Debating quite hard on some panel updating.
Option A. just swap the KI209 for a resolver that will give the KLN94 a CDI and also provide VOR/LOC from the GNC255.
Option B is tidy up the panel and remove the KI209 KI208, BK155 and KLN94 and replace with a GNC355A GPS/COM and move the 330 Mode S to the centre stack. Will analyse the AMU delta of either a single resolver CDI or a GI275 EHSI.
Option A is around 6 AMU cheaper (the GI275 is not priced), but B is more elegant: adds a second 8.33 COM and WAAS. There is a large stock of second hand working KLN94 sets, so even if the unit acted up, and it has never shown signs of doing so, getting a serviceable replacement is quite cheap. It also has good knobolgy.
Option B can be justified on protecting the value of the aircraft and will be a decent update. The longevity and reliability of the new touchscreens perhaps less proven.
Option A looks like just filling a functionality gap, Option B is a more serious modernisation – especially with the GI275.
Depends what you need/want, and what else is competing for the AMUs!
@Graham it’s finely balanced. Option A adds no value to the aircraft but adds some functionality in practical terms (GPS is also providing NAV input to the S-tec). Option B adds functionality (WASS, second 8.33 COM and if it includes a GI275, an EHSI), and probably breaks even in terms of adding value to the aircraft vs the cost of Option A.
Well I wish my Pa28 was that nicely equipped.
I wouldn’t change anything in can do rnav and ils approaches.
Does it have DME?
Hi @Bathman thank you, it came with the S-tec 20 which is very reliable but I don’t think is given the value it deserves in the UK. The Warrior value is underpinned by demand at PPL flight schools which tend to be allergic to autopilots, even simple ones.
It doesn’t have a DME, so technically it needs a radar environment for the ILS for a range check at the glide slope checkpoint, and for the missed approach where all published ILS in the UK require an NDB if radar is not available.
I believe the IFR database on the KLN94 may/will be allowed in due course to provide range information on an ILS, at least EASA was heading this way? Possibly also the CAA?
Apparently, while the KLN94 with a CDI has received en route approval, no G-reg has received approval for approaches with the KLN94 , or at least that is what I have been told. It is a significant argument in favour of the GNC355A.
RobertL18C wrote:
It is a significant argument in favour of the GNC355A
Why not GTN 650 then? Panel space? Or overall 20% price increase goes over the budget?
@ arj1 I have the VOR/ILS capability in the GNC255A
This PA 28 provokes some panel envy!
I will leave it to the avionics engineer to advise which is easier to install a G5 or GI275
no G-reg has received approval for approaches with the KLN94
I wonder who said that.
It would still be quite amazing, 22+ years later. All you would need is an approval done anywhere in EASA-land, post-2003. It is not impossible but…
Anyway, the solution is here and even though nobody replied re the cost, it should not be too expensive. @ultranomad may know more.
RobertL18C wrote:
I will leave it to the avionics engineer to advise which is easier to install a G5 or GI275
The installation as such should not be dramatically different except that GI275 has more cable clutter (two huge connectors on the instrument itself on a GI275 vs. remote boxes on a G5). More importantly, GI275 has a lot more gizmonic potential but it doesn’t seem to be a fully mature product yet.
Sorry, I have no answer about KLN94.
It was just the words You can get an EASA AFMS approved for RNAV 5 and NPA via a Form 32 (Minor change to AFM). A Part 21J with appropriate privileges can approve this directly with no Agency involvement. which someone may know i.e. the cost of Form 32 + shop time.
I am damn sure the KLN94 has been IFR approved in EASA-land, and then the discussion moves to how to find it. Here is a start.
