Thinking about a KLN-89B

bgfyankee said:
The installation manual calls for an avionics fan I believe as an "option", but it would make sense. Considering that it'll rarely be on in my aircraft, I'm not terribly concerned just yet ;)
Click to expand...

IDK, once you have it in the airplane, you might find yourself using it for situational awareness on VFR xc flights. Also, if it keeps the unit from failing, it might be a useful addition for when you are in the soup and counting on it :eek:
 
alfadog said:
IDK, once you have it in the airplane, you might find yourself using it for situational awareness on VFR xc flights. Also, if it keeps the unit from failing, it might be a useful addition for when you are in the soup and counting on it :eek:
Click to expand...

Thus the reason that I want to leave all of my other instrumentation in place, i.e. dual NAV/COM, DME, ADF, etc...

When instrument flying right now I always back up with a Garmin 696 and Foreflight on the iPad. Fairly sure I'm not concerned about a future GPS unit failing, no offense.
 
bgfyankee said:
Thus the reason that I want to leave all of my other instrumentation in place, i.e. dual NAV/COM, DME, ADF, etc...

When instrument flying right now I always back up with a Garmin 696 and Foreflight on the iPad. Fairly sure I'm not concerned about a future GPS unit failing, no offense.
Click to expand...

No, if you already have the 696, you will not be using the 89B VFR.

edit: you could definitely lose the ADF, though.
 
alfadog said:
No, if you already have the 696, you will not be using the 89B VFR.

edit: you could definitely lose the ADF, though.
Click to expand...

I use mine every flight, I've had an Aera, Quadra and an iPad. The 89B is in the panel, ready to go, has a CDI and flashes airspace warnings at me. Most of the time the other GPS(s) are thrown in the seat and never touched. If I had XM weather on a 696, that might be a different story.
 
alfadog said:
No, if you already have the 696, you will not be using the 89B VFR.

edit: you could definitely lose the ADF, though.
Click to expand...

Interesting article I just read about how the NDB approach just won't die, and it's true. New piston aircraft will not come with them, but brand new corporate aircraft do. We maintain one at my airport still and will until the FAA orders us to turn it off. Many cargo carriers out there utilize it quite often, of which we receive many who don't have IFR approved GPS units in their aircraft. To be honest, I like knowing how to use the ADF and stay proficient at it. Additionally, as instructed, when you check out some of the approaches to airports local to me, an ADF is presently required to shoot some of the ILS & VOR approaches. Besides, for no more panel space than it requires, I'm happy leaving it where it's at.
 
bgfyankee said:
Interesting article I just read about how the NDB approach just won't die, and it's true. New piston aircraft will not come with them, but brand new corporate aircraft do. We maintain one at my airport still and will until the FAA orders us to turn it off. Many cargo carriers out there utilize it quite often, of which we receive many who don't have IFR approved GPS units in their aircraft. To be honest, I like knowing how to use the ADF and stay proficient at it. Additionally, as instructed, when you check out some of the approaches to airports local to me, an ADF is presently required to shoot some of the ILS & VOR approaches. Besides, for no more panel space than it requires, I'm happy leaving it where it's at.
Click to expand...

My ADF is not working because two owners back the antenna was removed by a "speed freak". The Arrow has a bunch of speed mods and this guy even removed the boarding step, since reinstalled.

I also like to play with old-skul crap but staying current with an ADF is really useless. The GPS replaces the ADF for NDB approaches so your loss of functionality is limited to no NDB approaches if GPS fails. Meh.
 
denverpilot said:
Is it just me or are all these failing display stories screaming "avionics fan" and "get an oscilloscope on that DC bus" to anyone else?!

Heat, vibration, and dirty input power beyond a reasonable point, kill this stuff. If the displays are going out multiple times a year, something is very wrong.

The KLN stuff came out before the rash of cheap self-distructive Chinese electrolytic capacitors flooded the assembly market too, right?

Seen plenty of non-aviation gear "fixed" by re-capping the whole darn radio with quality caps.
Click to expand...

Cooling is there and this has persisted with multipile alternators. It's actually the light sensor that goes out and kills the screen, but it's all one unit in there. We are not the only ones having the issue according to Muncie who fixes them for us.

Thing is at about 1k a pop the screens get expensive in a hurry:yikes:
 
hindsight2020 said:
Whaaa'.....? I don't see that at all.

In the context of adding IFR GPS cape to an airplane with pre existing nav and comm capabilities, the installation of a 430 over a 89B not only does NOT save money, it very much in fact increases the total cost by a factor of 2. The garmin cult is strong, that much is true. I use kln900s at work and the 89B on my warrior; the garmin 155/300 logic looks like ching chong gibberish to me. I admit I'm partial to that. But to suggest the only reasonable alternative to adding /G is to go full retard with an all-in-one-[single point of failure] wonderbox is just myopic. The cost delta between a 7k box and a 1.5k box is exactly that. There's no magical secret labor cost that closes that gap to the point of making the delta insignificant. That has already been debunked on this thread. An 89B total installed cost is a 5K endeavor, at worst. The proposed alternative is double that. The suggestion screen failures further tilt the cost gap in favor of the wonderbox is anecdotal BS. I can make the same argument for one major failure on the all in one box. Now you're really effed. I still have my /A. You got jack. To the actual point, my screen has been baking in there since '07... still taking me approach arm in the rainy soup like a champ. I better start buying lottery tickets while im on a roll...:rolleyes2:

Then again Im a frugal air pirate. I get by with a minimalist approach to my recreational aviation. To each their own.
Click to expand...

Pay me now or pay me later. Garmin also has a flat rate for repairs, and we have not once spent less to have the 89b fixed. We have also not once sent a 430 out and we have 8 of them in our fleet, but that one 89b just keeps on dying...
 
alfadog said:
What do you expect the labor cost to be?



I am frugal too. Not to mention broke :D Working with the numbers I had, $3k for labor, the 430W was not 4x money all-in, it was less than a 2x. And for 2x, I think you get your money's worth, what with the nav/com in the 430W, the increased functionality of the unit, and the increase in AOPA Vref which means you get a lot of the difference back if you sell in, say, the next two years.

edit: and you are not adding equipment that is already seriously dated. Yes, still functional but I have heard about the screens from a number of sources now, including here, and if yours is still working, good for you but that is no guarantee that someone else's will. And I will not jinx you by stating the obvious.:D
Click to expand...
And actually, I would add what are you going to do about 2020, when you need a WAAS position source....
 
For the benefit of all, I will post the results of yet another conversation with an avionics shop from today.

First off, my plane is in for annual so I called my A&P and asked it he could recommend anyone. Again he mentioned that having a GPS be IFR certified is no cheap matter - there is no cheap solution for that. Cheap being $1500 or less in labor. He recommended a shop less than an hour away by air.

Called and asked for someone that could help with a quote. My first question "Do you talk to people that are trying to get something done for not a lot of money?" He laughed and liked the opener.

He again said $2800 labor. 32 hours @ $85. He said it takes that much. Really. OK, fair enough, I have been getting quotes to 40 hours.

Stay away from the 89B. Display issues.

Stay away from GX55/65. No parts available, no way to repair.

All GPS's prior to the 430 require an annunciator. He recommended AK 950L at about $550 new.

As I have already been told, I can reuse my LORAN CDI.

That is all.
 
Last edited:
Agreed on the Apollo units, I have one in my plane, it will stay until it dies BUT when it did die a few years ago due to an exploding capacitor cracking the screen I was told by the avionics shop I got the last screen they could find anywhere.

I was happy with the bill though, $700 out the door wasn't bad considering.
 
alfadog said:
For the benefit of all, I will post the results of yet another conversation with an avionics shop from today.

First off, my plane is in for annual so I called my A&P and asked it he could recommend anyone. Again he mentioned that having a GPS be IFR certified is no cheap matter - there is no cheap solution for that. Cheap being $1500 or less in labor. He recommended a shop less that an hour away by air.

Called and asked for someone that could help with a quote. My first question "Do you talk to people that are trying to get something done for not a lot of money?" He laughed and liked the opener.

He again said $2800 labor. 32 hours @ $85. He said it takes that much. Really. OK, fair enough, I have been getting quotes to 40 hours.

Stay away from the 89B. Display issues.

Stay away from GX55/65. No parts available, no way to repair.

All GPS's prior to the 430 require an annunciator. He recommended AK 950L at about $550 new.

As I have already been told, I can reuse my LORAN CDI.

That is all.
Click to expand...

That labor quote is steep but not shocking. Maybe you have something going on with your panel that I didn't. For reference, my GPS/CDI/Annunciator/Antenna, cables and various connectors + the install cost was less than your labor quote alone.

The guy that did mine doesn't have a shop but pulls a toy hauler trailer to your hangar, or he has a hangar he can rent if you don't have one. Regardless, 20hours was the high end of the hours estimates I received. I think I wound up paying for about 17 hours for the GPS install.

If you can swing a 430W, go for it, I would have if I could have. I just didn't have anything to pull out to sell to help offset the cost and laying out $10K for my airframe wasn't something I was willing to do, for 1/3 of the price I got an 89B and a 2nd COMM installed. I did dig and scrape for a year to find the parts on a budget. I'm sure had I just dropped my plane off at Aerotronics, the local brick and mortar avionics shop, and said "Put in an 89B" I would have paid probably double what I did.

If you want, I can scan my invoices and send them to you, not that it matters much.
 
bartmc said:
That labor quote is steep but not shocking. Maybe you have something going on with your panel that I didn't. For reference, my GPS/CDI/Annunciator/Antenna, cables and various connectors + the install cost was less than your labor quote alone.

The guy that did mine doesn't have a shop but pulls a toy hauler trailer to your hangar, or he has a hangar he can rent if you don't have one. Regardless, 20hours was the high end of the hours estimates I received. I think I wound up paying for about 17 hours for the GPS install.

If you can swing a 430W, go for it, I would have if I could have. I just didn't have anything to pull out to sell to help offset the cost and laying out $10K for my airframe wasn't something I was willing to do, for 1/3 of the price I got an 89B and a 2nd COMM installed. I did dig and scrape for a year to find the parts on a budget. I'm sure had I just dropped my plane off at Aerotronics, the local brick and mortar avionics shop, and said "Put in an 89B" I would have paid probably double what I did.

If you want, I can scan my invoices and send them to you, not that it matters much.
Click to expand...

These are just generic quotes in that they are going on my description of my panel. There is nothing odd there. Maybe it is just because I am in South Florida :rolleyes2:

But my first quote of 40 hours was from calling some guy in North Carolina so go figure. Something about his website made me think he would be a good one and he was very helpful and friendly but still, 40 hours.
 
Sorry if I'm late to the thread, but I'd retain the DME capability if you have a non-WAAS approach GPS. Yeah 99% of the time you're going to leave it turned off, but if you say you have DME approaches around, while you may not resort to having to turn it on to fly them, you HAVE TO HAVE IT to use these approaches as alternatives as you can't reply on a GPS-for-DME substitution on the approach for filing your alternate.

To correct a slightly earlier misstatement: there are NO precision GPS approaches. The 89B will not however let you fly LPVs and LNAV/VNAVs.

Another option for the annunciator is something like the Mid Continent CDI which has the annunciators integral to it.
 
flyingron said:
To correct a slightly earlier misstatement: there are NO precision GPS approaches...
Click to expand...


Not sure I get you here. Are you saying an LPV is NOT a precision approach?


Never mind, I see there is a nomenclature thing going on with the ICAO or something like that. It is an APV approach. 3rd category.
 
Last edited:
alfadog said:
These are just generic quotes in that they are going on my description of my panel. There is nothing odd there. Maybe it is just because I am in South Florida :rolleyes2:

But my first quote of 40 hours was from calling some guy in North Carolina so go figure. Something about his website made me think he would be a good one and he was very helpful and friendly but still, 40 hours.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I bet a guy with a trailer in the middle of nowhere Montana probably is a little cheaper than a shop in South Florida. But hey, if you have 4-9 months worth of vacation to spend, fly on up, Montana is beautiful in the summer.
 
bartmc said:
Yeah, I bet a guy with a trailer in the middle of nowhere Montana probably is a little cheaper than a shop in South Florida. But hey, if you have 4-9 months worth of vacation to spend, fly on up, Montana is beautiful in the summer.
Click to expand...

LOL. Actually, I called NC because I figured, hey, two days work and I have family in Raleigh and mean to fly the Arrow up there one day soon. I'll just visit for a couple days. Silly me!
 
bbchien said:
And actually, I would add what are you going to do about 2020, when you need a WAAS position source....
Click to expand...

I don't expect to have this aircraft past 2016, so +1 on it not being my problem. My next aircraft will already have this stuff in it before I buy it, I guarantee you that. But you know how the FAA is...2020 might as well be 2050 *rolls eyes*
 
Ron Levy said:
No, it does not. There are other ways to handle LOC DME fixes, starting with loading the relevant fix name.
Click to expand...

The Moffett ILS, which is the closest one to my home airport, requires DME from the TACAN, but unfortunately that nav aid doesn't appear to be in the database of the KLN-94. That's the model of GPS in the /G airplanes that I currently fly. So I guess I could see if any of the fixes on the approach plate is in the database, and do the math for any fixes that aren't (preferably, ahead of time!).

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/SW-2/nuq_ils_or_loc_dme_rwy_32r.pdf

Unfortunately, the plate also says TACAN is required, no doubt due to the missed approach, so I think I still have to confine myself to flying this approach under VFR.

The KLN-89B may also lack TACANs, but I don't know if that is a factor for the OP or not.
 
Palmpilot said:
The Moffett ILS, which is the closest one to my home airport, requires DME from the TACAN, but unfortunately that nav aid doesn't appear to be in the database of the KLN-94. That's the model of GPS in the /G airplanes that I currently fly. So I guess I could see if any of the fixes on the approach plate is in the database, and do the math for any fixes that aren't (preferably, ahead of time!).

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/SW-2/nuq_ils_or_loc_dme_rwy_32r.pdf

Unfortunately, the plate also says TACAN is required, no doubt due to the missed approach, so I think I still have to confine myself to flying this approach under VFR.

The KLN-89B may also lack TACANs, but I don't know if that is a factor for the OP or not.
Click to expand...

He is leaving his DME in the airplane.
 
alfadog said:
He is leaving his DME in the airplane.
Click to expand...

...which means that he will be fine if the approach says "DME required," but if it says "TACAN required," then there will be a problem. (Obviously this is a rare circumstance for civilian pilots, however.)
 
Palmpilot said:
...which means that he will be fine if the approach says "DME required," but if it says "TACAN required," then there will be a problem. (Obviously this is a rare circumstance for civilian pilots, however.)
Click to expand...

As will most of us. I do not know how many civilian approaches require you to actually have TACAN as opposed to simply the DME off the TACAN.
 
jesse said:
Every airplane I've seen with a 430 installed (with the exception of the DA-20) has a good spare COM/NAV radio.

My preferred setup is a Garmin 430W and a KX155. I use the KX155 as my primary com (it's dirt simple).

For some reason it always seems like the KX155 COM is stronger than the 430. I've seen this across several different airplanes.
Click to expand...

My Narco Mark 12D has noticeably better COM than the 430W; how much of that relates to a better antenna is unknown, but the Narco is much better at rejecting noise (like when I am flying by the antenna farm with all the TV and radio station signals) than the 430W.

YMMV.
 
alfadog said:
As will most of us. I do not know how many civilian approaches require you to actually have TACAN as opposed to simply the DME off the TACAN.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about military approaches. They can be useful if you need to land at a nearby civilian airport that either doesn't have an approach, or has an approach with higher minimums.
 
The 430 com radio is nothing to write home about that is true. I wouldn't be surprised that the 12D (on the rare occasions it is working at all) does a better job.

The military isn't doing a tremendously good job at maintaining TACAN sites these days. TACAN (and DME) is an early casualty of the GPS era.
 
To correct a slightly earlier misstatement: there are NO precision GPS approaches. The 89B will not however let you fly LPVs and LNAV/VNAVs.
Click to expand...

While VNAV doesn't make a precision procedure, it's "as good as." I flew the VOR approach at Mazar e Sharif a few days ago using LNAV/VNAV, and it may as well have been an ILS. Very precise.

On the subject of TACAN, I see a lot of procedures where I fly that use TACAN; not all are military procedures. In some cases, users may fly the procedure, but where the missed requires TACAN, must request alternate missed approach procedures prior to accepting the approach. Where paired frequencies are available (eg, VORTAC), one may use the pairing (may have to look it up, in the pairing table in some cases) VHF frequency and have DME available.

On the KLN 89, I'd find something else. They were great in their day, but their day came and went a long time ago. I've had them in Seneca's, and other light airplanes, and have even used them in Lears, but they're not intuitive, and I never did like them. For a little more, get a Garmin 430. I've used the Garmins in Lears, light aircraft, and in some equipment that might be surprising, and it works really well. I've had it in entire fleets that spent their lives in the Iraqi deserts in the heat, and froze other places in the winter, and have never had a screen failure. I haven't had one in the KLN radios, either.

I'm not a Garmin fan boy, but you get a lot of capability and situational awareness with the 430 or 530, and they're available on the used market, and are a good value. I've used them in some nasty weather and conditions ranging from low IFR in precip to sandstorms, and they've done the job admirably. In my opinion, you'll get more out of a garmin handheld strapped to your yoke than you'll get form a KLN, but that's my opinion.
 
DouglasBader said:
On the KLN 89, I'd find something else. They were great in their day, but their day came and went a long time ago. I've had them in Seneca's, and other light airplanes, and have even used them in Lears, but they're not intuitive, and I never did like them. For a little more, get a Garmin 430. I've used the Garmins in Lears, light aircraft, and in some equipment that might be surprising, and it works really well. I've had it in entire fleets that spent their lives in the Iraqi deserts in the heat, and froze other places in the winter, and have never had a screen failure. I haven't had one in the KLN radios, either.

I'm not a Garmin fan boy, but you get a lot of capability and situational awareness with the 430 or 530, and they're available on the used market, and are a good value. I've used them in some nasty weather and conditions ranging from low IFR in precip to sandstorms, and they've done the job admirably. In my opinion, you'll get more out of a garmin handheld strapped to your yoke than you'll get form a KLN, but that's my opinion.
Click to expand...

That parallels my thinking. When I thought I could get a 89B in the panel for $2k, I would have been happy with it. Since the real quotes are coming in at $5k, I see little reason to not go for the Garmin for $9k. Or nothing all for IFR GPS. I won't spend $5k to add an 89B.
 
I'll be happy to install a 430W if you are willing to pony up the extra cash. I've already stated that is just to make my Skyhawk legal. I'll still enjoy using my 696 and nothing will really change, other than I won't be restricted to filing /A anymore. I'm realistic and know that I will more than likely only be having this aircraft for another 3 or 4 years max. I have no desire to dump that kind of money into it just now. The type of flying I do right now is not that intense. I can 99% of the time file IFR using ILS, VOR, or NDB approaches. There's 1 airport that I go to on a regular basis that only has a GPS approach. I'm going to take the additional money and put it toward other upgrades that are just as important to me.
 
bgfyankee said:
I'll be happy to install a 430W if you are willing to pony up the extra cash. I've already stated that is just to make my Skyhawk legal. I'll still enjoy using my 696 and nothing will really change, other than I won't be restricted to filing /A anymore. I'm realistic and know that I will more than likely only be having this aircraft for another 3 or 4 years max. I have no desire to dump that kind of money into it just now. The type of flying I do right now is not that intense. I can 99% of the time file IFR using ILS, VOR, or NDB approaches. There's 1 airport that I go to on a regular basis that only has a GPS approach. I'm going to take the additional money and put it toward other upgrades that are just as important to me.
Click to expand...

Is the 89B going to cost you $5k? I know the answer. Not even close.

Would you think more seriously about a 430W if the 89B was $5k? Or would you "invest" your $5k to install something that is seriously dated, old electronics, doesn't have any ROI Vref-wise, etc? That is my situation.
 
Not to mention the fact that if something DOES go wrong with it, a replacement is readily available on eBay (w/ 8130) for under $500...why repair?! lol
 
This naturally comes around to the question that should always be asked when determining legality: it may be legal, but should you?

A skyhawk can legally be flown IMC, but with one vacum pump, one engine, very limited performance, no radar, no deice, very rudimentary attitude information, and often flown by not overly qualified instrument pilots, single engine IMC isn't necessarily a wise action.

Given that position, how much capability do you really need?

Bear in mind that when balancing cost, you're comparing GPS or display capability shouldn't be the only factors; with something like the garmin you're gaining a much easier, intuitive unit, far more capability, and additional VHF nav and com facility.
 
Here we go again...
DouglasBader said:
This naturally comes around to the question that should always be asked when determining legality: it may be legal, but should you?

A skyhawk can legally be flown IMC, but with one vacum pump, one engine, very limited performance, no radar, no deice, very rudimentary attitude information, and often flown by not overly qualified instrument pilots, single engine IMC isn't necessarily a wise action.

Given that position, how much capability do you really need?

Bear in mind that when balancing cost, you're comparing GPS or display capability shouldn't be the only factors; with something like the garmin you're gaining a much easier, intuitive unit, far more capability, and additional VHF nav and com facility.
Click to expand...
 
DouglasBader said:
This naturally comes around to the question that should always be asked when determining legality: it may be legal, but should you?

A skyhawk can legally be flown IMC, but with one vacum pump, one engine, very limited performance, no radar, no deice, very rudimentary attitude information, and often flown by not overly qualified instrument pilots, single engine IMC isn't necessarily a wise action.

Given that position, how much capability do you really need?

Bear in mind that when balancing cost, you're comparing GPS or display capability shouldn't be the only factors; with something like the garmin you're gaining a much easier, intuitive unit, far more capability, and additional VHF nav and com facility.
Click to expand...
I fly a lot of IMC in airplanes fitting your above description and teach people how to do so safely as well.
 
A lot of people do.

Whether it's safe or not, is another matter.
 
DouglasBader said:
This naturally comes around to the question that should always be asked when determining legality: it may be legal, but should you?

A skyhawk can legally be flown IMC, but with one vacum pump, one engine, very limited performance, no radar, no deice, very rudimentary attitude information, and often flown by not overly qualified instrument pilots, single engine IMC isn't necessarily a wise action.

Given that position, how much capability do you really need?

Bear in mind that when balancing cost, you're comparing GPS or display capability shouldn't be the only factors; with something like the garmin you're gaining a much easier, intuitive unit, far more capability, and additional VHF nav and com facility.
Click to expand...

So your argument is since it is pretty unsafe already, not much use in making much effort to make it safer?

Some might argue that premise in the exact opposite manner, that your safety ROI percentage-wise is much higher with the better GPS, vastly outweighing the additional cost.
 
Stephen-Colbert-Popcorn.gif
 
So your argument is since it is pretty unsafe already, not much use in making much effort to make it safer?
Click to expand...

If you say so. I certainly didn't.
 
I could make the same argument for many pilots today who fly VFR in single engine aircraft, but that's not the point of my thread/post. I fly enough in IMC in single and multi-engine aircraft...I maintain my Skyhawk very well and keep many redundancies. Whether or not they are legal is not my concern. When the bottom falls out, I'm going to use whatever I have to in order to put myself back on the ground in one piece. This isn't my first rodeo thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top