The International Cessna 170 Association

How many are 170 pilots are actually using thier birds for IFR flight? Here's the reason I'm asking. My plane currently has the following radio set-up:

Narco Mk12D w/ Glideslope
Narco 890 DME
Narco Nav head
Collins audio Panel.

I'm not IFR rated and have no intention of going for the rating. I've given strong consideration to pulling out the Nav/Com, DME and VOR head and replacing all of them with a Garmin SL-40 comm. The SL-40 would basically give me a better radio than the Narco plus the ability to monitor two frequencies at once. Not to mention losing a little bit of weight and gaining some panel space. I currently use a Garmin 296 for navigation (along with a sectional chart) and do not ever use the NAV/DME portion of my stack.

However, if not having the plane equipped with the NAV insturments would hurt furture resale of the plane I do not wish to remove them. Any thoughts?

You have a decent stack. I wouldn't remove any of it regardless of your rating intentions. If you want to be able to monitor another frequency consider an additional com. If you need room for it remove the DME.

Your aircraft with no radios is worth less in most peoples eyes. Just having a com and no nav is better than no radio but having minimum nav equipment is still better.

I know, I know why do you need a VOR nav when you can use a portable GPS which is better. Because!

For one thing you can't get atis or listen to a FSS over a portable GPS.

I wouldn't consider the SL-40 to be a "better" comm than a 12D, personally. The Narco 12D with GS is a CHOICE radio, IMHO. It would be a "downgrade" to go to a comm only, of any brand.
The DME is nice, also, and I wouldn't remove it unless, as Bruce mentions, unless you needed the panel space.
I fly "gentle" IFR with my 170, meaning I don't fly IFR when the ceilings are truly low. Instead, I'll go IFR to get on top, or to get underneath a reasonable ceiling. (I'd never want to lose an engine and not be able to glide down to basic VFR conditions.) I do this with one comm (Narco 810+) and an IFR KLN88 and my Garmin 196. (Remember, I'm not filing a flight plan to fly the airways. I'm usually only getting on top or beneath a layer and that's usually a simple vector.)
I think you have a nice set up. With that set up, (if your static system/altimeter is certified as well and assuming you have a transponder/encoder), avionics-wise, it's a legal IFR airplane. I'd leave it as is.

George, when I go IFR I always file a flight plan- will ATC give you a clearance to go up on top (or back down) with just a radio call ? Or must you file with FSS for a clearance ?
Rudy

If I'm planning to depart in IFR conditions then I also always file a flight plan. But if I'm already enroute and come across conditions that dictate a flight thru clouds to achieve the altitude I want, I simply call 'em up, tell 'em what I want, and they usually just give me a code, identify me, and clear me as requested. When I'm in VFR conditions again, I cancel with them, and that's that. No flight plan is usually required.

Thanks guys. You confirmed what I was thinking - that it would be better to leave things as they are even if I'm not using most of the equipment. My main desire was to be able to monitor another frequency. I'm pretty tight on avionics space (also have a transponder and stereo 4 place intercom) so finding a spot for a 2nd comm is going to be a challenge. Maybe something like the X-com in one of the empty 2 1/4 holes?

George, do they ever give you any static (pun semi-intended) about asking for a "pop-up" IFR clearance? I was under the impression making this a pracice is kinda frowned on by ATC.
Craig, why do you need to monitor two frequencies? About the only time I'd like this ability is when flying as a part of flight of 2 (or whatever) in controlled airspace when it'd be kinda nice to be able to communicate with the rest of the flight. But it's not that critical, we usually "brief" what we're doing-- usually it's just a simple transit into NAS Whidbey's Class C & right back out again 10 or 20 miles later.
Occasionally I'd like to check an ATIS or something while I have radar service in controlled airspace, but I can usually just ask to leave the freq for 2 minutes, no big deal. To me, the ability to monitor a second frequency isn't worth the cost of adding a second radio.
My first airplane (a mighty C-150) had two radio's, I'd occasionally set the "audio panel" (a couple toggle switches) as to listen to them both simultaneously. Only did that a few times-- talk about confusing!

Eric

zero.one.victor wrote: Craig, why do you need to monitor two frequencies? About the only time I'd like this ability is when flying as a part of flight of 2 (or whatever) in controlled airspace when it'd be kinda nice to be able to communicate with the rest of the flight. But it's not that critical, we usually "brief" what we're doing-- usually it's just a simple transit into NAS Whidbey's Class C & right back out again 10 or 20 miles later.
Occasionally I'd like to check an ATIS or something while I have radar service in controlled airspace, but I can usually just ask to leave the freq for 2 minutes, no big deal.

You hit on my two main reasons for wanting another Comm. Yes, you can make due with one radio (I've been doing it for years) but figured since I'll probably have this airplane longer than some of the others I'd set it up like I wanted it. Recently, I've been dropped from flight following when asking to change frequencies to check ATIS or talk to flightwatch.

Craig, it sure is nice to be able to set up several frequencies on a cross country. Dual comms capability is very handy. You can keep a flight following, and get atis, awos, asos, etc, or monitor local area flights. Keep the Nav! If you've never had batteries fail on a handheld, you eventually will. (Those that have and those that will Theory). I personally think anyone flying should get as much IFR training as they can, (at least within reason). Ask any IFR pilot and I would bet to the man they will tell you it makes you a better and safer pilot. Practice with your radios and it will take out the confussion you get while trying to monitor two radios at once. After not flying IFR for about 7 years, I'm having a hoot getting back into it. Challenging, yes, but a good practice day will make you feel good about your flying, and your radio work will be much better. Just my long winded opinion, but keep your radios. Good luck, Jon P.S. Good looking aircraft!

zero.one.victor wrote:George, do they ever give you any static (pun semi-intended) about asking for a "pop-up" IFR clearance? I was under the impression making this a pracice is kinda frowned on by ATC.
Eric

No, but usually I'm only requesting a short-duration clearance when I "pop up",...like ask for a descent or climb to VFR conditions... usually only a couple of thousand feet or less descent/climb. I never request an IFR clearance to a destination via "pop up". I always file with FSS or DUAT before asking for IFR all the way to destination, with the possible exception of asking for a pop up approach clearance.
By the way.... one habit I have developed over the years is to file an IFR flight plan even when I intend to go VFR and do not plan to ever request a clearance. That way, if along the route I change my mind,...it's a simple matter to call and get a clearance because I'm already "on file".

CraigH wrote:Thanks guys. You confirmed what I was thinking - that it would be better to leave things as they are even if I'm not using most of the equipment. My main desire was to be able to monitor another frequency. I'm pretty tight on avionics space (also have a transponder and stereo 4 place intercom) so finding a spot for a 2nd comm is going to be a challenge. Maybe something like the X-com in one of the empty 2 1/4 holes?

For a cheap second nav/comm consider a hand-held. When I had my KX-155 and audio panel installed, I had the installer fabricate and install an interface panel with BNC antenna connections and behind-the-panel wiring to the Comm2 input on the audio panel. One antenna connection is a dedicated simple rod-type comm antenna on top of the airplane, and the other is from a splitter on the existing NAV antenna. Also included are jacks for the mic and phone connections. The interface is mounted in the lower left instrument hole in the instrument panel. I mounted a sheet metal angle the same width as the handheld at about 45 degrees to level in place of the pilot's ashtray, and use the belt clip on my KX-99 to secure it to the angle.

I don't know about other handhelds, but the KX-99 can be charged straight from aircraft power (no special adapter). I use about a foot of RG-58 cable for the antenna connection on the interface panel. I have one adapter cable to connect the handheld mic and phones interface, and keep another adapter in the glove box to direct connect the headset and PTT so I have backup nav/comm if ship's power fails. Comm range is at least 50 miles with the dedicated antenna, and VOR checks show the VOR to consistently be 1 degree better than the KX-155, although the display is not quite as easy to read.

Like the others have said, having a second radio is handy for grabbing ATIS without having to leave the ATC freq. I also used to use it to track off-course VORs to help out with positional awareness. These days, I mostly use it to guard 121.5 as we are all supposed to do, if able.

Miles