New Transponder Comparison Table

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I have recently had several inquiries for information comparing the new Trig
TT21 to the Becker ATC 4401. I have created a comparison table here:
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/transponders.htm#Transponder_Comparison_Table

Let me know if you have any suggestions for improving it.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

[jcarlyle]

Hi, Paul,

Very nice initial effort on the comparison table. One thing - while
you do make it clear that the Trig has a built-in encoder, and you
make clear that those transponders without encoders cost more when you
consider the encoder, you do not show the added current draw that an
encoder will add to the transponder system. Your current figures,
standby and typical, are for the transponder alone. Considering that
an ACK A-30 encoder will draw at least 0.1 amps, and can go as high as
0.4 amps, when you add those to the Becker current figures you can see
just how efficient the Trig TT21 is as a transponder system.

-John

On Sep 11, 11:47 pm, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have recently had several inquiries for information comparing the new Trig
> TT21 to the Becker ATC 4401. I have created a comparison table here:http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/transponders.htm#Transponder_Compariso...
>
> Let me know if you have any suggestions for improving it.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Paul Remde
> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

[cernauta]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:47:50 -0500, "Paul Remde" >
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I have recently had several inquiries for information comparing the new Trig
>TT21 to the Becker ATC 4401. I have created a comparison table here:
>http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/transponders.htm#Transponder_Comparison_Table

The factory brochure
http://www.trig-avionics.com/library/tt21brochure.pdf
indicates that this Class 2 Transponder complies with the European
rules for "flying below 15.000 ft". Was it certified for flying up to
35.000 ft in the US? Lucky guys...

thanks

Aldo Cernezzi

[jcarlyle]

Don't know European rules, but the Trig TT21 installation manual says
in Table 3.1 that the altitude is 35,000 feet.

-John

On Sep 12, 8:08 am, cernauta > wrote:
> The factory brochurehttp://www.trig-avionics.com/library/tt21brochure.pdf
> indicates that this Class 2 Transponder complies with the European
> rules for "flying below 15.000 ft". Was it certified for flying up to
> 35.000 ft in the US? Lucky guys...

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

That is an interesting point. I wonder if Trig will update the manual with
changes to the maximum altitude when the first batch of units destined for
the US (after receiving US approvals) ships.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

"jcarlyle" > wrote in message
...
> Don't know European rules, but the Trig TT21 installation manual says
> in Table 3.1 that the altitude is 35,000 feet.
>
> -John
>
> On Sep 12, 8:08 am, cernauta > wrote:
>> The factory brochurehttp://www.trig-avionics.com/library/tt21brochure.pdf
>> indicates that this Class 2 Transponder complies with the European
>> rules for "flying below 15.000 ft". Was it certified for flying up to
>> 35.000 ft in the US? Lucky guys...

[Paul Remde]

Hi John,

Thanks for the very nice tip. I hadn't thought of adding the altitude
encoder current. It does make the TT21 even more attractive. I will add
that to my comparison table.

When including the current for the altitude encoder the TT21 uses less than
half the current. Wow!

Best Regards,

Paul Remde

"jcarlyle" > wrote in message
...
> Hi, Paul,
>
> Very nice initial effort on the comparison table. One thing - while
> you do make it clear that the Trig has a built-in encoder, and you
> make clear that those transponders without encoders cost more when you
> consider the encoder, you do not show the added current draw that an
> encoder will add to the transponder system. Your current figures,
> standby and typical, are for the transponder alone. Considering that
> an ACK A-30 encoder will draw at least 0.1 amps, and can go as high as
> 0.4 amps, when you add those to the Becker current figures you can see
> just how efficient the Trig TT21 is as a transponder system.
>
> -John
>
> On Sep 11, 11:47 pm, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have recently had several inquiries for information comparing the new
>> Trig
>> TT21 to the Becker ATC 4401. I have created a comparison table
>> here:http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/transponders.htm#Transponder_Compariso...
>>
>> Let me know if you have any suggestions for improving it.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Paul Remde
>> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 12, 6:49*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> That is an interesting point. *I wonder if Trig will update the manual with
> changes to the maximum altitude when the first batch of units destined for
> the US (after receiving US approvals) ships.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Paul Remde
> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> "jcarlyle" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Don't know European rules, but the Trig TT21 installation manual says
> > in Table 3.1 that the altitude is 35,000 feet.
>
> > -John
>
> > On Sep 12, 8:08 am, cernauta > wrote:
> >> The factory brochurehttp://www.trig-avionics.com/library/tt21brochure.pdf
> >> indicates that this Class 2 Transponder complies with the European
> >> rules for "flying below 15.000 ft". Was it certified for flying up to
> >> 35.000 ft in the US? Lucky guys...

Unless I am missing something the TT21 is a "Class 2 Level 2"
transponder. The Class 2 part that means it is technically limited to
15,000' and VFR. With 130W nominal (**at the connector**) these
transponders are clearly not intended to meet the 125W ERP (Effective
Radiated Power) requirement requirement for Class 1 (above 15,000'
use).

It is anybody's guess what the "Altitude 35,000'" in the spec tables
in the documentation is supposed to mean. It is an sloppily written
spec, either way is it "Maximum Altitude?" Maximum for what? It could
be the maximum operating altitude of the electronics, ignoring the
transponder is technically not certified for use above 15,000'. It
could be the maximum range of the altitude encoder. It is anybody's
guess what it means.

This certified altitude Class 1 vs. Class 2 issue has been discussed
here before, it is something that should not be driving decisions
IMNSHO. The important thing is to install and use a transponder in
areas of high traffic/mixed jet traffic (like around Reno) and the
Trigg TT21 looks an excellent choice.

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 12, 9:12*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 6:49*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > That is an interesting point. *I wonder if Trig will update the manual with
> > changes to the maximum altitude when the first batch of units destined for
> > the US (after receiving US approvals) ships.
>
> > Best Regards,
>
> > Paul Remde
> > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> > "jcarlyle" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> > > Don't know European rules, but the Trig TT21 installation manual says
> > > in Table 3.1 that the altitude is 35,000 feet.
>
> > > -John
>
> > > On Sep 12, 8:08 am, cernauta > wrote:
> > >> The factory brochurehttp://www.trig-avionics.com/library/tt21brochure.pdf
> > >> indicates that this Class 2 Transponder complies with the European
> > >> rules for "flying below 15.000 ft". Was it certified for flying up to
> > >> 35.000 ft in the US? Lucky guys...
>
> Unless I am missing something the TT21 is a "Class 2 Level 2"
> transponder. The Class 2 part that means it is technically limited to
> 15,000' and VFR. With 130W nominal (**at the connector**) these
> transponders are clearly not intended to meet the 125W ERP (Effective
> Radiated Power) requirement requirement for Class 1 (above 15,000'
> use).
>
> It is anybody's guess what the "Altitude 35,000'" in the spec tables
> in the documentation is supposed to mean. It is an sloppily written
> spec, either way is it "Maximum Altitude?" Maximum for what? It could
> be the maximum operating altitude of the electronics, ignoring the
> transponder is technically not certified for use above 15,000'. It
> could be the maximum range of the altitude encoder. It is anybody's
> guess what it means.
>
> This certified altitude Class 1 vs. Class 2 issue has been discussed
> here before, it is *something that should not be driving decisions
> IMNSHO. The important thing is to install and use a transponder in
> areas of high traffic/mixed jet traffic (like around Reno) and the
> Trigg TT21 looks an excellent choice.
>
> Darryl

Oops I should have said 125 W peak power not ERP.

Darryl

[Andy Melville[_2_]]

As a very uneducated pilot,following Paul Remdes suggestions, I was
considering buying a Transponder mode S but then various people said local
airports didnt have mode S yet so it woulld be a waste of time for some
time to come..is this true?
If I buy mode S can it be accessed/ used by the current systems?
Some easy to understand stuff would be most welcome!
Regards from UK


At 16:36 12 September 2009, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>On Sep 12, 9:12=A0am, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 6:49=A0am, "Paul Remde" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Hi,
>>
>> > That is an interesting point. =A0I wonder if Trig will update the
>manua=
>l with
>> > changes to the maximum altitude when the first batch of units
destined
>=
>for
>> > the US (after receiving US approvals) ships.
>>
>> > Best Regards,
>>
>> > Paul Remde
>> > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>>
>> > "jcarlyle" wrote in message
>>
>>
..=
>..
>>
>> > > Don't know European rules, but the Trig TT21 installation manual
>says
>> > > in Table 3.1 that the altitude is 35,000 feet.
>>
>> > > -John
>>
>> > > On Sep 12, 8:08 am, cernauta wrote:
>> > >> The factory
>brochurehttp://www.trig-avionics.com/library/tt21brochur=
>e.pdf
>> > >> indicates that this Class 2 Transponder complies with the
European
>> > >> rules for "flying below 15.000 ft". Was it certified for flying
up
>t=
>o
>> > >> 35.000 ft in the US? Lucky guys...
>>
>> Unless I am missing something the TT21 is a "Class 2 Level 2"
>> transponder. The Class 2 part that means it is technically limited to
>> 15,000' and VFR. With 130W nominal (**at the connector**) these
>> transponders are clearly not intended to meet the 125W ERP (Effective
>> Radiated Power) requirement requirement for Class 1 (above 15,000'
>> use).
>>
>> It is anybody's guess what the "Altitude 35,000'" in the spec
tables
>> in the documentation is supposed to mean. It is an sloppily written
>> spec, either way is it "Maximum Altitude?" Maximum for what? It
could
>> be the maximum operating altitude of the electronics, ignoring the
>> transponder is technically not certified for use above 15,000'. It
>> could be the maximum range of the altitude encoder. It is anybody's
>> guess what it means.
>>
>> This certified altitude Class 1 vs. Class 2 issue has been discussed
>> here before, it is =A0something that should not be driving decisions
>> IMNSHO. The important thing is to install and use a transponder in
>> areas of high traffic/mixed jet traffic (like around Reno) and the
>> Trigg TT21 looks an excellent choice.
>>
>> Darryl
>
>Oops I should have said 125 W peak power not ERP.
>
>Darryl
>

[Mark Dickson[_2_]]

If you are thinking of buying a transponder, Paul, you should buy a mode S
transponder. You are correct that a lot of the ATC units you may contact
will not be Mode S equipped, but they will still recieve the mode A and
mode C (4 digit assigned code and altitude). Buying a non-mode S
transponder would be a waste of money, as you will need it to enter
certain areas and types of airspace in the UK. A transponder mandatory
zone means a mode S transponder mandatory zone.

At 19:15 12 September 2009, Andy Melville wrote:
>As a very uneducated pilot,following Paul Remdes suggestions, I was
>considering buying a Transponder mode S but then various people said
local
>airports didnt have mode S yet so it woulld be a waste of time for some
>time to come..is this true?
>If I buy mode S can it be accessed/ used by the current systems?
>Some easy to understand stuff would be most welcome!
>Regards from UK

[Surfer!]

In message >, Mark Dickson
> writes
>If you are thinking of buying a transponder, Paul, you should buy a mode S
>transponder. You are correct that a lot of the ATC units you may contact
>will not be Mode S equipped, but they will still recieve the mode A and
>mode C (4 digit assigned code and altitude). Buying a non-mode S
>transponder would be a waste of money, as you will need it to enter
>certain areas and types of airspace in the UK. A transponder mandatory
>zone means a mode S transponder mandatory zone.

Suspect (but am not sure) that all new transponder installations in the
UK must be mode S.


>
>At 19:15 12 September 2009, Andy Melville wrote:
>>As a very uneducated pilot,following Paul Remdes suggestions, I was
>>considering buying a Transponder mode S but then various people said
>local
>>airports didnt have mode S yet so it woulld be a waste of time for some
>>time to come..is this true?
>>If I buy mode S can it be accessed/ used by the current systems?
>>Some easy to understand stuff would be most welcome!
>>Regards from UK
>

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

“ . . . in the UK. A transponder mandatory zone means a mode S
transponder mandatory zone. “

Wrong, at least for the new Stansted TMZ’s:

“ . . . access is permitted to any aircraft which is operating a fully
functioning pressure altitude reporting transponder in accordance with
the CAA’s TMZ Policy Statement or to those aircraft which the aircraft
commander has obtained permission from the air traffic control unit at
Stansted Airport, Farnborough Radar, or Essex Radar, as may be
appropriate, to enter the restricted airspace.”

So it needs Mode C, not necessarily Mode S, thought the latter also
incorporates mode C.

However, for new installations, I believe that Surfer is right – new
installations have to mode S.

If not so, no doubt somebody else will be along soon, To clarify.

Chris N.

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

By the way, any UK glider operator proposing to fit a transponder has
to pay attention to EASA requirements, in many cases. As I have
recently written elsewhere:

Most UK gliders are now regulated under EASA, and all modifications
for those must have EASA approval. I am told that instrument panel, or
wiring, or extra battery provision, are all modifications requiring
approved schemes. I understand that BGA is negotiating with CAA to try
to simplify and make practical obtaining such approval, more like how
we used to be able to make technical and safety improvements, with BGA
Technical Committee approval, before EASA and CAA regulated gliders;
but I won’t believe it is possible, seeing how Europe works these
days, until it is done. As far as I know, few if any EASA
modifications to fit transponders, including details of wiring and
battery changes, have been officially approved. A transponder on a
long glider flight is likely to need at least one extra 7 amp hour
battery, maybe more. I have specifically been told that to fit to my
Lak 17A a Trig 2-unit transponder (the only one I am sure will fit),
and an additional battery, needs all that installation to be approved.
The Lak factory has EASA approval to a modification which specifies
antenna, 3 specific models of transponder which do not include the
Trig, and as far as I can see does not provide for any additional
battery nor the wiring changes to feed the remote amplifier unit and a
lead from there to the small control unit in the instrument panel.
EASA thus prevents me from having a transponder. I have no design
authority, nor skills or facilities, to research it, build a prototype
installation, and then conduct whatever ground and flight tests are
required etc., to submit a properly engineered modification scheme for
EASA approval.

[To run Flarm, I use a separate battery, and it is all personal carry-
on equipment. PCAS is self contained, or can use a lead from the same
carry-on battery, so I regard it all as personal equipment. I have, of
course, ensured that it all safely stowed. PCAS and Flarm rest on
Velcro-type strips in top of my instrument panel coaming. Carry-on
transponders do not exist.]

Chris N.

[Mark Dickson[_2_]]

As of 2012 it will be mode S, so not much point in buying anything else.

At 21:06 12 September 2009, Chris Nicholas wrote:
>
>=93 . . . in the UK. A transponder mandatory zone means a mode S
>transponder mandatory zone. =93
>
>Wrong, at least for the new Stansted TMZ=92s:
>
>=93 . . . access is permitted to any aircraft which is operating a fully
>functioning pressure altitude reporting transponder in accordance with
>the CAA=92s TMZ Policy Statement or to those aircraft which the aircraft
>commander has obtained permission from the air traffic control unit at
>Stansted Airport, Farnborough Radar, or Essex Radar, as may be
>appropriate, to enter the restricted airspace.=94
>
>So it needs Mode C, not necessarily Mode S, thought the latter also
>incorporates mode C.
>
>However, for new installations, I believe that Surfer is right =96 new
>installations have to mode S.
>
>If not so, no doubt somebody else will be along soon, To clarify.
>
>Chris N.
>
>

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 12, 2:45*pm, Mark Dickson > wrote:
> As of 2012 it will be mode S, so not much point in buying anything else.
>
> At 21:06 12 September 2009, Chris Nicholas wrote:
>
>
>
> >=93 . . . in the UK. *A transponder mandatory zone means a mode S
> >transponder mandatory zone. =93
>
> >Wrong, at least for the new Stansted TMZ=92s:
>
> >=93 . . . access is permitted to any aircraft which is operating a fully
> >functioning pressure altitude reporting transponder in accordance with
> >the CAA=92s TMZ Policy Statement or to those aircraft which the aircraft
> >commander has obtained permission from the air traffic control unit at
> >Stansted Airport, Farnborough Radar, or Essex Radar, as may be
> >appropriate, to enter the restricted airspace.=94
>
> >So it needs Mode C, not necessarily Mode S, thought the latter also
> >incorporates mode C.
>
> >However, for new installations, I believe that Surfer is right =96 new
> >installations have to mode S.
>
> >If not so, no doubt somebody else will be along soon, To clarify.
>
> >Chris N.

And for USA readers we have much longer to worry about Mode-S type
things, so normally I would have said just install a Mode-C, save some
money and in a decade replace it with Mode-S or whatever. However the
Trig TT-21 is a game changer. You get Mode S/1090ES ADS-B out
capabilities for future possible use and more immediately, it is more
compact, easier to install and uses less power than other options.

So for those folks flying in those high density/fast jet traffic areas
like near Reno, there is even less excuses not to be using a
transponder.

It will be interesting to see how Becker and others respond. Becker's
new more compact VHF radio looks really nice.

Darryl

[Wojciech Scigala]

U¿ytkownik Darryl Ramm napisa³:

> However the
> Trig TT-21 is a game changer. You get Mode S/1090ES ADS-B out
> capabilities for future possible use and more immediately, it is more
> compact, easier to install and uses less power than other options.
Could you confirm that Trig will not work in A/C-only radar environment?

--
Wojtu¶.net

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 13, 2:08*pm, Wojciech Scigala > wrote:
> U¿ytkownik Darryl Ramm napisa³:
>
> > However the
> > Trig TT-21 is a game changer. You get Mode S/1090ES ADS-B out
> > capabilities for future possible use and more immediately, it is more
> > compact, easier to install and uses less power than other options.
>
> Could you confirm that Trig will not work in A/C-only radar environment?
>
> --
> Wojtu¶.net

It is a Mode S transponder. It is compatible with Mode A/C SSR. Think
of Mode S as an enhancement to Mode A/C. It's not an alternate choice.
It really makes no sense to ask if these Mode S transponders support
mode A/C.

Darryl

[Wojciech Scigala]

U¿ytkownik Darryl Ramm napisa³:

> It is a Mode S transponder. It is compatible with Mode A/C SSR. Think
> of Mode S as an enhancement to Mode A/C. It's not an alternate choice.
> It really makes no sense to ask if these Mode S transponders support
> mode A/C.
Paul's comparision table says it's just "Mode S", while Becker 6401 is
"Mode A, A+C, S". Technically it is possible to create a mode-S only
transponder. But I'm not sure if it's legal (certifiable).
If Trig supports A/C, that's good to know!

--
Wojtu¶.net

[John Scott[_2_]]

During my certification testing, the tech initially used a Mode A/C tester
as his Mode S test set was out being calibrated. The TRIG passed all Mode
A/C tests.

John