A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old August 25th 10, 12:28 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,396
Default Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?

On Aug 24, 4:11*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Eric Greenwell" wrote

The Pro-Peak appears to be identical to the Multiplex LN5014 that I
already have. I like the charger, it works well, it's simple to use, and
is very handy for the glider and other purposes, but I still wish for one
that charged 12 volt SLA batteries at 14.6 volts instead of 14.0, and
would discharge at 1 amp or more, instead of only 0.4 amps.


Maybe someone has another recommendation?


*MMmmmm. *I am not so sure why you would want to go for more charge voltage.
From what I read, that higher voltage is very harmful to SLA batteries.
Same reading says not to use a charger meant for car batteries (flooded lead
acid) because of the higher voltage hurting the sealed versions.

I have never used a multi stage charger. *I only use a small float charger,
which I normally charge and leave on floating for 3 or so days, then remove
it until a month later, then charge with the float charger again for one
day.

The thing I have found that kills SLA quicker than crap, is leaving them
sitting around in a low charge state. *That, and do not use an adapter or
jumpers to charge it from a running car electrical system. *I once destroyed
a battery in one weekend, using that idea. *After that, I read about the
higher charge being a "bad thing" and now I believe it.
--
Jim in NC


High flat voltage is a bad thing. The right voltage during absorption
charge mode (which Eric is talking about) helps charge the battery in
a minimal time and is not bad - it is the recommended process for
these batteries.

Darryl
Ads
  #102  
Old August 25th 10, 12:53 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,096
Default Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?

On 8/24/2010 4:11 PM, Morgans wrote:
"Eric wrote


The Pro-Peak appears to be identical to the Multiplex LN5014 that I
already have. I like the charger, it works well, it's simple to use, and
is very handy for the glider and other purposes, but I still wish for one
that charged 12 volt SLA batteries at 14.6 volts instead of 14.0, and
would discharge at 1 amp or more, instead of only 0.4 amps.

Maybe someone has another recommendation?

MMmmmm. I am not so sure why you would want to go for more charge voltage.
From what I read, that higher voltage is very harmful to SLA batteries.
Same reading says not to use a charger meant for car batteries (flooded lead
acid) because of the higher voltage hurting the sealed versions.

Our SLA battery specifications for cyclic charging (the way we use our
glider batteries) typically call for about 14.7 volts that's held until
the current drops to a few percent of the rated capacity. At that point,
the voltage should be dropped to about 13.6 volts, or the charger
removed. It ensures the quickest full charge and maximum battery life.
Flooded batteries usually require a lower voltage for the same
conditions. Older style car chargers tended to overcharge, which the
flooded batteries tolerate well (the water just got lower), but not the
SLAs, and that's likely the reason for the prohibition you read.
I have never used a multi stage charger. I only use a small float charger,
which I normally charge and leave on floating for 3 or so days, then remove
it until a month later, then charge with the float charger again for one
day.

Your system is fine, but a 3 stage charger matched to your battery will
do the job quicker. It sounds like you don't need that, but pilots that
fly several days in a row have to use something faster than a float
charger, and a multi-stage charger does the job. Or, they have to have
several batteries on charge so they can put a fully charged one in the
glider each day.
The thing I have found that kills SLA quicker than crap, is leaving them
sitting around in a low charge state.

This is poor practice for any lead-acid battery, but the SLAs are
generally relatively tolerant of it, if you have a good charger. By
"tolerant", I mean you can let it sit for a few weeks ocasionally,
mostly discharged, and it won't affect the life noticeably. A float
charger may not have enough voltage to remove the sulphation that occurs
when sitting around with a low charge, and that is one reason prefer the
~14.7 volt charge.
That, and do not use an adapter or
jumpers to charge it from a running car electrical system. I once destroyed
a battery in one weekend, using that idea. After that, I read about the
higher charge being a "bad thing" and now I believe it.

The car charge regulator is under the hood, adjusting the charge voltage
for the temperatures there (and for a flooded battery with it's lower
voltage requirement), and it might not actually produce enough voltage
to fully charge an SLA that's sitting outside the engine compartment in
cooler temperatures. I suspect your battery had undercharge problems,
not overcharge.

--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

  #103  
Old March 28th 18, 03:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?

On Monday, August 9, 2010 at 12:37:52 PM UTC-4, Grider Pirate wrote:
There was quite a thread storm 11 months ago here about the TT21
transponder. I assume some of the 'early adopters' here purchased and
installed one. Any complaints??


I have a HUGE complaint. When I bought my TT21 it was advertised as "ADS-B out ready", met the TSO's, etc. I paid aroundd $2500 for it.

I have been researching adding the GPS WAAS stuff (also Trig - TN70, I believe) to now find out the TT21 does not meet the US standards.

The 2017 (and previous) Spruce catalog says the TT21 is for sport aircraft, meets the standards, etc. Now in the 2018 catalog they added in bold print "DOES NOT MEET USA STANDARDS."

They tell me that the TT21 can be upgraded to TT22 by MidAmerica Avionics- for an ADDITIONAL $900.

I'll never buy a Trig product again.
  #104  
Old March 28th 18, 03:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
son_of_flubber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,547
Default Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:09:50 AM UTC-4, wrote:

The 2017 (and previous) Spruce catalog says the TT21 is for sport aircraft, meets the standards, etc. Now in the 2018 catalog they added in bold print "DOES NOT MEET USA STANDARDS."


Don't jump to conclusions. You're overlooking a lot of relevant information. Read some of the more recent RAS threads about ADSB TABS Trig etc..

The TT21 implementing TABS looks just like ADSB-Out to ATC and any plane running ADSB-in and so it works just fine for many glider pilots, maybe not everywhere for all glider pilots... it depends.

Don't ask for clarification in this old thread. Go read the more recent threads first.
  #105  
Old March 28th 18, 09:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,396
Default Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 7:33:29 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:09:50 AM UTC-4, wrote:

The 2017 (and previous) Spruce catalog says the TT21 is for sport aircraft, meets the standards, etc. Now in the 2018 catalog they added in bold print "DOES NOT MEET USA STANDARDS."


Don't jump to conclusions. You're overlooking a lot of relevant information. Read some of the more recent RAS threads about ADSB TABS Trig etc..

The TT21 implementing TABS looks just like ADSB-Out to ATC and any plane running ADSB-in and so it works just fine for many glider pilots, maybe not everywhere for all glider pilots... it depends.

Don't ask for clarification in this old thread. Go read the more recent threads first.


Yes, this has been discussed in detail on r.a.s. for a few years now and I'd hope was old news.

Just one point: TABS per-se is likely not visible to ATC, it is not in current deployments of ATC approach/TRACON systems I'm aware of and it's best to assume its not visible. This is at least consistent with the idea that TABS does not give ADS-B Out required airspace privileges. And on the flip side, a TT21 or TT22 transponder with a TN72 TABS GPS Source added to it *is* visible to ATC within plain old SSR coverage... thats still not going to help for any ADS-B Out required airspace flight after January 1, 2020 (Which for gliders with the partial exemption is: Class A, B, C, and above B, and C up to 10,000').

  #106  
Old March 29th 18, 01:10 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
son_of_flubber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,547
Default Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 4:09:09 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:

Just one point: TABS per-se is likely not visible to ATC, it is not in current deployments of ATC approach/TRACON systems I'm aware of and it's best to assume its not visible.


I asked Trig tech support this question:

"Will a TT21 + TN72 transmit a non-zero quality indicator, aka SIL = 1 ?"

They replied:

"The TT21 is fully certified to the latest ADS-B Out cert TSO C166b – so it can output all the required data. It is true that if you wish to meet ADS-B Out compliance FAR 91.227, you should have a higher power TT22. However, there is no way for the radar to tell if you’re using a TT21 or TT22.
Inspection of your aircraft would be the only way to tell. As such I believe a number of experimental pilots have opted to ignore the requirement , but of course I cannot recommend this as it would be in violation of FAR 91.227 – the requirements for 2020 compliance."

"The TN72 offers both a SIL =1 output, and also a SIL = 3 output. So this means that you can meet the FAA compliance check using your TN72 plus TT21. https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx"

I interpreted this to mean that, a TT21 + TN72 (TABS)
looks exactly the same to ATC as a TT22 + TN70

I understand that TT21 + TN72 (TABS) does not satisfy 2020 ADS-B compliance, but I can be flying in Class E and be visible to ATC and other aircraft equipped with ADS-B In, exactly the same as an aircraft with 2020 ADS-B compliance.

I apologize if this muddies the water.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trig TT21 transponder draws only 125 mA! Steve Koerner Soaring 5 March 15th 10 09:59 PM
TRIG TT21 Transponders Tim Mara[_2_] Soaring 12 September 26th 09 02:01 AM
Trig TT21 Transponder receives FAA TSO approval Paul Remde Soaring 12 September 19th 09 02:47 PM
Trig TT21 in Experimental Aircraft Paul Remde Soaring 5 July 5th 09 03:15 AM
Trig TT21 Transponder Thoughts? jcarlyle Soaring 16 June 23rd 09 04:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.