Panel Changes - Should I put an Aspen in a 65C

[PTK]

I would answer as follows:  It depends what you are taking out in order to put in an Aspen or ANY glass for that matter, including the overpriced G500 family.  If you are taking out a KFC or KAP system the answer is a resounding NO WAY MAN!  DO NOT TAKE THIS EQUIPMENT OUT!!  If you do not currently have an AI and HSI then its probably ok.  Reason is a KFC 150 is absolutely top of the line. Cannot be compared to Aspen or G500. It leaves them in the dust.  Also because a lot of people are RUSHING to jump on the proverbial glass bandwagon, an existing  KFC or KAP system can be totally overhauled for under $5K !!!  Why spend more than double this amount for some glass!!????  And not to forget you still need YOUR AI AS BACKUP for the glass!  If you do not have an autopilot you are not doing any serious IFR flying anyway so you might as well keep whatever you have!!  Save some money!! Easy wasn't it??

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: allsmiles

I would answer as follows:  It depends what you are taking out in order to put in an Aspen or ANY glass for that matter, including the overpriced G500 family.  If you are taking out a KFC or KAP system the answer is a resounding NO WAY MAN!  DO NOT TAKE THIS EQUIPMENT OUT!!  If you do not currently have an AI and HSI then its probably ok.  Reason is a KFC 150 is absolutely top of the line. Cannot be compared to Aspen or G500.

[PTK]

We need to keep what I am saying straight and in context.  It makes no sense and, in my opinion, it is fiscally irresponsible, to remove solid proven equipment susc as KAP or as in my case KFC 150 for glass.  Glass does NOTHING to improve the IFR capability of the airplane.  It does not contribute and I will say that it detracts from such capability if backup gauges are removed for a battery backup. I say this because your glass DOES NOT dictate your IFR capability. This is dictated and depends upon your gauges.  Going glass I consider a DOWNGRADE and not an upgrade!

The perceive vaccuum failure is a non issue because it can be proactively mitigated.  Regular proactive maintenance, a standby vaccuum system an electric AI, or all of these can be had for a smaall fraction of the cost of some sexy glass.  I would much rather spend money on real upgrades that do add to safety.  TCAS, weather, engine monitor, an autopilot if you don't have one, etc etc.  

And don't forget electronics fail.  Don't tell me that you will fly behind a battery backup either, thus totally removing gauges.  I would NEVER trust a battery powered glass over my solid KFC 150 AI even on standby vaccuum source.  By this logic why don't you backup your glass with another glass i.e. Trilogy and spend another $16K! Do you see how crazy this gets??

Also because we never get back what we spend on avionics it makes the most sense to spend money on real upgrades to safety and comfort.  Yes I agree glass has feel good value to its owner but that's all.  

 

[eaglebkh]

Quote: allsmiles

 

We need to keep what I am saying straight and in context.  It makes no sense and, in my opinion, it is fiscally irresponsible, to remove solid proven equipment susc as KAP or as in my case KFC 150 for glass.  Glass does NOTHING to improve the IFR capability of the airplane.

[rob]

Considering that I posted the equipment that I have in the initial post, and it's not relevant to the argument that you're trying to make I'm not even sure where you're coming from. I don't have a KAP or KFC or anything King, except a 155. That's staying in the plane anyhow.

 

I don't think that anyone would argue that two sources of information are better than one. Electronics, Gyros, Vacuums - they all fail. So why not have a combination of all of the above? In my particular instance (and I don't think this is uncommon for a Mooney of my vintage), I didn't even have an IFR GPS. So I'm going to put in a 430. At that point, I can either spend money on a CDI and GPSS Roll steering, or I can skip that and for a little more, go with an Aspen unit. It really seemed like a no-brainer once I considered all the options. I'll now have the IFR GPS, CDI/HSI, GPSS, and redundant attitude information. Additionally, I have redundancy in the entire 6 - pack. Oh, and I have something that automatically calculates the winds aloft for me. Do I *need* any of these things? Naw, but I'd rather have them than not. Wouldn't you?

 

[KSMooniac]

I bet you'll be really happy with the upgrade. 

[KSMooniac]

Also, since you will start at the end of July, it is quite possible there will be some new products and/or promotional pricing/discounts unveiled at OSH...you might come out even better than what you think now!

[flight2000]

Rob,

I'm going to follow how yours turns out.  I'm looking at adding an STEC-30 and the MVP-50 from EI next summer when I get back from my deployment.  The avionics shop included a very tempting offer for the Aspen as well, but I need to save some more Benjamin's for that.  The A/P and Engine monitor/analyzer is my bigger priority.

Brian

[PTK]

Quote: rob

Considering that I posted the equipment that I have in the initial post, and it's not relevant to the argument that you're trying to make I'm not even sure where you're coming from. I don't have a KAP or KFC or anything King, except a 155. That's staying in the plane anyhow.

 

I don't think that anyone would argue that two sources of information are better than one. Electronics, Gyros, Vacuums - they all fail. So why not have a combination of all of the above? In my particular instance (and I don't think this is uncommon for a Mooney of my vintage), I didn't even have an IFR GPS. So I'm going to put in a 430. At that point, I can either spend money on a CDI and GPSS Roll steering, or I can skip that and for a little more, go with an Aspen unit. It really seemed like a no-brainer once I considered all the options. I'll now have the IFR GPS, CDI/HSI, GPSS, and redundant attitude information. Additionally, I have redundancy in the entire 6 - pack. Oh, and I have something that automatically calculates the winds aloft for me. Do I *need* any of these things? Naw, but I'd rather have them than not. Wouldn't you?

 

[danb35]

Yes, yes, King is great, everything else is trash.  Wait for the KSN 770, it's a Garmin killer.  Tell you what--if King actually releases the 770 this year, I'll eat my hat.

I agree that waiting for OSH (later this month) is a good idea, but there's no sense at all in waiting for the "next great thing" when you don't have any idea what it is, when it's coming, or what it will do.

[rob]

Brian,

I have a UBG-16 and an S-Tec30 w/ Alt in my plane. If I didn't have those, I would definitely make them a priority over the Aspen. You might consider switching the MVP to the UBG-16 and applying those savings to the Aspen or a Garmin (if you don't already have one). The MVP is a very sexy peice, no doubt, but I didn't see it as adding anything I don't already have aside from visual appeal. I'd almost prefer to have a whole compliment of EI instruments to the single MVP. Alas, to each their own. I'll definitely keep you posted.

[rob]

Regarding the OSH specials and Garmin, etc: I ordered the Aspen in June to take advantage of the $1000 rebate. This was the largest rebate I had ever seen on the unit so if there's a bigger one during OSH, I'd be surprised. I was willing to take my chances there. In my limited experience, the show specials and Osh Kosh discounts are really mostly hype and not really relevant to a 20+ AMU install. I'm happy with the pricing quoted by my shop and I want the downtime minimized and scheduled appropriately - so that's why the timing is as it is.

On the Garmin, I'm comfortable with the choice. The 430W is the current standard. It will be useful and relevant for a long time to come. Garmin has changed it in 15 years, that's what the W stands for. That aside, Mooney hasn't changed my plane (for the better) in 40+ years. So what? I like things that are proven, efficient, and reliable. That's why I fly the plane I do and that's why I chose the GPS I did. Otherwise, I could just buy a SR20 or wait for Mooney to reintroduce the J, maybe with the new King unit installed.

[PTK]

Quote: rob

Garmin has changed it in 15 years, that's what the W stands for.

It is a matter of differing opinions.  I disagree with you.  I never said that Garmin is trash but by the same token would certainly not consider the 430/530 as the gold standard !!   They have not changed the 430/530 and it is dated technology. As far as WAAS it was not a Garmin innovationand and they  SOLD it to their 430/530 owners ! The actual hardware, display, processor, the box has not changed in 15 years.   The argument given is that it is the only one and no other choice.   Because it's the only one and no other choice for gps nav comm doesn't mean it's the standard!  To me this means it is a monopoly to steer clear and avoid.  What's the hurry.  I'm not saying wait for ever but certainly give things a chance to settle down.  When Honeywell brings the 770 out then Garmin may come out with something better.  I like choices and not monopolies. 

 I have nothing against Garmin nor do I favor  King or anybody else.  These are the facts as I see them today.  We are the customers holding the money and we need to demand what we want from the manufacturers.  Personally I will not jump on anybody's bandwagon.  Competition breeds quality and lower prices.  Good old American capitalism! 

[rob]

Again, My Mooney is 45 years old. Works for me. Honestly, I wouldn't even consider the King offering if it was on the market today and cheaper than the Garmin. It won't fit in my panel. This is the same reason I went with a 430 and not a 530.

[Ron McBride]

Garmin is not a monopoly. Other companies have not chosen to cpmpete yet with Garmin.  Garmin is the standard, other companies can compete, will there product be better than Garmin, only time will tell. Any one on this list is able to put there money where there mouth is and produce a competing product. Don't have the money, then sell the idea to King, Narco, ARC, Trimble or any other that wants to buy.  When Garmin decides, they will produce and updated version of the 430/530.  Look at there history with the 196 series, now a 696.

We live in a free country, so keep talking, but why don't you compete. Remember when Loran first came out, and the progression that those systems made. There are plenty of cheap lorans available now. Not worth much, but.

Personally I like my 430W. Another happy consumer with 4 Garmins. If you want to continue to fly with good and old equipment, it is your choice.

Ron

 

[fantom]

Garmin is MY state-of-the-art. :-)))

[PTK]

What is or isn't state of the art is a matter of opinion.  Certainly we all make decisions that we have to be happy with. This is especially true in avionics because we never recover what we spend.  430 530 WERE state of the art when they first came out 15 years ago.  So were those huge CRT computer monitors.  Today things are different. Technology has advanced to where we have flat LCD displays.  To give you an analogy.  Got it now!

[tablor]

Quote: allsmiles

What is or isn't state of the art is a matter of opinion.

[KSMooniac]

Not to mention that Garmin had to change the processor and other assorted hardware inside the box to add the WAAS capability, so the hardware for WAAS units is only 3 years old.

[rob]

Whatever "state of the art" is, it's not necessarily always better. Seemingly, sometimes all it is is newer. In this case, I've determined that it is better in terms of the Aspen vs. the Gyro primary instruments. I've also decided that the 12 year old (updated) Garmin technology is sufficient for my needs for the forseeable future.

The current "state of the art" in Aircraft seems to be composite construction. Yet here we are flying aluminum. Cessna, Piper, and Beech are still making Aluminum. Hopefully Mooney will be making it again soon too. I really don't care what the latest and greatest offering is, I'm happy with my decision.

[PTK]

Quote: rob

Whatever "state of the art" is, it's not necessarily always better. Seemingly, sometimes all it is is newer. In this case, I've determined that it is better in terms of the Aspen vs. the Gyro primary instruments. I've also decided that the 12 year old (updated) Garmin technology is sufficient for my needs for the forseeable future.

The current "state of the art" in Aircraft seems to be composite construction. Yet here we are flying aluminum. Cessna, Piper, and Beech are still making Aluminum. Hopefully Mooney will be making it again soon too. I really don't care what the latest and greatest offering is, I'm happy with my decision.

[fantom]

Quote: allsmiles

What is or isn't state of the art is a matter of opinion.  Certainly we all make decisions that we have to be happy with. This is especially true in avionics because we never recover what we spend.  430 530 WERE state of the art when they first came out 15 years ago.  So were those huge CRT computer monitors.  Today things are different. Technology has advanced to where we have flat LCD displays.  To give you an analogy.  Got it now!

[rob]

Quote: allsmiles

Yes, the most important thing to be happy with our decisions.  That's all that matters.  The 430 is a great VFR light IFR box.  It will serve you well.  Happy safe flying!

[PTK]

At present there is no such GPS NAV COMM.  There was the 480 which Garmin discontinued.  The 430/530's are very cumbersome at routine functions which may render them dangerous to the rookie IFR pilot.  i.e. No airways, no vertical guidance, no MEAs or MOCAs, no height of surrounding terrain to name a few.

Bottom line is we spend thousands for the 430/530 AND hundreds every year for Jepp updates and in the end we need paper plates for basic crucial info which THEY SHOULD PUT AT OUR FINGERTIPS.  Make sure you have fresh batteries in the flashlight to read the paper charts!

I'm not knocking Garmin.  I'm simply saying they have neglected these boxes for a long time.  Perhaps some software upgrades would correct these things.  I don't know  Just my opinion of course.

[PTK]

Quote: 

our Mooney airframes are obsolete junk