Is there a business opportunity in avionics for homebuilts?

Peter wrote:

And the in-CAS profile of RVs and Lancairs at resasonably high altitudes (where a TXP would be mandatory) is very close to zero, too

I think that has zero to do with the fact of beeing homebuilts. How many of them are not equipped with a Transponder. There’s absolute no reason for them to stay outside CAS – other than they do not WANT to enter.

Peter wrote:

So this may be an interesting area to look at: IFR

There is no need for any VOR/ADF etc to be certified, unless the airspace require it (RNAV). There are a few (one?) non certified VOR’s available. But IFR capable aircraft usually have the space and weight for all this, and very few skimps on avionics equipment in a IFR capable aircraft. They all get at least one certified Garmin GPS. VOR antenna is a couple of hundred dollars and weighs nothing.

What I meant was a simple and light system for VFR. I mean, a fully digital compact little VOR radio designed with modern electronics and an interface to EFIS or a small stand alone and light digital display, how hard can that be? In the “old” days, VOR and in particular ADF were used when flying VFR. Modern light VFR aircraft have none of this, they have “Skydemon” instead. A VOR/ADF backup would be very nice, but it cannot be some old, heavy and bulky antiques from e-bay. It has to be compact and light.

I think there are two quite distinct types of experimental/homebuilt aircraft.

Firstly, there are the very capable well-equipped cross-country types, a market which is now largely dominated by the RV series. In the USA this group of aircraft are commonly IFR certified and the trend over the last few years has been to fit the sophisticated integrated glass instruments and avionics systems. These aircraft also exist in Europe but in lesser numbers (I have one) and they are also commonly fitted with such integrated systems; however, they do not currently fly IFR for obvious reasons, despite being capable.

Then there are the LSA/lightweight/simple/vintage type aircraft. These make up a very large proportion of the UK LAA fleet and they are likely to remain day VFR even if the regulations change because its a different scene and the owners have little interest in IFR flying.

Any new product aimed at the experimental/homebuilt market has to be either directly aimed at one of these groups or be so good that it appeals to both. The only things that the two groups really have to share are a compass, altimeter, ASI and optionally a VHF com and GPS. Anything else is largely superfluous to the second group and most of the first group tend to opt for the sophisticated integrated systems that are well established in the market.

I am not saying the opportunity for new products does not exist but I think it would take a lot of careful thought to come up with something that appeals to both markets that does not already exist in some form. Then to be more attractive it would need to be either very much better or cheaper, preferably both.

If I would try to enter that market, I would start with a GNS430/530 clone. Containing GPS and NAV/GS receivers only and communicating with an external VHF comm box (like one of these for example: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/av/comm_0browse/garminG3X-touch_11-12647.php – TSO’d, but unfortunately not 8,33MHz capable).
I am pretty sure that one could get them made in China for a price, that a sales price of 1000 Euros/Pounds/Dollars would leave a vast profit margin. The homebuilder on the other hand would get a functionally identical “GNSx30” unit for less than 1/5 of the original price (1000 for the box and 1000 for the remote COM).

It may be doable but is it worth doing? I think most people that want to do serious GPS approaches in IMC in experimental aircraft will probably go with the existing certified systems that integrate seamlessly with their current PFD’s. Unless of course the non-certified one had the same functionality and was sold at a much lower price, which I doubt is possible because it would likely take fairly deep pockets to develop such a unit to the required standard that was able to interface with the existing PFD’s on the market.

On the other hand, there may be a market for a small lightweight nav radio designed to fit a 21/4" instrument cut-out, like many of the small com radios on the market. If these units could integrate with any CDI, HSI or glass PFD via an ARINC 429 interface, they could provide a back-up or low cost ILS capability for many aircraft.

There are some handheld radios with VOR feature, I wonder how they do it with the rubber antenna. But then , VORs are disappearing all the time. So I guess no big business here. Vic

Peter wrote:

Jeppesen own all that stuff currently and it seems pretty clear that they would refuse to license it to any non-certified GPS.

They license it to my iPad which is certainly not a certified GPS The problem with a GNS clone will be that the yearly navdata upadate fee will be higher than the purchase cost of the unit itself which is not something users will like.

Regarding fuel computers: That would be an interesting field where a lot could be done. But personally I would be afraid of the legal implications that come with tinkering around the fuel system. If one of your selfmade transducers ever leaks or blocks the fuel flow, every lawyer in the United States will come after you. Even 50 years from now.