Used xponder still wanted. LJ

"LJ Blodgett" > wrote in message
. ..
> Used xponder still wanted. LJ
>

Bite the bullet and get an AT165 slide in replacement! I have used a number
of these in aircraft and they work great http://www.narco-avionics.com they
do take more time to set code but are cheap about $1,600 and they are solid
state.

>
>> Used xponder still wanted. LJ
>>
>
> Bite the bullet and get an AT165 slide in replacement! I have used a number
> of these in aircraft and they work great http://www.narco-avionics.com they
> do take more time to set code but are cheap about $1,600 and they are solid
> state.
>

For another opinion, see Discussion at:

http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/NarcoProblems.htm

The 165 is discussed about half-way down the page.

Good Luck,
Mike

Mike Spera wrote:

>>
>>> Used xponder still wanted. LJ
>>>
>>
>> Bite the bullet and get an AT165 slide in replacement! I have used a
>> number of these in aircraft and they work great
>> http://www.narco-avionics.com they do take more time to set code but
>> are cheap about $1,600 and they are solid state.
>
>
> For another opinion, see Discussion at:
>
> http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/NarcoProblems.htm
>
> The 165 is discussed about half-way down the page.
>
> Good Luck,
> Mike
>
>
>

Take Mr Peshak's opinion with a grain of salt. If you look at
everything you find online written by and about him, you'll find that
he's a nutcase with an axe to grind with Narco because Narco cut off
business with him. He was apparently trying to force Narco into enabling
his tailight stuff that he put into the design despite Narco's not
wanting it and FAA not permitting its use. He got his panties in a
bunch when Narco cut him off by finding another designer to do a
clean-sheet design for the digital logic chip Mr.Peshak was supplying.

The AT165 and AT155 both work fine, and respond identically to AT155's
using Mr. Peshak's design to all interrogation scenarios...they have to
in order to pass the FAA's certification rules. Narco had to
demonstrate equivalence in the function of the two chips in order to
make the change. Furthermore, the modifications Mr. Peshak is
recommending to enable his "tailight technology" are illegal
modifications to the transponder that won't even get past a routine 2
year transponder check. As far as I know, the early and recent AT155's
are absolutely identical other than the programming of the programmable
digital logic chip that does the interrogation decode and reply
generation. That chip has nothing to do with the transmit power.

I have an AT165 in my airplane. It has performed flawlessly throughout
the Northeast and midwest for over 500 hours of flight time, and has met
output level checks for the transponder tests each time it has been
checked. I'm very happy with the unit, and recommend it highly.

Would a KTX79 for $800 work? We just pulled two of them out of a 210.

Al G


"LJ Blodgett" > wrote in message
. ..
> Used xponder still wanted. LJ
>

>
> Take Mr Peshak's opinion with a grain of salt. If you look at
> everything you find online written by and about him, you'll find that
> he's a nutcase with an axe to grind with Narco because Narco cut off
> business with him.
> .stuff snipped

As I said in my posting, another opinion...

Good Luck,
Mike

Thanks every one who answer! I do have a xponder now. LJ

Ray ! wrote:
> Mike Spera wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> Used xponder still wanted. LJ
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bite the bullet and get an AT165 slide in replacement! I have used a
>>> number of these in aircraft and they work great
>>> http://www.narco-avionics.com they do take more time to set code but
>>> are cheap about $1,600 and they are solid state.
>>
>>
>>
>> For another opinion, see Discussion at:
>>
>> http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/NarcoProblems.htm
>>
>> The 165 is discussed about half-way down the page.
>>
>> Good Luck,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>
> Take Mr Peshak's opinion with a grain of salt. If you look at
> everything you find online written by and about him, you'll find that
> he's a nutcase with an axe to grind with Narco because Narco cut off
> business with him. He was apparently trying to force Narco into enabling
> his tailight stuff that he put into the design despite Narco's not
> wanting it and FAA not permitting its use. He got his panties in a
> bunch when Narco cut him off by finding another designer to do a
> clean-sheet design for the digital logic chip Mr.Peshak was supplying.
>
> The AT165 and AT155 both work fine, and respond identically to AT155's
> using Mr. Peshak's design to all interrogation scenarios...they have to
> in order to pass the FAA's certification rules. Narco had to
> demonstrate equivalence in the function of the two chips in order to
> make the change. Furthermore, the modifications Mr. Peshak is
> recommending to enable his "tailight technology" are illegal
> modifications to the transponder that won't even get past a routine 2
> year transponder check. As far as I know, the early and recent AT155's
> are absolutely identical other than the programming of the programmable
> digital logic chip that does the interrogation decode and reply
> generation. That chip has nothing to do with the transmit power.
>
> I have an AT165 in my airplane. It has performed flawlessly throughout
> the Northeast and midwest for over 500 hours of flight time, and has met
> output level checks for the transponder tests each time it has been
> checked. I'm very happy with the unit, and recommend it highly.