AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fh
January 14, 2006 - January 19, 2006
VHF navigation portion of the 430.
Since you do want to fly IFR, I think you will need an approved resolver
input device.
Is there a resolver function available in the BMA/Lite(G3)? Can it present
the glide path indication?
Provided the BMA/Lite(G3) provides those capabilities, I think it could work!
If all you want from the 430 is IFR GPS functions, a good case can be made
for doing it all with the 430 control unit. Since you are the person that has
to approve the installation and explain your reasoning at a hearing, it wou
ld seem to me that you could support the GPS functions as being in substantial
compliance with the applicable GPS TSO even without a separate CDI and
resolver.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/14/2006 8:24:39 A.M. Central Standard Time,
flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com writes:
Hi Bob,
It is a RV8 and I plan to fly some "light" IFR . . . I don't know what you
mean by "full ILS approaches" but my intent is to fly GPS/VOR enroute
and GPS, VOR and ILS approaches with a GNS430 . . . the only "non TSO'd"
piece of the puzzle is the BMA/Lite(G3). I also have a DigiTrak auto
pilot.
Anything I've read to date leads me to feel this meets the language and
intent of the FARs, etc.?
Thanks,
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
I understand that . . . the 430 will feed the BMA/Lite for that purpose.
Thanks,
Bob
On 1/14/06, Dan Beadle wrote:
>
> Dan.Beadle(at)hq.InclineSoftworks.com>
>
> The 430 does not have glide slope indicator. Therefore the on-board CDI
> is not enough to fly the ILS, jus the localizer.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> C.
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 6:21 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: ***SPAM*** Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> It is a RV8 and I plan to fly some "light" IFR . . . I don't know what
> you
> mean by "full ILS approaches" but my intent is to fly GPS/VOR enroute
> and GPS, VOR and ILS approaches with a GNS430 . . . the only "non TSO'd"
> piece of the puzzle is the BMA/Lite(G3). I also have a DigiTrak auto
> pilot.
>
> Anything I've read to date leads me to feel this meets the language and
> intent of the FARs, etc.?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
>
> On 1/14/06, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good Morning Bob,
> >
> > Do you intend to use the 430 IFR or VFR?
> >
> > Do you want to execute full ILS approaches?
> >
> > For VFR, there is no question that a CDI is not needed.
> >
> > For IFR, things get a bit stickier. Beyond that, it makes a
> difference
> > if
> > the aircraft is experimental or normal category.
> >
> > Do you intend to use an autopilot with the GPS?
> >
> > There is no question in my mind as to whether or not the set can be
> used
> > successfully without a CDI for any and all GPS functions it is capable
> of
> > performing. Unfortunately, the FAA may not agree with that statement!
> >
> > Let us know precisely how you want to use it and we may be able to
> offer
> > some help.
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old Bob
> > AKA
> > Bob Siegfried
> > Ancient Aviator
> > Stearman N3977A
> > Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> > Downers Grove, IL 60516
> > 630 985-8503
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 1/14/2006 2:49:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> > flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com writes:
> >
> > I'm pretty sure you can use a GNS430 without a CDI for GPS Enroute
> and
> > Approach? . . . It has a "CDI" of sorts built in. I plan to use the
> > EHSI
> > function of the BMA Lite for ILS and or VOR CDI function and I
> believe
> > that
> > is OK too? The GPS in the "Lite" should make a nice backup too.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
OK, I can understand that.
I hope you've been following the EFIS discussion on this list. Let me
beat
my drum one more time.
These low cost EFIS displays (Pick your favorite) are hypnotic and
compelling, if cross checks start to disagree, the pilot is going to
want to
keep on flying that pretty EFIS unless you hit him over the head. We
don't
know all their failure modes and their software (with the exception of
Chelton) remains untested to the extent necessary to pass DO 178, their
hardware is not DO 160 certified. That means you're the beta tester. Do
you
want to bet your life in that situation? Mark my words, we're going to
have
some experimental airplanes equipped with low cost EFIS systems get into
some serious fatal trouble. That body count is going to raise the level
of
visibility of this issue with the FAA and soon big brother will be
breathing
down our necks.
Low cost, noncertified EFIS system are OK for VFR airplanes. But stay
out of
IFR conditions.
Bruce
At the risk of further pounding on this dead horse whose meat is already
well-tenderized, the admonishment to avoid the noncertified EFIS for IFR
is a bit broad (IMHO). I fly with a dual GRT EFIS (this does not give
me redundancy, just contemporary PFD and EIS display) driven by a single
AHRS. For redundancy, I rely on old round AS, Alt and vertical compass
and, most importantly, a Mid-Continent AI with its own internal battery.
Secondary redundancy (but reliant on the same electrical system as the
AHRS/EFIS is a TruTrak A/P which will take me where I want to go as long
as the lights are on.
So, I would concede your proposition with just a bit of technical
modification, "low cost, noncertified EFIS systems are okay for VFR
airplanes but stay out of IFR conditions unless you have a well thought
out, well designed redundant primary flight system." But of course, I
would make the same admonishment for a certified EFIS!
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Bob,
Yes the BMA/Lite "has" the resolver capability and does display the ILS
"needles" in both the HSI and ADI mode . . . for VOR you would have to be in
HSI mode. I'm not flying yet but it is an analog interface with the
BMA/Lite sending OBS information back to the 430 . . . I assume the
resolving function is done in the 430? and the BMA/Lite displays the to/from
and CDI indication.
I have an AH, TSO'd Altimeter, and AS and VSI for "back-up"
I'm not sure this is all ready for prime time but by the time I'm flying and
have my 40 hours flown off I plan to prove the functionality and reliability
of what I just said!
Thanks for your input!
Bob
On 1/14/06, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Good Morning Bob,
>
> The reference to "full" ILS was meant to include a glide slope. There is
> no
> way that I am aware of to see the glide slope on the 430 control
> unit face.
> Consequently a CDI is needed. While I am not very familiar with how the
> 430
> works, I also believe you will need a resolver to input VOR radials
> for the
> VHF navigation portion of the 430.
>
> Since you do want to fly IFR, I think you will need an approved resolver
> input device.
> Is there a resolver function available in the BMA/Lite(G3)? Can it present
> the glide path indication?
>
>
> Provided the BMA/Lite(G3) provides those capabilities, I think it could
> work!
>
>
> If all you want from the 430 is IFR GPS functions, a good case can be made
> for doing it all with the 430 control unit. Since you are the person
> that has
> to approve the installation and explain your reasoning at a hearing,
> it wou
> ld seem to me that you could support the GPS functions as being
> in substantial
> compliance with the applicable GPS TSO even without a separate CDI and
> resolver.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
>
> In a message dated 1/14/2006 8:24:39 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com writes:
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> It is a RV8 and I plan to fly some "light" IFR . . . I don't know what
> you
> mean by "full ILS approaches" but my intent is to fly GPS/VOR enroute
> and GPS, VOR and ILS approaches with a GNS430 . . . the only "non TSO'd"
> piece of the puzzle is the BMA/Lite(G3). I also have a DigiTrak auto
> pilot.
>
> Anything I've read to date leads me to feel this meets the language and
> intent of the FARs, etc.?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Common Grounding |
>
>If you choose to use plain aluminum...expect mysterious ground problems
>and the retrofit of a real ground at your first annual....
>
>Bob N, Said>>
> We need to make a distinction between aluminum strip having
> the necessary cross section to replace an equal length of other
> wire and the classic aluminum wire used by the power distribution
> industry.
>
> A strip of alclad aluminum is no more difficult to work with than
> to simply use your aluminum airframe as a ground system. We use
> airframe grounds all over the airplanes at RAC and this is not
> an automatic recipe for problems. It's really coarse/soft
> aluminum in the old wire that make it difficult to achieve
> gas tight joints and the coarse stranding is particularly vulnerable
> to vibration issues.
>
>Eric Says: Bob, It's true that metal aircraft use the skin as a conductor,
>for lighting and antennas, but I would guess where grounding is a big
>concern, like sensors and complex electronics a copper ground is added.
>That's also why remote industrial sensors are usually current loops, not
>voltage levels.
>
>The forest of tabs is such a good idea...single point grounds.
We're mixing apples, and grapes here. Yes, SENSORS that generate small
signals are NEVER locally grounded. They'll wave around on the end of a
shielded pair or trio and all outbound power, control and inbound signals
and grounds are carried in the wire. This is irrespective of the aircraft's
structural materials.
The idea of using an embedded strip in a glass/epoxy airplane to carry
(+) and (-) the length of the airplane in a canard pusher or between
firewall
and aft battery in a tractor airplane is no different electrically than
using
wires of any kind. The technology concerns are only for crafting long
lived, gas tight,
low resistance joints at the ends. Again, this matters not what the
conductor
material is, the requirements are the same so methodology has to be adjusted
to accommodate characteristics of the materials chosen. In the case of
coarse stranded, soft aluminum favored by the power distribution industry,
folks were unwilling or unable to develop satisfactory termination
techniques
so the brief terms of duty at Piper (and briefer at Cessna) were abandoned.
Availability of fine aluminum strands that behave pretty much like copper
in the joint makes the flexibility, vibration resistance and joining
technology issues pretty much go away. I believe we're using copper-clad
aluminum in Premier and Horizon. I need to check that.
None of the above has anything to do with architecture of the ground
system. Appliances other than the small-signal devices described above
are quite often grounded locally in metallic airframes. This picture . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/MVC-699X.JPG
. . . is but one of many examples of airframe grounding found on all of our
aluminum aircraft at RAC/Beech.
>
>Earlier Charlie Asked: >>I've often wondered if the 'aluminum brazing'
>products hyped at flyins & available at welding shops could be used to
>transition from AL bar stock to a copper tab for mechanical connections.
>They are supposed to work on 'most non-ferrous metals'. This might
>accomplish Rick's goal of light, cheap, simple, safe. Is that worth exploring?
>
>Eric Says: The melting points of aluminum and copper are so different that
>successfully joining the two is not a matter for the amateur. I'm guessing
>that the required tools are generally outside the range of homebuilders.
The "brazing" rods I saw at OSH were a basically a soft solder
technique. Joining happens by alloying the surface of joined materials
with the thin interface between material and the liquid solder. IF
these same materials will alloy with copper too, then they're
obviously suited to joining of copper and aluminum. Certainly the
joints would be gas tight! That's what solder does best.
I used to have some of this stuff, I'll see if I can find it
and do some experiments in the shop. If anyone else has some,
we'd be pleased to hear the results of your experiments
too. But in any case, effective use of these joining technologies is
not influenced by the melting temperatures of the materials to be
joined. One may join copper to steel with tin/lead solders at
temperatures much below the melting points of either copper or
steel.
See chapter 9 of the 'Connection
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: E-Bus Avionics Switch ? |
Exactly what I'm planning, and for the same reasons (keeping GRT EFIS off during
cranking, etc.) I will / should have my Excel file finished by tonight, showing
this architecture with relay feed for both the primart and backup e-bus feed
paths, as well as a way to share one OVP crowbar module automatically between
two alternators (main and SD-8).
-Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: LarryRobertHelming <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: E-Bus Avionics Switch ?
----- Original Message -----
>
>
> Just thinking? On any of the Endurance Bus drawings. Other than the
> "don't
> really need it" discussion and parts count issue, what would the downsides
> be of adding a S704 contactor between the D25 and E-Bus so that you
> effectively used the whole E-bus as an Avionics bus. This would assume
> that
> the E-bus load can be easily carried by the S704 which I think is rated at
> 20 amps and has low continuous draw. It would actually save several
> switches for EFIS systems like the GRT which are not internally switched.
>
I don't see any problem other than having a switch that could fail that
would stop current from getting to the e-bus. But that problem is covered
because you have a switch to energize on the e-bus and bypass the D25 route.
I think your idea is a good way to implement the avionics bus capability. I
have been running my plane without an avionics bus and switch but have run
on occassions when I would like to turn the master on and not have my
transponder, encoder, and Dynon power up. I think I will implement your
idea. If it turns out to be a problem, I will report back here.
Bob N might want to consider this but I doubt that he will due to his
thinking that today's instruments/radios do not need the protection of an
avionics bus; But it does have some convience.
Indiana Larry, RV7 78 hours
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
Achieving a certain level of success in life is only important if
you can finally enjoy the level after you've reached it.
L R Helming
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Good Morning Bob,
Sounds good to me except I would strongly suggest the installation of a
classic Turn and Bank Needle. There is no instrument that is more reliable and
it weighs very little. When all else fails, the T&B can easily get you safely
to Mother Earth. Not only that but it is completely non tumbling and can be
used as guidance to recover from a spin.
I am all for using modern solid state equipment. But nothing beats the T&B
for a back-up!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/14/2006 10:34:25 A.M. Central Standard Time,
flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com writes:
Bob,
Yes the BMA/Lite "has" the resolver capability and does display the ILS
"needles" in both the HSI and ADI mode . . . for VOR you would have to be in
HSI mode. I'm not flying yet but it is an analog interface with the
BMA/Lite sending OBS information back to the 430 . . . I assume the
resolving function is done in the 430? and the BMA/Lite displays the to/from
and CDI indication.
I have an AH, TSO'd Altimeter, and AS and VSI for "back-up"
I'm not sure this is all ready for prime time but by the time I'm flying and
have my 40 hours flown off I plan to prove the functionality and reliability
of what I just said!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Exactly what I like about the Trio EZ-Pilot: built-in turn needle and mechanical
inclinometer ball, plus it could fly the plane better than I could if I got
a kidney stone or a case of the greens. It suffers no more from electrical system
dependency than the ol' Turn and Bank does, so I'm happy with the substitution.
-Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: ***SPAM*** Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
Good Morning Bob,
Sounds good to me except I would strongly suggest the installation of a
classic Turn and Bank Needle. There is no instrument that is more reliable and
it weighs very little. When all else fails, the T&B can easily get you safely
to Mother Earth. Not only that but it is completely non tumbling and can be
used as guidance to recover from a spin.
I am all for using modern solid state equipment. But nothing beats the T&B
for a back-up!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/14/2006 10:34:25 A.M. Central Standard Time,
flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com writes:
Bob,
Yes the BMA/Lite "has" the resolver capability and does display the ILS
"needles" in both the HSI and ADI mode . . . for VOR you would have to be in
HSI mode. I'm not flying yet but it is an analog interface with the
BMA/Lite sending OBS information back to the 430 . . . I assume the
resolving function is done in the 430? and the BMA/Lite displays the to/from
and CDI indication.
I have an AH, TSO'd Altimeter, and AS and VSI for "back-up"
I'm not sure this is all ready for prime time but by the time I'm flying and
have my 40 hours flown off I plan to prove the functionality and reliability
of what I just said!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
Which is exactly why there are zero certified EFIS systems that are
certified as *primary* (in small single engines anyway). The G1000 in my
C182, is specified as secondary, the primary instruments are the AS, AI, ALT
- regular old vacuum driven 3.125" steam gauges... :)
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck
Jensen
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
-->
OK, I can understand that.
I hope you've been following the EFIS discussion on this list. Let me beat
my drum one more time.
These low cost EFIS displays (Pick your favorite) are hypnotic and
compelling, if cross checks start to disagree, the pilot is going to want to
keep on flying that pretty EFIS unless you hit him over the head. We don't
know all their failure modes and their software (with the exception of
Chelton) remains untested to the extent necessary to pass DO 178, their
hardware is not DO 160 certified. That means you're the beta tester. Do you
want to bet your life in that situation? Mark my words, we're going to have
some experimental airplanes equipped with low cost EFIS systems get into
some serious fatal trouble. That body count is going to raise the level of
visibility of this issue with the FAA and soon big brother will be breathing
down our necks.
Low cost, noncertified EFIS system are OK for VFR airplanes. But stay out of
IFR conditions.
Bruce
At the risk of further pounding on this dead horse whose meat is already
well-tenderized, the admonishment to avoid the noncertified EFIS for IFR is
a bit broad (IMHO). I fly with a dual GRT EFIS (this does not give me
redundancy, just contemporary PFD and EIS display) driven by a single AHRS.
For redundancy, I rely on old round AS, Alt and vertical compass and, most
importantly, a Mid-Continent AI with its own internal battery.
Secondary redundancy (but reliant on the same electrical system as the
AHRS/EFIS is a TruTrak A/P which will take me where I want to go as long as
the lights are on.
So, I would concede your proposition with just a bit of technical
modification, "low cost, noncertified EFIS systems are okay for VFR
airplanes but stay out of IFR conditions unless you have a well thought out,
well designed redundant primary flight system." But of course, I would make
the same admonishment for a certified EFIS!
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solder Station |
>
>
>The ones on EBay are most likely from an enterprising set of folks who buy
>them from the big electronics mfg's or repair stations and auction/sell
>them on eBay.
The METCAL soldering tools are the acme of soldering tools.
They're only capable of delivering about 30 watts to the tip
but the WHOLE 30 watts gets out there. The tips are temperature
controlled. Tips are easy to change . . .just seconds even
when hot . . . the cold one is ready us use in under a minute.
Tip sizes range from about .2" flats to .015" points. I can
solder a terminal on a 2AWG wire with the big guy and install
.025" pitch surface mount chips with the other one.
RAC has used nothing but METCAL for about 20 years. I dumped
all of the solder stations in my shop about 6 years ago and
went to METCAL's purchased off Ebay.
Whole stations with power supply, wand, tips and wand holder
will be more expensive. Wands take the most beating so I try
to buy orphaned power supplies (picked up one last week for
$40). I like to get new wands from a distributor (typically
$60) and tips off Ebay (1 to $10 each).
This is an excellent way to acquire what is arguably one
of the most versatile soldering systems out there for well
under $200. I have two on the bench, one in my grab-it-and-
run toolkit and I've purchased perhaps another half dozen
for family members. I've had a couple of power supplies go
TU over the years but they're so inexpensive to replace, I
don't bother to repair them. It's not worth the time. The
supply I bought last week is a "spare".
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-13 questions |
>
>A followup of question (2) from the peanut gallery, Bob...
>
>Could you oversize the fuse in the fuseblock that feeds the 5A OVP CB to
>"guarantee" the breaker pops before the fuse blows? Is there a fuse rating
>that'll provide the same level of hard fault protection as the 22 AWG
>fuselink while still allowing the 5A OVP CB to pop first?
Sure. I did some experiments with the ATC fuses a few years ago.
25A fuses will stay in place upstream of a 5A breaker. 30A
wouldn't hurt anything. You might want to upsize the feeder from
fuse to breaker to maybe 18AWG. But the fusible link makes
so much sense here, I wouldn't recommend it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
Quite often, in discussions like these, we tend to be hardware orientated
and totally overlook the human factors engineering in the systems. With your
dual GRT EFIS you're a step ahead of most. Are you cross checking as part of
your normal scan?
Again, the part of this equation that most worries me is (except in black
screen failures) the time it takes the pilot to realize that something is
seriously wrong, determine the failed instrument, and take corrective
action. In some stages of IFR flight that amount of time will just not be
there. If the ADI rolls inverted at 8,000 feet when you're on top, no
problem. But if you're 300 AGL on the ILS?? This is the main reason for dual
systems/electronic comparator/3rd gyro, to give you a chance to survive when
time is of the essence.
You're free to fly with whatever you want as long as it fits your comfort
level. But when I see builders wanting to charge off into hard IFR with a
BMA, T&B, and ASI, I just got to say - Are you sure you want to do this?
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck
Jensen
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
OK, I can understand that.
I hope you've been following the EFIS discussion on this list. Let me
beat
my drum one more time.
These low cost EFIS displays (Pick your favorite) are hypnotic and
compelling, if cross checks start to disagree, the pilot is going to
want to
keep on flying that pretty EFIS unless you hit him over the head. We
don't
know all their failure modes and their software (with the exception of
Chelton) remains untested to the extent necessary to pass DO 178, their
hardware is not DO 160 certified. That means you're the beta tester. Do
you
want to bet your life in that situation? Mark my words, we're going to
have
some experimental airplanes equipped with low cost EFIS systems get into
some serious fatal trouble. That body count is going to raise the level
of
visibility of this issue with the FAA and soon big brother will be
breathing
down our necks.
Low cost, noncertified EFIS system are OK for VFR airplanes. But stay
out of
IFR conditions.
Bruce
At the risk of further pounding on this dead horse whose meat is already
well-tenderized, the admonishment to avoid the noncertified EFIS for IFR
is a bit broad (IMHO). I fly with a dual GRT EFIS (this does not give
me redundancy, just contemporary PFD and EIS display) driven by a single
AHRS. For redundancy, I rely on old round AS, Alt and vertical compass
and, most importantly, a Mid-Continent AI with its own internal battery.
Secondary redundancy (but reliant on the same electrical system as the
AHRS/EFIS is a TruTrak A/P which will take me where I want to go as long
as the lights are on.
So, I would concede your proposition with just a bit of technical
modification, "low cost, noncertified EFIS systems are okay for VFR
airplanes but stay out of IFR conditions unless you have a well thought
out, well designed redundant primary flight system." But of course, I
would make the same admonishment for a certified EFIS!
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: common grounding |
>
>
>It is important to keep high loads, especially noisy loads, like motors,
>away from the forest of tabs. The #10 wire has some small resistance;
>when you put a noisy high current through it, it will spill over to the
>other equipment. (the high current would cause the tabs to momentarily
>rise above ground)
>I would be comfortable with a 1 foot run of #10 to forest of tabs which
>were used to ground avionics and instruments.
>
>Most noisy loads like motors should ground back at the engine mount.
>Alternatively, you could use a separate remote ground point for all the
>noisy returns in the cockpit, and ground them back through an
>appropriately sized wire to the main ground point.
Not so. The forest of tabs ground block is not a potential
ingress point for noise into other systems that share the
ground. This is what SINGLE POINT GROUNDING is all about.
EVERY grounded article shares the same reference.
Standing in my front yard talking, we would be unaware
of our earth rotation velocity on the order of
1000 mph, our earth orbit velocity on the order of
70,000 mph or the universe expansion velocity of who knows
how much . . . because we're standing on the same hunk
of turf that carries us along together.
Single point electrical system grounds function in the
same manner. It's not essential that the ground system
not move electrically, it IS essential that all systems
sharing the ground be unaware of the movement . . . i.e.
no noise coupled from one system to another in spite of
a great deal of noise being present.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
Good point. I'm going to check with Garmin, Chelton, and Avidyne and get the
certification status of their systems.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan K.
Adamson
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:53 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
Which is exactly why there are zero certified EFIS systems that are
certified as *primary* (in small single engines anyway). The G1000 in my
C182, is specified as secondary, the primary instruments are the AS, AI, ALT
- regular old vacuum driven 3.125" steam gauges... :)
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck
Jensen
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
-->
OK, I can understand that.
I hope you've been following the EFIS discussion on this list. Let me beat
my drum one more time.
These low cost EFIS displays (Pick your favorite) are hypnotic and
compelling, if cross checks start to disagree, the pilot is going to want to
keep on flying that pretty EFIS unless you hit him over the head. We don't
know all their failure modes and their software (with the exception of
Chelton) remains untested to the extent necessary to pass DO 178, their
hardware is not DO 160 certified. That means you're the beta tester. Do you
want to bet your life in that situation? Mark my words, we're going to have
some experimental airplanes equipped with low cost EFIS systems get into
some serious fatal trouble. That body count is going to raise the level of
visibility of this issue with the FAA and soon big brother will be breathing
down our necks.
Low cost, noncertified EFIS system are OK for VFR airplanes. But stay out of
IFR conditions.
Bruce
At the risk of further pounding on this dead horse whose meat is already
well-tenderized, the admonishment to avoid the noncertified EFIS for IFR is
a bit broad (IMHO). I fly with a dual GRT EFIS (this does not give me
redundancy, just contemporary PFD and EIS display) driven by a single AHRS.
For redundancy, I rely on old round AS, Alt and vertical compass and, most
importantly, a Mid-Continent AI with its own internal battery.
Secondary redundancy (but reliant on the same electrical system as the
AHRS/EFIS is a TruTrak A/P which will take me where I want to go as long as
the lights are on.
So, I would concede your proposition with just a bit of technical
modification, "low cost, noncertified EFIS systems are okay for VFR
airplanes but stay out of IFR conditions unless you have a well thought out,
well designed redundant primary flight system." But of course, I would make
the same admonishment for a certified EFIS!
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: common grounding |
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: bob noffs
>To: aeroelectric list
>Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:33 AM
>Subject: common grounding
>
>
>hi all,
> did i miss the answer to the original question because i am also
> interested...''will a 300 mm run of #10 wire to the forest of tabs from
> the grounded firewall create a groundloop? thanks all,
GROUND LOOPS happen for one and one reason only. Two systems,
one a potential victim and one a potential antagonist share
multiple grounds that are NOT tied to each other with
sufficiently low resistance. Noise currents in the antagonist
system influence the victim.
The act of spreading the ground system out as illustrated in
Z-15 does not violate the single point ground concept as long
as all grounds for any one appliance are gathered together at the
same point in the ground system.
For example, we added a panel ground bus to the architecture
at Revision 11. ALL electrowhizzies on panel ground at
this bus for convenience and the bus gets extended to the
firewall on fewer, easier to connect/disconnect wires.
Where do you want to mount the forest of tabs ground block?
What kind of aircraft. Would a panel ground block as illustrated
in chapter 18
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf
be a better choice for remote locating a number of grounds
for convenience while leaving the forest of tabs on the firewall?
We need to know a bit more about your project and what
conditions prompted the idea of moving the ground block
off the firewall.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-13 questions |
FWIW if the alternator is internally regulated and the b lead goes
through a contactor, then the CB can be downsized as it only has to
power the contactor coil instead of supply the field current. I happened
to have a 2 1/2 amp (2.5 amp) CB on hand and it works just fine when fed
off the fuse block through a 10 amp fuse. After many crowbar OVP test
trips, the fuse has never failed. Being picky, I used 18awg wire
downstream of the fuse to insure that the wire doesn't overheat if
shorted, and I'd go to larger wire in accordance with normal practice if
using a larger fuse and a 5 amp breaker. While I used a few fuse links
in other places, it was just very convenient and simple to feed the OV
breaker off a fuse in my bird. A fuse link quickly starts to make more
sense if one is comparing a fuse link and 22 awg wire to a 25 or 30 amp
fuse and substantially heavier wire.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>A followup of question (2) from the peanut gallery, Bob...
>>
>>Could you oversize the fuse in the fuseblock that feeds the 5A OVP CB to
>>"guarantee" the breaker pops before the fuse blows? Is there a fuse rating
>>that'll provide the same level of hard fault protection as the 22 AWG
>>fuselink while still allowing the 5A OVP CB to pop first?
>>
>>
>
> Sure. I did some experiments with the ATC fuses a few years ago.
> 25A fuses will stay in place upstream of a 5A breaker. 30A
> wouldn't hurt anything. You might want to upsize the feeder from
> fuse to breaker to maybe 18AWG. But the fusible link makes
> so much sense here, I wouldn't recommend it.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator b-lead bundled with engine computer |
wiring
Hi Mickey
Well the 1992 Soob manual says the small starter is 1.0 kw and the large
is 1.4 kw and that the small draws 90 amps no load at 11 volts, up to
280 amps while cranking at 8 volts, and up to 800 amps stalled at 5
volts. So I figure 200+ is in the ballpark and since 4awg is a common
welding cable size, that is what I used even though my battery is
reasonably close to the starter. The car used metric gauge wires that
might have been a bit lighter than 4 awg. The larger starter off the
automatic transmission draws up to 380 amps during cranking but you
almost for sure have the smaller one I think.
Ken
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>
>
>>No.6 from the battery to the starter seems a little light for starter
>>currents, though, but if it works .... I am using No.2 up to a firewall
>>pass-through.
>>
>>
>
>It's a geared starter (auto conversion) so it does not require
>as much current as an aviation engine starter. I can't get
>anyone to tell me how much current it will require, for some
>reason, but they keep telling me that #6 is enough.
>
> http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/electrical.htm
>
>I'll probably slap a hall effect sensor on there once I'm
>ready to start the engine, just to satisfy my curiosity.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Butcher" <europa(at)triton.net> |
I'm looking for a lightweight conduit for use in the wing to carry pitot static
tubing and wing tip light wiring - probably 1/2 inch ID. Main purpose is to
allow for future wire replacement after the wing is closed. Best I've seen is
the slit convoluted stuff used in some autos. Anyone got better suggestions?
Jim Butcher
Europa XS N241BW
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fw: common grounding |
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com> |
I guess I disagree with Bob a little on this.
As an analog engineer, I have designed a lot of low-signal systems. The
key to good analog performance is keeping noise out of the analog
system. The way we do that is actually to split the grounds - a quiet
ground where it matters and a noisy (digital) ground where it doesn't.
The key is to keep high currents out of the analog ground, where a high
current will actually create a voltage drop from one end of the ground
to the other. The digital and analog grounds are considered separate
sub-systems which are then tied together at a common grounding point.
So Bob and I are saying the same thing, but different things....
Extending this to airplanes, I plane to keep all my avionics and
instrumentation on a separate forest of tabs. That ground will tie back
to a common point at the battery main lead. Other grounds, like for
starter and servo motors will tie not to the forest of tabs, but to the
main battery single point ground. High currents will not flow over the
1" or so from the forest of tabs to the battery single point. (I am sure
Bob agrees with this too; I doubt he proposes grounding the starter to
the single point forest of tabs.)
Any current in the 1" ground from the forest will cause a voltage rise
V=IR. Given, R is very low. But some analog signals out of sensors are
only 15mV, so any significant current over even a small R can cause
sensor errors. The avionics and instruments going to the field of tabs
will have few amps flowing, keeping the V=IR rise very low. And, other
than keying the transmitter, they will be very stable. I won't have to
deal with a high current motor feeding back and injecting noise into my
ground bus.
For what its worth...
Dan
-----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: Saturday, January 14, 2006 9:16 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Fw: common grounding
>
>
>It is important to keep high loads, especially noisy loads, like
motors,
>away from the forest of tabs. The #10 wire has some small resistance;
>when you put a noisy high current through it, it will spill over to the
>other equipment. (the high current would cause the tabs to momentarily
>rise above ground)
>I would be comfortable with a 1 foot run of #10 to forest of tabs which
>were used to ground avionics and instruments.
>
>Most noisy loads like motors should ground back at the engine mount.
>Alternatively, you could use a separate remote ground point for all the
>noisy returns in the cockpit, and ground them back through an
>appropriately sized wire to the main ground point.
Not so. The forest of tabs ground block is not a potential
ingress point for noise into other systems that share the
ground. This is what SINGLE POINT GROUNDING is all about.
EVERY grounded article shares the same reference.
Standing in my front yard talking, we would be unaware
of our earth rotation velocity on the order of
1000 mph, our earth orbit velocity on the order of
70,000 mph or the universe expansion velocity of who knows
how much . . . because we're standing on the same hunk
of turf that carries us along together.
Single point electrical system grounds function in the
same manner. It's not essential that the ground system
not move electrically, it IS essential that all systems
sharing the ground be unaware of the movement . . . i.e.
no noise coupled from one system to another in spite of
a great deal of noise being present.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Conduit |
Jim,
CPVC water piping. Inexpensive and light.
Richard Dudley
RV-6A flying
Jim Butcher wrote:
>
>I'm looking for a lightweight conduit for use in the wing to carry pitot static
tubing and wing tip light wiring - probably 1/2 inch ID. Main purpose is to
allow for future wire replacement after the wing is closed. Best I've seen is
the slit convoluted stuff used in some autos. Anyone got better suggestions?
>
>Jim Butcher
>Europa XS N241BW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Alan -
Try this link on the BMA board:
http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/talk/showthread.php?t=127
It has the ref and cite for the EAA paper.
As I understand it, you can legally do an IFR ILS or VOR approach using
external VOR/ILS inputs connected to the EFIS/ONE. However, as I read this
thread and understand the BMA EFIS, you cannot use the GPS for anything
other than navigation assistance. Thus, if one wants to navigate and do
approaches IFR using GPS, the box has to meet more stringent criteria. I
have not found the reference yet, but I believe that a WAAS approach using
a GNS 480 has to have an OBS/CDI. We wired our 480 to an MD200-306(?). The
EFIS/ONE cannot provide this because it cannot communicate fully with the
480. The EFIS/ONE is a wonderful piece of equipment and we look forward to
using it. But it is not, in my opinion, a box into which I want to put all
the eggs.
I can't comment on the uncertified Chelton line because I have not
followed or worked with them.
John
>
>
> John, I might be wrong and just went to look on the BMA site. I didn't
> find
> anything specifically, nor did I find it on or searching around the EAA
> site.
>
> Can you post a link? You sure you aren't confusing the issue of using
> the
> BMA with a CNX-480 and the fact that you can't get all the nav signals
> that
> are needed, some most are using an external head?
>
> The link to specifics would help if you could please? I'm curious as
> well
> as I'm going down the road to a chelton panel for a Legacy and want to
> make
> sure I don't mess up. Guys at D2AV say I don't need and external CDI...
>
> Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Good Afternoon Bill.
I hope you are correct, but I have heard rumors that the current crop of
solid state accelerometer based rate sensors do not do well during violent
maneuvering. Supposedly, that is one of the reasons there have been so few
approved for certified use. It is my feeling that I would sooner have a tried
and
true instrument like the T&B for my last ditch backup.
I would hope that some day I will have the confidence to use newer designs,
but meanwhile, I will keep my gyroscopic turn needle. In my current spam
can, I have one electric T&B and one vacuum powered T&B.
However, I guess that is why we call the OBAM aircraft experimental. We are
all free to experiment as we see fit!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/14/2006 10:57:18 A.M. Central Standard Time,
sportav8r(at)aol.com writes:
Exactly what I like about the Trio EZ-Pilot: built-in turn needle and
mechanical inclinometer ball, plus it could fly the plane better than I could
if I
got a kidney stone or a case of the greens. It suffers no more from
electrical system dependency than the ol' Turn and Bank does, so I'm happy with
the
substitution.
-Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Conduit |
----- Original Message -----
>
> I'm looking for a lightweight conduit for use in the wing to carry pitot
> static tubing and wing tip light wiring - probably 1/2 inch ID. Main
> purpose is to allow for future wire replacement after the wing is closed.
> Best I've seen is the slit convoluted stuff used in some autos. Anyone
> got better suggestions?
>
> Jim Butcher
> Europa XS N241BW
>
Check Vans aircraft. That is what RV builders use.
Indiana Larry, RV7
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Hawker battery failure |
I have some preliminary feedback from a teardown inspection
that's being done on the battery we received here last year.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV
There was zero moisture in the battery although the vent
caps were intact meaning that all water had been converted
to steam and exited the cells via the over-pressure vents.
The swelling on the side suggests that the inter-cell
walls became detached from the outside battery wall or
that they stretched. Given that internal pressures are
limited to the cracking value of the valves. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_5.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_6.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_7.jpg
It appears that the cell walls are intact but stretched.
I'm going to see if we can run some tests on those caps
(and on a new battery that hasn't been hot).
This battery was subject to an OV condition for considerable
time and it may be that this damage took several flight
cycles to go this far.
Watch this space.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Conduit |
I used that very cheap milky white semirigid water pipe from the
hardware store. Think it was high density polyethylene. Very easy to
push wires through compared to corrogated stuff. Also more resistant to
vibration as the corrogated stuff is intended to be somewhat flexible. I
was advised to avoid any of the PVC's as they emit nasty toxic fumes and
acids when they get hot or are exposed to flame...
Ken
Jim Butcher wrote:
>
>I'm looking for a lightweight conduit for use in the wing to carry pitot static
tubing and wing tip light wiring - probably 1/2 inch ID. Main purpose is to
allow for future wire replacement after the wing is closed. Best I've seen is
the slit convoluted stuff used in some autos. Anyone got better suggestions?
>
>Jim Butcher
>Europa XS N241BW
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
Ah, ok, now that helps...
Ok, so here is some help. The chelton fully interfaces with the SL-30
(notice I didn't say 480 yet) for resolver info and GS, LOC signals.
Actually it does this via a serial interface. The problem is the 480, which
supposedly uses the same engine as the SL-30, didn't implement the serial
interface the same as the SL-30 and so you can't get all the data to drive
the BMA interface.
You don't technically need an external display, you just need a display that
can give GS and LOC information in an displayable format (could be HSI,
could be HITS, could be up/down, left/right).
Notice I've left alone the conversation about GPS approaches for the moment.
So on an ILS or LOC/VOR approach, the BMA or Chelton can be the only display
if talking to an SL-30. If there is a 480 involved, it most likely needs an
external display due to the limitations of the 480 and it's inability to
provide the signals that the eFIS wants. You actually can do it on the
Chelton, but it requires an expensive ARINC 429 to serial converter.
I'm not going to get into the GPS approach topic. There are a whole set of
issues there. However, if you have a GPS which delivers the right outputs
for either the Chelton or the BMA and it's Approach certified, you don't
technically need the external CDI. There is no requirement that I'm aware
of that specifically requires a TSO'd (don't even think there is a TSO for a
CDI anyway) indicator or switch panel for that matter.
As you can tell, this gets all complicated, and even more so depending on
what radio the EFIS is trying to talk to... But then this isn't an Avionics
forum and I'm not an expert :)
Thanks tho and I'll go read the links you provided.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Schroeder
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
-->
Alan -
Try this link on the BMA board:
http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/talk/showthread.php?t=127
It has the ref and cite for the EAA paper.
As I understand it, you can legally do an IFR ILS or VOR approach using
external VOR/ILS inputs connected to the EFIS/ONE. However, as I read this
thread and understand the BMA EFIS, you cannot use the GPS for anything
other than navigation assistance. Thus, if one wants to navigate and do
approaches IFR using GPS, the box has to meet more stringent criteria. I
have not found the reference yet, but I believe that a WAAS approach using a
GNS 480 has to have an OBS/CDI. We wired our 480 to an MD200-306(?). The
EFIS/ONE cannot provide this because it cannot communicate fully with the
480. The EFIS/ONE is a wonderful piece of equipment and we look forward to
using it. But it is not, in my opinion, a box into which I want to put all
the eggs.
I can't comment on the uncertified Chelton line because I have not followed
or worked with them.
John
>
>
> John, I might be wrong and just went to look on the BMA site. I
> didn't find anything specifically, nor did I find it on or searching
> around the EAA site.
>
> Can you post a link? You sure you aren't confusing the issue of using
> the BMA with a CNX-480 and the fact that you can't get all the nav
> signals that are needed, some most are using an external head?
>
> The link to specifics would help if you could please? I'm curious as
> well as I'm going down the road to a chelton panel for a Legacy and
> want to make sure I don't mess up. Guys at D2AV say I don't need and
> external CDI...
>
> Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Conduit |
The aviation department at your local home depot or lowes has plain tubing
that I have used for everything from wiring conduit in the wings to
pitot/static plumbing.
It's the milky colored stuff.......
Ralph Capen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Butcher" <europa(at)triton.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 1:29 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire Conduit
>
> I'm looking for a lightweight conduit for use in the wing to carry pitot
> static tubing and wing tip light wiring - probably 1/2 inch ID. Main
> purpose is to allow for future wire replacement after the wing is closed.
> Best I've seen is the slit convoluted stuff used in some autos. Anyone
> got better suggestions?
>
> Jim Butcher
> Europa XS N241BW
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | KI208/209 not in agreement |
Hi all,
I have 2 indicators - KI209 and KI208. Sometimes the CDI difference between
the two, when set on the same OBS, is more than 4 degrees. Does anyone know
how to get them to agree? Is this done from the radios or the indicator?
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
Ditton on the Metcals. That's all we use in our shop as well - and we
learned this from the airline days. The R&E shops at the airlines had these
and we liked them, so we procured some for our own use when I set up my own
shop. They are lightning fast to heat up, will work on everything from hair
thin wires to larger gauges and multiples. After you use one you'll never
go back! Ours too mostly come off of Ebay!
Cheers,
Stein.
-----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: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Solder Station
>
>
>The ones on EBay are most likely from an enterprising set of folks who buy
>them from the big electronics mfg's or repair stations and auction/sell
>them on eBay.
The METCAL soldering tools are the acme of soldering tools.
They're only capable of delivering about 30 watts to the tip
but the WHOLE 30 watts gets out there. The tips are temperature
controlled. Tips are easy to change . . .just seconds even
when hot . . . the cold one is ready us use in under a minute.
Tip sizes range from about .2" flats to .015" points. I can
solder a terminal on a 2AWG wire with the big guy and install
.025" pitch surface mount chips with the other one.
RAC has used nothing but METCAL for about 20 years. I dumped
all of the solder stations in my shop about 6 years ago and
went to METCAL's purchased off Ebay.
Whole stations with power supply, wand, tips and wand holder
will be more expensive. Wands take the most beating so I try
to buy orphaned power supplies (picked up one last week for
$40). I like to get new wands from a distributor (typically
$60) and tips off Ebay (1 to $10 each).
This is an excellent way to acquire what is arguably one
of the most versatile soldering systems out there for well
under $200. I have two on the bench, one in my grab-it-and-
run toolkit and I've purchased perhaps another half dozen
for family members. I've had a couple of power supplies go
TU over the years but they're so inexpensive to replace, I
don't bother to repair them. It's not worth the time. The
supply I bought last week is a "spare".
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Conduit |
hi jim,
i know you wont get lighter than this. the 8' plastic tubes that make
fluorescent tubes explosion proof. they even have a plastic fitting on each
end that makes mounting slick. i used one in my plane. they cut easy and
can be spliced with pieces cut from an unused tube. they may not be stiff
enough for your needs but were perfect for me.
bob noffs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley(at)att.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Conduit
>
> Jim,
> CPVC water piping. Inexpensive and light.
>
> Richard Dudley
> RV-6A flying
>
> Jim Butcher wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm looking for a lightweight conduit for use in the wing to carry pitot
>>static tubing and wing tip light wiring - probably 1/2 inch ID. Main
>>purpose is to allow for future wire replacement after the wing is closed.
>>Best I've seen is the slit convoluted stuff used in some autos. Anyone
>>got better suggestions?
>>
>>Jim Butcher
>>Europa XS N241BW
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | need some advice here, guys- alternator for RV |
Armed with info gleaned from the AeroElectric list and elsewhere on the web, I
went alternator-shopping at the local auto parts stores today, to see how close
I could get to the recommended 70 A machine that goes by part number Lester
13353 or NipponDenso 121000-346. If I had not had the additional tidbit that
it fits a '93 Dodge Ramcharger 5.2 liter pickup, I think the parts counter clerks
would have been helpless to assist me. The choices that came up "in stock"
were limited to one: the Dodge's optional 90 amp externally-regulated machine
(reman) with a serpentine pulley, in a 125mm case. My quest for a VR-166 Ford
regulator also ended with a substitute, the Sorensen VR-301.
The alternator comes with its own computer-generated test output graph and data
table, indicating it is capable of 126 amps at 6000 rpm, and draws 5.72 amps
of field current at that output. It seems to weigh about 11 lbs on the bathroom
scales. Already I'm thinking this might be more of a fire-breathing machine
than I should bolt to my RV, even if it's a physical fit, which I think it will
be. I'm not sure the electronic regulator will necessarily "handle" it, but
not sure why it wouldn't. I don't need anywhere near the output this alternator
is capable of, and I don't want my 5 amp field breaker nuisance-tripping
because the field happens to want near that amount (no idea how linear the field
current vs output curve might be, so no way to know field current at closer
to 50-60 amps, for example.)
Finally, I'm unsure how easily the V-pulley from my original Van's 35 A machine
will slip onto the shaft of the new alternator. Any takers on that one? When
I make the swap, I'd like to have everything go smoothly with a minimum of downtime.
Basically, I'd like some reassurance that this is worth trying. I can
always take it back and order the Dodge 70 amp alternator; same physical size,
and ironically more money.
Advice appreciated, friends. Thanks.
-Bill Boyd RV-6A O-320 FP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin And Ann Klinefelter <kevann(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Conduit |
check out drip irrigation tubing. lightweight, black plastic. cheap too
Kevin
Jim Butcher wrote:
>
>I'm looking for a lightweight conduit for use in the wing to carry pitot static
tubing and wing tip light wiring - probably 1/2 inch ID. Main purpose is to
allow for future wire replacement after the wing is closed. Best I've seen is
the slit convoluted stuff used in some autos. Anyone got better suggestions?
>
>Jim Butcher
>Europa XS N241BW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | GPS CDI (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Bob,
>
> Do you intend to use the 430 IFR or VFR?
>
> Do you want to execute full ILS approaches?
A set of ILS needles is required for this. This does not need to be a
TSO display tho. You do not need TSO on any of the avionics except for
the IFR-certified GPS.
> For VFR, there is no question that a CDI is not needed.
>
> For IFR, things get a bit stickier. Beyond that, it makes a difference if
> the aircraft is experimental or normal category.
As I interpret TSO-129.whatever (for IFR GPS), the doc states that there
must be a CDI in the normal visual scan of the pilot. I would consider
the CDI display on the unit when mounted in a center-stack for radios to
be within the pilot's normal visual scan. This therefore does not
require a separate CDI.
OTOH, some inspectors at the FSDO did insist on one. I don't think that
TSO for it is required so something like the BM EFIS-1 should suffice.
Again, my interpretation.
Also, as I recall, didn't they change the requirements for installing an
IFR GPS such that it no longer requires a sign-off by and inspector at
the FSDO?
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: KI208/209 not in agreement |
rd2(at)evenlink.com wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I have 2 indicators - KI209 and KI208. Sometimes the CDI difference between
> the two, when set on the same OBS, is more than 4 degrees. Does anyone know
> how to get them to agree? Is this done from the radios or the indicator?
The KI-208 and KI-209 contain the VOR/LOC converter. Adjustments are
accomplished inside the indicator, not in the radio. GS adjustments are
inside the radio as the GS converter is part of the GS module in the radio.
The KX-165 has the internal VOR/LOC converter. The KX-155 does not.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Bruce Gray wrote:
> problem. But if you're 300 AGL on the ILS?? This is the main reason for dual
> systems/electronic comparator/3rd gyro, to give you a chance to survive when
> time is of the essence.
>
> You're free to fly with whatever you want as long as it fits your comfort
> level. But when I see builders wanting to charge off into hard IFR with a
> BMA, T&B, and ASI, I just got to say - Are you sure you want to do this?
I regularly fly to 200' with a vacuum-powered AI, HI, and an electric
T&SI. OK, I have a standby vacuum source. Frankly, a backup AI makes a
lot more sense to me than a T&SI but that is not the way most GA
aircraft are equipped.
The current crop of electronic PFDs should be more reliable than iron
gyros. And as for visually/mentally comparing two displays, you should
know what the airplane is doing and can tell which display makes sense
and which doesn't. You probably don't need to immediately react if you
don't have an airspeed trend or a VSI trend.
Also remember that without a third AHRS your comparator doesn't know
which one is bad and which is good. It only knows they disagree.
BTW, most AI's fail slowly. You know they are going long before they
finally fail. I did experience one catastrophic failure of an AI tho'. I
had one where the bearings failed and allowed the rotor to depart the
gimbals. The "bang" was so loud I thought the engine had thrown a rod.
But the engine kept running and the AI display began a very interesting
'dance of death'. Fortunately I was VFR at the time.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Need some advice here, guys- alternator for RV |
I am very interested in helping you fit the Lester 13353, ND
alternator. I'm helping another RV-6'er in using this or another
high powered ND unit just like it.
>It seems (Lester 13353) to weigh about 11 lbs on the
>bathroom scales. Already I'm thinking this might be more of
>a fire-breathing machine than I should bolt to my RV, even if
>it's a physical fit, which I think it will be. (MAY BE)
That is up to you. WHAT do you NEED? If you need it you
need it. Add up all your items that could be on continuously
with (realistic) intermediate items as a worse case and add
about 25% to 55% margin to that and that is a good ball park
of the alternator capacity you need.
Basically you are looking at typically 6.8 to 9.0 amps per lb.
The lightest ND alternator is the 40-45 amp alternator at about
6 lbs. (popular with RV'ers, like me). The next popular is a 55
amp unit and weighs about a lb more. Than there's the 60 amp
unit that, that weighs about 8.5 lbs, also popular with the
RV'ers. They are all compact and have been fit on RV's many
times with ease. They also come with V-groove pulleys out the
box.
The weights of larger ND alternators are about 11-12 lbs with
output of 75-140 amps (like the Lester 13353). It will likely
fit, but you MAY need to make your own bracket (a stock
Lycoming alternator bracket may work). You will need to
remove the pulley serpentine pulley and replace it with a V-
grove pulley. The ND alternators with external regulators (like
the 13353) are typically for a Dodge application in the late 90's
early 00's and has a mounting flange or lugs that are about .70"
further out than the next physical size down. I think it will fit. I
am working with a guy in Arizona who needs 80 amps on a RV
and we are looking at this unit or a 90 amp unit with internal
regulator. The later unit has a tighter mount fitting lug and is
know to fit. The 90 amp weighs about the same as what you are
looking at.
Now here is the question, would you rather have a 40-45 amp
or 55 amps or 60 amps that will bolt up using Van's brackets
and has the V-pulley already? Is that enough power for you?
If you want the 40-45 amp, that is harder to buy at auto stores
because they are for industrial applications, forklifts and
tractors. They don't usually have Lester #'s. The advantage of
getting these units is they are made NEW from Nipponndenso
with all genuine ND parts, verses rebuilds. I suggest the
Niagara Air parts kit. It has everything, brackets, hardware and
of course a new ND alternator. Only you know if that will
work. If you add up all your load, as suggested and you are
under 30-33 amps you will be fine. It's internally regulated.
If you want the 55 amp unit, try Lester numbers: 14684, 12184
(available at auto stores).
If you want a 60 amp alternator: Lester # 14457, 14668 13398,
13492 (available at auto stores)
The only thing is all of the above alternators, 40-60 amp units,
are all internally regulated, vs. the 13353 which is for external
Voltage regulation.
>My quest for a VR-166 Ford regulator also ended with a
>substitute, the Sorensen VR-301. I'm not sure the electronic
>regulator will necessarily "handle" it, but not sure why it
>wouldn't.............because the field happens to want near that
>amount (no idea how linear the field current vs. output curve
>might be, so no way to know field current at closer
If you do decide to go with the external Voltage regulation,
here is a better FORD regulator, V1200 or V1300:
http://195.125.241.148/Catalog/Images/V1200.jpg
Voltage Set Point: 14.2 V (adjustable)
Regulation: B-Circuit
-Voyager Series Regulator
-Adjustable Voltage (13.0-16.0 Volts)
-Precise Digital Regulation (digital!!!!)
-Short Circuit Protected
-High Current Capability
-Over Voltage protection!!!!!!!!!
-Ignition or Light circuit activated with High Side Reg
-Protected Against Loss of Ground and Under Voltage
-LED'S for Easy Troubleshooting
-Fault Detection Indicators
Cost? I think less than $80!!!!!
http://195.125.241.148/Catalog/Images/V1200.jpg
If you have any problems finding the above or have question
Contact me off line. Try me at gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com.
George
---------------------------------
Photo Books. You design it and well bind it!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary K" <garyk2(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Conduit |
the cheapest and lightest i've ever seen is shower curtain rod wrap. it's a
very thin and light adjustable diameter tube (about 1") that is slit down
the length. they were a $1 last i saw, in maybe 5' length.
gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Butcher" <europa(at)triton.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:29 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire Conduit
>
> I'm looking for a lightweight conduit for use in the wing to carry pitot
> static tubing and wing tip light wiring - probably 1/2 inch ID. Main
> purpose is to allow for future wire replacement after the wing is closed.
> Best I've seen is the slit convoluted stuff used in some autos. Anyone
> got better suggestions?
>
> Jim Butcher
> Europa XS N241BW
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wire Conduit |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Jim,
Try going to the local builders supply and getting a roll of
sprinkler supply tubing. Mine is black and the wall is thin and light.
I'm using it to run to the wing tips for lighting and pitot tubing. If
you need to make a break in the middle do it at an inspection plate.
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
Hi Harley,
I appreciated you meeting and opening up your hangar. For my standards,
it was Surely COLD!!
OK it was just a little snow.
The new Engine Management System, "Auracle" is progressing very well. I
should have the unit
Installed sometime in February, and will be at Sun n Fun with the plane,
for everyone to see.
It is an Amazing, Very well thought out system to view and keep track of
all your vital engine
functions. The display is incredibly bright in the direct sunlight,
which all of Rutan Eze drivers
will enjoy. I can't Wait to fly with it.
Mitchell Goodrich
N60P VariEze
Tampa, FL
813-356-9758
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
> > CPVC water piping. Inexpensive and light.
For what I feel is a better alternative, try:
http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=USPlastic&catego
ry%5Fname=78&product%5Fid=4905
If that doesn't work, go to www.usplastic.com and search for Tenite Butyrate
tubing.
It is the thinnest wall rigid tubing I've found, and it is available in many
sizes.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 704 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Good Morning George,
Another reason to keep a standard old fashioned, needle type, Turn and Bank
instrument on the panel. It is the cheapest reliable instrument that can be
purchased by most of us.
I hope to be able to move to glass when it is proven, but, in the meantime,
when I am IFR, I want something reliable to fall back on. I know that many
folks are promoting an artificial horizon for such back up duty. They are MUCH
more expensive, heavier, and for the ones in our price range, less reliable.
Just because it is ancient doesn't make it bad.
I have no data, but it seems the incidence of loss of control accidents has
increased drastically in the days since the use of the T&B has been
de-emphasized.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/15/2006 8:18:24 A.M. Central Standard Time,
gwbraly(at)gami.com writes:
There are persistent reports that some of the certified "five tube"
Honeywell displays in one of the high end turbo props are going "dark" -
- simultaneously. One pilot reported three such events on different
trips over a period of months, for which he was present, and two other
events in the same airframe when others were flying.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Jim-
Re: I'm looking for a lightweight conduit...probably 1/2 inch ID...Best
I've seen is
the slit convoluted stuff...Anyone got better suggestions?
Van's aircraft sells the same stuff, only without being slit. IIRC, it is
about 7/8 dia. When I installed mine, I took a handy scrap of 3/8 dowel
about 2 inches long, rounded it's shoulders, drilled a transverse hole
through it, and tied a length of heavy kite string to it. The string is
just over double the length of the conduit. I used my blow gun to launch
the dowel segment down the conduit. I had reservations about the dowel
passing through the corrugated, ill fitting, flexible (read: not quite
straight) tube, but figured worst case, I could pull it back out with the
string.
Well. The dowel, with the string in tow, shot through the conduit, out
the other end, across the shop, and bounced off the far wall. For the
second attempt, I held the free end of the string ; - ) and all was well.
I then installed another toggle / dowel on the free end of the string.
This allows me to tape a wire to the string near it's mid point and pull it
through the conduit. I plan to leave the strings and toggles in the
various conduits for future use as fish tapes.
Perhaps not a perfectly elegant solution, but entirely effective and of
negligible weight!
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <psiegel(at)fuse.net> |
The concept of "light IFR" should be put to rest once and for all.
Once you fly into the clouds, the distinction of light or heavy IFR is GONE! IMC
is IMC! (Let's not even consider ice and/or thunderstorms for this discussion.)
Once IMC, you are essentially at the mercy of the controllers from that point
on!
When in IMC, you better plan on the possibility AND be prepared for any eventuality
including an ILS approach down to minimums! Design you panel accordingly!
Consider radios and an autopilot to which you can literally trust you life!
Why do I feel so strongly about this? One flight in my log book stands out: I
was making a trip from Cincinnati Lunken to Detroit City Airport. Because my
light twin was in for maintenance, I decided to make the trip in my Long EZ.
Detroit was supposed to be marginal VFR. To be conservative I filed an IFR
flight plan (with the concept of "light IFR" in mind.) Got into the soup over
Dayton and never saw the ground again until after one missed and finally a second
successful approach close to minimums into Detroit. The concept of "kissing
the ground" upon deplaning took on a whole new meaning after that experience!
PLEASE keep this in mind when designing your panel!
Paul Siegel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solder Station & Solder vs Crimp |
Hi guys
I took a quick look at Metcals online. Looks like there are quite a number
of models available. What do you recommend? As a sub-question, I wonder if
one is better off crimping connections or soldering. Where do you use which?
I have always thought of soldered joints as more electrically reliable.
However, there is a stiff part where the solder runs up the wire. That would
seem to be more prone to vibrational damage than a properly crimped joint.
Thoughts?
Michael Wynn
RV 8
San Ramon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator for RV |
>
>Armed with info gleaned from the AeroElectric list and elsewhere on the
>web, I went alternator-shopping at the local auto parts stores today, to
>see how close I could get to the recommended 70 A machine that goes by
>part number Lester 13353 or NipponDenso 121000-346. If I had not had the
>additional tidbit that it fits a '93 Dodge Ramcharger 5.2 liter pickup, I
>think the parts counter clerks would have been helpless to assist me. The
>choices that came up "in stock" were limited to one: the Dodge's optional
>90 amp externally-regulated machine (reman) with a serpentine pulley, in a
>125mm case. My quest for a VR-166 Ford regulator also ended with a
>substitute, the Sorensen VR-301.
>
>The alternator comes with its own computer-generated test output graph and
>data table, indicating it is capable of 126 amps at 6000 rpm, and draws
>5.72 amps of field current at that output.
The plain-vanilla regulators are generally set up
for 3A fields. I don't know if VR-166 style regulators
will handle this load but it would be easy to test for.
Since they're switching regulators, the added heat dissipation
may well be within SOME regulator's capabilities but some
caution is called for.
> It seems to weigh about 11 lbs on the bathroom scales. Already I'm
> thinking this might be more of a fire-breathing machine than I should
> bolt to my RV, even if it's a physical fit, which I think it will
> be. I'm not sure the electronic regulator will necessarily "handle" it,
> but not sure why it wouldn't. I don't need anywhere near the output this
> alternator is capable of, and I don't want my 5 amp field breaker
> nuisance-tripping because the field happens to want near that amount (no
> idea how linear the field current vs output curve might be, so no way to
> know field current at closer to 50-60 amps, for example.)
>
>Finally, I'm unsure how easily the V-pulley from my original Van's 35 A
>machine will slip onto the shaft of the new alternator. Any takers on
>that one? When I make the swap, I'd like to have everything go smoothly
>with a minimum of downtime. Basically, I'd like some reassurance that
>this is worth trying. I can always take it back and order the Dodge 70
>amp alternator; same physical size, and ironically more money.
The question that comes to mind is do you NEED that
much snort? There are tens of thousands of certified
singles flying around with 60A alternators that are
greatly oversized to the task . . . not too big a deal
if volume driven cost is the decision driver (Cessna
used the same alternator on C150 through C210 for
a period of time).
However, if size and weight are drivers, then there
are lighter and less expensive alternatives that
may well provide all the snort you need. Better yet,
they're easier to find and there's a variety of
sources for mounting brackets that will fit your engine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce McGregor" <bruceflys(at)comcast.net> |
AC 20-138A, Airworthiness Approval Of Global Navigation Satellite System
Equipment, sets the requirements for IFR GPS units. Para 18d , Navigation
Display,. requires that the horizontal and vertical deviation display(s) and
failure annunciation be within the pilot's primary field of view. Primary
field is defined as within 15 degrees of straight ahead of the pilot. Other
displays may be anywhere from the airspeed indicator on the left in a
standard six pack to and including an avionics center stack on the right.
One method of compliance is to place an IFR GPS receiver that displays
CDI/VDI, such as the GNS 480, within the primary field of view and eliminate
the requirement for an external display. The geometry of my GlaStar gives a
12" wide zone in the panel for the GPS' display. Placing a Dynon or GRT PFD
above or below the GPS would result in a lot of flight/navigation info
directly
in front of the pilot.
Regards, Bruce McGregor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Prather <mprather(at)spro.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solder Station & Solder vs Crimp |
The issue of crimp or solder has been discussed at length on this list
in the past. If you are interested, I recommend a perusal of the
archives. The short answer is that either technology can be used
successfully, with few exceptions, as long as it is done in a
craftsmanlike manner. Both technologies require the use of appropriate
strain relief, and physical support against vibrational damage. In
general, if wire leading to a hardpoint (be it a crimped, or soldered
joint, or some other rigid, constraining interface) is allowed to wiggle
around, work hardening of the conductor will take place, and that will
lead to broken wire.
Regards,
Matt-
MLWynn(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Hi guys
>
>I took a quick look at Metcals online. Looks like there are quite a number
>of models available. What do you recommend? As a sub-question, I wonder if
>one is better off crimping connections or soldering. Where do you use which?
>
>I have always thought of soldered joints as more electrically reliable.
>However, there is a stiff part where the solder runs up the wire. That would
>seem to be more prone to vibrational damage than a properly crimped joint.
>Thoughts?
>
>Michael Wynn
>RV 8
>San Ramon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: "Light" IFR??? |
At 08:24 AM 1/15/06, you wrote:
>
>The concept of "light IFR" should be put to rest once and for all.
>
>Once you fly into the clouds, the distinction of light or heavy IFR
>is GONE! IMC is IMC! (Let's not even consider ice and/or
>thunderstorms for this discussion.)
In southern California airports close to the coast - like Santa
Monica, Torrance, Long Beach, Orange County, Palomar, Oxnard, Santa
Barbara - get "early morning and late night overcast." It's a pretty
thin layer, 2 to 500 feet thick, that can last till early
afternoon. It extends some mile inland. And it sits. It's stable,
it doesn't change quickly or much. It burns off fairly predictably.
If you can't get through it sometimes you'll sit on the ground from
March till July.
It's what I consider light IMC. No rain, no fog, just 30 seconds on
instruments. If I'm flying back in and it deteriorates, I divert
inland where - 5 miles away - it's 20 miles vis and clear.
I understand that in the midwest it's another thing altogether,
things change quickly. But in my climate, light IFR is a reality.
OTOH, my idea of a panel for light IFR is a Bluemountain EFIS 1,
Garmin 480, EHSI, and backup electric AI and T&S, airspeed and altitude.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solder Station & Solder vs Crimp |
>
>Hi guys
>
>I took a quick look at Metcals online. Looks like there are quite a number
>of models available. What do you recommend?
Cheap ones. Buy off Ebay . . . See Ebay items:
7579854071
7580532665
7580702004
and others under "metcal" search term
> As a sub-question, I wonder if
>one is better off crimping connections or soldering. Where do you use which?
They are for all practical purposes interchangeable
technologies. One is more expensive and less process
sensitive but either can produce long-lived joints.
>
>I have always thought of soldered joints as more electrically reliable.
>However, there is a stiff part where the solder runs up the wire. That
>would
>seem to be more prone to vibrational damage than a properly crimped joint.
>Thoughts?
Much of what's circulated as fact is indeed myth. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/big_term.pdf
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Malcolm Thomson" <mthomson(at)showmeproductions.com> |
Has anyone made up a wirebook which incorporate the wiring for a Jabiru
3300? Would you be willing to email to me? Looking for some ideas and
specifically how to handle the built in alternator. The engine comes with a
"Kubato RP201-53710" voltage reg and I can't find any spec on this regulator
and not sure if it has OV protection etc. The alternator has two white
wires coming out it that connects to the voltage reg. Any info on the Kubato
reg or alternatives would be great.
Thanks for the help.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
That must be a confidence building experience.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of George
Braly
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:20 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
There are persistent reports that some of the certified "five tube"
Honeywell displays in one of the high end turbo props are going "dark" -
- simultaneously. One pilot reported three such events on different
trips over a period of months, for which he was present, and two other
events in the same airframe when others were flying.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dimmer circuit for +12v switched items |
| From: | adam(at)validationpartners.com |
Some circuits, such as the two-speed boost pump and voltage regulator
power are switched to +12v rather than ground. In these cases, you can
have an indicator bulb, but you can't connect it to the dimmer bus. How do
you handle this situation?
Thanks,
Adam Molny
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | irampil(at)notes.cc.sunysb.edu |
Greg,
I have been flying with a Blue Mountain E/1 for almost two years.
In that time the software has received major feature upgrades nearly
every quarter, all free after purchase. Only recently, and only because
they switched to Jeppeson who insisted, has BMA begun enforcing the
subscription payment for database updates.
I have always found the company easy to deal with and very
straightforward.
While it seems a few shipped systems had bugs, most of what one see
complaints
about on their unmoderated Board concerns builders or installers who have
trouble with the sometimes telegraphically brief install manuals or with
poor grounding discipline in their wiring harnesses.
I have a great deal of respect for both Bob N. and Greg R. My A/C wiring
is a slightly modified version of Bob's All-Electric, including a LVBM
module controlling the power to the EFIS. In my opinion, Greg made some
good points in his treatise on electrical system design also. We can all
learn from looking at both. Like Bob said, you should infer nothing
about Greg's company business practices from their design flap.
You should probably wander around SnF or Oshkosh and do some of your
own assessment of the people and equipment involved. Its a very personal
choice.
Ira N224XS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Dimmer circuit for +12v switched items |
Handle the indicator bulb by switching the ground of the bulb to the dimmer.
This can be quite useful. I switch the grounds of the bulbs into and out of
my dimmers with a double pole instrument light switch. Hi intensity when
switch off (daylight), switched to dimmer when on (night time).
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
adam(at)validationpartners.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:37 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dimmer circuit for +12v switched items
Some circuits, such as the two-speed boost pump and voltage regulator
power are switched to +12v rather than ground. In these cases, you can
have an indicator bulb, but you can't connect it to the dimmer bus. How do
you handle this situation?
Thanks,
Adam Molny
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dimmer circuit for +12v switched items |
This is a common problem. At this web site
http://vx-aviation.com/page_2.html, you'll see a product called the
IL-4A that solves this problem by converting all positively switches
circuits to ground-switched, thus allowing for simple dimming.
The schematic is published in the datasheet, so you can either make your
own or buy the one I offer.
Vern Little
Bruce Gray wrote:
>
>Handle the indicator bulb by switching the ground of the bulb to the dimmer.
>This can be quite useful. I switch the grounds of the bulbs into and out of
>my dimmers with a double pole instrument light switch. Hi intensity when
>switch off (daylight), switched to dimmer when on (night time).
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>adam(at)validationpartners.com
>Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:37 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dimmer circuit for +12v switched items
>
>
>Some circuits, such as the two-speed boost pump and voltage regulator
>power are switched to +12v rather than ground. In these cases, you can
>have an indicator bulb, but you can't connect it to the dimmer bus. How do
>you handle this situation?
>
>Thanks,
>Adam Molny
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Formation Attenuator |
Howdy A-list-
FYI, tested initial install of Bob's attenuator switch/circuit and pleased to
report it works as advertised on my Microair 760 (check archives for recent
"attenuator" posts if not familiar). I originally installed a 680 ohm resistor
for the "choke" (for lack of better name) and got close to two different
planes today. A definate improvement on close reception when switched on, but
still a bit garbled- will try with a 1.5K resistor next to see if better and will
report...
Mark Phillips N51PW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
Bob,
I do not agree with what you have to say about the T&B vs. a back up
attitude indicator. Yes it costs more and may weigh a few ounces more,
but what is your life worth. As far as reliability, the back up
attitude indicator isn't the problem with failure. The vacuum system
that most people use to power it is the common point of failure. It is
my 25+ years of active flying and teaching that supports my position
that the average general aviation pilot can not fly needle and ball well
enough to stake their life on it. As far as when will "glass prove"
itself. Well I have been flying behind glass since 1988 and have not
had an undetectable failure yet. When glass fails (very uncommon
compared to the old fashioned stuff.) it quits, no slow roll over or
false info. Now I'll admit that some of these new cheap EFIS system may
not offer the same level of fault protection as the higher priced stuff
I normally use. But I would bet the newer EFIS systems are better then
the 1960 Edo air attitude indicator found in most old Pipers and
Cessnas.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
Good Morning George,
Another reason to keep a standard old fashioned, needle type, Turn and
Bank
instrument on the panel. It is the cheapest reliable instrument that
can be
purchased by most of us.
I hope to be able to move to glass when it is proven, but, in the
meantime,
when I am IFR, I want something reliable to fall back on. I know that
many
folks are promoting an artificial horizon for such back up duty. They
are MUCH
more expensive, heavier, and for the ones in our price range, less
reliable.
Just because it is ancient doesn't make it bad.
I have no data, but it seems the incidence of loss of control accidents
has
increased drastically in the days since the use of the T&B has been
de-emphasized.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/15/2006 8:18:24 A.M. Central Standard Time,
gwbraly(at)gami.com writes:
There are persistent reports that some of the certified "five tube"
Honeywell displays in one of the high end turbo props are going "dark"
-
- simultaneously. One pilot reported three such events on different
trips over a period of months, for which he was present, and two other
events in the same airframe when others were flying.
--
1/14/2006
--
1/14/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | GPS CDI (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
The BM EFIS-1 has a CDI display built into it, therefore a second one is
not required.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:01 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GPS CDI (was: EFIS Comparisons)
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Bob,
>
> Do you intend to use the 430 IFR or VFR?
>
> Do you want to execute full ILS approaches?
A set of ILS needles is required for this. This does not need to be a
TSO display tho. You do not need TSO on any of the avionics except for
the IFR-certified GPS.
> For VFR, there is no question that a CDI is not needed.
>
> For IFR, things get a bit stickier. Beyond that, it makes a
difference if
> the aircraft is experimental or normal category.
As I interpret TSO-129.whatever (for IFR GPS), the doc states that there
must be a CDI in the normal visual scan of the pilot. I would consider
the CDI display on the unit when mounted in a center-stack for radios to
be within the pilot's normal visual scan. This therefore does not
require a separate CDI.
OTOH, some inspectors at the FSDO did insist on one. I don't think that
TSO for it is required so something like the BM EFIS-1 should suffice.
Again, my interpretation.
Also, as I recall, didn't they change the requirements for installing an
IFR GPS such that it no longer requires a sign-off by and inspector at
the FSDO?
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
--
1/12/2006
--
1/14/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
AC 20-138A is not regulatory for experimental aircraft unless You
incorporated this into your limitations.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
McGregor
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:05 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS Display
AC 20-138A, Airworthiness Approval Of Global Navigation Satellite
System
Equipment, sets the requirements for IFR GPS units. Para 18d ,
Navigation
Display,. requires that the horizontal and vertical deviation display(s)
and
failure annunciation be within the pilot's primary field of view.
Primary
field is defined as within 15 degrees of straight ahead of the pilot.
Other
displays may be anywhere from the airspeed indicator on the left in a
standard six pack to and including an avionics center stack on the
right.
One method of compliance is to place an IFR GPS receiver that displays
CDI/VDI, such as the GNS 480, within the primary field of view and
eliminate
the requirement for an external display. The geometry of my GlaStar
gives a
12" wide zone in the panel for the GPS' display. Placing a Dynon or GRT
PFD
above or below the GPS would result in a lot of flight/navigation info
directly
in front of the pilot.
Regards, Bruce McGregor
--
1/14/2006
--
1/14/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Instrument install/annunciator lights |
Those who have been here already...when you put the steam gauges in your
panel, how do you fit the ones with the knobs sticking out of one corner?
For the (United Instruments) altimeter it looks like I won't have a choice
and will have to hog out some of the corner of the panel where the knob goes
(big bump in the case under the knob). However, for the MD200 OBS (VOR/ILS
indicator) and the 2 inch G meter (Falcon Gauge) the knobs have small posts
that would likely fit through the screw hole if the knob were removed before
installing the gauge. Can the knobs on these gauges be removed prior to
installing the gauge and then re-attached afterwords? Or am I just going to
have to make a small slot between the cutout and the screw hole? Also, what
exactly is the bit size used to drill these screw holes? #6 screws???
Annunciator lights, I'd like to find some square ones with the colored
plastic and engraved text that shows what subsystem is having a problem
(commercial airline pilots know them well). I have had some great input
from an RV-6A pilot who rolled his own. I've perused the web quite a while
and haven't found much that might work for my application (mostly round
lampholders with colored lenses but you couldn't really engrave them with
text like I'm wanting). Any suggestions on this one? The only other option
I can see is to use the round lampholders and have engraved text underneath
each one with the subsystem being annunciated. Not the optimum solution but
given what I've found so far, looking more and more viable all the time
(probably simpler and quicker too). Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Gonna fly this spring!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Hidden till needed annunciator lights? |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Anyone know how to make or where to buy hidden till needed annunciator
lights?
My car has a row on the bottom of panel that is black and uniform, until
something is illuminated. Upon turning on ignition switch, all illuminate
as a test.
Better yet if one were to reverse label could it be installed as a heads
up display?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS Display |
I'll leave the question as to whether AC 20-138A is regulatory or not
to those who know the US regs better than I.
But, just because something may be legal doesn't mean it is a good
idea. If your installation does not match up against AC 20-138A,
then I strongly recommend you should not fly IMC based on the GPS, on
approach, or lower than 1000 ft above any obstacles in the enroute
and terminal phases of flight.
Kevin Horton
On 15 Jan 2006, at 23:35, Mike wrote:
>
> AC 20-138A is not regulatory for experimental aircraft unless You
> incorporated this into your limitations.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Bruce
> McGregor
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:05 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS Display
>
>
>
> AC 20-138A, Airworthiness Approval Of Global Navigation Satellite
> System
> Equipment, sets the requirements for IFR GPS units. Para 18d ,
> Navigation
> Display,. requires that the horizontal and vertical deviation
> display(s)
> and
> failure annunciation be within the pilot's primary field of view.
> Primary
> field is defined as within 15 degrees of straight ahead of the pilot.
> Other
> displays may be anywhere from the airspeed indicator on the left in a
> standard six pack to and including an avionics center stack on the
> right.
>
> One method of compliance is to place an IFR GPS receiver that displays
> CDI/VDI, such as the GNS 480, within the primary field of view and
> eliminate
> the requirement for an external display. The geometry of my GlaStar
> gives a
> 12" wide zone in the panel for the GPS' display. Placing a Dynon
> or GRT
> PFD
> above or below the GPS would result in a lot of flight/navigation info
> directly
> in front of the pilot.
>
> Regards, Bruce McGregor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights |
On 16 Jan 2006, at 24:52, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>
>
> Those who have been here already...when you put the steam gauges in
> your
> panel, how do you fit the ones with the knobs sticking out of one
> corner?
> For the (United Instruments) altimeter it looks like I won't have a
> choice
> and will have to hog out some of the corner of the panel where the
> knob goes
> (big bump in the case under the knob). However, for the MD200 OBS
> (VOR/ILS
> indicator) and the 2 inch G meter (Falcon Gauge) the knobs have
> small posts
> that would likely fit through the screw hole if the knob were
> removed before
> installing the gauge. Can the knobs on these gauges be removed
> prior to
> installing the gauge and then re-attached afterwords? Or am I just
> going to
> have to make a small slot between the cutout and the screw hole?
> Also, what
> exactly is the bit size used to drill these screw holes? #6 screws???
I've got an MD200, and the Falcon G meter. Both need a cut out for
the knobs in the corner. The knob on the G meter is closer to the
hole than a screw hold would be, if I recall correctly, so don't
drill the holes until you have the gauge in your hands.
#6 screw = #28 drill bit.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights |
kevin,
''hog out the corner''. been there last week. if you look careful you will
see the face of the alt. is built up around the shaft you are talking about.
that bit of panel needs to be removed to make it fit.
bob noffs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights
>
>
> On 16 Jan 2006, at 24:52, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Those who have been here already...when you put the steam gauges in
>> your
>> panel, how do you fit the ones with the knobs sticking out of one
>> corner?
>> For the (United Instruments) altimeter it looks like I won't have a
>> choice
>> and will have to hog out some of the corner of the panel where the
>> knob goes
>> (big bump in the case under the knob). However, for the MD200 OBS
>> (VOR/ILS
>> indicator) and the 2 inch G meter (Falcon Gauge) the knobs have
>> small posts
>> that would likely fit through the screw hole if the knob were
>> removed before
>> installing the gauge. Can the knobs on these gauges be removed
>> prior to
>> installing the gauge and then re-attached afterwords? Or am I just
>> going to
>> have to make a small slot between the cutout and the screw hole?
>> Also, what
>> exactly is the bit size used to drill these screw holes? #6 screws???
>
> I've got an MD200, and the Falcon G meter. Both need a cut out for
> the knobs in the corner. The knob on the G meter is closer to the
> hole than a screw hold would be, if I recall correctly, so don't
> drill the holes until you have the gauge in your hands.
>
> #6 screw = #28 drill bit.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Instrument install/annunciator lights |
Why don't you lay the panel out in an AutoCAD compatible CAD program, when
everything is the way you want it, send the DFX file to a laser cutter and
be done with it. All 3 of my panel inserts were done that way, cost was
around $100 per panel including 0.090 aluminum sheet. The time saved was
tremendous.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark & Lisa" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
Paul,
For me, one of the important preflight actions for single-pilot IFR is to
ensure that an area with reported VFR conditions is within range. The key
word is REPORTED (not forecast). I learned very early that forecasts are,
like, opinions. And we all know what opinions are like!
My point is that the pilot is relieved of a tremendous amount of stress if
he/she knows, at all times, he/she can get to REPORTED VFR conditions. A
review of the forecast and trend (last several METAR)can help one decide if
the current reported conditions are likely to improve or worsen. As I
continue toward my destination I check AWOS, ATIS and Flight Watch to keep
abreast of the latest reported weather at my destination and my chosen VFR
area. If it appears my destination weather is becoming worse than I can
handle, I'll set down along the way, or go to where I know the weather is
good. In this way, I avoid entirely the situation of going missed at my
destination and getting into my fuel reserves. Of course, a willingness to
abandon the current plan always comes in handy!
BTW, this is my definition of "light IFR." With an appropriately equipped
aircraft and an experienced assistant (another IFR pilot or trained
passenger) I'll accept higher risks on a case by case basis!
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
> To be conservative I filed an IFR flight
> plan (with the concept of "light IFR" in
> mind.) Got into the soup over Dayton and
> never saw the ground again until after one
> missed and finally a second successful
> approach close to minimums into Detroit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights |
Dean: See
http://vx-aviation.com/page_2.html
Are these what you're looking for? The lamps are available individually
or as part of integrated controllers.
There are also NKK 'UB' series illuminators availabe from Digi-Key.
They must be panel mounted individually and are harder to install. I
think John Schroeder has used them for his Lancair.
Vern Little
DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>...
>Annunciator lights, I'd like to find some square ones with the colored
>plastic and engraved text that shows what subsystem is having a problem
>(commercial airline pilots know them well). I have had some great input
>from an RV-6A pilot who rolled his own. I've perused the web quite a while
>and haven't found much that might work for my application (mostly round
>lampholders with colored lenses but you couldn't really engrave them with
>text like I'm wanting). Any suggestions on this one? ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Instrument install/annunciator lights |
A lot of the instrument MANUFACTURERS have mounting templates for their
instruments on their web sites; some of them in .pdf format that can be
printed actual size. It's probably a good idea to only use them for planning
purposes since, due to manufacturing tolerances, actual sizes may vary...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of bob
noffs
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 6:23 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights
kevin,
''hog out the corner''. been there last week. if you look careful you will
see the face of the alt. is built up around the shaft you are talking about.
that bit of panel needs to be removed to make it fit.
bob noffs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights
>
>
> On 16 Jan 2006, at 24:52, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Those who have been here already...when you put the steam gauges in
>> your
>> panel, how do you fit the ones with the knobs sticking out of one
>> corner?
>> For the (United Instruments) altimeter it looks like I won't have a
>> choice
>> and will have to hog out some of the corner of the panel where the
>> knob goes
>> (big bump in the case under the knob). However, for the MD200 OBS
>> (VOR/ILS
>> indicator) and the 2 inch G meter (Falcon Gauge) the knobs have
>> small posts
>> that would likely fit through the screw hole if the knob were
>> removed before
>> installing the gauge. Can the knobs on these gauges be removed
>> prior to
>> installing the gauge and then re-attached afterwords? Or am I just
>> going to
>> have to make a small slot between the cutout and the screw hole?
>> Also, what
>> exactly is the bit size used to drill these screw holes? #6 screws???
>
> I've got an MD200, and the Falcon G meter. Both need a cut out for
> the knobs in the corner. The knob on the G meter is closer to the
> hole than a screw hold would be, if I recall correctly, so don't
> drill the holes until you have the gauge in your hands.
>
> #6 screw = #28 drill bit.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com> |
Ira,
Thanks for the input. I did get to wander around SnF last year and look at
many of the systems available. I talked directly to avionics install shops
and manufacturers of the individual units. The EFIS that got the most
positive responses from all was GRT. I even went to the BMA booth and asked
them to comment on the bad press their company and service has received.
They seemed to think the bad press was not deserved and offered that most
problems occur due to bad installations by the builder. I was a little
disturbed by this response. Perhaps this is due to the insufficient install
manuals that you mentioned.
However, I have met many people such as yourself that are using BMA systems
and have great things to say about the company and product. I still love
the features that the product offers and would be very happy to have a
working version of the system in my panel. The only question is how many
headaches lie between now and that point...
Greg
>From: irampil(at)notes.cc.sunysb.edu
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Companies
>Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:09:39 -0500
>
>
> Greg,
>
>I have been flying with a Blue Mountain E/1 for almost two years.
>In that time the software has received major feature upgrades nearly
>every quarter, all free after purchase. Only recently, and only because
>they switched to Jeppeson who insisted, has BMA begun enforcing the
>subscription payment for database updates.
>
>I have always found the company easy to deal with and very
>straightforward.
>While it seems a few shipped systems had bugs, most of what one see
>complaints
>about on their unmoderated Board concerns builders or installers who have
>trouble with the sometimes telegraphically brief install manuals or with
>poor grounding discipline in their wiring harnesses.
>
>I have a great deal of respect for both Bob N. and Greg R. My A/C wiring
>is a slightly modified version of Bob's All-Electric, including a LVBM
>module controlling the power to the EFIS. In my opinion, Greg made some
>good points in his treatise on electrical system design also. We can all
>learn from looking at both. Like Bob said, you should infer nothing
>about Greg's company business practices from their design flap.
>
>You should probably wander around SnF or Oshkosh and do some of your
>own assessment of the people and equipment involved. Its a very personal
>choice.
>
>Ira N224XS
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Butcher" <europa(at)triton.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights |
Dean,
Yes the knobs can be taken off. There should be a set screw in the knob.
For switches, Tyco makes a nice version. See their Command Series 16mm.
Available from www.Newarkinone.com stock number 46F3130. We used these
switches (164SL and 164SL5) and the same family lighted indicator (164-SZ)
in our install. Rather than engraving there is a plastic lens inside the
switch which can be screen printed. I had this done by Precision Dial Co.
(www.precisiondial.com) (I formerly owned the company).
Jim Butcher
Europa XS N241BW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern W." <highflight1(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Light" IFR??? |
I don't think that "light IFR" has as much to do with equipment as it does
with intent.
To fly IFR, you have to be legally equipped to handle whatever equipment the
type of approach you want to shoot requires. Period. Anything else is not
"light IFR", it's just plain suicide.
Light IFR is more to explain a person's intent and how he/she will accept
minimums and alternate minimums. If a "light IFR" pilot gets into heavy
soup, they will still have the equipment they need to land safely if they
are equipped to fly what they filed.
Now, the matter of that pilot being mentally prepared and currently
trained... that's a different issue.
Vern W.
On 1/15/06, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>
> At 08:24 AM 1/15/06, you wrote:
>
> >
> >The concept of "light IFR" should be put to rest once and for all.
> >
> >Once you fly into the clouds, the distinction of light or heavy IFR
> >is GONE! IMC is IMC! (Let's not even consider ice and/or
> >thunderstorms for this discussion.)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com> |
>The concept of "light IFR" should be put to rest once and for all.
>Once you fly into the clouds, the distinction of light or heavy IFR
>is GONE! ....
>In southern California airports close to the coast - like Santa
>Monica, Torrance, Long Beach, Orange County, Palomar, Oxnard, Santa
>Barbara - get "early morning and late night overcast." It's a pretty
>thin layer...
My $.02: The comments/posts got me thinking about ADM, Risk Management,
personally minimum, and the "reality" of IFR flight decisions. I'm not a
writer, but thought I'd share my thoughts 1) to help personally crystallize
them and 2) to invite/provoke comment with the desire for additional
learning.
I live in Detroit and agree with psiege. In the Mid-west, we can be IFR
with low ceilings, low vis, multiple layers, sometimes wind/turbulence,
often icing, for days/weeks and 250 miles or more in all directions -
nothing to "play" with. Many experienced pilots have near-miss stories, a
few others were not so lucky, and there are numerous NTSB reports about VFR
into IMC. All IFR in the Midwest (or elsewhere) is IFR. If fact some VMC
is really IFR (over remote areas on a dark night, in the clear over the hazy
great lakes at dusk/dawn, etc).
However, I did my initial instrument training while on an extended work
assignment in SoCal. As rriley states, the LA "sea layer" overcast is
typically "local" and relatively stable/predictable - more so than a Detroit
VFR day. It often implies a different IFR scenario and offers various
bailout options.
In SoCal, if we're going to consider different IFR equipment/currency for
Hard vs Light IFR, then the "need", is to be sure we can tell the difference
and have the discipline to respect it. This is not easy as there is no
real/fixed definition, the Wx briefs aren't necessarily setup to help us
clearly discern it, and many Pilots will occasionally "push" the envelope -
this thread is proof.
The risks with a SoCal coastal sea layer may be much different than a
typical Midwest "white flight", but are not insignificant. First, there's
lots of traffic, lots of radio congestion, relatively tight/complex complex
airspace, and fewer good off-field options over the congested metropolis -
Little room for less than our full attention. But wait, the AI/DG/CDI/ALT
or PFD also demand our full attention (even if for only 60-90 seconds) -
Thus, the need for not stretching "field of vision" definitions or selecting
equipment which may not be IFR reliable, or unnecessarily increase our IFR
workload.
While the existence of the sea layer itself is often stable/predictable -
what's sometimes "unpredictable" about the sea layer is the ceiling. I've
seen it drop from 1000ft/5mi to 0/0 in 1 min (especially on the fringes
and/or close to the ocean). I've been cleared and landed on a visual
approach at MRY through a (VFR) scattered layer, and then not been able to
see the Ramp/Tower 1 minute later while taxing. I know MRY is technically
NorCal - same point.
Since the SeaLayer if often very local, the ATIS can become more? important
than the TAR/TAF/AreaForecast. Yet, I'm sure we've all had an "ATIS
experience" that was less than accurate - either too high or too low - or
"being updated", etc. Any concept of "light IFR" still demands vigilance to
MDA/MDH and needs to contain the real possibility of missed approaches and
all the workload/discipline that goes with them.
Additionally, SoCal has CummuliousGranite (terrain/mountains). Many
"sealayer" airports are right next to them (TOA, SBA, SMA,...). Mix a night
VFR flight over a scattered/broken sea layer and the dark spots/splotches
(clouds and mountains) can look very similar. This can be very disorienting
- even when technically VFR. Again, no room for IFR error.
ATC is always there to help. But again, I've been cleared to "turn 10'
right and incept the localizer...", when the localizer was 10' left. Yes a
bad clearance and a mistake by ATC, but ultimately the pilot is the guy with
his butt on the line and thus required to be aware of everything - even on a
simple "light IFR" approach.
All said, there might be "SoCal Light IFR" and I might successfully fly
through it multiple times (IFR with minimum equipment/workload). BUT IT CAN
STILL BE TRICKY/DANGEROUS/DEADLY STUFF. I'd never imply anything different
to a student and/or fellow pilot!
For a well trained/skilled/current IFR pilot, a "minimally adequate"
aircraft in "SoCal light IFR" may be technically legal and perhaps within
his/her personal minimums. But, the risks are real, they're still "pushing
the envelope", and adding "some" stress to the entire IFR system.
If we accept that, well ok, we're PIC's, and flying itself is has some risk.
But if we try and convince ourselves (or passengers) of anything less, we're
not being honest.
Perhaps there's another ADM dangerous attitude: "I'm within the letter of
the regulation (or it's ambiguity), so it's ok/acceptable". The anecdotal
thought would be something like: "the regulations/minimum are just that
minimums, and I should treat/respect them as dangerous ground."
The FAM/AIM are decision floors set by the FAA, they are not perfect and
sometimes/often unclear. Sometimes they may be/seem too conservative - but
the NTSB stats indicate that, overall, they still allow pilots (like us) to
get into trouble. It's up to us to take individual responsibility to raise
the bar and set personally honest minimums. As a group we should be
encouraging each other to honestly review/set/raise these as appropriate -
since the common natural tendency is to build skill/experience/capability to
otherwise lower them.
My $.02
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Has anyone made up a wirebook which incorporate the wiring for a Jabiru
>3300? Would you be willing to email to me? Looking for some ideas and
>specifically how to handle the built in alternator. The engine comes with a
>"Kubato RP201-53710" voltage reg and I can't find any spec on this regulator
>and not sure if it has OV protection etc. The alternator has two white
>wires coming out it that connects to the voltage reg. Any info on the Kubato
>reg or alternatives would be great.
As near as I can tell, the Kubota regulators for the
PM alternators are pretty much the same as similar devices
by Ducati and John Deere for the same application. They
do not feature OV protection.
You can get the published literature on all the Jabiru
offerings at:
http://www.suncoastjabiru.com/downloads.htm
I've published a power distribution diagram for these
engines as Figure Z-20 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11E.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
Hi all,
I mostly lurk but sometimes have an opinion itch.
I find the all solid state gyro developments exciting and disappointing.
I agree with Bruce of Glasair - unless you have triple redundancy with
automatic notification of discrepancy you probably don't get an
improvement in safety. Comparison and notification is so easy to do with
digital electronics that it should be a large part of the reason to go
solid state in the first place. It is silly to have various digital
electronics boxes working with the human operator doing the only
cross-checking available. But that seems to be what the manufacturers
expect of us sofar.
I see a lot of features, display options and what have you on the
websites but no output message specifications.
The inexpensive EFIS-es would be much more useful if they all put out
their measured magnitudes in real time in a PUBLICISED (and
standardised, not proprietary) way and acknowledge that the 'S' does not
mean 'System' but at most 'Subsystem'. I will go further: an electronic
box that measures a well defined magnitude and doesn't produce it on a
serial output should be considered crippled. It cannot play a role in a
system. It should not be bought.
If manufacturers did start to make a habit of publicly reproducing real
time magnitudes on a serial output then the step from boxes to system
would be simple. As a start just add comparison, alarm and display of
results (have a backup for this too).
Not holding my breath much longer.
Cheers,
Jan de Jong
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Vern -
Thank you for the reference. I used the LB series lights - rectangular.
The also come in round and square shapes.
Cheers,
John
wrote:
> There are also NKK 'UB' series illuminators availabe from Digi-Key.
> They must be panel mounted individually and are harder to install. I
> think John Schroeder has used them for his Lancair.
> Vern Little
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com> |
I think you make a great point about the So-Cal weather.
IFR is dangerous. It is a compromise: increased risk for increased
utility (getting there).
While " CummuliousGranite" provides some additional risk, it also makes
IFR less risky: If you have problems in the June Gloom, you can most
always get to VFR and proceed to a nearby VFR airport. The June Gloom
stratus layer is rarely 2000' thick. Big Bear, at 6700' is always VFR
during these conditions. As are the desert airports.
This makes IFR-LITE a possibility in So-Cal, where it may not be in
areas with low ceilings stretching for hundreds of miles.
Airplanes are inherently dangerous - that is why we train. To fly IFR,
we also need to equip airplanes adequately to survive any system
failure. A single point of failure should not bring down an airplane.
Some planes are designed to tolerate dual failures (ie. Fail the vacuum
and an instrument electrical bus) The design issue is a compromise:
dollars, weight, pilot work load,etc.
For most of us, the most likely single point of failure is the pilot.
Adding a redundant pilot (or two if we want to take a vote) probably
makes more sense than dual AHRS, unless they are part of completely
redundant systems (separate batteries, separate PFDs, etc.).
Me, I am going EFIS, brand TBD, with a separately powered electric gyro.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
richard titsworth
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 6:40 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: "Light" IFR???
>The concept of "light IFR" should be put to rest once and for all.
>Once you fly into the clouds, the distinction of light or heavy IFR
>is GONE! ....
>In southern California airports close to the coast - like Santa
>Monica, Torrance, Long Beach, Orange County, Palomar, Oxnard, Santa
>Barbara - get "early morning and late night overcast." It's a pretty
>thin layer...
My $.02: The comments/posts got me thinking about ADM, Risk Management,
personally minimum, and the "reality" of IFR flight decisions. I'm not
a
writer, but thought I'd share my thoughts 1) to help personally
crystallize
them and 2) to invite/provoke comment with the desire for additional
learning.
I live in Detroit and agree with psiege. In the Mid-west, we can be IFR
with low ceilings, low vis, multiple layers, sometimes wind/turbulence,
often icing, for days/weeks and 250 miles or more in all directions -
nothing to "play" with. Many experienced pilots have near-miss stories,
a
few others were not so lucky, and there are numerous NTSB reports about
VFR
into IMC. All IFR in the Midwest (or elsewhere) is IFR. If fact some
VMC
is really IFR (over remote areas on a dark night, in the clear over the
hazy
great lakes at dusk/dawn, etc).
However, I did my initial instrument training while on an extended work
assignment in SoCal. As rriley states, the LA "sea layer" overcast is
typically "local" and relatively stable/predictable - more so than a
Detroit
VFR day. It often implies a different IFR scenario and offers various
bailout options.
In SoCal, if we're going to consider different IFR equipment/currency
for
Hard vs Light IFR, then the "need", is to be sure we can tell the
difference
and have the discipline to respect it. This is not easy as there is no
real/fixed definition, the Wx briefs aren't necessarily setup to help us
clearly discern it, and many Pilots will occasionally "push" the
envelope -
this thread is proof.
The risks with a SoCal coastal sea layer may be much different than a
typical Midwest "white flight", but are not insignificant. First,
there's
lots of traffic, lots of radio congestion, relatively tight/complex
complex
airspace, and fewer good off-field options over the congested metropolis
-
Little room for less than our full attention. But wait, the
AI/DG/CDI/ALT
or PFD also demand our full attention (even if for only 60-90 seconds) -
Thus, the need for not stretching "field of vision" definitions or
selecting
equipment which may not be IFR reliable, or unnecessarily increase our
IFR
workload.
While the existence of the sea layer itself is often stable/predictable
-
what's sometimes "unpredictable" about the sea layer is the ceiling.
I've
seen it drop from 1000ft/5mi to 0/0 in 1 min (especially on the fringes
and/or close to the ocean). I've been cleared and landed on a visual
approach at MRY through a (VFR) scattered layer, and then not been able
to
see the Ramp/Tower 1 minute later while taxing. I know MRY is
technically
NorCal - same point.
Since the SeaLayer if often very local, the ATIS can become more?
important
than the TAR/TAF/AreaForecast. Yet, I'm sure we've all had an "ATIS
experience" that was less than accurate - either too high or too low -
or
"being updated", etc. Any concept of "light IFR" still demands
vigilance to
MDA/MDH and needs to contain the real possibility of missed approaches
and
all the workload/discipline that goes with them.
Additionally, SoCal has CummuliousGranite (terrain/mountains). Many
"sealayer" airports are right next to them (TOA, SBA, SMA,...). Mix a
night
VFR flight over a scattered/broken sea layer and the dark
spots/splotches
(clouds and mountains) can look very similar. This can be very
disorienting
- even when technically VFR. Again, no room for IFR error.
ATC is always there to help. But again, I've been cleared to "turn 10'
right and incept the localizer...", when the localizer was 10' left.
Yes a
bad clearance and a mistake by ATC, but ultimately the pilot is the guy
with
his butt on the line and thus required to be aware of everything - even
on a
simple "light IFR" approach.
All said, there might be "SoCal Light IFR" and I might successfully fly
through it multiple times (IFR with minimum equipment/workload). BUT IT
CAN
STILL BE TRICKY/DANGEROUS/DEADLY STUFF. I'd never imply anything
different
to a student and/or fellow pilot!
For a well trained/skilled/current IFR pilot, a "minimally adequate"
aircraft in "SoCal light IFR" may be technically legal and perhaps
within
his/her personal minimums. But, the risks are real, they're still
"pushing
the envelope", and adding "some" stress to the entire IFR system.
If we accept that, well ok, we're PIC's, and flying itself is has some
risk.
But if we try and convince ourselves (or passengers) of anything less,
we're
not being honest.
Perhaps there's another ADM dangerous attitude: "I'm within the letter
of
the regulation (or it's ambiguity), so it's ok/acceptable". The
anecdotal
thought would be something like: "the regulations/minimum are just that
minimums, and I should treat/respect them as dangerous ground."
The FAM/AIM are decision floors set by the FAA, they are not perfect and
sometimes/often unclear. Sometimes they may be/seem too conservative -
but
the NTSB stats indicate that, overall, they still allow pilots (like us)
to
get into trouble. It's up to us to take individual responsibility to
raise
the bar and set personally honest minimums. As a group we should be
encouraging each other to honestly review/set/raise these as appropriate
-
since the common natural tendency is to build
skill/experience/capability to
otherwise lower them.
My $.02
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Companies |
BMA has "leading edge" products and they make a big effort to make there
customers happy.
That being said their install and operations manuals are not very good (I'm
being kind!) therefore no doubt builders have a high rate of installation
errors . . . I've been trying to figure out the GNS430 to BMA/Lite interface
for two month and received better help from Treasure Coast Avionics (I'm
not their customer) than Blue Mountain! The last response I received was
"are you sure the wiring is right?" NO I'm not sure, but its wired per the
manual!! Obviously Greg and staff are working on "more important issues" .
. . but for me there are none more important.
The good news is that I do believe the Greg can and will solve most any
problem . . . but IMHO sometimes it takes longer than is should and problems
come up that shouldn't because of limited manuals and support!
Good Luck,
Bob
On 1/16/06, Greg Vouga wrote:
>
> >
>
> Ira,
>
> Thanks for the input. I did get to wander around SnF last year and look
> at
> many of the systems available. I talked directly to avionics install
> shops
> and manufacturers of the individual units. The EFIS that got the most
> positive responses from all was GRT. I even went to the BMA booth and
> asked
> them to comment on the bad press their company and service has received.
> They seemed to think the bad press was not deserved and offered that most
> problems occur due to bad installations by the builder. I was a little
> disturbed by this response. Perhaps this is due to the insufficient
> install
> manuals that you mentioned.
>
> However, I have met many people such as yourself that are using BMA
> systems
> and have great things to say about the company and product. I still love
> the features that the product offers and would be very happy to have a
> working version of the system in my panel. The only question is how many
> headaches lie between now and that point...
>
> Greg
>
> >From: irampil(at)notes.cc.sunysb.edu
> >Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Companies
> >Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:09:39 -0500
> >
> >
> > Greg,
> >
> >I have been flying with a Blue Mountain E/1 for almost two years.
> >In that time the software has received major feature upgrades nearly
> >every quarter, all free after purchase. Only recently, and only because
> >they switched to Jeppeson who insisted, has BMA begun enforcing the
> >subscription payment for database updates.
> >
> >I have always found the company easy to deal with and very
> >straightforward.
> >While it seems a few shipped systems had bugs, most of what one see
> >complaints
> >about on their unmoderated Board concerns builders or installers who have
> >trouble with the sometimes telegraphically brief install manuals or with
> >poor grounding discipline in their wiring harnesses.
> >
> >I have a great deal of respect for both Bob N. and Greg R. My A/C wiring
> >is a slightly modified version of Bob's All-Electric, including a LVBM
> >module controlling the power to the EFIS. In my opinion, Greg made some
> >good points in his treatise on electrical system design also. We can all
> >learn from looking at both. Like Bob said, you should infer nothing
> >about Greg's company business practices from their design flap.
> >
> >You should probably wander around SnF or Oshkosh and do some of your
> >own assessment of the people and equipment involved. Its a very personal
> >choice.
> >
> >Ira N224XS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Hidden till needed annunciator lights? |
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com> |
This is fairly simple with a black background. You can simply flush
mount your lights in the panel, then put a mylar in front of them with
the lettering clear on black. Without back-lighting on, the letters
disappear, looking black also. Turn on the lamp, and bingo.
The black-out feature works best with a satin textured mylar.
A simple way to do this and avoid custom work is with a laser printer
and some overhead transparency stock. Make up your labels with
Publisher or some similar tool. Then print them. The quality of the
laser is important to getting a uniform coverage. Also, you may have to
scale the spacing up/down a little - there can be a couple of percent of
size variation when printed.
Finish off the system with a piece of smoked mylar or Lucite panel.
This will give you a finished look. The surface will be hard. The smoky
appearance will help mask any minor imperfections in the printing
process, yet will still let enough light through.
We used to use this kind of process in prototyping electronic units.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 12:34 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Hidden till needed annunciator lights?
Anyone know how to make or where to buy hidden till needed annunciator
lights?
My car has a row on the bottom of panel that is black and uniform, until
something is illuminated. Upon turning on ignition switch, all
illuminate
as a test.
Better yet if one were to reverse label could it be installed as a heads
up display?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Battery bus location and Hall-effect sensor |
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
OK, staring at Z-13 for hours has diminished the fog somewhat, but a few
questions remain
(1)For my RV-7A, I was planning on putting my main and e-bus fuse panels on
the right hand side of the subpanel. But what about the battery bus? Z-13
suggests that the battery bus be located within six inches of the battery
contactor, which in my case, is on the firewall. This appears to limit my
battery bus location to the firewall as well, no? Guess I could live with
that, except that its my understanding that fuses necessary for flight
safety be accessible during flight. Since electronic ignition and e-bus
alt feed come from the battery bus, wouldnt the firewall location be a
no-no?
(2) Im using a GRT EFIS, which comes with one Hall-effect sensor. I
believe this can replace the shunt for the main alternator B-lead on Z-13.
Is is possible and practical that the same sensor can also go around the
lead for the backup SD-8 PM alternator, since both alternators wont be
operating at the same time, or do I need two separate Hall-effect sensors?
thanks guys
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce McGregor" <bruceflys(at)comcast.net> |
The EAA disagrees. See
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/Equipping%20a%20Homebuilt%20for%20IFR%20operations.html
Bruce
AC 20-138A is not regulatory for experimental aircraft unless You
incorporated this into your limitations.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
McGregor
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:05 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS Display
AC 20-138A, Airworthiness Approval Of Global Navigation Satellite
System
Equipment, sets the requirements for IFR GPS units. Para 18d ,
Navigation
Display,. requires that the horizontal and vertical deviation display(s)
and
failure annunciation be within the pilot's primary field of view.
Primary
field is defined as within 15 degrees of straight ahead of the pilot.
Other
displays may be anywhere from the airspeed indicator on the left in a
standard six pack to and including an avionics center stack on the
right.
One method of compliance is to place an IFR GPS receiver that displays
CDI/VDI, such as the GNS 480, within the primary field of view and
eliminate
the requirement for an external display. The geometry of my GlaStar
gives a
12" wide zone in the panel for the GPS' display. Placing a Dynon or GRT
PFD
above or below the GPS would result in a lot of flight/navigation info
directly
in front of the pilot.
Regards, Bruce McGregor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Seuferer <kjsifer(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Jan,
Can you repeat that in English? :>)
You sound like you know what you are talking about, but us
non-electrical engineers do not.
Kevin
--
Kevin Seuferer -- http://www.bearhawkin.com -- Bearhawk Serial #774 -- N774KD
The inexpensive EFIS-es would be much more useful if they all put out
their measured magnitudes in real time in a PUBLICISED (and
standardised, not proprietary) way and acknowledge that the 'S' does not
mean 'System' but at most 'Subsystem'. I will go further: an electronic
box that measures a well defined magnitude and doesn't produce it on a
serial output should be considered crippled. It cannot play a role in a
system. It should not be bought.
If manufacturers did start to make a habit of publicly reproducing real
time magnitudes on a serial output then the step from boxes to system
would be simple. As a start just add comparison, alarm and display of
results (have a backup for this too).
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Battery strength |
Hello all,
as I am new on this list - this is my first try to get some needed information.
So what I have is a 24 Volt system with a 12 Volt starter on an O360 F1A6. I was
told that it should not be a problem to use the 12 Volt starter with 24 Volt
as the voltage will drop anyhow to about 18 Volt and the starting process itself
will not take more than 20 seconds which the starter should be capable to
handle.
- what is the opinion of the group on this ?
- The second issue is that I need a figure of the battery strength (Ah) which is
needed to start my engine. I know that this is depending on many issues and
this should not be the only consideration for the strength but there must be a
general idea of whether 17 Ah should do the job easily or should one go for 24
Ah or 7 Ah.
Thanks for your recomendations
Peter (Lancair 360 MKII, 85%)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> sensor |
| Subject: | Re: Battery bus location and Hall-effect sensor |
>
>OK, staring at Z-13 for hours has diminished the fog somewhat, but a few
>questions remain
>
>(1)For my RV-7A, I was planning on putting my main and e-bus fuse panels on
>the right hand side of the subpanel. But what about the battery bus? Z-13
>suggests that the battery bus be located within six inches of the battery
>contactor, which in my case, is on the firewall. This appears to limit my
>battery bus location to the firewall as well, no? Guess I could live with
>that, except that its my understanding that fuses necessary for flight
>safety be accessible during flight.
Which of your fuses need access for "flight safety" reasons?
> Since electronic ignition and e-bus
>alt feed come from the battery bus, wouldnt the firewall location be a
>no-no?
Review chapter 17. The numbers of failures that render
a system unusable and DO NOT blow a fuse outnumber the things
that DO blow fuses by several orders of magnitude. Further, if
you DO open a fuse in some necessary system, what is the likelihood
that you'll get that system back by replacing the fuse? The fault
that opened the fuse is still going to be there waiting for your
new fuse. Bottom line is that if you have any system that's necessary
for comfortable completion of flight, then you'd better have
a backup for it and being able to access breakers or fuses for
those systems is wishful thinking.
>(2) Im using a GRT EFIS, which comes with one Hall-effect sensor. I
>believe this can replace the shunt for the main alternator B-lead on Z-13.
>Is is possible and practical that the same sensor can also go around the
>lead for the backup SD-8 PM alternator, since both alternators wont be
>operating at the same time, or do I need two separate Hall-effect sensors?
No, one sensor will work nicely for both systems.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Interference between Com and Autopilot |
Hello all,
I am building my panel with a TruTrak DF II autopilot and 2 Becker AR3202 Coms.
I have discovered that transmitting during engaged autopilot has influence on
the AP in the form that the elevator goues up and the ailerons make a right turn.
As the details on the up and down is second, the influence itself is of cause
the problem. I have made the connections between the - high quality - HF
cables and the BNCs myself (i.e. they should be OK) and use 2 standard - not self
made - antennae.
The question is now - what can I do to avoid this interference? more shielding,
replacing the autopilot, ...
BTW, the antennae are in the baggage compartment
Thanks
Peter Lancair 360 MKII 85%
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Peter Laurence" <Dr.Laurence(at)mbdi.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights |
Bruce,
Who did tou use?
Peter
-----
> Why don't you lay the panel out in an AutoCAD compatible CAD program, when
> everything is the way you want it, send the DFX file to a laser cutter and
> be done with it. All 3 of my panel inserts were done that way, cost was
> around $100 per panel including 0.090 aluminum sheet. The time saved was
> tremendous.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
On 16 Jan 2006, at 10:19, Jan de Jong wrote:
>
>
> The inexpensive EFIS-es would be much more useful if they all put out
> their measured magnitudes in real time in a PUBLICISED (and
> standardised, not proprietary) way and acknowledge that the 'S'
> does not
> mean 'System' but at most 'Subsystem'. I will go further: an
> electronic
> box that measures a well defined magnitude and doesn't produce it on a
> serial output should be considered crippled. It cannot play a role
> in a
> system. It should not be bought.
>
> If manufacturers did start to make a habit of publicly reproducing
> real
> time magnitudes on a serial output then the step from boxes to system
> would be simple. As a start just add comparison, alarm and display of
> results (have a backup for this too).
The Dynon D-10/D-100 series EFISs output attitude, airspeed,
altitude, heading, etc in text format on a serial data bus at 64
Hz.The data format is described in the operator's manual, which is
publicly available on Dynon's web site. The format is bog standard
ASCII data on an RS-232 serial bus. No propriatary stuff at all. It
would theoretically be possible to decode that data and use it to
feed an instrument comparator.
But, how do we know there aren't failure modes that freezes the
display (or has it display bad data), yet keeps spitting the correct
data out the serial bus? We can't expect to get iron clad assurances
for the amount of money we pay for the Dynon (or any other of the non-
TSO'd EFIS systems).
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Instrument install/annunciator lights |
Aircraft Engravers, www.engravers.net, ask for Wayne.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dr. Peter
Laurence
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights
Bruce,
Who did tou use?
Peter
-----
> Why don't you lay the panel out in an AutoCAD compatible CAD program, when
> everything is the way you want it, send the DFX file to a laser cutter and
> be done with it. All 3 of my panel inserts were done that way, cost was
> around $100 per panel including 0.090 aluminum sheet. The time saved was
> tremendous.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | MicroAir products |
I'm about to order transceiver & transponder for my Sonex. I like the small
MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer is here in
Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer feedback about them
(or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined with the Jabiru 3300. Also
feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be appreciated.
Rodney
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | MicroAir products |
| From: | "Allan Aaron" <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au> |
I have a microair transponder. Its worked fine for me over the past
three years. I did have to send it back once for a software update but
the service was quick and free.
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rodney Dunham
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 09:23
Subject: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
-->
I'm about to order transceiver & transponder for my Sonex. I like the
small MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer
is here in Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer
feedback about them (or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined
with the Jabiru 3300. Also feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be
appreciated.
Rodney
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MicroAir products |
See this comparison chart:
http://www.mcp.com.au/microair/comparison/comparison.html
Dave Morris
At 04:22 PM 1/16/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>I'm about to order transceiver & transponder for my Sonex. I like the small
>MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer is here in
>Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer feedback about them
>(or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined with the Jabiru 3300. Also
>feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be appreciated.
>
>Rodney
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nancy Ghertner <nghertner(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hidden till needed annunciator lights? |
West Coast Aviation 425-283-0460.
On 1/16/06 3:33 AM, "rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US"
wrote:
>
> Anyone know how to make or where to buy hidden till needed annunciator
> lights?
>
> My car has a row on the bottom of panel that is black and uniform, until
> something is illuminated. Upon turning on ignition switch, all illuminate
> as a test.
>
> Better yet if one were to reverse label could it be installed as a heads
> up display?
>
> Thx.
> Ron Parigoris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Thorne" <rv7a(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MicroAir products |
FWIW I have a MicroAir in my Nieuport replica and it works fine with the
open cockpit noise etc. A friend is also using one in his Stearman. He had
a lot of problems initially but it was an early serial number radio. They
took care of it and things are great. No complaints and may move mine to my
RV as a secondary radio.
Jim Thorne
RV7A QB CHD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:10 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
>
> I have a microair transponder. Its worked fine for me over the past
> three years. I did have to send it back once for a software update but
> the service was quick and free.
> Allan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Rodney Dunham
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 09:23
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
>
> -->
>
> I'm about to order transceiver & transponder for my Sonex. I like the
> small MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer
> is here in Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer
> feedback about them (or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined
> with the Jabiru 3300. Also feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be
> appreciated.
>
> Rodney
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry McFarland <larrymc(at)qconline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MicroAir products |
Rodney,
I'm using a Becker Transponder and I found the install extremely easy,
operation is bulletproof.
Never have any trouble with it, setup was intuitive and the human
interface is very natural.
Larry McFarland - 601 HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Rodney Dunham wrote:
>
>I'm about to order transceiver & transponder for my Sonex. I like the small
>MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer is here in
>Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer feedback about them
>(or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined with the Jabiru 3300. Also
>feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be appreciated.
>
>Rodney
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Kevin Horton wrote:
Go away for a couple of days and you drown in messages.
>>If manufacturers did start to make a habit of publicly reproducing
>>real
>>time magnitudes on a serial output then the step from boxes to system
>>would be simple. As a start just add comparison, alarm and display of
>>results (have a backup for this too).
There is such a standard. It is ARINC-429.
> The Dynon D-10/D-100 series EFISs output attitude, airspeed,
> altitude, heading, etc in text format on a serial data bus at 64
> Hz.The data format is described in the operator's manual, which is
> publicly available on Dynon's web site. The format is bog standard
> ASCII data on an RS-232 serial bus. No propriatary stuff at all. It
> would theoretically be possible to decode that data and use it to
> feed an instrument comparator.
There is no such thing as "bog standard ASCII data on an RS-232 serial
bus" in an aircraft (or anywhere else for that matter which is why we
created SLIP and PPP in the internet world many moon back). The closest
thing to something like that is ARINC-429. There you have a standard
electrical bus, similar to RS-422, and a standard set of sentences
and/or messages which transfer various bits of status information. I
believe that just about everything your AHARS would output has an
ARINC-429 message associated with it. (And it is the AHRS data whose
integrity that you are interested in ensuring.)
> But, how do we know there aren't failure modes that freezes the
> display (or has it display bad data), yet keeps spitting the correct
> data out the serial bus? We can't expect to get iron clad assurances
> for the amount of money we pay for the Dynon (or any other of the non-
> TSO'd EFIS systems).
I know I am coming at this backward as there are a *bunch* of messages
on this subject going back a couple of days that I haven't read yet but
I am going to go ahead from here anyway.
These are systems badly done (from a systems perspective) as are most
things in the cockpit of most aircraft. Boeing and Airbus are only just
recently starting to adopt the advantages learned in building large
computer networks. Airbus has adopted switched 100Mbps ethernet as its
data bus of choice (a very sensible move IMHO). ARINC-429 works but, boy
is that ancient technology.
The key point is that you have sensors that output standard messages on
the bus, e.g. AHRS, air data sensors, engine data sensors, etc.; you
have processing units; and you have display/control units. Virtually all
of the systems out there have adopted an "all-in-one" approach because
it is cheaper rather than better. But because they are "all-in-one" they
don't have to try to be interoperable with other devices. At least with
ARINC-429 there is some semblance of consistency and interoperability
even if it is ancient, ugly technology.
If it speaks ARINC-429 there is some semblance of hope. If it speaks
some kind of proprietary garbage (even if it is "bog standard ASCII
messages documented in the manual") it isn't going to be supported by
anyone else so it is less than useful.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MicroAir products |
Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
>
> See this comparison chart:
> http://www.mcp.com.au/microair/comparison/comparison.html
Microair radios suffer from front-end overload. Don't expect them to
perform well near other airplanes. That is why we were talking about
antenna attenuators a couple weeks back -- to deal with a deficiency in
the Microair Comm transceivers. This becomes a real problem if you plan
to fly formation with other aircraft.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
Bob,
I have to agree on your take.
I learned to fly partial panel with a turn coordinator ( along with the
other compliments of instruments) which in my opinion is as proficient as a
T&B. However, my guess is that a lot of newer pilots flying today have not
developed this skill.
I recommend the T&B because I think it is a much better back up than the
artificial horizon.
I agree
You state that most T&Bs are powered by vacuum. That may be true. But
then
again, it may not! I'll bet a milk shake that there are more electrically
powered T&Bs in service today than there are vacuum powered ones.
I agree. However, there are probably more turn coordinators installed than
turn and banks.
Is there such a thing as a vacuum T/C?
Peter Laurence
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interference between Com and Autopilot |
Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> I am building my panel with a TruTrak DF II autopilot and 2 Becker AR3202 Coms.
I have discovered that transmitting during engaged autopilot has influence
on the AP in the form that the elevator goues up and the ailerons make a right
turn. As the details on the up and down is second, the influence itself is of
cause the problem. I have made the connections between the - high quality - HF
cables and the BNCs myself (i.e. they should be OK) and use 2 standard - not
self made - antennae.
> The question is now - what can I do to avoid this interference? more shielding,
replacing the autopilot, ...
> BTW, the antennae are in the baggage compartment
What are you using for a ground plane for your antennas?
Isn't the fuselage in the Lancair primarily carbon fiber? If that is the
case you are going to want to get the antennas outside the fuselage.
How does the TruTrak autopilot talk to its servos? Is is an analog
voltage or a digital message?
Frankly, I would talk with the folks from TruTrak. They can help you
with RF getting into their servos and/or the control head. Given the
digital nature of the TruTrak autopilot and if I understand their system
properly I would suspect that the problem is occurring at the one analog
point, where the analog rate-gyro signal is digitized.
But TruTrak is your best bet for assistance.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 'Light' IFR??? |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I sort of agree with your definition, but would add that for it to be
light IFR, there shouldn't be any real chance of convective vertical cloud
development, nor any real chance of ice.. Also, I would say that light
IFR implies that you won't have to be on the needles for a whole flight.
Before departing into a layer, I'd want recent tops reports with clear
sunshine above.
I think it rare to be able to call night IFR ops as ever being 'light'. A
possible scenario would be the aforementioned flight to or from a coastal
California location - you'd better know that it's clear and starry on top,
and clear and starry at the desert airports to the east.
Matt-
>
>
> Light IFR: defined in the Midwest as being on top of or below an
> overcast cloud layer with AWOS/ASOS info that tells them on the other
> side of the layer there are VFR conditions -- with adequate ceiling
> near the ground, or above a certain level where the overcast top is.
> Light IFR pilots have not filed IFR or may not be IFR qualified or
> legally equipped for IFR, but they go on the instruments long enough to
> fly up or down through the clouds to the other side expecting better
> conditions.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | circuit simplification help needed |
Hello all-
I'd like to 'simplify' the circuit shown in the following image:
http://supinski.net:8080/injectors.jpg
As you can see in the image, the circuit calls for 2 DPST switches. What
I'd like to do, is implement this using only a single switch such that it
ends up being (Primary only) - (Both) - (Secondary Only).
Can anyone tell me how to do this? Note that when in either the (Primary
only) position or the (Secondary Only) position, the cold-start terminal
must be grounded.
I think this can be accomplished using the 4TL1-10 microswitch Bob calls out
in the wigwag article. However this part is now horrendously expensive
($69) and tough to find -- I am reluctant to buy it since I don't know if it
can fit in the same spot as on of the more common switches found in AEC.
Obviously a solution using a more "common" switch from B and C would be
preferred...
Thanks very much for any help!
Mark Supinski
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS Display |
Kevin Horton wrote:
>
> I'll leave the question as to whether AC 20-138A is regulatory or not
> to those who know the US regs better than I.
>
> But, just because something may be legal doesn't mean it is a good
> idea. If your installation does not match up against AC 20-138A,
> then I strongly recommend you should not fly IMC based on the GPS, on
> approach, or lower than 1000 ft above any obstacles in the enroute
> and terminal phases of flight.
I find this discussion interesting and far more complex than it needs to
be.
How many people have sat in their cockpit and moved across the panel
pointing to each device and asking the question, "what if this failed
and I am IFR?" This is a very simple procedure and it will go a long way
toward figuring out whether you need to attach the specified device to
the e-bus or to add a redundant unit.
For instance, I can think of only one engine instrument I need to safely
complete a flight -- CHT, and that only if the aircraft has cowl flaps.
I can guess a MAP and RPM by sound and aircraft performance. If the
engine is running then oil-P and oil-T are OK. To me, engine instruments
are not critical to safe completion of a flight.
And I don't need an airspeed indicator. If I know my airplane then I
know that a certain power setting, MAP and RPM, is going to give me
known performance.
I do need an altimeter -- but only for IFR flight. If you can't get into
the pattern and safely land the airplane without an altimeter, you need
to go back to school. But if you have a transponder with an altitude
display you have your backup altimeter for IFR flight, at least insofar
as flying an ILS is concerned. (Intercept the glideslope at
approximately the proper altitude and then fly the GS to the
middle-marker and miss if you can't see the runway environment. You
don't need an altimeter for that. And I know that some ILS's don't have
markers but you get to pick one that does.)
If I have a working HI (DG) and a TC or T&SI, I can probably survive
loss of my AI while on instruments. I cannot survive loss of all three.
That means if I have something like one of the current crop of PFDs, I
need some sort of backup.
And I would want my backup to be different as I wouldn't want a common
failure mode. That means that if I have a BMA EFIS-1 I will probably opt
for a 3-pack (ASI, alt, and AI) or a Dynon rather than an EFIS-light.
Why? Well, I bet that the EFIS-1 and EFIS-light share common AHRS and
software technology. That which causes one to fail might take out the
other as well. I would probably backup a BMA unit with a GRT or a Dynon
just so there is less commonality.
But it is pretty hard to beat a 3-pack for simplicity.
But if I had my 3-pack and an SL-30, I could afford to lose my whole
EFIS-1. I can use the built-in CDI display on the SL-30 to fly a VOR or
LOC approach. If I lose my SL-30 I can fly a VOR or NDB approach using
the GPS. It may be non-certified but it will get me safely on the ground
and with probably more accuracy than the VOR or ADF receiver would.
And if all else fails, fly the 3-pack and holler on your handheld for a
PAR at the nearest military airfield.
This isn't rocket science; this is common sense. You don't need an
engineering degree to sit in front of your panel (or in front of the
picture of your panel) to do this.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Light IFR is the flying done on a computer flight simulator. IFR is not
light.
John Cox
>
>
> On 1/15/06, Richard Riley wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> At 08:24 AM 1/15/06, you wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >The concept of "light IFR" should be put to rest once and for all.
>> >
>> >Once you fly into the clouds, the distinction of light or heavy IFR
>> >is GONE! IMC is IMC! (Let's not even consider ice and/or
>> >thunderstorms for this discussion.)
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D. Jones" <dljinia(at)yahoo.com> |
Group:
I purchased a new PC680 battery a year ago with the
intent of replacing the year old (now 2 year old)
PC680 in my RV7A. Well, I didn't. I had mounted the
ground lug that goes through the firewall too low and
it was going to be in the way to replace the battery
without moving the lug.
Long story shorter, I've pulled my engine and sent
back to Aero Sport to get the crankshaft replaced in
compliance with SB566. I intend to now replace the
battery (and move the ground lug higher).
The question, should I use the new battery that has
been sitting on the shelf in the hanger for over a
year without any attention or do I need to buy another
"fresh" one?
Is there anything I should check?
Thanks,
Doug -7A 260hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | D25 Diode voltage variance ?? |
Anyone? Wiring per Z13 with Main Bus and E-Bus. I have the D25 diode
installed between them per diagrams. Just for fun, I was checking voltage
at the Main Bus which was 12.3 but on the E-Bus (one D25 and 6 inches of
14ga away), it was down to 11.7 volts for a loss of .6 volts. This seemed
like a lot of voltage loss so I tried another D25 and it read an even 12.0
volts for a loss of .3.
Now I'm wondering if either of these is normal and if so what is acceptable
loss between the buses?
Thanks Bill S
7a Ark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: D25 Diode voltage variance ?? |
Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>
>
>Anyone? Wiring per Z13 with Main Bus and E-Bus. I have the D25 diode
>installed between them per diagrams. Just for fun, I was checking voltage
>at the Main Bus which was 12.3 but on the E-Bus (one D25 and 6 inches of
>14ga away), it was down to 11.7 volts for a loss of .6 volts. This seemed
>like a lot of voltage loss so I tried another D25 and it read an even 12.0
>volts for a loss of .3.
>
>Now I'm wondering if either of these is normal and if so what is acceptable
>loss between the buses?
>
>Thanks Bill S
>7a Ark
>
Normal voltage drop across a forward biased silicon diode is ~.6 volts.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PC680 battery |
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf
Dave Morris
At 08:26 PM 1/16/2006, you wrote:
>
>Group:
> I purchased a new PC680 battery a year ago with the
>intent of replacing the year old (now 2 year old)
>PC680 in my RV7A. Well, I didn't. I had mounted the
>ground lug that goes through the firewall too low and
>it was going to be in the way to replace the battery
>without moving the lug.
>
>Long story shorter, I've pulled my engine and sent
>back to Aero Sport to get the crankshaft replaced in
>compliance with SB566. I intend to now replace the
>battery (and move the ground lug higher).
>
>The question, should I use the new battery that has
>been sitting on the shelf in the hanger for over a
>year without any attention or do I need to buy another
>"fresh" one?
>
>Is there anything I should check?
>
>Thanks,
>Doug -7A 260hrs
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
In a message dated 1/16/2006 7:00:07 P.M. Central Standard Time,
PLaurence@the-beach.net writes:
Is there such a thing as a vacuum T/C?
Sorry, I forgot to answer this.
There has been.
Brittain had one that they also used as the sensor for their low cost
autopilot. I do not recall seeing one that was not associated with an autopilot
or
wing leveler. Doesn't mean there isn't one though!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: D25 Diode voltage variance ?? |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Cc:
While the voltage drop across vs. current through a diode is not linear,
certain places within the "I-V" curve are nearly so...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rectifier_vi_curve.GIF
- In this application, we are forward biased.
When you say that you measured the voltage drop across each diode, I
assume you were checking this while it was installed in the circuit, and
while the diode was conducting current.. Roughly, was the current through
the diode the same in each case (same number of items connected to the
e-bus)?
To answer your question, 0.3V sounds a little low for a regular Si
rectifier, while 0.6V sounds pretty typical (actually, still a little
low). I would guess that the diode which showed a 0.3V drop wasn't
carrying much (any) current at the time of the test.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
>
> Anyone? Wiring per Z13 with Main Bus and E-Bus. I have the D25 diode
> installed between them per diagrams. Just for fun, I was checking
> voltage at the Main Bus which was 12.3 but on the E-Bus (one D25 and 6
> inches of 14ga away), it was down to 11.7 volts for a loss of .6 volts.
> This seemed like a lot of voltage loss so I tried another D25 and it
> read an even 12.0 volts for a loss of .3.
>
> Now I'm wondering if either of these is normal and if so what is
> acceptable loss between the buses?
>
> Thanks Bill S
> 7a Ark
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: D25 Diode voltage variance ?? |
The 0.6V is normal. Remember when the diode is in the circuit, you're
running on alternator with something higher than 12.3V, so even with the
voltage drop, it will be within tolerable limits. When the alternator is
offline and you need maximum voltage, you are powering the E-bus through
the switch, not through the diode, so there will be no voltage drop.
Dave Morris
At 08:45 PM 1/16/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>
>Anyone? Wiring per Z13 with Main Bus and E-Bus. I have the D25 diode
>installed between them per diagrams. Just for fun, I was checking voltage
>at the Main Bus which was 12.3 but on the E-Bus (one D25 and 6 inches of
>14ga away), it was down to 11.7 volts for a loss of .6 volts. This seemed
>like a lot of voltage loss so I tried another D25 and it read an even 12.0
>volts for a loss of .3.
>
>Now I'm wondering if either of these is normal and if so what is acceptable
>loss between the buses?
>
>Thanks Bill S
>7a Ark
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PC680 battery |
Doug,
The website on odyssey batteries state that if it was fully charged when
stored it has a shelf life of two years. See note off their website below:
Guaranteed longer service life - The ODYSSEY battery, with a ten year
design life and a three-to-eight year service life, saves you time and money
because you do not have to replace your battery as often. It is also the
ONLY battery that is capable of delivering a large number of deep cycles -
up to 400 when fully discharged or up to 500 when discharged to 80%. Plus,
the battery is specially designed for high vibration applications.
Longer storage life - Unlike conventional batteries that need to be
recharged every six to twelve weeks, the ODYSSEY battery, when fully
charged , can be stored for up to 2 years at room temperature (25C, 77F).
At lower temperatures, storage times will be even longer.
Ed A
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Jones" <dljinia(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:26 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: PC680 battery
>
> Group:
> I purchased a new PC680 battery a year ago with the
> intent of replacing the year old (now 2 year old)
> PC680 in my RV7A. Well, I didn't. I had mounted the
> ground lug that goes through the firewall too low and
> it was going to be in the way to replace the battery
> without moving the lug.
>
> Long story shorter, I've pulled my engine and sent
> back to Aero Sport to get the crankshaft replaced in
> compliance with SB566. I intend to now replace the
> battery (and move the ground lug higher).
>
> The question, should I use the new battery that has
> been sitting on the shelf in the hanger for over a
> year without any attention or do I need to buy another
> "fresh" one?
>
> Is there anything I should check?
>
> Thanks,
> Doug -7A 260hrs
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | D25 Diode voltage variance ?? |
Thanks for the reply! Seemed like a lot but I guess this isn't really
important because in normal ops, the active system keeps it up and in a low
voltage situation, the Main and D25 are out of action anyway and the E-Bus
circuit gets remaining battery power to the E-Bus with little or no loss.
Thanks Bill S
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie
England
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: D25 Diode voltage variance ??
-->
Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>-->
>
>
>Anyone? Wiring per Z13 with Main Bus and E-Bus. I have the D25 diode
>installed between them per diagrams. Just for fun, I was checking
>voltage at the Main Bus which was 12.3 but on the E-Bus (one D25 and 6
>inches of 14ga away), it was down to 11.7 volts for a loss of .6 volts.
>This seemed like a lot of voltage loss so I tried another D25 and it
>read an even 12.0 volts for a loss of .3.
>
>Now I'm wondering if either of these is normal and if so what is
>acceptable loss between the buses?
>
>Thanks Bill S
>7a Ark
>
Normal voltage drop across a forward biased silicon diode is ~.6 volts.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Bob, the Brittain TC-100 you are refering to is both vacuum and electric
powered, and will continue to function as long as either power source is
present. I have one in my Mooney. As for recovering from a spin, while
prepping for my instrument ride 26 years ago my CFI put me in an unusual
attitude under the hood, and gave me the plane. The AH and DG were
tumbled, so I knew I had to level the wings with the TC, and control the
airspeed. Only afterwards, did I find out he put me in a spin...which I
had never done at that point. Much easier recovery if you don't see the
spinning earth out the window.
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 1/16/2006 7:00:07 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> PLaurence@the-beach.net writes:
>
> Is there such a thing as a vacuum T/C?
>
>
>
> Sorry, I forgot to answer this.
>
> There has been.
>
> Brittain had one that they also used as the sensor for their low cost
> autopilot. I do not recall seeing one that was not associated with an autopilot
or
> wing leveler. Doesn't mean there isn't one though!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com> |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of LarryRobertHelming
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 7:11 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "Light" IFR???
> Light IFR: defined in the Midwest as being on top of or below an overcast
> cloud layer with AWOS/ASOS info that tells them on the other side of the
> layer there are VFR conditions -- with adequate ceiling near the ground,
> or above a certain level where the overcast top is. Light IFR pilots have
> not filed IFR or may not be IFR qualified or legally equipped for IFR, but
> they go on the instruments long enough to fly up or down through the
> clouds to the other side expecting better conditions.
Larry,
I've noted several SERIOUS concerns with the above statements (see below).
In fact, the statements seem to indicate a significant lack of understanding
of FARs, safety, and risk mgt. The statements above are not boarder-line
interpretation issues nor sensible risk management approaches, these are
serious errors/omissions in required knowledge/experience. If the rest of
your aviation knowledge/understanding is of similar depth/inaccuracy, then I
feel you're likely well below the level of proficiency the most pilots
expect of each other.
Please note, I've taken the time to reply in an objective/constructive
manner (not abusive/flippant) in the hope that you seriously seek further
education/training. If you don't like my opinion, might I suggest that you
get a few more from others and take them to heart (don't shoot the
messengers).
Additionally, while these comments may seem a bit off point for this list,
the underlying theme is to think twice before short-cutting an IFR panel.
Short cut your paint, interior, etc if need be, or short-cut your oil
changes, bald tires, prop balancing, old mags, TBO, whatever, if that's how
you value your safety/life. But when it comes to IFR equipment - you're
extending your risk decisions to the rest of us. It's not just separation,
even an unnecessary missed approach can stress the IFR system when others
may be in an IFR hold somewhere with minimal fuel waiting for you. IFR is
not only about us individually, its about the entire collective system.
My concerns/feedback with comments above.
If your point was that having the best available weather helps lower some of
the risks associated with IFR flight, I certainly agree. However...
1. I've never heard an AWOS/ASOS that will tell you what's on the top of an
overcast. They don't (someone please correct me if some do).
2. AWOS/ASOS = "automatic", means not checked/verified. Prone to all kinds
of errors. Usually directional correct information, but not something you
can bank on. One of the reasons instrument approaches have missed
procedures is because actual conditions are not always the same as reports,
especially AWOS/ASOS.
3. Good/accurate information on tops is often hard to come by. Best (only)
source is often pilot reports (or ATC chatter). It's not always available
nor current, nor accurate. Furthermore tops (and intermediate layers) often
change, due to heating through the day, fronts, terrain, etc.
If your point was that being VFR (VMC) above an overcast layer with some
knowledge/expectation of high ceilings below (and a VFR descent opportunity
before your expected destination) is better than being in the same with no
knowledge of conditions below, I agree. Being "above a layer" in VMC
without IFR capability is also legal. However...
4. Being "above a layer" without IFR capability (pilot and/or aircraft) even
with knowledge of conditions below its a false sense of security at best.
If you're lucky, the ceiling below is 1,000ft+ above all obstacles/terrain
(well above 1000ft AGL). If not, an engine out, alt out, etc carries the
very real risk of a blind approach/landing (a serious crash) - typically
fatal. Worse case: fire, total power loss, radio/txpnd out, etc, = no ATC
assistance = you're playing roulette (with bad odds).
No good scenario results in flight in IMC (on the needles) without being
certified and on an active IFR plan/clearance...
5. Flying through any IMC (clouds, etc), at any time, without being IFR
certified and current (pilot and aircraft) is illegal.
6. VFR flight into IMC is one of the top causes of fatal accidents. It has
been for decades (nothing new here - same issues/fatalities every year).
I'm guessing the pilots who tried and died, were all relatively confident
they could do it (wrong, they died). While I'm sure there are some (many?)
who have made it and lived, thinking (guessing) you can do it does not
correlate with success. A few hours under the hood (on the needles) during
private pilot training and/or with friends might be marginally helpful, but
is also not correlated with success. Those who've died have proved it.
Training, testing, certification, and currency have proven much better
indicators of success. I suggest you ascribe to them and suggest any/all
your friends do the same.
7. Flying through any IMC (clouds, etc) in controlled airspace (Class E and
above - virtually all airspace east of the Rockies above 1500 AGL) without
an active IFR flight plan and clearance is illegal.
8. If you're in IMC without ATC positive control (and active IFR flight plan
and clearance), what's to keep you from running into other aircraft? The
big sky theory is a risk that other IFR pilots (and commercial passengers)
choose not to bank on. Perhaps you're a risk taker/gambler with your life.
Most of us aren't. Anyone in IMC and not on an IFR clearance is putting
many other at needless risk - it's very, very, very selfish. (I'm being
kind!). If you find yourself thinking you can survive IMC without training
and/or ATC clearance/control, the safest thing for the rest of us, is for
you to roll it over, point it straight down, and expedite your destiny.
This minimizes the risk you extend to otherwise innocent folks working
together to keep everyone safe.
9. Additionally, if you're in IMC without a clearance and you run into
someone, everyone's dead and you're clearly at fault, their
family/dependents will likely sue your family/estate for more than you have
- regardless of how much you have. Flight and life insurance is not likely
to even come close to the costs/suits and will never cover the hardships.
Quite a legacy you leave for others.
Other constructive comments.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard cannella <ric52md(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: circuit simplification help needed |
It seems to me that you could use a 2 pole 3 position
rotary switch to do this. The attached file is a
terrible drawing, but it's the best I could do at
home. I found some switches made by ITT, C&K M series
that are 6 amps continous, 28 VDC. Hope this helps,
been out of doing this for a while. Loose the design
edge quick when only doing tech support. You have my
disclaimer... I'm not a builder or a pilot. I hope to
start lessons in the spring and build in the fall.
Ric
--- "Mark R. Supinski"
wrote:
> Supinski"
>
> Hello all-
>
> I'd like to 'simplify' the circuit shown in the
> following image:
>
> http://supinski.net:8080/injectors.jpg
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Light" IFR??? |
John W. Cox wrote:
>
> IFR is not light.
There are different levels of difficulty in flying IFR. The skill level
to penetrate a cloud layer and then break out 1000' above the ground
with 2-3 mi visibility is not the same as flying in known ice,
turbulence, avoiding embedded CBs, and then shooting a tricky approach
breaking out at minimums. The former will permit a greater degree of
inaccuracy without endangering the aircraft or passengers.
I know that, depending on how I am feeling and my recent practice, I
will change my go/no-go decision point. I will accept "light" IFR when I
might not be willing to launch into something heavier.
We can be pedantic if we choose to but the bottom line is that there are
degrees of IFR difficulty.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> The T&B has one or two less fulcrums to fail, but both are about as simple,
> light and reliable as an instrument can be.
The internal construction of the TC and the T&SI (T&B) are the same. The
only difference is that the axis of the gyro in the TC is canted so that
the gyro responds to both yaw and roll rather than yaw only as in the T&SI.
> I have mentioned this often, but I will repeat, I have two T&Bs in my
> airplane, one is vacuum powered. The other is driven by electricity. I believe
> that is overkill, but they are so cheap, I do it anyway!
Why don't you put in a second AI? Seems to me that would serve you
better than a second T&SI.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Prescott AZ 2006 Seminar date set |
Plans and dates have been finalized for an AeroElectric
Connection seminar in Prescott, AZ on May 20/21, 2006.
Details at:
http://aeroelectric.com/seminars/Prescott.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Brinker wrote:
>
> The GRT will also display the HSI from the SL30. And will tune the
> SL30 from the MFD. Not to mention ILS and Localizer And will display your
> engine monitor to either display you choose. Not sure how you get 6k for
> engine monitoring. Last I checked a 6cyl was around $1100 with EIS and
> probes.
I didn't think that was with the full graphical engine display.
> GRT is very helpful if there is a way to make it work they will try.
> I have a KLN90B gps that Todd is trying figure out if it will work with
> they're system now. It looks favorable, I am keeping my fingures and toes
> crossed.
The GRT should respond to ARINC-429 messages. If it does, it should be
compatible with any nav system that outputs ARINC-429 nav info, e.g.
CDI, VDI, flags, etc.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons) |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> The reference to "full" ILS was meant to include a glide slope. There is no
> way that I am aware of to see the glide slope on the 430 control unit face.
> Consequently a CDI is needed. While I am not very familiar with how the 430
> works, I also believe you will need a resolver to input VOR radials for the
> VHF navigation portion of the 430.
Most Nav radios that have built-in VOR/LOC converters output signals
intended to drive meter movements. There is even an ARINC standard for
these types of signal. (I forget the ARINC number for these analog meter
movement signals.)
There are a lot of older ILS display heads that have the deviation
indicators (CDI/VDI), the flags, and an OBS resolver. I have been able
to pick these up for next to nothing. (I got one free for the asking at
an old shop once.) This type of display may be used with your GPS or nav
with a built-in VOR/LOC converter. No need to buy a brand-new expensive
unit.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Bruce Gray wrote:
> Chelton) remains untested to the extent necessary to pass DO 178, their
> hardware is not DO 160 certified. That means you're the beta tester. Do you
> want to bet your life in that situation? Mark my words, we're going to have
> some experimental airplanes equipped with low cost EFIS systems get into
> some serious fatal trouble. That body count is going to raise the level of
> visibility of this issue with the FAA and soon big brother will be breathing
> down our necks.
>
> Low cost, noncertified EFIS system are OK for VFR airplanes. But stay out of
> IFR conditions.
Bruce, there are a lot of airplanes flying IFR with the gyros powered by
a dry vacuum pump and you are worried about how dangerous the current
crop of non-certified PFDs are?
Instrument-rated pilots are supposed to be able to cross check their
gyros and reject those that do not agree. That is part of the standard
skill set.
When things go wrong and you start to chase a dying AI, you know it.
*EVERYTHING* feels wrong and your airspeed and altitude start to move.
You *KNOW* you have a problem. It will pretty quickly become apparent
which instrument(s) are providing you with valid information.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> I hope you are correct, but I have heard rumors that the current crop of
> solid state accelerometer based rate sensors do not do well during violent
> maneuvering. Supposedly, that is one of the reasons there have been so few
> approved for certified use. It is my feeling that I would sooner have a tried
and
> true instrument like the T&B for my last ditch backup.
All of the solid state rate gyros and accelerometers have maximum rates.
For the rate gyros they are in degrees per second and for the
accelerometers they are in Gs. If the AHRS has 160 degree/sec rate gyros
then it is going to lose track if you roll the airplane too fast. (It
won't really tumble but it won't indicate a roll as fast as you are
actually achieving.) You can get devices that support higher rates at
the expense of lower resolution and accuracy.
Most aircraft do not have pitch, yaw, or roll rates great enough to
reach the limits. OTOH, some OBAM aircraft do and that should be a
consideration when selecting a PFD/AHRS.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS Display |
On 16 Jan 2006, at 20:49, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> yak(at)lloyd.com>
>
> Kevin Horton wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'll leave the question as to whether AC 20-138A is regulatory or not
>> to those who know the US regs better than I.
>>
>> But, just because something may be legal doesn't mean it is a good
>> idea. If your installation does not match up against AC 20-138A,
>> then I strongly recommend you should not fly IMC based on the GPS, on
>> approach, or lower than 1000 ft above any obstacles in the enroute
>> and terminal phases of flight.
>
> I find this discussion interesting and far more complex than it
> needs to
> be.
>
> How many people have sat in their cockpit and moved across the panel
> pointing to each device and asking the question, "what if this failed
> and I am IFR?" This is a very simple procedure and it will go a
> long way
> toward figuring out whether you need to attach the specified device to
> the e-bus or to add a redundant unit.
I agree with all you wrote, but there is one more thing to consider
too. Anyone considering using a non-TSO'd GPS receiver for IFR
flight needs to also ask the question "what if the GPS receiver
provided false position information and I was flying IFR?". TSO C129
units have functions that look for bad satellite data, and either
exclude it, or stop providing position info. Non-TSO C129 units
almost certain don't have this function, and they will quite happily
use bad satellite data to calculate a bad position. If the position
error is large, you will probably notice it. But, I am aware of one
occurrence that happened to a co-worker. They were flying a practice
GPS approach in VMC conditions. The GPS receiver gave a RAIM warning
prior to the FAF, and refused to go into approach mode. They
continued the approach, curious to see what the GPS was going to do.
It ended up bringing them in on a path over 1 mile offset from the
correct approach path. That could put you into the rocks or
obstacles in some places.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PC680 battery |
>
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf
The battery test suggested in the above article is a
COMPARATIVE test intended to measure degradation of your
used battery as compared with new.
It's not designed for nor capable of offering measured
values of capacity.
What is/was your stored battery's terminal voltage before
you put it on a charger? If above 12.5 volts, it probably
possesses near new capacity. But the only way to know for
sure is to test it with reasonably calibrated equipment.
I'd do a cranking test with an instrument commonly found
in service stations. See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/HF91129_4.jpg
for a low cost offering by Harbor Freight. Put a load
on the battery for pulls the voltage down to 9 volts
for 15 seconds. Observe current delivered at the end of 15
seconds. It should be 300A or better.
Recharge the battery and do a capacity test using some
tool like:
http://westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm
I've purchased several of these for use in various
jobs and I keep one on the shelf in my shop. If you
don't want to invest in such tools, AND the battery
meets the cranking test at your local battery service
shop, then go ahead and install it. On some nice
VFR clear day, drop to battery-only operations and see
how long the battery will run your endurance loads
without dropping below 11 volts.
Be aware that advertised service life numbers for
batteries are a mixture of lab tests extrapolated
to the real world conditions and/or wishful marketing
hype. The real service life of a battery is strongly
influenced by your battery's real-world experiences
and the phase of the moon when the battery was built
(just kidding . . . slightly. Building batteries
is like baking cakes. The cook can have a bad day
in the most prestigious of battery factories. Hawker
went through a protracted bout of low quality jelly-roll
cells a couple of years ago).
Marketing literature is not a substitute for directly
measuring a battery's performance capabilities.
Bob . . .
>Dave Morris
>
>At 08:26 PM 1/16/2006, you wrote:
> >
> >Group:
> > I purchased a new PC680 battery a year ago with the
> >intent of replacing the year old (now 2 year old)
> >PC680 in my RV7A. Well, I didn't. I had mounted the
> >ground lug that goes through the firewall too low and
> >it was going to be in the way to replace the battery
> >without moving the lug.
> >
> >Long story shorter, I've pulled my engine and sent
> >back to Aero Sport to get the crankshaft replaced in
> >compliance with SB566. I intend to now replace the
> >battery (and move the ground lug higher).
> >
> >The question, should I use the new battery that has
> >been sitting on the shelf in the hanger for over a
> >year without any attention or do I need to buy another
> >"fresh" one?
> >
> >Is there anything I should check?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Doug -7A 260hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
Question, how do you know it doesn't match up? Think about your answer.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin
Horton
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:42 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS Display
I'll leave the question as to whether AC 20-138A is regulatory or not
to those who know the US regs better than I.
But, just because something may be legal doesn't mean it is a good
idea. If your installation does not match up against AC 20-138A,
then I strongly recommend you should not fly IMC based on the GPS, on
approach, or lower than 1000 ft above any obstacles in the enroute
and terminal phases of flight.
Kevin Horton
On 15 Jan 2006, at 23:35, Mike wrote:
>
> AC 20-138A is not regulatory for experimental aircraft unless You
> incorporated this into your limitations.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Bruce
> McGregor
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:05 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS Display
>
>
>
> AC 20-138A, Airworthiness Approval Of Global Navigation Satellite
> System
> Equipment, sets the requirements for IFR GPS units. Para 18d ,
> Navigation
> Display,. requires that the horizontal and vertical deviation
> display(s)
> and
> failure annunciation be within the pilot's primary field of view.
> Primary
> field is defined as within 15 degrees of straight ahead of the pilot.
> Other
> displays may be anywhere from the airspeed indicator on the left in a
> standard six pack to and including an avionics center stack on the
> right.
>
> One method of compliance is to place an IFR GPS receiver that displays
> CDI/VDI, such as the GNS 480, within the primary field of view and
> eliminate
> the requirement for an external display. The geometry of my GlaStar
> gives a
> 12" wide zone in the panel for the GPS' display. Placing a Dynon
> or GRT
> PFD
> above or below the GPS would result in a lot of flight/navigation info
> directly
> in front of the pilot.
>
> Regards, Bruce McGregor
--
1/16/2006
--
1/16/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery strength |
>
>Hello all,
>as I am new on this list - this is my first try to get some needed
>information.
>So what I have is a 24 Volt system with a 12 Volt starter on an O360 F1A6.
>I was told that it should not be a problem to use the 12 Volt starter with
>24 Volt as the voltage will drop anyhow to about 18 Volt and the starting
>process itself will not take more than 20 seconds which the starter should
>be capable to handle.
If it's a permanent magnet starter, it's probably not a good idea.
The earliest automotive derivatives were series wound and fairly
tolerant of short duration overloads . . . it will certainly crank
the engine faster thus reducing total abuse time of the starter.
What are your options? Take the starter off and replace it with
an newer, lighter machine or run the existing starter 'til it
croaks. Who knows, you may get considerable service life from
the existing starter and the risks are low.
>- what is the opinion of the group on this ?
>- The second issue is that I need a figure of the battery strength (Ah)
>which is needed to start my engine. I know that this is depending on many
>issues and this should not be the only consideration for the strength but
>there must be a general idea of whether 17 Ah should do the job easily or
>should one go for 24 Ah or 7 Ah.
Battery size is driven more by what your no-alternator
endurance goals are. Have you conducted a load analysis
for alternator-out operations and selected a minimum endurance
time? See Chapter 17 of the 'Connection.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bobsv35b(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Good Morning Brian,
You ask: "Why don't you put in a second AI? Seems to me that would serve you
better than a second T&SI."
Many reasons.
I would need to repeat long treatises on why I prefer the T&B over the TC along
with thoughts on how MY mind works. What works for me may not work for others.
On top of that, the T&B is lighter, cheaper and, in my opinion, more reliable.
Incidentally, I have never disassembled either a T&B or a TC, but my local instrument
guru tells me that the TC has one more fulcrum point to transfer the data
from the canted gyro to the instrument face. Thus a slightly higher parts
count and an ever so slightly higher chance of failure.
There is no doubt that, with proper training, either a TC or a T&B can be used
successfully for partial panel flight and as a device for recovery from an unusual
attitude.
On top of that, neither instrument will tumble as will some attitude gyros.
My love for the T&B is based on it being so much different in appearance from the
TC or attitude gyro and the fact that it will show only yaw where the TC shows
both roll and yaw.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> The T&B has one or two less fulcrums to fail, but both are about as simple,
> light and reliable as an instrument can be.
The internal construction of the TC and the T&SI (T&B) are the same. The
only difference is that the axis of the gyro in the TC is canted so that
the gyro responds to both yaw and roll rather than yaw only as in the T&SI.
> I have mentioned this often, but I will repeat, I have two T&Bs in my
> airplane, one is vacuum powered. The other is driven by electricity. I
believe
> that is overkill, but they are so cheap, I do it anyway!
Why don't you put in a second AI? Seems to me that would serve you
better than a second T&SI.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
$1100 is for the EIS only for a 6cyl but I plan to install a dual EFIS
which interfaces to the EIS
I think if you wanted a dedicated graphic display it would be a
little over $3000
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
>
> Brinker wrote:
>> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>>
>> The GRT will also display the HSI from the SL30. And will tune the
>> SL30 from the MFD. Not to mention ILS and Localizer And will display
>> your
>> engine monitor to either display you choose. Not sure how you get 6k for
>> engine monitoring. Last I checked a 6cyl was around $1100 with EIS and
>> probes.
>
> I didn't think that was with the full graphical engine display.
>
>> GRT is very helpful if there is a way to make it work they will try.
>> I have a KLN90B gps that Todd is trying figure out if it will work with
>> they're system now. It looks favorable, I am keeping my fingures and toes
>> crossed.
>
> The GRT should respond to ARINC-429 messages. If it does, it should be
> compatible with any nav system that outputs ARINC-429 nav info, e.g.
> CDI, VDI, flags, etc.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
....be sure to review and compare the JPI engine monitor if you have not
made a decision yet.
D
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> $1100 is for the EIS only for a 6cyl but I plan to install a dual EFIS
> which interfaces to the EIS
> I think if you wanted a dedicated graphic display it would be a
> little over $3000
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:54 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Brinker wrote:
>>> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>>>
>>> The GRT will also display the HSI from the SL30. And will tune the
>>> SL30 from the MFD. Not to mention ILS and Localizer And will display
>>> your
>>> engine monitor to either display you choose. Not sure how you get 6k for
>>> engine monitoring. Last I checked a 6cyl was around $1100 with EIS and
>>> probes.
>>
>> I didn't think that was with the full graphical engine display.
>>
>>> GRT is very helpful if there is a way to make it work they will try.
>>> I have a KLN90B gps that Todd is trying figure out if it will work with
>>> they're system now. It looks favorable, I am keeping my fingures and
>>> toes
>>> crossed.
>>
>> The GRT should respond to ARINC-429 messages. If it does, it should be
>> compatible with any nav system that outputs ARINC-429 nav info, e.g.
>> CDI, VDI, flags, etc.
>>
>> --
>> Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
>> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
>> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>>
>> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
>> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bobsv35b(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: circuit simplification help needed |
Good Morning Ric,
Welcome aboard!
Stick with it and keep us advised as to how things are going. Just remember that
flying is fun. If your first instructor does not make it fun, shop around
until you find one that does. Getting good flight instruction is not easy these
days, but it can be done!
Enjoy.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, Illinois
630 985-8502
-----Original Message-----
From: richard cannella <ric52md(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: circuit simplification help needed
It seems to me that you could use a 2 pole 3 position
rotary switch to do this. The attached file is a
terrible drawing, but it's the best I could do at
home. I found some switches made by ITT, C&K M series
that are 6 amps continous, 28 VDC. Hope this helps,
been out of doing this for a while. Loose the design
edge quick when only doing tech support. You have my
disclaimer... I'm not a builder or a pilot. I hope to
start lessons in the spring and build in the fall.
Ric
--- "Mark R. Supinski"
wrote:
> Supinski"
>
> Hello all-
>
> I'd like to 'simplify' the circuit shown in the
> following image:
>
> http://supinski.net:8080/injectors.jpg
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Comment below..
>
> Bob,
>
snip
>
> As far as meeting the requirement of being able to fly a T&B, most IFR
> pilots could do this when licensed but never practice this task again.
> You tell me how good you would be 10 years down the road without
> spending more then the 5 minutes or so work with the T&B on your BFR in
> great weather. Unless youre the one pilot in general aviation that does
> go out every 90 days and maintains proficiency at this task. I think
> your hiding behind the lack of data showing that pilots do not practice
> what they do not like or are not very good at. I'm just being realistic
> about the data I have collected about real world proficiency.
>
> Mike
>
Given the chances that you will have a vacuum pump failure, I propose that
it's good policy to perform the majority of your proficiency work with the
AI covered. And, fly more than one "no gyro" approach each time you go
out (DG and AI covered). They aren't really that hard. In fact, when you
ask for that from ATC, they are generally very accomodating (in a radar
environment anyway). They give you the "start turn, stop turn
instructions" and the only hard part is intercepting the final approach
course. It helps if you practice keeping the ball centered in all
maneuvers. And I don't think flying the "no gyro" procedure reduces your
effectiveness at full-panel ops. I suppose the hardest thing partial
panel is doing a precise holding pattern without the DG - especially on a
windy/bumpy day. Break out the handheld GPS to give you course
information - makes it almost too easy.
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Cann" <tonycann(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 66 Msgs - 01/16/06 |
1) Now that the CAN-Aerospace bus definition has been around a while, will
it become an accepted standard? It did achieve some success in the CAPSTONE
projects.
2) Has Boeing published their message formats for Ethernet to try to
establish a standard?
Tony Cann
916-988-4043
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> Subject:
Re: EFIS Comparisons
Kevin Horton wrote:
Go away for a couple of days and you drown in messages.
>>If manufacturers did start to make a habit of publicly reproducing
>>real
>>time magnitudes on a serial output then the step from boxes to
system
>>would be simple. As a start just add comparison, alarm and display
of
>>results (have a backup for this too).
There is such a standard. It is ARINC-429.
(clipped)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS Display |
Kevin Horton wrote:
> I agree with all you wrote, but there is one more thing to consider
> too. Anyone considering using a non-TSO'd GPS receiver for IFR
> flight needs to also ask the question "what if the GPS receiver
> provided false position information and I was flying IFR?". TSO C129
> units have functions that look for bad satellite data, and either
> exclude it, or stop providing position info.
Which they do wonderfully well as I have discovered. I have had GPS stop
working for me on several flights, including one over water flight.
Fortunately I had an ADF as a backup. Planning for loss of your primary
navigation is part and parcel of flying.
Heck, on one of my Atlantic crossings my LORAN packed it in. I planned
for this and had a recent LORAN fix to use as a jumping-off point for
DR. I had also been checking the winds aloft using the LORAN so I had a
good wind set too. I navigated this way until I could get a good ADF
bearing and used that as a check until I got in range of a VOR. It
happens and it is not the end of the world.
> Non-TSO C129 units
> almost certain don't have this function, and they will quite happily
> use bad satellite data to calculate a bad position.
So you are going to bet your life on the RAIM feature of your GPS? You
aren't going to cross check? I have had GPS fail just too often to trust
GPS as my sole source of navigation, RAIM or no RAIM.
In fact, it has happened to me so many times with so many different GPS
receivers (which mysteriously get better later all by themselves) that I
have stopped flying GPS direct for the most part. I now find that I fly
most of my cross-country flights by Victor airway again. I do this
because it makes transition back to VOR much, much easier and the cost
in terms of time is almost always negligible. It also means that I can
cross check my GPS with the VOR/DME/RNAV. I know the GPS is more
accurate but I trust VOR/DME more in the long run.
So if the VOR/DME and GPS are telling me the same thing, I am happy. If
they start telling me different things, I am not happy but I know I have
to figure out who is lying. And usually the GPS just goes toes-up with a
RAIM error followed by loss of navigation information about 20 seconds
later.
> If the position
> error is large, you will probably notice it. But, I am aware of one
> occurrence that happened to a co-worker. They were flying a practice
> GPS approach in VMC conditions. The GPS receiver gave a RAIM warning
> prior to the FAF, and refused to go into approach mode. They
> continued the approach, curious to see what the GPS was going to do.
> It ended up bringing them in on a path over 1 mile offset from the
> correct approach path. That could put you into the rocks or
> obstacles in some places.
Sure it will. It breaks like everything else. Actually it breaks more
often as the USAF is still "experimenting" with degrading GPS in some
areas. Most of the time it gets NOTAM'd but sometimes ...
TSO C129 is not a panacea. RAIM helps but it doesn't solve the problem
that GPS has a number of interesting failure modes. You cannot count on
your GPS to always give you accurate information all the time. You need
something else or you need to be VFR so you can fall back on pilotage.
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
bobsv35b(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Good Morning Brian,
>
> You ask: "Why don't you put in a second AI? Seems to me that would serve you
> better than a second T&SI."
>
> Many reasons.
>
> I would need to repeat long treatises on why I prefer the T&B over the TC along
with thoughts on how MY mind works.
I do not disagree with you over your choice of T&SI vs. TC.
> What works for me may not work for others.
>
> On top of that, the T&B is lighter, cheaper and, in my opinion, more reliable.
That is true.
> Incidentally, I have never disassembled either a T&B or a TC, but my local instrument
guru tells me that the TC has one more fulcrum point to transfer the
data from the canted gyro to the instrument face.
Ah, yes. There is a linkage there but it is pretty darned simple. It is
not likely to be a source of failure. The motor is a much, much higher
probability of failure.
> Thus a slightly higher parts count and an ever so slightly higher chance of failure.
You are splitting hairs here.
> There is no doubt that, with proper training, either a TC or a T&B can be used
successfully for partial panel flight and as a device for recovery from an unusual
attitude.
So can an attitude gyro that is non-tumbling in both pitch and roll.
> On top of that, neither instrument will tumble as will some attitude gyros.
But in order to be used as a replacement for a T&SI or a TC the AI must
be non-tumbling. If it has stops on the gimbals it may not be used to
replace the turn instrument. There are a number of non-tumbling AIs out
there. Sporty's has a nice one for $1600. It also has an inclinometer
(ball).
> My love for the T&B is based on it being so much different in appearance from
the TC or attitude gyro and the fact that it will show only yaw where the TC
shows both roll and yaw.
I know. And it is easier to learn to fly partial-panel with a TC as you
get feedback as soon as you start to roll the airplane, long before the
T&SI starts to show a turn. Still I like that the T&SI is less "twitchy"
in turbulence.
But if the main AI packs it in it is one heck of a lot easier to proceed
using a second AI than it is to transition to partial panel. Sure we all
maintain currency and proficiency but who is ever so proficient that
they can fly partial panel as well as they can with an AI? Not me no
matter how hard I try. To me partial panel, whether it is with a TC or a
T&SI, is a serious event and probably qualifies as an emergency. Having
a second self-contained AI changes that dynamic tremendously.
YMMV
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
David Lloyd wrote:
>
> ....be sure to review and compare the JPI engine monitor if you have not
> made a decision yet.
I will but they have a couple of strikes against them:
1. JPI is expensive.
2. JPI screwed Matt Dralle over the name "fuel scan".
3. JPI changed the data format for their engine data storage without
telling the customers so that they could not continue processing their
data as they had in the past.
I do not think JPI is customer oriented.
They do have good engineering and good products but if all the other
things are equal, I will go with a different company.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 66 Msgs - 01/16/06 |
Tony Cann wrote:
>
> 1) Now that the CAN-Aerospace bus definition has been around a while, will
> it become an accepted standard? It did achieve some success in the CAPSTONE
> projects.
CAN-aerospace is a good start. I would like to see it flushed out a bit
more with more standardization in the messages transported.
> 2) Has Boeing published their message formats for Ethernet to try to
> establish a standard?
Not that I am aware of but I haven't looked for a year. There is
supposed to be a new ARINC standard to address this issue. A day late
and a dollar short it seems to me.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Interference between Com and Autopilot |
Hello Brian,
thanks for your response - please see my answers for simplicity reasons below between
your mail. Problem still exists, today I have moved the cables a bit and
the reactions changed. I will buy some ferit and try to put it on the servo
cables. Will report results.
Peter
"Brian Lloyd" schrieb:
>
>
> mailto:Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> > I am building my panel with a TruTrak DF II autopilot and 2 Becker AR3202 Coms.
I have discovered that transmitting during engaged autopilot has influence
on the AP in the form that the elevator goues up and the ailerons make a right
turn. As the details on the up and down is second, the influence itself is
of cause the problem. I have made the connections between the - high quality -
HF cables and the BNCs myself (i.e. they should be OK) and use 2 standard - not
self made - antennae.
> > The question is now - what can I do to avoid this interference? more shielding,
replacing the autopilot, ...
> > BTW, the antennae are in the baggage compartment
>
> What are you using for a ground plane for your antennas?
45 x 45 cm glass fibre with copper on it
>
> Isn't the fuselage in the Lancair primarily carbon fiber? If that is the
> case you are going to want to get the antennas outside the fuselage.
not necessarily, there are 2 models. mine is made from glass
>
> How does the TruTrak autopilot talk to its servos? Is is an analog
> voltage or a digital message?
Honestly I do not know - I assume analog
>
> Frankly, I would talk with the folks from TruTrak. They can help you
> with RF getting into their servos and/or the control head. Given the
> digital nature of the TruTrak autopilot and if I understand their system
> properly I would suspect that the problem is occurring at the one analog
> point, where the analog rate-gyro signal is digitized.
Already done - that is one of the reason I asked the group. They have no solution
- beside unbalanced antennae what I exclude.
>
> But TruTrak is your best bet for assistance.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Hawker battery failure |
Further investigation into the puffed up battery confirmed
that the inter-cell walls got so hot that the plastic
stretched under pressure and after all the smoke (or should
I say steam?) cleared, the walls between cells was still
intact. They're running some cracking pressure tests on
the vent valves.
It's the opinion of those who've tested a lot more batteries
than I that the event probably didn't take more than 20-30 minutes
under an over-charge current that a 40 to 60A alternator
would be capable of.
There's a new battery qualification document (DO-293) that
calls for 3v per cell at up to 8C amps be applied until
all the steaming is over. No fire allowed, no breaches
of battery case. I'm told that within 10 minutes of
application, RG batteries are steaming vigorously and
that the high energy activity is pretty well over in
30-40 minutes.
Looks like the Hawker would have passed this test okay
and that regulator failure was the proximate cause
of the event with outcome exacerbated by lack of active
notification of an OV condition and/or automatic termination
of the OV event.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interference between Com and Autopilot |
Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de wrote:
>
> Hello Brian,
> thanks for your response - please see my answers for simplicity reasons below
between your mail. Problem still exists, today I have moved the cables a bit
and the reactions changed. I will buy some ferit and try to put it on the servo
cables. Will report results.
It is always very annoying to troubleshoot RF getting into devices that
are not RF devices. EMI in telephones, stereos, and burglar alarms are
always a pain to troubleshoot.
Here are some things to try:
1. Try a ferrite bead over the entire servo wire at both ends.
2. Try ferrite beads over each individual wire in the cable at both ends.
3. Bypass the power wiring to ground at the head and at the servo using
.01 ufd disc ceramic capacitors.
4. Bypass the control signal lead at both the head and servo using a
.001 ufd disc ceramic capacitors.
5. Wrap several turns of the power wire around a ferrite toroid core
where it enters the control head and again at the servo.
I would try them in the order I have listed them. When working with the
disc ceramic caps you need to keep the leads as short as possible.
[sigh] RF in plastic airplanes is always a pain. I had a plastic car
once and tried to mount an antenna on it with a window-screen ground
plane. It never did work right.
Oh, something else to consider. You could try building a coaxial dipole
and mount that instead of using an aircraft antenna. The standard
aircraft antenna insists on a good ground plane. A coaxial dipole does
not need one but is twice as long.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interference between Com and Autopilot |
This may not cure your RFI problem, but it might be an interesting
alternative antenna in your fiberglass tailcone, as it eliminates the need
for a ground plane and whip antennas, and conforms to the fuselage sides,
leaving the interior open:
http://www.DaveMorris.com/MorrisComLoop
Dave Morris
At 01:05 PM 1/17/2006, you wrote:
>
>Hello Brian,
>thanks for your response - please see my answers for simplicity reasons
>below between your mail. Problem still exists, today I have moved the
>cables a bit and the reactions changed. I will buy some ferit and try to
>put it on the servo cables. Will report results.
>Peter
> "Brian Lloyd" schrieb:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > mailto:Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de wrote:
> mailto:Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > > I am building my panel with a TruTrak DF II autopilot and 2 Becker
> AR3202 Coms. I have discovered that transmitting during engaged autopilot
> has influence on the AP in the form that the elevator goues up and the
> ailerons make a right turn. As the details on the up and down is second,
> the influence itself is of cause the problem. I have made the connections
> between the - high quality - HF cables and the BNCs myself (i.e. they
> should be OK) and use 2 standard - not self made - antennae.
> > > The question is now - what can I do to avoid this interference? more
> shielding, replacing the autopilot, ...
> > > BTW, the antennae are in the baggage compartment
> >
> > What are you using for a ground plane for your antennas?
>45 x 45 cm glass fibre with copper on it
> >
> > Isn't the fuselage in the Lancair primarily carbon fiber? If that is the
> > case you are going to want to get the antennas outside the fuselage.
>not necessarily, there are 2 models. mine is made from glass
> >
> > How does the TruTrak autopilot talk to its servos? Is is an analog
> > voltage or a digital message?
>Honestly I do not know - I assume analog
> >
> > Frankly, I would talk with the folks from TruTrak. They can help you
> > with RF getting into their servos and/or the control head. Given the
> > digital nature of the TruTrak autopilot and if I understand their system
> > properly I would suspect that the problem is occurring at the one analog
> > point, where the analog rate-gyro signal is digitized.
>Already done - that is one of the reason I asked the group. They have no
>solution - beside unbalanced antennae what I exclude.
> >
> > But TruTrak is your best bet for assistance.
> >
> > --
> > Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
> > brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
> > +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
> >
> > I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> > - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Lewis <Tim_Lewis(at)msm.umr.edu> |
| Subject: | Internally Regulated Alternator Update? |
Bob,
Which "George" were you referring to in your email (attached)? I've
searched the Aeroelectric list back emails without success. Can you
share where you are headed with this effort (general architecture)?
Thanks,
Tim Lewis
>
>
>
>>
>>Let me make sure I understand you correctly: if I locate a mechanically
>>suitable IR alternator of suitable capacity, a topology for full OV
>>protection and safe in-flight shut-down control of the alternator is soon
>>to be published on the AeroElectric list or in the 'Connection, with
>>minimal retrofitting hassle into the Z-13 or -14 architectures?
>
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>
>>If so, that's great! I can hold my breath that long.
>
>
> Don't hold your breath and don't even delay flying.
> The "barefoot" alternator has a good track record.
> The "mod" will all under the cowl.
>
>
>
>>(I'd still like a hint on a magic part #, though. You get weird looks
>>walkiong into a shop and asking for a part by spec versus what car it's
>>for, as you know.)
>
>
> George has published several recommendations
> that are part number specific. Check back into
> the recent archives.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "czechsix(at)juno.com" <czechsix(at)juno.com> |
Cc: aaaron(at)tvp.com.au
| Subject: | MicroAir products |
I wouldn't get the Microair comm if you're flying in the U.S. They have some fundamental
design problems that they can't seem to understand or resolve. A buddy
of mine, Alan Kritzman, went through about half a dozen iterations of their
transponder with his RV-8...he also tried a new antenna, relocated it, new coax,
etc. Nothing resolved the problem which is intermittent operation (replies
to ATC interrogations) in our local Class C airspace here at KCID. We finally
figured out that the ASR-9 radar here is a very powerful analog system (it may
be the most powerful system in operation). The newer radars are digital and
less powerful. Anyway there are other transmitters like the one here located around
the U.S. but there are none in Australia and if you don't go near these
Class C facilities you probably won't see the problem. So, there are some users
here in the U.S. who have no complaints.
We finally took the latest two versions of the transponder (about a year ago) into
our avionics lab here at Rockwell Collins where we work as Systems Engineers.
We hooked both of them up to the ATC test sets we use all the time with Collins
equipment. Both the Microair units--the latest and greatest--failed all
the tests. We know the test sets are good, calibrated units. We sent the results
to Microair but at that point we gave up and asked for a refund.
I must add that Microair's customer service has been outstanding in the sense than
they are eager to resolve the problem and I'm sure they would have kept exchanging
and updating their units indefinitely if we had that much patience. But
their engineer(s) don't understand how to fix it and they don't have a real
certified transponder test set (which is a very expensive piece of equipment
and they are a small company), so they may never figure it out without access
to proper test equipment. In the end they gave us a good refund and we put in
Garmin units which work flawlessly.
I might also add that we've heard from half a dozen others in the U.S. that have
had the same problems with intermittent operation near major Class C facilities
around the country (depends on the radar system in use), so it's not just
a local thing at our airport.
By the way the microair comm radios seem to work just fine.
I hope Microair finds a fix for their transponder...I loved the compact, light
weight/low power consumption of their design, and it was a major pain to have
to cut a new rectangular hole in my panel for the boat-anchor Garmin (messed up
my panel layout), but you've gotta have a transponder that works!!
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
From: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au>
I have a microair transponder. Its worked fine for me over the past
three years. I did have to send it back once for a software update but
the service was quick and free.
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rodney Dunham
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 09:23
Subject: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
-->
I'm about to order transceiver & transponder for my Sonex. I like the
small MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer
is here in Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer
feedback about them (or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined
with the Jabiru 3300. Also feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be
appreciated.
Rodney
I wouldn't get the Microair comm if you're flying in the U.S. They have some fundamental
design problems that they can't seem to understand or resolve. A buddy
of mine, Alan Kritzman, went through about half a dozen iterations of their
transponder with his RV-8...he also tried a new antenna, relocated it, new coax,
etc. Nothing resolved the problem which is intermittent operation (replies
to ATC interrogations) in our local Class C airspace here at KCID. We finally
figured out that the ASR-9 radar here is a very powerful analog system (it may
be the most powerful system in operation). The newer radars are digital and
less powerful. Anyway there are other transmitters like the one here located around
the U.S. but there are none in Australia and if you don't go near these
Class C facilities you probably won't see the problem. So, there are some users
here in the U.S. who have no complaints.
We finally took the latest two versions of the transponder (about a year ago) into
our avionics lab here at Rockwell Collins where we work as Systems Engineers.
We hooked both of them up to the ATC test sets we use all the time with Collins
equipment. Both the Microair units--the latest and greatest--failed all
the tests. We know the test sets are good, calibrated units. We sent the results
to Microair but at that point we gave up and asked for a refund.
I must add that Microair's customer service has been outstanding in the sense than
they are eager to resolve the problem and I'm sure they would have kept exchanging
and updating their units indefinitely if we had that much patience. But
their engineer(s) don't understand how to fix it and they don't have a real
certified transponder test set (which is a very expensive piece of equipment
and they are a small company), so they may never figure it out without access
to proper test equipment. In the end they gave us a good refund and we put in
Garmin units which work flawlessly.
I might also add that we've heard from half a dozen others in the U.S. that have
had the same problems with intermittent operation near major Class C facilities
around the country (depends on the radar system in use), so it's not just
a local thing at our airport.
By the way the microair comm radios seem to work just fine.
I hope Microair finds a fix for their transponder...I loved the compact, light
weight/low power consumption of their design, and it was a major pain to have
to cut a new rectangular hole in my panel for the boat-anchor Garmin (messed up
my panel layout), but you've gotta have a transponder that works!!
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
From: "Allan Aaron" aaaron(at)tvp.com.au
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" aaaron(at)tvp.com.au
I have a microair transponder. Its worked fine for me over the past
three years. I did have to send it back once for a software update but
the service was quick and free.
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rodney Dunham
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 09:23
Subject: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
-- rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com
I'm about to order transceiver transponder for my Sonex. I like the
small MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer
is here in Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer
feedback about them (or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined
with the Jabiru 3300. Also feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be
appreciated.
Rodney
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "czechsix(at)juno.com" <czechsix(at)juno.com> |
Cc: aaaron(at)tvp.com.au
| Subject: | MicroAir products |
I wouldn't get the Microair comm if you're flying in the U.S. They have some fundamental
design problems that they can't seem to understand or resolve. A buddy
of mine, Alan Kritzman, went through about half a dozen iterations of their
transponder with his RV-8...he also tried a new antenna, relocated it, new coax,
etc. Nothing resolved the problem which is intermittent operation (replies
to ATC interrogations) in our local Class C airspace here at KCID. We finally
figured out that the ASR-9 radar here is a very powerful analog system (it may
be the most powerful system in operation). The newer radars are digital and
less powerful. Anyway there are other transmitters like the one here located around
the U.S. but there are none in Australia and if you don't go near these
Class C facilities you probably won't see the problem. So, there are some users
here in the U.S. who have no complaints.
We finally took the latest two versions of the transponder (about a year ago) into
our avionics lab here at Rockwell Collins where we work as Systems Engineers.
We hooked both of them up to the ATC test sets we use all the time with Collins
equipment. Both the Microair units--the latest and greatest--failed all
the tests. We know the test sets are good, calibrated units. We sent the results
to Microair but at that point we gave up and asked for a refund.
I must add that Microair's customer service has been outstanding in the sense than
they are eager to resolve the problem and I'm sure they would have kept exchanging
and updating their units indefinitely if we had that much patience. But
their engineer(s) don't understand how to fix it and they don't have a real
certified transponder test set (which is a very expensive piece of equipment
and they are a small company), so they may never figure it out without access
to proper test equipment. In the end they gave us a good refund and we put in
Garmin units which work flawlessly.
I might also add that we've heard from half a dozen others in the U.S. that have
had the same problems with intermittent operation near major Class C facilities
around the country (depends on the radar system in use), so it's not just
a local thing at our airport.
By the way the microair comm radios seem to work just fine.
I hope Microair finds a fix for their transponder...I loved the compact, light
weight/low power consumption of their design, and it was a major pain to have
to cut a new rectangular hole in my panel for the boat-anchor Garmin (messed up
my panel layout), but you've gotta have a transponder that works!!
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
From: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au>
I have a microair transponder. Its worked fine for me over the past
three years. I did have to send it back once for a software update but
the service was quick and free.
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rodney Dunham
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 09:23
Subject: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
-->
I'm about to order transceiver & transponder for my Sonex. I like the
small MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer
is here in Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer
feedback about them (or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined
with the Jabiru 3300. Also feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be
appreciated.
Rodney
I wouldn't get the Microair comm if you're flying in the U.S. They have some fundamental
design problems that they can't seem to understand or resolve. A buddy
of mine, Alan Kritzman, went through about half a dozen iterations of their
transponder with his RV-8...he also tried a new antenna, relocated it, new coax,
etc. Nothing resolved the problem which is intermittent operation (replies
to ATC interrogations) in our local Class C airspace here at KCID. We finally
figured out that the ASR-9 radar here is a very powerful analog system (it may
be the most powerful system in operation). The newer radars are digital and
less powerful. Anyway there are other transmitters like the one here located around
the U.S. but there are none in Australia and if you don't go near these
Class C facilities you probably won't see the problem. So, there are some users
here in the U.S. who have no complaints.
We finally took the latest two versions of the transponder (about a year ago) into
our avionics lab here at Rockwell Collins where we work as Systems Engineers.
We hooked both of them up to the ATC test sets we use all the time with Collins
equipment. Both the Microair units--the latest and greatest--failed all
the tests. We know the test sets are good, calibrated units. We sent the results
to Microair but at that point we gave up and asked for a refund.
I must add that Microair's customer service has been outstanding in the sense than
they are eager to resolve the problem and I'm sure they would have kept exchanging
and updating their units indefinitely if we had that much patience. But
their engineer(s) don't understand how to fix it and they don't have a real
certified transponder test set (which is a very expensive piece of equipment
and they are a small company), so they may never figure it out without access
to proper test equipment. In the end they gave us a good refund and we put in
Garmin units which work flawlessly.
I might also add that we've heard from half a dozen others in the U.S. that have
had the same problems with intermittent operation near major Class C facilities
around the country (depends on the radar system in use), so it's not just
a local thing at our airport.
By the way the microair comm radios seem to work just fine.
I hope Microair finds a fix for their transponder...I loved the compact, light
weight/low power consumption of their design, and it was a major pain to have
to cut a new rectangular hole in my panel for the boat-anchor Garmin (messed up
my panel layout), but you've gotta have a transponder that works!!
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
From: "Allan Aaron" aaaron(at)tvp.com.au
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" aaaron(at)tvp.com.au
I have a microair transponder. Its worked fine for me over the past
three years. I did have to send it back once for a software update but
the service was quick and free.
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rodney Dunham
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 09:23
Subject: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
-- rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com
I'm about to order transceiver transponder for my Sonex. I like the
small MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer
is here in Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer
feedback about them (or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined
with the Jabiru 3300. Also feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be
appreciated.
Rodney
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MicroAir products |
Thanks for saving me alot of typing. ;-)
I also had the same transponder experience (as did another Berkut builder in
LA) - intermittent xponder operation in dense/active ATC, several exchanges
of the unit with MicroAir without success, etc. And since I fly out of a
towered airport under the DFW Class B, transponder ops are not optional. I
replaced the unit with a Becker and have not had a single issue thus far. A
more detailed account is on my website.
I'll also echo the kudos to MicroAir customer support. My issues were over
a year ago now, so it is possible that MicroAir has redesigned around the
problem...any "alpha testers" out there? ;-)
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
>
>
> I wouldn't get the Microair comm if you're flying in the U.S. They have
> some fundamental design problems that they can't seem to understand or
> resolve. A buddy of mine, Alan Kritzman, went through about half a dozen
> iterations of their transponder with his RV-8...he also tried a new
> antenna, relocated it, new coax, etc. Nothing resolved the problem which
> is intermittent operation (replies to ATC interrogations) in our local
> Class C airspace here at KCID. We finally figured out that the ASR-9 radar
> here is a very powerful analog system (it may be the most powerful system
> in operation). The newer radars are digital and less powerful. Anyway
> there are other transmitters like the one here located around the U.S. but
> there are none in Australia and if you don't go near these Class C
> facilities you probably won't see the problem. So, there are some users
> here in the U.S. who have no complaints.
> We finally took the latest two versions of the transponder (about a year
> ago) into our avionics lab here at Rockwell Collins where we work as
> Systems Engineers. We hooked both of them up to the ATC test sets we use
> all the time with Collins equipment. Both the Microair units--the latest
> and greatest--failed all the tests. We know the test sets are good,
> calibrated units. We sent the results to Microair but at that point we
> gave up and asked for a refund.
> I must add that Microair's customer service has been outstanding in the
> sense than they are eager to resolve the problem and I'm sure they would
> have kept exchanging and updating their units indefinitely if we had that
> much patience. But their engineer(s) don't understand how to fix it and
> they don't have a real certified transponder test set (which is a very
> expensive piece of equipment and they are a small company), so they may
> never figure it out without access to proper test equipment. In the end
> they gave us a good refund and we put in Garmin units which work
> flawlessly.
> I might also add that we've heard from half a dozen others in the U.S.
> that have had the same problems with intermittent operation near major
> Class C facilities around the country (depends on the radar system in
> use), so it's not just a local thing at our airport.
> By the way the microair comm radios seem to work just fine.
> I hope Microair finds a fix for their transponder...I loved the compact,
> light weight/low power consumption of their design, and it was a major
> pain to have to cut a new rectangular hole in my panel for the boat-anchor
> Garmin (messed up my panel layout), but you've gotta have a transponder
> that works!!
> --Mark Navratil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
David,
Can I suggest you take a look at a better Engine Management System.
Research Zerionavionix.com Great Company, and a very well thought
out Engine system, Soon to be certed. These guys are very customer
oriented.
Mitchell Goodrich
Varieze Tampa, FL
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
-->
David Lloyd wrote:
> -->
>
> ....be sure to review and compare the JPI engine monitor if you have
> not
> made a decision yet.
I will but they have a couple of strikes against them:
1. JPI is expensive.
2. JPI screwed Matt Dralle over the name "fuel scan".
3. JPI changed the data format for their engine data storage without
telling the customers so that they could not continue processing their
data as they had in the past.
I do not think JPI is customer oriented.
They do have good engineering and good products but if all the other
things are equal, I will go with a different company.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Clark <jclarkmail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Well Mitchell, I think maybe you goofed twice! :-)
They might want to try: http://www.xerionavionics.com/
Seems you left out a "c". I know, it's too early ... no coffee yet. Right?
:-)
James
On 1/18/06, Mitchell Goodrich wrote:
>
> mgoodrich(at)tampabay.rr.com>
>
>
> Morning All,
>
> Well I really goofed this time. The engine Management System website
> for comparrison is Xerionavionis.com not Zerionavionix. My
> apologies.
>
> Mitchell Goodrich
>
>
> <<>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Iso Amp - 2 stereo - 3 mono inputs |
Hello,
I am looking to integrate 2 stereo (Garmin 396 and Ipod) and 3
mono(EIS, Traffic, 1 extra) sources into my Flightcom
403. I have studied the design of Bob's Iso Amp and like it all
except that it only accepts one stereo input. Is there a clever way
to add another stereo input?
Also, I contacted Flightcom and they suggested (good service - 3hr
response to an e-mail) just adding 1:1 Isolation transformers (Radio
Shack 273-1374) to the mono inputs and running all lines to Pin 21 -
that way they will be unmuted.
They did not have an answer for the twin stereo inputs.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
An Early Good Morning,
Well for all of you that tried my link to the Engine Management System
Comparison, I goofed twice. Too bad spell check doesn't pick up
URL mistakes also. I'd better get another cup of coffee and my glasses
on.
www.xerionavionix.com
Check it out
Mitchell Goodrich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Iso Amp - 2 stereo - 3 mono inputs |
><pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
>
>
>Hello,
>
>I am looking to integrate 2 stereo (Garmin 396 and Ipod) and 3
>mono(EIS, Traffic, 1 extra) sources into my Flightcom
>403. I have studied the design of Bob's Iso Amp and like it all
>except that it only accepts one stereo input. Is there a clever way
>to add another stereo input?
>
>Also, I contacted Flightcom and they suggested (good service - 3hr
>response to an e-mail) just adding 1:1 Isolation transformers (Radio
>Shack 273-1374) to the mono inputs and running all lines to Pin 21 -
>that way they will be unmuted.
>
>They did not have an answer for the twin stereo inputs.
Are you going to listen to both at the same time? A DPDT
switch would let you select which source was being
fed to the amplifier. Alternatively, you add second input
networks of a 150 ohm resistor, 10uF cap to pin 2 of amplifier
for each channel. Loaded of course as appropriate (R98/99).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Thank You Ferg,
It is nice to know that I am not alone out there while twisting in the wind!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 1/18/2006 9:09:23 A.M. Central Standard Time,
VE3LVO(at)rac.ca writes:
I'm pretty certain you have the same experience and just want to
say how closely to my appreciation your comments are. As our Ottawa friend
said, a turn co-ordinator won't work in an inverted spin (ah well) but a
'T&B' will. It must be obvious that any less critical upset in cloud can be
swiftly dealt with if you get the 'picture' a T&B gives.
Keep on truckin'.
Cheers, Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)utcfuelcells.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery strength |
Bob,
Another important issue might also be the speed at which the starter turns
the engine. Most impulse mags will not operate properly if the engine spins
too
fast. This was a typical issue with the C-152 after they went to a 24 Volt
system.
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
nuckollsr(at)cox.net >
Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de>
>
>Hello all,
>as I am new on this list - this is my first try to get some needed
>information.
>So what I have is a 24 Volt system with a 12 Volt starter on an O360
F1A6.
>I was told that it should not be a problem to use the 12 Volt starter
with
>24 Volt as the voltage will drop anyhow to about 18 Volt and the
starting
>process itself will not take more than 20 seconds which the starter
should
>be capable to handle.
If it's a permanent magnet starter, it's probably not a good idea.
The earliest automotive derivatives were series wound and fairly
tolerant of short duration overloads . . . it will certainly crank
the engine faster thus reducing total abuse time of the starter.
What are your options? Take the starter off and replace it with
an newer, lighter machine or run the existing starter 'til it
croaks. Who knows, you may get considerable service life from
the existing starter and the risks are low.
>- what is the opinion of the group on this ?
>- The second issue is that I need a figure of the battery strength
(Ah)
>which is needed to start my engine. I know that this is depending on
many
>issues and this should not be the only consideration for the strength
but
>there must be a general idea of whether 17 Ah should do the job
easily or
>should one go for 24 Ah or 7 Ah.
Battery size is driven more by what your no-alternator
endurance goals are. Have you conducted a load analysis
for alternator-out operations and selected a minimum endurance
time? See Chapter 17 of the 'Connection.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery strength |
>
>
>Bob,
>
> Another important issue might also be the speed at which the starter turns
>the engine. Most impulse mags will not operate properly if the engine spins
>too
>fast. This was a typical issue with the C-152 after they went to a 24 Volt
>system.
Hmmm . . . good point. Peter, did you catch this?
Bob . . .
>Fred Stucklen
>
>RV-6A N926RV
>
>nuckollsr(at)cox.net >
>
>
>Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de>
> >
> >Hello all,
> >as I am new on this list - this is my first try to get some needed
> >information.
> >So what I have is a 24 Volt system with a 12 Volt starter on an O360
>F1A6.
> >I was told that it should not be a problem to use the 12 Volt starter
>with
> >24 Volt as the voltage will drop anyhow to about 18 Volt and the
>starting
> >process itself will not take more than 20 seconds which the starter
>should
> >be capable to handle.
>
> If it's a permanent magnet starter, it's probably not a good idea.
> The earliest automotive derivatives were series wound and fairly
> tolerant of short duration overloads . . . it will certainly crank
> the engine faster thus reducing total abuse time of the starter.
>
> What are your options? Take the starter off and replace it with
> an newer, lighter machine or run the existing starter 'til it
> croaks. Who knows, you may get considerable service life from
> the existing starter and the risks are low.
>
> >- what is the opinion of the group on this ?
> >- The second issue is that I need a figure of the battery strength
>(Ah)
> >which is needed to start my engine. I know that this is depending on
>many
> >issues and this should not be the only consideration for the strength
>but
> >there must be a general idea of whether 17 Ah should do the job
>easily or
> >should one go for 24 Ah or 7 Ah.
>
> Battery size is driven more by what your no-alternator
> endurance goals are. Have you conducted a load analysis
> for alternator-out operations and selected a minimum endurance
> time? See Chapter 17 of the 'Connection.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>--
>
>
Bob . . .
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it devine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> I am going to take the liberty of sending you something off list that tries
> to explain why I think we should be teaching people to stop the turn instead
> of leveling the wings.
>
> The short version is that when we get vertigo, it takes a lot of discipline
> to believe the attitude style presentation of the TC and/or the attitude
> indicator.
But we are trained to ignore vertigo and to go with the instruments. We
are also trained to cross-check the instruments to ensure that they are
telling us the right thing.
> With the turn needle, there is no need to believe the instrument over what
> your senses are telling you. All that is needed is to stop the turn! Since
> the turn needle tells you nothing directly about your attitude, there is no
> confusion. Stop the turn by centering the needle and you will survive. It
> makes no difference at all whether you think you are sideways or whether you
> think you are right side up.
>
> I repeat -- Stop the turn and you will survive!
If the wing is flying the only way you can stop the turn is to level the
wings. When the lift vector is not vertical, the aircraft is going to
turn. The only time this might not be true is when the wing is stalled
or partially stalled as in a spin where you could be in a relatively
flat attitude. Certainly the ailerons are not going to work in a spin
and they are only going to make things worse. This is where the T&SI
becomes critical along with your rudders.
Also, older aircraft had much more effective rudders. You really could
pull a wing up just with the rudder. Modern airplanes tend to have much
less rudder effectiveness and you might have to unstall the wing to make
the ailerons effective again in order to really stop the turn.
Bob, you have a V35B (I am guessing from your email address). How
effective is the ruddervator in stopping the turn? My guess is that you
really need to break the stall in order to recover with that airplane.
When flying partial panel (needle-ball and airspeed for us old-timers)
we infer attitude from the behavior of other things, that is, airspeed
and altitude give us clues as to whether the nose is up or down relative
to the horizon. We infer that the wings are not level by the fact that
the airplane is yawing. But none of these instruments actually tell us
the airplane's attitude. Only an AI can do that directly.
But I do agree with you on one thing: if the airplane departs normal
flight, I want a Turn and Slip Indicator (T&SI) because it will tell me
what to do with the rudder and I need to know that to stop or prevent a
spin.
But since I spend a lot more time in a clag with the wing flying and not
stalled/spinning, I want a second AI to help me stay that way. So give
me both an extra AI and a T&SI. Belt and suspenders.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
> On top of that, neither instrument will tumble as will some attitude gyros.
But in order to be used as a replacement for a T&SI or a TC the AI must
be non-tumbling. If it has stops on the gimbals it may not be used to
replace the turn instrument. There are a number of non-tumbling AIs out
there. Sporty's has a nice one for $1600. It also has an inclinometer
(ball).
I am interested in the Sporty's AI - so I asked customer service about the non-tumbling....
Janet Jones wrote "The unit is not a non-tumbling instrument."
I'll probably call Castleberry @ 512-251-5322 and ask them...thought someone more
knowledgable might be able to help?
This is referenced by Sporty's - AC91-75: http://www.sportys.com/terryc/images/ac91-75.pdf
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | FW: RE: Iso Amp - 2 stereo - 3 mono inputs |
Hi Bob - thanks for quick response - great question - I will not
listen to music from both at the same time, but the 396 has terrain
warnings I would want to hear when listening to the Ipod when the Xm
radio audio is off.
I picked up a mini DPDT on-on switch today as it is the simple/easy
way to go. I'll just turn the Ipod off over the mountains!!!
Pete
====================================================================
Are you going to listen to both at the same time? A DPDT
switch would let you select which source was being
fed to the amplifier. Alternatively, you add second input
networks of a 150 ohm resistor, 10uF cap to pin 2 of amplifier
for each channel. Loaded of course as appropriate (R98/99).
Bob . . .
=====================================================================
I am looking to integrate 2 stereo (Garmin 396 and Ipod) and 3
mono(EIS, Traffic, 1 extra) sources into my Flightcom
403. I have studied the design of Bob's Iso Amp and like it all
except that it only accepts one stereo input. Is there a clever way
to add another stereo input?
Also, I contacted Flightcom and they suggested (good service - 3hr
response to an e-mail) just adding 1:1 Isolation transformers (Radio
Shack 273-1374) to the mono inputs and running all lines to Pin 21 -
that way they will be unmuted.
They did not have an answer for the twin stereo inputs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> "But we are trained to ignore vertigo and to go with the instruments. We
> are also trained to cross-check the instruments to ensure that they are
> telling us the right thing."
>
> Good Afternoon Brian,
Before I reply I want to add that I think we are probably saying the
same things different ways. I happen to agree with you but think it may
be just a bit simplistic. This is why people need to add upset recovery
to their repitoire.
So, things we already agree upon:
1. the T
2. stopping the turn is critical to all recovery.
I think we diverge elsewhere but only slightly.
> I agree that we were all taught to do that, but Carnahan and his son were
> both experienced pilots and they still lost the airplane. John Kennedy had a
> whole lot of modern training, but he lost it as well. He had more flying time
> when he was killed than I had when I was teaching instrument flight.
And he made bad decisions that cost him his life. Not exactly the
example I would choose. I can think of many ways that JFK jr could have
saved his life and that of his passengers but we digress.
> My premise is that we should not worry about which way is up. Just stop the
> turn.
>
>
>>I repeat -- Stop the turn and you will survive! <
>
>
> You said: "If the wing is flying the only way you can stop the turn is to
> level the
> wings. When the lift vector is not vertical, the aircraft is going to turn."
>
> No argument here either. Doing it my way will actually get the wings level.
> I also teach using coordinated control to stop the turn, not to just boot
> the rudder.
And if the wing isn't flying the ailerons aren't going to work anyway.
Just "boot the rudder" is the right thing to do in that case.
But if the wing is flying you want to unload the airframe and roll
right-side-up. Coordinated flight is good in this case. If you are
making a coordinated movement of the controls, both rudder and aileron,
and you stop the turn you have, in fact, rolled to wings level. I think
we are saying the same thing.
> The idea is that I don't care if the pilot knows which way is up or not. If
> the turn is stopped and the ball is in the middle, the wings will be level
> whether we know it or not. If the ball is not in the center and the needle is,
> we will still survive.
Well, you can be in that state with the aircraft inverted and the nose
60 degrees down. If the ball and the needle are centered and you happen
to recover inverted then you are going to end up pulling through a
vertical down-line and grossly exceed the aircraft's Vne so up is a
significant concept here.
> I have no access to good data, but I have been an active pilot since 1946
> and an active flight instructor since 1949. (Darn, I hate it when people tell
> me how long they have been flying, but it seems to fit here!)
You have me beaten by two decades. I have only been flying since 1968
and only have amassed about 7000 hours.
> During the first
> twenty or so years, I recall very few instances of any IFR rated pilot
> losing the airplane while on instruments.
In general I think you are right. Training then required more
understanding and less rote. In the FAA's attempt to standardize
training I think that fewer pilots now really understand how their
airplanes fly. But the accident statistics have shown a steady downward
trend so I guess they got something right.
> As I noted in my 'off list' message, it wasn't until after we had been using
> the TC for IFR training that I started to notice a loss in partial panel
> proficiency during flight checks given to pilots who had been trained using
the
> TC.
I don't think you sent that one to me.
> We also started to read about IFR rated pilots who were losing control after
> a failure of attitude instrumentation.
We have become far more dependent on the AI. There are people who used
to fly IFR using only needle-ball and airspeed and were very proficient.
That is less the case now.
> Over the next ten years I decided to go back to the T&B in all of my own
> airplanes and for any trainer I was associated with.
>
> The longer I championed and trained with the T&B, the more I became
> convinced that part of the problem (There is more, but I am getting boring!)
was our
> insistence that the student must disregard his/her feelings and just believe
> the instruments. I now feel, totally unsupported by any scientific data,
> that what we really should be doing is just train the pilot to stop the turn
and
> stop telling them to believe the instruments instead of their senses. If
> they stop the turn and have the ball in the center, the wings will be level
> unless there is something else wrong with the airplane.
We agree. But if I read you correctly, you *ARE* telling them to believe
the instruments. You are telling them to believe the T&SI over all other
instruments. They must believe that over what their senses are telling
them. You will not stay alive by trusting your senses over your instruments.
The problem with "believe the instruments" is that the instruments *can*
lie. A tumbled AI will definitely lead you astray. President Reagan
actually had it right when he said, "Trust but verify." That applies
here in spades. Trust your instruments but verify that they are telling
you the right thing. The great thing about the T&SI is that it is so
simple that it is unlikely to fail. If it doesn't agree with your AI,
you should serious consider what your AI is telling you. Your cross
check is that the HI (DG) should be telling you the same thing your T&SI
is even if it has tumbled. Sure the HI can tumble and tell you the wrong
heading but it will recover almost immediately and at least show you the
way you are rotating. This works well with your T&SI as a cross check.
> Forget about trying to figure out whether or not the wings are level.
>
> Just stop the turn and you WILL survive!
If you stop the turn by a coordinated application of aileron and rudder,
I agree -- mostly. :-)
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
John Tvedte wrote:
>
> From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
>
>
>>On top of that, neither instrument will tumble as will some attitude gyros.
>
>
> But in order to be used as a replacement for a T&SI or a TC the AI must
> be non-tumbling. If it has stops on the gimbals it may not be used to
> replace the turn instrument. There are a number of non-tumbling AIs out
> there. Sporty's has a nice one for $1600. It also has an inclinometer
> (ball).
>
> I am interested in the Sporty's AI - so I asked customer service about the non-tumbling....
>
> Janet Jones wrote "The unit is not a non-tumbling instrument."
Wow. I thought that the FAA requirement for an STC to replace a T&SI or
a TC with a second attitude gyro is that it be good for 360 degrees in
both pitch and roll. You have to be able to use the instrument to
recover from an upset which you can't do with an AI that has tumbled.
>
> I'll probably call Castleberry @ 512-251-5322 and ask them...thought someone
more knowledgable might be able to help?
>
> This is referenced by Sporty's - AC91-75: http://www.sportys.com/terryc/images/ac91-75.pdf
You are right. It doesn't say "non-tumbling". Seems like a serious
oversight to me. If I somehow manage to cause my primary AI to tumble my
backup is likely to tumble too. If you have replaced the T&SI or TC with
an AI you might not be able to recover. I guess you would then have to
rely on the HI (DG) to give you turn information so you can "stop the turn".
But I sure as heck would want a non-tumbling gyro in this application.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randall Richter" <richterrbb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very good
product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the software
will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove the unit and
send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most of the others
provide updated software via removable card or something similar, right?
He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
"experimental" version of this system.
Randy Richter
-7QB coming along VERY slowly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mitchell
Goodrich
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:36 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
Morning All,
Well I really goofed this time. The engine Management System website
for comparrison is Xerionavionis.com not Zerionavionix. My
apologies.
Mitchell Goodrich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>>"But we are trained to ignore vertigo and to go with the instruments. We
>>are also trained to cross-check the instruments to ensure that they are
>>telling us the right thing."
>>
>>Good Afternoon Brian,
>
>
> Before I reply I want to add that I think we are probably saying the
> same things different ways. I happen to agree with you but think it may
> be just a bit simplistic. This is why people need to add upset recovery
> to their repitoire.
>
> So, things we already agree upon:
>
> 1. the T
(wow, a whole line disappeared. It used to read "the T and SI or TandB
is a better instrument than the TC.")
>
> 2. stopping the turn is critical to all recovery.
>
> I think we diverge elsewhere but only slightly.
And after a further private exchange with Bob I think we agree 100%. We
were only disagreeing on how to get there.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Randy...
They have TWO versions...the Auracle I is for non-certified use, and the
Auracle II is for either certified or not...it is about $1500 more than
the non certified version.
And, from their website:
"Programming the Xerion */AuRACLE
(TM)/* is made quick and easy by
visiting www.xerionavionix.com and requesting your aircraft specific
data, downloading the file to your portable USB drive, and then plugging
it into your */AuRACLE
(TM)/*. It's that simple!"
The USB drive is included with the unit.
Harley Dixon
Randall Richter wrote:
>
>I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very good
>product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the software
>will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove the unit and
>send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most of the others
>provide updated software via removable card or something similar, right?
>
>He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>"experimental" version of this system.
>
>Randy Richter
>-7QB coming along VERY slowly
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mitchell
>Goodrich
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:36 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
>
>
>
>Morning All,
>
>Well I really goofed this time. The engine Management System website
>for comparrison is Xerionavionis.com not Zerionavionix. My
>apologies.
>
>Mitchell Goodrich
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List:Dynon fuel flow/pressure sensor placement |
I am installing the Dynon fuel monitor and am presently doing the fuel
system plumbing in the cabin area.
Need tutoring from the group on the why and the where of the fuel flow/
pressure sensors.
TIA
Frank @ SGU @ SLC RV7A fuse/finish
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randall Richter" <richterrbb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
Glad to hear they have listened to the masses!
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Harley
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
Randy...
They have TWO versions...the Auracle I is for non-certified use, and the
Auracle II is for either certified or not...it is about $1500 more than
the non certified version.
And, from their website:
"Programming the Xerion */AuRACLE
(TM)/* is made quick and easy by
visiting www.xerionavionix.com and requesting your aircraft specific
data, downloading the file to your portable USB drive, and then plugging
it into your */AuRACLE
(TM)/*. It's that simple!"
The USB drive is included with the unit.
Harley Dixon
Randall Richter wrote:
>
>I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very good
>product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the software
>will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove the unit and
>send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most of the others
>provide updated software via removable card or something similar, right?
>
>He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>"experimental" version of this system.
>
>Randy Richter
>-7QB coming along VERY slowly
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Randall Richter wrote:
>
> I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very good
> product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the software
> will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove the unit and
> send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most of the others
> provide updated software via removable card or something similar, right?
>
> He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
> allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
> "experimental" version of this system.
That actually doesn't make complete sense. The Sandel 3308 EHSI in my
Aztec allows firmware upgrade in the field. I can upgrade the firmware
using the same cable that is used to upgrade the database. The same was
true for my SL-60 GPS/comm.
So we know that the FAA will certify devices that will allow field
upgrades to the software in the box.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
See my previous reply, Brian...
Harley
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
>Randall Richter wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very good
>>product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the software
>>will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove the unit and
>>send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most of the others
>>provide updated software via removable card or something similar, right?
>>
>>He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>>allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>>"experimental" version of this system.
>>
>>
>
>That actually doesn't make complete sense. The Sandel 3308 EHSI in my
>Aztec allows firmware upgrade in the field. I can upgrade the firmware
>using the same cable that is used to upgrade the database. The same was
>true for my SL-60 GPS/comm.
>
>So we know that the FAA will certify devices that will allow field
>upgrades to the software in the box.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
Actually, if you want complete flexibility and STC application, the MVP-50
from EI is more configurable with all the bells and whistles. It's also has
support for the Chelton box.
www.buy-ei.com
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randall
Richter
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
-->
I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very good
product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the software
will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove the unit and
send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most of the others
provide updated software via removable card or something similar, right?
He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
"experimental" version of this system.
Randy Richter
-7QB coming along VERY slowly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mitchell
Goodrich
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:36 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
Morning All,
Well I really goofed this time. The engine Management System website for
comparrison is Xerionavionis.com not Zerionavionix. My apologies.
Mitchell Goodrich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
Hey Randy & Harley,
The Auracle does come 2 different ways. A single box, which means all
the senders
are wired directly to the head unit, and a 2 box. The data aquisition
unit mounted
in the engine compartment and a supplied data cable run up to the head
unit.
Do believe that both units are/will be certified.
I vote for the 2 box. Only because of my limited wireway space, and ease
of install.
Both units have the same exact functionality.
Mitchell Goodrich
VariEze Tampa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Randall Richter
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:56 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
-->
Glad to hear they have listened to the masses!
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Harley
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
-->
Randy...
They have TWO versions...the Auracle I is for non-certified use, and the
Auracle II is for either certified or not...it is about $1500 more than
the non certified version.
And, from their website:
"Programming the Xerion */AuRACLE
(TM)/* is made quick and easy by
visiting www.xerionavionix.com and requesting your aircraft specific
data, downloading the file to your portable USB drive, and then plugging
it into your */AuRACLE
(TM)/*. It's that simple!"
The USB drive is included with the unit.
Harley Dixon
Randall Richter wrote:
>
>I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very
>good product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the
>software will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove
>the unit and send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most
>of the others provide updated software via removable card or something
>similar, right?
>
>He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>"experimental" version of this system.
>
>Randy Richter
>-7QB coming along VERY slowly
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
On 18 Jan 2006, at 18:10, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> yak(at)lloyd.com>
>
> Randall Richter wrote:
>>
>>
>> I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a
>> very good
>> product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the
>> software
>> will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove the
>> unit and
>> send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most of the
>> others
>> provide updated software via removable card or something similar,
>> right?
>>
>> He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>> allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>> "experimental" version of this system.
>
> That actually doesn't make complete sense. The Sandel 3308 EHSI in my
> Aztec allows firmware upgrade in the field. I can upgrade the firmware
> using the same cable that is used to upgrade the database. The same
> was
> true for my SL-60 GPS/comm.
>
> So we know that the FAA will certify devices that will allow field
> upgrades to the software in the box.
We know that some FAA Aircraft Certification Offices will certify
devices that will allow field upgrades to software in the box. Maybe
this is yet another area where different ACOs have different
interpretations. Or, maybe the way that the company wanted to handle
firmware upgrades didn't pass muster with the FAA (rightly or
wrongly), and they decided to drop that feature rather than spend the
money on a redesign. I've seen that scenario often enough in my day
job.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Xerion EIS (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
Mitchell Goodrich wrote:
> The Auracle does come 2 different ways. A single box, which means all
> the senders
> are wired directly to the head unit, and a 2 box. The data aquisition
> unit mounted
> in the engine compartment and a supplied data cable run up to the head
> unit.
> Do believe that both units are/will be certified.
> I vote for the 2 box. Only because of my limited wireway space, and ease
> of install.
> Both units have the same exact functionality.
It appears they are using a data bus. This means that they could support
multiple data collection boxes. This is a *very* good idea.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Kevin Horton wrote:
>>So we know that the FAA will certify devices that will allow field
>>upgrades to the software in the box.
>
>
> We know that some FAA Aircraft Certification Offices will certify
> devices that will allow field upgrades to software in the box. Maybe
> this is yet another area where different ACOs have different
> interpretations. Or, maybe the way that the company wanted to handle
> firmware upgrades didn't pass muster with the FAA (rightly or
> wrongly), and they decided to drop that feature rather than spend the
> money on a redesign. I've seen that scenario often enough in my day
> job.
Firmware updates in hex format over an RS-232 connection is just
about as ugly as you can get. I can't imagine any way you could do a
worse job of providing this function. (This is how both Sandel and
Apollo/UPSAT/Garmin do it.) Therefore almost any other method makes more
sense. The Xerion Auricle has USB bus master capability to write to a
flash disk in order to write out stored engine data. This means they
could also do updates this way too.
I don't get it.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Evening, Mitch...
Their website is a bit confusing then...I didn't see where it mentions
that one or two box option (but I think that I have noticed that at
least one other brand does the same thing), but it does say that the
Auracle I is for non-certified applications, and the Auracle II at $1500
more is for certified.
Of course, the way it is phrased may simply mean that Auracle II is
ready for immediate certification where the Auracle I is not expected to
be certified in the near future.
If you talk to them, you might mention that there is some confusion, as
witnessed by our conversations here today.
I won't be getting down there for awhile...it's snowing again here
...and I've been finishing the parts I brought back here in my
cellar...I'm all camped out in my warm cave until spring!
Harley
Mitchell Goodrich wrote:
>
>Hey Randy & Harley,
>
>The Auracle does come 2 different ways. A single box, which means all
>the senders
>are wired directly to the head unit, and a 2 box. The data aquisition
>unit mounted
>in the engine compartment and a supplied data cable run up to the head
>unit.
>Do believe that both units are/will be certified.
>I vote for the 2 box. Only because of my limited wireway space, and ease
>of install.
>Both units have the same exact functionality.
>
>Mitchell Goodrich
>VariEze Tampa
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Randall Richter
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:56 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
>
>-->
>
>Glad to hear they have listened to the masses!
>
>Randy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Harley
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:45 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
>-->
>
>Randy...
>
>They have TWO versions...the Auracle I is for non-certified use, and the
>
>Auracle II is for either certified or not...it is about $1500 more than
>the non certified version.
>
>And, from their website:
>
>"Programming the Xerion */AuRACLE
>(TM)/* is made quick and easy by
>visiting www.xerionavionix.com and requesting your aircraft specific
>data, downloading the file to your portable USB drive, and then plugging
>
>it into your */AuRACLE
>(TM)/*. It's that simple!"
>
>The USB drive is included with the unit.
>
>Harley Dixon
>
>
>Randall Richter wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very
>>good product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the
>>software will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove
>>the unit and send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>of the others provide updated software via removable card or something
>>similar, right?
>>
>>He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>>allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>>"experimental" version of this system.
>>
>>Randy Richter
>>-7QB coming along VERY slowly
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
Evening All,
In response to the field changes of the Auracle:
Keep in mind this is an "Engine Management System, not an EFIS/Guidance
system.
Engine functionality doesn't change, the parameteres are what they are.
What "field changes" would apply to an engine system? Is there
additional functionality
that you expect to gain from software upgrades?? Remember engine
parameters.
If Xerion for some reason makes a change or fixes a bug in the software,
the will, at
their expense pay for shipping and complete the upgrades. Remember
Xerion has a 3 year
warranty.
All the systems are certified. Experimental guys have the total
flexability with the
configuration of the unit, scales, alarms, and warnings (certified
owners do not have
this capability due the FAA restrictions) for the same price we have the
benefits of a certified
system that has been through the rigors of enviromental & software
certification. Yes the
software has to be Certified too. No blue screens of death here!!!
Remember, the Auracle is field configurable, but not field upgradable,
and never will be
upgradable due to certification.
If I am not wrong Xerion has an onstaff a FAA Der
Last but not least the USB doggle (Memory Stick) that plugs into the
front of the unit,
copies your custom configuraton. If you send the unit back for whatever
reason, just plug
the doggle in and its back to original state. A big PLUS is the data
recorder that keeps
track of past engine functions for approx 500 hours. Plug in the memory
stick, copy it,
take it home and see how the engine has been performing( or how bad the
operator has abused
your engine?) Great for corporate, or rental situations. I can use it
for diagnostics when I race.
All in all its a well thought out system and the owners provide
fantastic customer service.
Give the office a call if you want to get answers directly. They will
talk to you!!!
Mitchell Goodrich
Varieze Tampa
Soon to be Flying a 2 box AuRacle
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin
Horton
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
-->
On 18 Jan 2006, at 18:10, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> yak(at)lloyd.com>
>
> Randall Richter wrote:
>>
>>
>> I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a
>> very good
>> product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the
>> software
>> will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove the
>> unit and
>> send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most of the
>> others
>> provide updated software via removable card or something similar,
>> right?
>>
>> He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>> allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>> "experimental" version of this system.
>
> That actually doesn't make complete sense. The Sandel 3308 EHSI in my
> Aztec allows firmware upgrade in the field. I can upgrade the firmware
> using the same cable that is used to upgrade the database. The same
> was
> true for my SL-60 GPS/comm.
>
> So we know that the FAA will certify devices that will allow field
> upgrades to the software in the box.
We know that some FAA Aircraft Certification Offices will certify
devices that will allow field upgrades to software in the box. Maybe
this is yet another area where different ACOs have different
interpretations. Or, maybe the way that the company wanted to handle
firmware upgrades didn't pass muster with the FAA (rightly or
wrongly), and they decided to drop that feature rather than spend the
money on a redesign. I've seen that scenario often enough in my day
job.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Xerion EIS (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
Brian,
yes they are actually using a proprietary com/data or can buss.
In the near future you will see a complete line of instrumentaion
that utilizes the can-bus.
Mitchell Goodrich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Xerion EIS (was: EFIS Comparisons)
-->
Mitchell Goodrich wrote:
> The Auracle does come 2 different ways. A single box, which means all
> the senders are wired directly to the head unit, and a 2 box. The data
> aquisition unit mounted
> in the engine compartment and a supplied data cable run up to the head
> unit.
> Do believe that both units are/will be certified.
> I vote for the 2 box. Only because of my limited wireway space, and
ease
> of install.
> Both units have the same exact functionality.
It appears they are using a data bus. This means that they could support
multiple data collection boxes. This is a *very* good idea.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
| Subject: | T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons)
Well, you can be in that state with the aircraft inverted and the nose 60
degrees down. If the ball and the needle are centered and you happen to
recover inverted then you are going to end up pulling through a vertical
down-line and grossly exceed the aircraft's Vne so up is a significant
concept here.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
Brian: Can the ball be centered in the above scenario except if the
aircraft is in positive "G" flight? If that is the case, it seems you will
soon be past the vertical down line. If in negative "G" flight and the ball
is not centered, what is the correct pilot response?
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
Hey Harley,
yeah they have a bit of work on the site to do.
If you look again, you'll see that the 4 cyl is
without sensors and the other is with sensors.
The actual diff between the1 and 2 box is bout 700.00
Mitchell Goodrich
Modular Electric LLC
Managing Partner
813-356-9758
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Harley
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
-->
Evening, Mitch...
Their website is a bit confusing then...I didn't see where it mentions
that one or two box option (but I think that I have noticed that at
least one other brand does the same thing), but it does say that the
Auracle I is for non-certified applications, and the Auracle II at $1500
more is for certified.
Of course, the way it is phrased may simply mean that Auracle II is
ready for immediate certification where the Auracle I is not expected to
be certified in the near future.
If you talk to them, you might mention that there is some confusion, as
witnessed by our conversations here today.
I won't be getting down there for awhile...it's snowing again here
...and I've been finishing the parts I brought back here in my
cellar...I'm all camped out in my warm cave until spring!
Harley
Mitchell Goodrich wrote:
>-->
>
>Hey Randy & Harley,
>
>The Auracle does come 2 different ways. A single box, which means all
>the senders are wired directly to the head unit, and a 2 box. The data
>aquisition unit mounted
>in the engine compartment and a supplied data cable run up to the head
>unit.
>Do believe that both units are/will be certified.
>I vote for the 2 box. Only because of my limited wireway space, and
ease
>of install.
>Both units have the same exact functionality.
>
>Mitchell Goodrich
>VariEze Tampa
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Randall Richter
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:56 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
>
>-->
>
>Glad to hear they have listened to the masses!
>
>Randy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Harley
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:45 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
>-->
>
>Randy...
>
>They have TWO versions...the Auracle I is for non-certified use, and
>the
>
>Auracle II is for either certified or not...it is about $1500 more than
>the non certified version.
>
>And, from their website:
>
>"Programming the Xerion */AuRACLE
>(TM)/* is made quick and easy by
>visiting www.xerionavionix.com and requesting your aircraft specific
>data, downloading the file to your portable USB drive, and then
plugging
>
>it into your */AuRACLE
>(TM)/*. It's that simple!"
>
>The USB drive is included with the unit.
>
>Harley Dixon
>
>
>Randall Richter wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very
>>good product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the
>>software will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove
>>the unit and send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken,
most
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>of the others provide updated software via removable card or something
>>similar, right?
>>
>>He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>>allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>>"experimental" version of this system.
>>
>>Randy Richter
>>-7QB coming along VERY slowly
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Harley wrote:
> If you talk to them, you might mention that there is some confusion, as
> witnessed by our conversations here today.
I sent them a number of queries. If anybody else is interested I will
post the responses. Much of what I asked had to do with using it with a
9-cyl radial engine however.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
Kevin,
I will check again, but in my discussions with the FAA,
Certed Engine Management Systems CANNOT be field upgradable,
well unless its by the factory. So in reality they are,
just not by the owner. Think about it, letting anyone
change the funtionality of your planes critical engine instrument.
The units are field configurable!!
The software has to be Certified, and is intro'd into the
field with no allowed changes. Each Cert'd AC and engine
combo has its own parameters, no changes!
Mitchell Goodrich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
-->
Kevin Horton wrote:
>>So we know that the FAA will certify devices that will allow field
>>upgrades to the software in the box.
>
>
> We know that some FAA Aircraft Certification Offices will certify
> devices that will allow field upgrades to software in the box. Maybe
> this is yet another area where different ACOs have different
> interpretations. Or, maybe the way that the company wanted to handle
> firmware upgrades didn't pass muster with the FAA (rightly or
> wrongly), and they decided to drop that feature rather than spend the
> money on a redesign. I've seen that scenario often enough in my day
> job.
Firmware updates in hex format over an RS-232 connection is just
about as ugly as you can get. I can't imagine any way you could do a
worse job of providing this function. (This is how both Sandel and
Apollo/UPSAT/Garmin do it.) Therefore almost any other method makes more
sense. The Xerion Auricle has USB bus master capability to write to a
flash disk in order to write out stored engine data. This means they
could also do updates this way too.
I don't get it.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Wysong <hdwysong(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Brian -
I'm interested in how 'proprietary' the data pipe between their two
boxes (or coming out of one box) is. Standard CAN, RS-XXX, or something
wacky? In other words, will their datastream be available for external
products to 'sniff' for data?
If you asked about that in/amongst your questions about your MOOSE of an
engine (Russian?), I'd appreciate hearing the response(s).
D
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> Harley wrote:
>
>
>>If you talk to them, you might mention that there is some confusion, as
>>witnessed by our conversations here today.
>
>
> I sent them a number of queries. If anybody else is interested I will
> post the responses. Much of what I asked had to do with using it with a
> 9-cyl radial engine however.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
Gordon or Marge Comfort wrote:
> Brian: Can the ball be centered in the above scenario except if the
> aircraft is in positive "G" flight?
The aircraft must be in positive G flight for the ball to be centered.
That does not mean it isn't inverted.
> If that is the case, it seems you will
> soon be past the vertical down line.
Yes, but you might put the airframe well outside the envelope if you
aren't careful.
> If in negative "G" flight and the ball
> is not centered, what is the correct pilot response?
I was imagining an upset where the pilot "stops the turn" inverted and
possibly nose pointed "down", i.e. toward the earth. In that case he/she
will be positive G and accelerating.
Imagine you are at the top of a loop. At that point you are wings level,
inverted, and pulling positive G. As you pull through you remain
positive G with increasing airspeed. Your airspeed will not decelerate
until after you pulled through the bottom of the loop and the nose rises
above the horizon. Regardless you will be positive G the whole way but
you will gain lots of airspeed and lose a lot of altitude.
But you asked about what to do if in negative G flight. Here is the
recommendation for upset recovery. It works for an aircraft that has
ended up either positive or negative G, upright or inverted.
Upset recovery has the pilot getting the aircraft upright as quickly as
possible. Standard upset recovery has the pilot pushing or pulling as
necessary to "unload" the airframe so it is not pulling any significant
G, either positive or negative, regardless of orientation, i.e. inverted
or upright. The next response is to execute a roll to wings level. The
last response is to execute a smooth pull-out without overstressing the
airframe.
One other thing: if the airspeed is increasing it is a good idea to
reduce power/thrust to delay the arrival at Vne as long as possible.
It turns out that the load limit of the airframe is for acceleration on
one axis only. You can be pulling +3.8G (normal category aircraft) but
you can't be rolling at the same time. The goal here is to avoid
overstressing the airframe by pulling and rolling at the same time. So
you unload, roll, and pull to nose level (or even nose up if you are
going too fast).
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Mitchell Goodrich wrote:
>
> Kevin,
>
> I will check again, but in my discussions with the FAA,
> Certed Engine Management Systems CANNOT be field upgradable,
> well unless its by the factory. So in reality they are,
> just not by the owner. Think about it, letting anyone
> change the funtionality of your planes critical engine instrument.
> The units are field configurable!!
That is funny. There is no such thing as a critical engine instrument.
Our airplanes will fly safely without any engine instruments at all,
except maybe a CHT indicator so we don't burn up the engine by keeping
the cowl flaps closed. I would bet that I could fly any piston-powered
aircraft to a safe landing without any engine damage after a loss of all
engine instruments. I couldn't fly to a safe landing without my gyros (IFR).
OTOH, I can update the software in my flight display instruments (Sandel
in my case) or my navigation instruments (Apollo GPS/comm). What are
they thinking?
> The software has to be Certified, and is intro'd into the
> field with no allowed changes. Each Cert'd AC and engine
> combo has its own parameters, no changes!
Again, that certainly is a chuckle. We use the same engine instruments
without change on many different aircraft and engine combinations. I
wonder what their justification is.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
D Wysong wrote:
>
> Brian -
>
> I'm interested in how 'proprietary' the data pipe between their two
> boxes (or coming out of one box) is. Standard CAN, RS-XXX, or something
> wacky?
I hope it is CAN bus.
> In other words, will their datastream be available for external
> products to 'sniff' for data?
I didn't ask but I am sure I will get around to it. It will probably be
better for me to just call them and talk. I am sure that each answer
will probably generate yet another question.
> If you asked about that in/amongst your questions about your MOOSE of an
> engine (Russian?), I'd appreciate hearing the response(s).
No, I am not building a Moose. I have a Nanchang CJ6A trainer. The stock
Chinese engine is a 9-cyl radial made by Huosai. We also like to replace
the Chinese motor with a Vendenyev M14P which delivers 360hp instead of
285hp. The aircraft designer, Bushi Cheng, told us that the airframe was
designed for a 400hp engine.
Regardless, both engines are 9-cyl radials and need the same
instrumentation. The only difference is that the M14P doesn't have a
mixture control. It has an aneroid that adjusts the mixture in flight.
The Huosai has a mixture control.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
Brian,
in actuality Xerion's instrumentation is using Can-Aerospace Protocol.
The system uses a dual-redundant CAN Network. Its their beleif that the
CAN protocol is versatile and robust in high-noise enviroments which is
why
it is starting to be used more often in avionics, and is the choice in
the
auto industry...........
Mitchell
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of D
Wysong
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
Brian -
I'm interested in how 'proprietary' the data pipe between their two
boxes (or coming out of one box) is. Standard CAN, RS-XXX, or something
wacky? In other words, will their datastream be available for external
products to 'sniff' for data?
If you asked about that in/amongst your questions about your MOOSE of an
engine (Russian?), I'd appreciate hearing the response(s).
D
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> -->
>
> Harley wrote:
>
>
>>If you talk to them, you might mention that there is some confusion,
>>as
>>witnessed by our conversations here today.
>
>
> I sent them a number of queries. If anybody else is interested I will
> post the responses. Much of what I asked had to do with using it with
> a 9-cyl radial engine however.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Mitchell Goodrich wrote:
> in actuality Xerion's instrumentation is using Can-Aerospace Protocol.
> The system uses a dual-redundant CAN Network. Its their beleif that the
> CAN protocol is versatile and robust in high-noise enviroments which is
> why
> it is starting to be used more often in avionics, and is the choice in
> the
> auto industry...........
No need to tell me that. A couple of us started to design an cockpit
instrumentation suite using a CAN bus running CAN-aerospace as an
interconnect. CAN-bus is pretty slick.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Iso Amp - 2 stereo - 3 mono inputs |
>Is there a clever way to add another stereo input?
Don't know if it is clever, but.....
May be the kits below:
http://www.quasarelectronics.com/1010.htm
http://www.quasarelectronics.com/1071.htm
http://www.quasarelectronics.com/1050.htm
The Garmin 396 is Stereo? Cool I did not know that. Is that part of
the XM radio package? I guess I am wondering why do you need to
listen to two stereo sources at the same time, but
If you only need to listen to one at a time a simple toggle switching
between the two stereo may be the only thing that you need.
I might add that some intercoms don't do well with low gain output
from small devices like iPod's, your results may vary. There are
cool little stereo preamps electronic kits. Good Luck Pete.
Cheers George
From: "Pete Howell" <pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Iso Amp - 2 stereo - 3 mono inputs
<pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
Hello,
I am looking to integrate 2 stereo (Garmin 396 and Ipod) and 3
mono(EIS, Traffic, 1 extra) sources into my Flightcom
403. I have studied the design of Bob's Iso Amp and like it all
except that it only accepts one stereo input. Is there a clever way
to add another stereo input?
Also, I contacted Flightcom and they suggested (good service - 3hr
response to an e-mail) just adding 1:1 Isolation transformers (Radio
Shack 273-1374) to the mono inputs and running all lines to Pin 21 -
that way they will be unmuted.
They did not have an answer for the twin stereo inputs.
Any thoughts? Cheers,Pete
---------------------------------
Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
Morning, Mitch..
>>you'll see that the 4 cyl is without sensors and the other is with
sensors<<
Ah, yes...you are correct...I see that now...guess I assumed that they
would list the two units the same way...first without the sensors, then
with them. If it fooled me, it probably caught a few others as well.
Time for me to get back to the "cave" and the sanding...
Harley
Mitchell Goodrich wrote:
>
>Hey Harley,
>
>yeah they have a bit of work on the site to do.
>If you look again, you'll see that the 4 cyl is
>without sensors and the other is with sensors.
>The actual diff between the1 and 2 box is bout 700.00
>
>
>Mitchell Goodrich
>Modular Electric LLC
>Managing Partner
>813-356-9758
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Harley
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:11 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
>
>-->
>
>Evening, Mitch...
>
>Their website is a bit confusing then...I didn't see where it mentions
>that one or two box option (but I think that I have noticed that at
>least one other brand does the same thing), but it does say that the
>Auracle I is for non-certified applications, and the Auracle II at $1500
>
>more is for certified.
>
>Of course, the way it is phrased may simply mean that Auracle II is
>ready for immediate certification where the Auracle I is not expected to
>
>be certified in the near future.
>
>If you talk to them, you might mention that there is some confusion, as
>witnessed by our conversations here today.
>
>I won't be getting down there for awhile...it's snowing again here
>...and I've been finishing the parts I brought back here in my
>cellar...I'm all camped out in my warm cave until spring!
>
>Harley
>
>
>Mitchell Goodrich wrote:
>
>
>
>>-->
>>
>>Hey Randy & Harley,
>>
>>The Auracle does come 2 different ways. A single box, which means all
>>the senders are wired directly to the head unit, and a 2 box. The data
>>aquisition unit mounted
>>in the engine compartment and a supplied data cable run up to the head
>>unit.
>>Do believe that both units are/will be certified.
>>I vote for the 2 box. Only because of my limited wireway space, and
>>
>>
>ease
>
>
>>of install.
>>Both units have the same exact functionality.
>>
>>Mitchell Goodrich
>>VariEze Tampa
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>Randall Richter
>>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:56 PM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>>
>>
>>-->
>>
>>Glad to hear they have listened to the masses!
>>
>>Randy
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>Harley
>>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:45 PM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>>
>>-->
>>
>>Randy...
>>
>>They have TWO versions...the Auracle I is for non-certified use, and
>>the
>>
>>Auracle II is for either certified or not...it is about $1500 more than
>>the non certified version.
>>
>>And, from their website:
>>
>>"Programming the Xerion */AuRACLE
>>(TM)/* is made quick and easy by
>>visiting www.xerionavionix.com and requesting your aircraft specific
>>data, downloading the file to your portable USB drive, and then
>>
>>
>plugging
>
>
>>it into your */AuRACLE
>>(TM)/*. It's that simple!"
>>
>>The USB drive is included with the unit.
>>
>>Harley Dixon
>>
>>
>>Randall Richter wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very
>>>good product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the
>>>software will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>the unit and send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken,
>>>
>>>
>most
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>of the others provide updated software via removable card or something
>>>similar, right?
>>>
>>>He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>>>allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>>>"experimental" version of this system.
>>>
>>>Randy Richter
>>>-7QB coming along VERY slowly
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Floscan 201B varnish? |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
We are working on our 914 fuel system. It has 2 Floscan 201B transducers
for flow gauge.
I called Flowscan about installation, and was told if using mogas, you
need to drain lines so there is no fuel in the transducer, or else the
optics will get varnished over. He said 70 to 80% of the time you can take
out the transducer and put a pipe plug in 1 end and use carb and choke
cleaner and let it sit. But if that does not work the transducer is not
serviceable.
Have those out there using mogas and 201Bs been draining lines during
times of inactivity?
How many have needed to clean or replace 201Bs?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
Bob and Brian,
I enjoyed the 'byeplay' 'twixt methods explained in the use of
the turn and Bank - which the Brits and others refer to as "turn and slip"
indicators.
Bob used the phrase "stop the turn" as a preliminary to escape from unusual
positions.
I'd like to modify that slightly - and welcome any remarks. As I
remember, my cruel leader had me under the hood on limited panel (needle,
ball and airspeed), and said, "I'll set you up, then give you control, and
you regain straight and level flight".
For five minutes we were all over the sky. If it weren't caged
my A/H would have been broken. I felt about 3G, then weightless and the
mighty leader said, "You have control". What he had done was to reef the
machine to the vertical, bunted and applied full rudder. I can't tell you
what excitement I experienced - until we were established in an inverted
spin. The recovery was traumatic.
He then explained - no other instrument could recover from that
manoeuvre but the T&B. The first thing you gotta do is 'stop the yaw with
the rudders, then assess the result, if airspeed then level the wings with
the ailerons, and apply the throttle as required, bring her level and trim'.
In ensuing weeks we expanded the idea, and soon I was happy if I
had anything MORE than needle, ball and airspeed. So, Bob, maybe it should
be Stop the Yaw, then Stop the Bank, then airspeed.
What's true is that one must be familiar with the aircraft to
get the most out of it - and perhaps few of us do that.
Ferg
PS: maybe it should be ball, needle and airspeed since that's the order of
use.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JC5404L" <jcreedon(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin 396 to JPI FS-450 Fuel Flow Interface? |
Greetings;
Does anyone have a means of connecting the new 396 to the FS-450 Fuel Flow
monitor?
A wiring diragram/hints/instructions would be greatly appreciated.
Many Thanks;
JC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Fergus Kyle wrote:
>
> Bob and Brian,
> I enjoyed the 'byeplay' 'twixt methods explained in the use of
> the turn and Bank - which the Brits and others refer to as "turn and slip"
> indicators.
That is the term that appears in the training material that I use with
my students.
> Bob used the phrase "stop the turn" as a preliminary to escape from unusual
> positions.
And the more I think about it it, the more I agree with it.
> I'd like to modify that slightly - and welcome any remarks. As I
> remember, my cruel leader had me under the hood on limited panel (needle,
> ball and airspeed), and said, "I'll set you up, then give you control, and
> you regain straight and level flight".
> For five minutes we were all over the sky. If it weren't caged
> my A/H would have been broken. I felt about 3G, then weightless and the
> mighty leader said, "You have control". What he had done was to reef the
> machine to the vertical, bunted and applied full rudder. I can't tell you
> what excitement I experienced - until we were established in an inverted
January 14, 2006 - January 19, 2006
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fh