.... And Darryl was very helpful to me in getting my TT22/TN70 system up
and running in my Stemme.

I would add that the Peregrine STC material does not address gliders
and, indeed no glider is listed in their AML (Approved Model List). I
spoke with Peregrine tech support and their position was that gliders
are pretty much on their own but, using the installation data provided
in the STC kit, it was a simple matter for me to install (under
supervision) and for my IA to endorse and sign off my log book and
prepare and send an Informational FAA Form 337 to the feds and one for
my aircraft records.Â* The flight test was simple - just go fly in rule
airspace for 30 minutes and do some maneuvering, then fill out the test
report request on line.Â* The report comes back in a matter of minutes.

As I have said before, there are (at least) two different links to
follow for the test report.Â* The link you'll likely find with a google
search will take you to the report request page but, if you're working
on the rebate, you'll need to go to a different link which is provided
with your rebate reservation.

On 1/13/2019 12:46 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 10:47:35 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 7:16:55 PM UTC-8, Scott Williams wrote:
On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 12:20:05 AM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 7:37:09 PM UTC-8, Scott Williams wrote:
On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 8:54:53 PM UTC-6, MNLou wrote:
On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 8:49:48 PM UTC-6, Tony wrote:
Pure gliders are not eligible for the rebate
Are sustainer equipped experimental aircraft eligible?

Thanks -

Lou
Also, I believe the Tn72 is not full 2020 compliant, for that even in an experimental you must use the $1900 Tn70, as far as Trig made products.
I wish this whole topic was simpler, or at least as Simple as I am!!
Bull****. That is absolutely not true. The TN72 jn an experimental aircraft meets all requirements of 14 CFR 91.227. Absolutely clear in Trig documentation, and I've described this many times here. But don't let that stop you just saying it's not with no proof....
Jeez Darryl, such vitriol, Twice in my post I alluded to my Relative ignorance, "I believe" and "Simple as I"
The virtiol is because r.a.s. is full of so much misinformation on stuff including ADS-B and FLARM. And you seeming made no effort to check stuff, or saying why you believe it. And this misinformation circulates around and around again.

You could have Googled for the TN72 installation documentation. That's where vendors typically clarify the compliance specs for "meets requirements" for experimental aircraft.

In this case the manual is super clear....

11.2 FAA 91.227 Compliance
When installed in accordance with this manual and used with the Trig TT22
and Trig TT31 transponders the TN72 meets the technical requirements of FAR
91.227 and the performance requirements of the applicable TSOs.

... that's pretty classic "meets" (but not actual TSO approved) type language to look for.

---

Why did you believe this? Is there wrong information somewhere saying this? The TN72 had a slightly confusing launch with folks (including me) confused about what their exact early claims were. And they might be confusing things with the current different marketing packaging for experimental vs type certified aircraft--I had suggested to TRIG they not do that, but they may understand the reasons better than I do. They were trying to simplify stuff there, so I emphasize with that. The TN72 in the "TN72 GPS – TABS" and "TN72 GPS – X" are the exact same actual TN72 receivers. But I could imagine how for example somebody might read about the "TN72 GPS-TABS" product info and walk away believing the TN72 can't do 2020 Compliance (it can in experimental aircraft).
And I forgot. Years ago helped Max Trescott (my favorite aviation writer/podcaster) with technical content on ADS-B technology for articles in EAA Sport magazine. Helped authors on several technical articles in Soaring Magazine (Hi Andy).

--
Dan, 5J