Dynon

Dynon

Well Known Member
Advertiser
As you can see in another thread, Advanced Flight Systems now supports the Dynon SV-XPNDR-261 and SV-XPNDR-262 transponders. We're happy to have AFS as a partner in getting these affordable MODE-S transponders with ADS-B OUT to more pilots in the experimental and light sport community.

We would also like to mention that the communication protocol for these transponders is available under NDA to any EFIS manufacturer that would like to use it. Please contact Dynon for more information.

Also, as it will inevitably come up, and already has to some point, the Dynon transponder series is actually a different product than the Trig TT transponders. While Trig is our partner in the transponder business, The Trig transponders use a method of communication which makes them difficult to interface to most experimental EFIS systems. The changes made for the Dynon transponder make them plug and play with most EFIS systems. Thus, you cannot hook a Trig product up to an EFIS that supports the Dynon transponder, with or without the Trig control head.

We look forward to supplying even more people in the homebuilt market with these affordable, compact, lightweight, and highly capable transponders no matter what EFIS they choose.

--Ian Jordan
Dynon Avionics
 
Interesting marketing strategy for Dynon for sure. Will be interesting how this all pans out. Definitely a win for builders as a whole.
 
I'm not sure if you asking about one that works in parallel with a controlling EFIS or just as a standalone transponder.

The Trig TT21 and TT22 transponders are sold with control heads, and have identical features to our transponders. They do not accept remote commands however. We would suggest this option if you just want a small, light transponder with no EFIS connectivity.

We have not considered making a control head ourselves, mainly due to the fact that we haven't heard of any particular customer demand for such a thing. So it's not something we're working on, but never say never if there is a market there.

I am interested, if option #2 is what you were asking about, why would you like a standalone control head in parallel to an EFIS interface?
 
Transponder control head

For use in a tandem cockpit arrangement. One pit with full EFIS and second pit with steam gauges and control head for flight instruction.

Brian

dynonsupport said:
I'm not sure if you asking about one that works in parallel with a controlling EFIS or just as a standalone transponder.

The Trig TT21 and TT22 transponders are sold with control heads, and have identical features to our transponders. They do not accept remote commands however. We would suggest this option if you just want a small, light transponder with no EFIS connectivity.

We have not considered making a control head ourselves, mainly due to the fact that we haven't heard of any particular customer demand for such a thing. So it's not something we're working on, but never say never if there is a market there.

I am interested, if option #2 is what you were asking about, why would you like a standalone control head in parallel to an EFIS interface?
Click to expand...
 
dynonsupport said:
...
I am interested, if option #2 is what you were asking about, why would you like a standalone control head in parallel to an EFIS interface?
Click to expand...

Ian,

I have an Advanced Flight EFIS and Trig standalone transponder... but in that context, I had just brought up this exact same issue on another thread. In summary, I do see a need for (or at least would be very nice to have) the ability for a transponder to have a stand-alone control head in parallel to an EFIS interface. Reason being the convenience and expediency of using the EFIS interface normally, but also still having the the ability to control the transponder directly if the EFIS craps out, as a measure of system fault tolerance. See discussion here:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=96203#4

P.S. I believe that at present the Garmin panel mounted transponders do support that capability (although I elected to go with Trig for other reasons). But it would sure be nice if the Trig - Dynon - Advanced Flight "axis" could support this capability as well.
 
roee said:
Ian,

I have an Advanced Flight EFIS and Trig standalone transponder... but in that context, I had just brought up this exact same issue on another thread. In summary, I do see a need for (or at least would be very nice to have) the ability for a transponder to have a stand-alone control head in parallel to an EFIS interface. Reason being the convenience and expediency of using the EFIS interface normally, but also still having the the ability to control the transponder directly if the EFIS craps out, as a measure of system fault tolerance. See discussion here:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=96203#4

P.S. I believe that at present the Garmin panel mounted transponders do support that capability (although I elected to go with Trig for other reasons). But it would sure be nice if the Trig - Dynon - Advanced Flight "axis" could support this capability as well.
Click to expand...

So if your EFIS becomes non-functional (or both EFISs), you have a bigger issue than changing xponder codes. If you are already squawking a code, then ATC will use that, especially if you notify them of your situation.

However, they really like it if you can squawk ident-- especially if you are in a 'situation'. Hence, I ran the remote ident input to a panel mounted switch in the middle of my switch field. The switch also nicely back-lit for night ops as is the label strip above the switches.

IMG_1435.JPG


A problem I am having with the SV transponder is that it generates interference in the headsets. This is really exacerbated with my DC ANR headset but exists in my older passive set as well. It's even a problem with the headset unplugged completely because the semiconductor junctions in the electronics demodulates the powerful transponder transmissions... even without power applied.

Apparently, however, this is a common problem with mode-S transponders and Cirrus aircraft has unsuccessfully worked on this issue. Their current recommendation is buy new generation headsets!

Not Dynon's fault... solution is to budget for a set of Bose or Lightspeeds! Just send the government the bill!
 
Vern,
We've had good success with blocking headset noise by using coax with better shielding. RG-400 instead of RG-58 if you are not already using it.

Also, to be clear, the transponder stops transmitting if SkyView fails. This is a requirement of certification. Any time the user cannot control the code or mode of the transponder it must stop operating (replying) within 3 seconds. This includes the IDENT button. So if you have only one EFIS and it fails, so does your transponder. If you have multiple SkyViews, then you do have redundancy.
 
dynonsupport said:
So how much would you pay for the standalone control head?
Click to expand...

I can't answer that question exactly as you asked it, because my selection criteria were the opposite in priority. I decided that having a standalone control head was an absolute requirement, and that having EFIS interface integration in addition would be a lower priority nice-to-have.

So the question in my case would be, given that a standalone control head is already there, how much would I be willing to pay for EFIS integration as an additional capability?

I'd be hard pressed to put a hard dollar value on that, but I can say the following. I could have had that capability with a Garmin solution, but the price delta was in the thousands, and that much I wasn't willing to pay (it also wasn't the only deciding factor). But looking at that feature in isolation, if the delta had only been a couple hundred? Maybe. But more likely though, rather than assigning a hard dollar value to that specific capability, it would weigh in as another differentiator in the multi-dimensional trade-off analysis in choosing between competing products.
 
dynonsupport said:
Vern,
We've had good success with blocking headset noise by using coax with better shielding. RG-400 instead of RG-58 if you are not already using it.

Also, to be clear, the transponder stops transmitting if SkyView fails. This is a requirement of certification. Any time the user cannot control the code or mode of the transponder it must stop operating (replying) within 3 seconds. This includes the IDENT button. So if you have only one EFIS and it fails, so does your transponder. If you have multiple SkyViews, then you do have redundancy.
Click to expand...

I'm using RG-400. Some of the interference may be because the testing is inside a metal hangar, so there are uncontrolled reflections. To be clear, the headsets are picking up transmissions from the antenna and don't even need to be plugged into the aircraft! As for the disabling of the transponder when the EFIS fails, the law of unintended consequences applies...

Sometimes you wonder if the folks writing the regulations have ever flown an airplane. For the transponder to go dark because of a minor electrical failure will defeat all of the transponder-dependent traffic avoidance schemes and likely cause a visit from the F/A-18's if you are in controlled airspace when it happens.

Sigh.
 
Picking up on the major drift of this thread, I spent thousands more on separate control heads for ease of operation and avoiding the all-your-eggs-in-one-EFIS syndrome. Sorry, Dynon, Garmin got the nod this time for a variety of reasons, but the concept's the same: I don't want to be always tinkering with the EFIS, sinking into the mudhole of button-pushing to change modes, and with a good chance of messing up the supremely critical AH and HSI display in the doing. The autopilot is stand-alone, so is the navigator and 2nd com radio and the engine monitor, and the "MFD" is a 795 instead of another box in the same EFIS system. I never have to mess with the EFIS except ... it controls the transponder. So yes, there is a dollar trade-off for everybody and the very high certified 330ES price compared to the fairly cheap ADS-B capability of a 23ES colored that choice. I tolerate this because the transponder doesn't have anything to do with flying the airplane if I'm in a tight spot. All help from ATC would be appreciated for navigation, but they don't keep the airplane upright.

John Siebold
 
The MSRP for the transponders is $1800 and $2200. Dealers may sell for less.

These are both full Mode-S with ES and ADS-B out transponders. The difference is wattage. We don't recommend the lower wattage one in the USA as it does not meet the 2020 ADS-B out compliance requirement.

These transponders feature TIS-A reception, so they are capable of receiving traffic in Class B and C airspaces. They are also full ADS-B out transponders, compliant with the latest DO-260B requirements. In order to be compliant with the 2020 ADS-B out mandate in the USA, they will require a certified GPS to be connected, but no changes to the transponder will need to be made. They also feature auto air/ground mode switching, and very, very low power draw (350ma @ 12V!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.