AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-aw
May 13, 2002 - May 26, 2002
>
=
>
=
>
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-
> list
>
=
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Equipment Required |
>
>
>Handheld GPS for IFR...is it legal?
>
>While NDB, DME, RNAV, ILS and GPS approaches my may brilliantly performed
>using a handheld GPS, one had better have the "equipment appropriate to the
>facilities to be used" on board. RIght?
>
>I always remember the motto "SKIN, TIN, TICKET" and I add HOUSE. If I have
>an accident while flying an NDB approach without an ADF receiver I suspect
>that even if I save my skin, my ticket and possibly my home will be in
>jeopardy. FAA will scoff up my ticket and lawyers will take everything
>else while my insurance man shakes his head and smiles.
You have an accident and all those things are at risk
anyhow. The fact that you choose to be a dutiful observer
of whatever rules are in place has little effect on the
willingness of folks who would readily attack your
character and resources if it enhanced their own careers
or financial condition . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | RE: GPS jamming . . . |
>
>
>It can be jammed as well -- there was an incident near Albany NY where
>an army unit had put a jamming unit in the warehouse and left it on. The
>location was on one of the major flight paths into NYC and it was
>causing the airline traffic flying on autopilot to veer of course when
>it passed by.
I've been peripherally involved with GPS jamming issues for a number
of years. I worked on Raytheon's MRRPV drone program about 1985 when
the only GPS receiver we could get then weighed about 15 pounds and
cost $2000/pound. I think there was only about a half dozen birds
in the air . . . we could get good position data in the lab a few
hours of each day when there were 4 birds visible at a time.
We were working on autonomous recon mission and there was a lot
of study and concern for deliberate attempts to blind our
vehicle. If the jamming source is above, the area covered can be
broad. When the source is on the ground, most airborne vehicles
pass through the cone of effective jamming quickly. The effect is
loss of lock on the receivers. During loss of lock, the data would
freeze . . . cross-track errors simply held at last good value
until re-lock was achieved. There were techniques for processing
GPS data that prevented the vehicle from steering off to the
moon based on "bad" data. There are no jamming techniques that
cause GPS to put out believable but bad data. When the
data was bad, we knew it and all we had to do was keep on
doing with what we were doing before it went bad and then
effecting was generally a small correction to flight path
when the data came back.
I'm surprised that anyone was getting perturbations of
flight path due to loss of GPS data, AUTOPILOTS fly
airplanes based on 1 per second updates. If reasonable
data is lost, the autopilot just goes into a "dead reckoning"
mode. If someone's airplane was doing aerobatic maneuvers
on final, I'd almost bet the AUOTPILOT was having a
bad radio interference day,
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Walter S. Fellows" <fellowsw(at)mondexkorea.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Equipment Required |
You will probably get screwed by the lawyers if something goes wrong no
matter how careful you are to follow the rules but there is no sense
handing them the screwdriver by totally defying accepted practice in the
industry even if it is illogical.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls,
> III
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 2:12 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Equipment Required
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Handheld GPS for IFR...is it legal?
> >
> >While NDB, DME, RNAV, ILS and GPS approaches my may brilliantly
performed
> >using a handheld GPS, one had better have the "equipment appropriate
to
> the
> >facilities to be used" on board. RIght?
> >
> >I always remember the motto "SKIN, TIN, TICKET" and I add HOUSE. If
I
> have
> >an accident while flying an NDB approach without an ADF receiver I
> suspect
> >that even if I save my skin, my ticket and possibly my home will be
in
> >jeopardy. FAA will scoff up my ticket and lawyers will take
everything
> >else while my insurance man shakes his head and smiles.
>
> You have an accident and all those things are at risk
> anyhow. The fact that you choose to be a dutiful observer
> of whatever rules are in place has little effect on the
> willingness of folks who would readily attack your
> character and resources if it enhanced their own careers
> or financial condition . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
=
>
=
>
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-
> list
>
=
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Francis, CMDR David" <David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au> |
| Subject: | SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - IFR REQUIREMENTS |
Victor asked if he could use GPS only in US airspace as a lighweight IFR
kit.
I found guidance in AC 90.94, para 3c which states very clearly that you can
only use GPS in US airspace in IFR conditions when you also have a
terrestrial navaid fitted and serviceable. This is an advisory circular but
it has commanding language on this point. I suspect para 3c is a flow down
from a more mandatory requirement in the operational regs somewhere.
The GPS installation should follow guidance in AC120-138 (elsewhere
incorrectly quoted as 120-38, which talks about ozone). I am having internet
problems and cannot read AC120-138 to check it.
I have a suspicion that the reason GPS is still not trusted in comparison
with old technolgy VOR/ADF systems is that the satellite signal is very very
weak. The GPS reciever identifies the satellite signal by some very clever
signal processing. The problem seems to be that when conducting an approach
over an electronically noisy site, like a big city, stray strong electronic
emissions on the right frequency can simply overpower the clever GPS
processing and cause inaccurate readouts - a bit like an ADF at sunset you
might say.
Hope this helps, David Francis, VH-ZEE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Francis, CMDR David" <David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au> |
| Subject: | SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - BATTERIES AND FUSES |
Bob and Others,
The AEC and AC43.13 provide guidance on wire sizing, switch sizing and the
maximum breaker or fuse sizes for a given wire size. What is the best way to
optimize fuse selection between the boundaries of nuisance trips and max
size fuse for the wire.
I have been advised that the rule of thumb is to double the Amps of a lamp,
and for other devices choose a fuse 25% greater than the load. Is this wise?
Battery question for Bob,
Looking at Fig 17-6, Is there a risk that when both battery contactors are
made, if one battery is well charged and the other fully discharged, that a
huge inrush to the flat battery may occur, overheating it, warping the
plates etc?
Appreciate your advice, David Francis, VH-ZEE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aucountry(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Equipment Required |
In a message dated 5/13/02 12:33:14 PM, mprather(at)spro.net writes:
<< The next worst case scenario is that if they turn off the GPS AND
you read the notam, you might be stuck on the ground somewhere
because you don't have a VOR/ILS/ADF in your panel to get you home.
>>
or, you could just get a room and go to the movies.
I have an ADF I'd like to sell. Any interest? How much are you willing to
pay for it?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RW 162f Electrical system |
| From: | Vince Ackerman <vack(at)teleport.com> |
On the newer ships the FADEC display will report low voltage but not sure
how or when it does this. Hopefully not just for a few seconds before it
dies!! I'm still thinking about a low voltage light that's in your face
instead of on the FADEC display.
Still hoping someone here might read my previous post and help me redesign
my system.
Thanks
Vince
on 5/12/02 2:51 PM, P Fischer at ptf(at)execpc.com wrote:
>
> Hi Bob, Appears we have another rotorway driver here that is not all to
> happy with the wiring scheme on these ships. Any suggestions?
> P.S. Vince, I have an Exec 90. The wiring is inadequate. One other serious
> problem, the electronic ignition FAILS if the voltage drops below 9.6 volts.
> Just like that no engine! And, there's no provision to for warn the driver
> other than a real good preflight.... and there is no backup. We need some
> sort of fail safe provision in case the voltage goes way down all at once.
> Any suggestions?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vince Ackerman" <vack(at)teleport.com>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RW 162f Electrical system
>
>
>
>>
>> Bob and anyone who can help:
>>
>> I am building a Rotorway 162f helicopter which has two FADEC computers
> that
>> run the engine and electronic ignition. I have several questions about the
>> electrical system which seems to be designed rather poorly. I wish I could
>> upload a schematic or diagram so you could take a look at it but instead
>> I'll try and describe it instead.
>>
>>
>> It seems to be a simple system with basically two buses:
>>
>>
>> The "essential buss" has:
>>
>> 2 Fadec's
>> 2 Fuel pumps
>> 2 Ignition modules
>>
>> Each Fadec has it's own 20 amp fuse
>> One of each fuel pump and ignition module are paired together off of a 15
>> amp fuse.
>>
>> The buss is supplied by two wires (seem like 12 awg but can't be sure)
> that
>> run from the battery through two 30 amp fuses.
>>
>> It is also supplied directly from the alternator by one of two b-lead
> wires,
>> the second of which goes directly to the 12v battery. They are both
>> protected by 30 amp inline fuses at the alternator.
>>
>> There is no battery contactor or switch.
>>
>>
>> The second buss is interesting because:
>>
>> In addition to the avionics and instrument power leading from it, they
> have
>> an alternator field switch coming off a 7.5 amp fuse that also supplies
> the
>> avionics.
>>
>> The starter relay and key switch also come off this bus through a 7.5 amp
>> fuse that it shares with the instrument power tap.
>>
>> This buss is supplied with power from the battery only through a third 30
>> amp fuse.
>>
>>
>> The alternator was an upgrade when I purchased their lighting kit from a
> 30
>> amp to a 54 amp. It doesn't seem to have included larger wire for the b
>> leads, one looks like 10 or 12 awg and the second is smaller, maybe 14 or
> 16
>> awg.
>>
>> I intend to put a landing light, nav and strobes and instrument lights and
>> B/C dimmer on the second buss. There will also be a Garmin 250xl GPS/Comm
>> and 327 xnpdr off that buss.
>>
>> The kit comes with a wiring harness that just plugs together so I'm a
> little
>> hesitant to mess around with it, but I'm at the stage where I can modify
> it
>> with out too much trouble. I'd like to change it to match the schematic
> for
>> a light acft that's in your book but don't want to add any weight.
>>
>> My questions are these:
>>
>> Why all the duplicate paths from battery to busses, and alternator to bus
>> and battery? If one side of the 30 amp supply from battery shorts or
>> overloads, wouldn't it just blow the other supply side too? Same with the
>> alternator B-leads.
>>
>>
>> I want to replace all the fuses with breakers. I don't like having
>> components sharing fuses, especially the fuel pumps and ignition modules.
>> Should I also put the alt field on the essential bus? How about the
> starter
>> relay? I bought a B/C crowbar OV device and plan to install it as well.
>>
>> All the wiring diagrams in your book show the alternator going to the
>> contactor and then to the busses. Does the essential buss require the two
> 30
>> amp battery feeds plus the alternator feed?
>>
>> I would like add a contactor for the battery and a battery master switch.
> I
>> picked up an 80 amp continuous duty relay from the local autoparts store
>> (Eclin STS 80?) that I thought was a copy of the ones I've seen on other
>> aircraft and thought I'd add the diode as per Bob's book. Will this work?
>>
>> I also want to replace the two small wires with one larger cable from the
>> alternator to the output side of the contactor and eliminate the direct
> line
>> to the first buss. Would that be smart or would it cause other problems?
> If
>> there were a problem with the battery or contactor, the direct feed from
> the
>> alternator would still power the FADEC's. What wire size would be
>> appropriate for a 54 amp output? Should I put a fusable link to protect
> it?
>>
>> Since this engine requires power to run the FADECs and ignition, what is
> the
>> minimum voltage the contactor requires to stay open? If the alternator
> dies,
>> will low voltage open the relay and kill the engine? I think the factory
>> told me that the FADEC's require 10v minimum. Am I adding a source of
>> failure when there was none to begin with?
>>
>> A strobe power pack requires 7.5 amps, landing light 8 amps, nav and
>> instrument power and lights, radio and xnpdr consume (?). Will this
> overload
>> the second buss with only 30 amp protection?
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any suggestions
>>
>>
>> Vince Ackerman
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | "sticking relay" problem |
| From: | Joseph J Hasper <j1j2h3(at)juno.com> |
Here is another possible solution to the "sticking relay" problem.
If the "ground" side of several relays are connected together, but the
actual connection to ground is faulty, the current of the one that is
being intentionally energized will flow back through the others until it
finds a good ground connection. In effect, this is placing the coils in
series. The current flowing will be reduced because of the added
resistance of the other coils, but still may be enough to hold the coil
in. I have seen this phenomenon in AC circuits, where it will show up as
a "chattering" relay.
Jim Hasper - RV-7 builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS Manipulation |
>
>
>This thread on GPS manipulation is especially interesting to me. I fly a 72
>Bellanca Vking, and it has a complement of old VORS and an ADF, and a single
>axis autopilot.
>
>I also have an older Garmin GPS 95 on the yoke, and a new Garmin Colormap
>295 up on the passengers side glare shield (due to panel real estate)
>
>I just got through a 2 hr instrumanet recurrency ride, and got a lecture on
>not spending so much time pushing buttons on the GPS.
>
Just one caution about using a VFR approved GPS for IFR navigation -
there are scenarios where one GPS satellite can be transmitting bad
data, which can cause VFR approved GPSs to calculate the wrong
position. This position error can be very small, or very large, or
anything in between. This type of problem is why IFR approved GPSs
are required to have a RAIM function - they will recognize that there
is an inconsistency with the info from the satellites and stop
navigating. The theory is that it is better for the GPS to fess up
and tell you it is lost, so you can do something, rather than pretend
it knows what it is doing and have it lead you into a hill.
I'm not saying don't use your GPS - I just want to make sure you
understand the risks.
Note - some big dollar IFR approved GPS units apparently the
capability to sort out which satellite is putting out the bad data,
and continue to navigate just using the other satellites. However
this level of smarts is currently not required to get IFR approval.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Battery failures |
I'm building an RV-8 which will be IFR approved. My current plan is
to use Bob's "All Electric on a Budget (TM)" approach, with electric
gyrso and a B&C SD-8 standby alternator instead of a vacuum pump.
Single battery. I have had one comment from another builder that he
would want two batteries, wired so each could be disconnected from
the system, because "A common battery failure is shorting of a cell,
which leads to excessive current and possible fire danger as the
alternator tries to bring the system up to 12 volts. I had a cell
failure in a car system, but no
severe consequences."
Bob tells us that if we replace the battery regularly, it will be
reliable, and most importantly it won't be the single point of
failure that drags down the whole electrical system. What is the
experience of the other listers? Have you had, or do you know of
batteries that failed and killed the electrical system? How long had
the battery been in service?
Is this type of failure a progressive thing that gives warning signs
by gradually increasing charge current over a few flights, or is it a
sudden failure?
Thanks,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (installing engine & electrics)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
http://eccentrix.com/misc/rv8/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Burley <j.r.burley(at)larc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | DG needed with GPS? |
Working on my panel design for a Glasair I-FT and planning to follow
Bob's all-electric design. Question; with GPS on-board (Skymap
IIIc), do I need a DG? I've semi-convinced myself that with heading
info provided by the GPS (and a mech. compass backup), I don't need
the expensive DG. I still plan to have an autopilot/turn coordinator
(Navaid), airspeed, elec. attitude gyro, altimeter, and vertical
speed instruments.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery failures |
I'm building an RV-8 which will be IFR approved. My current plan is
to use Bob's "All Electric on a Budget (TM)" approach, with electric
gyrso and a B&C SD-8 standby alternator instead of a vacuum pump.
Single battery. I have had one comment from another builder that he
would want two batteries, wired so each could be disconnected from
the system, because "A common battery failure is shorting of a cell,
which leads to excessive current and possible fire danger as the
alternator tries to bring the system up to 12 volts. I had a cell
failure in a car system, but no severe consequences."
Please keep in mind that the vast majority of our experience
with lead-acid batteries dates back over 100 years when things
like shorted cells were most common . . . the flooded lead-acid
battery has a cavity at the bottom of each cell specifically
designed to be a repository for the junk that flakes off of
a battery plate. As the batteries age, junk fills up the
cavity and if allowed to go to completion, will short the
cell.
RG batteries are not only free of flaking plates, even if
they did flake, the loose stuff is held in place by separator
mats.
Consider further, if you treated a flooded battery like
we're now recommending for RG batteries (preventative maintenance
treatment), you probably wouldn't see any shorted cell problems
with a flooded battery either. Flooded cell batteries don't
short until long after their capacity has degraded below
useful levels as backup power sources in airplanes.
Bob tells us that if we replace the battery regularly, it will be
reliable, and most importantly it won't be the single point of
failure that drags down the whole electrical system. What is the
experience of the other listers? Have you had, or do you know of
batteries that failed and killed the electrical system? How long had
the battery been in service?
Is this type of failure a progressive thing that gives warning signs
by gradually increasing charge current over a few flights, or is it a
sudden failure?
I would qualify this anecdotal study by suggesting that
the only useful data to answer the question will come from
those who have experienced a failure IN SPITE of the
the application of modern technology in lead-acid batteries
combined with the recommended operational philosophy.
ALL past experiences with the older technology and/or
contemporary attitudes toward battery maintenance are
irrelevant to the issue.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: DG needed with GPS? |
| From: | Victor Stahl <victor170(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Jim
That's pretty much the same configuration I have been contemplating for a
VFR RV. An electric attitude gyro, no vacuum system, compass and GPS for
reliable heading info and Trutrak's new Digitrak autopilot. If I choose to
build an IFR panel however, I will install a vacuum system for the AI and
DG.
Victor S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Yamokoski" <yamokosk(at)lmc.cc.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Re: DG needed with GPS? |
Hi Jim,
Sounds like you and I have the exact same panels :) I intend to do as suggested
by Bob in his book and create a spot for the electric DG, then buy it when
I get another $1700. I am a daylight VFR only pilot who hopes to have his
Glastar in the air this summer. By the time I fly off the 40 hours I hope to
be able to afford the DG...or decide that it's not that important. By the
way, how are you mounting the Skymap III?
Bill Yamokoski
Glastar N4970Y reserved
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotorway FADEC |
>
>On the newer ships the FADEC display will report low voltage but not sure
>how or when it does this. Hopefully not just for a few seconds before it
>dies!! I'm still thinking about a low voltage light that's in your face
>instead of on the FADEC display.
>
>Still hoping someone here might read my previous post and help me redesign
>my system.
Do you have a schematic of the power distribution system
that shows their present recommendations for supplying
primary and backup power?
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <racker(at)rmci.net> |
I've got a SkymapII in the panel, along with a vertical card compass in my
VFR bird. The vertical card compass looks like a DG, and makes heading
visualization much easier than with a backwards whiskey compass.
Navaid wing leveler slaved to GPS...left holes in the panel for suction
gauge, AH, and DG if I ever quit doing aerobatics or go IFR later.
Rob Acker (RV-6)
>
>
> Working on my panel design for a Glasair I-FT and planning to follow
> Bob's all-electric design. Question; with GPS on-board (Skymap
> IIIc), do I need a DG? I've semi-convinced myself that with heading
> info provided by the GPS (and a mech. compass backup), I don't need
> the expensive DG. I still plan to have an autopilot/turn coordinator
> (Navaid), airspeed, elec. attitude gyro, altimeter, and vertical
> speed instruments.
>
>
> direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
> Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search
> Other Lists: http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - BATTERIES AND FUSES |
>
>
>Bob and Others,
>
>The AEC and AC43.13 provide guidance on wire sizing, switch sizing and the
>maximum breaker or fuse sizes for a given wire size. What is the best way to
>optimize fuse selection between the boundaries of nuisance trips and max
>size fuse for the wire.
>
>I have been advised that the rule of thumb is to double the Amps of a lamp,
>and for other devices choose a fuse 25% greater than the load. Is this wise?
Kinda . . . yes, a fuse/breaker should be sized for some operating headroom
but you don't need to double the rating for lamps. Lamp inrush lasts
but a few seconds. PITOT HEAT on the other hand draws 2x or more
times running current for several seconds . . . you gotta about
double the fuse rating to keep it from nuisance tripping. I'd
wire pitot heat with 14AWG and 15A . . . everything else can pretty
much be a 10-25% overhead.
>Battery question for Bob,
>Looking at Fig 17-6, Is there a risk that when both battery contactors are
>made, if one battery is well charged and the other fully discharged, that a
>huge inrush to the flat battery may occur, overheating it, warping the
>plates etc?
>
No
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotorway FADEC |
| From: | Vince Ackerman <vack(at)teleport.com> |
on 5/14/02 8:24 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III at nuckolls(at)kscable.com wrote:
>> my system.
>
> Do you have a schematic of the power distribution system
> that shows their present recommendations for supplying
> primary and backup power?
>
I have the schematic of the wiring system that came with the kit but not
sure how to post it here... ? It's part of a set of blueprints but I could
have it copied and reduced.
Vince
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Victor Stahl <victor170(at)sbcglobal.net> |
To everyone who responded to my initial request for info regarding IFR by
GPS only, I would like to express my appreciation for all of the very
helpful thoughts and comments.
I realize that anytime a panel is configured for IFR with only one source
for radio navigation, you run the risk of getting into trouble without
back-up. This issue has not been overlooked!! If I can be reasonably
confident that VOR for IFR navigation will be around for years to come, and
that UPSAT will have an upgrade plan from VOR to whatever is next, I would
probably set up my panel with the following for radio navigation:
UPSAT: GX50
UPSAT: SL30 w/ CDI
UPSAT: ACU
BENDIX: KR-22 Marker Beacon Receiver
PS Engineering: PM 3000 intercom
UPSAT: SL70
This configuration should give me an efficient, reasonably cost effective
panel of minimal complexity. Minimal complexity is a big issue for me since
I will hold the aircraft repairman=B9s certificate. This set-up will also
provide me with a good base for upgrades later as necessary when the next
generation of precision approach comes on line to completely replace
VOR/ILS.......... I hope that UPSAT is listening!!!
Victor S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | GPS Only For IFR |
5/14/2002
Hello Jim Oke, Your arguments for near term elimination of VOR sites are
logical, rational, pragmatic, and economically sound. Unfortunately that
doesn't cut it in our US federal government decision making process.
Bob Nuckolls didn't leave much room for anyone else to get up on the soap box
on this subject, but I don't mind at all because I agree with him completely.
I agree because I have been a sometime personal participant (unwilling) and
close observer of our federal government in action for the last several
decades.
If anyone had any faith that the federal government could make timely, good
decisions regarding general aviation that faith should have been severely
shaken by many of the federal decisions made since the terrorist's attacks of
Sep 11, 2001.
There are probably many good reasons for a person building an amateur built
experimental aircraft (IFR or VFR) to not want to put in VHF navigation
equipment, but the near term disappearance of all VOR stations is not a
really strong one.
Hello David Francis, Thanks for bringing AC 90-94 to our attention.
In the light of the wording of paragraph 3.c. "The aircraft must also have
navigational equipment installed and operational that can receive the ground
based facilities required.....skip...." it is difficult for me to believe
that there is an FAA Inspector who would approve IFR Operating Limitations
for an amateur built experimental aircraft that did not have any VHF
navigational equipment actually installed. Not just "contained" like FAR
91.205 says, which could be construed to be hand held equipment, but actually
installed. The AC's may not be regulatory in nature, but they certainly set
forth FAA thinking and policy.
Hello Victor, Thank you again for opening this can of worms. We haven't had
this much excitement on this list since Grandma caught her............
I hope that the thread has been useful to you. Now, can you please tell us
how the inputs have affected your thinking / decisions? Many thanks.
My thanks again to all who responded on this subject.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Low voltage light |
In a message dated 05/14/2002 2:51:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com <> writes:
<< When the LR-3 regulator senses low voltage and illuminates the low
voltage warning light, can the light be shut off by pulling the field
breaker (or opening the Alternator switch if you have one)? In a single
alternator system it would be nice to be able to extinguish the light
after you recognize the low voltage situation.... --Mark Navratil >>
5/14/2002
Hello Mark, Which breaker you pull would be a function of which breaker you
are using to power the LV light. The LR-3 just completes a circuit to ground
to activate the light.
If you've wired the LR-3 as per B&C instructions pulling the field breaker or
opening the alternator switch will not turn off the light.
There was a short thread a while back on which is the "right" breaker to use
to power the LV light. The B&C instructions say to use the bus voltage sense
breaker feeding pin 3 of the LR-3 to also feed the the LV light. I chose to
do otherwise for reasons given in the thread. I'll resurrect it for you if
you are interested.
My approach would be along biblical lines: "If thine LV light offend thee,
pluck it out" ie just loosen or remove the bulb. Just don't forget to screw
it back in before next flight.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dmorisse" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us> |
> But VORs are not guarded. In rural areas they are back away from the
roads
> so it is a long walk in. But destroying one is no different than when the
> government takes it out of service for maintenance.
>> At present, it is very difficult to hit any satellite as one has to
launch
a
> rocket. My son's business is doing just that for Hughes Satellite. They
> have made up to 4 launches to get just one satellite into orbit.
> For GPS there are over 25 satellites plus many others for various
purposes
> like military communications. The lost of 6 would not even change GPS
> navigation. And they have spares. Hitting even one is very difficult as
they are constantly moving.
I've been watching this discussion regarding the predicted demise of the
VOR and I've been waiting for someone to ask what would happen to our
national airway system. This whole complex system is made up of specially
placed VORs that are not only there for pilots to use for navigating, but
just as importantly, a tool for the controllers to use to control the flow
IFR traffic, especially when operating in non-radar conditions. Maybe I'm
missing something here, but when you airfile IFR and the controller says
"cleared to Xray airport via direct Podunk, V275 Delta City, then V260,
cross Able intersection at or above 6000, maintain 10,000", how is this
going to be done with a GPS? The GPS is great for VFR flight and IFR
direct routing, and it's slowly proving it'self as primary tool for
shooting approaches, but IMHO I don't thing you'll see anytime soon GPS
replacing good old victor airways.
If a satellite dies it takes mega millions to replace it. If a VOR dies, a
good tech can usually have it going again in a matter of hours including
travel time.
If I'm missing the point here or just living in the past, somebody
straighten me up.
Darrel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Demise of VOR |
I was told several years ago that a satellite was only 1 million. That
price has probably gone up. The surprise was that one ILS approach system
could run 2 or 3 million at that time plus the maintenance was very high.
Each land based VOR if it is Non-government is about $5000 but when the
government get into it, it is over $50,000 plus land, maintenance and aerial
survey costs. Most of the satellite cost are the one time shot.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "dmorisse" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Demise of VOR
> But VORs are not guarded. In rural areas they are back away from the
roads
> so it is a long walk in. But destroying one is no different than when the
> government takes it out of service for maintenance.
>> At present, it is very difficult to hit any satellite as one has to
launch
a
> rocket. My son's business is doing just that for Hughes Satellite. They
> have made up to 4 launches to get just one satellite into orbit.
> For GPS there are over 25 satellites plus many others for various
purposes
> like military communications. The lost of 6 would not even change GPS
> navigation. And they have spares. Hitting even one is very difficult as
they are constantly moving.
I've been watching this discussion regarding the predicted demise of the
VOR and I've been waiting for someone to ask what would happen to our
national airway system. This whole complex system is made up of specially
placed VORs that are not only there for pilots to use for navigating, but
just as importantly, a tool for the controllers to use to control the flow
IFR traffic, especially when operating in non-radar conditions. Maybe I'm
missing something here, but when you airfile IFR and the controller says
"cleared to Xray airport via direct Podunk, V275 Delta City, then V260,
cross Able intersection at or above 6000, maintain 10,000", how is this
going to be done with a GPS? The GPS is great for VFR flight and IFR
direct routing, and it's slowly proving it'self as primary tool for
shooting approaches, but IMHO I don't thing you'll see anytime soon GPS
replacing good old victor airways.
If a satellite dies it takes mega millions to replace it. If a VOR dies, a
good tech can usually have it going again in a matter of hours including
travel time.
If I'm missing the point here or just living in the past, somebody
straighten me up.
Darrel
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brucem(at)olypen.com |
| Subject: | RE: IFR Equipment Required |
The VOR system is ancient and creaky. If I recall correctly, the
vacuum tubes for the transmitters are available only from Poland!
But questions about GPS reliability keeps postponing approval of it
for "sole source" IFR navigation. The ACs, which various NTSB
hearings indicate have regulatory force, still require a backup
navigation capability, especially for a legal alternative airport.
The advent of WAAS for precision GPS approaches has been 18 months
away for more than six years.
I just designed my "IFR lite" panel for approaches through the
frequent low ceilings in the Seattle area where I live. While I am
griped at spending $2600 extra for a VOR/ILS/MB unit from Val
Avionics and $500 for a CDI for the IFR GPS unit, those costs are
about 4% of the total expenditures for my GlaStar. That's
acceptable to me in order do it right and legal.
Regards, Bruce McGregor
do not
archive
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
http://www.olypen.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GPS Only For IFR |
| From: | Victor Stahl <victor170(at)sbcglobal.net> |
On 5/14/02 12:01 PM, "BAKEROCB(at)aol.com" wrote:
> Hello Victor, Thank you again for opening this can of worms. We haven't had
> this much excitement on this list since Grandma caught her............
>
> I hope that the thread has been useful to you. Now, can you please tell us
> how the inputs have affected your thinking / decisions? Many thanks.
>
> My thanks again to all who responded on this subject.
>
> 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
To answer your question........ Everyone's comments have put me in a
position where If I plan to configure my panel for IFR, I would probably be
questionably legal if I left out at least the VOR. I would be foolish to
have only one source of IFR navigation equipment, and that GPS with VOR
together in the panel would be a good plan. It sounds as though there is
universal agreement that VOR will be around for quite a while and that for
precision approaches, in the foreseeable future, it will be the only game in
town. Also, having VHF navigation as a back-up for GPS is the smart
call........
Thanx again to everyone who chose to enter this can of worms.........
Victor S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Golias" <JGOLIAS(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Demise of VOR |
Darrel,
Sooner or later the VOR systems are going to be shut
down. Maintaining and aging fleet of field
transmitters is going to become costly and
inefficient. As for the Victor airways, that's a
pretty simple answer. The VORs and their associated
intersections will all become waypoints in our
databases. They will be virtual points in space.
This will do away with the cone of confusion, line of
site problems when low (providing you can still see
the sky) and having to identify independent
transmitters while enroute. It will greatly simplify
our job and reduce ongoing costs.
Jeff
>I've been watching this discussion regarding the
predicted demise of the
>VOR and I've been waiting for someone to ask what
would happen to our
>national airway system. This whole complex system is
made up of specially
>placed VORs that are not only there for pilots to use
for navigating, but
>just as importantly, a tool for the controllers to
use to control the flow
>IFR traffic, especially when operating in non-radar
conditions. Maybe I'm
>missing something here, but when you airfile IFR and
the controller says
>"cleared to Xray airport via direct Podunk, V275
Delta City, then V260,
>cross Able intersection at or above 6000, maintain
10,000", how is this
>going to be done with a GPS? The GPS is great for
VFR flight and IFR
>direct routing, and it's slowly proving it'self as
primary tool for
>shooting approaches, but IMHO I don't thing you'll
see anytime soon GPS
>replacing good old victor airways.
>If a satellite dies it takes mega millions to replace
it. If a VOR dies, a
>good tech can usually have it going again in a matter
of hours including
>travel time.
>If I'm missing the point here or just living in the
past, somebody
>straighten me up.
>Darrel
Jeff Golias
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Harrill <KHarrill(at)osa.state.sc.us> |
| Subject: | Battery failures |
Kevin,
I have installed a modified version of Bob's "All Electric on a Budget"
system because I, too, have concerns about the battery being a single point
of failure. Once I had an electrical system failure in a C-172 when a cable
terminal vibrated loose at the ammeter shunt. My modification incorporates
a small battery in the SD-8 circuit which allows it to function completely
independently of the main battery. I discussed the modification with Bob;
he did not approve or disapprove of the change. He did say that the RG
batteries are much more reliable than the older designs and that a single
battery should suffice. The jury is still out on my modification since I
have only 3 hours on my RV-6 and I have not yet tested the electrical
systems.
Ken Harrill
RV-6, flying at last
I'm building an RV-8 which will be IFR approved. My current plan is
to use Bob's "All Electric on a Budget (TM)" approach, with electric
gyrso and a B&C SD-8 standby alternator instead of a vacuum pump.
Single battery. I have had one comment from another builder that he
would want two batteries, wired so each could be disconnected from
the system, because "A common battery failure is shorting of a cell,
which leads to excessive current and possible fire danger as the
alternator tries to bring the system up to 12 volts. I had a cell
failure in a car system, but no
severe consequences."
Bob tells us that if we replace the battery regularly, it will be
reliable, and most importantly it won't be the single point of
failure that drags down the whole electrical system. What is the
experience of the other listers? Have you had, or do you know of
batteries that failed and killed the electrical system? How long had
the battery been in service?
Is this type of failure a progressive thing that gives warning signs
by gradually increasing charge current over a few flights, or is it a
sudden failure?
Thanks,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (installing engine & electrics)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
http://eccentrix.com/misc/rv8/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotorway FADEC |
>
>on 5/14/02 8:24 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III at nuckolls(at)kscable.com wrote:
> >> my system.
> >
> > Do you have a schematic of the power distribution system
> > that shows their present recommendations for supplying
> > primary and backup power?
> >
>
>I have the schematic of the wiring system that came with the kit but not
>sure how to post it here... ? It's part of a set of blueprints but I could
>have it copied and reduced.
what size are the drawings? you might go to a Kinko's and
copy at actual or reduced size and just mail me the copies.
I'd like to have them for my library.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Batteries and Fuses ***** CORRECTION ***** |
Just cruising over how this note got posted and I spotted a significant
error . . . I've refined the quantification of inrush durations
for lamps and pitot heaters . . .
>
>
>Bob and Others,
>
>The AEC and AC43.13 provide guidance on wire sizing, switch sizing and the
>maximum breaker or fuse sizes for a given wire size. What is the best way to
>optimize fuse selection between the boundaries of nuisance trips and max
>size fuse for the wire.
>
>I have been advised that the rule of thumb is to double the Amps of a lamp,
>and for other devices choose a fuse 25% greater than the load. Is this wise?
Kinda . . . yes, a fuse/breaker should be sized for some operating
headroom
but you don't need to double the rating for lamps. Lamp inrush lasts
but a few TENS OF MILLIseconds. Pitot heat, on the other hand draws,
2x or more
times running current for 4-10 seconds . . . you gotta about
double the fuse rating to keep it from nuisance tripping. I'd
wire pitot heat with 14AWG and 15A . . . everything else can pretty
much be a 10-25% overhead.
>Battery question for Bob,
>Looking at Fig 17-6, Is there a risk that when both battery contactors are
>made, if one battery is well charged and the other fully discharged, that a
>huge inrush to the flat battery may occur, overheating it, warping the
>plates etc?
>
No
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Mucker" <matthew(at)mucker.net> |
| Subject: | DG needed with GPS? |
Just remember that your GPS gives you *track* while the DG gives you
*heading*.
In a stiff crosswind, there could be substantial difference. ATC generally
assigns headings to fly, not tracks.
It worries me sometimes to hear folks relying on GPS to tell their heading.
I sincerely hope this was an innocent and intentional simplicication. A
pilot who doesn't understand the difference could get him/herself into
trouble.
Just food for the fire.
-Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
> Burley
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:31 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: DG needed with GPS?
>
>
>
>
> Working on my panel design for a Glasair I-FT and planning to follow
> Bob's all-electric design. Question; with GPS on-board (Skymap
> IIIc), do I need a DG? I've semi-convinced myself that with heading
> info provided by the GPS (and a mech. compass backup), I don't need
> the expensive DG. I still plan to have an autopilot/turn coordinator
> (Navaid), airspeed, elec. attitude gyro, altimeter, and vertical
> speed instruments.
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | RE: DG needed with GPS? |
>
>Just remember that your GPS gives you *track* while the DG gives you
>*heading*.
>
>In a stiff crosswind, there could be substantial difference. ATC generally
>assigns headings to fly, not tracks.
>
>It worries me sometimes to hear folks relying on GPS to tell their heading.
>I sincerely hope this was an innocent and intentional simplicication. A
>pilot who doesn't understand the difference could get him/herself into
>trouble.
>
>Just food for the fire.
>
>-Matt
Agreed . . . and the GPS folks haven't helped much by
adopting "new" names for navigation vectors. All my
handhelds refer to present track over the ground as
"heading" when it is indeed "course". They call "course
to make good" to a waypoint "bearing". I've written
Magellan about this several times . . . didn't even
get a response. I suppose they could be reasoning
that since there are so many units in service that
10,000 wrongs can be called right.
I asked a local ATC guy who lived on the airport
we owned a few years ago how much problem it would
present to him if somebody were indeed flying GPS
CRS instead of magnetic HDG . . . he said not much.
They are somewhat aware of local winds and will put
an offhand adjustment into heading requests but
the bottom line is that if you were off by 10-20
degrees, it would only affect the outcome by getting
the next expected vector sooner (later) and/or
a call for a small additional adjustment. They
are painting a mental image of future situations
with a very broad brush at the radar scope. If
EVERYBODY would shuck the compass out the window
and fly GPS CRS . . . the controllers would be
delighted . . . most of their concern for winds
simply go away.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotorway FADEC |
| From: | Vince Ackerman <vack(at)teleport.com> |
on 5/14/02 1:40 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III at nuckolls(at)kscable.com wrote:
>> have it copied and reduced.
>
> what size are the drawings? you might go to a Kinko's and
> copy at actual or reduced size and just mail me the copies.
> I'd like to have them for my library.
>
> Bob . . .
>
I'll take them to Kinko's and have them copied. They're about 24 x 24 and
basically describe the entire wiring harness outside of the fadec. Where
should I send them?
Vince
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | DG needed with GPS? |
I'm not sure about the regs in the US, but up here in Canada we are
required to have a DG (or equivalent) to fly IFR. I would be
surprised if it wasn't a requirement in the US as well. I'll leave
it as an exercise for the reader to look up the FARs :)
For VFR, I would be perfectly happy without a DG.
Kevin
>
>Just remember that your GPS gives you *track* while the DG gives you
>*heading*.
>
>In a stiff crosswind, there could be substantial difference. ATC generally
>assigns headings to fly, not tracks.
>
>It worries me sometimes to hear folks relying on GPS to tell their heading.
>I sincerely hope this was an innocent and intentional simplicication. A
>pilot who doesn't understand the difference could get him/herself into
>trouble.
>
>Just food for the fire.
>
>-Matt
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
>> Burley
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:31 AM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: DG needed with GPS?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Working on my panel design for a Glasair I-FT and planning to follow
>> Bob's all-electric design. Question; with GPS on-board (Skymap
>> IIIc), do I need a DG? I've semi-convinced myself that with heading
>> info provided by the GPS (and a mech. compass backup), I don't need
>> the expensive DG. I still plan to have an autopilot/turn coordinator
>> (Navaid), airspeed, elec. attitude gyro, altimeter, and vertical
>> speed instruments.
>>
>>
>http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Demise of VOR |
The FAA is moving toward Free flight. Using GPS to
navigate hither and yon. The airways may exist for
people who want to continue using them, but if you
wnat to go from here to there, why? Just point
straight there, and get there quicker.
The biggest reason thing appear not to be happening
is the silly vendor the FAA (er, Mr Kennedy) has
chosen to do it. Want STARS? Raytheon is 3-5 years
late. Want WAAS? Oooops Raytheon is 2 years late.
Want ASR-11, shoot Raytheon is late on that too.
Not only do they have three strikes, but the
functionality delivered is LESS than what they
are replacing (STARS and ASR-11 anyway). Sure
El Paso finally has STARS as of this week, but
it can only work with 435 airplanes (ARTS that
it replaced did 550, of course if there are that
many planes in a TRACON, maybe you'll need to
hide under something). ASR-11, no filtering,
see that spot on the screen, big ol' tower,
looks like a primary target aircraft, but
it never moves!
Thanks for listening.
Jeff Golias wrote:
>
> Darrel,
>
> Sooner or later the VOR systems are going to be shut
> down. Maintaining and aging fleet of field
> transmitters is going to become costly and
> inefficient. As for the Victor airways, that's a
> pretty simple answer. The VORs and their associated
> intersections will all become waypoints in our
> databases. They will be virtual points in space.
> This will do away with the cone of confusion, line of
> site problems when low (providing you can still see
> the sky) and having to identify independent
> transmitters while enroute. It will greatly simplify
> our job and reduce ongoing costs.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotorway FADEC |
>
>on 5/14/02 1:40 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III at nuckolls(at)kscable.com wrote:
>
> >> have it copied and reduced.
> >
> > what size are the drawings? you might go to a Kinko's and
> > copy at actual or reduced size and just mail me the copies.
> > I'd like to have them for my library.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
>
>I'll take them to Kinko's and have them copied. They're about 24 x 24 and
>basically describe the entire wiring harness outside of the fadec. Where
>should I send them?
Bob Nuckolls
6936 Bainbridge Road
Wichita, Ks 67226-1008
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuse/breaker size |
| From: | Joseph J Hasper <j1j2h3(at)juno.com> |
>The AEC and AC43.13 provide guidance on wire sizing, switch sizing and
the
>maximum breaker or fuse sizes for a given wire size. What is the best
way to
>optimize fuse selection between the boundaries of nuisance trips and max
>size fuse for the wire.
>
>I have been advised that the rule of thumb is to double the Amps of a
lamp,
>and for other devices choose a fuse 25% greater than the load. Is this
wise?
Why bother your head about this? The above references have it right.
Size the WIRE for the load and the FUSE for the wire. Having a smaller
fuse won't protect your device - if it is drawing an overload, it's
already cooked.
Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting tail feathers
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | VFR now IFR later |
| From: | Joseph J Hasper <j1j2h3(at)juno.com> |
I am planning to configure my RV-7 for VFR initially, but bring it up to
IFR when I can afford this. I understand that I can do this by
re-submitting the plane for FAA approval (substantial modification) and
re-flying the test hours. Is this correct, or am I stuck with my initial
configuration?
Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting tail feathers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Leonard" <dleonar1(at)maine.rr.com> |
>>><< If you are cleared to NOXXIS beacon, on the old GPS you just key in
the
letters, there are enough buttons,each button is three characters.. hit
"abc" and you get "B", if you need "c" you hit the right arrow, left arrow
for "A"... hit go to, and bam, there's your bearing and range. The new one
requires much toggleing and attention.. >>
yes, but if you had a "Real" GPS, built in, you could punch "nrst" twice to
get the intersections, then select which one you wanted to fly to (usually
the one in the window already), then direct to. Your map would point right
to the intersection. If you had an approach GPS, it would overlay a course
for you to fly on the map window.>>>
Both the handhelds I I referred to, the Garmin 95xl, and the 295 have that
nearest function.. and it is very useful, IF your clearance is one of the
ten NEAREST Navaids or Airports. Usually I find that I get cleared direct
to an intersection 60 miles away, so keying in the identifier is the fastest
way to find the waypoint. In addition, the way Identifiers are set up, they
are discreet, so just keying in all the letters will automatically load the
correct waypoint. to use the nearest, you need to hit nearest, then select
whether you want a VOR, NDB, intersection airport, then go to that screen,
toggle to the one you want, then hit go to, or enter then toggle to "go to"
then "enter".. A lot of button pushing when you are trying to hold heading,
altitude, and talk on the radio, and set up the "primary" VOR! It makes for
a lot of time out of the instrument scan!
David Leonard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | DG Needed with GPS? |
In a message dated 05/15/2002 2:52:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com Jim Burley
writes:
<< Working on my panel design for a Glasair I-FT and planning to follow
Bob's all-electric design. Question; with GPS on-board (Skymap
IIIc), do I need a DG? I've semi-convinced myself that with heading
info provided by the GPS (and a mech. compass backup), I don't need
the expensive DG. I still plan to have an autopilot/turn coordinator
(Navaid), airspeed, elec. attitude gyro, altimeter, and vertical
speed instruments. >>
5/15/2002
Hello Jim, Are you planning to fly IFR? If so FAR 91.205 (d) (9) says you
require "Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent)".
It would be interesting to see how an FAA inspector interprets the word
"equivalent".
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
PS: Please let me nudge Bob Nuckolls over on the semantic soap box for a
moment and make my spiel. I get very concerned when I see / hear people use
precise terms in an imprecise manner. What it leads to is a situation wherein
we cannot communicate effectively because the actual meaning of the terms are
no longer commonly understood / accepted.
The words "course", "track", and "heading" have enough importance to us as
aviators that we should understand their proper meaning and use them
accordingly.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN" <glastar(at)3rivers.net> |
| Subject: | Re: DG Needed with GPS? |
Re: Course, Track and Heading
Heading: what the compass says you are flying assuming it is correct and
corrected for deviation
Course: The line you drew on the map.......True Course is not corrected for
variation Magnetic Course is corrected for the average variation between the
two points.
Track: This is the actual.......real time line you are making over the
ground. If you have plotted correctly and used variation correctly and the
wind correction is as forecast and your compass is correct THEN your "Track"
should be the same as your Magnetic Course.
Buck Buchanan, Valier, MT (18 deg. east variation)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Leds for navigation lights |
Hi Bob and all,
What is your opinion about the use of leds in replacement of incandescent
bulbs for nav/position lights ?
It would improve things with our 18 amps only Rotax alternator.
http://www.ledtronics.com/
http://www.theledlight.com/flashlightindex.html
Any advice appreciated.
Cheers,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru 3300 dual alternator control |
>
>
>Bob wrote:
>"Oops! That 20A output at "2750" rpm is based on gearing offered
> at the vacuum pump pad of most aircraft engines. The alternator
>(SD20)
> needs to turn about 4,000 rpm to get you 20A. On a Lycoming with
> about 1:1.3 pad ratio, the 20A statement at 2750 propeller RPM
> is accurate."
>The reason I chose the SD20 was because of the perfect fit to the spline
>on the crankshaft. I know that the table of shaft rpm vs. output listed
>with the SD20 drawing says that at 3000 rpm, the output is 12 amps.
>There is no lower rpm listed to interpolate to 2750 rpm. What I failed
>to consider was that this output is for 28 volts: no mention of this on
>the chart. Tim at B&C pointed out that at 14 volts the output could be
>much greater at 2750 rpm. He claimed 20 amps.
Oh, okay. If you talked to Tim and he cited 20A at 2750 and 14v
then that's probably a good figure.
>In emergency, the engine
>could be run faster for more amps. The prop might not allow 3300 rpm,
>but 3000 should be possible. Even with 12 amps, this is more than the
>SD8 which gives 6.8 amps at 3000, and 5.7 amps at 2750. My essential
>bus [EFIS/ONE, SL70 xponder, SL30 NavComm] totals 5.1 amps until I
>transmit on the radio.
Lets design a system that doesn't have "emergencies" . . .
> If the output of the SD20 is under 8 or 10 amps at 2750, then I would
>be better off with the SD8. At some point, the field current of 5 amps
>gets significant.
Field current on and SD-20 is the same as the L-40 . . . about 3.5 a
max.
> I know that a belt driven ND alternator would give
>40+ amps, but I'm not up to adding the belt drive. This dual bus system
>with the EFIS/ONE do-everything is already more work than the standard
>instrument panel, and blazes new ground. I prefer electrical challenges
>to mechanical!
> Let me know if you think I would be better off exchanging the SD20
>for an SD8. Your advice to all of us is much appreciated.
The SD-20 is your best bet at 14V . . .
Okay, let's assume 20A from the SD-20 . . . what's available from
the Jabiru's built-in alternator?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mprather(at)spro.net |
| Subject: | Re: Leds for navigation lights |
I asked that question quite a while back - in the archives, I think.
Here's a link to a tail light:
http://www.whelen.com/avposlas.htm
and also try here:
http://www.goodrich-hella.com/
Matt-
----- Original Message -----
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:47 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Leds for navigation lights
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Hi Bob and all,
>
> What is your opinion about the use of leds in replacement of
> incandescentbulbs for nav/position lights ?
> It would improve things with our 18 amps only Rotax alternator.
>
> http://www.ledtronics.com/
>
> http://www.theledlight.com/flashlightindex.html
>
>
> Any advice appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gilles
>
>
> _-
>
- The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> _-
>
!! NEW !!
> _-
>
List Related Information
> _-
>
=======================================================================
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Leds for navigation lights |
Good grief! Did you check the price of the Whelen LED? A B & C 20 Amp
alternator is only $130 more than the light!
Best regards,
Rob Housman
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
mprather(at)spro.net
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Leds for navigation lights
I asked that question quite a while back - in the archives, I think.
Here's a link to a tail light:
http://www.whelen.com/avposlas.htm
and also try here:
http://www.goodrich-hella.com/
Matt-
----- Original Message -----
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:47 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Leds for navigation lights
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Hi Bob and all,
>
> What is your opinion about the use of leds in replacement of
> incandescentbulbs for nav/position lights ?
> It would improve things with our 18 amps only Rotax alternator.
>
> http://www.ledtronics.com/
>
> http://www.theledlight.com/flashlightindex.html
>
>
> Any advice appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gilles
>
>
> _-
>
- The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> _-
>
!! NEW !!
> _-
>
List Related Information
> _-
>
=======================================================================
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bartrim, Steve" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca> |
| Subject: | GLONASS & GPS - no VOR |
OK, first off I'm putting on my asbestos suit as I'm sure that
suggesting use of a system belonging to America's former arch rival will
certainly generate some flames.
Not many will deny the superiority of GPS over VHF navigation,
however most want a backup. Why not use the Russian GLONASS? I spent the
morning looking for information on it on the internet & found some limited
information. There seems to be a few receivers available that use info from
both systems to provide more accurate positioning than either system on it's
own & will function one either system alone. Apparently the Russian
satellites are better positioned for northern latitudes than GPS sats, so
this would be a real benefit for Alaskans & fellow Canadians.
Most of the web sites selling GLONASS receivers I have found are in
Russian so I couldn't read them. I found a few Canadian sites & one US site
that were selling a GPS/GLONASS card? No prices.
I think it might be worth more investigation. Anybody else know
anymore about it?
S. Todd Bartrim
13B rotary powered
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
GLONASS GPS - no VOR
OK, first off I'm putting on my asbestos suit as I'm
sure that suggesting use of a system belonging to America's former arch
rival will certainly generate some flames.
Not many will deny the superiority of GPS over VHF
navigation, however most want a backup. Why not use the Russian
GLONASS? I spent the morning looking for information on it on the
internet found some limited information. There seems to be a few
receivers available that use info from both systems to provide more
accurate positioning than either system on it's own will function
one either system alone. Apparently the Russian satellites are better
positioned for northern latitudes than GPS sats, so this would be a
real benefit for Alaskans fellow Canadians.
Most of the web sites selling GLONASS receivers I have
found are in Russian so I couldn't read them. I found a few Canadian
sites one US site that were selling a GPS/GLONASS card? No
prices.
I think it might be worth more investigation. Anybody
else know anymore about it?
S. Todd Bartrim
13B rotary powered
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Leds for navigation lights |
Hi all,
At Sun 'n fun this year Whelan were demonstrating red and green wing tip
lights built out of LED's. They expected the production price to be similar
to their conventional lamps. Current draw was only .35 amps. No expected
delivery time was available.
These look easy to fabricate. I'd appreciate some input from the group.
The highest intensity LED's I could locate were 3200 mcd @ 30 degree view
angle or 8000 mcd @ 10 degree view angle.
Can any one advise me of better devices than these and some possible sources
?
Thanks,
Paul McAllister, Eurpoa builder (363)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Housman" <RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Leds for navigation lights
<RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
>
> Good grief! Did you check the price of the Whelen LED? A B & C 20 Amp
> alternator is only $130 more than the light!
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob Housman
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> mprather(at)spro.net
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Leds for navigation lights
>
>
> I asked that question quite a while back - in the archives, I think.
>
> Here's a link to a tail light:
>
> http://www.whelen.com/avposlas.htm
>
> and also try here:
>
> http://www.goodrich-hella.com/
>
> Matt-
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:47 pm
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Leds for navigation lights
>
> > <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> >
> > Hi Bob and all,
> >
> > What is your opinion about the use of leds in replacement of
> > incandescentbulbs for nav/position lights ?
> > It would improve things with our 18 amps only Rotax alternator.
> >
> > http://www.ledtronics.com/
> >
> > http://www.theledlight.com/flashlightindex.html
> >
> >
> > Any advice appreciated.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Gilles
> >
> >
> > _-
> >
> - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> > _-
> >
> !! NEW !!
> > _-
> >
> List Related Information
> > _-
> >
> =======================================================================
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GLONASS & GPS - no VOR |
>
>
> OK, first off I'm putting on my asbestos suit as I'm sure that
>suggesting use of a system belonging to America's former arch rival will
>certainly generate some flames.
> Not many will deny the superiority of GPS over VHF navigation,
>however most want a backup. Why not use the Russian GLONASS? I spent the
>morning looking for information on it on the internet & found some limited
>information. There seems to be a few receivers available that use info from
>both systems to provide more accurate positioning than either system on it's
>own & will function one either system alone. Apparently the Russian
>satellites are better positioned for northern latitudes than GPS sats, so
>this would be a real benefit for Alaskans & fellow Canadians.
> Most of the web sites selling GLONASS receivers I have found are in
>Russian so I couldn't read them. I found a few Canadian sites & one US site
>that were selling a GPS/GLONASS card? No prices.
> I think it might be worth more investigation. Anybody else know
>anymore about it?
>
>S. Todd Bartrim
GPS satellite coverage in Alaska and northern Canada is actually
better than in the continental US, as the latitude is high enough
that some satellites that are on the other side of the pole can be
picked up. However, all the satellites will be lowish on the
horizon, as the orbital inclination means that none of them come
right overhead. So, this means poorer geometry in the vertical axis,
and less altitude accuracy. Not a problem for enroute navigation,
and non-precision approaches, but it means precision approaches will
likely need some sort of augmentation to get enough vertical
accuracy. I'm assuming WAAS coverage will do the job, but I haven't
actually looked into this aspect to see what the real plans are.
I'm sceptical that the Russians will be able to keep putting
satellites in orbit to keep GLONASS operational. I'm told the
Russian satellites have a shorter design life than the western ones,
so they need to keep stuffing new ones up there regularly. Last time
I looked into this they only had a partial constellation operational,
which means spotty coverage.
I'm also sceptical that the FAA will be willing to sign up to
accepting use of GLONASS signal to augment GPS for IFR ops. Politics
(read "not invented here") will likely get in the way.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (installing engine & electrics)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
http://eccentrix.com/misc/rv8/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "P Fischer" <ptf(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotorway FADEC |
Bob, There is nothing for backup power on these ships. Real scary when you
consider that they use electronic ignition that fails if the voltage drops
below 9.6 volts. Geez.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Ackerman" <vack(at)teleport.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Rotorway FADEC
>
> on 5/14/02 8:24 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III at nuckolls(at)kscable.com wrote:
> >> my system.
> >
> > Do you have a schematic of the power distribution system
> > that shows their present recommendations for supplying
> > primary and backup power?
> >
>
> I have the schematic of the wiring system that came with the kit but not
> sure how to post it here... ? It's part of a set of blueprints but I
could
> have it copied and reduced.
>
> Vince
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronnie Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net> |
Snip> A lot of button pushing when you are trying to hold heading,
> altitude, and talk on the radio, and set up the "primary" VOR! It makes
for
> a lot of time out of the instrument scan!
On the other hand, trying to do VOR bearing intersections from two stations
while plotting it on the chart sliding around on your lap, then dialing in
each VOR frequency, then twisting the OBD knobs, (is that "to" or "from") so
you can figure out where you are allows you to devote more time to
instrument scanning
?????? (;<)))
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN" <glastar(at)3rivers.net> |
| Subject: | Re: DG Needed with GPS? |
Matt,
What you say is true except what the GPS tells you versus what your compass
"should" be telling you is wind correction. Here in MT that can be 20 to 30
degrees. While flying in AK I did use the GPS because generally the winds
weren't that strong and the GPS was much more accurate than the BIG dip
error from the whiskey compass. One good trick in high latitudes is to
update the DG from the GPS while on the ground [then you hopefully have no
drift ;>) ] If you have a good DG that doesn't precess much or if you know
the rate of precession of your DG then you can reset the DG by rate.
Buck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aucountry(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: DG Needed with GPS? |
In a message dated 5/15/02 05:30:58 PM, glastar(at)3rivers.net writes:
<< What you say is true except what the GPS tells you versus what your compass
"should" be telling you is wind correction. Here in MT that can be 20 to 30
degrees. >>
OK, now it's my turn to draw fire...
I really don't know what all this concern is for whether or not the DG should
be set to the magnetic heading or the true course heading. I fly where the
wind is in the 20s to 50s (miles per hour) also. Maybe I just don't fly
enough under the direct control of ATC. After I installed a panel mounted
GPS, and tried to track the CDI built into the GPS, I found that setting the
DG to the GPS heading allowed me to both update for precession and to fly a
fairly accurate heading just by looking at the DG.
Oh, sure, I was flying though LA once and was told to turn to heading such
and such and I just turned to that heading. A few minutes later the
controller asked me to turn another 5 degrees in the same direction.
Afterward it occured to me that I was on a GPS heading.
You see, the thing is, the controller has no clue as to 1) what winds you are
actually experiencing, how much your DG has precessed, wheather or not you
set your DG to the compass, or if you are flying a GPS heading. And, I don't
think they care either. As far as they are concerned, they see your track on
their screen and they make adjustments to that effect.
My guess is that before too long, we'll all be flying on GPS heading. After
all, that IS the heading the plane is flying - not facing; drift do to wind,
be damned.
Upon reaching my destination, after turning downwind, I double check my DG to
make sure I'm on the reciprocal heading to the active runway. This takes
about 10 seconds IF an update to the DG is needed.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VFR now IFR later |
>
>I am planning to configure my RV-7 for VFR initially, but bring it up to
>IFR when I can afford this. I understand that I can do this by
>re-submitting the plane for FAA approval (substantial modification) and
>re-flying the test hours. Is this correct, or am I stuck with my initial
>configuration?
Check out the latest rules . . . I seem to recall hearing
that once your ship is blessed the first time, subsequent
changes don't require a sprinkle of holy water. I don't
recall if the changes are simply made in ship's log or
whether the FAA wanted to be notified too . . . I think
EAA has data on this on their website.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Leds for navigation lights |
| From: | James Freeman <flyeyes(at)bellsouth.net> |
On Wednesday, May 15, 2002, at 02:47 PM, gilles.thesee wrote:
> What is your opinion about the use of leds in replacement of
> incandescent
> bulbs for nav/position lights ?
> It would improve things with our 18 amps only Rotax alternator.
>
> http://www.ledtronics.com/
>
> http://www.theledlight.com/flashlightindex.html
>
>
> Any advice appreciated.
I've been working on this for some time, and was hopeful that the
ledtronics products might be suitable. However, I gave up last week
after eight months of trying to get them to ship products that are
depicted on their website but are apparently unavailable. After
insisting on a minimum order (six units) , they took three months to
bill my credit card and ship the wrong parts (narrow-angle). Three
weeks of daily phone calls/faxes/e-mails finally resulted in a RMA
number and I returned the parts. This was in January, and I had no
further response from them until about three weeks ago. I had to result
to daily contact again for almost two weeks, but they admitted they
couldn't fill the order and agreed to refund my credit card. Still
haven't yet, but I'll give them a few weeks before I start harassing
them again.
In their defense, the parts I did receive (briefly) looked great, but
were unsuitable for nav lights. I think they mean well, but they are
incredibly disorganized, and don't seem to keep any kind of records.
At this point, I'm ready to just buy regular lamps and move on, but I'm
keeping my eyes open....
James Freeman
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN" <glastar(at)3rivers.net> |
| Subject: | Re: DG Needed with GPS? |
Okay, Here we go,
I will grant you that you can certainly go from A to B by just using what
you call a "true course heading" from the GPS. Actually there is no such
animal as I'm sure you know, as true course is not corrected for variation
or deviation. My point is that planning a flight using TC, Variation, Mag
Course, Deviation, Compass Heading...........true virgins make dull
companions........may become a lost art after one passes his private [like
35 years ago]. If you are flying where the variation is 27 degrees then I
would say that is a significant difference between "true course heading" and
actual compass heading. Another cogent point is that if you simply fly the
"true course heading" how do you know what your cross-wind component is? To
say that wind doesn't matter is to say that weather in general doesn't
matter and I think we all know that isn't true.
I guess it is kind of hard for a "thumb on the map" guy with GPS as an aide
to totally change.
Regards, Buck
In a message dated 5/15/02 05:30:58 PM, glastar(at)3rivers.net writes:
<< What you say is true except what the GPS tells you versus what your
compass
"should" be telling you is wind correction. Here in MT that can be 20 to 30
degrees. >>
OK, now it's my turn to draw fire...
I really don't know what all this concern is for whether or not the DG
should
be set to the magnetic heading or the true course heading. I fly where the
wind is in the 20s to 50s (miles per hour) also. Maybe I just don't fly
enough under the direct control of ATC. After I installed a panel mounted
GPS, and tried to track the CDI built into the GPS, I found that setting the
DG to the GPS heading allowed me to both update for precession and to fly a
fairly accurate heading just by looking at the DG.
Oh, sure, I was flying though LA once and was told to turn to heading such
and such and I just turned to that heading. A few minutes later the
controller asked me to turn another 5 degrees in the same direction.
Afterward it occured to me that I was on a GPS heading.
You see, the thing is, the controller has no clue as to 1) what winds you
are
actually experiencing, how much your DG has precessed, wheather or not you
set your DG to the compass, or if you are flying a GPS heading. And, I
don't
think they care either. As far as they are concerned, they see your track
on
their screen and they make adjustments to that effect.
My guess is that before too long, we'll all be flying on GPS heading. After
all, that IS the heading the plane is flying - not facing; drift do to wind,
be damned.
Upon reaching my destination, after turning downwind, I double check my DG
to
make sure I'm on the reciprocal heading to the active runway. This takes
about 10 seconds IF an update to the DG is needed.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Leds for navigation lights |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi Bob and all,
>
>What is your opinion about the use of leds in replacement of incandescent
>bulbs for nav/position lights ?
>It would improve things with our 18 amps only Rotax alternator.
>
>http://www.ledtronics.com/
>
>http://www.theledlight.com/flashlightindex.html
>
>
>Any advice appreciated.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Gilles
There has been a white nav light fixture available
for quite some time . . .several years as I recall.
We've been trying to get it "blessed" for the Beechjet
for nearly as long. I think acoustic vibration from the
engine exhausts tear the filaments out of the regulator
bulb. In spite of the fact that the LED fixture is
a TSO'd product and easily demonstrated for compliance
under the rules of a few years ago, we now have to
jump a lot of new hoops and create a lot of documents
all of which have to be blessed. If they can't make
a career of evaluating hardware, they're just as happy
to ponder piles of paper . . .
Red and Green are a little harder I think for color
matching . . . the boundary of "approved" colors
is rather narrow . . . it's insufficient that the
colors be bright enough and perceived as red and
green . . . they've got to be "ruby" red and "emerald"
green. If Whelen and Grimes are showing product, I
suspect they've solved the color problems. Bet they're
not cheap!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: DG Needed with GPS? |
>
>
>Okay, Here we go,
>
>I will grant you that you can certainly go from A to B by just using what
>you call a "true course heading" from the GPS. Actually there is no such
>animal as I'm sure you know, as true course is not corrected for variation
>or deviation.
"True course heading" is an oxymoron. Course is present track over the
surface
of the earth. Heading is the way the vehicle is pointed. The only
time they are coincident with each other is if drift is zero.
Neither of these vectors has anything to do with variation or winds
They are simply numbers that in the aviation world are
with reference to the magnetic north or with reference to
true north . . . If you read 093 on the compass, your heading is
093 magnetic (assuming no deviation in compass) . . . irrespective of
where you think it might be taking you or what local corrections are
necessary to convert to true.
If you draw a line on a map, the line you'd like to follow is the desired
track or course to make good from A to B . . . deviation from that
line is cross track error to the right or left. If you can set up and
hold a course (present track over the ground) that agrees with what the
GPS receiver told you to fly, then cross track error stays zero.
>My point is that planning a flight using TC, Variation, Mag
>Course, Deviation, Compass Heading...........true virgins make dull
>companions........may become a lost art after one passes his private [like
>35 years ago]. If you are flying where the variation is 27 degrees then I
>would say that is a significant difference between "true course heading" and
>actual compass heading. Another cogent point is that if you simply fly the
>"true course heading" how do you know what your cross-wind component is?
> To
>say that wind doesn't matter is to say that weather in general doesn't
>matter and I think we all know that isn't true.
It true when you fly GPS . . . I demonstrated this for a young
eagle a few years ago. Had a nice steady 25kt Kansas breeze
blowing across our path. I slowed the airplane down to 65 knots
and had him steer to hold the cross track error zero on GPS.
Of course the nose of the airplane was pointed upwind perhaps
30-40 degrees which gave us a heading that was 30-40 degrees
different than course.
I re-trimmed the airplane for 130 kts . . . and we flew the
same track . . . the nose was obviously closer aligned to
our ground track . . . but still pointed upwind. In terms
of defining the task of getting the airplane from point A
to point B, keeping CTE zeroed does the job irrespective
of airspeed and winds.
>I guess it is kind of hard for a "thumb on the map" guy with GPS as an aide
>to totally change.
Not much needs to change. That cross-track-error indicator
on the GPS is the electronic thumb. Adjust heading to keep that
critter centered and you steer right down the line. Neither
GPS nor the airplane needs to know anything about winds,
deviation, or variation. The only consideration for winds
is how it effects ground speed . . . that is also shown
with great accuracy on the front of the GPS along with
time to go to next waypoint at present speed.
If one had an interest in resolving winds, you could install
an accurate electronic compass, air data system and rig
a computer to do the wind triangle in reverse from which you
can deduce present wind direction and velocity. Never cared
much to know that . . . I have worked the numbers on an E-6
a few times when I was going to call in a Pirep and let flightwatch
know the winds aloft prediction was WAY off . . . but that's
about all that effort is good for.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Miles McCallum" <milesm(at)avnet.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: GLONASS & GPS - no VOR |
>
> OK, first off I'm putting on my asbestos suit as I'm sure that
> suggesting use of a system belonging to America's former arch rival will
> certainly generate some flames.
> Not many will deny the superiority of GPS over VHF navigation,
> however most want a backup. Why not use the Russian GLONASS?
- Or wait for ESA's Galileo (European Union GPS) due to fly 2006, fully
operational 2008 and use (US military) GPS as a back-up..................
Despite the US state dept's best efforts to kill it (in an attempt to
preserve the American monopoly of supplying GPS decoders, and maintain
complete control ..ie be able to turn it off) Galileo has had the green
light. It's civilian system, backed by legal guarantees - if it goes off,
ESA pays up - so you can be sure that US companies will be amongst the first
to exploit it (and why not?) - accuracy is said to be less than 300mm for
free, less than 1mm for a fee. Designed to compliment GPS and GLONASS, when
your mobile phone is GPS equipped (as they will have to be by law in many
countries, including the US) it'll allow you to find your car in the
carpark, and lead you to the driver's side door. i.e. It will blow GPS out
of the water when it comes to its capabilities... the result will be (from
our point of view) true sole GPS type navigation at any point in the world,
down to 0-0 landing and take-offs at any surveyed (private) landing strip...
Miles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <Richard(at)riley.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GLONASS & GPS - no VOR |
Biggest problem with the GLONASS system is the Russians aren't maintaining
it - no new sats have been launched in years, and they don't have any under
construction. Technically, it actually has some interesting advantages
over our system. Keith Peshak used to have some terrific articles up about
it, but they don't seem to be up on the web anymore
>
>
> OK, first off I'm putting on my asbestos suit as I'm sure that
>suggesting use of a system belonging to America's former arch rival will
>certainly generate some flames.
> Not many will deny the superiority of GPS over VHF navigation,
>however most want a backup. Why not use the Russian GLONASS? I spent the
>morning looking for information on it on the internet & found some limited
>information. There seems to be a few receivers available that use info from
>both systems to provide more accurate positioning than either system on it's
>own & will function one either system alone. Apparently the Russian
>satellites are better positioned for northern latitudes than GPS sats, so
>this would be a real benefit for Alaskans & fellow Canadians.
> Most of the web sites selling GLONASS receivers I have found are in
>Russian so I couldn't read them. I found a few Canadian sites & one US site
>that were selling a GPS/GLONASS card? No prices.
> I think it might be worth more investigation. Anybody else know
>anymore about it?
>
>S. Todd Bartrim
>13B rotary powered
>RV-9endurance (finish kit)
>C-FSTB (reserved)
>http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
>
>
>
>GLONASS & GPS - no VOR
>
> OK, first off I'm putting on my asbestos suit as I'm sure that
> suggesting use of a system belonging to America's former arch rival will
> certainly generate some flames.
>
> Not many will deny the superiority of GPS over VHF navigation,
> however most want a backup. Why not use the Russian GLONASS? I spent the
> morning looking for information on it on the internet & found some
> limited information. There seems to be a few receivers available that use
> info from both systems to provide more accurate positioning than either
> system on it's own & will function one either system alone. Apparently
> the Russian satellites are better positioned for northern latitudes than
> GPS sats, so this would be a real benefit for Alaskans & fellow Canadians.
>
> Most of the web sites selling GLONASS receivers I have found are
> in Russian so I couldn't read them. I found a few Canadian sites & one US
> site that were selling a GPS/GLONASS card? No prices.
>
> I think it might be worth more investigation. Anybody else know
> anymore about it?
>
>S. Todd Bartrim
>13B rotary powered
>RV-9endurance (finish kit)
>C-FSTB (reserved)
>http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Francis, CMDR David" <David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au> |
| Subject: | SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - BATTERY LIFE |
Folks, Kevin Horton asked about battery life, and one versus two batteries.
I can share some experience. I have been flying a Pawnee glider tug VH-MLS
for just on twenty years. As tugmaster I found the electrical system on this
simple VFR aircraft to be the weakest system onboard, except for the vacuum
system, which failed many years ago and was ripped out to save weight. Some
data:
a. operating profile, 250 hrs year, 6 minute tows, about 16 starts per
weekend. Climate similar to Pennsylvania but drier, flown by a pool of 12
tug pilots.
b. battery is wet cell and yes Bob is right, they are bad. Battery life
varies between 3 months and 18, tending towards the lower end. All battery
failures have been on the ground during start.
c. likely electrical failures, master switch left on, battery flat, 2 per
year. Intermittent radio caused mainly by vibration induced failures in
soldered wire joints, about 4 per year. Slow cranking - very frequent, clean
all battery terminals and reset voltage regulator twice per year. Hygiene in
heavy cable joints is essential and saves money & inconvenience.
d. starter life is about 8 years, better for the alternator. Contactors have
never failed, nor have the heavy cables, except for the hygiene factor.
e. radio/audio panel toggle switches have a life of about 3 years. Most
switch faults are in the soldered wire joints at the back due to vibration.
f. Yes we had one electrical fire airborne, a Narco Comm 11A emitted smoke
which stopped when I turned the radio off. Quite a thrill at 6000ft with a
glider on cross country tow over some of Australias more remote alpine
country.
Hope this rough data helps.
I am building an RV7 to IFR standard, two alternators and two batteries for
me, and a fire extinguisher too.
Regards, David Francis VH-ZEE,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru 3300 dual alternator control |
Bob wrote:
The SD-20 is your best bet at 14V . . .
Okay, let's assume 20A from the SD-20 . . . what's available from
the Jabiru's built-in alternator?
The Jabiru 3300 manual lists 15 amps continuous-at cruise 2750 rpm. Max
output is 22 amps at 3300 rpm.
Jim Foerster, J400, 20%
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - BATTERY LIFE |
Hello Francis,
I love this statistic, it proves that soldering might be not the right
thing, did you ever try to replace the solderer points trough crimped
contacts? I remember from my time in the Army, that we always covered the
batterie to cable contacts with some kind of silicone paste?
Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GLONASS & GPS - no VOR - and Tail Lights |
>
>Biggest problem with the GLONASS system is the Russians aren't maintaining
>it - no new sats have been launched in years, and they don't have any under
>construction. Technically, it actually has some interesting advantages
>over our system. Keith Peshak used to have some terrific articles up about
>it, but they don't seem to be up on the web anymore
Here's an article that talks about three new satellites put
up in Oct 2000
http://www.oso.chalmers.se/~geo/glonass.html
Here's an interesting site that gives one a 3-d
perspective of GPS vs. GLONASS viewed from space
http://www.mich.com/~buffalo/rhp/gps.html
About 8 years ago, an eclectic group of pilots
met for two days in the EAA museum at OSH to
brainstorm about FAA proposals for ADS-B and
Mode-S. There were about 30 of us. We were well
aware of FAA vision of future of aviation navigation
and control . . . and to a man, none were impressed.
We knew that the FAA's goals called for a heavy increase
in ground-based control that would require more
infrastructure. We knew of their plans to use existing
(already overloaded) transponder frequencies to
do their own brand of "magic" . . .
To make a long story short, the output from that two
day meeting was a proposal for marrying a GPS receiver
(which everyone would already have) with a tiny beacon
(you COULD use a transponder but we didn't recommend it)
to constantly broadcast an airplane's vitals. The data
stream would say, "I'm an airplane, here's my position,
my COURSE over the ground, velocity over the ground,
and altitude." ANYONE having an interest in knowing
this data could put small receiver on board and a
computing device (no more powerfull than what you can
buy in a palm-top) to massage all locally received data
and comb through results for potential collision
solutions.
The same beacons could be put on mountain tops, towers,
tall buildings, etc. The FAA has a similar interest in
exactly the same data . . . they presently use
many times warmed over WWII technology in a lame
attempt to meet their needs. ADS-B and Mode-S
were just another pass over the stove with the same
technology in order to stir in more ingredients.
We allowed as how cars used tail lights to make their
presence and intentions known to other cars, this
simple, low-dollar marriage of GPS and a beacon
would become the electronic equivalent of a tail
light for airplanes. We called ourselves the
TailIight Group.
Unlike TCAS which gives you warnings with tens of
seconds advance notice with the accuracy of an ax,
TailLight would give you minutes warning with the
accuracy of a scalpel. Pilots reacting to TCAS
thrill their passengers with aerobatic maneuvers
while passengers in TailLight equipped aircraft
would barely perceive the coarse change.
Keith Peshak's work is an outgrowth of those early
meetings. In fact, Keith has built TailLight
capability into a Narco transponder that you
can buy today. Should the feds in all their
august wisdom decide that TailLight is a good thing
to do, you can change a jumper on the back of
a Narco transponder, hook the GPS serial data
to two pins on the back . . and guess what?
You've got electronic tail lights!
Here's a site that gives you links to info
on Keith's articles, and other good stuff
about GPS.
http://feynman.physics.lsa.umich.edu/~myers/GPS.html
During that first meeting, we allowed as how
LORAN was probably the best return on investment
that FAA ever made. At that time, with GPS getting
deliberately dithered to REDUCE it's accuracy,
LORAN was more accurate and not dithered.
Atmospheric conditions adverse to GPS did not
affect LORAN and vise-versa. If one wanted the
truly elegant nav system, you marry a $25 GPS
engine with a $25 LORAN engine and do rudimentary
filtering of the data to provide navigation
info with exemplary accuracy and reliability.
GLONASS at that time was MORE accurate than
GPS because they too did not deliberately
degrade accuracy to salve some paranoid notions
about hostile uses of the system. Another $25
GLONASS engine could be added to the system
of our dreams to add still another layer
of reliability.
What's the likelihood that government will
ever avail themselves of this jelly-bean technology
to the benefit of our citizens? ZERO.
One bright star . . . ADS-B has been modified
to take on some of the TailLight characteristics.
It may be that the simplest implementation of
TailLight will find it's way into our government
mandated cockpit equipment . . . but I'm not
holding my breath.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven Kay <skay(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GLONASS & GPS - no VOR - and Tail Lights |
Wow Bob, you get to do some cool stuff. Was watching TV last nite. (West Wing)
The Chief of
staff says to the Pres. "We spent a million dollars developing a pen for 0 gravity,
do you
know what the Russians did... They used a pencil...-Steve
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
> >
> >Biggest problem with the GLONASS system is the Russians aren't maintaining
> >it - no new sats have been launched in years, and they don't have any under
> >construction. Technically, it actually has some interesting advantages
> >over our system. Keith Peshak used to have some terrific articles up about
> >it, but they don't seem to be up on the web anymore
>
> Here's an article that talks about three new satellites put
> up in Oct 2000
>
> http://www.oso.chalmers.se/~geo/glonass.html
>
> Here's an interesting site that gives one a 3-d
> perspective of GPS vs. GLONASS viewed from space
>
> http://www.mich.com/~buffalo/rhp/gps.html
>
> About 8 years ago, an eclectic group of pilots
> met for two days in the EAA museum at OSH to
> brainstorm about FAA proposals for ADS-B and
> Mode-S. There were about 30 of us. We were well
> aware of FAA vision of future of aviation navigation
> and control . . . and to a man, none were impressed.
>
> We knew that the FAA's goals called for a heavy increase
> in ground-based control that would require more
> infrastructure. We knew of their plans to use existing
> (already overloaded) transponder frequencies to
> do their own brand of "magic" . . .
>
> To make a long story short, the output from that two
> day meeting was a proposal for marrying a GPS receiver
> (which everyone would already have) with a tiny beacon
> (you COULD use a transponder but we didn't recommend it)
> to constantly broadcast an airplane's vitals. The data
> stream would say, "I'm an airplane, here's my position,
> my COURSE over the ground, velocity over the ground,
> and altitude." ANYONE having an interest in knowing
> this data could put small receiver on board and a
> computing device (no more powerfull than what you can
> buy in a palm-top) to massage all locally received data
> and comb through results for potential collision
> solutions.
>
> The same beacons could be put on mountain tops, towers,
> tall buildings, etc. The FAA has a similar interest in
> exactly the same data . . . they presently use
> many times warmed over WWII technology in a lame
> attempt to meet their needs. ADS-B and Mode-S
> were just another pass over the stove with the same
> technology in order to stir in more ingredients.
>
> We allowed as how cars used tail lights to make their
> presence and intentions known to other cars, this
> simple, low-dollar marriage of GPS and a beacon
> would become the electronic equivalent of a tail
> light for airplanes. We called ourselves the
> TailIight Group.
>
> Unlike TCAS which gives you warnings with tens of
> seconds advance notice with the accuracy of an ax,
> TailLight would give you minutes warning with the
> accuracy of a scalpel. Pilots reacting to TCAS
> thrill their passengers with aerobatic maneuvers
> while passengers in TailLight equipped aircraft
> would barely perceive the coarse change.
>
> Keith Peshak's work is an outgrowth of those early
> meetings. In fact, Keith has built TailLight
> capability into a Narco transponder that you
> can buy today. Should the feds in all their
> august wisdom decide that TailLight is a good thing
> to do, you can change a jumper on the back of
> a Narco transponder, hook the GPS serial data
> to two pins on the back . . and guess what?
> You've got electronic tail lights!
>
> Here's a site that gives you links to info
> on Keith's articles, and other good stuff
> about GPS.
>
> http://feynman.physics.lsa.umich.edu/~myers/GPS.html
>
> During that first meeting, we allowed as how
> LORAN was probably the best return on investment
> that FAA ever made. At that time, with GPS getting
> deliberately dithered to REDUCE it's accuracy,
> LORAN was more accurate and not dithered.
>
> Atmospheric conditions adverse to GPS did not
> affect LORAN and vise-versa. If one wanted the
> truly elegant nav system, you marry a $25 GPS
> engine with a $25 LORAN engine and do rudimentary
> filtering of the data to provide navigation
> info with exemplary accuracy and reliability.
> GLONASS at that time was MORE accurate than
> GPS because they too did not deliberately
> degrade accuracy to salve some paranoid notions
> about hostile uses of the system. Another $25
> GLONASS engine could be added to the system
> of our dreams to add still another layer
> of reliability.
>
> What's the likelihood that government will
> ever avail themselves of this jelly-bean technology
> to the benefit of our citizens? ZERO.
>
> One bright star . . . ADS-B has been modified
> to take on some of the TailLight characteristics.
> It may be that the simplest implementation of
> TailLight will find it's way into our government
> mandated cockpit equipment . . . but I'm not
> holding my breath.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
"Course: The line you drew on the map.......True Course is not corrected
for
variation Magnetic Course is corrected for the average variation between the
two points.
Track: This is the actual.......real time line you are making over the
ground. If you have plotted correctly and used variation correctly and the
wind correction is as forecast and your compass is correct THEN your "Track"
should be the same as your Magnetic Course.
Buck Buchanan, Valier, MT (18 deg. east variation)"
Hi,
It might be wise to add "here in the U.S. of A." In Canada, we
have adopted the RAF navigation standards in general and "Course" doesn't
come into it. The three sides of our triangle are "Heading and TAS, Track
and Groundspeed,and Wind Direction and Velocity".
Don't know what the Mexicans do, and of course there are several other
continents to be heard from.....
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - BATTERY LIFE |
Folks, Kevin Horton asked about battery life, and one versus two batteries.
I can share some experience. I have been flying a Pawnee glider tug VH-MLS
for just on twenty years. As tugmaster I found the electrical system on this
simple VFR aircraft to be the weakest system onboard, except for the vacuum
system, which failed many years ago and was ripped out to save weight. Some
data:
a. operating profile, 250 hrs year, 6 minute tows, about 16 starts per
weekend. Climate similar to Pennsylvania but drier, flown by a pool of 12
tug pilots.
This airplane sees about 5x the usage rate of the average
owner operated light plane in the US.
b. battery is wet cell and yes Bob is right, they are bad. Battery life
varies between 3 months and 18, tending towards the lower end. All battery
failures have been on the ground during start.
c. likely electrical failures, master switch left on, battery flat, 2 per
year. Intermittent radio caused mainly by vibration induced failures in
soldered wire joints, about 4 per year. Slow cranking - very frequent, clean
all battery terminals and reset voltage regulator twice per year. Hygiene in
heavy cable joints is essential and saves money & inconvenience.
d. starter life is about 8 years, better for the alternator. Contactors have
never failed, nor have the heavy cables, except for the hygiene factor.
e. radio/audio panel toggle switches have a life of about 3 years. Most
switch faults are in the soldered wire joints at the back due to vibration.
Have your mechanics try putting double wall heatshrink over
the finished solder joints. This stuff is quite stiff when
it cools and offers wire support on a par with PIDG style
crimped joints. See http://www.alphawire.com/pages/145.cfm for
a list of available heat shrink products from various suppliers.
You're looking for FIT-300 style heat shrink. This chart
cross-references it to other manufacturers.
Here are more details on the stuff:
http://www.alphawire.com/pages/125.cfm
f. Yes we had one electrical fire airborne, a Narco Comm 11A emitted smoke
which stopped when I turned the radio off. Quite a thrill at 6000ft with a
glider on cross country tow over some of Australias more remote alpine
country.
Hope this rough data helps.
Good information. Thank you for sharing with us!
UNCLASSIFIED - BATTERY LIFE
Hello Francis,
I love this statistic, it proves that soldering might be not the right
thing, did you ever try to replace the solderer points trough crimped
contacts? I remember from my time in the Army, that we always covered the
battery to cable contacts with some kind of silicone paste?
Werner
All kinds of goops and gooes have been used/recommended for
the purpose of keeping moisture away from joints that were
SURE to be contaminated from acid leaking out of the battery.
RG batteries have about 5% the incidence of leakage at the terminals
compared to flooded batteries. I don't think I'd bother to
dope the joints.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Leds for navigation lights |
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>At Sun 'n fun this year Whelan were demonstrating red and green wing tip
>lights built out of LED's. They expected the production price to be similar
>to their conventional lamps. Current draw was only .35 amps. No expected
>delivery time was available.
>
>These look easy to fabricate. I'd appreciate some input from the group.
>The highest intensity LED's I could locate were 3200 mcd @ 30 degree view
>angle or 8000 mcd @ 10 degree view angle.
>
>Can any one advise me of better devices than these and some possible sources
>?
See http://www.nichia.com/
These folks make the bright whites used in the Photon flashlights
and I suspect they make the chips I saw in the Whelen white
tail light too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Leds for navigation lights |
Rob,
> Good grief! Did you check the price of the Whelen LED?
Yes whelen products are expensive.
A B & C 20 Amp
> alternator is only $130 more than the light!
>
Yes but no place to put it in. The Rotax has but one accessory drive, and
it's already used by the prop governor...
Cheers,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Leds for navigation lights |
>
> I've been working on this for some time, and was hopeful that the
> ledtronics products might be suitable. However, I gave up last week
> after eight months of trying to get them to ship products that are
> depicted on their website but are apparently unavailable.
................snip.......
>
> In their defense, the parts I did receive (briefly) looked great, but
> were unsuitable for nav lights. I think they mean well, but they are
> incredibly disorganized, and don't seem to keep any kind of records.
>
> At this point, I'm ready to just buy regular lamps and move on, but I'm
> keeping my eyes open....
>
> James Freeman
> >
James,
Thanks for the input.
It seems the products -and the company you dealt with- are still in infancy.
That's too bad.
Hope you'll get your money back.
Wait and see.
Cheers
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Leds for navigation lights |
>
> Hi all,
>
> At Sun 'n fun this year Whelan were demonstrating red and green wing tip
> lights built out of LED's. They expected the production price to be
similar
> to their conventional lamps. Current draw was only .35 amps. No expected
> delivery time was available.
>
> These look easy to fabricate. I'd appreciate some input from the group.
> The highest intensity LED's I could locate were 3200 mcd @ 30 degree view
> angle or 8000 mcd @ 10 degree view angle.
>
> Can any one advise me of better devices than these and some possible
sources
> ?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul McAllister, Eurpoa builder (363)
>
Paul,
Have checked these links ?
> > > http://www.ledtronics.com/
> > >
> > > http://www.theledlight.com/flashlightindex.html
> > >
Cheers,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Leds for navigation lights |
>
> There has been a white nav light fixture available
> for quite some time . . .several years as I recall.
>
................snip.............
. In spite of the fact that the LED fixture is
> a TSO'd product and easily demonstrated for compliance
> under the rules of a few years ago, we now have to
> jump a lot of new hoops and create a lot of documents
> all of which have to be blessed.
............
> Red and Green are a little harder I think for color
> matching . . . the boundary of "approved" colors
> is rather narrow . . . it's insufficient that the
> colors be bright enough and perceived as red and
> green . . . they've got to be "ruby" red and "emerald"
> green. If Whelen and Grimes are showing product, I
> suspect they've solved the color problems. Bet they're
> not cheap!
>
> Bob . . .
Night VFR and IFR for experimental aircraft are prohibited in France at the
moment, but who knows ?
When -and if- the time comes, shall we tell the inspector we don't have
regular WW II bulbs behind the lenses, but leds ? Even if he was aware of
the problem, chances are he won't have the equipment and/or expertise to
tell the difference.
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Apr 98 Kitplanes article by Jim Weir |
>
> >
> >
> >I'm still in the learning mode.
> >
> >1) I scanned the first page as a .jpg file. Bad side: Turned out 245KB
> >with 3 more pages needed. Also, I don't know if Jim can put a link in his
> >web page to a .jpg file - anyone know? Good side: No problem with format -
> >looks just like the magazine.
Dave,
I tried to OCR and reformat this document in
a nice, low-byte format couldn't get the scanning
error rate down low enough to keep the task from
taking a lot of proof reading and retyping time.
Soooo . . .I've scanned the document and converted
to a .pdf file. Folks interested in getting this
can download from:
http://216.55.140.222/Wier-Encoders.pdf
This is a really fast server so if you have
high speed service, the 8.6 meg file should download
in less than minute. If you want to forward this file
to Jim, feel free to do so. I'll leave it on this
server for a week or so so that all interested parties
can get it.
I'll mail the original back to you.
I'll remind folks that have had troubles getting
large .pdf files to download and open in the past
should Right-Click the link and tell your browser
to save the file to hard drive and then us Acrobat
to open the file later.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>"Course: The line you drew on the map.......True Course is not corrected
>for
>variation Magnetic Course is corrected for the average variation between the
>two points.
>Track: This is the actual.......real time line you are making over the
>ground. If you have plotted correctly and used variation correctly and the
>wind correction is as forecast and your compass is correct THEN your "Track"
>should be the same as your Magnetic Course.
>Buck Buchanan, Valier, MT (18 deg. east variation)"
>
>Hi,
> It might be wise to add "here in the U.S. of A." In Canada, we
>have adopted the RAF navigation standards in general and "Course" doesn't
>come into it. The three sides of our triangle are "Heading and TAS, Track
>and Groundspeed,and Wind Direction and Velocity".
Track and course CAN be the same thing. We (should and sometimes do)
split it apart
here because you can fly any number of courses that have the same same
alignment
as desired track but are parallel to and offset from desired track.
For example, I've been fiddling with some wing-leveler software that will
give you the option of flying with cross-track-error at zero (classic
VOR to VOR airways bore-holes) or you can sidestep by what ever value
you wish . . . say 2 miles to the left of track. The "course" display
on the panel is still identical to the alignment of "track" but you're
not ON the track . . . hence the value in making this subtle distinction.
They used to tell us that all airways come together over the VORS . . . the
most crowded airspace in the nation. The old area-nav and now cross-track
offsets give us the ability to fly almost exactly from A to B without
flying directly over A and B.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GLONASS, GPS and Space Pens |
>
>Wow Bob, you get to do some cool stuff. Was watching TV last nite. (West
>Wing) The Chief of
>staff says to the Pres. "We spent a million dollars developing a pen for 0
>gravity, do you
>know what the Russians did... They used a pencil...-Steve
I've seen this anecdote pop up over the years . . . usually quoted
by television/Hollywood writers that haven't done their homework.
I've see costs to the public quoted anywhere from a $million$ to
$10-billion$ Fortunately, we can't hang this one our illustrious
government. See:
http://www.snopes2.com/business/genius/spacepen.htm#add
and
http://www.thewritersedge.com/fisher.astronaut.cfm
. . . the space pen was indeed a marvelous and (and I'm
proud to say) clever product of American ingenuity and
was brought into existence without dipping into the public
pocketbook. I think I might buy one of these myself!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Leds for navigation lights |
At 06:49 17/05/2002, you wrote:
> > green . . . they've got to be "ruby" red and "emerald"
> > green.
When -and if- the time comes, shall we tell the inspector we don't have
>regular WW II bulbs behind the lenses, but leds ?
I think the idea is to not have any lenses... just LEDs of the right colour.
But I guess that if LEDs of the right colour weren't available you could
put white LEDs behind "ruby" red and "emerald" green lenses. Or better yet
(I assume), put regular red & green LEDs behind the lenses.
Bob, did you try either of these options when you were working on this stuff?
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GLONASS, GPS and Space Pens |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> http://www.snopes2.com/business/genius/spacepen.htm#add
>
*** Wow, talk about a bad investment: Fisher spent $1,000,000 to develop
this pen, and in 1968 sold 400 of them to NASA for $2.95 each.
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Leds for navigation lights |
Ah, yes. I did forget that possibility, and that is a MUCH better reason
than having a vacuum pump in the way (ugh! vacuum). Not wanting to use the
pad on my 914 for a governor I am limited to a fixed pitch, ground
adjustable, or electrically adjustable in flight prop, and am so far
uncommitted.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
gilles.thesee
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Leds for navigation lights
<Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Rob,
> Good grief! Did you check the price of the Whelen LED?
Yes whelen products are expensive.
A B & C 20 Amp
> alternator is only $130 more than the light!
>
Yes but no place to put it in. The Rotax has but one accessory drive, and
it's already used by the prop governor...
Cheers,
Gilles
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Leds for navigation lights |
Interesting but not surprising that the FAA is dragging its collective feet.
However, another part of DOT seems happy with the currently available red
and green LEDs. Most of the traffic lights in my part of SoCal have been
retrofitted with LED replacements (for the red and green only) that are
slightly different in color from the old dim bulbs, but so bright that
looking directly into the LED array at night threatens to destroy one's
night vision.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Leds for navigation lights
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi Bob and all,
>
>What is your opinion about the use of leds in replacement of incandescent
>bulbs for nav/position lights ?
>It would improve things with our 18 amps only Rotax alternator.
>
>http://www.ledtronics.com/
>
>http://www.theledlight.com/flashlightindex.html
>
>
>Any advice appreciated.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Gilles
There has been a white nav light fixture available
for quite some time . . .several years as I recall.
We've been trying to get it "blessed" for the Beechjet
for nearly as long. I think acoustic vibration from the
engine exhausts tear the filaments out of the regulator
bulb. In spite of the fact that the LED fixture is
a TSO'd product and easily demonstrated for compliance
under the rules of a few years ago, we now have to
jump a lot of new hoops and create a lot of documents
all of which have to be blessed. If they can't make
a career of evaluating hardware, they're just as happy
to ponder piles of paper . . .
Red and Green are a little harder I think for color
matching . . . the boundary of "approved" colors
is rather narrow . . . it's insufficient that the
colors be bright enough and perceived as red and
green . . . they've got to be "ruby" red and "emerald"
green. If Whelen and Grimes are showing product, I
suspect they've solved the color problems. Bet they're
not cheap!
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Leds for navigation lights |
Rob,
>
> Ah, yes. I did forget that possibility, and that is a MUCH better reason
> than having a vacuum pump in the way (ugh! vacuum). Not wanting to use
the
> pad on my 914 for a governor I am limited to a fixed pitch, ground
> adjustable, or electrically adjustable in flight prop, and am so far
> uncommitted.
>
Then you'll have no problems feeding anything you want on your two
alternators.
We COULD have chosen an electric prop, but those we know of are so sluggish
in response we thought it better to resort to good old hydraulics.
But now we have to deal with a pretty scarce electrical supply.
Cheers,
A+
Gilles
> > Good grief! Did you check the price of the Whelen LED?
>
> Yes whelen products are expensive.
> A B & C 20 Amp
> > alternator is only $130 more than the light!
> >
> Yes but no place to put it in. The Rotax has but one accessory drive, and
> it's already used by the prop governor...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <danobrien(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros. |
I am a Lancair builder new to the list. I fly IFR down to minimums. I am interested
in hearing opinions about the safety of having all electric gyros instead
of the more standard system with vacuum driven heading and attitude indicators
and an electric turn coordinator. Ignoring the fact that electric gyros are
more expensive, I am specifically interested in opinions about the following:
1. How much redundancy is required in an all electric system for it to be as safe
as the "standard" vacuum/backup vacuum/electric system? By "standard" system
I mean a vacuum driven heading and attitude indicators, the precise flight backup
vacuum system, and an electric turn coordinator. Are vacuum systems so unreliable
that even a system with one battery and one alternator is preferred?
If not, would a system with one battery and two alternators be preferred? Two
batteries and two alternators?
2. What are the failure modes in the different "all electric" systems that one
needs to worry about most?
3. Beyond the Aeroelectric Connection (which is wonderful!) where else can I get
more perspectives on these questions?
Thanks much.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mprather(at)spro.net |
| Subject: | Transponder Antennae in Plastic Airplanes |
Question for Bob:
I am wondering about problems that I have heard of people having with
transponder/dme antennae mounted in plastic airplanes. I haven't taken
a survey, but by context, I am guessing that they attempted to install
them buried in the foam and glass structure. What I am wondering is
whether the problems my come from detuning the antennae because of
having it in direct contact with materials that have a different
dielectric constant than air for which the antenna was designed. Is
that reasonable?
I can think of 2 solutions. The first is to mount the antenna in a
cavity in the airframe where it has at least a few inches of airspace
around it. Alternately, I think the buried install might be fixable
with an SWR meter and some tweaking. I am guessing that plastics slow
the propagation velocity on the antenna and thereby lower its tuned
frequency. Therefore, the antenna could be trimmed (shortened - to
raise its resonant frequency) to correct the problem. On the right
track?
Thanks for continuing to share your experience and knowledge with us.
Matt Prather.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen Johnson" <spjohnsn(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros. |
Dan,
I'm also interested in the same topic. I'm building a RV-8. I'm not
impressed with the track record of vacuum systems. I suggest you look at
the specification sheet for the Cirrus SR-22 which can be downloaded at
http://www.cirrusdesign.com for one modern solution. This certfied plane
uses a complete dual electric system and electric gyros. I would never go
with one battery and one alternator. There is a small alternator which fits
into the vacuum pump mount on the Lycoming and is specifically designed as a
small capacity spare. It is arguable whether the second battery is
necessary.
Steve Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: <danobrien(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros.
>
> I am a Lancair builder new to the list. I fly IFR down to minimums. I am
interested in hearing opinions about the safety of having all electric gyros
instead of the more standard system with vacuum driven heading and attitude
indicators and an electric turn coordinator. Ignoring the fact that
electric gyros are more expensive, I am specifically interested in opinions
about the following:
>
> 1. How much redundancy is required in an all electric system for it to be
as safe as the "standard" vacuum/backup vacuum/electric system? By
"standard" system I mean a vacuum driven heading and attitude indicators,
the precise flight backup vacuum system, and an electric turn coordinator.
Are vacuum systems so unreliable that even a system with one battery and one
alternator is preferred? If not, would a system with one battery and two
alternators be preferred? Two batteries and two alternators?
>
> 2. What are the failure modes in the different "all electric" systems that
one needs to worry about most?
>
> 3. Beyond the Aeroelectric Connection (which is wonderful!) where else can
I get more perspectives on these questions?
>
> Thanks much.
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <bruce.gray(at)snet.net> |
| Subject: | Transponder Antennae in Plastic Airplanes |
Or you could mount the transponder antenna on the metal wing inspection
hole cover out by the gear well like most Glasairs.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bartrim, Steve" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: GLONASS & GPS - no VOR - and Tail Ligh |
ts
Bob & All
Thanks for all the links and info. It makes for some interesting
reading. From what I can see I can't currently buy any handheld receiver for
GLONASS, but I could by a card ($5500) and build my own that would use both
systems. This sounds real nice, but currently a little beyond my abilities.
I'm very interested in the Galileo system that Mile's wrote about.
As Bob said, it is unlikely that the gov't will accept use of those three
systems, but I certainly will attempt to have my Nav system based on GPS &
GLONASS and as soon as it's online (&affordable) Galileo would have a place
in my cockpit.
S. Todd Bartrim
13B rotary powered
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GLONASS GPS - no VOR - and Tail
Lights
Bob All
Thanks for all the links and info. It makes for
some interesting reading. From what I can see I can't currently buy any
handheld receiver for GLONASS, but I could by a card ($5500) and build
my own that would use both systems. This sounds real nice, but
currently a little beyond my abilities.
I'm very interested in the Galileo system that
Mile's wrote about. As Bob said, it is unlikely that the gov't will
accept use of those three systems, but I certainly will attempt to have
my Nav system based on GPS GLONASS and as soon as it's online
(affordable) Galileo would have a place in my cockpit.
S. Todd Bartrim
13B rotary powered
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DMarti1029(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Leds for navigation lights |
Why couldn't you use white LED's in the colored lenses ? Wheelan uses a
regular light bulb in thier position lights.
Dennis Martin
Pelican 634
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | don522(at)webtv.net (Don McCallister) |
Hello Matt - just curious if anyone has asked you how much trouble it
would be to number the digests???
I get about one half or more/less and have to leave the list due to
someone at the door or phone or whatever and it would be so good to
remember what number I had got to before the interruption. And then we
could go right to the next number when back on the list and not sort it
out from the begining to the lists.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob(at)RobsGlass.com> |
LEDs - how many?
I would like to fabricate a ring shaped LED array to surround a custom
strobe unit for the tail mount of an RV9A. How do I arrive at a figure
for the total number of LEDs required?
I am aware that I need a total coverage of 140 deg. horizontal and 60
deg vertical. I have no idea how to arrive at a decision as to how many
LEDs or of what output and angular coverage they will need to be.
Any suggestions? Bob? Anyone?
Thanks for any help you guys can offer.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
RV9A fuse N919RV resvd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz> |
At 15:33 18/05/2002, you wrote:
>I would like to fabricate a ring shaped LED array to surround a custom
>strobe unit for the tail mount of an RV9A. How do I arrive at a figure
>for the total number of LEDs required?
Dunno if this is helpful, but the taillight/strobe combination I have has
the light in the middle, and the strobe round the outside.
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | alternator problem.... |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Guys, sorry for the somewhat off-topic post as this problem relates to my
car, but since I know this List is the source of all knowledge of all
things electrical, here goes anyway...
I have a '67 Plymouth and of course it has an externally regulated
alternator. There's an ammeter in the panel that simply shows charge or
discharge (typical of most cars of that era as far as I know). In the 9
years I've had the car, I have had two previous alternator failures
(indicated by the ammeter showing discharge). Both times I changed the
alternator and this seemed to fix it but I've wondered if I might have a
voltage regulator problem too, since it seems to be a bit erratic
(ammeter needle seems to jump around more than I would expect during
normal driving). Anyway last night I was coming home from the airport
and noticed the ammeter was showing a slight discharge at highway speeds.
Lights got dimmer, etc. A minute later, and all of a sudden the ammeter
popped back into the normal charge position and lights got brighter
again. Hmmm. Kept driving and a few minutes later, dim lights again and
this time a much deeper discharge rate that did not "fix" itself for the
rest of the 15 min drive home.
Does this sound like a regulator problem, or is there an alternator
failure mode that could cause intermittent charge/discharge indications
like this? Or both? I doubt it's the ammeter....and I don't really want
to just replace another alternator if my regulator might be exacerbating
the problem (perhaps even causing alternator failure more frequently than
expected??).
Any suggestions appreciated......again sorry it's not in an airplane, but
my airplane will also have an externally regulated alternator so the
implications of what's wrong are applicable in theory to an airplane as
well....
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A finish kit....
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros. |
Hi List,
Bob N. said once that the cost of vacuum Vs. electric
is pretty much a wash when you have to consider the vacuum
system along with the cost. I checked the prices and not only
was he right, as usual, but there is maintenence, quite often,
on vac. pumps. Vacuum pumps are singular systems and
they continue to kill people by failing in flight. A two battery
system, a la Bob N., offeres redundency. I don't think you can
get much better than that. Unless you want to consider that two
batteries also makes the entire electrical system redundent.
Larry Mac Donald
Rochester N.Y.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros. |
lm4(at)juno.com wrote:
> on vac. pumps. Vacuum pumps are singular systems and
> they continue to kill people by failing in flight.
*** DRY vacuum pumps kill people by failing in flight. What about wet
pumps? I hear they last just short of forever, and their normal failure
mode is to gradually get weaker and weaker. Which gives the pilot/owner
a lot of warning. The only down side is the greasy belly. Can you imagine?
People DYING for cosmetics!
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator problem.... |
From my experience with Chrysler vehicles, it could be the ground at the
regulator. Take it off the firewall and clean the firewall then reinstall
the regulator. I have seen this fix the problem.
R
----- Original Message -----
From: <czechsix(at)juno.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: alternator problem....
>
> Guys, sorry for the somewhat off-topic post as this problem relates to my
> car, but since I know this List is the source of all knowledge of all
> things electrical, here goes anyway...
>
> I have a '67 Plymouth and of course it has an externally regulated
> alternator. There's an ammeter in the panel that simply shows charge or
> discharge (typical of most cars of that era as far as I know). In the 9
> years I've had the car, I have had two previous alternator failures
> (indicated by the ammeter showing discharge). Both times I changed the
> alternator and this seemed to fix it but I've wondered if I might have a
> voltage regulator problem too, since it seems to be a bit erratic
> (ammeter needle seems to jump around more than I would expect during
> normal driving). Anyway last night I was coming home from the airport
> and noticed the ammeter was showing a slight discharge at highway speeds.
> Lights got dimmer, etc. A minute later, and all of a sudden the ammeter
> popped back into the normal charge position and lights got brighter
> again. Hmmm. Kept driving and a few minutes later, dim lights again and
> this time a much deeper discharge rate that did not "fix" itself for the
> rest of the 15 min drive home.
>
> Does this sound like a regulator problem, or is there an alternator
> failure mode that could cause intermittent charge/discharge indications
> like this? Or both? I doubt it's the ammeter....and I don't really want
> to just replace another alternator if my regulator might be exacerbating
> the problem (perhaps even causing alternator failure more frequently than
> expected??).
>
> Any suggestions appreciated......again sorry it's not in an airplane, but
> my airplane will also have an externally regulated alternator so the
> implications of what's wrong are applicable in theory to an airplane as
> well....
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A finish kit....
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DMarti1029(at)aol.com |
Why couldn't you use white LED's in the colored lenses ? Wheelan uses a
regular light bulb in thier position lights.
Dennis Martin
Pelican 634
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Barnes" <skytop(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Low Voltage Warning - parts list |
List,
I would like to build the low voltage warning device that is
detailed in Bob's download section of the AEC. Can someone tell me if
there is a write-up that goes with the schematic; I can't fine anything.
And secondly, if someone has a parts list in Digikey part numbers, I'd
sure like a copy of it.
Thanks in advance,
Tom Barnes -6 all electric
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Irvine <wgirvine(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Wet pumps and electric gyros |
> *** DRY vacuum pumps kill people by failing in
> flight. What about wet
> pumps? I hear they last just short of forever, and
> their normal failure
> mode is to gradually get weaker and weaker.
Absolutely true. If you gotta go with vacuum, wet
pumps are much more reliable than dry. I've heard
stories of guys getting 5000 hours on a wet pump. I
have two on my C-310 with 800 hours, and were still
going strong until I pulled them off for conversion to
an all-electric system. Anybody want to buy them?
:-)
The only problem I've found with using an electric DG,
is that nobody makes one with a heading output to use
with an STEC autopilot. They make vacuum DG's with
the output; they make electric ones without... go
figure. When I talked to the manufacturers about why
they don't offer an electric DG with heading output,
their reply was, "Nah, nobody would buy such a thing.
Who would ever use an all-electric system in a small
airlane?"
When I suggested they pull their heads out of the sand
and take a look at the homebuilt market, and given the
trend of new aircraft manufacturers (Cirrus) to use
all-electric systems, they turned their backs and
ignored me.
Soooo, I now have two instrument rebuild shops looking
into the possibility of taking the heading output
mechanism out of a vacuum DG and installing it into an
electric DG. (Shhhhh, don't tell the FAA.) I'll let
you know how it turns out.
Bill Irvine
C-310
http://launch.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator problem.... |
>
>Guys, sorry for the somewhat off-topic post as this problem relates to my
>car, but since I know this List is the source of all knowledge of all
>things electrical, here goes anyway...
>
>I have a '67 Plymouth and of course it has an externally regulated
>alternator. There's an ammeter in the panel that simply shows charge or
>discharge (typical of most cars of that era as far as I know). In the 9
>years I've had the car, I have had two previous alternator failures
>(indicated by the ammeter showing discharge). Both times I changed the
>alternator and this seemed to fix it but I've wondered if I might have a
>voltage regulator problem too, since it seems to be a bit erratic
>(ammeter needle seems to jump around more than I would expect during
>normal driving). Anyway last night I was coming home from the airport
>and noticed the ammeter was showing a slight discharge at highway speeds.
> Lights got dimmer, etc. A minute later, and all of a sudden the ammeter
>popped back into the normal charge position and lights got brighter
>again. Hmmm. Kept driving and a few minutes later, dim lights again and
>this time a much deeper discharge rate that did not "fix" itself for the
>rest of the 15 min drive home.
>
>Does this sound like a regulator problem, or is there an alternator
>failure mode that could cause intermittent charge/discharge indications
>like this? Or both? I doubt it's the ammeter....and I don't really want
>to just replace another alternator if my regulator might be exacerbating
>the problem (perhaps even causing alternator failure more frequently than
>expected??).
Any number of things can cause intermittent operation like you've
described. Probably most common is some poor connection in wiring
and/or alternator having become intermittent due to poor brush
contact. If you have an external regulator, you can put a voltmeter
on the field terminal of the alternator. If the voltage has any
substantial reading when the ammeter is discharging, the alternator
is bad. If the voltage is low or missing, the regulator and/or
wiring is bad.
Bob . . .
Oops . . . I guess I don't know if your car uses the so-called
type A or B regulator wiring . . . some alternators with external
regulators ground the field inside and supply (+) from regulator
to control the system. Others attach the field internally to
the b-lead (+) of the alternator. The regulator supplies a ground
to control the alternator.
If you have the internally grounded type, then the first paragraph
applies as is. If the field is attached to the b-lead, then zero
volts on the field terminal says the brush/field circuit inside
is broken. If there is voltage present, then regulator/wiring
is the source of the problem.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>Hello Matt - just curious if anyone has asked you how much trouble it
>would be to number the digests???
>I get about one half or more/less and have to leave the list due to
>someone at the door or phone or whatever and it would be so good to
>remember what number I had got to before the interruption. And then we
>could go right to the next number when back on the list and not sort it
>out from the begining to the lists.
You would have to mail a suggestion like this directly
to Matt(at)matronics.com . . . there's no practical way
for him to monitor and catch notes like this by monitoring
all of the list servers he hosts.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros. |
>
>
>Dan,
>
>I'm also interested in the same topic. I'm building a RV-8. I'm not
>impressed with the track record of vacuum systems. I suggest you look at
>the specification sheet for the Cirrus SR-22 which can be downloaded at
>http://www.cirrusdesign.com for one modern solution. This certfied plane
>uses a complete dual electric system and electric gyros. I would never go
>with one battery and one alternator. There is a small alternator which fits
>into the vacuum pump mount on the Lycoming and is specifically designed as a
>small capacity spare. It is arguable whether the second battery is
>necessary.
The "small alternator" is the B&C SD-20 or one of it's siblings.
The power distribution diagram for the SR-22 should have looked
a lot like either Z-12 (used on the certified ships like Mooneys,
Bonanza, Cessnas and Pipers for which Bill has STC'd installations)
-OR- like Z-14 (which would have been my choice for that airplane).
I got a copy of the power distribution diagram for the SR-22 a
few weeks ago. Suffice it to say that somebody working for government
spent too much time assuaging his own uneducated, worst fears about
electrical systems when they finally put the holy seal of approval
on that system.
First, if you use B&C equipment for your alternators, most likely
failure of the main alternator will be because you ran the belt
too long. TWO B&C alternators with a well maintained battery says
you can spend your owner/operator time worrying about weather,
piloting skills and other potential hazards like worn out tires
and improperly torqued prop bolts.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob(at)RobsGlass.com> |
Subject Home made LED tail light
I made the following enquiry:
I would like to fabricate a ring shaped LED array to surround a custom
strobe unit for the tail mount of an RV9A. How do I arrive at a figure
for the total number of LEDs required?
I received the following reply from Frank.
Dunno if this is helpful, but the taillight/strobe combination I have
has the light in the middle, and the strobe round the outside.
I should have made clear that since I will be using a standard strobe
tube this will be in the centre and the position light around it. The
opposite the the usual Whelen unit.
Any suggestions or am I in the situation of stuffing in as many LEDs as
I can and seeing if the brightness and coverage are acceptable.
This may be of interest to many since it seems the most elegant way of
using a tube from one of the high output systems from the Strobeguy in
the rudder.
All suggestions will be much appreciated.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
RV9A fuse. N919RV resvd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | flying to VOR intersections |
In a message dated 05/16/2002 2:52:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com "Ronnie Brown"
writes:
<<....Skip..... On the other hand, trying to do VOR bearing intersections
from two stations while plotting it on the chart sliding around on your lap,
then dialing in
each VOR frequency, then twisting the OBD knobs, (is that "to" or "from") so
you can figure out where you are allows you to devote more time to
instrument scanning ?????? (;<))) >>
5/19/2002
Hello Ronnie, You are right. Flying direct from present position to an
intersection defined by two VOR radials can be a daunting task. ATC doesn't
ask a pilot to do that very often and without practice or a specific method
it can be confusing and time consuming to determine what heading to start out
on.
I'm going to describe a step-by-step method below that will get you started.
This method is not designed to replace a good sense of situational awareness,
but rather to give the pilot a quick and dirty initial heading selection
procedure. I didn't invent this procedure I'm just passing it on. It requires
two VHF (Very High Frequency) nav units in the aircraft equipped with the
standard circular CDI's (Course Deviation Indicators) with OBS
(Omnidirectional Bearing Selector) capability. Keep in mind that radials
always radiate from a VOR (Very High Frequency Omnirange).
Assume that you have been cleared by ATC direct from present position to
intersection THANX which is defined by a radial from VOR A and a radial from
VOR B.
1) Tune VHF nav one to VOR A frequency. Tune VHF nav two to VOR B frequency.
2) Using the OBS for nav one set the intersection radial from VOR A at the
top of its CDI. Using the OBS for nav two set the intersection radial from
VOR B at the top of its CDI.
3) Now look at the CDI for nav one. The needle will be displaced either to
the left or the right. Starting at the top center of the nav one CDI look on
the side towards which the needle is displaced and identify the first set of
numbers which are printed on the dial. (This will be one of the standard set
of numbers which are printed at 30 degree intervals all around the
circumference of the CDI.)
4) Now look at the CDI for nav two and search the half of the nav two CDI
towards which that needle is displaced for that same printed number.
5) If you find that same printed number there on nav two CDI, use that as an
initial heading and turn to that heading. You are now flying a fairly decent
heading towards THANX.
6) Suppose when you perform step 4) you don't find the number that you are
looking for on the needle side of the CDI for nav two. What to do?
7) Look at the CDI for nav two. The needle will be displaced either to the
left or the right. Starting at the top center of the nav two CDI look on the
side towards which the needle is displaced and identify the first set of
numbers which are printed on the dial.
8) Now look at the CDI for nav one and search the half of the nav one CDI
towards which that needle is displaced for that same printed number. It will
be there. Use that number as an initial heading and turn to that heading. You
are now flying a fairly decent heading towards THANX.
Note: After either step 5) or 8), if you choose, you can fine tune your
heading as you progress. Also, while I don't call it out specifically,
somewhere early on in this process you should use audio to positively
identify the stations.
9) As you proceed one of the CDI needles will begin to center as you near the
radial from that VOR. So which heading do you then turn to in order to fly to
THANX, the one at the top or the one at the bottom of that CDI? You look at
the other CDI and you turn to the heading, either top or bottom on the needle
centering CDI, that also appears on the needle side of the other CDI.
It takes longer to read the above than it does to go through the mechanics of
selecting that initial heading. I'd like to emphasize that there is no
arithematic involved in this process. Everything that needs to be visualized
is directly in front of you already displayed on the CDI's. If it helps, go
ahead and use your fingers to visually point to the needles and numbers
involved as you go through the process.
I don't expect the above to cause anyone to not buy a GPS, but it may help
some of those many pilots out there flying around with only two VHF navs in
their aircraft.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Handheld power conditioning and connectors |
>
> >
> > after going through the seminar wirebook I've found Page V25, is this
> > exactly describing what you mention below? Unfortunately we have no
>seminars
> > over here in Europe where we could gain from your knowledge. Should the
> > whole setup be placed in a special metal case? I'm planing to have three
> > such ports available on my panel, should I separate them each in one case
>or
> > can they be put on one printboard. What does the note exactly mean?
> >
> > Many thanks for your feedback
> >
I was unable to put my hands on the original for the page you
mentioned. I must have blown it away at some time in the past.
I came up with a drawing for a noise filter that was a product
we sold for a time through the AeroElectric Connection's catalog.
You can get a copy of the drawing at:
http://209.134.106.21/temp/HandHeldPwrFilter.pdf
This product was offered in single and dual power channel
configurations. The enclosure was aluminum but it's not
critical that it be metallic.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Handheld power conditioning and connectors |
Hello Bob,
many thanks, it is actually the same then in the seminare wire book, just a
two channel version, I now have to look how to get the noise filter, will
see if some of my buddies are going over to the US soon, so they can get
this part. Many thanks for your help.
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Handheld power conditioning and connectors
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > after going through the seminar wirebook I've found Page V25, is this
> > > exactly describing what you mention below? Unfortunately we have no
> >seminars
> > > over here in Europe where we could gain from your knowledge. Should
the
> > > whole setup be placed in a special metal case? I'm planing to have
three
> > > such ports available on my panel, should I separate them each in one
case
> >or
> > > can they be put on one printboard. What does the note exactly mean?
> > >
> > > Many thanks for your feedback
> > >
>
> I was unable to put my hands on the original for the page you
> mentioned. I must have blown it away at some time in the past.
> I came up with a drawing for a noise filter that was a product
> we sold for a time through the AeroElectric Connection's catalog.
> You can get a copy of the drawing at:
>
> http://209.134.106.21/temp/HandHeldPwrFilter.pdf
>
> This product was offered in single and dual power channel
> configurations. The enclosure was aluminum but it's not
> critical that it be metallic.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cuper Richardson" <cuper(at)computer.org> |
| Subject: | Flying to VOR intersections |
Since I'm only an archive subscriber, I can't seem to find out how to
reply to a message, but this is a reply to BAKEROCB(at)aol.com post of the
same subject.
This is certainly a handy technique. Unfortunately, I believe there are
some cases where step 8 is not true. For example if intersection THANX
is defined by radial A of 80 degrees and radial B of 315 degrees and you
are currently in a position left of radial A and right of radial B.
Following the procedure you would look for heading 90 on the left side
of CDI B and find it is not there. You would then look for heading 300
on the right side of CDI A and find it is not there either.
The extension to the technique would be to find some common heading on
the needle side of the two CDIs. Or a technique I believe works is to
average the test headings. In the example above, average 90 and 300
yields a heading of 195 which will work. This modification works for all
the cases I have tried, but I haven't tried proving it mathmatically.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <charleyb(at)earthlink.net> |
I went looking for some flat copper plate to make a power conductor
between my main power contactor and the starter contactor. Found same.
However, when I got home I found my copper strip was made of brass.
Should I pitch it and continue to search for copper, or is the brass
strip usable.
Charlie
RV-6A N11CB (Res.)
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros. |
I doubt that you will get a DIFFERENT perspective anywhere else, but for
another source try http://www.aviationconsumer.com/search and search using
the words "vacuum failure." This will get you the beginning paragraphs of
the articles, but for the complete text you'll need to be a subscriber.
For a totally unbiased perspective try the NTSB reports of accidents
resulting from vacuum failures at http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp using
the same search term. While you'll find a mere four "hits" for the last ten
years, they were all fatal. For the same period, there were 96 reports
found using "electrical failure" as the search term, 7 of which were listed
as fatal. The real cause listed for one of the fatal accidents was a vacuum
pump failure, and only two of the seven list electrical failure as the
probable cause; another lists electrical failure as a contributing factor.
NONE of the electrical failures were for experimental aircraft. I did not
read many of the accident report summaries because I do not need to be
convinced that an all electric panel is better.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
danobrien(at)cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros.
3. Beyond the Aeroelectric Connection (which is wonderful!) where else can I
get more perspectives on these questions?
Thanks much.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick DeCiero <rsdec1(at)star.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven |
Could either one of you please tell me how "the vacuum pump kills" anyone when
it fails?
Does the thing explode or something? I thought the vacuum pump was located on the
engine.
Does it come off and come into the cockpit and actually KILL the pilot? If the
legislators
find out about this they will be banning them and filing lawsuits against all of
the vacuum
pump manufacturers.
Good luck,
Rick D.
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven
gyros.
From: lm4(at)juno.com
Hi List,
Bob N. said once that the cost of vacuum Vs. electric
is pretty much a wash when you have to consider the vacuum
system along with the cost. I checked the prices and not only
was he right, as usual, but there is maintenence, quite often,
on vac. pumps. Vacuum pumps are singular systems and
they continue to kill people by failing in flight. A two battery
system, a la Bob N., offeres redundency. I don't think you can
get much better than that. Unless you want to consider that two
batteries also makes the entire electrical system redundent.
Larry Mac Donald
Rochester N.Y.
From: jerry(at)tr2.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven
gyros.
lm4(at)juno.com wrote:
> on vac. pumps. Vacuum pumps are singular systems and
> they continue to kill people by failing in flight.
*** DRY vacuum pumps kill people by failing in flight. What about wet
pumps? I hear they last just short of forever, and their normal failure
mode is to gradually get weaker and weaker. Which gives the pilot/owner
a lot of warning. The only down side is the greasy belly. Can you
imagine?
People DYING for cosmetics!
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Daniel Pelletier" <pelletie1(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | DG needed with GPS? |
Kevin,
In Canada, you need a DG not only for IFR but also for night VFR over 25
miles of your airport.
Daniel Pelletier
>From: Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: DG needed with GPS?
>Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 22:22:19 -0400
>
>
>
>I'm not sure about the regs in the US, but up here in Canada we are
>required to have a DG (or equivalent) to fly IFR. I would be
>surprised if it wasn't a requirement in the US as well. I'll leave
>it as an exercise for the reader to look up the FARs :)
>
>For VFR, I would be perfectly happy without a DG.
>
>Kevin
>
>
>
> >
> >Just remember that your GPS gives you *track* while the DG gives you
> >*heading*.
> >
> >In a stiff crosswind, there could be substantial difference. ATC
>generally
> >assigns headings to fly, not tracks.
> >
> >It worries me sometimes to hear folks relying on GPS to tell their
>heading.
> >I sincerely hope this was an innocent and intentional simplicication. A
> >pilot who doesn't understand the difference could get him/herself into
> >trouble.
> >
> >Just food for the fire.
> >
> >-Matt
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
> >> Burley
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:31 AM
> >> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >> Subject: AeroElectric-List: DG needed with GPS?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Working on my panel design for a Glasair I-FT and planning to follow
> >> Bob's all-electric design. Question; with GPS on-board (Skymap
> >> IIIc), do I need a DG? I've semi-convinced myself that with heading
> >> info provided by the GPS (and a mech. compass backup), I don't need
> >> the expensive DG. I still plan to have an autopilot/turn coordinator
> >> (Navaid), airspeed, elec. attitude gyro, altimeter, and vertical
> >> speed instruments.
> >>
> >>
> >http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
> >
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
Envoyez et recevez des messages Hotmail sur votre priphrique mobile :
http://mobile.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Garfield Willis <garwillis(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | FS: Small Conti Slick/Unison Mags + Harness |
Well, if there's a prohibition against this, I'm sure I'll hear about it
shortly, but I thot I'd give the list an opportunity before they go on
e-bay...
I have a pair (2) of brand new-in-box untouched Slick 4333 mags and
M2045 Ignition harness, which fits the following Conti engines:
A-65, A-75, C-75, C-85, C-90
I just called Aviall, and their price is over $1500 for the above
complete set (2 X $666 + $250). My can't-refuse price is $750 +
shipping. Priced to fly off my shelves. :)
Please respond off-list.
Gar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | NEW E-Mail Server for Nuckolls/AeroElectric |
RoadRunner has sold my ISP to Cox cable so I'm in the process of
changing over all of my ancillary e-mail addresses.
nuckolls(at)kscable.com is now bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net
aeroelectric(at)kscable.com is now aeroelectric(at)cox.net
The kscable accounts will be closed sometime in the next
24 hours.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>
>I went looking for some flat copper plate to make a power conductor
>between my main power contactor and the starter contactor. Found same.
>However, when I got home I found my copper strip was made of brass.
>Should I pitch it and continue to search for copper, or is the brass
>strip usable.
Brass is just fine . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Small Conti Slick/Unison Mags + Harness |
>
>Well, if there's a prohibition against this, I'm sure I'll hear about it
>shortly, but I thot I'd give the list an opportunity before they go on
>e-bay...
>
>I have a pair (2) of brand new-in-box untouched Slick 4333 mags and
>M2045 Ignition harness, which fits the following Conti engines:
> A-65, A-75, C-75, C-85, C-90
>
>I just called Aviall, and their price is over $1500 for the above
>complete set (2 X $666 + $250). My can't-refuse price is $750 +
>shipping. Priced to fly off my shelves. :)
>
>Please respond off-list.
Have you thought about listing this on E-bay? You'd have
a pretty good chance of doing better . . .
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros. |
>
>I doubt that you will get a DIFFERENT perspective anywhere else, but for
>another source try http://www.aviationconsumer.com/search and search using
>the words "vacuum failure." This will get you the beginning paragraphs of
>the articles, but for the complete text you'll need to be a subscriber.
>
>For a totally unbiased perspective try the NTSB reports of accidents
>resulting from vacuum failures at http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp using
>the same search term. While you'll find a mere four "hits" for the last ten
>years, they were all fatal. For the same period, there were 96 reports
>found using "electrical failure" as the search term, 7 of which were listed
>as fatal. The real cause listed for one of the fatal accidents was a vacuum
>pump failure, and only two of the seven list electrical failure as the
>probable cause; another lists electrical failure as a contributing factor.
>NONE of the electrical failures were for experimental aircraft. I did not
>read many of the accident report summaries because I do not need to be
>convinced that an all electric panel is better.
The numbers are no doubt accurate but it's not clear to
me as to how well they support our notions of "safety
through thoughtful system design." As you pointed out,
none of the incidents cited an experimental airplane.
My personal sense is that amateur builders as a class
of pilot are more cognizant of system operation. Further,
an experimental airplane is probably more likely to
get good maintenance since it doesn't cost the
owner $50/hour + $high$ parts. If my supposition is
true, then I would expect amateur built aircraft to
have both better rate numbers with respect to IFR hours
flown and lower incidences of vacuum system problems
even if the choose to stay with systems that suck.
The act of putting electric gyros in a C-172 without
changing anything in the way the system is architectured
is a formula for some very tense situations with a
high probability of disaster. This is the most difficult
concept to get across to most folks who grew up in the
padded-cockpit environment . . . when they roll their
eyes back at the idea of electric gyros in yo' granpa's
C170, they're dead-nuts right . . .
The more hours the ol' salts have, the more dark-n-stormy-
night stories they've collected - or even written. The
contemporary, certified vacuum/electrical system DOES
have unique value; they are totally independent of each other.
If you got two crappy systems, it's MUCH better that they
don't talk to each other.
When talk about combinations of (1) guaranteed battery
capacity; (2) perhaps multiple batteries; (3) multiple
engine driven power sources and (4) ways to isolate
and/or layer the system to prevent total loss
due to single failures - only then can we throw out
the pumps-n-hoses with confidence. It will be decades
before we have accident numbers on this new way of
thinking about aircraft electrical systems. We
may NEVER have good numbers because nobody is going
to track the population of experimental aircraft
like the FAA does for certified ships.
Soooo . . . it's up to us to do the science. Work out
the failure modes and know in advance that there
will ALWAYS be those who don't understand. As long
as the ignorant are free of any ability to impress
their will upon us, we're gonna do just fine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John F. Herminghaus" <catignano(at)tin.it> |
| Subject: | Flying to VOR intersections |
When ATC gives you direct to anything and you don't have GPS, ask for a vector.
After that, if you get off course they will give you a new vector.
Works everytime.
John Herminghaus
Lancair IV
BAKEROCB(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 05/16/2002 2:52:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com "Ronnie Brown"
> writes:
>
> <<....Skip..... On the other hand, trying to do VOR bearing intersections
> from two stations while plotting it on the chart sliding around on your lap,
> then dialing in
> each VOR frequency, then twisting the OBD knobs, (is that "to" or "from") so
> you can figure out where you are allows you to devote more time to
> instrument scanning ?????? (;<))) >>
>
> 5/19/2002
>
> Hello Ronnie, You are right. Flying direct from present position to an
> intersection defined by two VOR radials can be a daunting task. ATC doesn't
> ask a pilot to do that very often and without practice or a specific method
> it can be confusing and time consuming to determine what heading to start out
> on.
>
> I'm going to describe a step-by-step method below that will get you started.
> This method is not designed to replace a good sense of situational awareness,
> but rather to give the pilot a quick and dirty initial heading selection
> procedure. I didn't invent this procedure I'm just passing it on. It requires
> two VHF (Very High Frequency) nav units in the aircraft equipped with the
> standard circular CDI's (Course Deviation Indicators) with OBS
> (Omnidirectional Bearing Selector) capability. Keep in mind that radials
> always radiate from a VOR (Very High Frequency Omnirange).
>
> Assume that you have been cleared by ATC direct from present position to
> intersection THANX which is defined by a radial from VOR A and a radial from
> VOR B.
>
> 1) Tune VHF nav one to VOR A frequency. Tune VHF nav two to VOR B frequency.
>
> 2) Using the OBS for nav one set the intersection radial from VOR A at the
> top of its CDI. Using the OBS for nav two set the intersection radial from
> VOR B at the top of its CDI.
>
> 3) Now look at the CDI for nav one. The needle will be displaced either to
> the left or the right. Starting at the top center of the nav one CDI look on
> the side towards which the needle is displaced and identify the first set of
> numbers which are printed on the dial. (This will be one of the standard set
> of numbers which are printed at 30 degree intervals all around the
> circumference of the CDI.)
>
> 4) Now look at the CDI for nav two and search the half of the nav two CDI
> towards which that needle is displaced for that same printed number.
>
> 5) If you find that same printed number there on nav two CDI, use that as an
> initial heading and turn to that heading. You are now flying a fairly decent
> heading towards THANX.
>
> 6) Suppose when you perform step 4) you don't find the number that you are
> looking for on the needle side of the CDI for nav two. What to do?
>
> 7) Look at the CDI for nav two. The needle will be displaced either to the
> left or the right. Starting at the top center of the nav two CDI look on the
> side towards which the needle is displaced and identify the first set of
> numbers which are printed on the dial.
>
> 8) Now look at the CDI for nav one and search the half of the nav one CDI
> towards which that needle is displaced for that same printed number. It will
> be there. Use that number as an initial heading and turn to that heading. You
> are now flying a fairly decent heading towards THANX.
>
> Note: After either step 5) or 8), if you choose, you can fine tune your
> heading as you progress. Also, while I don't call it out specifically,
> somewhere early on in this process you should use audio to positively
> identify the stations.
>
> 9) As you proceed one of the CDI needles will begin to center as you near the
> radial from that VOR. So which heading do you then turn to in order to fly to
> THANX, the one at the top or the one at the bottom of that CDI? You look at
> the other CDI and you turn to the heading, either top or bottom on the needle
> centering CDI, that also appears on the needle side of the other CDI.
>
> It takes longer to read the above than it does to go through the mechanics of
> selecting that initial heading. I'd like to emphasize that there is no
> arithematic involved in this process. Everything that needs to be visualized
> is directly in front of you already displayed on the CDI's. If it helps, go
> ahead and use your fingers to visually point to the needles and numbers
> involved as you go through the process.
>
> I don't expect the above to cause anyone to not buy a GPS, but it may help
> some of those many pilots out there flying around with only two VHF navs in
> their aircraft.
>
> 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne McMullen" <cmcmullen(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros. |
Ask the pilot who landed his 757 after all three power buss failed, leaving
the panel totally blank.
Wayne
This is not a joke, it did happen.
----- Original Message -----
From: <danobrien(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros.
>
> I am a Lancair builder new to the list. I fly IFR down to minimums. I am
interested in hearing opinions about the safety of having all electric gyros
instead of the more standard system with vacuum driven heading and attitude
indicators and an electric turn coordinator. Ignoring the fact that
electric gyros are more expensive, I am specifically interested in opinions
about the following:
>
> 1. How much redundancy is required in an all electric system for it to be
as safe as the "standard" vacuum/backup vacuum/electric system? By
"standard" system I mean a vacuum driven heading and attitude indicators,
the precise flight backup vacuum system, and an electric turn coordinator.
Are vacuum systems so unreliable that even a system with one battery and one
alternator is preferred? If not, would a system with one battery and two
alternators be preferred? Two batteries and two alternators?
>
> 2. What are the failure modes in the different "all electric" systems that
one needs to worry about most?
>
> 3. Beyond the Aeroelectric Connection (which is wonderful!) where else can
I get more perspectives on these questions?
>
> Thanks much.
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros. |
>
>
>Ask the pilot who landed his 757 after all three power buss failed, leaving
>the panel totally blank.
>
>Wayne
>
>This is not a joke, it did happen.
Now . . . if they had let him maintain his own aux battery . . .
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Big event at our house this past weekend . . . |
I've gotten behind on a number of messages in the que
waiting for answers but we've been distracted from our
normal routine for the past several days.
Dee graduated with her Masters in community/clinical
psychology this past weekend . . . what's more, she
did it with a 3.94 GPA. We took some time out to have
a lot of friends and family over for food and festivities.
It took her 21 years to get the undergraduate degree . . .
funny how raising a family can get in the way of "fun"
stuff. She got her masters put away in two years and
will finish the Phd work in about a year and a half.
I'm really looking forward to her getting a good job
and supporting me in a manner to which I'd like to become
accustomed!
We're leaving for CA tomorrow morning to goof off for
a week on the beach. We found a 1960's era motel on
the coast that gets about 20' closer to the ocean every
year. About 5-10 more years and I think it's going to
go into the water! In the mean time, the sounds of the
surf through the windows at night sounds like it's
lapping at the bedposts.
I've signed up for a el-cheepie dial up service that
is supposed to let me stay plugged into the e-mail
accounts . . . but if the phone lines between me and
you turn out to be 1960's vintage too . . . . I may
drop out of sight for a week.
Should be back in the Wichita office on Thursday,
May 30.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven |
gyros.
The incident I am aware of was a Martinair 767. The info I can find seems
to indicate two separate failures which combined to cause the problem. If
we are going to consider two separate failures, I could kill all the
instruments on a "conventional" aircraft with vacuum system + electric turn
coordinator.
See the following links for all the info I can find on this incident:
http://www.canard.com/ntsb/NYC/96A116.htm
http://madaket.netwizards.net/vtail/archive/2001/msg20373.html
http://www.corazon.com/EgyptAir990767.html (search for Martinair to find
the info in this page). Note that this page indicates that the pilots
attitude indicator + the standby attitude indicator continued to function
normally.
Kevin Horton
>
>
>Ask the pilot who landed his 757 after all three power buss failed, leaving
>the panel totally blank.
>
>Wayne
>
>This is not a joke, it did happen.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <danobrien(at)cox.net>
>To:
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros.
>
>
> >
> > I am a Lancair builder new to the list. I fly IFR down to minimums. I am
>interested in hearing opinions about the safety of having all electric gyros
>instead of the more standard system with vacuum driven heading and attitude
>indicators and an electric turn coordinator. Ignoring the fact that
>electric gyros are more expensive, I am specifically interested in opinions
>about the following:
> >
> > 1. How much redundancy is required in an all electric system for it to be
>as safe as the "standard" vacuum/backup vacuum/electric system? By
>"standard" system I mean a vacuum driven heading and attitude indicators,
>the precise flight backup vacuum system, and an electric turn coordinator.
>Are vacuum systems so unreliable that even a system with one battery and one
>alternator is preferred? If not, would a system with one battery and two
>alternators be preferred? Two batteries and two alternators?
> >
> > 2. What are the failure modes in the different "all electric" systems that
>one needs to worry about most?
> >
> > 3. Beyond the Aeroelectric Connection (which is wonderful!) where else can
>I get more perspectives on these questions?
> >
> > Thanks much.
> >
> >
>http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Aronson <aronsond(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | VM1000 Acad file |
Listers:
For those of you that are puting a wire book together and need a dwg
file for the VM1000 and all the sensors, l have made one up. Get in
touch with me off list and I'll send it to you. Bob has done a
wonderful job of supplying us with many very excellent dwg files for a
bunch of wiring plans. The time that it takes to make these things up
is extensive. Thanks Bob.
Dave Aronson
RV4 N504RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Faris" <kf64358(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Triple power buss failures. |
>
>
>Ask the pilot who landed his 757 after all three power buss failed,
leaving
>the panel totally blank.
I believe you are refering to the Canada Air 757. What you failed to
mention was that the reason all three busses failed was because there
were problems determining the fuel quantity, a english to metric
conversion thing. Then the big fans quit due to lack of fuel.
At that point the aircraft was just a big glider. If it had been a
vacuum system there wasn't any of that to go around either.
Kev
RV7 emp.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VM1000 Acad file |
>
>Listers:
>For those of you that are puting a wire book together and need a dwg
>file for the VM1000 and all the sensors, l have made one up. Get in
>touch with me off list and I'll send it to you. Bob has done a
>wonderful job of supplying us with many very excellent dwg files for a
>bunch of wiring plans. The time that it takes to make these things up
>is extensive. Thanks Bob.
>Dave Aronson
>RV4 N504RV
If you like, I can put it up on the AeroElectric List
downloads server. You can be immortalized in magnetic
bits as the first builder to submit a piece to these
archives.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Triple power buss failures. |
>
> >
> >
> >Ask the pilot who landed his 757 after all three power buss failed,
>leaving
> >the panel totally blank.
>
>I believe you are refering to the Canada Air 757. What you failed to
>mention was that the reason all three busses failed was because there
>were problems determining the fuel quantity, a english to metric
>conversion thing. Then the big fans quit due to lack of fuel.
>
>At that point the aircraft was just a big glider. If it had been a
>vacuum system there wasn't any of that to go around either.
Yup . . . I KNEW it, his batteries were too old . . . or
maybe (UGH!) the airplane doesn't have any auxiliary
batteries?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Triple power buss failures. |
>
> >
> >
> >Ask the pilot who landed his 757 after all three power buss failed,
>leaving
> >the panel totally blank.
>
>I believe you are refering to the Canada Air 757. What you failed to
>mention was that the reason all three busses failed was because there
>were problems determining the fuel quantity, a english to metric
>conversion thing. Then the big fans quit due to lack of fuel.
>
>At that point the aircraft was just a big glider. If it had been a
>vacuum system there wasn't any of that to go around either.
>
>Kev
>RV7 emp.
This one was an Air Canada 767. Once the engines quit there would still be
batteries, plus emergency power supplied by a Ram Air Turbine. He would
have had power to the essential instruments.
I'm not aware on any 757 incidents that fit the original description, but I
would love the learn the details if there is one I don't know about. The
closest fit seems to the be the MartinAir 767 incident - see my earlier
message.
Kevin Horton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Aronson <aronsond(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VM1000 Acad file |
Bob:
Great, here is your first builder submitted item. You might look at it
first as it is not quite up to your beautiful work.
Dave Aronson
RV4 N504RV
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: VM1000 Acad file
>
> >
> >Listers:
> >For those of you that are puting a wire book together and need a dwg
> >file for the VM1000 and all the sensors, l have made one up. Get in
> >touch with me off list and I'll send it to you. Bob has done a
> >wonderful job of supplying us with many very excellent dwg files for a
> >bunch of wiring plans. The time that it takes to make these things up
> >is extensive. Thanks Bob.
> >Dave Aronson
> >RV4 N504RV
>
> If you like, I can put it up on the AeroElectric List
> downloads server. You can be immortalized in magnetic
> bits as the first builder to submit a piece to these
> archives.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros. |
>
>
>The incident I am aware of was a Martinair 767. The info I can find seems
>to indicate two separate failures which combined to cause the problem. If
>we are going to consider two separate failures, I could kill all the
>instruments on a "conventional" aircraft with vacuum system + electric turn
>coordinator.
>
>See the following links for all the info I can find on this incident:
>
>http://www.canard.com/ntsb/NYC/96A116.htm
This narration suggests lots of electrically generated
problems . . . but the story doesn't mention the "dark
panel syndrome" . . . they seemed to have communications
with which to divert to Boston. The REALLY interesting
note is that on a ferry trip to Boeing, everything worked.
>http://madaket.netwizards.net/vtail/archive/2001/msg20373.html
"Boeing indicated loose battery shunt could cause interruption
to gnd. Similar events were reported with 2 other acft of same
operator, but query of Boeing data base did not find similar events.
Boeing 767-300ER of another operator, same configuration, did not
have similar events."
Looks like they haven't deduced root cause. Certainly, loose
battery connections are suspect but when you can't duplicate
the problem on the same or exemplar aircraft, it is still
just a learned supposition.
>http://www.corazon.com/EgyptAir990767.html (search for Martinair to find
>the info in this page). Note that this page indicates that the pilots
>attitude indicator + the standby attitude indicator continued to function
>normally.
This narrative provides some detailed information on flight
data recorder output. Looks like they were getting a wide
variety of intermittent systems . . . some of which did not
come back on line gracefully after a power interruption.
This narrative also speaks of another aircraft in the
Martinair fleet that demonstrated similar problems. I
didn't spot a deduction of root cause in any of these
stories.
The archives are prolific with these kinds of incidents.
Unfortunately, MOST people who read them or hear about
them on the news tend to personalize them in un-useful
ways . . . just because the heavy iron have these problems
has absolutely no bearing on YOUR airplane. The only things
their airplanes have in common with our airplanes is root-causes.
Loose hardware, rubbed wires, broken switches, etc., etc.
Given that root cause was not identified in any of these
stories, I'll suggest there is no value considering
the events described while making design decisions about
your project. Recall that our goal is to be failure tolerant . . .
no single failure (root cause) should be allowed to
propagate to the extent that the whole system is affected.
The big birds have lots of goodies running from bus
structures designed and certified by folks who think
that flight system reliability means that we try to
keep EVERYTHING working ALL THE TIME. The battery
operated e-bus with multiple feedpaths have proven
valuable in bizjets for decades . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VM1000 Acad file |
>
>Bob:
>Great, here is your first builder submitted item. You might look at it
>first as it is not quite up to your beautiful work.
>Dave Aronson
>RV4 N504RV
David, if you attached the drawing to your reply,
it would have been filtered off by the list-server.
You need to mail it directly to nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Voltage Warning - parts list |
>
>List,
> I would like to build the low voltage warning device that is
>detailed in Bob's download section of the AEC. Can someone tell me if
>there is a write-up that goes with the schematic; I can't fine anything.
>And secondly, if someone has a parts list in Digikey part numbers, I'd
>sure like a copy of it.
Won't have time to complete it before we hop on the
big iron bird in the morning . . . I've got a BOM and
bare-board offer for DIY'ers along with some instructions
that I'll publish when I get back. Got the stuff on the
laptop and might get it finished while on trip.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rowland & Wilma Carson <rowil(at)clara.net> |
| Subject: | air DG electrical connections [was: Wet pumps and electric |
gyros]
>I now have two instrument rebuild shops looking
>into the possibility of taking the heading output
>mechanism out of a vacuum DG and installing it into an
>electric DG. (Shhhhh, don't tell the FAA.) I'll let
>you know how it turns out.
Bill & Gilles, well known in this parish, have already responded to a
query I posted recently over on the (very quiet) avionics list.
However, it occurs to me that as there seem to be more folk active on
this list, I might get a bit more mileage here. Bill's mention of
extracting the heading mechanism is what prompted the thought. My
query:
I have acquired second-hand an air-driven directional gyro that I'd
like to use in the panel of my Europa. It came from G-BGTP which was
a Robin HR100/210 serial no 188 built 1974 although I don't know if
it was original equipment. The DG is a Badin Crouzet 910, and it has
a plate with the markings Serial 174 Date 7 72 Ref 33440 Alimentation
15 pz Sortie 9 72. It has a heading bug, and an electrical connector
on the rear (4-pole Souriau 851-02E-8-4 P-8, for which I have
acquired the mating connector 851-06EC8-4S50). The vendor breaking
the panel assured me the port was for an autopilot. I have tried to
find out more about the makers (if they are still in the business!)
on the internet but so far have not had much luck.
I am hoping that the electrical interface on DGs might be standard
(or maybe the French do not think the same!) and that I could perhaps
put together some sort of wing leveller that would work in the
Europa. Many folk have added the simple Navaid autopilot to Europas,
and I'm wondering if there might be some way to interface that with
the DG output.
I've put an ohm-meter across the various terminals on the port and
can post the results here if that's of any use. I'm not expecting a
complete how-to recipe, but if I could find the specification of the
DG interface, or what it would expect to be connected to, that might
help me determine how I could use it.
If I can't do anything with the electrical interface, oh well, it
still works fine as an air gyro with a heading bug .... and by the
way, I'm hoping to run it with positive pressure off bleed air from
the Wilksch WAM-120 "diesel" engine I have a deposit on, not with any
sort of vacuum pump.
regards
Rowland
| PFA 16532 EAA 168386 Young Eagles Flight Leader 017623
| Europa builder #435 G-ROWI e-mail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros. |
Rob,
Thanks for the heads up on the ntsb site. I did go to the site and found
the four "vacuum failures" you mentioned. However, this provides a very
misleading picture about the extent of the vacuum failure problem! I
searched for the phrase "vacuum pump" for accidents from 1980 to the
present and found several hundred records. I started reading a few and
found several vacuum failures listed with phrases like "vacuum pump
failures," "failure of the vacuum pump," "complete failure of the vacuum
pump," etc. Of course, many of these reports concluded that the "vacuum
pump" was working, but I think it's important to be clear that the hits for
the phrase "vacuum failure" provide a very misleading picture. A careful
study would have to review all records that contain the phrase "vacuum,"
which in my search produced 605 records.
My admittedly brief review (I looked at a couple dozen reports) suggests
that vacuum failure is a big issue, as is the ability of many pilots to
handle vacuum failure using the standard non-vacuum instruments and a
careful scan. However, it does appear that accidents might have been
avoided if there had been greater redundancy in the functioning of the
vacuum instruments, and that failure of those instruments was often driven
by failure of the vacuum pump.
I think I'm going with one of Bob's systems and NO vacuum system. An
expected failure every few hundred hours for the most important spatial
orientation instrument is, well, pathetic.
Happy flying,
Dan O'Brien
Lancair ES
From: "Rob Housman" <RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros.
I doubt that you will get a DIFFERENT perspective anywhere else, but for
another source try http://www.aviationconsumer.com/search and search using
the words "vacuum failure." This will get you the beginning paragraphs of
the articles, but for the complete text you'll need to be a subscriber.
For a totally unbiased perspective try the NTSB reports of accidents
resulting from vacuum failures at http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp using
the same search term. While you'll find a mere four "hits" for the last ten
years, they were all fatal. For the same period, there were 96 reports
found using "electrical failure" as the search term, 7 of which were listed
as fatal. The real cause listed for one of the fatal accidents was a vacuum
pump failure, and only two of the seven list electrical failure as the
probable cause; another lists electrical failure as a contributing factor.
NONE of the electrical failures were for experimental aircraft. I did not
read many of the accident report summaries because I do not need to be
convinced that an all electric panel is better.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros. |
Obviously my search was, shall I say, incomplete and I should have realized
that four hits was far too few. However, the point I was trying to make
(by encouraging you to browse the accident reports to get that other
perspective you sought) is the one you got, i. e., to rely on a vacuum pump
is to tempt fate, something that the NTSB data do make rather clear.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dan
O'Brien
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven gyros.
Rob,
Thanks for the heads up on the ntsb site. I did go to the site and found
the four "vacuum failures" you mentioned. However, this provides a very
misleading picture about the extent of the vacuum failure problem! I
searched for the phrase "vacuum pump" for accidents from 1980 to the
present and found several hundred records. I started reading a few and
found several vacuum failures listed with phrases like "vacuum pump
failures," "failure of the vacuum pump," "complete failure of the vacuum
pump," etc. Of course, many of these reports concluded that the "vacuum
pump" was working, but I think it's important to be clear that the hits for
the phrase "vacuum failure" provide a very misleading picture. A careful
study would have to review all records that contain the phrase "vacuum,"
which in my search produced 605 records.
My admittedly brief review (I looked at a couple dozen reports) suggests
that vacuum failure is a big issue, as is the ability of many pilots to
handle vacuum failure using the standard non-vacuum instruments and a
careful scan. However, it does appear that accidents might have been
avoided if there had been greater redundancy in the functioning of the
vacuum instruments, and that failure of those instruments was often driven
by failure of the vacuum pump.
I think I'm going with one of Bob's systems and NO vacuum system. An
expected failure every few hundred hours for the most important spatial
orientation instrument is, well, pathetic.
Happy flying,
Dan O'Brien
Lancair ES
From: "Rob Housman" <RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven
gyros.
<RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
I doubt that you will get a DIFFERENT perspective anywhere else, but for
another source try http://www.aviationconsumer.com/search and search using
the words "vacuum failure." This will get you the beginning paragraphs of
the articles, but for the complete text you'll need to be a subscriber.
For a totally unbiased perspective try the NTSB reports of accidents
resulting from vacuum failures at http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp using
the same search term. While you'll find a mere four "hits" for the last ten
years, they were all fatal. For the same period, there were 96 reports
found using "electrical failure" as the search term, 7 of which were listed
as fatal. The real cause listed for one of the fatal accidents was a vacuum
pump failure, and only two of the seven list electrical failure as the
probable cause; another lists electrical failure as a contributing factor.
NONE of the electrical failures were for experimental aircraft. I did not
read many of the accident report summaries because I do not need to be
convinced that an all electric panel is better.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne McMullen" <cmcmullen(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Triple power buss failures. |
It was the MartinAir 767 incident which was written up in one of the flying
magazines. The pilot was also a general aviation pilot who was able to
sideslip the aircraft into a local airport.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Triple power buss failures.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Ask the pilot who landed his 757 after all three power buss failed,
> >leaving
> > >the panel totally blank.
> >
> >I believe you are refering to the Canada Air 757. What you failed to
> >mention was that the reason all three busses failed was because there
> >were problems determining the fuel quantity, a english to metric
> >conversion thing. Then the big fans quit due to lack of fuel.
> >
> >At that point the aircraft was just a big glider. If it had been a
> >vacuum system there wasn't any of that to go around either.
> >
> >Kev
> >RV7 emp.
>
>
> This one was an Air Canada 767. Once the engines quit there would still
be
> batteries, plus emergency power supplied by a Ram Air Turbine. He would
> have had power to the essential instruments.
>
> I'm not aware on any 757 incidents that fit the original description, but
I
> would love the learn the details if there is one I don't know about. The
> closest fit seems to the be the MartinAir 767 incident - see my earlier
> message.
>
> Kevin Horton
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne McMullen" <cmcmullen(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Triple power buss failures. |
When the power buss went off line, the batteries were disconnected.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Triple power buss failures.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Ask the pilot who landed his 757 after all three power buss failed,
> >leaving
> > >the panel totally blank.
> >
> >I believe you are refering to the Canada Air 757. What you failed to
> >mention was that the reason all three busses failed was because there
> >were problems determining the fuel quantity, a english to metric
> >conversion thing. Then the big fans quit due to lack of fuel.
> >
> >At that point the aircraft was just a big glider. If it had been a
> >vacuum system there wasn't any of that to go around either.
>
> Yup . . . I KNEW it, his batteries were too old . . . or
> maybe (UGH!) the airplane doesn't have any auxiliary
> batteries?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Triple power buss failures. |
Two different incidents are being muddled together as one here.
The Martinair 767 with the electrical problems landed at Boston Logan. I
would be very surprised if he sidesliped it in, as he had a long runway to
deal with, and the runway length was longer than the predicted landing
distance. See http://www.corazon.com/EgyptAir990767.html and search the
page for Martinair.
The Air Canada 767 with the double engine failure landed on what used to be
a Royal Canadian Air Force base at Gimli, Manitoba. The runway had been
turned into a drag strip. See
http://www.frontier.net/~wadenelson/successstories/gimli.html for the
fascinating story of the "Gimli Glider".
Kevin Horton
>It was the MartinAir 767 incident which was written up in one of the flying
>magazines. The pilot was also a general aviation pilot who was able to
>sideslip the aircraft into a local airport.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kevin Horton" <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Triple power buss failures.
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Ask the pilot who landed his 757 after all three power buss failed,
> > >leaving
> > > >the panel totally blank.
> > >
> > >I believe you are refering to the Canada Air 757. What you failed to
> > >mention was that the reason all three busses failed was because there
> > >were problems determining the fuel quantity, a english to metric
> > >conversion thing. Then the big fans quit due to lack of fuel.
> > >
> > >At that point the aircraft was just a big glider. If it had been a
> > >vacuum system there wasn't any of that to go around either.
> > >
> > >Kev
> > >RV7 emp.
> >
> >
> > This one was an Air Canada 767. Once the engines quit there would still
>be
> > batteries, plus emergency power supplied by a Ram Air Turbine. He would
> > have had power to the essential instruments.
> >
> > I'm not aware on any 757 incidents that fit the original description, but
>I
> > would love the learn the details if there is one I don't know about. The
> > closest fit seems to the be the MartinAir 767 incident - see my earlier
> > message.
> >
> > Kevin Horton
> >
> >
>http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | A bit more on the safety of electric versus vacuum |
driven
gyros.
OK, curiosity got the cat with the recent responses to my question about
the relative safety of vacuum and electrical systems. I searched the NTSB
accident database for fatal accidents with the phrase "vacuum pump" and got
462 hits. I looked at the first 40 hits, which ran from 1/2/83 to
4/23/93. In 18 of the 40 cases, the FAA concluded that the vacuum pump
FAILED, and in 6 additional cases, they concluded that it MAY HAVE
FAILED. In the other 16 cases the vacuum pump was found not to be a
factor. Most of these cases involved typical stupid pilot tricks, although
three cases involved bad attitude indicators.
I then searched the NTSB accident database for fatal accidents with the
word "alternator" somewhere in the report. There were 154 hits, 8 of which
occurred during the same period as the first 40 hits for "vacuum pump"
(i.e., the period from 1/2/83 to 4/23/93) Of these 8 hits, in only 1
instance was the alternator cited as a factor in a fatal accident, and in
that case it was cited as "suspect in high load situations," whatever that
means.
We can't conclude from this that electric-driven gyros are necessarily
safer than vacuum-driven gyros, because the general aviation experience is
mostly with vacuum-driven gyros. Alternator failure hasn't caused much
spatial orientation because the alternator rarely drives the attitude
indicator. However, my own conclusion from this quick study is that there
have been a significant number of instances in which vacuum failure has led
to fatalities. There are enough instances that it is hard to understand
why the vacuum pump retains its status as the power source for the most
important spatial orientation instrument in the cockpit.
The consensus seems to be that alternators are at least an order of
magnitude more reliable than vacuum pumps. With the kind of redundancy
that Bob proposes in his book (with back-ups that WORK WHEN ENGINE POWER IS
NEEDED, unlike most standby vacuum systems), it seems pretty impossible
not to conclude that electric gyros are the safer option.
I suppose that as a new convert I'm singing mostly to the choir on this
list......but, I'm always interested hearing alternative views.
Happy flying,
Dan O'Brien
Lancair ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | radar vectors forever |
AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John F. Herminghaus"
Subject: Flying to VOR intersections
<>
5/21/2002
Hello John, Have you NEVER flown in a non radar environment? Have you NEVER
heard the words "Radar service terminated....." from ATC? Have you NEVER
heard of lost communications while IFR in IMC? If so, your flying education
is not yet complete.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
PS: Erik Lindbergh, grandson of New York to Paris Charles A. Lindgergh,
recently flew from New York to Paris in a modified Lancair Columbia 300. He
had a mission control center back in St Louis with communication capabilities
that would have made NASA proud. Regardless, they lost communications with
Erik while he was enroute and came within a few minutes of launching a search
and rescue effort.
There was a corporate jet, Gulfstream if I remember right, that lost comm
shortly after take off in the Salt Lake City, Utah area recently and was
intercepted and escorted to a landing at a near by airport by military
tactical jets.
Lost comm does happen.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John F. Herminghaus" <catignano(at)tin.it> |
| Subject: | Re: radar vectors forever |
BAKEROCB(at)aol.com wrote:
> Hello John, Have you NEVER flown in a non radar environment? Have you NEVER
> heard the words "Radar service terminated....." from ATC? Have you NEVER
> heard of lost communications while IFR in IMC? If so, your flying education
> is not yet complete.
>
> 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
>
> Lost comm does happen.
Sure, I've done it all.
When given direct to an VOR intersection without GPS, I look at my chart and
since I know where I am, estimate the heading. I then set the radials, fly till
I reach one or the other and then fly it to the intersection. Works fine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald Cox" <racox(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 05/20/02 |
Charlie:
How about using a piece of copper pipe of suitable dimension, flattened in a
vise, or by a mallet? Should give you plenty of cross-section, and it sure
is easy to come by. (And cheap!)
Ron
> From: Charles Brame <charleyb(at)earthlink.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Power strip
>
>
> I went looking for some flat copper plate to make a power conductor
> between my main power contactor and the starter contactor. Found same.
> However, when I got home I found my copper strip was made of brass.
> Should I pitch it and continue to search for copper, or is the brass
> strip usable.
>
> Charlie
> RV-6A N11CB (Res.)
> San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald Cox" <racox(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 05/20/02 |
Rick:
I hope you aren't serious... However, your question indicates that you
might be, so:
The pump doesn't directly kill anyone, any more than an engine failure
"kills" the pilot. The pilot who dies after such a failure, dies as a
result either of his or her actions, or something else beyond their control.
What kills the pilot is his or her inability to continue to fly the airplane
without the information provided by the vacuum instruments after the failure
of the vacuum pump. Either because of a lack of the requisite skill(s) or
of the instruments needed as backups to the now-useless vacuum-driven
instruments.
A pilot's failure to become/remain proficient at partial panel flying isn't
the fault of the pump any more than the failure of the pilot to become
proficient at gliding to a safe landing is the fault of the engine. The
failure of the device sets up the situation, but the outcome has a lot to do
with how the pilot handles the failure.
Ron
> From: Rick DeCiero <rsdec1(at)star.net>
> Subject: Re:AeroElectric-List: Safety of electric versus vacuum driven
>
>
> Could either one of you please tell me how "the vacuum pump kills"
anyone when it fails?
> Does the thing explode or something? I thought the vacuum pump was located
on the engine.
> Does it come off and come into the cockpit and actually KILL the pilot? If
the legislators
> find out about this they will be banning them and filing lawsuits against
all of the vacuum
> pump manufacturers.
> Good luck,
> Rick D.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
>
>
>Ask the pilot who landed his 757 after all three power buss failed,
leaving>the panel totally blank.
>I believe you are referring to the Canada Air 757. What you failed to
>mention was that the reason all three busses failed was because there
>were problems determining the fuel quantity, a english to metric
>conversion thing. Then the big fans quit due to lack of fuel.
>At that point the aircraft was just a big glider. If it had been a
>vacuum system there wasn't any of that to go around either.Kevin RV7 >emp.
Not so. The Gimli Glider was a 767. All fans quit - and the manual says
"start the APU" - with no fuel!
I might add he landed with unlocked nosewheel (Boeing emergency lowering
procedure lost in another section of the book) on half an abandoned runway
which ended with a fence, during a car race. The aircraft caught fire
because of the nosewheel, the racers tried unsuccessfully to put out with
their extinguishers, so the captain re-entered, chopped a hole in the floor
and put it out with an a/c exting. Remember his name - Captain Bob Pearson.
Tronto airport is named "Perason International" but it's just some bottom
feeder from parliament, not Bob.
The only other recent no-engine successful landing on a runway was in the
Azores, from a TransAtlantic trip, no one hurt and the aircraft saved. Both
events were Canadian pilots by the way.
Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gimli Glider |
.
> The only other recent no-engine successful landing on a runway was in the
> Azores, from a TransAtlantic trip, no one hurt and the aircraft saved.
Both
> events were Canadian pilots by the way.
Interesting enough.
Did they say the misfueling could have something to do with some units
confusion ?
I always feel uneasy when it comes to juggling with US Gals, Imp Gals,
pounds per hour (US or British ?) about fuel.
Gilles,
Metric system since French Revolution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brucem(at)olypen.com |
I have calcualated the cost differential between an all elctric
panel, with a second alternator, versus a conventional vacuum
system. Using Aircraft Spruce and Chief prices for pump, gyros,
alternator, etc. the all electric system keeps coming up $1800 more
expensive. For those who say they are about equal in cost, I would
appreciate your numbers.
Regards,
Bruce
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
http://www.olypen.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Gyros |
Hi All,
I must admit to being somewhat intrigued by the discussion of all Electric
Vs Vacuum. Their appears to be an assumption that if a A/H & DG is
electrical that their internal mechanisms are more reliable than the
gyroscopic (plus pump) equvalent
I have had made a few inquires and I have not been able to find any mean
time between failure data on electrical A/H's & DG's. I'd be interested if
anyone in the group has been able to secure this information. I did make an
inquiry to a few repair shops and their indication was the electrical units
were not particularly reliable. Unfortunately that is data based in
speculation, not statistics.
So, does anyone on the forum have access to any data that suggests that the
MTBF of a vacuum powered instrument plus its pump is greater or less that
the MTBF of the electrical equivalent?
We have an expression where I work "In god we trust, everyone else must
bring data". Lets not assume that because its electrically powered that it
is mechanically more reliable.
Regards, Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Mickey" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Gyros |
There are at least three issues here...cost, reliability and redundancy
(backup). I do not believe the cost difference for apples vs. apples is
that great in either direction. The next is reliability and backup. With
B&C Alternators (regular and PM) the reliability is outstanding. The
reliability of vacuum pumps is low. I choose to go al electric so I can have
multiple backups to ALL instruments (PM alternator and battery) To get the
same backup for all instruments if you mix electric and vacuum would
require two backup systems... a PM alternator and an alternate vacuum. When
comparing systems they have to have comparable backups.
Ross Mickey
RV6A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electric Gyros
>
> Hi All,
>
> I must admit to being somewhat intrigued by the discussion of all Electric
> Vs Vacuum. Their appears to be an assumption that if a A/H & DG is
> electrical that their internal mechanisms are more reliable than the
> gyroscopic (plus pump) equvalent
>
> I have had made a few inquires and I have not been able to find any mean
> time between failure data on electrical A/H's & DG's. I'd be interested
if
> anyone in the group has been able to secure this information. I did make
an
> inquiry to a few repair shops and their indication was the electrical
units
> were not particularly reliable. Unfortunately that is data based in
> speculation, not statistics.
>
> So, does anyone on the forum have access to any data that suggests that
the
> MTBF of a vacuum powered instrument plus its pump is greater or less that
> the MTBF of the electrical equivalent?
>
> We have an expression where I work "In god we trust, everyone else must
> bring data". Lets not assume that because its electrically powered that
it
> is mechanically more reliable.
>
>
> Regards, Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
(one slight screw-up in a
> magnificent job of aircraft control and adaptive thinking and
> planning)
>
One slight screw up not counting running out of gas. Come on, 767's
must have gas gages with some sort of display with an "analog"
full/empty indicator, don't they?
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 150 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Mucker" <matthew(at)mucker.net> |
Actually, IIRC, the whole thing started because the fuel guages were inop so
the ground crew was measuring fuel with a dipstick, which necessitated the
conversion of units, which led to filling the gas tank to a somewhat less
than adequate level.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Alex
> Peterson
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 6:51 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Gimli Glider
>
>
>
>
> (one slight screw-up in a
> > magnificent job of aircraft control and adaptive thinking and
> > planning)
> >
>
> One slight screw up not counting running out of gas. Come on, 767's
> must have gas gages with some sort of display with an "analog"
> full/empty indicator, don't they?
>
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 150 hours
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gimli Glider |
> The original confusion had to do with conversion to/from metric as Canada was
just adopting the
> metric system at the time. The calculations involving pounds, litres gallons
etc. caused the problem
> of insufficient fuel. The numbers were right but the units were wrong.
> The other interesting aside to this story is that immediately adjacent to the
abandoned runway /
> race track which was used for the landing was a parallel active runway currently
used for air
> carrier operations into and out of Gimli. (one slight screw-up in a magnificent
job of aircraft
> control and adaptive thinking and planning)
There is a terrible book about this and from what I remember,
the original problem was an electronic device that was broken.
One mechanic tied out the circuit breaker, with a cryptic note
in the log. When they got to the next place the mechanic didn't
understand the original note, pressed the CB in, and the fuel
measuring equipment weren't reading properly.
The crew then had to calculate the fuel, and the truck delivering
used some units and the pilots were expecting some other, and the
manual was using pounds.
________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, they do have gauges (sort of). Guess what? The "gauges" were not
working! Here is the relevant paragraph from the link posted earlier:
"Flight 143's problems began on the ground in Montreal. A computer known as
the Fuel Quantity Information System Processor manages the entire 767 fuel
loading process. The FQIS controls all of the fuel pumps and drives all the
767's fuel gauges. Little is left for crew and refuelers to do but hook up
the hoses and dial in the desired fuel load. But the FQIS was not working
properly on Flight 143. The fault was later discovered to be a poorly
soldered sensor. A highly improbable, one-in-a-million sequence of mistakes
by Air Canada technicians investigating the problem defeated several layers
of redundancy built into the system. This left Aircraft #604 without working
fuel gauges."
Best regards,
Rob Housman
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Alex
Peterson
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Gimli Glider
(one slight screw-up in a
> magnificent job of aircraft control and adaptive thinking and
> planning)
>
One slight screw up not counting running out of gas. Come on, 767's
must have gas gages with some sort of display with an "analog"
full/empty indicator, don't they?
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 150 hours
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
>
>
>(one slight screw-up in a
> > magnificent job of aircraft control and adaptive thinking and
> > planning)
> >
>
>One slight screw up not counting running out of gas. Come on, 767's
>must have gas gages with some sort of display with an "analog"
>full/empty indicator, don't they?
>
>Alex Peterson
>Maple Grove, MN
>RV6-A N66AP 150 hours
The fuel indication system was not working at all, and under the rules of
the day they could still go flying if they dipped the tanks and determined
that there was enough fuel for the trip. Nowdays the rules are much
tighter, and, generally speaking, you can go if only one tanks gauge is
unserviceable, and you have to have some bullet proof way to know how much
fuel is on board at the start. If more than one tanks gauge is dead, you
don't go nowdays.
Kevin Horton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John & Amy Eckel <eckel1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gimli Glider |
My recollection is that the fuel was measured in pounds and the crew thought
it was kilograms, therefore
a 2.2 to 1 error. I think the fuelers used a dip stick and misread the
calibration.
Regards,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Housman" <RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Gimli Glider
<RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
>
> Yes, they do have gauges (sort of). Guess what? The "gauges" were not
> working! Here is the relevant paragraph from the link posted earlier:
>
> "Flight 143's problems began on the ground in Montreal. A computer known
as
> the Fuel Quantity Information System Processor manages the entire 767 fuel
> loading process. The FQIS controls all of the fuel pumps and drives all
the
> 767's fuel gauges. Little is left for crew and refuelers to do but hook up
> the hoses and dial in the desired fuel load. But the FQIS was not working
> properly on Flight 143. The fault was later discovered to be a poorly
> soldered sensor. A highly improbable, one-in-a-million sequence of
mistakes
> by Air Canada technicians investigating the problem defeated several
layers
> of redundancy built into the system. This left Aircraft #604 without
working
> fuel gauges."
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob Housman
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Alex
> Peterson
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Gimli Glider
>
>
>
> (one slight screw-up in a
> > magnificent job of aircraft control and adaptive thinking and
> > planning)
> >
>
> One slight screw up not counting running out of gas. Come on, 767's
> must have gas gages with some sort of display with an "analog"
> full/empty indicator, don't they?
>
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 150 hours
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gimli Glider |
In a message dated 5/22/2002 5:47:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
RobH@hyperion-ef.com writes:
<< A highly improbable, one-in-a-million sequence of mistakes
by Air Canada technicians investigating the problem defeated several layers
of redundancy built into the system. This left Aircraft #604 without working
fuel gauges."
>>
Unfortunate, but you would think that having in-op gauges would result in a
NO GO decision, no matter whether they used a dipstick or not. What about
the minimum equipment list and required equipment?
Cliff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne McMullen" <cmcmullen(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gimli Glider |
Yes they do. They came out of a used Cessna.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Gimli Glider
>
> (one slight screw-up in a
> > magnificent job of aircraft control and adaptive thinking and
> > planning)
> >
>
> One slight screw up not counting running out of gas. Come on, 767's
> must have gas gages with some sort of display with an "analog"
> full/empty indicator, don't they?
>
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 150 hours
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Gimli Glider |
There always seems to be lots of interest in Gimli Glider stories. There was
a book written on this incident with the usual "what the passenger in seat
23A thought when he saw the ground racing up at him" sort of stuff plus some
of the actual hard facts.
The facts were something along the lines of:
1. A technical fault in the aircraft meant the fuel gauges didn't work as
advertised. As per standard practice, Air Canada's mechanics pulled some
circuit breakers to disable the system completely to avoid possible errors
in reading the fuel quantity.
2. The B-767 was new to the AC fleet, so no spare parts are on the shelf,
however the usual pressure to depart as per timetable was there.
3. The pilot checked the MEL and found that it's OK to go if the fuel
quantity is physically confirmed. (MEL = minimum equipment list, a laundry
list of what you can do without and still fly a big airplane; ask the crew
next time you fly on an airline flight about their MEL items, you may be
surprised what's broken or missing on board the aircraft, but they probably
won't tell you, bad for customer confidence, etc.)
4. On the ground in Ottawa, (I think it was) and bound for Edmonton, the
crew figured out they needed 20,000 kilos of fuel or some such number for
the flight. (Kilos were used because Air Canada was then a government run
airline and the government had decreed that metric measurement was a good
thing and told Air Canada to get on with this despite personnel being used
to pounds, most support equipment being calibrated in pounds, etc. Air
Canada said "sure thing, boss".)
5. The refueling crew used the underwing dipsticks to measure the quantity
onboard and came up with a number and used this number to decide how much
fuel to add from the truck. They added the fuel then remeasured the fuel
quantity with the dipsticks.Unfortunately they mishandled the conversion and
instead of 20,000 kilos there is 20,000 pounds of fuel on board.
6. The refueling guy showed the numbers to the pilot and much head
scratching followed as the pilot, the refueling guy, and the refueller's
boss all wrestled with the numbers and conversion factors (US gallons, Imp.
gallons, litres, kilos, pounds and specific gravity all getting tossed
about). Remember this is an airline operation where late departures are not
looked on happily and the pax are boarding as this debate is going on.
7. The final consensus is that there is 20,000 kilos of fuel on board and
the flight departs. Unfortunately, there is really only 20,000 pounds on
board or 40% or so of what was needed.
8. Not surprisingly, about 40% of the way to Edmonton, the fuel runs out and
it gets quiet and the fancy computer screens go black as the emergency ram
air turbine doesn't have enough juice to run the main electrical buses.
9. The crew decides to head for Winnipeg for lack of anything better to do
but the gliding range is a bit short and the airport is in the middle of the
city etc., so another option is needed.
10. The First Officer had done a bit of military flying training at then
RCAF Station Gimli (but quit before graduating) and suggests Gimli which
turns out to be in range. He knows there are two good sized parallel runways
there.
11. However Gimli has been closed as a military airfield for 15 years or so,
and the outer runway has been turned into a drag strip to try and pay some
bills, although the inner runway is still used by aircraft and is OK to land
on.
12. For whatever reason, the crew overlooks the inner runway and lands on
the outer runway. Since they were dealing with a pretty serious situation
with lots of people onboard, with nothing in the checklist to say what to do
or info about what a 767 glides or lands like without power and they were
landing at dusk on a minimally attended (no tower, etc.) airport with no
lights, I would say this is perhaps understandable. The dragstrip was
probably looked to be in better shape pavement-wise than the active runway
too, etc.
13. A small fire breaks out as fuselage slides along fence dividing lanes on
dragstrip. Enthusiastic amateur firefighters attack the fuselage with axes
and water, etc. and put fire out. Everybody leaves airplane OK.
Anyway, a few days later the airplane is patched up enough to fly away from
Gimli for repairs to the axe and water damage and is eventually returned to
line service where (AFAIK) it continues to this day. Some months later, a
public inquiry is held and the lawyers have lots of fun asking the poor
pilot if he really did go to high school, etc. The government's rushed
metrification policy is however not examined.
Two personal touches to this story. A year or two afterwards I flew across
the Atlantic on an Air Canada B-767 and, yes, I looked and it was side
number 604 (or whichever) that had landed at Gimli that day. And, no, Air
Canada did not have the name "Gimli Glider" painted on the nose below the
pilot's window as "nose art".
Gimli is still an active airport and since I fly out of Winnipeg it is a
fairly common practice to go up to Gimli and do a few circuits, so I have
seen the "home of the Gimli Goose" as recently as two weeks ago. The
dragstrip is also still a going concern and I have only landed on the inner
to date.
Sorry for the long-winded and minimally relevant post, but that's what
happened.
For AeroElectric-List purposes, the aircraft emergency power supply and
emergency power bus arrangements worked as advertised and the crew was able
to talk with ATC all the way down from altitude to landing at Gimli.
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Irvine <wgirvine(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Electric gyros vs vacuum |
> brucem(at)olypen.com
>
> I have calcualated the cost differential between an
> all elctric
> panel, with a second alternator, versus a
> conventional vacuum
> system. Using Aircraft Spruce and Chief prices for
> pump, gyros,
> alternator, etc. the all electric system keeps
> coming up $1800 more
> expensive. For those who say they are about equal
> in cost, I would
> appreciate your numbers.
I think most people plan on installing a back-up
alternator even if they use a vacuum system for the
gyros... so that's about $400 out of the equation.
Did you remember the suction regulator? About $230.
A vacuum filter? About $40. The vacuum gauge?
Another $70-90. Don't forget all the associated
plumbing and fittings; it adds up... maybe another
$50-100. So the cost gets closer to the all-electric
system.
Don't forget that the vacuum pumps makers suggest the
pumps be replaced every 500 hours. Granted, it takes
a long time to get to 500 hours, and probably nobody
follows that suggestion anyway, but if you do... more
money.
But like Bob says, use whatever you're comfortable
with.
Bill Irvine
C-310
http://launch.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Leonard" <dleonar1(at)maine.rr.com> |
The Gimli Glider :
http://www.frontier.net/~wadenelson/successstories/gimli.html
Nice pics of the race cars and the plane.
Dave Leonard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <Richard(at)riley.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric gyros vs vacuum |
Also, you can do better with very careful shopping. I just picekd up a
freshly yellow tagged Bendix electric attitude gyro for $500. There is a
reason, of course - it's 110 v 400 hz 3 phase. BUT, after a lot of
research, I found a guy in England making inverters for about $150
>
>
> > brucem(at)olypen.com
> >
> > I have calcualated the cost differential between an
> > all elctric
> > panel, with a second alternator, versus a
> > conventional vacuum
> > system. Using Aircraft Spruce and Chief prices for
> > pump, gyros,
> > alternator, etc. the all electric system keeps
> > coming up $1800 more
> > expensive. For those who say they are about equal
> > in cost, I would
> > appreciate your numbers.
>
>I think most people plan on installing a back-up
>alternator even if they use a vacuum system for the
>gyros... so that's about $400 out of the equation.
>Did you remember the suction regulator? About $230.
>A vacuum filter? About $40. The vacuum gauge?
>Another $70-90. Don't forget all the associated
>plumbing and fittings; it adds up... maybe another
>$50-100. So the cost gets closer to the all-electric
>system.
>
>Don't forget that the vacuum pumps makers suggest the
>pumps be replaced every 500 hours. Granted, it takes
>a long time to get to 500 hours, and probably nobody
>follows that suggestion anyway, but if you do... more
>money.
>
>But like Bob says, use whatever you're comfortable
>with.
>Bill Irvine
>C-310
>
>
>http://launch.yahoo.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electric gyros vs vacuum |
| From: | <racker(at)rmci.net> |
> I think most people plan on installing a back-up
> alternator even if they use a vacuum system for the
> gyros... so that's about $400 out of the equation.
> Did you remember the suction regulator? About $230.
> A vacuum filter? About $40. The vacuum gauge?
> Another $70-90. Don't forget all the associated
> plumbing and fittings; it adds up... maybe another
> $50-100. So the cost gets closer to the all-electric
> system.
Vacuum:
Rapco Kit (pump, regulator, fittings, hoses, vacuum gauge, etc.):
$600
Vacuum AH: $550
Vacuum DG: $550
Electric:
Backup Alternator/Battery/extra wiring/etc: $450
Electric AH: $1750
Electric DG: $1600
Total Vacuum: $1700
Total Electric: $3800
Unless I missed something, the vacuum system is far cheaper (even if you
have to replace the pump every few years). Seems economics is the only
reason they continue to be offered (I believe in a few years the
current "beta" solid-state solutions will have matured enough to be cheaper
and far more reliable than either).
Maybe a good interim measure that offers a lower than all-electric
admission cost, with safety for those who won't maintain T/C or T&B
proficiency, would be the addition of a wing leveler for $1300+. Belt and
suspenders approach, with the added benefit of having GPS/VOR course
following.
I can't see a need for a backup alternator in a vacuum based system, since
if the electrical system is properly designed the battery will last longer
than the fuel supply anyway.
I'm no expert, just my $0.02 worth I learned designing my panel for my own
requirements and comfort level.
Rob Acker (RV-6)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CBFLESHREN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Gimli Glider , for Jim |
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB Wrote :
" The facts were something along the lines of:
1. A technical fault in the aircraft meant the fuel gauges didn't work as
advertised. As per standard practice......., "
Great coverage Jim & no sense of "long winded" . I have been an A&P
mechanic in the USA for 17 years & most w/ the airlines . Even us private
pilots need to consider a minimum safety list prior to every flight , pitch
trim , fuel qty , carb heat, etc....... The unanswered question in my mind is
---- . On the preflight these pilots must have manually entered the "fuel
load" into the FMC's (Flight Mgt. Computers) because the FQIS ( Fuel Qty
Indicating System) was inop . This manually entered fuel load is used by the
FMC to figure the "center of gravity" for the purpose of determining THE
horizontal stab trim setting for this particular take-off . If there were a
40% discrepancy in fuel load (hence it's significant effect on C.G) they MUST
have noticed a substantial difference in stab trim setting determined by the
FMC & what felt correct (in the control column) for the take off . For
instance - if the center tank was no where near as full of fuel as expected ,
then the aircraft would have "auto rotated" on take-off & at a lower airspeed
(prior to Vr) w/ the improper stab trim setting & lower gross weight . This
should have been a strong heads up to the crew that something was not right !
I wonder how they dismissed this . Thanks for listening & I'd love to hear
a response . Chris Fleshren , Sterling , Virginia , USA .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jakent(at)unison.ie |
I am going to roll my own relay decks to operate electric flaps and electric trim
from stick-grip switches in the front and rear seats of my RV-4.
Has anyone used relays from an auto-parts store which are normally used for switching/dimming
spot-lights? They sell at about $6= each, and are rated for 12V
and 20/30Amps, with spade type connectors, and mounting tabs so they can be
screwed to a bulkhead/panel. They have NO and NC contacts. I suspect they should
be fine for the flaps, but am wondering whether they would be good for the
trim? Comments? Thanks ... John Kent (Ireland)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)fdic.gov> |
| Subject: | Permanent Magnet Alternator |
Some time ago, I came across a message by Mark Langford regarding the
potential use of a lightweight permanent magnet alternator (4.33 lbs.)from a
John Deere Model 670 Compact Utility Tractor as a back-up electrical power
source for my kitbuit Mustang II, which will use a converted Mazda RX-7 13B
rotary turbo engine for propulsion. This idea was reinforced by a message
from David Carter, who did additional research on the part numbers. I went
to my local John Deere dealer and ordered their 35 amp model - Part No
AM880339, which is shown as replacing part no. AM877957.
The schematic out of the technical manual provided by Mark Langford shows
two wires coming from the alternator and connecting to the voltage
regulator/rectifier. However, the part I received has three (3) wires
coming from the alternator, all the same color and size. Does anyone
(hopefully Electric Bob) know why this PM alternator would have three wires
instead of two and does anyone have any suggestions as to what I should do
with the third wire? I did a simple check with my AC voltage meter and I
get the same reading of small amounts of voltage being generated from a slow
hand-turning of the alternator, no matter which two wires I connected to the
meter. My ohmm-meter also showed that the three wires were all connected to
each other internally. I do not know what that means, because I do not know
how PM alternators work, beyond what I read in the Aeroelectric Connection
book.
Maybe this is a three-phase configuration like the one mentioned in the
Aeroelectric Connection book in the section on PM alternators, although that
does not tell me how the third wire should be attached.
Also, I am wondering if a voltage regulator for the 20-amp alternator would
work just as well on the 35-amp alternator. David Carter's earlier e-mail
indicated so, but I do not know enough about how the regulators work to know
if that should be correct or not. Maybe more amps from the alternator
requires more something from the regulator to make everything work properly.
Does anyone know?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sanders, Andrew P" <andrew.p.sanders(at)boeing.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Gimli Glider |
Here is a simplified description.
The Fuel Quantity Indication System (FQIS) uses a forest of capacitive
senders in each wing to gage the fuel levels in various flight attitudes.
There are additional radioactive isotope sensors for mass and temperature
sensors for density compensation. These feed three independent processors
that do the math and drive the displays.
If there is a fault that effects the output of one of the processors, the
other two can "out vote" the bad one. If there is a discrepancy between all
of the processors, or insufficient information to determine that one is
positively wrong, the display blanks rather then giving bad data.
At this point, the backup system is deployed... the fueler walks out on the
wing with a dip stick (can't say I've yet seen this used in flight). In the
case being discussed, a pound dipstick was used and the results were
reported in kg., a factor of 2.2 off. There might be an association with
the engines getting quiet close to 1/2 of the way through the flight.
There have since been significant changes & improvements to the systems.
Andrew Sanders
Integrated Schedules
777 SFAR 88 (fuel system safety project)
>>One slight screw up not counting running out of gas. Come on, 767's
must have gas gages with some sort of display with an "analog"
full/empty indicator, don't they?
Alex Peterson<<
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasins(at)email.ceat.okstate.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Permanent Magnet Alternator |
I wonder what is the cost of this alternator.
Jerzy Krasinski
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)FDIC.gov>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Permanent Magnet Alternator
>
> Some time ago, I came across a message by Mark Langford regarding the
> potential use of a lightweight permanent magnet alternator (4.33 lbs.)from
a
> John Deere Model 670 Compact Utility Tractor as a back-up electrical power
> source for my kitbuit Mustang II, which will use a converted Mazda RX-7
13B
> rotary turbo engine for propulsion. This idea was reinforced by a message
> from David Carter, who did additional research on the part numbers. I
went
> to my local John Deere dealer and ordered their 35 amp model - Part No
> AM880339, which is shown as replacing part no. AM877957.
>
> The schematic out of the technical manual provided by Mark Langford shows
> two wires coming from the alternator and connecting to the voltage
> regulator/rectifier. However, the part I received has three (3) wires
> coming from the alternator, all the same color and size. Does anyone
> (hopefully Electric Bob) know why this PM alternator would have three
wires
> instead of two and does anyone have any suggestions as to what I should do
> with the third wire? I did a simple check with my AC voltage meter and I
> get the same reading of small amounts of voltage being generated from a
slow
> hand-turning of the alternator, no matter which two wires I connected to
the
> meter. My ohmm-meter also showed that the three wires were all connected
to
> each other internally. I do not know what that means, because I do not
know
> how PM alternators work, beyond what I read in the Aeroelectric Connection
> book.
>
> Maybe this is a three-phase configuration like the one mentioned in the
> Aeroelectric Connection book in the section on PM alternators, although
that
> does not tell me how the third wire should be attached.
>
> Also, I am wondering if a voltage regulator for the 20-amp alternator
would
> work just as well on the 35-amp alternator. David Carter's earlier e-mail
> indicated so, but I do not know enough about how the regulators work to
know
> if that should be correct or not. Maybe more amps from the alternator
> requires more something from the regulator to make everything work
properly.
> Does anyone know?
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 12Volt relays |
Check www.jameco.com 's # 148582. They're 12v coil Potter & Brumfield SPDT
with 12v 40a contacts and sell for $2.49. They also offer a relay socket
with a coil diode installed for $1.95.
R
----- Original Message -----
From: <jakent(at)unison.ie>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 12Volt relays
>
> I am going to roll my own relay decks to operate electric flaps and
electric trim from stick-grip switches in the front and rear seats of my
RV-4.
> Has anyone used relays from an auto-parts store which are normally used
for switching/dimming spot-lights? They sell at about $6= each, and are
rated for 12V and 20/30Amps, with spade type connectors, and mounting tabs
so they can be screwed to a bulkhead/panel. They have NO and NC contacts. I
suspect they should be fine for the flaps, but am wondering whether they
would be good for the trim? Comments? Thanks ... John Kent (Ireland)
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Excuse the diversion from topic.... |
Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>.
> The only other recent no-engine successful landing on a runway was in the
> Azores, from a TransAtlantic trip, no one hurt and the aircraft saved.
Both> events were Canadian pilots by the way.
Interesting enough.
Did they say the misfueling could have something to do with some units
confusion ?
I always feel uneasy when it comes to juggling with US Gals, Imp Gals,
pounds per hour (US or British ?) about fuel. Gilles,
Metric system since French Revolution
Well thisa was the first metric aircraft and sure enough, cms mistaken for
inches (by the groundcrew who have exclusive range over dripped readings).
All thgis when the "boss" ordered the captain to accept the aircraft even
tho the double failure of fuel totaliser was not allowed under the MEL
(minmum equipment list) which is a fed reg. The capt accepted it only if it
were dripped readings at both departures. Strangely the second drip readings
co-incided with the first set, to indicate proper fueling. That's how the
capt was fooled.
The company tried to place full blame on him. He ended up lecturing to
budding Shuttle pilots on deadsticking - the only pilot in the company with
twenty years of soaring experience - and his own school for same.
The second (Azores) event was due to faulty fuelline repair, and
was hidden from fuel totaliser till too late to return to shore. Despite
rapid descent and ALL airmanship skills, the engines ran down twenty miles
out. For truly gracious living, the news media concentrated on the captain's
15 year old legal misdemeanor - you guessed it - the retraction on page 56
five weeks later.
As far as I'm concerned all four aviators should have airports
named after them , not the rotting polityicians.
Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Barnes" <skytop(at)megsinet.net> |
John,
I made my relay decks for flap and trim using the (US) Radio
Shack DPDT relays. During the process, I evaluated other relays and
found some that would work, but used lots of current holding the relay,
more than 500ma. So this is something you need to look at. The other
thing is that you have to use double pole relays. My guess is that your
auto relays are single pole.
If you have access to a Radio Shack, you can find detail part
numbers on our archives.
Hope this helps.
Tom Barnes -6 all electric.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jakent(at)unison.ie
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 12Volt relays
I am going to roll my own relay decks to operate electric flaps and
electric trim from stick-grip switches in the front and rear seats of my
RV-4.
Has anyone used relays from an auto-parts store which are normally used
for switching/dimming spot-lights? They sell at about $6= each, and are
rated for 12V and 20/30Amps, with spade type connectors, and mounting
tabs so they can be screwed to a bulkhead/panel. They have NO and NC
contacts. I suspect they should be fine for the flaps, but am wondering
whether they would be good for the trim? Comments? Thanks ... John
Kent (Ireland)
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)fdic.gov> |
| Subject: | Permanent Magnet Alternator |
The 35-amp alternator is $252.38, regulator is $173.33, and wiring harness
(if you do not want to make your own) is $32.22. Before anyone goes out to
buy this, we need to figure out how to hook it up. The 20-amp alternator
and regulator are cheaper. It only has two wires coming from the
alternator. Alternator is about $170 and regulator about $70.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerzy Krasinski [mailto:krasins(at)email.ceat.okstate.edu]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Permanent Magnet Alternator
I wonder what is the cost of this alternator.
Jerzy Krasinski
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)FDIC.gov>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Permanent Magnet Alternator
>
> Some time ago, I came across a message by Mark Langford regarding the
> potential use of a lightweight permanent magnet alternator (4.33 lbs.)from
a
> John Deere Model 670 Compact Utility Tractor as a back-up electrical power
> source for my kitbuit Mustang II, which will use a converted Mazda RX-7
13B
> rotary turbo engine for propulsion. This idea was reinforced by a message
> from David Carter, who did additional research on the part numbers. I
went
> to my local John Deere dealer and ordered their 35 amp model - Part No
> AM880339, which is shown as replacing part no. AM877957.
>
> The schematic out of the technical manual provided by Mark Langford shows
> two wires coming from the alternator and connecting to the voltage
> regulator/rectifier. However, the part I received has three (3) wires
> coming from the alternator, all the same color and size. Does anyone
> (hopefully Electric Bob) know why this PM alternator would have three
wires
> instead of two and does anyone have any suggestions as to what I should do
> with the third wire? I did a simple check with my AC voltage meter and I
> get the same reading of small amounts of voltage being generated from a
slow
> hand-turning of the alternator, no matter which two wires I connected to
the
> meter. My ohmm-meter also showed that the three wires were all connected
to
> each other internally. I do not know what that means, because I do not
know
> how PM alternators work, beyond what I read in the Aeroelectric Connection
> book.
>
> Maybe this is a three-phase configuration like the one mentioned in the
> Aeroelectric Connection book in the section on PM alternators, although
that
> does not tell me how the third wire should be attached.
>
> Also, I am wondering if a voltage regulator for the 20-amp alternator
would
> work just as well on the 35-amp alternator. David Carter's earlier e-mail
> indicated so, but I do not know enough about how the regulators work to
know
> if that should be correct or not. Maybe more amps from the alternator
> requires more something from the regulator to make everything work
properly.
> Does anyone know?
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 12Volt relays |
Instead of relays, I advocate H bridges and other transistors.
For a simple Trim motor, something like the National LMD18200
would be the trick.
<http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LMD18200.html>
for really big motors, H-bridges are available build from FET's
or transistors. They are talking 50-100Amps per motor!
<http://www.dmillard.com/osmc/>
> John,
> I made my relay decks for flap and trim using the (US) Radio
> Shack DPDT relays. During the process, I evaluated other relays and
> found some that would work, but used lots of current holding the relay,
> more than 500ma. So this is something you need to look at. The other
> thing is that you have to use double pole relays. My guess is that your
> auto relays are single pole.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gabe and Marisol Ferrer" <ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | PVC Insulation In ACK Technologies Encoder |
I discovered today that my ACK Technologies A-30 encoder harness uses PVC
insulation.
I called ACK (Mike, at 408 287 8021 ext 1#) and Mike told me that they have
sold over 80,000 units all with PVC harnesses.
He claims that the FAA allows PVC to be used and that the A-30 passed their
fire test (FAR 23.1359).
However the FAA test does not require testing for toxicity on wires.
I'm considering fabricating a Tefzel harness.
Is this an overkill?
If Bob or anyone has strong opinions about this issue or if you think that
it's important to switch to Tefzel, please let me know.
Thanks.
Gabe A Ferrer
ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net
Cell: 561 758 8894
Night or FAX: 561 622 0960
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | NAV antenna for COMM? |
I have an extra NAV antenna embedded in the Glasair Super II I'm building.
I've been thinking that even though it's not the correct length or
orientation for COMM use, it may be a lot better than the rubber stick on
top of my handheld backup COMM unit. So, I have been thinking about wiring
this NAV antenna to a BNC connector on my console, so I can plug in my
handheld comm unit in an emergency. (In fact, come to think of it, my
handheld also has a VOR receiver in it.)
Any experiences, or thoughtful opinions, on how well this would work
compared to the rubber antenna?
Jim Oberst
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: PVC Insulation In ACK Technologies Encoder |
I also have an ACK-30, (which I purchased used) and it came wired with
colour coded PVC wiring The ACK-30 manual and wiring diagram specifically
calls up coloured coded wiring to feed the transponder so it would appear
that it is a long established standard practice for this compnay.
Apart from the one power supply wire, the wires involved are carrying data
level current and voltage so the danger to the PVC wire must be from an
external source. It may well be that if there is a source of external heat
or flame that will affect the encoder's PVC wire, the nasty PVC fumes or
whatever are the least if your problems.
Despite the above, when I went to a local avionics shop for some help with
my radio wiring and a transponder check. The owner took one look at my
ACk-30 and said "we can't use that wire any more" or something similar. The
PVC stuff was looking pretty ratty anyway so he replaced it with tefzel or
similar wire. He just crimped on fresh connecting pins and that was that.
I think those are DB-15 connectors so a visit to the local computer shop
might be another way to get the wires changed out.
Cheers, Jim oke
RV-6A wiring...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabe and Marisol Ferrer" <ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: PVC Insulation In ACK Technologies Encoder
>
> I discovered today that my ACK Technologies A-30 encoder harness uses PVC
> insulation.
>
> I called ACK (Mike, at 408 287 8021 ext 1#) and Mike told me that they
have
> sold over 80,000 units all with PVC harnesses.
>
> He claims that the FAA allows PVC to be used and that the A-30 passed
their
> fire test (FAR 23.1359).
>
> However the FAA test does not require testing for toxicity on wires.
>
> I'm considering fabricating a Tefzel harness.
>
> Is this an overkill?
>
> If Bob or anyone has strong opinions about this issue or if you think that
> it's important to switch to Tefzel, please let me know.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Gabe A Ferrer
> ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net
> Cell: 561 758 8894
> Night or FAX: 561 622 0960
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven Kay <skay(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 12Volt relays |
Not familiar with H bridges. Could you explain the difference/benefit. -Steve
Tom Brusehaver wrote:
>
> Instead of relays, I advocate H bridges and other transistors.
>
> For a simple Trim motor, something like the National LMD18200
> would be the trick.
>
> <http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LMD18200.html>
>
> for really big motors, H-bridges are available build from FET's
> or transistors. They are talking 50-100Amps per motor!
>
> <http://www.dmillard.com/osmc/>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | klehman <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric gyros vs vacuum |
There was a dual vacuum pump displayed at sun n fun this year. IIRC he
was guaranteeing a $600. price for the first production run which he
expected this summer after certification was complete. No deposit
required. It was perhaps 2" or so longer than a regular pump. Dual
rotors driven with dual shear drives off of one shaft and filters to
contain any debris. Either rotor sufficient to drive the gyros and a
little failure light to notify if one rotor quit. Can't see anyone
buying a single pump once this hits the market. Although single pumps
may get very cheap.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Burley <j.r.burley(at)larc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: trim systems? |
I'm familiar with the Ray Allen products - has anyone built their own
trim system? If so, is a design and materials list available?
>>
>> Instead of relays, I advocate H bridges and other transistors.
>>
>> For a simple Trim motor, something like the National LMD18200
>> would be the trick.
>>
> > <http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LMD18200.html>
>>
>> for really big motors, H-bridges are available build from FET's
>> or transistors. They are talking 50-100Amps per motor!
>>
> > <http://www.dmillard.com/osmc/>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)fdic.gov> |
I think that the concern has been with the reliability of the vacuum pumps,
not the instruments themselves. If the pump fails, the instruments are
useless, no matter what their expected life.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul McAllister [mailto:paul.mcallister(at)qia.net]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electric Gyros
Hi All,
I must admit to being somewhat intrigued by the discussion of all Electric
Vs Vacuum. Their appears to be an assumption that if a A/H & DG is
electrical that their internal mechanisms are more reliable than the
gyroscopic (plus pump) equvalent
I have had made a few inquires and I have not been able to find any mean
time between failure data on electrical A/H's & DG's. I'd be interested if
anyone in the group has been able to secure this information. I did make an
inquiry to a few repair shops and their indication was the electrical units
were not particularly reliable. Unfortunately that is data based in
speculation, not statistics.
So, does anyone on the forum have access to any data that suggests that the
MTBF of a vacuum powered instrument plus its pump is greater or less that
the MTBF of the electrical equivalent?
We have an expression where I work "In god we trust, everyone else must
bring data". Lets not assume that because its electrically powered that it
is mechanically more reliable.
Regards, Paul
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Gyros |
The question I was posing was more in terms of total system reliability. Is
an electrical AH & DG plus its supporting electrical feeds more reliable
that a gyroscopic instrument and its supporting power source? (i.e. the
vacuum pump)
In the most simple analysis, does the MTBF of an electrical DG exceed the
MTBF of a modern dry vacuum pump ? If it does then it would certainly
exceed the aggregate reliability of a total vacuum based system. I am just
curious to see the data that supports the assumption.that an all electric
system is more reliable.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)fdic.gov>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electric Gyros
>
> I think that the concern has been with the reliability of the vacuum
pumps,
> not the instruments themselves. If the pump fails, the instruments are
> useless, no matter what their expected life.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul McAllister [mailto:paul.mcallister(at)qia.net]
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electric Gyros
>
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I must admit to being somewhat intrigued by the discussion of all Electric
> Vs Vacuum. Their appears to be an assumption that if a A/H & DG is
> electrical that their internal mechanisms are more reliable than the
> gyroscopic (plus pump) equvalent
>
> I have had made a few inquires and I have not been able to find any mean
> time between failure data on electrical A/H's & DG's. I'd be interested
if
> anyone in the group has been able to secure this information. I did make
an
> inquiry to a few repair shops and their indication was the electrical
units
> were not particularly reliable. Unfortunately that is data based in
> speculation, not statistics.
>
> So, does anyone on the forum have access to any data that suggests that
the
> MTBF of a vacuum powered instrument plus its pump is greater or less that
> the MTBF of the electrical equivalent?
>
> We have an expression where I work "In god we trust, everyone else must
> bring data". Lets not assume that because its electrically powered that
it
> is mechanically more reliable.
>
>
> Regards, Paul
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
Bob,
Looking for Mil-Spec 22759 wire at Skycraft, I found more of M81044 in
their Mil-Spec section labeled "aircraft wire". Is M91044 equivalent to
or as well suited for use in OBAM aircraft as M22759?
Thanks in advance.
Richard Dudley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Mickey" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Testing Electrical System Alternator |
I would like to test my entire electrical system on my RV6A before I button
up the top forward fuselage skin. What I would like to be able to do is get
my alternator turning so that it will be producing electricity and then
check voltage regulators, engine monitoring systems etc. without having the
engine running. I am thinking of attaching a pulley wheel to an electric
drill and connecting that to the alternator via a pulley. Any comments or
other suggestions?
Ross Mickey
RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Testing Electrical System Alternator |
| From: | <racker(at)rmci.net> |
Gary Zilek did this, go to
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5379/index.html and click on
the finishing kit 3 link.
Rob Acker (RV-6)
>
>
> I would like to test my entire electrical system on my RV6A before I
> button up the top forward fuselage skin. What I would like to be able
> to do is get my alternator turning so that it will be producing
> electricity and then check voltage regulators, engine monitoring
> systems etc. without having the engine running. I am thinking of
> attaching a pulley wheel to an electric drill and connecting that to
> the alternator via a pulley. Any comments or other suggestions?
>
> Ross Mickey
> RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CBFLESHREN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Testing Electrical System Alternator |
Hi Ross , I'm not the final word, by any means but I highly doubt you'll
find enough "umf" from a hand held drill motor . On most cars, if you listen
closely, you can hear a slight drop in the RPM of the engine just by
selecting the head lights "on". Hence, I believe it will take a "horse
power" or two to provide adequate current flow to maintain a battery if you
have the main buss powered & a radio transmitting &/or a landing light on .
If it's just to see if the wiring is in fact routed correctly & you push in
one circuit breaker at a time for each circuit you're testing , then you
should be O.K. If you really want to know , you could look for how many
watts the drill motor is ( & figure a lot of losses maybe 50-60 %) & expect
it to power (in watts) that much equipment on your buss . The more you select
on at once -- the more the drill will have to put out . If buss voltage is
"low" you have too much selected on for that alternator RPM . Good luck !
Chris Fleshren , Sterling , VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca> |
| Subject: | Testing Electrical System Alternator |
Hi Ross;
I also doubt that an electric drill will have the oomph necessary. I
once used a chainsaw to power the alternator on a truck that had a dead
battery during a hunting trip, many miles in the bush. I took the bar &
chain off the saw, then looped the belt over the drive sprocket & pulled
hard against the alt. The belt stayed on and drove the alternator but it
really dragged down the saw (stihl 038 magnum-lots'o'power). I have no idea,
how many rpm's it was driving or the output of the alt, only that it was
enough.
S. Todd Bartrim
13B rotary powered
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CBFLESHREN(at)aol.com [SMTP:CBFLESHREN(at)aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 12:44 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Testing Electrical System Alternator
>
>
> Hi Ross , I'm not the final word, by any means but I highly doubt
> you'll
> find enough "umf" from a hand held drill motor . On most cars, if you
> listen
> closely, you can hear a slight drop in the RPM of the engine just by
> selecting the head lights "on". Hence, I believe it will take a "horse
> power" or two to provide adequate current flow to maintain a battery if
> you
> have the main buss powered & a radio transmitting &/or a landing light on
> .
> If it's just to see if the wiring is in fact routed correctly & you push
> in
> one circuit breaker at a time for each circuit you're testing , then you
> should be O.K. If you really want to know , you could look for how many
> watts the drill motor is ( & figure a lot of losses maybe 50-60 %) &
> expect
> it to power (in watts) that much equipment on your buss . The more you
> select
> on at once -- the more the drill will have to put out . If buss voltage is
>
> "low" you have too much selected on for that alternator RPM . Good luck !
>
> Chris Fleshren , Sterling , VA
>
>
>
>
>
RE: AeroElectric-List: Testing Electrical System
Alternator
Hi Ross;
I also doubt that an electric drill will have
the oomph necessary. I once used a chainsaw to power the alternator on
a truck that had a dead battery during a hunting trip, many miles in
the bush. I took the bar chain off the saw, then looped the belt
over the drive sprocket pulled hard against the alt. The belt
stayed on and drove the alternator but it really dragged down the saw
(stihl 038 magnum-lots'o'power). I have no idea, how many rpm's it was
driving or the output of the alt, only that it was enough.
S. Todd Bartrim
13B rotary powered
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: <FONT
SIZE1 FACE"Arial">CBFLESHREN(at)aol.com
[SMTP:CBFLESHREN(at)aol.com]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 12:44 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Testing
Electrical System Alternator
-- AeroElectric-List message
posted by: CBFLESHREN(at)aol.com
Hi Ross , I'm not the
final word, by any means but I highly doubt you'll
find enough umf from a
hand held drill motor . On most cars, if you listen
closely, you can hear a slight drop
in the RPM of the engine just by
selecting the head lights
on. Hence, I believe it will take a horse
power or two to provide
adequate current flow to maintain a battery if you
have the main buss powered a
radio transmitting /or a landing light on .
If it's just to see if the wiring is
in fact routed correctly you push in
one circuit breaker at a time for
each circuit you're testing , then you
should be O.K. If you really
want to know , you could look for how many
watts the drill motor is (
figure a lot of losses maybe 50-60 %) expect
it to power (in watts) that much
equipment on your buss . The more you select
on at once -- the more the drill will
have to put out . If buss voltage is
low you have too much
selected on for that alternator RPM . Good luck !
Chris Fleshren , Sterling , VA
http://www.matronics.com/subscription
Photo Share: http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
Browse List: http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
Search Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search
Archives: http://www.matronics.com/archives
List Specific: http://www.matronics.com/aeroelectric-list
Other Lists: http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
Contributions: http://www.matronics.com/
| From: | "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Testing Electrical System Alternator |
Ross,
> > I would like to test my entire electrical system on my RV6A before I
> > button up the top forward fuselage skin. What I would like to be able
> > to do is get my alternator turning so that it will be producing
> > electricity and then check voltage regulators,
Take your alternator and regulator to an automobile electricity shop. They
have a special test bench with belts, gears, voltmeter, ammeter and load
resistor to thoroughly test your equipment. I did this many times, and even
used the test bench myself with several Cessna, Piper and XX-brand auto
alternators. A friendly shop will do the job for just a few bucks.
>> engine monitoring systems etc.
For that part of your equipment, why don't you just hook up the battery ?
Hope this helps,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
\"RV-list\"" ,
"Marc Wiese" ,
"Mark Langford"
| Subject: | Re: Permanent Magnet Alternator-John Deere |
Roger, I took your e-mail with the 35 amp alternator part number -
AM877957 - and that is what he used to call up the schematic he printed for
me. As a matter of interest, their drawings and schematics are keyed to the
tractor or implement model, not the alternator iteself. The schematic I
picked up yesterday was for a tractor model number "670-770-870-970-1070" )
which is 5 different tractor model numbers separated by hyphens. They
apparently have a common electrical system. However, it does not
differentiate between 20amp & 35amp. I will go back and explicitely find
out if there is a different schematic for the 20 and for the 35 amp
alternators.
Well, I just returned from Deere. Here's the result: We looked at a 20
amp alternator - had 2 wires about 10 inches long terminating in a connector
with 2 male spades, in T configuration (one across, other perpendicular to
that one) - both were blue.
- We determined that the schematic color coded wires refer to wires in
the tractor's wiring harnesses, and don't apply to the wires from the
alternator. He did not have any model tractor on premises to see which
color coded regulator wire went to the "top of the T", and which went to the
stem. If you can get your dealer to do that for you, you will be "home
free".
- NEW INFO: 1) The 35 amp alternator has a newer part number - the old
AM877957 is superceded by AM880339.
2) The info I had previously was that the same "rectifier regulator",
AM101406, was used with both the 20 and 35 amp alternators. NEW INFO:
There is a separate rectifier regulator, AM877958, which is for the 35 amp
alternator.
3) The old regulator had spade connections to attach wires to - no
harness.
4) The new 35amp regulator has a short harness on it - if you get
that harness, then you may find the 2 wires shown in schematic that run to
the alternator (maybe 3 wires for 3 wire alternator) will be in a 2 or 3
hole connector shell that will match the alternator. Thus, the "keying" of
the wires into the connectors will assure correct alternator-to-regulator
connection.
- If/when you get this new regulator (try to exchange the one you
have), then I'd make definite note of where the "blue" wire in schematic
goes - to the top of the T or the stem, in the alternator's connector -- and
then paint some "white" on the alternator's wire that connects to the
"blue-white wire to the alternator" - just for future ref in case the
connector has to be cut off for another connector when wiring the actual
airplane.
I didn't make the effort to see if there was a separate schematic for the 35
amp regulator and alternator - didn't seem to be "do-able" at the moment.
However, for future ref, the schematic was labled "Group 20 Electrical
System Schematic" in top left and "670-770-870-970-1070 ELECTRICAL SCHEMATIC
(OLD VERSION)" in the top right corner. The page number at bottom left was
"240-20-1". They also printed an "Electrical System Diagnosis/Test/Test
Points" page 240-15-21 for "Compact Utility Tractor". Lower left corner was
labled TM1470 (15 MAR90).
- I think I'll contact Deere thru their website and ask for the
different schematic. I got a fast response on a question about their
coolant (different topic for a different e-mail). I'll see if they will
help us - will be after holiday next Monday so expect more later next week.
- As far as you local guys not having the "technical manuals containing
the schematics", they should be looking on their computer screen. Actually,
the service guy who printed them went in back where I couldn't see him to
print them so I don't know where he got them - the folks running the two
computers at the front counter may not have access to anything other than
"parts" info. So, ask them to get a service guy to work with you to find
the schematics.
--- I just called back and the guy at front desk says you
definitely have to ask a "service" guy, not a "parts" guy to find the
schematics. Said they used to have "tech manuals" but has been converted to
"computer display" now - hope you local dealer can help you.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)FDIC.gov>
Subject: RE: Permanent Magnet Alternator-John Deere
> If you could get a copy, that would be great! The company I am dealing
with
> can order parts, but they do not work on the model of lawn tractor that
> these alternators are on, and they do not have the technical manuals that
> contain the schematics. You could either scan it onto your computer and
> e-mail it as an attachment or you could mail it to me at:
>
> Bob J. Rogers
> 1825 Geneva Lane
> Plano, TX 75075
>
> Your assistance is most appreciated.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Carter [mailto:dcarter(at)datarecall.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 11:40 PM
> To: Rogers, Bob J.
> Subject: Re: Permanent Magnet Alternator-John Deere
>
>
> Do you want me to get the schematic for the 35 amp printed off and mail it
> to you? Sounds like you don't have a Deere dealer near you - if you do, I
> think they will be willing to print it for you. I told them it was going
on
> a boat.
>
> David Carter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)FDIC.gov>
> To: "'David Carter'" ; "Mike Wills"
>
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 4:22 PM
> Subject: RE: Permanent Magnet Alternator-John Deere
>
>
> > I have the schematic that you describe. My alternator has three wires
> which
> > are all of equal size and color (solid blue). All three are "power"
> wires.
> > The parts catalog from John Deere shows that the 35-amp alternator has
> three
> > wires coming from it as compared to just two wires for the 20-amp
> > alternator. I do not currently have access to any schematic diagram for
> > wiring the 35-amp alternator, so I do not know where the third wire
goes,
> > but I am reasonably certain that it is not just for an indicator light.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Carter [mailto:dcarter(at)datarecall.net]
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
All the Cessna Jet's and since 2001, all the singles use M81044 wire.
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
> Bob,
> Looking for Mil-Spec 22759 wire at Skycraft, I found more of
> M81044 in their Mil-Spec section labeled "aircraft wire". Is
> M81044 equivalent to or as well suited for use in OBAM
> aircraft as M22759?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
"rotary engine e-mail list"
| Subject: | John Deere Schematic showing both 35amp and 20 amp |
PM alternators in a parts blow-up
Bob (Rogers), don't remember how/where I got the attached website files
(they are dated 3:23pm yesterday) but the image is good - don't know if
1) you or someone else sent them to me yesterday & I saved them to "my
documents" or 2) if I
found them on the web and saved them. Immaterial, just puzzling to me.
As saved on my hard drive, the .gif file was in a folder named "John
Deere - Parts Catalog - Frame_5 files", with the .htm file shown lower
in the list. When I click on the .htm file, I get a good image of the
parts blow-up in the upper part and the text "parts list" towards the
bottom, all apparently from a Deere computer screen - all in one screen
image.
However, when I sent these two files via e-mail to myself as a test
(before sending to the lists) they don't show up in same screen - the
.gif "parts blow-up illustration" opens with the e-mail, but the parts
"list" .htm does not show up - have to click it's name in the "Attach:"
line above and it opens up in a new web browser window.
Parts blow up illustration clearly shows the two regulators (35 amp in
upper main part of illustration, with wire harness clearly shown
dangling below, 20 amp is down at bottom with 1 of several spade
terminals showing).
Parts list clearly shows the "upgrade kit" and "parts" required to
upgrade from 20 amp to higher capacity 35 amp alternator.
- Does NOT help us with getting a schematic that shows the 3 wires
between regulator and 35 amp alternator, or matching wires colors in
schematic to the identically colored wires coming out of alternator -
actually looking at the Deere
wire harness and noting connector pin orientation will be the only way
to figure that out (or get someone in
Deere to do it for us).
David Carter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: John Deere Schematic showing both 35amp and 20 |
amp PM alternators in a parts blow-up
Well, the attachments got stripped. Anyone wanting them e-mail me at
dcarter(at)datarecall.net.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net>
e-mail list"
Subject: AeroElectric-List: John Deere Schematic showing both 35amp and 20
amp PM alternators in a parts blow-up
>
> Bob (Rogers), don't remember how/where I got the attached website files
> (they are dated 3:23pm yesterday) but the image is good - don't know if
> 1) you or someone else sent them to me yesterday & I saved them to "my
> documents" or 2) if I
> found them on the web and saved them. Immaterial, just puzzling to me.
>
> As saved on my hard drive, the .gif file was in a folder named "John
> Deere - Parts Catalog - Frame_5 files", with the .htm file shown lower
> in the list. When I click on the .htm file, I get a good image of the
> parts blow-up in the upper part and the text "parts list" towards the
> bottom, all apparently from a Deere computer screen - all in one screen
> image.
>
> However, when I sent these two files via e-mail to myself as a test
> (before sending to the lists) they don't show up in same screen - the
> .gif "parts blow-up illustration" opens with the e-mail, but the parts
> "list" .htm does not show up - have to click it's name in the "Attach:"
> line above and it opens up in a new web browser window.
>
> Parts blow up illustration clearly shows the two regulators (35 amp in
> upper main part of illustration, with wire harness clearly shown
> dangling below, 20 amp is down at bottom with 1 of several spade
> terminals showing).
>
> Parts list clearly shows the "upgrade kit" and "parts" required to
> upgrade from 20 amp to higher capacity 35 amp alternator.
> - Does NOT help us with getting a schematic that shows the 3 wires
> between regulator and 35 amp alternator, or matching wires colors in
> schematic to the identically colored wires coming out of alternator -
> actually looking at the Deere
> wire harness and noting connector pin orientation will be the only way
> to figure that out (or get someone in
> Deere to do it for us).
>
> David Carter
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Ford" <dford(at)michweb.net> |
| Subject: | decorative SS washers |
I'm looking for decorative flat washers without the positioning tab for
the standard toggle switches that B&C sells. Do you know where I can
locate these? Part number?
Dave Ford
RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Barnes" <skytop(at)megsinet.net> |
Jim,
I can't put my fingers on the drawing for the trim at this
moment, but I found the one for the flaps. The trim is twice the
circuitry. I used the drawing that Paul Besing presents at
www.lacodeworks.com/besing/flap.htm . By the way, Paul's drawing uses
DPDT relays. If you go onto Bob's site, you will find how he uses
single pole relays in conjunction with limit switches to get the job
done.
If I can find the drawing for the trim, I'll post it, in the
meantime, you might try searching the archives looking for "basing &
trim & schematic" or permeations of it in the 1998 time frame.
Tom Barnes -6
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Burley
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: trim systems?
I'm familiar with the Ray Allen products - has anyone built their own
trim system? If so, is a design and materials list available?
>>
>> Instead of relays, I advocate H bridges and other transistors.
>>
>> For a simple Trim motor, something like the National LMD18200
>> would be the trick.
>>
> > <http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LMD18200.html>
>>
>> for really big motors, H-bridges are available build from FET's
>> or transistors. They are talking 50-100Amps per motor!
>>
> > <http://www.dmillard.com/osmc/>
>>
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Barnes" <skytop(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Testing Electrical System Alternator |
If the drill motor doesn't seem to spin it fast enough, you might
consider an electric motor in the 1/2 to 1HP mounted to a saw horse.
Tom Barnes
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ross
Mickey
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Testing Electrical System Alternator
I would like to test my entire electrical system on my RV6A before I
button
up the top forward fuselage skin. What I would like to be able to do is
get
my alternator turning so that it will be producing electricity and then
check voltage regulators, engine monitoring systems etc. without having
the
engine running. I am thinking of attaching a pulley wheel to an electric
drill and connecting that to the alternator via a pulley. Any comments
or
other suggestions?
Ross Mickey
RV6A
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Gyros |
There is another important aspect to this too - what are the expected
failure modes?
It seems to me that the most common failure mode of dry vacuum pumps
is to suddenly fail and completely stop working. The gyros then
become useless very quickly. This can lead to loss of control if the
pilot is not suitably proficient in detecting the problem, and in
flying partial panel.
The gyros themselves (both electric and vacuum) seem to fail much
more progressively, based on the stories I have heard people tell.
They notice that the attitude indicator will have a small bank or
pitch when in level flight. This will get worse over the course of
many flights, until they finally send it out for overhaul. This type
of progressive failure should not lead to loss of control.
So, even if the electric AI had the same MTBF as a vacuum pump, I
would prefer the electric AI.
The electric power source, feeds, etc should be very reliable, if the
electrical system is properly designed and installed.
Kevin Horton.
>
>
>The question I was posing was more in terms of total system reliability. Is
>an electrical AH & DG plus its supporting electrical feeds more reliable
>that a gyroscopic instrument and its supporting power source? (i.e. the
>vacuum pump)
>
>In the most simple analysis, does the MTBF of an electrical DG exceed the
>MTBF of a modern dry vacuum pump ? If it does then it would certainly
>exceed the aggregate reliability of a total vacuum based system. I am just
>curious to see the data that supports the assumption.that an all electric
>system is more reliable.
>
>
>Paul
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)fdic.gov>
>To:
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electric Gyros
>
>
>
>>
>> I think that the concern has been with the reliability of the vacuum
>pumps,
>> not the instruments themselves. If the pump fails, the instruments are
>> useless, no matter what their expected life.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul McAllister [mailto:paul.mcallister(at)qia.net]
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electric Gyros
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I must admit to being somewhat intrigued by the discussion of all Electric
>> Vs Vacuum. Their appears to be an assumption that if a A/H & DG is
>> electrical that their internal mechanisms are more reliable than the
>> gyroscopic (plus pump) equvalent
>>
>> I have had made a few inquires and I have not been able to find any mean
>> time between failure data on electrical A/H's & DG's. I'd be interested
>if
>> anyone in the group has been able to secure this information. I did make
>an
>> inquiry to a few repair shops and their indication was the electrical
>units
>> were not particularly reliable. Unfortunately that is data based in
>> speculation, not statistics.
>>
>> So, does anyone on the forum have access to any data that suggests that
>the
>> MTBF of a vacuum powered instrument plus its pump is greater or less that
>> the MTBF of the electrical equivalent?
>>
>> We have an expression where I work "In god we trust, everyone else must
>> bring data". Lets not assume that because its electrically powered that
>it
>> is mechanically more reliable.
>>
>>
>> Regards, Paul
>>
>>
>http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>>
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 12Volt relays |
An H-Bridge is a reversing circuit, like a DPDT Relay, but
you only need one. They usually have 2 inputs, Go and Reverse.
Put power on the Go wire, and the output goes in one direction,
put power on reverse and go, and you get the outputs reversed.
Simple ASCII art: (fixed fonts work best).
+---------+
go ------| |------+
| H-Bridge| Motor
rev ------| |------+
+---------+
| |
| |
Power
The fancier ones have outputs for current sense, and temprature
for saftey reasons. The go can be pulsed at varying speeds to
control the motor speed. Wonderful devices.
Steven Kay wrote:
>
> Not familiar with H bridges. Could you explain the difference/benefit. -Steve
>
> Tom Brusehaver wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Instead of relays, I advocate H bridges and other transistors.
>>
>>For a simple Trim motor, something like the National LMD18200
>>would be the trick.
>>
>> <http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LMD18200.html>
>>
>>for really big motors, H-bridges are available build from FET's
>>or transistors. They are talking 50-100Amps per motor!
>>
>> <http://www.dmillard.com/osmc/>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 05/24/2002 2:52:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com Jim Oke writes:
<< .....skip.....5. The refueling crew used the underwing dipsticks to
measure the quantity onboard and came up with a number and used this number
to decide how much fuel to add from the truck.....skip......Sorry for the
long-winded and minimally relevant post, but that's what happened.>>
5/24/2002
Hello Jim, No need to apologize. Your posting made great reading just as you
wrote it. Fuel starvation / exhaustion (for any reason) is an extremely
relevant subject for any powered aircraft pilot. (Gider pilots get to smile a
bit).
I am curious about the underwing dipsticks though. Is that a typo or is there
some thing that I don't understand? Most dipsticks are used over wing by
being placed down into an open fuel tank cap.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
PS: I don't want to start any metric versus other units controversy on this
list, but I'd like to make a point. I worked for a while for an organization
involved in setting standards for industrial gases (like hydrogen, nitrogen,
oxygen, argon, etc). The issue of what units to use came up frequently and by
far the most difficult one to get one's arms around regarding conversion was
pressure.
Most conversion charts / tables just ignore pressure conversion and when one
does dig into it the concept of absolute and gage pressure along with units
such as pounds per square inch, kilo pascals, atmospheres, bars, etc nearly
overwhelms any rational effort at standardization.
PPS: I wrote an article for that organization's newsletter on unit conversion
problems and used the Gimli Glider incident as an example of how important,
and difficult, unit conversion could be out in the field regardless of how
the purists back in their offices thought the problem could be solved.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | The Gimli Glider Reference page |
"Secondly, the drip procedure told the pilots the amount of fuel on board
not in pounds or kilograms, but in liters."
Half true. The drip gives the depth of fuel in the tank, not in
litres (proper spelling) but in centimetres.
"What's more, on the earlier airplanes, the fuel had been calculated not by
the pilot or copilot, but by the third person in the cockpit, the flight
engineer."
Wrong. All three were trained and practised in calculating the
weight of fuel from the dipstick in Connies. The flight engineer usually
made the calcs, as the pilots were busy planning the next leg and up dating
the weather. The Connie crew also had a navigator, so there were four, not
three. The DC-8 had no engineer. The L-1011 had three pilots.
"The 767 did not carry a flight engineer because the computers had reduced
the cockpit workload. Now, it was unclear whether the ground crew or the
pilots were primarily responsible for the fuel calculations."
It was never unclear. The ground crew were to dip/drip the tanks
and bring the figures to the cockpit, the flight officers did the calcs and
made the go/no go decisions. It was the habit of some shirkers to slide into
the cockpit and read the fuel gauges, then look up the list to see what
dip/drip readings they should show. As a standard procedure, many captains
covered up the dials and woe betide the groundcrew who asked for the gauges.
"Pearson was directed to Gimli, an airport once used by the Royal Canadian
Air Force. Long abandoned by the Air Force, the airport had no control tower
or fire trucks."
No mystery here. Hee was directed not by some third party but by
the First Officer who had served there many years before. Because the
facility had been eliminated from all maps, the latter was hard put to
establish its location from the varying shoreline, but managed to point it
out at almost the last minute.
Who was this Peter Banks?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
"For instance - if the center tank was no where near as full of fuel as
expected , then the aircraft would have "auto rotated" on take-off & at a
lower airspeed (prior to Vr) w/ the improper stab trim setting & lower gross
weight . This should have been a strong heads up to the crew that something
was not right !
I wonder how they dismissed this . Thanks for listening & I'd love to hear
a response . Chris Fleshren , Sterling , Virginia , USA ."
Chris:
The centre tank (nearest CofG) was full. The tanks for which
incorrect readings were given were the left and right main, (each of which
has three dripsticks) but neither is very far from CofG range.
The 767 would be hard put to "auto-rotate" under most circumstances anyway.
My experience on it was that I couldn't tell how it was loaded by the
takeoff cahracteristics. Each takeoff is different, and the crews had very
little experience with the new machine.
Also the aircraft had TWO fuel quantity processors in parallel. When one
failed, the second took over. That's why the MEL allowed flight with one
unserviceable, but not two. The records show that the aircraft had flown
several legs the previous two days with only one - and should have had the
second replaced during that period. I believe I remember that Pearson knew
this, or was told before leaving home.
Pearson was/is a 'nice guy' - he would have allowed several
groundfolk into the cockpit at a time. While it IS co-operative, it is not
conducive to critical calculations under the circumstances. That's where
"grumpy old" captains earn their keep. They maintain a tight 'office' - one
at a time, please, and no hovering. Instead, the office fills with
onlookers, 'leaders of men' and discussers who interfere with cold, clear
logic.
Cheers,
Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jaye and Scott Jackson <jayeandscott(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Auto-rotation |
Re : Dipsticks and 767 Centre tank
The bigger jets use a type of dipstick that lowers from the bottom of the
tank. On the first jet airliners, they were open at the top so one just
pushed upwards, a quarter-turn to unlock, then lower it down until jetfuel
started coming out the end and then the number on the stick where it met
wing lower surface was recorded.
Newer models are sealed so don't leak at all but use a tube-within-a-tube.
The inside tube still can be pulled down from below the wing but has a
magnet in the top. Around the outside of the outer tube, floating on the
surface of the fuel is a doughnut-shaped piece of plastic with another
magnet in it. One just pulls the tube all the way to the bottom then, using
the palm of the hand, slowly raises the stick until, as it nears the
doughnut inside the tank, it suddenly jumps up out of the hand about
half-an-inch.
The graduations on the sticks are not quantity. The long, wide, but shallow
tanks in swept-wing airliners mean that the fuel levels are very sensitive
to minute amounts of pitch and roll from level.
For this reason, the correct way to manually determine the tank quantities
is to first look at the bubble on a grid in the wheel well to determine
pitch and roll. Using this information, a table in the worksheet is
consulted to determine which dipstick to use for the measurement for each
tank. The resulting stick readings are used when entering the correct chart
with respect to dipstick number, pitch and roll. Only from this chart can
the actual tank quantity be determined.
I seem to recall that this 767 actually was dispatched when it shouldn't
have been-MEL-wise.
I can't remember the individual tank capacities, but I would be surprized if
there was any fuel in the centre for the 4-hour Ottawa-to-Edmonton leg.
Just me two cents worth...
Scott in VAncouver
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fergus Kyle" <ve3lvo(at)rac.ca>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Auto-rotation
>
> "For instance - if the center tank was no where near as full of fuel as
> expected , then the aircraft would have "auto rotated" on take-off & at a
> lower airspeed (prior to Vr) w/ the improper stab trim setting & lower
gross
> weight . This should have been a strong heads up to the crew that
something
> was not right !
> I wonder how they dismissed this . Thanks for listening & I'd love to
hear
> a response . Chris Fleshren , Sterling , Virginia , USA ."
>
> Chris:
> The centre tank (nearest CofG) was full. The tanks for which
> incorrect readings were given were the left and right main, (each of which
> has three dripsticks) but neither is very far from CofG range.
> The 767 would be hard put to "auto-rotate" under most circumstances
anyway.
> My experience on it was that I couldn't tell how it was loaded by the
> takeoff cahracteristics. Each takeoff is different, and the crews had very
> little experience with the new machine.
> Also the aircraft had TWO fuel quantity processors in parallel. When one
> failed, the second took over. That's why the MEL allowed flight with one
> unserviceable, but not two. The records show that the aircraft had flown
> several legs the previous two days with only one - and should have had the
> second replaced during that period. I believe I remember that Pearson knew
> this, or was told before leaving home.
> Pearson was/is a 'nice guy' - he would have allowed several
> groundfolk into the cockpit at a time. While it IS co-operative, it is not
> conducive to critical calculations under the circumstances. That's where
> "grumpy old" captains earn their keep. They maintain a tight 'office' -
one
> at a time, please, and no hovering. Instead, the office fills with
> onlookers, 'leaders of men' and discussers who interfere with cold, clear
> logic.
> Cheers,
> Ferg
> Europa A064
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <Richard(at)riley.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: RE: EFIS D-10 encoder output |
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Have you looked at Blue Mountain Avionics EFIS/Lite? Very similar to the
Dynon, but actually shipping.
>
>FYI, just in case anyone else is interested, the Dynon unit (if/when it
>ever becomes available) will have an encoder output to the transponder
>eliminating the need for a separate encoder. Nice feature that I hope to
>use....
>
>--Mark Navratil
>Cedar Rapids, Iowa
>RV-8A finish kit endless fiberglass....
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>Mark,
>
>No, the encoder will act as we noted before. Thank you for the heads up,
>and we will clarify that on the website!
>
>Thank you and have a great day.
>
>Gillian C. Torode
>
>Business Manager
>Dynon Development Inc.
>19501 144th Ave NE
>Suite C-500
>Woodinville, WA 98072
>(425)402-4404 Phone (425)984-1751 Fax
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: menavrat(at)rockwellcollins.com [mailto:menavrat(at)rockwellcollins.com]
>To: gillian(at)dynondevelopment.com
>Subject: RE: EFIS D-10 encoder output?
>
>Hi Gillian, just looking at your update FAQ's on your website and it has
>the following:
>
>What instruments/avionics will the EFIS-D10 connect to/communicate with?
> The EFIS-D10, as presently specified and developed, is a
>stand-alone instrument that does not communicate with
> any other instruments or avionics. Future upgrades will
>allow
>the instrument to communicate with a second EFIS-D10
> as well as future products from Dynon Development.
>Communication with other manufacturer's products is still under
> consideration.
>
>Does this mean you've changed your previous plans to include an encoder
>output which would interface with transponders? If not you might want to
>clarify on the FAQ's....
>
>Thanks,
>
>--Mark Navratil
>Cedar Rapids, Iowa
>RV-8A finish kit stuff, starting wiring soon...
>
>"Gillian Torode" on 11/12/2001 12:55:31 PM
>
>To:
>cc:
>
>Subject: RE: EFIS D-10 encoder output?
>
>
>Mark,
>
>Yes, the encoder output will come standard and connect to a (mode C)
>transponder.
>
>Thank you for your interest in our product.
>
>Gillian C. Torode
>
>Business Manager
>Dynon Development Inc.
>19501 144th Ave NE
>Suite C-500
>Woodinville, WA 98072
>(425)402-4404 Phone (425)984-1751 Fax
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: menavrat(at)rockwellcollins.com [mailto:menavrat(at)rockwellcollins.com]
>To: info(at)dynondevelopment.com
>Subject: EFIS D-10 encoder output?
>
>Will the D-10 have a standard output with encoder data that can be
>connected to a transponder? Does this feature cost extra?
>
>Thanks,
>
>--Mark Navratil
>Cedar Rapids, Iowa
>RV-8A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gimli Glider |
).
>
> I am curious about the underwing dipsticks though. Is that a typo or is
there
> some thing that I don't understand? Most dipsticks are used over wing by
> being placed down into an open fuel tank cap.
>
Hi all,
Actually one should read DRIPstick instead of DIPstick.
The dripstick device is well explained on the Gimli glider website or in any
A&P training manual.
In short, the older dripstick involved an UNDERwing mounted measuring stick
you unlock and pull down until the top aperture reaches the fuel level, and
fuel begins to drip down through it. You can then read on a scale the height
between the bottom of the tank and the fuel level. Rather messy.
The newer version has no aperture, but includes a float with magnets that
attract the metallic top of the stick once you have unlocked and pulled it
down. The operator feels when the magnet grips on the stick and reads on the
scale the length of stick protruding under the wing. Much cleaner method !
Of course, you can also DIPstick the usual way from above the wings,
provided you have proper apertures.
Hope this clarifies things a bit.
cheers,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charlie Burton" <notrubce(at)hotmail.com> |
I have a Cessna type split Batt/Alt Master switch and there is a small piece of
plastic molded into the switch rocker to prevent the Alt side from being turned
off without turning off the Batt side too. What is the reason for this? I have
Bob's crowbar overvoltage relay hooked to the Alt side of the switch and it
basically does the same thing through the Field circuit breaker.
Charlie Burton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Aronson <aronsond(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Microair Transponder deminsions |
Listers:
I have a Microair 2000 transponder coming with some other avionics stuff
from John Stark. I can't find the length of the unit on the website for
microair. Does anyone know what the length deminsion is? rhe round
unit, not the flat one. Appreciate your help
Dave Aronson
RV4 N504RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
| Subject: | dpdt switch question |
Can anyone give me some info on DPDT switches. question is --If
one side of the switch fails does both sides fail also? Or better
phrased - If the switch fails does the whole switch fail? The reason
for the question is to determine a failure mode for the things using
this switch. Any help appreciated.
Jim Robinson
Glasair 79R
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Microair Transponder deminsions |
It case measures 5 7/8" not including the connectors. I have serial number
478.
R
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Aronson" <aronsond(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Microair Transponder deminsions
>
> Listers:
> I have a Microair 2000 transponder coming with some other avionics stuff
> from John Stark. I can't find the length of the unit on the website for
> microair. Does anyone know what the length deminsion is? rhe round
> unit, not the flat one. Appreciate your help
> Dave Aronson
> RV4 N504RV
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Barnes" <skytop(at)megsinet.net> |
Tom,
You stated that in order to make reverse happen, you supplied
voltage to "reverse and go". Is this what you intended to mean?
Secondly, I noticed in the specifications on the web site, that there
are many pins on the processor and there are some drawings that show
capacitors and resistors external to the unit. Is it true that for our
application, one needs only to be concerned with the wires that you drew
on your "simple ascii art? I like what I see.
Thanks,
Tom Barnes
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Brusehaver
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 12Volt relays
An H-Bridge is a reversing circuit, like a DPDT Relay, but
you only need one. They usually have 2 inputs, Go and Reverse.
Put power on the Go wire, and the output goes in one direction,
put power on reverse and go, and you get the outputs reversed.
Simple ASCII art: (fixed fonts work best).
+---------+
go ------| |------+
| H-Bridge| Motor
rev ------| |------+
+---------+
| |
| |
Power
The fancier ones have outputs for current sense, and temprature
for saftey reasons. The go can be pulsed at varying speeds to
control the motor speed. Wonderful devices.
Steven Kay wrote:
>
> Not familiar with H bridges. Could you explain the difference/benefit.
-Steve
>
> Tom Brusehaver wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Instead of relays, I advocate H bridges and other transistors.
>>
>>For a simple Trim motor, something like the National LMD18200
>>would be the trick.
>>
>> <http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LMD18200.html>
>>
>>for really big motors, H-bridges are available build from FET's
>>or transistors. They are talking 50-100Amps per motor!
>>
>> <http://www.dmillard.com/osmc/>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mil-Spec Wire |
David,
Thanks for your response.
Do you know if the M81044 has Tefzel insulation? If not, do you know
what it is?
Regards,
Richard Dudley
David Swartzendruber wrote:
>
>
> All the Cessna Jet's and since 2001, all the singles use M81044 wire.
>
> David Swartzendruber
> Wichita
>
> > Bob,
> > Looking for Mil-Spec 22759 wire at Skycraft, I found more of
> > M81044 in their Mil-Spec section labeled "aircraft wire". Is
> > M81044 equivalent to or as well suited for use in OBAM
> > aircraft as M22759?
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Barnes" <skytop(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | dpdt switch question |
Jim,
Don't forget that Chapter 11 in the AeroElectric Connection is
dedicated to switches, relays and Contactors. Read through this and you
will be able to imagine all sorts of ways a switch may fail.
Tom Barnes -6 all electric
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Robinson
Subject: AeroElectric-List: dpdt switch question
Can anyone give me some info on DPDT switches. question is --If
one side of the switch fails does both sides fail also? Or better
phrased - If the switch fails does the whole switch fail? The reason
for the question is to determine a failure mode for the things using
this switch. Any help appreciated.
Jim Robinson
Glasair 79R
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: RE: EFIS D-10 encoder output |
> Have you looked at Blue Mountain Avionics EFIS/Lite? Very similar to the
> Dynon, but actually shipping.
Does anyone have an EFIS/Lite in hand? It's been "two weeks" for months but
I don't have mine and it's holding things up for me. Not sure if you heard
they were shipping or if you have one in hand.
Gary K.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <Richard(at)riley.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: RE: EFIS D-10 encoder output |
>
> > Have you looked at Blue Mountain Avionics EFIS/Lite? Very similar to the
> > Dynon, but actually shipping.
>
>
>Does anyone have an EFIS/Lite in hand? It's been "two weeks" for months but
>I don't have mine and it's holding things up for me. Not sure if you heard
>they were shipping or if you have one in hand.
>
>Gary K.
Don't have one (I'm using the full efis and an electric gyro backup) but I
saw one in an RV-6 a few weeks ago.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven Kay <skay(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: RE: EFIS D-10 encoder output |
I just checked and Greg has an explanation the general discussion section -Steve
Gary K wrote:
>
> > Have you looked at Blue Mountain Avionics EFIS/Lite? Very similar to the
> > Dynon, but actually shipping.
>
> Does anyone have an EFIS/Lite in hand? It's been "two weeks" for months but
> I don't have mine and it's holding things up for me. Not sure if you heard
> they were shipping or if you have one in hand.
>
> Gary K.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mil-Spec Wire |
The insulation on the 81044 is a little different. That's why it's not
22759. The tefzel will melt off if you get it too hot, but the stuff on the
81044 just gets crispy if I remember right. I sat through a speal by the
Raychem rep, but that was three years ago and I don't remember what it was
except that it was crosslinked, and claimed to be more abrasion resistant.
I'll have to pull out the sheet at work and see what it says. One of it's
advantages for big airplanes with big wire bundles is that the 81044
insulation is a little thinner and that makes the wire bundles a little
smaller. It's also available with a thicker insulation which is slightly
thicker than the 22759. The Cessna singles switched to the 81044 just for
commonality with the jets.
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
P.S. You might be able to find all the answers on the Raychem website.
> David,
> Thanks for your response.
> Do you know if the M81044 has Tefzel insulation? If not, do you know
> what it is?
>
> Regards,
> Richard Dudley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator OFF |
You must have wired it the opposite way from a Cessna. It's intended to let
you have Batt only on, or Batt and Alt on, or both off, preventing operation
with Alt. only.
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
>
I have a Cessna type split Batt/Alt Master switch and there is a small
piece of plastic molded into the switch rocker to prevent the Alt side from
being turned off without turning off the Batt side too. What is the reason
for this? I have Bob's crowbar overvoltage relay hooked to the Alt side of
the switch and it basically does the same thing through the Field circuit
breaker.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Vennes" <justdale(at)cox.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Gimli Glider
In a message dated 05/24/2002 2:52:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com Jim Oke writes:
<< .....skip.....5. The refueling crew used the underwing dipsticks to
measure the quantity onboard and came up with a number and used this number
to decide how much fuel to add from the truck.....skip......Sorry for the
long-winded and minimally relevant post, but that's what happened.>>
5/24/2002
Hello Jim, No need to apologize. Your posting made great reading just as you
wrote it. Fuel starvation / exhaustion (for any reason) is an extremely
relevant subject for any powered aircraft pilot. (Gider pilots get to smile
a
bit).
I am curious about the underwing dipsticks though. Is that a typo or is
there
some thing that I don't understand? Most dipsticks are used over wing by
being placed down into an open fuel tank cap.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
PS: I don't want to start any metric versus other units controversy on this
list, but I'd like to make a point. I worked for a while for an organization
involved in setting standards for industrial gases (like hydrogen, nitrogen,
oxygen, argon, etc). The issue of what units to use came up frequently and
by
far the most difficult one to get one's arms around regarding conversion was
pressure.
Most conversion charts / tables just ignore pressure conversion and when one
does dig into it the concept of absolute and gage pressure along with units
such as pounds per square inch, kilo pascals, atmospheres, bars, etc nearly
overwhelms any rational effort at standardization.
PPS: I wrote an article for that organization's newsletter on unit
conversion
problems and used the Gimli Glider incident as an example of how important,
and difficult, unit conversion could be out in the field regardless of how
the purists back in their offices thought the problem could be solved.
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
| Subject: | switch configuation |
I am using DTSP rocker switches (ON-OFF)on my panel and I have
a question as to the wiring configuration. The switch I am wiring is
for the fuel pump. It has a 10 amp breaker and wire sized for that
load. My question is : On the other side of this switch I would like
to switch on a warning light when the pump comes on. What is
the best way to wire this? I thought about a jumper from the
positive from the pump CB to the other terminal on the switch then
to the warning light. The wire to the pump is going to much larger
than the wire to the warning lights. Would this method leave the
smaller wire to the light unprotected? (CB sized for the big pump
wire) Am I over thinking this?
Jim Robinson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CBFLESHREN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: switch configuation |
Hey Jim , I am pretty sure you have a typo here from the way you've
written your inquiry . You say (ON-OFF) but you called it a "DTSP" which is
ON-OFF-ON (or whatever) and you said the "other terminal on the switch" .
So..... for a DPST switch you can just jumper from the "ON" terminal of the
"pump" side of the switch, to the "ON" terminal of the "indicator" side of
the switch, then thru a dedicated breaker, then thru the lamp, then to
ground . The wire gauge for the jumper & the rest of the light circuit can be
sized appropriately for the reduced current required for the lamp you are
using . There just two notes here (that I can think of), (1) Make sure you
size the breaker & wire size for the "pump circuit" to support the added
current requirements of the lamp load (most likely negligible) & , (2) Keep
the length of the wire from the "light" terminal of the switch to the circuit
breaker as short as possible . This is an "unprotected" section of wire (as
is the jumper on the switch) . For added margin you can oversize these two
wires but it is not a factor in the choice of wire gauge from the breaker, to
the lamp & to ground . This is how I would tackle it . Now I await my
schooling from the list . This is such a sobering way to learn ! Chris
Fleshren , Sterling , Virginia .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: trim systems? |
Tom,
Van sells a relay circuit board to control the electric flaps in conjunction
with the stick mounted switch. It sells for 40.00, and I was wondering if
it is inferrior in any way to Paul Besings home built version. I tried
Paul's Radio Shack part #s for the relays and came up empty. If Vans item
is comparable, 40 bucks saves a lot of time over doing it Pauls way. Do you
agree?
Thanks,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Barnes" <skytop(at)megsinet.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: trim systems?
>
> Jim,
> I can't put my fingers on the drawing for the trim at this
> moment, but I found the one for the flaps. The trim is twice the
> circuitry. I used the drawing that Paul Besing presents at
> www.lacodeworks.com/besing/flap.htm . By the way, Paul's drawing uses
> DPDT relays. If you go onto Bob's site, you will find how he uses
> single pole relays in conjunction with limit switches to get the job
> done.
> If I can find the drawing for the trim, I'll post it, in the
> meantime, you might try searching the archives looking for "basing &
> trim & schematic" or permeations of it in the 1998 time frame.
>
> Tom Barnes -6
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
> Burley
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: trim systems?
>
>
>
> I'm familiar with the Ray Allen products - has anyone built their own
> trim system? If so, is a design and materials list available?
>
>
> >>
> >> Instead of relays, I advocate H bridges and other transistors.
> >>
> >> For a simple Trim motor, something like the National LMD18200
> >> would be the trick.
> >>
> > > <http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LMD18200.html>
> >>
> >> for really big motors, H-bridges are available build from FET's
> >> or transistors. They are talking 50-100Amps per motor!
> >>
> > > <http://www.dmillard.com/osmc/>
> >>
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: decorative SS washers |
Dave Ford wrote:
>
>
> I'm looking for decorative flat washers without the positioning tab for
> the standard toggle switches that B&C sells. Do you know where I can
> locate these? Part number?
>
> Dave Ford
> RV6
>
If you have extras, it's relatively easy to just break the
tab off.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dpdt switch question |
Jim Robinson wrote:
>
>
> Can anyone give me some info on DPDT switches. question is --If
> one side of the switch fails does both sides fail also? Or better
> phrased - If the switch fails does the whole switch fail? The reason
> for the question is to determine a failure mode for the things using
> this switch. Any help appreciated.
>
> Jim Robinson
> Glasair 79R
>
'It depends.'
A mechanical failure will *probably* take out both sides of
the switch.
Corrosion of contacts can happen in only one of the circuits
(but the other is likely to be close behind).
Load on the contacts can make a difference in contact life.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CBFLESHREN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Aero-List Switch ammendment |
Hey Jim, I noticed after I sent that Email there is no need for a double
pole switch at all ! No jumper required ! Just wire from the "ON" terminal
of the "SPST" fuel pump switch , direct to the "close by" lamp circuit
breaker (w/ same size wire as the pump requires if desired) then you can down
size your wire gauge from the indicator's breaker to the lamp & to ground .
Size the indicator's breaker for the size wire going from the breaker thru
the lamp to gound . I hope thats everything . Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dpdt switch question |
>
>
> Jim Robinson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Can anyone give me some info on DPDT switches. question is --If
> > one side of the switch fails does both sides fail also? Or better
> > phrased - If the switch fails does the whole switch fail? The reason
> > for the question is to determine a failure mode for the things using
> > this switch. Any help appreciated.
> >
> > Jim Robinson
> > Glasair 79R
> >
> 'It depends.'
>
> A mechanical failure will *probably* take out both sides of
> the switch.
>
> Corrosion of contacts can happen in only one of the circuits
> (but the other is likely to be close behind).
>
> Load on the contacts can make a difference in contact life.
>
> Charlie
Charlie or anyone
In conjunction with the previous question, When is a switch likely
to fail? Would it fail at the initial connection or would it fail
sometime after it had already been connected for awhile. The
reason for the question is that it would be relatively easy to replace
the switch if it fails at initial startup, less so in flight.
Jim Robinson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brucem(at)olypen.com |
Thanks to all who commented on this topic over the last few weeks.
Many of you expressed a belief that vacumm pumps frequently fail
without warning, leaving a pilot in IMC in a precarious position.
In the absence of any statistics regarding MTBF of vacuum pumps, I
dug into my 20 year pile of clipped aviation articles.
In September, 1994 the Cessna Pilots Association's magazine had an
article titled "Why Vacuum Pumps Fail." The conclusions were 1)
contamination, 2) installation and 3) maintenance -- all of which
are in the control of the aircraft owner.
Contamination comes from not covering the pump outlet when washing
the engine with sprayed solvent. Even a few drops of solvent inside
the pump will encrust the carbon dust there into particles which
will prematurely wear or even jam the vanes. Installing a
replacement pump without carefully cleaning the hoses and replacing
filters first will also introduce debris into the system.
Installation requires screwing fittings into the pump housing.
Holding it in a vise will warp the housing and lead to excessive
rotor wear.
If the vacuum gauge reads less than the normal 5.0" level, many
shops and owners will adjust the regulator valve, thinking that the
pump has weakened. But often the cause is a leak in the system from
aging hoses or deteriorated connections. Thus the pump is forced to
provide 8" or 9" of vacuum, causing it to overheat and the vanes to
wear excessively. The article cited a pump replaced at less than
400 hours where the shop found it had been producing 10.5".
Avoid these problems and a vacuum pump should last its warranted
1000 hours, the article concludes. Also the technology has improved
with Sigma-Tek pumps using aluminum vanes for reliability, at the
price of not being capable of overhaul. Champion now has a wear
indicator port on its pumps.
Consequently I find a vacuum system reliable enough and decided to
save $2,000 by using one to power the AI and DG in my GlaStar. The
regulator filter will changed annually and the central filter on
inspection or 200 hours. At 1,000 hours I will overhaul the gyros
and the pump, just I did with several certificated aircraft owned in
the past. This approach avoided any vacuum failures over several
thousand hours.
Electric gyros have sealed cases, but they spin faster (more wear?)
and are subject to turbulence and cockpit heat; overhauls are
necessary if not as oftenas the vacuum gyros. The auxiliary
alternator spins when the engine runs and will require maintenance
periodically also. So I do not see any significant disadvantage to
vacuum in this respect either.
All that said, I will continue my practice of flying partial panel
every few months at least. Actually with a portable GPS strapped to
the control wheel and displaying a HSI screen, maintaining track is
fairly easy, at least in a C172. One could even do without the TC
in a pinch.
Regards, Bruce
McGregor
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
http://www.olypen.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Phillips <ripsteel(at)edge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Gyros |
Hi Bruce-
Here's links to some avweb articles on instrument failures you might find
helpful- The article on the Carnahan investigations offers links to three other
related articles. I am not instrument-rated (yet), but they speak to proficency
and full understanding of how your aircraft systems function, a big plus for
those rolling their own, IMHO...
http://www.avweb.com/articles/farfrom/
http://www.avweb.com/articles/carnahan/index.html
From the PossumWorks
Mark
brucem(at)olypen.com wrote:
>
> Thanks to all who commented on this topic over the last few weeks.
> Many of you expressed a belief that vacumm pumps frequently fail
> without warning, leaving a pilot in IMC in a precarious position.
> In the absence of any statistics regarding MTBF of vacuum pumps, I
> dug into my 20 year pile of clipped aviation articles.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Ford" <dford(at)michweb.net> |
| Subject: | SS decorative washers |
Dave Ford wrote:
>
>
> I'm looking for decorative flat washers without the positioning tab
for
> the standard toggle switches that B&C sells. Do you know where I can
> locate these? Part number?
>
> Dave Ford
> RV6
>
If you have extras, it's relatively easy to just break the
tab off.
Charlie
I'm using the washer with the tab on it for locking the switch from
behind the panel and would like to use a flat decorative washer on the
front but haven't been able to locate any. I've tried using standard SS
washers to ream out but is not working. I would think there is someone
who sells these 15/32 ID decorative flat washers somewhere.
Dave Ford
RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SS decorative washers |
Check http://www.mscfasteners.com/hardware/page8a.html#FLAT%20WASHERS . Near
the bottom of the page under MS flat washers they have 7/16 SS washers that
measure .468 x .90 x .070. That sounds about the right size.
R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Ford" <dford(at)michweb.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: SS decorative washers
>
> Dave Ford wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > I'm looking for decorative flat washers without the positioning tab
> for
> > the standard toggle switches that B&C sells. Do you know where I can
> > locate these? Part number?
> >
> > Dave Ford
> > RV6
> >
> If you have extras, it's relatively easy to just break the
> tab off.
>
> Charlie
>
>
May 13, 2002 - May 26, 2002
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-aw