air data computer and/or radar altimeter would not add
any more capability to fly an instrument approach and will not be required
for WAAS GPS approaches.
Tarver Engineering
>
>
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
> news:_OOdndELh4m...@sti.net...
>
> > The CNX-80 is about the limit of the technology; without adding an air
> data
> > computer and perhaps a radar altimeter.
>
> I plan a Garmin 430 which is much more economical than the CNX-80 but will
> still be able to fly the precision WAAS approaches when the unit is
upgraded
> later this year. An air data computer and/or radar altimeter would not
add
> any more capability to fly an instrument approach and will not be required
> for WAAS GPS approaches.
With LAAS dead I see no way for you to get there. Unless you mean to use
ILS.
Richard Kaplan
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
news:gr6dnWNir5L...@sti.net...
> With LAAS dead I see no way for you to get there. Unless you mean to use
> ILS.
Garmin has clearly announced that the GNS 430/GPS 400, GNS530/GPS500, and
CNX-80 will all be upgradable to WAAS GPS precision approaches before the
end of the year. The CNX-80 upgrade will probably be free and
software-only, whereas the 400/430/500/530 upgrade will cost $1,500 for a
hardware upgrade.
Do you have reason to not believe this is so? If the above does not occur,
there will be an awful lot of surprised, disappointed, and/or angry pilots
at the end of this year.
Tarver Engineering
I expect they will be disapointed if they are expecting anything better than
the VNAV capabilities listed for the CNX-80. Note that LAAS is defunded and
therefore WAAS will not be getting to CAT III.
http://www.garmin.com/support/faqs/faq.jsp?faq=221
Richard Kaplan
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
news:sJGdnfEgPKn...@sti.net...
> I expect they will be disapointed if they are expecting anything better
than
> the VNAV capabilities listed for the CNX-80. Note that LAAS is defunded
and
> therefore WAAS will not be getting to CAT III.
Who is suggesting flying a Cat III approach in a piston single-engine
airplane?
All I am saying is that I fully expect the Garmin 400/500 series and the
CNX-80 to be capable of flying RNAV approaches to VNAV/LNAV minimums and to
fly LPV approaches as well by the end of the year.
Do you not agree this should be possible by the end of the year?
Do you not agree this will be an improvement over current GPS capabilities?
--------------------
Tarver Engineering
>
>
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
> news:sJGdnfEgPKn...@sti.net...
>
> > I expect they will be disapointed if they are expecting anything better
than
> > the VNAV capabilities listed for the CNX-80. Note that LAAS is defunded
and
> > therefore WAAS will not be getting to CAT III.
> Who is suggesting flying a Cat III approach in a piston single-engine
> airplane?
>
> All I am saying is that I fully expect the Garmin 400/500 series and the
> CNX-80 to be capable of flying RNAV approaches to VNAV/LNAV minimums and
to
> fly LPV approaches as well by the end of the year.
>
> Do you not agree this should be possible by the end of the year?
That will depend on the airport, but perhaps FAA can speed that process up.
> Do you not agree this will be an improvement over current GPS
capabilities?
I would not credit WAAS with much of it. The 5 sample GPS engine and the
pressure altitude data are much more important to the VNAV. Getting from
7.2 meters to 3.6 meters longitudinal accuracy does not give a lot of extra
capability. Adding the pressure altitude gets us the abreviated TAWS data
base to pump the probabilities.
The CNX-80 is a response to the desire for a GPS VNAV by rai posters. I do
not blame Garmin for buying UPSAT and porting the technology and I believe
more pilot information is safer, as some are going anyway.
Richard Kaplan
> I would not credit WAAS with much of it. The 5 sample GPS engine and the
> pressure altitude data are much more important to the VNAV. Getting from
> 7.2 meters to 3.6 meters longitudinal accuracy does not give a lot of
extra
Look, a Gulfstream G-IV with autoland would be nicer (and safer) too but
that is not in the cards for most pilots, me included.
From a practical perspective, the bottom line is that right now there is no
avionics setup economically practical today for a single-engine piston
airplane which can fly an RNAV LNAV/VNAV approach or a WAAS GPS LPV
approach. However, toward the end of the year the Garmin CNX-80 and Garmin
400/500 series will be capable of flying these approaches.
Correct?
Tarver Engineering
Agreed.