Garmin Gdl 82 ADSB OuT now certified

guessin' not.

But, as much as I am not a garmin fan, this is likely going my ads-b solution.
 
Garmin seems to be stepping up,offering more lower price ,alternatives. Competition is a good thing.
 
Altho I'm not a conspriracy nut, I find it fascinating that it got certified a couple months after the $500 rebate. On the other hand, I really did need to get rid of the Narco transponder.
 
At first I thought that this was something that the owner/operator might possibly be able to install. Looking briefly at the manual is giving me second thoughts.

I talked with my avionics installer about this unit and he is quoting an extra 6 hrs over and above the install for a GTX 335 due to it being located in in the back of the plane by the transponder antenna. I am not sure that I understand that reasoning but 6 x $85= $510. Kinda makes me want to go with the GTX-335. But at least it is another option.
 
Morgan3820 said:
At first I thought that this was something that the owner/operator might possibly be able to install. Looking briefly at the manual is giving me second thoughts.

I talked with my avionics installer about this unit and he is quoting an extra 6 hrs over and above the install for a GTX 335 due to it being located in in the back of the plane by the transponder antenna. I am not sure that I understand that reasoning but 6 x $85= $510. Kinda makes me want to go with the GTX-335. But at least it is another option.
Click to expand...

There is a big notes section saying that older type transponder coaxes need to replaced with low-loss coax and connectors likely to pass power output requirements. If your existing L-band antenna is a long ways away from the transponder you will want to relocate it anyway. These new transponders don't have a lot of extra power to overcome loss along longer cables.

Another thing to consider is the altitude encoder, I'd want a new one, and a new transponder antenna.
 
Interested in this thread, as we are considering the same solution. Tried to call avionics shop today to ask about install, but I think I called too late and they had gone home. I, too, am wondering if the install price of the 82 will push it to the point that the 335 is a better option.
 
Its really kind of a wash if you ask me. You need someone with a transponder test set to check to see if the peak power output and receiver sensitivity is even up to snuff before you install it. Doing it myself, that means paying a CRS for that service twice, pre-install and post-install. If the pre-installation test won't pass then you are left fixing the old stuff before you even begin putting in the new
 
bnt83 said:
There is a big notes section saying that older type transponder coaxes need to replaced with low-loss coax and connectors likely to pass power output requirements. If your existing L-band antenna is a long ways away from the transponder you will want to relocate it anyway. These new transponders don't have a lot of extra power to overcome loss along longer cables.

Another thing to consider is the altitude encoder, I'd want a new one, and a new transponder antenna.
Click to expand...

Just confirming this. Our shop when I was talking to them about there being a POSSIBLE problem with one or the other of our DME and transponder antennas (because a previous shop was swapping them when the DME problems arose, and then the transponder had some issues, unknown which might be messed up) said they’d test both and whichever antenna was good, if it wasn’t already the front antenna, would be moved there for new coax and as short a cable run as possible.

I guess these new transponders with their fancy FETs in their output stages just can’t blast their way through a crappy coax or antenna like the old cavity based ones.

Interested to see what they found.

Other item of note, our glideslope antenna tested fairly weak on the King but we’ve never had a problem with it. The new Garmin picks off the ILS localizer and glideslope from the localizer antenna and does the splitting internally, but the King will still need separate antennas.

They’ll clean up the connections to that crappy plastic bar the older Cessnas use for the glideslope and get it as good as they can, and we’ve never seen any bad behavior from the glideslope receiver, but it’ll be interesting to compare and contrast the Garmin and the King both tuned to the same ILS when we get it back.

They didn’t feel the King was out of spec, just weaker than they like to see on new installs. Very interesting. Stuff you learn about your own gear when someone’s testing it all before making any changes.
 
denverpilot said:
Just confirming this. Our shop when I was talking to them about there being a POSSIBLE problem with one or the other of our DME and transponder antennas (because a previous shop was swapping them when the DME problems arose, and then the transponder had some issues, unknown which might be messed up) said they’d test both and whichever antenna was good, if it wasn’t already the front antenna, would be moved there for new coax and as short a cable run as possible.

I guess these new transponders with their fancy FETs in their output stages just can’t blast their way through a crappy coax or antenna like the old cavity based ones.

Interested to see what they found.

Other item of note, our glideslope antenna tested fairly weak on the King but we’ve never had a problem with it. The new Garmin picks off the ILS localizer and glideslope from the localizer antenna and does the splitting internally, but the King will still need separate antennas.

They’ll clean up the connections to that crappy plastic bar the older Cessnas use for the glideslope and get it as good as they can, and we’ve never seen any bad behavior from the glideslope receiver, but it’ll be interesting to compare and contrast the Garmin and the King both tuned to the same ILS when we get it back.

They didn’t feel the King was out of spec, just weaker than they like to see on new installs. Very interesting. Stuff you learn about your own gear when someone’s testing it all before making any changes.
Click to expand...
Even though it’s a bit spendy it’s nice to have a good shop like Depot go through things on an installation. It sounds simple enough to install things in conformance with the manual. It’s great when a shop actually does it.
 
denverpilot said:
Just confirming this. Our shop when I was talking to them about there being a POSSIBLE problem with one or the other of our DME and transponder antennas (because a previous shop was swapping them when the DME problems arose, and then the transponder had some issues, unknown which might be messed up) said they’d test both and whichever antenna was good, if it wasn’t already the front antenna, would be moved there for new coax and as short a cable run as possible.

I guess these new transponders with their fancy FETs in their output stages just can’t blast their way through a crappy coax or antenna like the old cavity based ones.

Interested to see what they found.

Other item of note, our glideslope antenna tested fairly weak on the King but we’ve never had a problem with it. The new Garmin picks off the ILS localizer and glideslope from the localizer antenna and does the splitting internally, but the King will still need separate antennas.
Click to expand...

I've got one lone VHF nav antenna with two splitters to a GTN650 and a KN53 w/GS, Im sure you could run without using that little GS antenna. This setup performs flawlessly. I did replace every piece of RG58 with RG400 at great expense of blood, sweat and cursing.

I could not see keepimh my very late serial number KT76A as its needed repairs twice under our ownership, the photo cell was dead so the "reply" light was invisible most of the time, and of course honeywell's recent policy changes on repairs just reinforced dumping it was the right thing to do.
 
bnt83 said:
I've got one lone VHF nav antenna with two splitters to a GTN650 and a KN53 w/GS, Im sure you could run without using that little GS antenna. This setup performs flawlessly. I did replace every piece of RG58 with RG400 at great expense of blood, sweat and cursing.
Click to expand...

Think I’ve mentioned this before but the whole “have to use new low loss coax” thing is cool, but then I realize FAA thinks RG400 is modern low-loss and just start LMAO.

And then realize none of the really good coaxes the Land/Mobile radio world use, are approved... hahaha.

Even LMR400UF would be better than the garbage airplanes are using. (Although I think the jacket is flammable on the standard stuff, and you’d have to get the plenum-rated version for an airplane.) That stuff is the bottom of the line for me for stuff I’m messing with, and pricing and quality go up from there. Even the UF (ultra flex) version of that has been out for decades.

RG400... LOL... Beat head here. It’s the latest and greatest from 1980! Yay airplanes. Hahaha.
 
denverpilot said:
Think I’ve mentioned this before but the whole “have to use new low loss coax” thing is cool, but then I realize FAA thinks RG400 is modern low-loss and just start LMAO.

And then realize none of the really good coaxes the Land/Mobile radio world use, are approved... hahaha.

Even LMR400UF would be better than the garbage airplanes are using. (Although I think the jacket is flammable on the standard stuff, and you’d have to get the plenum-rated version for an airplane.) That stuff is the bottom of the line for me for stuff I’m messing with, and pricing and quality go up from there. Even the UF (ultra flex) version of that has been out for decades.

RG400... LOL... Beat head here. It’s the latest and greatest from 1980! Yay airplanes. Hahaha.
Click to expand...

RG400 and RG58 does perform similarly on paper but in reality the 50 year old RG58 I replaced was absolute trash compared to RG400. Just physically working with it it's obviously a lot better. RG58 melts like butter when trying to solder it all. Why would I want that junk connected to any new radio?
 
Morgan3820 said:
At first I thought that this was something that the owner/operator might possibly be able to install. Looking briefly at the manual is giving me second thoughts.
I talked with my avionics installer about this unit and he is quoting an extra 6 hrs over and above the install for a GTX 335 due to it being located in in the back of the plane by the transponder antenna. I am not sure that I understand that reasoning but 6 x $85= $510. Kinda makes me want to go with the GTX-335. But at least it is another option.
Click to expand...
What kind of aircraft if I may ask? I like the idea of getting in there during annual of my simple 172 and swapping the old coax for brand new - Nate's post notwithstanding. If I do have to take it to an avionics shop, maybe I could run the cable ahead of time for them. Probably false savings.
 
bnt83 said:
RG400 and RG58 does perform similarly on paper but in reality the 50 year old RG58 I replaced was absolute trash compared to RG400. Just physically working with it it's obviously a lot better. RG58 melts like butter when trying to solder it all. Why would I want that junk connected to any new radio?
Click to expand...

Totally agree there. I suspect our coax is pretty poor since it’s been in there since around the early 90s. Replacement with RG400 is going to be an improvement.
 
Just got a quote.
GDL82 installed in line with my gtx327.
$2700 installed and ready to go.
That's the ADS b out.
Stratus 2s connected to foreflight will be the ADS b in.
 
Are they allowing the gdl 82 installation to take feed from pre existing waas gps feed? if not, i find it hard to believe that installation can come in at under one amu in labor (the box retails at 1.8)
 
iflyvfr said:
What kind of aircraft if I may ask? I like the idea of getting in there during annual of my simple 172 and swapping the old coax for brand new - Nate's post notwithstanding. If I do have to take it to an avionics shop, maybe I could run the cable ahead of time for them. Probably false savings.
Click to expand...

I usually get RG400 and BNCs from Spruce.

Strip using Paladin 1255 stripper, and crimping using a DMC HX4 frame with Y205P dies. (This DMC crimper is super nice, check ebay)

I also shrink about a 2 inch piece on 3m semi-rigid multiple wall, adhesive lined heat shrink over the ferrule. 1/4 or 3/8 will work https://www.mouser.com/ds/2/1/MWtube-357919.pdf
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top