N45GV

Perfectly good instrument trainer, other than with the installed ADF you'll need to be able to do NDB approaches for the test even if you'll never do one for real given the GNS430. The engine, on the other hand, may be a big question mark, but that's another story.
 
Ron Levy said:
Perfectly good instrument trainer, other than with the installed ADF you'll need to be able to do NDB approaches for the test even if you'll never do one for real given the GNS430. The engine, on the other hand, may be a big question mark, but that's another story.
Click to expand...

This is me remember? I do Continental engines. :)

If you have trained in this aircraft, why wouldn't you be trained to do the NDBs?
 
Tom-D said:
This is me remember? I do Continental engines. :)
Click to expand...
172P's have Lycomings. Oops - XP, not P. Never mind.

If you have trained in this aircraft, why wouldn't you be trained to do the NDBs?
Click to expand...
Because you wanted to fail the practical test? But not everyone wants to expend the resources necessary to learn how to use something they'll never use again after the practical test. Most folks would just yank the ADF instead.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
If you have trained in this aircraft, why wouldn't you be trained to do the NDBs?
Click to expand...
Well, for one, it might be hard to find an NDB left to do the approach to begin with.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Ron Levy said:
172P's have Lycomings. Oops - XP, not P. Never mind.

Because you wanted to fail the practical test? But not everyone wants to expend the resources necessary to learn how to use something they'll never use again after the practical test. Most folks would just yank the ADF instead.
Click to expand...

If the GPS goes Tango Uniform, the ADF will still give you the option to find the outer marker and do the ILS.

IMHO you never want to be down to one option.

Plus the ADF is a very good long range navigator, and a way to listen to the ball game.
 
Last edited:
What would your best guess for a price per hour, dry.
 
Looks like a really nice panel for instrument training.
 
Pilawt said:
There's one at Tom's home base and several others in the Northwest. And Tom's not far from Canada, where there are still plenty of them .
Click to expand...

Remember the NDB approach is the least precision approach we have, thus the easiest to do.
 
Tom-D said:
If the GPS goes Tango Uniform, the ADF will still give you the option to find the outer marker and do the ILS.

IMHO you never want to be down to one option.
Click to expand...
With a KX-155 as #2, loss of the GPS isn't a big deal. And LOM's are going the way of the buffalo, anyway.

Plus the ADF is a very good long range navigator, and a way to listen to the ball game.
Click to expand...
If you want to do it, do it. But there is really no operational reason to keep the ADF.
 
Tom-D said:
Remember the NDB approach is the least precision approach we have, thus the easiest to do.
Click to expand...
Based on having taught a lot of people how to do them and all the other approaches, I'd have to disagree that it is the easiest, and would say instead that it is the hardest.
 
XP is a great airplane. Transitioned to one at 10 hrs and got my license in it. Then flew it a lot the first couple of years. It was a '77 also, purchased as a factory demonstrator in '78 with a few hundred hours on it. I think he paid $36K for it. If you ignore inflation, they've done quite well!
 
Ron Levy said:
Not at all hard around here or most other places I've given training.
Click to expand...

Out west it seemed like they were decommissioning one a week. Haven't seen an airport with an ADF approach for a while now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Ron Levy said:
Based on having taught a lot of people how to do them and all the other approaches, I'd have to disagree that it is the easiest, and would say instead that it is the hardest.
Click to expand...

Having just gone through the training, with a good ADF like the KR-87 in this XP, they are not hard to fly to PTS standards (what is hard is to fly them with a KR-85 all the way on the other side on the panel :rolleyes2: ).
 
weilke said:
Having just gone through the training, with a good ADF like the KR-87 in this XP, they are not hard to fly to PTS standards (what is hard is to fly them with a KR-85 all the way on the other side on the panel :rolleyes2: ).
Click to expand...
It may not be that hard (at least when there isn't much wind), but VOR, LOC, and GPS are all much easier to fly with precision.
 
Tom-D said:
What would your best guess for a price per hour, dry.
Click to expand...

This is the exact plane I am looking to buy as part of a partnership. They put in $22 an hour dry.

However you being you, I suspect it won't cost that much.
 
Tom-D said:
Remember the NDB approach is the least precision approach we have, thus the easiest to do.
Click to expand...

Not for me brother, not for me. I've always struggled with NDB approaches.
 
Mafoo said:
This is the exact plane I am looking to buy as part of a partnership. They put in $22 an hour dry.

However you being you, I suspect it won't cost that much.
Click to expand...

$22 covers what?
 
Ron Levy said:
It may not be that hard (at least when there isn't much wind), but VOR, LOC, and GPS are all much easier to fly with precision.
Click to expand...

I guess it all depends on the NDB location and on board equipment. In Russia and China dual NDBs approaches are common. One NDB is located as an outer marker and the other as a middle marker. Both on different frequencies. Using dual ADF receivers and dual needle RMIs all you need to maintain is that both needles are line up straight. As you pass the OM NDB the needle will swing and you start your descend to MDA. The MAP point is at the MM NDB which could be 200ft above terrain. The only limitation is that there is no vertical guidance but most Russian airliners have radar altimeters to accurately be at a safe height when passing the MM NDB.

With the implementation of Glonass (Russian GPS) many of these are airports are adding SATNAV approaches.

José
 
I haven't had the happiness of flying a 172XP, but that sure looks like a well maintained and equipped airplane.
 
I think it needs to be discounted by the price of six Contental cylinder kits, and some A&P hours...even if you intend to do the work youself.
 
bbchien said:
I think it needs to be discounted by the price of six Contental cylinder kits, and some A&P hours...even if you intend to do the work youself.
Click to expand...

I know your point, But this one is good for a few hundred hours more.
 
If the ADF works, keep it.

We pulled ours when it died, and when the DME conked out and we became /U, we are effectively locked out of our home airport IFR for anything other than a Visual or Contact Approach.

There are a number of ILS approaches that still say "ADF or DME Required" for navigation to the FAF/OM.

(And others in our area that say "RADAR or DME Required"...)
 
Piloto said:
I guess it all depends on the NDB location and on board equipment. In Russia and China dual NDBs approaches are common. One NDB is located as an outer marker and the other as a middle marker. Both on different frequencies. Using dual ADF receivers and dual needle RMIs all you need to maintain is that both needles are line up straight. As you pass the OM NDB the needle will swing and you start your descend to MDA. The MAP point is at the MM NDB which could be 200ft above terrain. The only limitation is that there is no vertical guidance but most Russian airliners have radar altimeters to accurately be at a safe height when passing the MM NDB.

With the implementation of Glonass (Russian GPS) many of these are airports are adding SATNAV approaches.

José
Click to expand...
Tom is not doing his IR training or checkride in Russia or China.
 
denverpilot said:
If the ADF works, keep it.

We pulled ours when it died, and when the DME conked out and we became /U, we are effectively locked out of our home airport IFR for anything other than a Visual or Contact Approach.

There are a number of ILS approaches that still say "ADF or DME Required" for navigation to the FAF/OM.

(And others in our area that say "RADAR or DME Required"...)
Click to expand...
With a Garmin 430 in the plane, he's covered on those issues without the ADF.
 
Tom-D said:
$22 covers what?
Click to expand...

Everything, on the plane. The Hanger, Insurance, and GLS subscriptions are a monthly fee all the partners put in for.

Currently, there is 32K in the maintenance fund from the 22 an hour over the years. The engine has a few hundred more hours on it.

They have used it for (The partnership started in 1988):

Engine Overhaul
Annuals
Updating the avionics (they installed a 430W, and have a 496 with XM weather). It has an auto pilot, but not sure if it came with one.
Replacing the interior
Painting the aircraft
All maintenance (breaks, tires, etc)
And all the things I have yet to ask about


I hope that helps.
 
With the N number and the ID of the OP, I was expecting some tongue in cheek joke involving a Gulfstream V.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you want to do it, do it. But there is really no operational reason to keep the ADF.
Click to expand...
I heard that many countries never adopted VOR and kept their NDBs. So anyone who's flying internationally needs to fly approaches using them. Not sure how true that is.
 
A KR 87 is a GREAT box. In the Mooney at FL 19 I would get stations 220 nm away....who needs RNAV direct when you can get the OM NDB from two tracons away....
 
zaitcev said:
I heard that many countries never adopted VOR and kept their NDBs. So anyone who's flying internationally needs to fly approaches using them. Not sure how true that is.
Click to expand...

It is very true. For some countries in South America, Africa and the Pacific A VOR station is much more expensive than an NDB station. A VOR station needs periodic bearing calibration while an NDB does not require calibration. Anyone can set up an NDB station antenna with a wire between trees. The only electronics required is a low frequency RF generator and you are ready to go. If you are in mountain terrain NDB is the way to go. With GPS you do not need a ground station but if you do not have the destination coordinates but the NDB frequency then NDB is your only option.

José
 
Tom-D said:
And if the 430 would quit?
Click to expand...
Then you're back to IFR the way we did it 40 years ago -- with a single VOR. Not a big deal in terms of just getting the plane on the ground safely, and in that situation, I'd much rather fly an ILS, LOC, or VOR approach than an NDB approach because they are more accurate.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
That's where I was going with that. No reason to pull working avionics. They're backups for the others.
Click to expand...
As I said originally, the only reason to pull it is to avoid having to learn how to use the ADF during instrument training and doing an NDB approach on the practical test because it's nearly certain the average owner/pilot with a GPS in the plane will never shoot an NDB approach again. For most everyone I've trained for their IR, that was reason enough. Tom may feel otherwise, but I think he'll find NDB approaches are not as easy as he seems to think, and may then change his mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top