Thinking about a KLN-89B

Having faced a similar decision ~three years ago when redoing the panel in my Cessna 180, I couldn't come up with a perfect answer. I had a like-new KLN 90B in the bookshelf that had been used only for a consulting engagement (writing courseware for a part 142 school) but couldn't decide whether to install that unit or a 430W due to many of the conflicting issues mentioned on this thread.

Looking at a similar situation today, I still don't have a perfect answer, but submit the following for consideration:

1. It's a money-in, money-out analysis. What's the estimated difference in net cost (cost of upgrades less residual value at time of sale) between an 89 and a 430W?

2. What are the chances that the 89 will still be supported after 5 years?

3. If you trade up, will the 430W be a desired addition to your new ride? Many airplanes are currently for sale with large blank spot in the radio stack. If you didn't know better, you might think a 430 or 530 had been installed but removed when the seller listed the airplane.

4. What's the dead cost of installing an 89 excluding the cost of the unit? a 430W?

5. After wooling it over for what seemed like an eternity, I installed the 430W. I'll probably never know if it was the best decision, but it's pretty and has been very dependable.
 
bgfyankee said:
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...
Click to expand...

When you say nothing will really change, does the 696 have approach capability? :confused:
 
alfadog said:
696 is VFR.
Click to expand...

IFR GPS must be panel mounted to be legal. An old archaic rule, that probably has roots in something that made sense at the time, kinda like class3 medicals for pilots flying 2500 lb airplanes.
 
Jaybird180 said:
IFR GPS must be panel mounted to be legal. An old archaic rule, that probably has roots in something that made sense at the time, kinda like class3 medicals for pilots flying 2500 lb airplanes.
Click to expand...

Ehh.. Still does IMHO. you get external antennas, a CDI in the panel for redundancy/a place to display course info when your fumbling with other pages, a lesser chance of a dead battery and no chance of it going under the seat in turbulence while you're sliding down the glide path.
 
alfadog said:
696 is VFR.
Click to expand...

That's why I put the "confused" smiley after my question. He seemed to be saying that the only reason he wanted the 89B was to be legal, and that it wasn't going to change the way he operates.

That brings up another question: Once he has an IFR-certified GPS "contained" in the aircraft (i.e, installed in the panel), then he has met the requirements of 91.205(d). Once that requirement is met, is there any regulation that says he can't actually use his 696 instead if he prefers its features?
 
Nope. I have exactly the same setup. The 430W drives the autopilot and looks pretty, most of the actual navigting, weather and traffic comes through the 696.



Palmpilot said:
That's why I put the "confused" smiley after my question. He seemed to be saying that the only reason he wanted the 89B was to be legal, and that it wasn't going to change the way he operates.

That brings up another question: Once he has an IFR-certified GPS "contained" in the aircraft (i.e, installed in the panel), then he has met the requirements of 91.205(d). Once that requirement is met, is there any regulation that says he can't actually use his 696 instead if he prefers its features?
Click to expand...
 
Palmpilot said:
That's why I put the "confused" smiley after my question. He seemed to be saying that the only reason he wanted the 89B was to be legal, and that it wasn't going to change the way he operates.
Click to expand...

By "be legal" he may have meant that the 696 has GPS approaches in the database and you could physically shoot the LNAV approaches using the 696 but that would not be legal as it is not an IFR-approved GPS even if panel-mounted.
 
alfadog said:
By "be legal" he may have meant that the 696 has GPS approaches in the database and you could physically shoot the LNAV approaches using the 696 but that would not be legal as it is not an IFR-approved GPS even if panel-mounted.
Click to expand...

I thought he was planning on the KLN-89B installation making him legal. Once he has an IFR-legal GPS contained (installed) in the aircraft, what regulation makes it illegal to shoot the approach using the 696?
 
Palmpilot said:
I thought he was planning on the KLN-89B installation making him legal. Once he has an IFR-legal GPS contained (installed) in the aircraft, what regulation makes it illegal to shoot the approach using the 696?
Click to expand...

Reckless operation? Assuming that he does not have the approach loaded in the 89B. By that logic, I guess as long as you have a working LOC/GS set-up in the airplane it would be OK if you shoot the ILS using a ouija board?
 
alfadog said:
Reckless operation? Assuming that he does not have the approach loaded in the 89B. By that logic, I guess as long as you have a working LOC/GS set-up in the airplane it would be OK if you shoot the ILS using a ouija board?
Click to expand...

I would hope that he would at least load the approach in the 89B. Even if he's planning to actually navigate by the 696, it's always good to have a backup.
 
I don't think he ever envisioned using the 696 for approaches. I've had the 430W and 696 for three years and have yet to shoot an approach other than for practice. Not mentioned so far is that the flight plan in the 430 (and the 89B too, I think) can be downloaded onto the 696 if he wants to use the big screen. I don't have that capability since I get WX and Traffic on the 696 and AFAIK can't get more download data.

Palmpilot said:
I would hope that he would at least load the approach in the 89B. Even if he's planning to actually navigate by the 696, it's always good to have a backup.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I don't think he ever envisioned using the 696 for approaches. I've had the 430W and 696 for three years and have yet to shoot an approach other than for practice. Not mentioned so far is that the flight plan in the 430 (and the 89B too, I think) can be downloaded onto the 696 if he wants to use the big screen. I don't have that capability since I get WX and Traffic on the 696 and AFAIK can't get more download data.
Click to expand...

So it would be legal for him to rely on the 696 for enroute as long as an IFR unit is installed?
 
One radar track through the same waypoints the sky looks about like another one, doesn't it?

Palmpilot said:
So it would be legal for him to rely on the 696 for enroute as long as an IFR unit is installed?
Click to expand...
 
the only gps in my plane is an aera 510 (garmin VFR GPS mounted to yoke) and all of my enroute navigation is done with it. I punch in the VOR frequencies for the airways I am flying and twist and tune + identify, but it seems like an afterthought.
 
Maybe late for a response, but you should consider the KLN94 with it's built-in annunciators and a dedicate compatible indicator KI202 or the older KNI equivalent, it would be a less expensive way to upgrade than buying a KI209A and a switch/annunciation unit that would be required for the KLN89B. It is basically the same, but with a color screen and some added dedicated buttons that give it the functionality of the basic garmin 400 series. I used one of these to teach IFR for over a year and they are good units and not hard to learn.
 
bartmc said:
I had a KLN89B/AK950/KI202/Data Port installed, marker beacons fixed, a new Alt encoder, a KY197 comm. KR86 removed , KX170B removed and some wires cleaned up. Labor was $1500. Estimate for just installing the GPS was 15-17 hours.
Click to expand...


$1500 for 15-17 hours to install a an obsolete gps box in a spam can. If those are real hours that is crazy inefficient and overpriced. And we wonder why spam canning as a hobby is dying.
 
SbestCFII said:
Maybe late for a response, but you should consider the KLN94 with it's built-in annunciators and a dedicate compatible indicator KI202 or the older KNI equivalent, it would be a less expensive way to upgrade than buying a KI209A and a switch/annunciation unit that would be required for the KLN89B. It is basically the same, but with a color screen and some added dedicated buttons that give it the functionality of the basic garmin 400 series. I used one of these to teach IFR for over a year and they are good units and not hard to learn.
Click to expand...

Better option no doubt. However I'm not even sure if I would want to put in a 430 anymore given its age.

(Really feels weird to say that but hey):dunno:
 
bgfyankee said:
I'm thinking about adding the King KLN-89B to my Skyhawk to give it IFR GPS capability at a low cost. Does anyone out there have one of these units also have the KX-155 NAV/COM? I'm trying to figure out what CDI will interface easiest with both and what annunciator is my best bet with a 14V system.
Click to expand...

I have and 89b and 155. They work fine together. Every installation I've seen uses the Mid-continent annunciator and King CDI or HSI.

If I were buying a gps today I wouldn't get an 89b, I'd get the King KLN-94. It's the same basic gps, but with significant improvements in the user interface, display, and memory. And it costs very little more than an 89b.
 
JimNtexas said:
I have and 89b and 155. They work fine together. Every installation I've seen uses the Mid-continent annunciator and King CDI or HSI.

If I were buying a gps today I wouldn't get an 89b, I'd get the King KLN-94. It's the same basic gps, but with significant improvements in the user interface, display, and memory. And it costs very little more than an 89b.
Click to expand...

I think the 94 also includes non-GPS approaches, IIRC. The 89B doesn't.
 
Can you describe your plan for those of us who are currently without one?

Skylane81E said:
They still support the 430w for now, planning on having mine updated as part of my ADSB plan
Click to expand...
 
Well I want to update 430 to waas anyway, but I think it should (haven't looked it up yet) provide acceptable position data for ADSB out.

I currently have a GTX330 and I want to see what the cost to swap it for an ES model would be.

I haven't researched if that will meet the mandate, but it looks like it would
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top