New small transponder

This is the article from the EAA newsletter:

http://www.ksallink.com/?cmd=display...13&format=html

This is the manufacturer:

http://www.aaicorp.com

Wonder if they might consider adapting this thing to gliders?

On Mar 3, 8:28*pm, Dave White wrote:
This is the article from the EAA newsletter:

http://www.ksallink.com/?cmd=display...13&format=html

This is the manufacturer:

http://www.aaicorp.com

Wonder if they might consider adapting this thing to gliders?

Manufacturer link is actually: http://sagetechcorp.com/

Nope...the market is too small. I asked them at a trade show. It's
meant for UAVs. That market is small, too, in terms of volume, but
they can charge a lot...UAV makers are less price sensitive than
glider owners.

Other than a few thousand dollars, what's the difference between their
"conventional manned installation" and "adapted to gliders"?
Jim

On 3/3/2011 5:28 PM, Dave White wrote:
This is the article from the EAA newsletter:

http://www.ksallink.com/?cmd=display...13&format=html

This is the manufacturer:

http://www.aaicorp.com

Wonder if they might consider adapting this thing to gliders?

Pro: the "power box" is about half the thickness of a Trig power box.

Cons: The power consumption is greater than a Trig according to their
data sheet, it's not TSO'd.

It would have to be several hundred dollars cheaper the Trig than to
appeal to me enough to dump my Becker, based on those pros/cons.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

At 02:42 04 March 2011, JS wrote:
This looks a lot like the Trig 21 which I have had fitted in a powered
plane for about 18 months and am very happy with.

http://www.trig-avionics.com/library/TT2xBrochure.pdf

This link should take you to their website.



Other than a few thousand dollars, what's the difference between their
"conventional manned installation" and "adapted to gliders"?
Jim

Am 04.03.11 13:01, schrieb Nigel Cottrell:
This looks a lot like the Trig 21 which I have had fitted in a powered
plane for about 18 months and am very happy with.

http://www.trig-avionics.com/library/TT2xBrochure.pdf

The TT21 is a class 2 transponder and therefore *not* suited for
gliders. If you choose to go with Trig, then do yourself a favour and
buy the TT22.

On Mar 4, 6:49*am, John Smith wrote:

The TT21 is a class 2 transponder and therefore *not* suited for
gliders. If you choose to go with Trig, then do yourself a favour and
buy the TT22.

Please explain your reasoning for this statement. This seems to be a
minority view, at least in the US.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

On Mar 4, 5:51*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:
On Mar 4, 6:49*am, John Smith wrote:



The TT21 is a class 2 transponder and therefore *not* suited for
gliders. If you choose to go with Trig, then do yourself a favour and
buy the TT22.

Please explain your reasoning for this statement. This seems to be a
minority view, at least in the US.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

Class 2 is only 'legal' to 15,000 feet. The extra wattage of a class 1
is 'legally' required to fly above 15,000. Frankly it doesn't make any
sense to me. In my limited experience, the higher you are, the
greater the range of your RF device.

On Mar 4, 4:49*am, John Smith wrote:
Am 04.03.11 13:01, schrieb Nigel Cottrell:

This looks a lot like the Trig 21 which I have had fitted in a powered
plane for about 18 months and am very happy with.

http://www.trig-avionics.com/library/TT2xBrochure.pdf

The TT21 is a class 2 transponder and therefore *not* suited for
gliders. If you choose to go with Trig, then do yourself a favour and
buy the TT22.

The TT21 is very suitable for gliders. Its being installed in many
gliders in the USA and I expect elsewhere. The issue between class 1
and 2 transponders comes down to a fairly meaningless difference in
output power when you compare 15,000' vs. the maximum altitude we
typically fly at. If the difference in price between say a TT21 and
TT22 puts anybody off who should otherwise be installing a transponder
please install the TT21

Darryl