Asking for Advice on GPS Nav

L

LSK

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
26
Display Name
Display name:
Rowdy
Plane is an older 172 - currently has two kx155 nav/coms in it
Wanting to get it set up to use for some ifr training, on a budget of course

These are the two options we are considering and would like to hear some others thoughts on one versus the other -

1) Add a 430w, FS210, cdi, remove one of the kx 155's and I guess save it in case the other one quits working

2) Leave both kx 155's and just move them down in the stack and throw a Garmin 175 in and a compatible cdi
 
Does either 155 have a glideslope receiver?

What indicators exist today?
 
TCABM said:
Does either 155 have a glideslope receiver?

What indicators exist today?
Click to expand...
Both do - Im mot sure which indicators it has exactly - thinking about adding either a garmin 106 or ki209A
 
If you're going the budget route, adding the GPS 175 may be the most economical. It supports a lot of Bendix/King CDI's, maybe the ones you already have installed...
 
430 is a fine GPS. The economics against it are not so much because it's old, but because it's redundant given his VHF Nav/comm capabilities are pre-existing in the aircraft, making a GPS/NAV/COMM all in one a redundant expense, especially after the additional wiring labor.

It's likely your indicators have a VOR/LOC converter internal to the indicator, given you're driving a pair of 155s which require such a type of CDI. Unfortunately, indicators that contain internal converters (with the exception of the KI-209A, which has a relay bypass) can't drive a GPS signal, which means you'd need an indicator that lacks that internal VOR/LOC converter.

The 175 is the only game in town for GPS-only boxes these days I'm afraid. If you have the panel space, keep the 155s and make the installation of the 175 as-is, saving you whatever labor they were going to charge you to remove the 155. You'd probably have to lose Nav indicator capability in one 155, since you're losing one CDI, but if you're on a budget, that's probably the cheapest route and still have two comms.
 
If everything is working well, by far your lowest cost option will be the GPS175. VERY solid unit, modern, and should compliment what you already have quite well. I'm having one installed in 60 days. Installation quotes were 'reasonable'.
 
hindsight2020 said:
It's likely your indicators have a VOR/LOC converter internal to the indicator, given you're driving a pair of 155s which require such a type of CDI. Unfortunately, indicators that contain internal converters (with the exception of the KI-209A, which has a relay bypass) can't drive a GPS signal, which means you'd need an indicator that lacks that internal VOR/LOC converter.
Click to expand...
First of all the CDI receives the signal, not drives it. Secondly, the 175 can drive a composite signal to feed the converter. It's less than ideal because you'll have to manually adjust the OBS, but it can be done. The 430 also has composite output but its weird in that its composite output is only for VOR/LOC and not GPS.
 
Unless you can get a screaming deal on a 430W, put in something newer. The 430 is functional, but it’s 90s technology and they stopped making them in 2011. Straight 430s can no longer be upgraded to WAAS, and Garmin doesn’t repair displays on any 430s anymore.
 
Another vote against the 430. Great navigator, but you are spending a lot to install it, when it is nearing end of life.

You could always go straight to an Avidyne.

Best (but not cheap) would to replace one of the -155s with a GTN-650, preferably Xi. This is how my plane was equipped when I bought it.
 
The reason to put in a 430 would be that it can be had inexpensively. If it breaks, it can usually be replaced inexpensively. If you want to upgrade, you could just slide in an Avidyne down the road, so the installation cost would not be wasted. You would certainly want to do a WAAS version. If you install a GPS175, then you would need to install a 3rd indicator, or lose one of the KX155 indicators and tag the nav side inop. I think either way would work just fine if you have room in the stack. The KI209 works fine with the 175, but not with the 430, so that is a vote for the 175, as long as it has glideslope. Either way is a valid option. The 175 would certainly be easier, as the wiring harness is super simple and you don't have to get into the audio at all. You would need to make sure that the wires between the audio panel and the KX155's are long enough to move them down.
 
I’m removing two 430Ws and FS210 from my Mooney in March for avionics upgrade. All work great and the screens look good with no dead pixels. One of the 430Ws is spoken for but the other and the FS210 will be available


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I really like my GPS 175. It's a lot easier to use than a 430, especially since you can send flight plans over Bluetooth from ForeFlight or Garmin Pilot. You won't regret going with a 175.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
 
I'd go with a 175 as well. It's so much easier to use. Ive used both. The 430 was great when it was new, and the 175 is the same leap forward that the 430 was twenty years ago.

--Matt
 
bigmo said:
If everything is working well, by far your lowest cost option will be the GPS175. VERY solid unit, modern, and should compliment what you already have quite well. I'm having one installed in 60 days. Installation quotes were 'reasonable'.
Click to expand...
out of curiosity what labor hours were you being quoted for 175 install
 
LSK said:
out of curiosity what labor hours were you being quoted for 175 install
Click to expand...
Mine took about 25 hours. It replaced a KLN90B. My wiring was a mess at the time and that added to the installation time.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
 
LSK said:
out of curiosity what labor hours were you being quoted for 175 install
Click to expand...
This is one of the most frustrating parts of dealing with avionics installs. One would THINK there would be some pretty standard tables for installs. Especially if we're talking a new or newer new a/c with a modern panel. For a SINGLE piece install, I was quoted everything from a low of 20 to a high of 45 hours. I would up going with a 25 hours @ $90 for $2250 labor. My highest quote was $6300 (JUST for labor).
 
bigmo said:
This is one of the most frustrating parts of dealing with avionics installs. One would THINK there would be some pretty standard tables for installs. Especially if we're talking a new or newer new a/c with a modern panel. For a SINGLE piece install, I was quoted everything from a low of 20 to a high of 45 hours. I would up going with a 25 hours @ $90 for $2250 labor. My highest quote was $6300 (JUST for labor).
Click to expand...
In fairness to the shops, after redoing a panel myself I can honestly say there are so many variables it's almost impossible to accurately quote labor until you're actually into it. It would be better if they just charged an hourly rate based on what it takes to do it but, a lot of us would have trouble trusting a shop to not pad the bill. When I had my 175 installed, I didn't ask for a quote, I just let them do it. It ended up being $2400, which I thought was very fair since they also fixed some AP issues and a few other wiring problems while they were in there.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
 
If you have or find a cheap Garmin 430 WAAS, you can consider the labor cost to install it as an investment. You can then later upgrade to an Avidyne 440 which uses the same tray and is a slide-in with low labor. It’s a way to “make payments” on a modern GPs so to speak.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
If you have or find a cheap Garmin 430 WAAS, you can consider the labor cost to install it as an investment. You can then later upgrade to an Avidyne 440 which uses the same tray and is a slide-in with low labor. It’s a way to “make payments” on a modern GPs so to speak.
Click to expand...
This was my original plan too - but the clean units that didn’t look as if they were dragged behind a truck for 20 miles are all selling for $3500+.

I don’t need the extra radio, so $1500 more to be factory new, and arguably 20 years newer/better makes it a no brainer.
 
LSK said:
Plane is an older 172 - currently has two kx155 nav/coms in it
Wanting to get it set up to use for some ifr training, on a budget of course

These are the two options we are considering and would like to hear some others thoughts on one versus the other -

1) Add a 430w, FS210, cdi, remove one of the kx 155's and I guess save it in case the other one quits working

2) Leave both kx 155's and just move them down in the stack and throw a Garmin 175 in and a compatible cdi
Click to expand...
The 430 will shortly be no longer supported by Garmin. The 155s, while still good radios, are plagued by display issues and parts are becoming scare.

Being budget minded can cost you more in the long run.
 
For what it's worth, I just got two quotes to install a Garmin 175 in Michigan. One was for $9200 and that used an existing indicator. A second quote was for $13,200 and that included a Garmin NAV/GPS indicator.
 
hindsight2020 said:
430 is a fine GPS. The economics against it are not so much because it's old, but because it's redundant given his VHF Nav/comm capabilities are pre-existing in the aircraft, making a GPS/NAV/COMM all in one a redundant expense, especially after the additional wiring labor.

It's likely your indicators have a VOR/LOC converter internal to the indicator, given you're driving a pair of 155s which require such a type of CDI. Unfortunately, indicators that contain internal converters (with the exception of the KI-209A, which has a relay bypass) can't drive a GPS signal, which means you'd need an indicator that lacks that internal VOR/LOC converter.

The 175 is the only game in town for GPS-only boxes these days I'm afraid. If you have the panel space, keep the 155s and make the installation of the 175 as-is, saving you whatever labor they were going to charge you to remove the 155. You'd probably have to lose Nav indicator capability in one 155, since you're losing one CDI, but if you're on a budget, that's probably the cheapest route and still have two comms.
Click to expand...

I thought the same regarding using a CDI that has an internal Loc/Converter, but apparently the GPS 175 will drive one because there is an option to use the encode the output to a video signal, so the stock KI109 is supported.
 
hindsight2020 said:
430 is a fine GPS. The economics against it are not so much because it's old, but because it's redundant given his VHF Nav/comm capabilities are pre-existing in the aircraft, making a GPS/NAV/COMM all in one a redundant expense, especially after the additional wiring labor.

It's likely your indicators have a VOR/LOC converter internal to the indicator, given you're driving a pair of 155s which require such a type of CDI. Unfortunately, indicators that contain internal converters (with the exception of the KI-209A, which has a relay bypass) can't drive a GPS signal, which means you'd need an indicator that lacks that internal VOR/LOC converter.

The 175 is the only game in town for GPS-only boxes these days I'm afraid. If you have the panel space, keep the 155s and make the installation of the 175 as-is, saving you whatever labor they were going to charge you to remove the 155. You'd probably have to lose Nav indicator capability in one 155, since you're losing one CDI, but if you're on a budget, that's probably the cheapest route and still have two comms.
Click to expand...

I have a KI209A to be installed - in the attached pics I think the easiest plan is to remove what is circled red and move down what is circled in green leaving room for the 175 and 209a at the top - thoughts?

1709843531885.png

1709843669551.png
 
LSK said:
I have a KI209A to be installed - in the attached pics I think the easiest plan is to remove what is circled red and move down what is circled in green leaving room for the 175 and 209a at the top - thoughts?

View attachment 126375

View attachment 126376
Click to expand...
artworks-000158672079-0gbvsi-t500x500.jpg
 
LSK said:
I have a KI209A to be installed - in the attached pics I think the easiest plan is to remove what is circled red and move down what is circled in green leaving room for the 175 and 209a at the top - thoughts?

View attachment 126375

View attachment 126376
Click to expand...

Additional labor costs unknown to me, the placement you suggest seems reasonable.

Given the prior discussion about the 175 being said to handle indicators with internal LOC converters w/o isolating relay (like the 209A does), one could presumably just save the third indicator and downgrade to LOC-only for the one 155 that retains its nav receiver connected. Saves you the cost of one indicator, which is not insignificant given the looney tunes (pun intended) cost of all these electron reading boxes.

Personally, if I had two 155s in the panel, assuming as it looks as it does in your pic, where at least one has a glideslope board (155s come in both flavors, internally), I'd prefer to keep the ILS capability. So I'd just buy an indicator for the 175, making it a 3 CDI setup, which I believe is what you intend to do anyways. That's a decent suite of radios, no reason to lose ILS capability.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Given the prior discussion about the 175 being said to handle indicators with internal LOC converters w/o isolating relay (like the 209A does), one could presumably just save the third indicator and downgrade to LOC-only for the one 155 that retains its nav receiver connected. Saves you the cost of one indicator, which is not insignificant given the looney tunes (pun intended) cost of all these electron reading boxes.

Personally, if I had two 155s in the panel, assuming as it looks as it does in your pic, where at least one has a glideslope board (155s come in both flavors, internally), I'd prefer to keep the ILS capability. So I'd just buy an indicator for the 175, making it a 3 CDI setup, which I believe is what you intend to do anyways. That's a decent suite of radios, no reason to lose ILS capability.
Click to expand...
The way the OP worded it, sounds like new(-ish?) KI209A is already in hand waiting to be hooked up to the GPS175.
 
If the DME is working, I would keep it and I would also keep the KI209A at the top of the stack. If GPS os being jammed or for any reason is not working, there are many ILS that require a DME, so if it is removed, in many cases you might find it difficult to legally fly the ILS procedure.
 
175, dual G5s, get rid of some stuff.
 
If a G5 or GI-275 were installed as an HSI replacement in the 6-pack, the other CDIs can stay where they are, and the GPS can feed the CDI presentation on the HSI.

That might be the "fewest moving parts" type of Frankenstein replacement, and your grey matter will need to handle looking at the KI-209A for ILS/VOR/LOC and the GI-275/G5 for GPS/LPV/LNAV.

That's also kinda-sorta two completely independent navigation systems in your plane. It's not cheaper and not trivial (adds a magnetometer and other gadgets), but I really don't know that a single DME or ADF provides a ton of benefit in the stack. (20 years ago, I would have loved the stack in your plane.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSK
cailloux said:
If a G5 or GI-275 were installed as an HSI replacement in the 6-pack, the other CDIs can stay where they are, and the GPS can feed the CDI presentation on the HSI.

That might be the "fewest moving parts" type of Frankenstein replacement, and your grey matter will need to handle looking at the KI-209A for ILS/VOR/LOC and the GI-275/G5 for GPS/LPV/LNAV.

That's also kinda-sorta two completely independent navigation systems in your plane. It's not cheaper and not trivial (adds a magnetometer and other gadgets), but I really don't know that a single DME or ADF provides a ton of benefit in the stack. (20 years ago, I would have loved the stack in your plane.)
Click to expand...

That was all installed back in 1982 - I think it was top of the line back then perhaps
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top