Most probably again due to the insurmoutable certification hurdles,
I never believe that when I hear it (quite often – the oldest excuse).
I looked at doing a COM/NAV radio as a product, maybe 10 years ago. Using modern digital technology, probably implemented in FPGAs. And with interchangeable back ends and external boxes, to replace various radios. And sealed to IP68 to protect the electronics for planes parked outdoors.
It would have taken me, working alone as I have mostly done, about a year, and that is starting from a very low base of knowledge in that area.
Most likely the company lost most or all devs (the best people always jump ship first) and lost direction, maybe due to ageing management. In the end they missed the main window of opportunity…
The other thing is that a KX165A/8.33 is still available, possibly even brand new.
which have failed just about any other manufacturer at least once in the past
No; it is just a handy excuse, well supported by the media. Like manufacturers spending half their income on product liability insurance, which was never true, not even remotely near. I challenged people to find evidence in company accounts. Silence…
The real reason is that most electronics people working in the GA product sphere are simply not very good. It’s a CV killer to work in a company where you knock up one product every few years. So after a few years of this all that is left is old codgers counting days to their pensions. That is today’s Bendix-King, and probably most others. The good stuff came out of firms where the owner was a product designer so he enjoyed the job, perhaps working with 1 or 2 others who had a shareholding.
LeSving wrote:
Which is the heart of the issue. Making relatively cheap niche products for people who might (or might not) buy it – But only if it’s perceived as cheap enough. That’s simply not a good business plan.
Let’s take the SL30. When that was available, it was sold for about 4k – adjusted for inflation, it’s about 5k. Now, the GNC255A retails for pretty much the same price – 5k. The GTR 225A costs around 3.5k.
Let’s go to Trig – a low cost supplier of aviation radios. A TY96 costs about 1K less than that; I could also go for a TY91 which costs less than half the price of the GTR255A – 1.6k
But say I want a Nav/Com. The Trig TX57 comes in at 5.5k!!! Why would I pay more than 5k for a Trig TX57 unit which is the “new kid on the block”, rather than buying the GNC 255A? I’ve flown aircraft equipped with Garmin and Trig radios – the display of the GNC 255A is more aesthetically pleasing, the control layout more intuitive. Therefore the TX57 is hardly a “cheaper alternative” – what they did was design it as an SL30 or KX155A alternative – but price it at a level similar to the GNC255A.
Knowing the TY91 is sold for half the price of the GTR225A, I’d have hoped for something around 3.5k for a cheap Nav/com – not something which costs the same as Garmin’s product. I’m actually left wondering whether Trig has a marketing guy sitting around somewhere who’s been asked to determine why no-one is buying their TX57 – not a difficult question to answer when in Europe they offer no real benefits, financial or performance wise, over the Garmin????
Steve6443 wrote:
But say I want a Nav/Com. The Trig TX57 comes in at 5.5k!!! Why would I pay more than 5k for a Trig TX57 unit which is the “new kid on the block”, rather than buying the GNC 255A?
TX57 is a more expensive 16 W output power version, and even that one is sold cheaper than GNC255A by some retailers. TX56 (10 W output) is quite a bit cheaper.
The thing is not so much the unit price but installation cost. If you can cut that by doing slide in replacement, no wiring changes, the unit itself can be more expensive even than a competing one as installation cost usually is 1:1 with the unit prices.
So the question remains, why has nobody picked up on a unit which slides in into the most popular NAV-COM Slot in recent aviation history and which must be replaced in Europe by the tens of thousands?
Steve6443 wrote:
The Trig TX57 comes in at 5.5k!!! Why would I pay more than 5k for a Trig TX57 unit which is the “new kid on the block”, rather than buying the GNC 255A?
From the Trigg website:
Trig’s Nav/Com product family includes the TX56, with a 10-Watt transmitter. The TX57 is a higher powered 16-Watt version for 28-volt aircraft. Both radios feature 8.33kHz channel spacing. The price of the TX56 is € 4,100 and the TX57 is € 4,700.
So unless you are 28 V you can use the TT56 which is 4100 Euros.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
So unless you are 28 V you can use the TT56 which is 4100 Euros.
You can use the TX56 with a 28V aircraft. The text on the website means that the TX57 must be powered with 28V. In fact the specifications says the the TX56 can be powered with 11-33V, while the TX57 needs 22-33V.
So the question remains, why has nobody picked up on a unit which slides in into the most popular NAV-COM Slot in recent aviation history and which must be replaced in Europe by the tens of thousands?
My guess would be that nobody thinks it’s a market of that volume, US manufacturers aren’t interested in a Europe-only product that’s the product of unclear local regulation, and that for European manufacturers whatever size that 8.33-direct replacement nav/com market appears to be, it’ll be addressed anyway by people over time upgrading their nav/coms to GPS/coms for VFR, or more elaborate upgrade packages for IFR. Those also require database upgrades that they can sell for a long time. Avionics manufacturers are more interested in upselling the market and building dependency than anything else.
I was out flying on Thursday afternoon and decided to check if my Narco 824 nav radio still works… it does, including all segments of the display, and the calibration still seems to be pretty good. I had not turned it on since 2018.
Airborne_Again wrote:
You can use the TX56 with a 28V aircraft.
Ok, perfect. So the TX56 is the choice for most of GA then, unless you need the stronger transmitter.
Silvaire wrote:
My guess would be that nobody thinks it’s a market of that volume
Basically it is the same kind of market which existed when the KX170/175 got slide in replacements by the company which now folded, but sold obviously enough to carry on for 20 years or how long? Then, lots of people wanted to replace what must at the time have been the most popular Nav/COM with something digital and go to 760 channels which fit the existing rack.
Well, the KX155 series is the direct successor. There are tens of thousands out there, most probably more than the previous series, all over the world. Ok, in the US, 8.33 is not (yet) an issue, but it will be one day probably. In Europe hoewver, there were again huge quantities of KX155/165’s in use when the 8.33 regulation came.
So anyone who would have been in position to sell a slide in replacement would have had a guaranteed market. But they all were asleep over it or simply did not care.
Changing out a NAV – Com with a new tray and different connectors is a pretty hefty work which, at least in Europe, will land you with a 2-3k bill. Let alone integrating a GTN or GNS device.
When the TT33 transponder came out as a direct slide in replacement for the KT76A, which was the transponder equivalent for the KX155 in terms of in just how many tens of thousands of airplanes it was installed, it sold like warm bread. Trigg built themselves up as an avionic provider with that stroke of a genius produkt. So everyone was perfectly clear, the next one they will do is the KX155. But alas, they did not. And even more so, they took ages to get their own NavCom out on the market. In fact, I was surprised that it is finally available, I had long given up on it. Also the price is quite disapointing.
By now you are probably right, the train has truely left the station, most KX155 have been replaced and sold to Africa or the US. But it was a huge missed chance.
I did talk to a representative of Trigg before Covid about their Nav-Com and when it was going to be out. He said that it should have been out of the door years ago by then but kept getting pushed back by certification issues and change of standards, which had them go back to the drawing board several times. The complexity of certifying a product like this today is beyond most companies financial capabilities. Clearly, this does not explain why they at least now that it is out did not make it compatible to the KX155 tray. I’d have bought one right the day it became available, as I need to replace my KX155 in order to become legal again.
Where you are right however is that most people will in this situation grab an old GNS430 or similar which has 8.33 and simply throw that in there and get the GNS capability as a bonus. They are roughly equally priced, even though you do get an old box for the same money than a new one. Or they will shell out $$$$$ and get a GTN or similar. Most I’ve seen put one of Trigg’s or other people’s 8.33 boxes into a vacant round hole in their instrument panel instead and leave the old KX155 in place as a 2ndary NAV and emergency transmitter.
Silvaire wrote:
the product of unclear local regulation
The move to 8.33 was really unnecessary, but the “local regulation” is by no means unclear. (It is also not more “local” than most FAA regulations.)
8.33 came along wholly because the European CAAs could not agree a common frequency allocation, due to national sovereignity issues and CAA turf wars.
Ok, in the US, 8.33 is not (yet) an issue, but it will be one day probably.
It is not an issue in the entire world except Europe and never will be. 760 channels is plenty enough unless small adjacent countries want to do their own frequency allocation, instead of cooperating.
