Matrix1 Nav/Com

JohnAJohnson

JohnAJohnson

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
1,323
Location
Orange Beach, AL
Display Name
Display name:
JohnAJohnson
I looked at the Matrix Avionics Matrix1 radio at the AOPA Gulf Shores Fly In 10/27/2018, and the demo put on by Mark Lipham and Chris Rose (Product Managers) was impressive.

Matrix1.png

It has a built in GPS (like a cell phone, with no external antenna required) allowing the nearest ATC, AWOS, VOR, etc., to be displayed and touch selected. It was a nice looking, functional interface. MSRP is $3k. There just isn't a good a selection of TSO'd Nav/Com radios and I hope to see this on the market soon.

Anyone know anything about it or the company?
 
I think I'll write them and suggest they do a bit more marketing. The radio is a plug in replacement for the King, Narco, and Cessna (ARC) radios and should be drumming up a bit more hype at this stage.
 
So they had an actual unit to demo at the fly-in? Website and PDF look like renders to me, so I am curious how close to a real unit this is. I'd not heard of them either until this thread. I sent them an email a couple days ago to ask for more information, but haven't received a response yet. It looks interesting, I'm all for every competitor in the certified space. Looks like they plan to have DME capability in the unit as well from the PDF (and the mention of the C66c TSO) and marker beacon. They mention needing "avionics tech install" for the DME capability, but not the marker beacon, so wonder where they are getting the signal from, integral antenna?
 
Yes, the unit at the fly-in looked functional and had a real screen. They stepped through the touch buttons to show how frequencies were selected, etc. and they said they anticipate six months or so for certification. I like the Vertical and Horizontal Displacement tapes - might not need a dedicated CDI if you are only using the radio as a backup during an ILS.
 
Any news on the Matrix, looks to be a interesting replacement to some old Narco's
 
I received an email from them. They say that it won't be TSO'd until the end of this year, if then*. The price will be $2995.


* "if then" was my thinking out loud.
 
Wow this looks like a great replacement for my aging MX-300. The website says direct replacement for Cessna radios, and the MX-300 is a direct replacement for the Cessna radios. I’m thinking I can just slide this in?

I like being able to monitor four frequencies. Out where I fly I’m usually monitoring at least two multi-comm traffic areas.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I’m interested in this as well. I would love to replace my TKM #2 radio with this unit. Speaking of TKM, they had better get innovating if they want to stay relevant in the slide-in replacement market.
 
Stingray Don said:
I would love to replace my TKM #2 radio with this unit.
Click to expand...

Which TKM model? If you have an MX300 that could be a step up for us. We still have the original ARC radios in our plane (hangared at Eagle Creek, so we are local). Should you decide to replace it, let me know.
 
PPC1052 said:
Which TKM model? If you have an MX300 that could be a step up for us. We still have the original ARC radios in our plane (hangared at Eagle Creek, so we are local). Should you decide to replace it, let me know.
Click to expand...

I think it’s the MX385 but I would have to check
 
Meh. I guess we could stop being cheap and buy some new radios. I am intrigued by the Matrix. That would be a really nice upgrade if they ever move on from vaporware status.
 
Looks a lot like the functionality you get from a GNC255, but without some of the usability.
 
PPC1052 said:
Which TKM model? If you have an MX300 that could be a step up for us. We still have the original ARC radios in our plane (hangared at Eagle Creek, so we are local). Should you decide to replace it, let me know.
Click to expand...

KEYE? I’m at KLAF, and have an MX300 coming out hopefully in 2 weeks. 14v. Listed in classifieds.
 
I think if they do get this thing to market there will be lots of used MX300s, RT328s, Narco 12Ds, etc. for sale. Also, TKM will have to lower their new unit prices substantially to keep them attractive.
 
Well, a month after inquiring online about the status I received this reply from them: "
John,

Our Matrix 1 model shown on the website is the model to replace the Narco 12D. We are not ready with TSO’s product yet to sell and are not publishing expected dates at this time. The process is much more burdensome than we ever imagined and we are currently reevaluating our business plan.

Thank you,
Matrix Avionics"

That sounds pretty much like "dead in the water" unfortunately.
 
I also received a similar response, yesterday

The Matrix 1 is a slide in replacement for the Narco 12D. The Matrix 2, not shown on website yet, is a slide in replacement for KX-155/165. Right now its hard to say when we will be done. Certification is a much more burdensome process than we ever imagined and we are re-evaluating our business plan. Sorry for bad news.

Thank you,
Matrix Avionics
 
c177tx said:
The Matrix 2, not shown on website yet, is a slide in replacement for KX-155/165.
Click to expand...

That reminds me, whatever happened to the TKM MX155? Wasn't it announced like 2-3 years ago?
 
asicer said:
Yeah, but haven't they been in the "pre-certification" phase for quite some time now?
Click to expand...

Airworthiness approval efforts are subject to every partial government shutdown, FAA backlog, FAA misplacing things, FAA staff changes, Engineering que, FAA dropping the ball etc.

Huge aviation corps typically hold limited powers to approve things on behalf of the FAA making them less vulnerable (NOT invulnerable) to the factors above.
 
The FAA, protecting us from functional and affordable new technology again.

The certification process really shows its value, preventing lethal glitches in things like MCAS software, active winglets, etc.

Oh wait...
 
I don''t understand why Matrix went the TSO route in the first place. Part 91 aircraft do not require TSO navs or coms.

Jim
 
weirdjim said:
I don''t understand why Matrix went the TSO route in the first place. Part 91 aircraft do not require TSO navs or coms.

Jim
Click to expand...

I replied asking them that question, we'll see if there is an answer back.
 
murphey said:
Bigger target market.
Click to expand...
Take a small slice of the pie while you are gathering steam to take a larger slice. Some is better than none. How many KX-170s did King kick out the back door before the KX-170=TSO came along?

Jim
 
Last edited:
weirdjim said:
I don''t understand why Matrix went the TSO route in the first place. Part 91 aircraft do not require TSO navs or coms.

Jim
Click to expand...

Three shops I talked to would not install anything not TSOd.
 
dmspilot said:
Three shops I talked to would not install anything not TSOd.
Click to expand...
Of course not. They make their money selling radios as well as installing them. ANY A&P can install and sign off a radio. Any PERSON can install a radio under the supervision of an A&P. Or you can just throw your checkbook at the situation.

Jim
 
Any responses from Matrix yet?

Jim
Katamarino said:
The FAA, protecting us from functional and affordable new technology again.

The certification process really shows its value, preventing lethal glitches in things like MCAS software, active winglets, etc.

Oh wait...
Click to expand...
Which is why I went the Kit Avionics route 45 years ago. The FCC (Laurel Labs) have competent engineers that can give me a Type Acceptance for a transceiver in less than 6 months. And can answer questions with answers that make sense. Then we have the FAA ...

Jim
 
weirdjim said:
Any responses from Matrix yet?

Jim

Which is why I went the Kit Avionics route 45 years ago. The FCC (Laurel Labs) have competent engineers that can give me a Type Acceptance for a transceiver in less than 6 months. And can answer questions with answers that make sense. Then we have the FAA ...

Jim
Click to expand...

This is what I heard from Matrix when I inquired about the non-TSO route:

John,

Strictly speaking, TSO is not required, but dealers are telling us they don’t feel comfortable selling or recommending the product if it is not TSO’d.
We are currently looking at some simpler products to get cash flow going in the right direction, and to work through a set of simpler TSO’s.

Thank you,
Matrix Avionics
 
farmrjohn said:
A. Strictly speaking, TSO is not required, but dealers are telling us they don’t feel comfortable selling or recommending the product if it is not TSO’d.
B. We are currently looking at some simpler products to get cash flow going in the right direction, and to work through a set of simpler TSO’s.
Click to expand...
A. There is no strictly speaking about it. TSO is required for part 135 and part 120 operations. That is less than 20% of the USA fleet. Unhappy dealers? Get other dealers. Sell them to me non-TSO and I'd probably sell a hundred a month or so.

B. There is no such thing as a simpler TSO for a given product. The TSO document spells chapter and verse what device it is intended to cover.

C. I wonder ... have they even started to go through the FCC type acceptance (parts 15 and 87) yet? That is an absolute requirement for any radio receiver or transmitter.

Any reports appreciated.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top