Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

DR400 (steam) avionics upgrade

2) Do you think the existing 2 x NARCO NV122D Vor/Loc/Glide indicators could work with a GNS430 or GTN650 ?

Absolutely not. Sorry, but what you have there is all totally ancient stuff and has little to do with
IFR equipment”.

Get some good avionics engineer who knows about all the wrinkles of the regulations in France and have him prepare a reasonable proposal on how to proceed. Then see if it all makes sense.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 24 Nov 21:18
Mainz (EDFZ), Germany

Get some good avionics engineer who knows about all the wrinkles of the regulations in France and have him prepare a reasonable proposal on how to proceed. Then see if it all makes sense.

I fully agree and that’s what will be done. I just wanted to do some research to understand the options.

Last Edited by Nestor at 24 Nov 21:40
LFLY, France

The DR-400-160 is not on the EASA AML STC for the GTN. It is likely done under a Part 21 (DOA) major change approval or STC, in combination with the G500 which doesn’t have EASA AML STC at all. A single GTN installation for your clubs aircraft would still require a major change / STC, as it is not on the AML STC from Garmin. This AML STC is free, while a custom made STC will easily be as expensive as the equipment itself.

The marker beacon receiver should already be gone if the GMA-340 is installed, as it has a MB internally, including the lights. I have to agree with boscomantico. It needs quite some work to become up-to date IFR.

Maybe it would be better to upgrade this to a nice VFR package. Single GNS-430(W) or single GNS-530(W) which will keep the modification approval fees low. Combined with an Aspen EFD-1000. That might be a transistion to the G500 / GTN IFR DR-400-160.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

Why do you want a 430 for VFR? IMO it is pretty useless in that role, it doesn’t have the VRPs in its database, and its topo map lacks so many details. Any tablet even with free software is miles ahead. Furthermore, the GTN user interface is so much better I don’t see any value in the 430 as a “learning tool” for the GTN either.

I neither see the point of an Aspen for VFR.

LSZK, Switzerland

I would take out the ADF – and put the 430 there.
You do not need the ADF if you don’t fly NDB Approaches, i personally think that the time of the NDB Approach is over.

You can get a good 430 (non WAAS) for € 4000, and there’s really nothing comparable for that money. And you should use a Garmin 106 indicator for the 430, it displays both GPS and VLOC/ILS

Last Edited by Flyer59 at 24 Nov 22:13

Personally, I would drop the old audio panel and marker beacon and install a PMA8000 along with a GNS430W. Then invest in an iPad running Skydemon that lives in the plane. This gives you an IFR legal fit that’s valid just about anywhere and is pragmatically useful, and an excellent VFR fit.

For VFR, I have to agree with @tomjnx – the GNS has negative value, and an Aspen is just overkill. For IFR though, the Aspen makes a huge difference. The live track diamond, HSI and the ADF pointer right in front of you transform IFR training…

EGEO

I think the “W” is an overkill, completely unnecessary. But the 430 itself is great for VFR too.

Why do you want a 430 for VFR?

If they want 8,33 kHz, and new NAV their are not to many options. GNC-255A or GNS would be the units to look at. The GTN wouldn’t be interesting because the aircraft is not in the STC. A new NAV will indicators. Indicators suchs as GI-106A are quite expensive. This is where the Aspen could make a change. The Aspen would (VFR) also allow the removal of a lot of instruments. Then their might be panel space for a panel dock or something like that.
The price difference between a second hand GNS-430 and a new GNC-255A isn’t that big. Comparing those, I would think the GNS-430 can be a good choice, even for VFR. Sure it would be more capable for IFR.

Any tablet even with free software is miles ahead.

Fully agree, that however will always be the case.

Some also just like to fly an aircraft with (some) glass.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

While it may be true that the hardware cost of a used 430W is similar to a new GNC255, I don’t quite belive this to be true if you include installation cost. The 430W surely needs many more wires to be installed, no?

Also, I would think twice about newly installing a 430(W) in an aircraft. The 430W is essentially end of life, I wouldn’t count on any support from Garmin say 5 or 10 years down the road.

LSZK, Switzerland

While it may be true that the hardware cost of a used 430W is similar to a new GNC255, I don’t quite belive this to be true if you include installation cost. The 430W surely needs many more wires to be installed, no?

On a very basic aircraft without much additional sensors like this aircraft their shouldn’t be to much of difference. Basically only GPS antenna + coax and altitude input which needs to be wired.
Power, NAV indicator, Audio, DME interconnect etc would be all similair between both the GNC-255A and a GNS in this simple aircraft. It would be different if you have traffic system, weather systems etc.

Also, I would think twice about newly installing a 430(W) in an aircraft. The 430W is essentially end of life, I wouldn’t count on any support from Garmin say 5 or 10 years down the road.

That is a valid argument. One should consider the relative low pricing of a GNS and calculate that risk to determine if it’s worth the risk

JP-Avionics
EHMZ
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top