PDA

View Full Version : Navworx shuts down



jkgoblue
10-19-2017, 09:33 AM
Just got word Navworx is shutting down. I guess they couldn't make it work with all the problems they had with the FAA. Here's what the Dallas Avionics web site say as well as Navworx.

https://www.dallasavionics.com/cgi-bin/navworx.cgi

http://www.navworx.com

Looking for a replacement for my Navworx that will work with my AFS-5600. What are my choices?

Shawn McGinnis
10-19-2017, 12:16 PM
The ideal solution would be using our transponder and ADS-B receiver:
AF-5000 (SkyView or HDX) with SV-XPNDR-261 (http://www.dynonavionics.com/mode-s-transponders.php), SV-ADSB-472 (http://dynonavionics.com/adsb-dual-band-receiver-472.php), and SV-GPS-2020 (http://www.dynonavionics.com/gps-receiver-module.php) (if you don't have a GPS Navigator)

A comparable product to the Navworx would be:
uAvionics (https://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-uat/) echoUAT (https://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-uat/) (Needs a certified GPS or Navigator)

Freeflight RANGR Lite FDL-978-XVRL (http://www.freeflightsystems.com/products/ads-b/978/rangr-transmitter)

Freeflight RANGR FDL-978-XVR (http://www.freeflightsystems.com/products/ads-b/978/rangr-transceiver) (Needs a GPS Navigator)

rleffler
10-20-2017, 05:40 AM
The ideal solution would be using our transponder and ADS-B receiver:
AF-5000 (SkyView or HDX) with SV-XPNDR-261 (http://www.dynonavionics.com/mode-s-transponders.php), SV-ADSB-472 (http://dynonavionics.com/adsb-dual-band-receiver-472.php), and SV-GPS-2020 (http://www.dynonavionics.com/gps-receiver-module.php) (if you don't have a GPS Navigator)

A comparable product to the Navworx would be:
uAvionics (https://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-uat/) echoUAT (https://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-uat/) (Needs a certified GPS or Navigator)

Freeflight RANGR Lite FDL-978-XVRL (http://www.freeflightsystems.com/products/ads-b/978/rangr-transmitter)

Freeflight RANGR FDL-978-XVR (http://www.freeflightsystems.com/products/ads-b/978/rangr-transceiver) (Needs a GPS Navigator)

It would be a great marketing coup for Dynon/AFS to put together a couple bundles and offer them at a great price to Navworx users.

Bundle #1: SV-ADSB-472 and SV-XPNDR-261

Bundle #2: SV-ADSB-472, SV-XPNDR-261, and SV-GPS-2020

Or perhaps trade in your Navworx ADS600-B or ADS600-EXP to get a free SV-ADSB-472 with the purchase of a SV-XPNDR-261?

Imagine the good will that would create for Dynon/AFS customers and within the industry.

Shawn McGinnis
10-20-2017, 09:47 AM
Our largest market of Navworx users are actually using 3/400s displays. Though once the team at Dynon get the SV-ADSB-472 shipping again the marketing team might consider something like this.

rleffler
10-20-2017, 02:20 PM
Our largest market of Navworx users are actually using 3/400s displays. Though once the team at Dynon get the SV-ADSB-472 shipping again the marketing team might consider something like this.

When will the sv-adsb-472 be available?

Maybe it would the impetus to get folks to upgrade to 5000s?

anymouse
10-25-2017, 04:49 AM
Bummed about NavWorx. That was going to be my solution.

Currently have a 4500. Bundling an upgrade to 5000 w/ sv-adsb-472 might make marketing sense.

In reality, I only really need an in solution that will display on the 4500. I have 1090 ES out already.

Shawn McGinnis
10-25-2017, 09:22 AM
Be sure you check this AOPA post for Navworx AMOC when used with GTN / GNC / GNS GPS Navigators

https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/ads-b/navworx-amoc-information

rleffler
10-26-2017, 05:13 AM
Be sure you check this AOPA post for Navworx AMOC when used with GTN / GNC / GNS GPS Navigators

https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/ads-b/navworx-amoc-information

I'm happy to assist in answering AMOC questions. I was the author of two of the three AMOCs and am still investigating some other options with FAA now that Bill has shuttered his business.

sbrault
02-19-2018, 06:25 PM
The ideal solution would be using our transponder and ADS-B receiver:
AF-5000 (SkyView or HDX) with SV-XPNDR-261 (http://www.dynonavionics.com/mode-s-transponders.php), SV-ADSB-472 (http://dynonavionics.com/adsb-dual-band-receiver-472.php), and SV-GPS-2020 (http://www.dynonavionics.com/gps-receiver-module.php) (if you don't have a GPS Navigator)

A comparable product to the Navworx would be:
uAvionics (https://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-uat/) echoUAT (https://www.uavionix.com/products/echo-uat/) (Needs a certified GPS or Navigator)

Freeflight RANGR Lite FDL-978-XVRL (http://www.freeflightsystems.com/products/ads-b/978/rangr-transmitter)

Freeflight RANGR FDL-978-XVR (http://www.freeflightsystems.com/products/ads-b/978/rangr-transceiver) (Needs a GPS Navigator)


Shawn,
I have dual 5600’s, a GTN 750 with remote GTX 32 and a Navworx ADSB600B. Based on your comment above, it seems that your 261/472 solution replacing my 32/600B could work well when the 472 becomes available again. I spoke with Rob a few months ago about that same plan and I’ve been patiently waiting for the 472 to become available again. In the meantime, I’ve come up with another solution that might be even better (and I won’t have to continue to wait for the 472) but I’d appreciate your help in determining if it will work.

My understanding is that the 472 is essentially the same as a uAvionix ECHO (presumably without the 978 transmitter, nor txpdr sniffer). My thought is that the sniffer in the ECHO is a non-starter as one will be much better off with a hardwired connection to the txpdr, particularly in a non-radar environment. But the ECHO (assuming the relevant squawk code, pressure altitude, etc is hard wired from the txpdr) has the advantage of adding a second transmitter on the 978 frequency to supplement the 1090 transmission from the 261. This will be particularly useful in a non-radar environment where many planes carry 978 receivers if not transmitters, thereby allowing them to see the ECHO’s transmissions.

So, my solution involves replacing my GTX32 with the Dynon 261, thereby getting 1090ES OUT using the GTN750 for position source. Then feed squawk info from the 261 to the ECHO (replacing the 600B) thereby getting 978 UAT OUT and feeding both 978 & 1090 IN to the 5600’s. GPS position source for the ECHO could also be obtained from the GTN750 provided the 261 is able to transmit the squawk info at 115.2K baud, otherwise I will have to install the uAvionix SkyFyx (transmitting at 115.2K baud) so that at least one of the two ECHO com ports can provide the 5600’s with traffic and weather at 115.2k baud, since the GTN’s transmission speed is limited to 9.6K. Obviously, I will also need to hook up the suppression pins to prevent interference, but the FAA has made it clear that transmissions on both frequencies from a single aircraft is okay provided they are both transmitting the same identification.

So, I have three questions for you:
1) is this a viable solution?
2) will the 261 transmit the required info to the ECHO so it can transmit a 2020 compliant signal providing me with dual band out?
3) will the transmission (in #2 above) be at 115.2 k baud, or do I need the SkyFyx?

Thanks,
Steve

rleffler
02-20-2018, 09:24 AM
Shawn,
I have dual 5600’s, a GTN 750 with remote GTX 32 and a Navworx ADSB600B. Based on your comment above, it seems that your 261/472 solution replacing my 32/600B could work well when the 472 becomes available again. I spoke with Rob a few months ago about that same plan and I’ve been patiently waiting for the 472 to become available again. In the meantime, I’ve come up with another solution that might be even better (and I won’t have to continue to wait for the 472) but I’d appreciate your help in determining if it will work.

My understanding is that the 472 is essentially the same as a uAvionix ECHO (presumably without the 978 transmitter, nor txpdr sniffer). My thought is that the sniffer in the ECHO is a non-starter as one will be much better off with a hardwired connection to the txpdr, particularly in a non-radar environment. But the ECHO (assuming the relevant squawk code, pressure altitude, etc is hard wired from the txpdr) has the advantage of adding a second transmitter on the 978 frequency to supplement the 1090 transmission from the 261. This will be particularly useful in a non-radar environment where many planes carry 978 receivers if not transmitters, thereby allowing them to see the ECHO’s transmissions.

So, my solution involves replacing my GTX32 with the Dynon 261, thereby getting 1090ES OUT using the GTN750 for position source. Then feed squawk info from the 261 to the ECHO (replacing the 600B) thereby getting 978 UAT OUT and feeding both 978 & 1090 IN to the 5600’s. GPS position source for the ECHO could also be obtained from the GTN750 provided the 261 is able to transmit the squawk info at 115.2K baud, otherwise I will have to install the uAvionix SkyFyx (transmitting at 115.2K baud) so that at least one of the two ECHO com ports can provide the 5600’s with traffic and weather at 115.2k baud, since the GTN’s transmission speed is limited to 9.6K. Obviously, I will also need to hook up the suppression pins to prevent interference, but the FAA has made it clear that transmissions on both frequencies from a single aircraft is okay provided they are both transmitting the same identification.

So, I have three questions for you:
1) is this a viable solution?
2) will the 261 transmit the required info to the ECHO so it can transmit a 2020 compliant signal providing me with dual band out?
3) will the transmission (in #2 above) be at 115.2 k baud, or do I need the SkyFyx?

Thanks,
Steve

Steve,

As we discussed offline this weekend, the 261 is a good choice and will make you totally ADSB 2020 compliant. All you need then is a receiver. I would be just a little more patient in waiting for the 472. But in the mean time, you could use a Stratux box, which works just fine with the AFS screens. The 472 is a little more elegant of a solution that the Stratux.


bob

sbrault
02-20-2018, 09:43 AM
Thanks, Bob, but I’m still wondering if I haven’t built a better mouse trap (getting dual Out as well as dual In for just $200 is hard to beat, and patience is no longer required).

larco
02-20-2018, 03:16 PM
I am not understanding the DUAL OUT set up. The out as I understand it, is either 1090 or 978. I don't think you can do a dual out and pass the performance test? The in of course can be both as I have and it works great. Please explain more about the dual out set up.

sbrault
02-20-2018, 04:30 PM
I am not understanding the DUAL OUT set up. The out as I understand it, is either 1090 or 978. I don't think you can do a dual out and pass the performance test? The in of course can be both as I have and it works great. Please explain more about the dual out set up.

The 2020 mandate can be accomplished on either frequency; however, 1090ES is required in some locations, altitudes, air speeds, etc. There is no prohibition against transmitting on both frequencies but most don’t because it is not required. However, if your ADS-B transmission is dependent upon a radar interrogation, having a second (non-dependent) transmitter will help you be seen by aircraft who have receivers, even when operating outside of radar coverage. Also, having two transmitters gives redundancy to protect against single transmitter failure.

rleffler
02-21-2018, 06:23 AM
Thanks, Bob, but I’m still wondering if I haven’t built a better mouse trap (getting dual Out as well as dual In for just $200 is hard to beat, and patience is no longer required).

My opinion is you aren't building a better mouse trap. If cost is a factor, you can buy parts and assemble an Stratux for well under $100 to function as a dual band receiver with your 261. You can by turkey Stratux boxes for around $100.

How did you get an Echo UAT for $200? Don't they sell for over a grand?

I don't think your concern about the 261 ADSB out failure is what you need to be concerned with applying a redundant solution. Your bigger concern is when 1090 ES fails, not only have you lost ADSB, but your primary transponder. I'd be more concerned about that than just ADSB out. How many aircraft are you aware that have redundant transponders installed?

In the end, it's your decision, not anyone else's.

sbrault
02-21-2018, 10:05 AM
Bob, I think you’ve missed the point (on many levels). First, I’m not concerned about failure of the transponder but to answer your question, virtually all aircraft with at least 8 seats have two transponders because, in fact, they do fail.

And my concern has never been cost. My proposed solution specifically trades out my perfectly functioning GTX32 in favor of the Dynon 261 (at a cost exceeding $2,000). In other words, I’m talking about throwing away a perfectly good transponder solely for the purpose of obtaining a 1090ES transmitter (which is of questionable value in a float plane that never flies high or fast, so complying with the 2020 mandate using a 978 transmitter makes at least as much sense as using a 1090).

And I Never said the Echo cost $200. But the fact is that the Echo costs just $200 more than the 472. The solution that you’ve adopted replaces your GTX327 with a 261 and replaces your Navworx with the 472. That’s a perfectly workable solution and similar to the one I spoke to Rob about months ago (replacing my GTX32 with the 261 and replacing my Navworx with the 472). I’ve been waiting for months for the 472 to become available in order to do exactly that.

However, I’ve now added a new wrinkle. The thought is, I can spend $200 more than you did (ignoring any discounts afforded beta testers such as you), getting the Echo now rather than waiting for the 472, and the bonus is that I get all of the capabilities you have PLUS a second transmitter which is NOT DEPENDENT on a radar interrogation in order to broadcast my position to other aircraft in my vicinity. Once again, it’s not a failure of the transponder that I am concerned with, but rather the fact that I spend more than 90% of my flying time OUTSIDE of a radar environment (eliminating the transmissions from the 261) is my concern. So, my 2020 compliance is better accomplished with an Echo, which I believe transmits independently of radar interrogations, provided it is hardwired to my transponder (be it the GTX 32 or the Dynon 261). If cost was my concern, I’d simply keep the GTX 32 and go with the Echo, which would still give me two transmitters (albeit only one that is transmitting ADS-B info on the 978 frequency). It seems to me that spending an extra $2,000 to get 1090 capability is of dubious value in my particular circumstances, but that’s not preventing me from proposing to do just that because we don’t know if or when Canada will impose an ADS-B mandate nor in what form. Of course, I could always swap transponders in the future if that happened. The principal reason to do it now would be to obtain (hopefully) the capability to hardwire the 261 to the Echo at 115K baud in order to avoid having to purchase and install the SkyFyx. In other words, avoid spending $450 for the SkyFyx by instead spending $2,000 for the 261 and getting 1090 as a bonus.

It seems your reply reflects a perceived need to defend against an attack, as though my comment about a better mouse trap somehow denigrated your approach. That was never my intent. To the contrary, all aircraft owners have their own needs and circumstances which could lead them to many different approaches/solutions. My question to you was simply, “Do you think in my situation, where I am rarely in radar coverage, would get a benefit from tansmittting on 978 (in addition to having 1090 capability) for a marginal cost of just $200 extra?”. And maybe more to the point, is my analysis correct that leads me to believe that the 261 is not broadcasting ADS-B info when not interrogated but the Echo will be transmitting continuously whether in radar coverage or not?

My intent is not to argue with you or criticize your approach. Rather, it is my belief that you (and Shawn who suggested the Echo as a viable alternative) know more about ADS-B than I do, so maybe either or both of you can clear up any misconceptions I may have or otherwise bring clarity to a confusing array of options.

Thanks,
Steve

rleffler
02-22-2018, 06:13 PM
Just for clarification, I did NOT receive any discounts for beta testing anything. The discounts I shared are available to anyone on Aircraft Spruce’s web site.

I’m exiting this discussion.


Bob, I think you’ve missed the point (on many levels). First, I’m not concerned about failure of the transponder but to answer your question, virtually all aircraft with at least 8 seats have two transponders because, in fact, they do fail.

And my concern has never been cost. My proposed solution specifically trades out my perfectly functioning GTX32 in favor of the Dynon 261 (at a cost exceeding $2,000). In other words, I’m talking about throwing away a perfectly good transponder solely for the purpose of obtaining a 1090ES transmitter (which is of questionable value in a float plane that never flies high or fast, so complying with the 2020 mandate using a 978 transmitter makes at least as much sense as using a 1090).

And I Never said the Echo cost $200. But the fact is that the Echo costs just $200 more than the 472. The solution that you’ve adopted replaces your GTX327 with a 261 and replaces your Navworx with the 472. That’s a perfectly workable solution and similar to the one I spoke to Rob about months ago (replacing my GTX32 with the 261 and replacing my Navworx with the 472). I’ve been waiting for months for the 472 to become available in order to do exactly that.

However, I’ve now added a new wrinkle. The thought is, I can spend $200 more than you did (ignoring any discounts afforded beta testers such as you), getting the Echo now rather than waiting for the 472, and the bonus is that I get all of the capabilities you have PLUS a second transmitter which is NOT DEPENDENT on a radar interrogation in order to broadcast my position to other aircraft in my vicinity. Once again, it’s not a failure of the transponder that I am concerned with, but rather the fact that I spend more than 90% of my flying time OUTSIDE of a radar environment (eliminating the transmissions from the 261) is my concern. So, my 2020 compliance is better accomplished with an Echo, which I believe transmits independently of radar interrogations, provided it is hardwired to my transponder (be it the GTX 32 or the Dynon 261). If cost was my concern, I’d simply keep the GTX 32 and go with the Echo, which would still give me two transmitters (albeit only one that is transmitting ADS-B info on the 978 frequency). It seems to me that spending an extra $2,000 to get 1090 capability is of dubious value in my particular circumstances, but that’s not preventing me from proposing to do just that because we don’t know if or when Canada will impose an ADS-B mandate nor in what form. Of course, I could always swap transponders in the future if that happened. The principal reason to do it now would be to obtain (hopefully) the capability to hardwire the 261 to the Echo at 115K baud in order to avoid having to purchase and install the SkyFyx. In other words, avoid spending $450 for the SkyFyx by instead spending $2,000 for the 261 and getting 1090 as a bonus.

It seems your reply reflects a perceived need to defend against an attack, as though my comment about a better mouse trap somehow denigrated your approach. That was never my intent. To the contrary, all aircraft owners have their own needs and circumstances which could lead them to many different approaches/solutions. My question to you was simply, “Do you think in my situation, where I am rarely in radar coverage, would get a benefit from tansmittting on 978 (in addition to having 1090 capability) for a marginal cost of just $200 extra?”. And maybe more to the point, is my analysis correct that leads me to believe that the 261 is not broadcasting ADS-B info when not interrogated but the Echo will be transmitting continuously whether in radar coverage or not?

My intent is not to argue with you or criticize your approach. Rather, it is my belief that you (and Shawn who suggested the Echo as a viable alternative) know more about ADS-B than I do, so maybe either or both of you can clear up any misconceptions I may have or otherwise bring clarity to a confusing array of options.

Thanks,
Steve