A

blindman

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
3
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Display Name
blindman
Home Airfield
Indianapolis Metropolitan
1763584833968.png1973 Cessna 172M. My plan is adding a Garmin 175 to replace the ADF and installing a Garmin 275 to replace my DG? Thoughts and feedback are greatly appreciated.
 
Hard to give good thoughts or feedback without knowing your mission and intention.

Generally, if you're going through the time and expense to throw one Garmin GI 275 in there, it might be worth saving up a bit and replacing the AI too. That will let you you get rid of your vacuum system. Similarly, instead of a GPS 175, I'd save up a few more AMUs and put in a GNX 375, as it will give you all of the navigation functions, but will also update your transponder and give you ADSB in/out. As a bonus, that will integrate really well with your GI 275s, showing traffic directly on those displays.

Obviously that's a rabbit-hole, but I think you can get significantly greater capability with a GNX 375 for a relatively small additional outlay over the GPS 175.

Consider keeping the ADF for baseball games. :D
 
Any particular reason for the GI275 instead of G5 or AV30C?

BTW, I too think the the GNX375 is worth the additional spend.
 
Add my vote for Dual GI 275's and the GNX375.

ADF? Eh, I'd take it out to make the space for the GNX 375.
 
Just me, I'd replace the top nav/com with a combination GPS nav/com/vor (650xi?), leave the ADF, leave the DG if you can slave the existing VOR to the new GPS, and replace the vacuum AI with an electronic one. It's easy to spend somebody else's money, though, and I'm making my own assumptions on use.

Reasons:
Around here, there aren't many ILS or VOR approaches that can be flown without either radar, ADF, or DME. Because lots of VORs aren't working. You already have an ADF, it isn't costing you anything but weight and panel space.
GPS with NAV/COM all together is handy and easy.
An electric AI should be a lot more reliable than a vacuum one.

The reason for my reasons are all to give it better IFR capability - WAAS GPS + VOR/ADF backup. What you have right now, with the tablet and existing instruments, seems perfectly fine for VFR to me.
 
Around here, there aren't many ILS or VOR approaches that can be flown without either radar, ADF, or DME. Because lots of VORs aren't working. You already have an ADF, it isn't costing you anything but weight and panel space.
Maybe. The only things the ADF is good for at this point are (1) flying an approach that requires it during a GPS failure and (2) listening to AM radio. And (1) is disappearing.

But I have to ask where “around here” is. I haven’t seen many ILSes that do require ADF.
 
Maybe. The only things the ADF is good for at this point are (1) flying an approach that requires it during a GPS failure and (2) listening to AM radio. And (1) is disappearing.

But I have to ask where “around here” is. I haven’t seen many ILSes that do require ADF.
1 is what I meant, and you're right, it is disappearing...without any great alternative.

Location is Hudson river valley. I'm sure I'm missing some, but from the notes in front of me: Not capable already for just ILS via plain VOR is ALB, Burlinton, Plattsburgh, SLK, RUT. Of those, ALB and Burlington are OK with radar, the rest need DME. GLF and Schenectady are ILS's that require ADF if no GPS. Stewart and POU can do ILS with 2 VORs. There just aren't enough VORs around here that are still working. Not to slide off topic, but MON is just pretending that a lack of budget and planning is an actual plan.

If OP is someplace flat, and they actually have VORs that work in their area and that's where they fly, then getting rid of ADF might make perfect sense. And here, too, if the few remaining go away because no one has a plan to fix them, er I mean "there's a plan to phase them out for a much better but underdeveloped alternative".

Sorry, tough for me not to be cynical about federal planning wrt contingencies, budget, or anything related to those things.
 
1 is what I meant, and you're right, it is disappearing...without any great alternative.

Location is Hudson river valley. I'm sure I'm missing some, but from the notes in front of me: Not capable already for just ILS via plain VOR is ALB, Burlinton, Plattsburgh, SLK, RUT. Of those, ALB and Burlington are OK with radar, the rest need DME. GLF and Schenectady are ILS's that require ADF if no GPS. Stewart and POU can do ILS with 2 VORs. There just aren't enough VORs around here that are still working. Not to slide off topic, but MON is just pretending that a lack of budget and planning is an actual plan.

If OP is someplace flat, and they actually have VORs that work in their area and that's where they fly, then getting rid of ADF might make perfect sense. And here, too, if the few remaining go away because no one has a plan to fix them, er I mean "there's a plan to phase them out for a much better but underdeveloped alternative".

Sorry, tough for me not to be cynical about federal planning wrt contingencies, budget, or anything related to those things.
Yeah, I see plenty if DME requirements, although more often for the LOC than the ILS. Definitely VOR approaches that need it. I don’t even bother with those unless the airplane has DME.

GFL is interesting. The chart itself does not require ADF or DME. There is a NOTAM that DME or “suitable RNAV” is required, and the NDB is inop.

SCH does require ADF but it, too, is OTS. If I had to guess, neither NDB is coming back.
 
Yeah, I see plenty if DME requirements, although more often for the LOC than the ILS. Definitely VOR approaches that need it. I don’t even bother with those unless the airplane has DME.

GFL is interesting. The chart itself does not require ADF or DME. There is a NOTAM that DME or “suitable RNAV” is required, and the NDB is inop.

SCH does require ADF but it, too, is OTS. If I had to guess, neither NDB is coming back.
For GFL, it's tagged on the plate I just downloaded as required, but it only looks like it's required for the missed not the approach itself, and there's an alternative missed that uses a VOR. And you're right, running a flight brief to both it and SCH, both NDB's are tagged out of service.

I knew GBR and some other NDBs that were local were gone, but it looks like more than I thought, in addition to the VORs. Maybe nothing is left in the area.

OP - sorry for the distraction!
 
1973 Cessna 172M. My plan is adding a Garmin 175 to replace the ADF and installing a Garmin 275 to replace my DG? Thoughts and feedback are greatly appreciated.
Wow. That panel is about as classic as it gets. I would guess that the only thing that was done to this plane's panel since it was new was to do the upgrade/slide-out replacement of the original Cessna radios with the MX (?) flip-flops.

Now, to answer your question, I'm gonna ask you some questions, because we simply don't have nearly enough information to give you a good answer yet!

1) What's your budget?
2) How long do you plan to keep the airplane?
3) Do you fly IFR or VFR, and in either case, do you want the plane to be IFR equipped?
4) Do you fly enough cross country that you might want an autopilot?
5) Do you fly internationally at all (rural Canada/Mexico)?
6) What are your motivations and goals for your panel upgrade? What do you feel like you're missing right now, and what capabilities are the most important to you when you're done?

Now, I'll throw a few thoughts out there anyway:

With regard to budget (1), you can do some pretty nice things at a fairly low budget (maybe under <$10K) if you want to just have an updated panel and ADS-B. You can do a slightly nicer panel at a fairly low budget with a bit more capability that's still missing some things and won't net you much in the way of resale value... Or, you can go up to probably $100K if you want to be really fancy!

As far as keeping the airplane (2), if you're selling it soon, just let the next owner put in what they want and buy the plane you want. If you're keeping it for a little while, get something a little nicer... And if this is your forever plane and you want to go all out, then go all out.

If you're strictly VFR (3) with no aspirations to fly IFR and mostly a short-range, $100 burger or poke-holes-in-the-sky-for-fun kind of flyer (4), keep it simple - Spend your money on avgas and things that help you as a VFR pilot.

If you don't fly in Canada/Mexico/Alaska, ditch the ADF. It is the heaviest piece of avionics you have, by far, and utterly obsolete. Even 23 years ago when I was learning to fly, the local DPE said "The only thing the ADF is good for is listening to ballgames and counting landings." And if you want to listen to the ballgame, just stay home.

Finally, I'll throw a few ideas out there:

GPS: I wholeheartedly agree with those recommending the GNX375. It gives you a color moving map GPS, ADS-B In/Out transponder, traffic and weather both on its own screen and on your iPad in ForeFlight or Garmin Pilot. It's an awful lot of the modernization of aviation since your plane was built all wrapped up into one box.

Nav/Com radios: If you're going the low-budget route, you can keep what you've got if you like them and you're happy with how they're working right now. Another possibility would be to upgrade to a GPS/Nav/Com like the GTN 650Xi, keep one of your radios as the #2, and keep the other one on the shelf in case the one you leave in the plane goes bad. Keep in mind that doing this instead of the GNX 375 will mean you'll want a separate ADS-B transponder such as the GTX 345, so the extra cost of the 650Xi isn't the only cost changing. Also, whatever you do, if you're going to keep either or both of the old radios, ensure that a good component-level avionics tech gets in there and replaces any electrolytic capacitors, otherwise they can leak acid and wreck other components and make the radio unserviceable.

DG: The GI 275 is very nice and fits in the existing hole and keeps the classic look for the panel. It also works well with the other Garmin stuff, and you'll be able to use it as an HSI and have navigation information from the GPS. Unfortunately it is not compatible with those nav radios (presuming those are the ones that are Cessna ARC guts with the flip-flop digital faceplate) - The 275 *can* do nav from a few Collins and Bendix/King radios so if I'm mistaken on what you have there maybe you can do both.

AI: I have a GI275 AI, and after flying with it the first time my only regret was that I didn't get two of them! If you do get two, you can ditch your vacuum system. Also, if you have the AI, it legally functions as primary for all of your instruments, so if any of the four remaining ones (airspeed, altimeter, VSI, turn coordinator) fail away from home you can still get home after disabling and placarding the inop instrument. This is one of the big differences between the GI275 and the G5 (which still requires all of your existing instruments to be installed and functioning).

Engine monitor: You may want to consider an engine monitor that legally replaces your existing gauges (GI 275, JPI EDM-900 series, EI CGR-30P). Some Cessnas of roughly that vintage used gauges that did their measuring right there behind the panel - Meaning that you may have an oil line coming from the engine into the cockpit. If that is the case on your plane, you may want to get rid of it. I personally don't want any more fuel or oil lines in or near the cockpit than absolutely necessary!

Audio Panel: I see you have the ancient KMA20 and then a separate intercom. OK if they work, but "while we're in there" it might be a good time to consider a modern replacement.
 
Location is Hudson river valley. I'm sure I'm missing some, but from the notes in front of me: Not capable already for just ILS via plain VOR is ALB, Burlinton, Plattsburgh, SLK, RUT. Of those, ALB and Burlington are OK with radar, the rest need DME. GLF and Schenectady are ILS's that require ADF if no GPS. Stewart and POU can do ILS with 2 VORs. There just aren't enough VORs around here that are still working. Not to slide off topic, but MON is just pretending that a lack of budget and planning is an actual plan.
Why the focus on ILS? TBH, I have not flown a single ILS approach since I got a WAAS GPS installed in my plane.

Looking at the airports you have specified:

ALB 1 and 19, BTV 15, GFL 1, and SWF 9 all have LPV approaches with identical minimums to the same runway's ILS.
BTV 33 and RUT 19 have LPV approaches with *better* minimums than the ILS.
BTV 1, PBG 17, SCH 22 and 28, and SWF 34 have LPV and *no* ILS.
SLK 5 and 9, RUT 1, and SCH 10 have LP and no ILS.
GFL 12, 19, and 30, SWF 16, and POU 24 have LNAV and no ILS.

PBG 35, SLK 23, SCH 4, and POU 6 have LPV with mins 50 feet (or less, for POU) higher than the ILS. This was the initial standard for LPV, so they may get the lower mins once they're revised.
SWF 27 is the only runway where the GPS situation is significantly worse than ILS: 719-1 for the ILS, but the best you can do on GPS is LNAV to 1000-1. Odd.

So, that's 9 airports that have ILS approaches to 12 runways. They have GPS approaches to 26 runways... And of the 12 ILS runways, 7 of them have the same or better minimums using the GPS approach and 4 more have minimums within 50 feet of the ILS. Of the 14 runways that don't have an ILS, 5 have LPV while 9 would have only advisory vertical guidance - But still vertical guidance.

So why do we bother focusing on ILS? The whole point of GPS was to get lots more approaches to lower minimums at more airports and to get rid of the wide variety of odd approaches, and it has been wildly successful.

If OP is someplace flat, and they actually have VORs that work in their area and that's where they fly, then getting rid of ADF might make perfect sense.
OP is in Indiana... And it doesn't get much flatter than that.
 
For GFL, it's tagged on the plate I just downloaded as required, but it only looks like it's required for the missed not the approach itself, and there's an alternative missed that uses a VOR. And you're right, running a flight brief to both it and SCH, both NDB's are tagged out of service.

I knew GBR and some other NDBs that were local were gone, but it looks like more than I thought, in addition to the VORs. Maybe nothing is left in the area.

OP - sorry for the distraction!
Yeah, NDBs are going away regularly. ILS approaches don’t really need NDB OMs. There’s like 160 NDB approaches that are left, and I have no idea how many of those are functional, let alone used. And with DME disappearing from aircraft, even ILS approaches are growing RNAV features.

I understand your comment about MON and it definitely sometimes looks that way. But MON is really supposed to be “minimal.” At least one airport within 100 NM with an ILS, LOC, or VOR approach that (a propos equipment needs) does not require GPS, DME, ADF, or radar.
 
Why the focus on ILS? TBH, I have not flown a single ILS approach since I got a WAAS GPS installed in my plane.
In my discussion with @Albany Tom, I’m pretty sure he is referring to backup in case of GPS failure. Primary for that is really ILS approaches.

I don’t fly ILS anymore either, except for practice, or the odd situation where it makes more sense to me. And I almost always include one for an IPC.
 
Any particular reason for the GI275 instead of G5 or AV30C?

BTW, I too think the the GNX375 is worth the additional spend.
I like the round hole of the 275 vs the G5 and based on the price to install the avionics shop quoted I don't think they wanted to do the AV30?
 
Why the focus on ILS? TBH, I have not flown a single ILS approach since I got a WAAS GPS installed in my plane.

So why do we bother focusing on ILS? The whole point of GPS was to get lots more approaches to lower minimums at more airports and to get rid of the wide variety of odd approaches, and it has been wildly successful.

OP is in Indiana... And it doesn't get much flatter than that.

In my discussion with @Albany Tom, I’m pretty sure he is referring to backup in case of GPS failure. Primary for that is really ILS approaches.

I don’t fly ILS anymore either, except for practice, or the odd situation where it makes more sense to me. And I almost always include one for an IPC.
Yep, backup for GPS, not in the case of a woldwide system failure, but localized jamming/interference, which does happen from time to time.

I love RNAV approaches. They open up instrument approaches to fields that would never have them, and on slightly larger airports to runways that didn't have ILS on all runways. They're usually setup in a very straightforward way, you don't have to cross check VORs, there's no chance of picking up a false glideslope, etc. Lots of reasons they're better, 100%.

There's no reason, though, that ILS and VOR need to go away. The cost of surveying and setting up a VOR has to be very high. But the maintenance cost doesn't need to be.

The run to savings based on GPS reminds me a bit of the concept of "peace dividend". The reward for a time of peace is peace. It's not an invitation to toss out defense spending. Similarly, the reward from GPS approaches are GPS approaches. Not to cripple the remaining functional and backup navigation system. But I'm rambling about logic and a federally run system, and way off topic from the thread.

Back to that thread, though, given that NDBs are going extinct, and OP is in a land where multiple VORs are available, I'd change my mind and put the GPS there. I'd probably still go with a combined GPS/NAV/COM, though, if for nothing else simplicity and reliability of a single unit. That may lead to a bigger screen, and replacing ADF plus the top existin NAV/COM radio.
 
Yep, backup for GPS, not in the case of a woldwide system failure, but localized jamming/interference, which does happen from time to time.
It does happen fairly often, but it's seemingly in the same handful of locations over and over. I'm guessing that maybe Fort Drum is one of them?

I wouldn't completely get rid of VOR/ILS capability either at this point, but I'm strongly considering turning my second Nav/Com into a GPS/Com at the next upgrade and going down to a single nav radio... And I already ditched the NDB.

There's no reason, though, that ILS and VOR need to go away. The cost of surveying and setting up a VOR has to be very high. But the maintenance cost doesn't need to be.
You wouldn't think... But I have heard that the cost to maintain a single ILS is around a million dollars per year. VORs aren't that different... Cantankerous old analog electronics!

I do wish the E-LORAN had become a thing. IMO it would have made a much better backup to GPS.

Back to that thread, though, given that NDBs are going extinct, and OP is in a land where multiple VORs are available, I'd change my mind and put the GPS there. I'd probably still go with a combined GPS/NAV/COM, though, if for nothing else simplicity and reliability of a single unit. That may lead to a bigger screen, and replacing ADF plus the top existin NAV/COM radio.
Yep... And in the case that the OP wants good solid IFR capability, that's not a bad way to go. For VFR, though, I think it'd be fine to ditch both the NDB and the #1 Nav/Com and install a GNX 375 and drop down to a single Nav.
 
You wouldn't think... But I have heard that the cost to maintain a single ILS is around a million dollars per year. VORs aren't that different..
I wonder about that You may be right but I would expect periodic maintenance and testing of something with enough vertical and lateral guidance precision to get us 200’ above a runway perfectly aligned with it to cost a little more than something that we don’t worry about being 4 to 6°off in our receivers and that was last aligned with magnetic in 1965.
 
Last edited:
FWIW - I’m finding around here ILS is much less reliable than GPS. That is, more likely to be out of service, down for maintenance vs RVAV approaches.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top