AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ft
June 13, 2006 - June 25, 2006
* Grand Rapids Engine Monitor with altitude...
* Angle of Attack
Buss B
* Grand Rapids EFIS-1 with separate GPS
* Misc. Avionics
The thought is we can survive failure of either buss or any component on
it:
Buss B Fails:
* Switch to autopilot for wings level, attitude control
* Altimeter from GRT Engine Monitor Option & Garmin
* Course from Garmin
* AOA gives us backup A/S surrogate.
Buss A Fails:
* Fly EFIS - have all air and attitude data we need, spare GPS.
* Engine Monitor by ear.
Seems like a reasonable risk level without any steam gages.
Comments?
_____
| From: | owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com |
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 4:28 PM
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
In a message dated 6/12/2006 12:57:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bferrell(at)123mail.net writes:
Dan -
And to add another datapoint, my FAA (Cincinnati) regional
inspector who will do
my op limits stated that he had no concerns with my
self-certifying that my dual
BMA EFIS system met these requirements (no vacuum system at all,
no round
gauges). Folks need to do what they're comfortable with, and do
so from a
position of knowledge, but I agree that it's pretty clearly
established what is
"required".
Brett
Good Evening All,
May I add another small comment?
The FAA has only recently started to interject a need for redundancy in
IFR aircraft. Anything approved before the FAA got on this kick is not
required to have ANY redundancy.
Personally, I don't think they should be able to make such a
requirement.
It is my opinion that it is up to the operator to decide what level
he/she is comfortable with.
If you talked to ALPA they would tell you that no airplane should be
allowed in the sky unless it had a minimum of two engines and two
pilots.
I think one engine, one pilot, one generator, one battery, one radio and
one gyro instrument is all the regulations should require. If I want
more, I will add it.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
We were thinking of adding a diode-protected feed from a second bus to
our GRT EIS, so one would have engine data regardless of a single bus
failure . . .
TDT
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Beadle
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
After a lot of thought, we seem close to deciding on this system:
Buss A
* GNS430 (Approach Certified)
* Transponder
* Autopilot (TruTrak DigiFlight with independent gyros)
* Grand Rapids Engine Monitor with altitude...
* Angle of Attack
Buss B
* Grand Rapids EFIS-1 with separate GPS
* Misc. Avionics
The thought is we can survive failure of either buss or any component on
it:
Buss B Fails:
* Switch to autopilot for wings level, attitude control
* Altimeter from GRT Engine Monitor Option & Garmin
* Course from Garmin
* AOA gives us backup A/S surrogate.
Buss A Fails:
* Fly EFIS - have all air and attitude data we need, spare GPS.
* Engine Monitor by ear.
Seems like a reasonable risk level without any steam gages.
Comments?
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
In a message dated 6/12/2006 12:57:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bferrell(at)123mail.net writes:
Dan -
And to add another datapoint, my FAA (Cincinnati) regional
inspector who will do
my op limits stated that he had no concerns with my
self-certifying that my dual
BMA EFIS system met these requirements (no vacuum system at all,
no round
gauges). Folks need to do what they're comfortable with, and do
so from a
position of knowledge, but I agree that it's pretty clearly
established what is
"required".
Brett
Good Evening All,
May I add another small comment?
The FAA has only recently started to interject a need for redundancy in
IFR aircraft. Anything approved before the FAA got on this kick is not
required to have ANY redundancy.
Personally, I don't think they should be able to make such a
requirement.
It is my opinion that it is up to the operator to decide what level
he/she is comfortable with.
If you talked to ALPA they would tell you that no airplane should be
allowed in the sky unless it had a minimum of two engines and two
pilots.
I think one engine, one pilot, one generator, one battery, one radio and
one gyro instrument is all the regulations should require. If I want
more, I will add it.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
Bruce I am an airline guy and two things. Don't get a little GA plane's
mixed up with a large turbojet air transport category aircraft. The backup
ADI is required for part 121 and they are always electric. Now even the
standby ADI's are also solid state, tube devices, no mechanical gyro
at all. Mechanical gyros are going away, even for standby devices.
Your recommendation is a good one, but it is NOT a requirement. The
EAA hashed this out with the FAA, and if the EFIS has the function of
a Gyro it is acceptable. There is no regulation for experimentals that
REQUIRES the use of a mechanical vacume back-up, although I agree
with you, an independant standby is a good idea.
Vacuum gyros SUCKS (pun intended). Therefore an electric back-up
(either mechanical or solid state gyro) with a isolated power supply,
e.g., a secondary battery, is a great idea for IFR.
Bruce it is not a Pee match, just a conversation and we can agree to
disagree. Just want to clarify the difference between an air transport
where EVERYTHING has triple redundancy and our little pee-shooter
single engine birds. Don't fool yourself into thinking you achieve any
where near air transport system redundancy and fail-safe architecture
ever. All the standby instruments in the world will not help when the
the single engine stops or the crankshaft cracks and the prop falls off.
Single engine, single pilot IFR is a little risky anyway.
George ATP/CFII
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
>
>OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't
>wantanother one. Do whatever floats your boat.
>
>Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this issue for years and
>mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS airliners going dark in
>IFRwhere the only thing left was a flashlight and a vacuum ADI.
>
>I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I wonder why?
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Nice one george... iagree vacuum systems do suck (but not all the
time)....:)
For me I went with an Dynon EFIS (with a couple of steam guage backups)
for primary flight and a truetrack Pictorial Pilot as the backup when
everything goes mental.
the EFIS is battery backed up and my reduced power mode (SD-8
alternator) wll run a fuel pump, radio (to scream "HELP" on) and the
transponder.
As you say if the prop falls off your dead anyway in IFR.
Frank
Zenair Zodiac 400 hours soon to be sold
RV7a paining.
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:19 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to
have)
Bruce I am an airline guy and two things. Don't get a little GA plane's
mixed up with a large turbojet air transport category aircraft. The
backup
ADI is required for part 121 and they are always electric. Now even the
standby ADI's are also solid state, tube devices, no mechanical gyro
at all. Mechanical gyros are going away, even for standby devices.
Your recommendation is a good one, but it is NOT a requirement. The
EAA hashed this out with the FAA, and if the EFIS has the function of
a Gyro it is acceptable. There is no regulation for experimentals that
REQUIRES the use of a mechanical vacume back-up, although I agree
with you, an independant standby is a good idea.
Vacuum gyros SUCKS (pun intended). Therefore an electric back-up
(either mechanical or solid state gyro) with a isolated power supply,
e.g., a secondary battery, is a great idea for IFR.
Bruce it is not a Pee match, just a conversation and we can agree to
disagree. Just want to clarify the difference between an air transport
where EVERYTHING has triple redundancy and our little pee-shooter
single engine birds. Don't fool yourself into thinking you achieve any
where near air transport system redundancy and fail-safe architecture
ever. All the standby instruments in the world will not help when the
the single engine stops or the crankshaft cracks and the prop falls off.
Single engine, single pilot IFR is a little risky anyway.
George ATP/CFII
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
>
>OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't
>wantanother
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified |
>From: "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
>
>George,
>I do not have a horse in this race, but I believe you've missed the
>point of the original article.
Thanks Rick for the correction. I don't have a horse is this race and
apparently if I did it would be lame. (ha ha)
I agree I was not dead on point. Call it a Non sequitur, neither right or
wrong but not on point. However I think I do make some relevant points.
As far as Direct2/Freeflight and Chelton, I did not get we where talking
about this brand spacifically. I am sure they're awesome units. However
if it can meet the FAR's/TSO it should be sold as such. If they make
two models that are physically and functionally the same and you
want or NEED IFR equip, buy the TSO'ed equip. Done deal.
For the doctor to say you/we can evaluate that a NON TSO model is
the same as the TSO'ed model is debatable.
I would call the FAA. As the article states there is even confusion with
the FAA, but if you really want the answer you have to ask the right
people. Of course if you only want to hear and believe the non-TSO'ed
unit is OK, don't bother asking. Just do it and take the PhD CFII word
on it. I would not. I am sure there are pilots shooting GPS approaches
with GPS handheld's because some rocket scientist told them it was
OK. We are talking about the legal nuance and not what you can get
away with.
The good Doctor may be right, but in my experience the FAA is the
only one that counts. I suggest anyone contact EAA legal and ask this
question first than go to the FSDO. Often you need to contact the
FSDO that's in the region that does avionics. You have to talk to right
person. In the end it comes down to what is written down and how it is
interpreted. I could be wrong, but I am conservative and would opt
to CYA and use the TSO'ed equip. Of course if you can afford this
many 10's of thousand dollar equipment why pinch pennies.
There is a TSO'ed designation for reason, even for Com radios. The
ICOM A-200 com has a TSO'ed version and a non-TSO'ed version for
about $100 less. Of course there no need for a TSO'ed Com in an
experimental. So one might say that applies to IFR GPS navigation.
Well some things need to be TSO'ed even in an experimental, like
the Transponder and ELT. I am going add IFR GPS.
If you want IFR GPS navigation get a TSO'ed device, either a:
$2000 early Gen IFR GPS w/ CDI **
-OR-
$6,000-$12,000 later Gen IFR GPS (e.g., Garmin GNS/GNC)
-OR-
$40,000(?) TSO'ed IFR EFIS.
** As far as small monochrome small GPS displays vs. large color
displays, when I fly an approach all I want is what I have used for over
20 years, two needles, the azimuth and glide path. All the color stuff
is great situational awareness, but when it comes to an approach the
thing that counts are those two needles. For me, give me a good
VOR/LOV/GS receiver (which can typ get you 200 and 1/2) for IFR and
a good handheld GPS for refrence only. I prefer using cheaper paper
charts and plates that I update when I need it and for the region I
want to fly verses expensive electronic updates. Of course with the
newer WAAS / RAIM receivers you will be able to get lower GPS
mins, but the VOR ILS back bone will be around for decades to come.
Bottom line for me I think you need the pedigree, paper work,
TSO good housekeeping seal of approval to make it you GPS legal
for IFR flight, regardless of make/model and similarity to other
models. Clearly the future is EFIS/IFR GPS WAAS but we are
a ways off.
Cheers Geroge ATP/CFII
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Randy,
I know about the circuit breaker situation on the
757/767 because of an experience I had luckily with
accepting an inbound aircraft. Everything was going
haywire and I looked for the circuit breakers on the
DC battery bus panel. Lo and behold, c/b's were
popped and some were bent. We replaced the c/b's and
all the problems went away. When you mess with a
767/757 by popping cb's and try to operate that way
God only knows what logic is going to get fouled up.
It is impressive to have all the bells, lights, and
whistles going off at once and not being able to make
them stop. I can't fault the crew of that 767 but
I'll bet the copilot snagged the cb's on the way in or
out of that seat and when they got on the ground the
popped breakers were reset. Problem solved and no one
the wiser at that.
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
OK, yea those standby 2.5 ADI's are nice but I'd have to sell my Lexus
to
buy one.
What I don't understand is the willingness of some to go out and fly
hard
IFR with only a BMI/Dynon/whatever and a plumb bob as a backup. You
might
think that vacuum sucks but a properly maintained vacuum system is very
reliable and it works when everything else goes dark.
Though I've never flown part 121 aircraft, I've paid my dues flying lots
of
other part 135 junk including a 2 year stint as a freight dog flying
checks
in D18's at night in Kansas. If it could fail, I've had it fail. It's
all
taught me several important lessons. Never, NEVER trust your life to one
piece of equipment. Always leave yourself a way out. And there is no
shame
in canceling a flight.
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
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:19 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to
have)
Bruce I am an airline guy and two things. Don't get a little GA plane's
mixed up with a large turbojet air transport category aircraft. The
backup
ADI is required for part 121 and they are always electric. Now even the
standby ADI's are also solid state, tube devices, no mechanical gyro
at all. Mechanical gyros are going away, even for standby devices.
Your recommendation is a good one, but it is NOT a requirement. The
EAA hashed this out with the FAA, and if the EFIS has the function of
a Gyro it is acceptable. There is no regulation for experimentals that
REQUIRES the use of a mechanical vacume back-up, although I agree
with you, an independant standby is a good idea.
Vacuum gyros SUCKS (pun intended). Therefore an electric back-up
(either mechanical or solid state gyro) with a isolated power supply,
e.g., a secondary battery, is a great idea for IFR.
Bruce it is not a Pee match, just a conversation and we can agree to
disagree. Just want to clarify the difference between an air transport
where EVERYTHING has triple redundancy and our little pee-shooter
single engine birds. Don't fool yourself into thinking you achieve any
where near air transport system redundancy and fail-safe architecture
ever. All the standby instruments in the world will not help when the
the single engine stops or the crankshaft cracks and the prop falls off.
Single engine, single pilot IFR is a little risky anyway.
George ATP/CFII
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
>
>OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't
>wantanother
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
The NTSB report says that the ground cable for the main battery was
not positively secured to the main battery shunt. This may have been
a failure mode that was not considered by Boeing. But, the ground
testing could not duplicate the original failure, so there was
another variable that they couldn't track down.
I suspect many electrical systems would be put in a very bad state if
the main battery ground cable became disconnected. With my aircraft,
the whole electrical system would become unusable, and I'd be down to
the internal battery on my EFIS (advertised as 3 hr duration), plus
handheld COM and GPS. This should allow me to get on the ground
somewhere.
Kevin Horton
On 13 Jun 2006, at 12:30, Brinker wrote:
> internet.com>
>
> Bob there will be no flaming from me. I am sure you are
> much more knowledgable than I on these matters. I only commented
> since it seems odd there was no way for the pilot to go to a
> secondary dc power system and put the essentials back on line. Also
> causing braking problems, which accually looks like it was a bigger
> problem than loosing the efis. I would almost wager that since this
> incidence there has been a change in the electrical architechure.
> Also since this was back in 1996 I am almost certain that the
> technology has advanced since then and also figure most airline
> pilots keep a 396 or equivilent in their flight bag just in case
> these days. I am low time pilot and have already had a vacuum pump
> go out on my 1968 cherokee which put a sour taste in my mouth for
> steam gauges. It is interesting to see the ideas and responses to
> redundancy. Opinions are like noses everybody has one. My motto is
> "redundancy redundancy redundancy ohhhh my and more redundancy"
> LOL. If ones loses the engine on a SEL all the gauges in the world
> won't help. I am not making light of the situation but there has to
> be a maximum point somewhere. Sorry for the rant.
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Sultzbach"
>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:26 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: E-BUS
>
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Randy, I just reread your message about the
>> importance of the E-Bus. I agree 100%. It is
>> important. I went on to editorialize about the evils
>> of overdoing the E-Bus and I realize it was not a
>> valid response to the message you posted. Sorry about
>> that. I stand by the importance of keeping the E-Bus
>> limited to only items essential for endurance.
>> But that was a thought of my own separate from your
>> post. Safe flying, Bob Sultzbach
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
6/13/2006
Responding to a previous posting (partially copied below) by John Erickson
on this subject.
Hello John, Thank you for the labor that you invested to create your posting
for the benefit of other pilots and builders.
I'd like to note that this information is also available in a condensed
tabular form from me upon direct e mail request.
Also see pages 49 and 50 of the June 2006 issue of Kitplanes magazine for a
published version of this table and the introduction.
OC
From: "John Erickson" <john.erickson(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
Dan, A lot of people will respond with what they think or what they heard.
Here's what I have in writing. Note that while most Experimental Operations
Limits are fairly standardized, they may differ, so check the Ops Limits
issued
for the aircraft you're putting the EFIS in for specifics.
Here's what my Ops Limits say under the Phase II section.
"4. After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately
equipeed for night and/or instrument flist as listed in FAR 91.205 (b
through e), this aircraft is to be operated under day only VFR."
OK, pretty straightforward. On to what FAR 91.205 b through e
says......skip...>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
Message Being a low time pilot excuse me if I seem to be
talking out my wazoo here. But it seems like most experimental builders
including myself are installing an angle of attack mine the AFS can
operate off of a 9v battery, so it will not be affected by loss of the
planes bus power. The AOA takes the place of the ASI and VSI so two
steam gauges gone out of precouis panel space, not to mention that my
backup 196 also shows airspeed, vsi, altitude, and of course heading so
I don't get lost. And I think most pilots these days carry something
similar. I also think most put their auto pilot as I will on the e-bus
which should keep us out of a nose dive long enough to regroup. Insofar
as a 2 1/4" T&B check Trutraks, around $450,which is the only round
gauge I plan on, or spend a little more and get an electric ADI from
them. A few years ago these items we're unheard of or at least too
expensive for most light aircraft. We now have redundancy in a flight
bag along with some neat comparatively inexpensive items in dash. I'm
not sure what hard IFR is, I'm not yet rated but am working on it, but I
for one will cancel any flight I don't feel comfortable with and will
hopefully not be flying into any wing breaking weather with the help of
xm and an old outdated wx8.
Randy
opinions ARE like noses and I hope mine is'nt sticking out so far as to
get knocked off
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Gray
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:18 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs.
good to have)
OK, yea those standby 2.5 ADI's are nice but I'd have to sell my Lexus
to buy one.
What I don't understand is the willingness of some to go out and fly
hard IFR with only a BMI/Dynon/whatever and a plumb bob as a backup. You
might think that vacuum sucks but a properly maintained vacuum system is
very reliable and it works when everything else goes dark.
Though I've never flown part 121 aircraft, I've paid my dues flying
lots of other part 135 junk including a 2 year stint as a freight dog
flying checks in D18's at night in Kansas. If it could fail, I've had it
fail. It's all taught me several important lessons. Never, NEVER trust
your life to one piece of equipment. Always leave yourself a way out.
And there is no shame in canceling a flight.
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
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:19 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good
to have)
Bruce I am an airline guy and two things. Don't get a little GA
plane's
mixed up with a large turbojet air transport category aircraft. The
backup
ADI is required for part 121 and they are always electric. Now even
the
standby ADI's are also solid state, tube devices, no mechanical gyro
at all. Mechanical gyros are going away, even for standby devices.
Your recommendation is a good one, but it is NOT a requirement. The
EAA hashed this out with the FAA, and if the EFIS has the function
of
a Gyro it is acceptable. There is no regulation for experimentals
that
REQUIRES the use of a mechanical vacume back-up, although I agree
with you, an independant standby is a good idea.
Vacuum gyros SUCKS (pun intended). Therefore an electric back-up
(either mechanical or solid state gyro) with a isolated power
supply,
e.g., a secondary battery, is a great idea for IFR.
Bruce it is not a Pee match, just a conversation and we can agree to
disagree. Just want to clarify the difference between an air
transport
where EVERYTHING has triple redundancy and our little pee-shooter
single engine birds. Don't fool yourself into thinking you achieve
any
where near air transport system redundancy and fail-safe
architecture
ever. All the standby instruments in the world will not help when
the
the single engine stops or the crankshaft cracks and the prop falls
off.
Single engine, single pilot IFR is a little risky anyway.
George ATP/CFII
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
>
>OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I
don't
>wantanother
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Antenna on old aircraft . . . |
>Comments/Questions: Seeking best way to put an external antenna for a
>handheld comm radio on an old non electric Champ
>thanks
Have you tried the hand-held with just the rubber-duck
antenna? How bad is the ignition noise? Many of these
older, non-electric aircraft have terrible magneto noise
making ANY radio installation useless irrespective of how
good your antenna is.
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 divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
One small pet peeve of mine - the 196 shows GROUND SPEED (not airspeed). A
simple point - but add some tailwind and/or density altitude and the
differences can be disastrous - especially in an emergency when mental
workload is high. Do yourself a favor and repeat it ten times so you don't
forget. It shows ground speed not IAS.
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to
have)
Being a low time pilot excuse me if I seem to be talking out my
wazoo here. But it seems like most experimental builders including myself
are installing an angle of attack mine the AFS can operate off of a 9v
battery, so it will not be affected by loss of the planes bus power. The AOA
takes the place of the ASI and VSI so two steam gauges gone out of precouis
panel space, not to mention that my backup 196 also shows airspeed, vsi,
altitude, and of course heading .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
The Garmin 196 also shows track not heading, and GPS altitude, not
barometric altitude.
Track and GPS altitude are better than nothing if you've had a major
failure (in fact track is more useful than heading if you are trying
to navigate), but we shouldn't confuse them with heading and
barometric altitude. I.e. you shouldn't try to check your compass
accuracy by comparing its heading against GPS track, and you
shouldn't try to compare the barometric altitude from your altimeter
against GPS altitude. The difference between GPS altitude and
barometric altitude could be several hundred feet.
Kevin Horton
On 14 Jun 2006, at 24:04, richard titsworth wrote:
> One small pet peeve of mine ' the 196 shows GROUND SPEED (not
> airspeed). A simple point ' but add some tailwind and/or density
> altitude and the differences can be disastrous ' especially in an
> emergency when mental workload is high. Do yourself a favor and
> repeat it ten times so you don=92t forget. It shows ground speed not
> IAS.
>
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:25 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs.
> good to have)
>
>
> Being a low time pilot excuse me if I seem to be
> talking out my wazoo here. But it seems like most experimental
> builders including myself are installing an angle of attack mine
> the AFS can operate off of a 9v battery, so it will not be affected
> by loss of the planes bus power. The AOA takes the place of the ASI
> and VSI so two steam gauges gone out of precouis panel space, not
> to mention that my backup 196 also shows airspeed, vsi, altitude,
> and of course heading =85
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring |
I didn't receive any meaningful responses to my original query but I
found a diagram on Bob's site (thanks, Bob!) that answers a lot of my
questions: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles//trim.pdf
Let me phrase my original question another way: do both (pilot and
copilot) trim switches connect (in parallel) to the ORN and GRN wires of
the "MAC SERVO RELAY DECK" in the above diagram? I think so but I'd
like to hear from someone who has actually wired this system.
And what have others done to connect this "mini-rats nest" of small
gauge wires? Between the two stick grips, two relay decks, two trim
servos and two needle-type indicators there must be two dozen
connections and not a single terminal to fasten to.
--
Joe
Long-EZ 821RP
Lewiston, ID
On 10-Jun-06 14:40 Joe Dubner wrote:
> Can anyone shed some light on a question about the use of two Ray Allen
> Company control stick grips with trim switches, two RAC relay decks, and
> RAC servos for aileron and elevator trim? The RAC "Wire schematic" is
> attached.
>
> Do both sets of trim switches (the corresponding switches from grip 1
> and grip 2) connect to the points labeled Switch 1, Switch3, Switch4,
> and Switch2? To me the diagram doesn't make this clear.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
JOe -
I sent you 2 or 3 .pdf files with the wiring we used for connecting the
pilot and co-pilot trim switches. They show the relay deck connections in
color coded wiring. Let me know if you did not get them and I'll
re-transmit.
John Schroeder
>
> I didn't receive any meaningful responses to my original query but I
> found a diagram on Bob's site (thanks, Bob!) that answers a lot of my
> questions: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles//trim.pdf
>
> Let me phrase my original question another way: do both (pilot and
> copilot) trim switches connect (in parallel) to the ORN and GRN wires of
> the "MAC SERVO RELAY DECK" in the above diagram? I think so but I'd
> like to hear from someone who has actually wired this system.
>
> And what have others done to connect this "mini-rats nest" of small
> gauge wires? Between the two stick grips, two relay decks, two trim
> servos and two needle-type indicators there must be two dozen
> connections and not a single terminal to fasten to.
>
> --
> Joe
> Long-EZ 821RP
> Lewiston, ID
>
>
> On 10-Jun-06 14:40 Joe Dubner wrote:
>> Can anyone shed some light on a question about the use of two Ray Allen
>> Company control stick grips with trim switches, two RAC relay decks, and
>> RAC servos for aileron and elevator trim? The RAC "Wire schematic" is
>> attached.
>>
>> Do both sets of trim switches (the corresponding switches from grip 1
>> and grip 2) connect to the points labeled Switch 1, Switch3, Switch4,
>> and Switch2? To me the diagram doesn't make this clear.
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
Not to pick any fights, but I just have to set back sometimes and say
"HUH?"...
Don't get me wrong, I fly a glass panel airplane today (2004 182 with
G1000)
and I'm building another other (Lancair Legacy with Chelton). What
strikes
me as odd is the way people approach an IFR panel. It seems to be an
extension of a VFR one, instead of one dedicated for IFR use. The
problem
is that IMC is either black for white, there is no gray area (clouds not
included :) ). You either are VMC and on IFR, or you are IMC and on
IFR.
BTW, I don't buy this "Light IFR" concept either. It's pretty simple,
were
you visually limited in IMC or NOT?
So my suggestion is to stop and think about, you are going to build a
panel
that gives you the opportunity to use your airplane it in IMC. Will
you?
What do you expect for failsafe if you do and something happens? How
will
you survive?
Those questions have to be answered and seriously. Going NORDO is one
thing, but loosing all orientation when in the clag.... well, you know
the
outcome of that.... (ever tried unusual attitude recovery with partial
panel? Did ya survive before the instructor had to bail you out?).
With Glass you also *have* to approach things differently. I'm not
going to
tell you how or which equipment to buy (altho as you can tell, I like
the
stuff that is a kissing cousin to certified), and you certainly *don't*
need
any vacuum instruments if you so desire, but please plan in some
failsafes.
Examples.
- Dual busses
- Dual EFIS that can act independently
- Alt, AS, AI (electric via Sporty's for cheap)
- an autopilot with its own built in compass and wing leveler
- a backup GPS preferably with 6 pack instrumentation
NOW FOR THE MOST IMPORTANT PART..... LEARN!!!! to use what you install.
I
get so sick of reading about accidents where the outcome could have been
different if someone would have just "RTFM". :)
Just think about it, Crosswell, most likely would have been saved if
he'd
just had "real-time" weather onboard. Glass is awesome, wonderful, and
I'll
never fly without it, but you *do* need some kind of failsafe, and you
do
need education.
Ok, I'll get off my soapbox. I don't agree with Bruce's assessment of
Glass
in a GA cockpit, but I do have a strong feeling that if you do it, you
don't
do it half way, and you do include failsafes.
The problem with the above is that cheap and redundant failsafes don't
always go together....
My panel has dual Cheltons, 3 - 3 1/8" backup instruments (AS, AI, ALT),
TruTrak AP with separate built in heading and wing leveler, and a Garmin
portable mounted in the panel that if everything goes dark, can run on
batteries and in 6 pack mode to be a last resort. Probably overkill,
but
who cares, it's my butt in the seat.
Alan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Beadle
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 4:06 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
John,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
I had read the regs several times and had visited the EAA site. I just
didn=92t quite put it together as you have. I am comfortable with dual,
independent systems on separate battery busses. In the unlikely event
of a
lightning strike, I might lose both, but I can live with that.
I probably will go with the dual battery, dual EFIS, dual AHRS system
and no
gyros. I may have to educate the DAR for sign-off, but it should be
doable.
Thanks.
Dan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Erickson
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:19 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
Dan,
A lot of people will respond with what they think or what they heard.
Here's
what I have in writing. Note that while most Experimental Operations
Limits
are fairly standardized, they may differ, so check the Ops Limits issued
for
the aircraft you're putting the EFIS in for specifics.
Here's what my Ops Limits say under the Phase II section.
"4. After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately
equipeed for night and/or instrument flist as listed in FAR 91.205 (b
through e), this aircraft is to be operated under day only VFR."
OK, pretty straightforward. On to what FAR 91.205 b through e says...
FAR 91.205
(b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the
following
instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Airspeed indicator.
(2) Altimeter.
(3) Magnetic direction indicator.
(4) Tachometer for each engine.
(5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine using pressure system.
(6) Temperature gauge for each liquid-cooled engine.
(7) Oil temperature gauge for each air-cooled engine.
(8) Manifold pressure gauge for each altitude engine.
(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank.
(10) Landing gear position indicator, if the aircraft has a retractable
landing gear.
(11) For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in
accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or
aviation white anticollision light system. In the event of failure of
any
light of the anticollision light system, operation of the aircraft may
continue to a location where repairs or replacement can be made.
(12) If the aircraft is operated for hire over water and beyond
power-off
gliding distance from shore, approved flotation gear readily available
to
each occupant and, unless the aircraft is operating under part 121 of
this
subchapter, at least one pyrotechnic signaling device. As used in this
section, =93shore=94 means that area of the land adjacent to the water
which is
above the high water mark and excludes land areas which are
intermittently
under water.
(13) An approved safety belt with an approved metal-to-metal latching
device
for each occupant 2 years of age or older.
(14) For small civil airplanes manufactured after July 18, 1978, an
approved
shoulder harness for each front seat. The shoulder harness must be
designed
to protect the occupant from serious head injury when the occupant
experiences the ultimate inertia forces specified in =A723.561(b)(2) of
this
chapter. Each shoulder harness installed at a flight crewmember station
must
permit the crewmember, when seated and with the safety belt and shoulder
harness fastened, to perform all functions necessary for flight
operations.
For purposes of this paragraph=97
(i) The date of manufacture of an airplane is the date the inspection
acceptance records reflect that the airplane is complete and meets the
FAA-approved type design data; and
(ii) A front seat is a seat located at a flight crewmember station or
any
seat located alongside such a seat.
(15) An emergency locator transmitter, if required by =A791.207.
(16) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes with a
seating
configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 9 or less, manufactured after
December 12, 1986, a shoulder harness for=97
(i) Each front seat that meets the requirements of =A723.785 (g) and (h)
of
this chapter in effect on December 12, 1985;
(ii) Each additional seat that meets the requirements of =A723.785(g) of
this
chapter in effect on December 12, 1985.
(17) For rotorcraft manufactured after September 16, 1992, a shoulder
harness for each seat that meets the requirements of =A727.2 or =A729.2
of this
chapter in effect on September 16, 1991.
(c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following
instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(2) Approved position lights.
(3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light
system on
all U.S.-registered civil aircraft. Anticollision light systems
initially
installed after August 11, 1971, on aircraft for which a type
certificate
was issued or applied for before August 11, 1971, must at least meet the
anticollision light standards of part 23, 25, 27, or 29 of this chapter,
as
applicable, that were in effect on August 10, 1971, except that the
color
may be either aviation red or aviation white. In the event of failure of
any
light of the anticollision light system, operations with the aircraft
may be
continued to a stop where repairs or replacement can be made.
(4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light.
(5) An adequate source of electrical energy for all installed electrical
and
radio equipment.
(6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required,
that
are accessible to the pilot in flight.
(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments
and
equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this
section,
and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph
(c)
of this section.
(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.
(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:
(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through
flight
attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance
with
the instrument requirements prescribed in =A7121.305(j) of this chapter;
and
(ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through
flight attitudes of =B180 degrees of pitch and =B1120 degrees of roll
and
installed in accordance with =A729.1303(g) of this chapter.
(4) Slip-skid indicator.
(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.
(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second
pointer or digital presentation.
(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.
(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).
(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).
(e) Flight at and above 24,000 ft. MSL (FL 240). If VOR navigational
equipment is required under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person
may
operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft within the 50 states and the
District of Columbia at or above FL 240 unless that aircraft is equipped
with approved distance measuring equipment (DME). When DME required by
this
paragraph fails at and above FL 240, the pilot in command of the
aircraft
shall notify ATC immediately, and then may continue operations at and
above
FL 240 to the next airport of intended landing at which repairs or
replacement of the equipment can be made.
Reading this again makes things pretty clear. Basic Day/VFR equipment is
listed first. Night VFR requires all the Day VFR equipment with some
additions. IFR requires Night/VFR with some more equipment. Here's
where
another question typically arises when discussing EFIS use in IFR
flight.
FAR 91.205 (d) specifies Gyroscopic rate of turn, pitch and bank, and
direction indicator. What is gyroscopic (especially since most (if not
all)
AHRS's do not have any moving parts at all. Here's what I copied off
EAA's
Homebuilt page (link is
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/1Equipping%20a%20Homebuilt%2
0fo
r%20IFR%20operations.html and does require membership)
"What is a gyro?
The often-asked question is, what constitutes a =93gyroscopic=94
instrument. Is
an instrument containing an actual rotating mass gyro required, or are
alternatives such as ring laser gyros or accelerometer-based instruments
acceptable? Unfortunately, there is no specific definition of a
gyroscopic
instrument to be found in any FAA regulation or guidance document.
In order to try to answer this question, the EAA contacted the FAA Small
Airplane Directorate in Kansas City, MO. The Small Airplane Directorate
confirmed that there is no published guidance on this subject, but
indicated
that the function of the instrument is the main consideration. Any
instrument that performs the function of the required gyroscopic
instrument
and presents info to the pilot in the same manner as the gyroscopic
instrument will meet the requirement of 91.205, regardless of what
mechanical or electronic means are used to generate the information and
display."
Bottomline, it seems pretty obvious from all this that all of the
popular
EFIS systems out there meet the definition of gyroscopic instruments
given
above, satisfy the equipment required by the FAR's, and the requirements
for
instrument flight specified in the Ops Limits. Note that nowhere in any
of
this is there any requirement for any backup of any sort (other than the
requirement in the Night/VFR section for spare fuses). I like your
statement of "If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me."
Remember the regs are a minimum. Lots of stuff to consider including
electrical system design, quality of EFIS hardware AND software,
installation, etc. However, once the regs are met, everything else is
really
personal preference. What one person feels is perfectly safe may seem to
someone else incredibly unsafe. To each his own. I'm going to have
backups
in my RV-10.
John Erickson
RV-10 #40208 Wings
(I think this is my longest post ever... :-) )
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Beadle
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 7:47 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are
planning a
Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one
basket.
If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me.
Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
redundancy.
Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a
separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
To a pilot that is dependant on the instrument, does it matter why, or
more importantly just that it does not work when I need it. The whole
purpose of this thread was to state the value of backup instruments, and
while the EFIS itself did not fail, the end result is that it was not
available, which means that you needed a backup. The easy solution for
this is to have an EFIS with an internal battery, IE Dynon? I will be
using a Chelton, but it is still dependant on electrons flowing to it,
as it does not have an internal battery option, but I will be backing it
up with both a Portable GPS and a Dynon with internal battery.
Dan
RV10 (40269)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert Sultzbach
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:10 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
Hi Bruce, This was not an EFIS failure but an
electrical failure that you have quoted. Furthermore,
having over 6000 odd hours in this aircraft I can tell
you where to start looking for this kind of failure in
the DC buses. It is a "Fate IS the Hunter" scenario
but the DC buses have a row of circuit breakers just
to the aft and right side of the copilot's
seat...right where he slides his flight kit into
position next to his seat. I have seen this row of
breakers blown out by an errant flight kit and guess
what, all hell breaks loose in the DC buses when this
row of breakers is damaged. So to sum it up, if you
interrupt power to an efis it will cease to operate
but it did not fail. It was an electrical failure and
I'll bet a beer a copilot's flight kit caused it.
Cheers, Bob Sultzbach
--- Bruce Gray wrote:
> Here's one.
>
>
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Ma
rtin
> Air/martinair-summary.html
>
>
>
> 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 Brinker
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:01 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
> I would like to read the reports. Not trying
> to be a smart alex just
> out of curiosity.
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruce Gray <mailto:Bruce(at)glasair.org>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:55 AM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
> OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this
> subject that I don't want
> another one. Do whatever floats your boat.
>
> Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this
> issue for years and
> mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS
> airliners going dark in IFR
> where the only thing left was a flashlight and a
> vacuum ADI.
>
> I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I
> wonder why?
>
>
> 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 Tim
> Dawson-Townsend
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
>
> "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds
> of IFR Cessnas with only
> one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for
> backup. And they've got
> zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
>
>
>
> FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of
> any sort are on an
> individual aircraft model installation basis for TC
> or STC. Since
> experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you
> how many or what kind
> of backups you have.
>
>
>
> TDT
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Bruce
> Gray
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
>
> I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before
> they kicked me off. You
> need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably
> vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI.
> Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need
> the steam gauges. If the
> EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Dan
> Beadle
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
> There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
>
>
>
> What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS
> age? We are planning a
> Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far,
> all eggs in one basket.
> If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for
> me.
>
>
>
> Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP
> steam gage for redundancy.
>
>
>
> Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an
> independent AHRS on a
> separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
Good Morning Alan,
Mind if I inject just a small objection here?
It is not at all difficult to learn to use a "Partial Panel" and be able to
survive quite well without the aid of an instructor.
However, as you state, it does take training.
My suggestion is that each and every IFR pilot should find an instructor who
is competent in whatever sort of last ditch equipment the pilot decides to
use and seriously embark on about twenty hours of concentrated study using
nothing more than the Partial Panel chosen.
For what it is worth, when I received my instrument rating, we were not
allowed to use any gyroscopic instrument during the check ride other than the
T&B. No attitude or directional gyroscope was allowed. We who earned our ratings
that way are obviously no smarter than current applicants. Many will claim,
probably rightly so, that we are not as smart as you young whippersnappers.
Nevertheless, we managed to learn how to keep things right side up in twenty
hours or so. There is no reason why it cannot be done today.
I keep hoping that someone will come up with a modern solid state
presentation that is better than a T&B. Meanwhile, the T&B will still do the job.
As I have mentioned many times in the past, I consider the Turn Coordinator
to be an abomination as a "last ditch" instrument, but even it can be used
with enough training.
While I am on this rant. I believe it is a crying shame that Garmin has
chosen to use the TC representation in their 196, 296 and 396 panel
representation. The GPS handhelds show only yaw, not roll. An actual mechanical
TC shows
both roll and yaw, in fact, you can't tell by looking at it whether it is
showing roll or yaw!
In any case, since a T&B shows only yaw, not roll, just as does the Garmin
unit, I believe it would be a much better last ditch backup if it (the Garmin)
used a pictorial representation of a T&B rather than a TC. Personally, I
have a presentation in mind that I THINK would be better than either!
Off the soap box, and thanks for the springboard for my Rant.
Decide on which poison you prefer, then --- learn how to use it!
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 6/14/2006 8:08:53 A.M. Central Standard Time,
aadamson(at)highrf.com writes:
Those questions have to be answered and seriously. Going NORDO is one
thing, but loosing all orientation when in the clag.... well, you know the outcome
of that.... (ever tried unusual attitude recovery with partial panel? Did
ya survive before the instructor had to bail you out?).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Airspeed and ATP |
Hello,
Taken in order, two points:
(1) "From: "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to
have)
One small pet peeve of mine - the 196 shows GROUND SPEED (not airspeed). A
simple point - but add some tailwind and/or density altitude and the
differences can be disastrous - especially in an emergency when mental
workload is high. Do yourself a favor and repeat it ten times so you don't
forget. It shows ground speed not IAS."
........Amen to that - AND that goes for confusing 'heading' for 'track made
good' as well.
(2) I see some increasing use of the term 'ATP' to perhaps designate the
usefulness of advice from an airline pilot. That is a topic ripe for
fisticuffs since two of them stalled and killed themselves in a trainer I
helped build. Most "ATPs" will admit that their airline experience is great
for weather, communications and international trade, but useless in
operating little one-seaters in the countryside. I think we would all be
surprised at the number of ATPs reading this, so advice is as you find it,
not how it's presented.
Ferg Kyle
Europa A064 914 Classic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
Alan,
I don't have any problems with glass panels. I have a problem with how
some
builders implement them.
If you take a look at part 121 and most heavy iron aircraft with full
glass
you'll see that they have duel independent EFIS systems (including duel
AHRS) with an electronic comparator/alerter and a third gyro instrument.
Now
why do they have all this?
We've many hours behind our old steam gauges and know their failure
modes.
Not so with EFIS. Remember, it's a computer, and can fail in ways you've
never seen before. In some cases you won't even know it's failed. That
brings us to training.
The airlines spend big bucks training their guys in EFIS switchology and
failure modes. Just where are we to get this kind of training? Our local
CFII? Some of these failure modes can't be duplicated in the aircraft
and
need a simulator to do it right. But you say 'I'm good at partial
panel', so
was this poor guy.
http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=8F3C17D0-5398-43
55-BB
B0-D47B0DAC1D23
<http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=8F3C17D0-5398-4
355-B
BB0-D47B0DAC1D23&Dynamic=1> &Dynamic=1. Those EFIS screens are very
hypnotic
and compelling. Remember when you were doing partial panel with your
CFII
and he failed the ADI? He did that by covering the instrument. In real
life,
the instrument just starts leaning in pitch or roll. It's very difficult
not
to follow the gauge even when you know it's failed. Imagine how
difficult it
would be with an EFIS. If the AHRS goes bonkers and you still need the
screen for ASI and altitude. The best thing to do is just pull the
breaker
and fly with what's left.
I don't have the answers, perhaps others do.
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: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:02 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
Not to pick any fights, but I just have to set back sometimes and say
"HUH?"...
Don't get me wrong, I fly a glass panel airplane today (2004 182 with
G1000)
and I'm building another other (Lancair Legacy with Chelton). What
strikes
me as odd is the way people approach an IFR panel. It seems to be an
extension of a VFR one, instead of one dedicated for IFR use. The
problem
is that IMC is either black for white, there is no gray area (clouds not
included :) ). You either are VMC and on IFR, or you are IMC and on
IFR.
BTW, I don't buy this "Light IFR" concept either. It's pretty simple,
were
you visually limited in IMC or NOT?
So my suggestion is to stop and think about, you are going to build a
panel
that gives you the opportunity to use your airplane it in IMC. Will
you?
What do you expect for failsafe if you do and something happens? How
will
you survive?
Those questions have to be answered and seriously. Going NORDO is one
thing, but loosing all orientation when in the clag.... well, you know
the
outcome of that.... (ever tried unusual attitude recovery with partial
panel? Did ya survive before the instructor had to bail you out?).
With Glass you also *have* to approach things differently. I'm not
going to
tell you how or which equipment to buy (altho as you can tell, I like
the
stuff that is a kissing cousin to certified), and you certainly *don't*
need
any vacuum instruments if you so desire, but please plan in some
failsafes.
Examples.
- Dual busses
- Dual EFIS that can act independently
- Alt, AS, AI (electric via Sporty's for cheap)
- an autopilot with its own built in compass and wing leveler
- a backup GPS preferably with 6 pack instrumentation
NOW FOR THE MOST IMPORTANT PART..... LEARN!!!! to use what you install.
I
get so sick of reading about accidents where the outcome could have been
different if someone would have just "RTFM". :)
Just think about it, Crosswell, most likely would have been saved if
he'd
just had "real-time" weather onboard. Glass is awesome, wonderful, and
I'll
never fly without it, but you *do* need some kind of failsafe, and you
do
need education.
Ok, I'll get off my soapbox. I don't agree with Bruce's assessment of
Glass
in a GA cockpit, but I do have a strong feeling that if you do it, you
don't
do it half way, and you do include failsafes.
The problem with the above is that cheap and redundant failsafes don't
always go together....
My panel has dual Cheltons, 3 - 3 1/8" backup instruments (AS, AI, ALT),
TruTrak AP with separate built in heading and wing leveler, and a Garmin
portable mounted in the panel that if everything goes dark, can run on
batteries and in 6 pack mode to be a last resort. Probably overkill,
but
who cares, it's my butt in the seat.
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | VOLTAGE FLUCTUATION |
| From: | "Tom Martino" <tmartino(at)troubleshooter.com> |
I have had 55 hours of flying with no electrical problems until now!
Recently I saw something in flight that bothered me.
My panel lights started flickering a bit and the (Electronics
International) voltmeter showed varying voltages anywhere from 12.3
volts up to 14 volts ... kind of erratically. Then the "Discharge"
light on the voltmeter lit up. Then the "Low Voltage" light coming
from my voltage regulator lit up.
I have the B & C Solid State Voltage Regulator (Model LR3C-14) and the B
& C L-60 Alternator.
Upon touch down and roll out everything went back to normal. No
"discharge" no "low voltage". I checked connections and everything
seems normal. I can't get it to act up on the ground.
Any ideas?
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Braswell" <pbraswell(at)alterthought.com> |
| Subject: | VOLTAGE FLUCTUATION |
Tom,
Have you checked the belt on your alternator?
-peter
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Martino
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:04 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: VOLTAGE FLUCTUATION
I have had 55 hours of flying with no electrical problems until now!
Recently I saw something in flight that bothered me.
My panel lights started flickering a bit and the (Electronics
International) voltmeter showed varying voltages anywhere from 12.3
volts up to 14 volts ... kind of erratically. Then the "Discharge"
light on the voltmeter lit up. Then the "Low Voltage" light coming
from my voltage regulator lit up.
I have the B & C Solid State Voltage Regulator (Model LR3C-14) and the B & C
L-60 Alternator.
Upon touch down and roll out everything went back to normal. No
"discharge" no "low voltage". I checked connections and everything
seems normal. I can't get it to act up on the ground.
Any ideas?
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
Yes, I agree. The important thing when flying is did
or didn't the EFIS lose the ability to provide a
horizon. When building, however, it is more important
to consider how to prevent a no attitude reference
situation. So, to keep this airplane airworthy, don't
blame the EFIS, fix the electrical system. Bob
--- "Lloyd, Daniel R." wrote:
> Daniel R."
>
> To a pilot that is dependant on the instrument, does
> it matter why, or
> more importantly just that it does not work when I
> need it. The whole
> purpose of this thread was to state the value of
> backup instruments, and
> while the EFIS itself did not fail, the end result
> is that it was not
> available, which means that you needed a backup. The
> easy solution for
> this is to have an EFIS with an internal battery, IE
> Dynon? I will be
> using a Chelton, but it is still dependant on
> electrons flowing to it,
> as it does not have an internal battery option, but
> I will be backing it
> up with both a Portable GPS and a Dynon with
> internal battery.
> Dan
> RV10 (40269)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of
> Robert Sultzbach
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:10 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
> Sultzbach
>
>
> Hi Bruce, This was not an EFIS failure but an
> electrical failure that you have quoted.
> Furthermore,
> having over 6000 odd hours in this aircraft I can
> tell
> you where to start looking for this kind of failure
> in
> the DC buses. It is a "Fate IS the Hunter" scenario
> but the DC buses have a row of circuit breakers just
> to the aft and right side of the copilot's
> seat...right where he slides his flight kit into
> position next to his seat. I have seen this row of
> breakers blown out by an errant flight kit and guess
> what, all hell breaks loose in the DC buses when
> this
> row of breakers is damaged. So to sum it up, if you
> interrupt power to an efis it will cease to operate
> but it did not fail. It was an electrical failure
> and
> I'll bet a beer a copilot's flight kit caused it.
> Cheers, Bob Sultzbach
>
> --- Bruce Gray wrote:
>
> > Here's one.
> >
> >
>
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Ma
> rtin
> > Air/martinair-summary.html
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 Brinker
> > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:01 PM
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
> >
> >
> > I would like to read the reports. Not
> trying
> > to be a smart alex just
> > out of curiosity.
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Bruce Gray <mailto:Bruce(at)glasair.org>
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:55 AM
> > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
> >
> > OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this
> > subject that I don't want
> > another one. Do whatever floats your boat.
> >
> > Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this
> > issue for years and
> > mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS
> > airliners going dark in IFR
> > where the only thing left was a flashlight and a
> > vacuum ADI.
> >
> > I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS.
> I
> > wonder why?
> >
> >
> > 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 Tim
> > Dawson-Townsend
> > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
> >
> >
> >
> > "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds
> > of IFR Cessnas with only
> > one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator
> for
> > backup. And they've got
> > zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
> >
> >
> >
> > FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of
> > any sort are on an
> > individual aircraft model installation basis for
> TC
> > or STC. Since
> > experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to
> you
> > how many or what kind
> > of backups you have.
> >
> >
> >
> > TDT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> >
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> > On Behalf Of Bruce
> > Gray
> > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
> >
> >
> >
> > I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum
> before
> > they kicked me off. You
> > need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably
> > vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI.
> > Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need
> > the steam gauges. If the
> > EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 Dan
> > Beadle
> > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
> >
> > There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
> >
> >
>
=== message truncated ==
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
Message I repeated 10 times and I will not forget that LOL.
Accually I knew that but was'nt thinking at the time. My CFI drilled the
importance of airspeed into my head so hard that I got into the habit of
approaching final in my Cherokee 140 at 100mph. No problem bleeding off
airspeed on short final. And the extra 20mph is just a little insurance
against a stall.
Randy
opinions ARE like noses everybody has one I just hope I have'nt stuck
mine out so far as to get it knocked off.
----- Original Message -----
From: richard titsworth
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:04 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs.
good to have)
One small pet peeve of mine - the 196 shows GROUND SPEED (not
airspeed). A simple point - but add some tailwind and/or density
altitude and the differences can be disastrous - especially in an
emergency when mental workload is high. Do yourself a favor and repeat
it ten times so you don't forget. It shows ground speed not IAS.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring |
Joe,
I don't have the same servos and hookup that you do, but here is how I
handled all the wires coming down the control stick.
I used DB-9 (Actually they are DE-9, I think) type computer connectors.
These are usually gold plated and are very compact and reliable connectors.
They are the style like on the back of your computer for the parallel port or
the old serial ports -- 2 rows of pins with one row having 1 more than the
other. You could use DB-15 or DB-25. Mount one in a slot cut in one of the ribs
near the base of the stick. Or you could just leave them loose and cable
tie them in a position that keeps them from chaffing, etc. One connector of
course becomes part of the aircraft wiring. The other connector is connected
to the wires coming down the stick with about 6 or 8 inches of extra wire.
They can be held by 2 screws or some styles have 2 snap over spring wires.
These are available from Digikey or Radio Shack or any of the electronic or
computer stores.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 6/14/2006 8:42:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jdubner(at)yahoo.com writes:
And what have others done to connect this "mini-rats nest" of small
gauge wires? Between the two stick grips, two relay decks, two trim
servos and two needle-type indicators there must be two dozen
connections and not a single terminal to fasten to.
--
Joe
Long-EZ 821RP
Lewiston, ID
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Source of inexpensive 17AH battery |
Listers,
I recently found an APC 1400 VA computer un-interruptible power
supply in the dumpster. I took it home and checked it out. These
things retail for about $200. Turns out it had not one, but two 17 AH
12 volt batteries, like those used in my RV-8A. The batteries were
both bad. I called a friend and he recommended I
check www.gruberpower.com for replacements.
I bought TWO of these batteries for $29.90 plus $25 for shipping.
That's $54.90 total for TWO batteries. I've installed them in the APC
and it now works great. The replacement batteries are "claimed" to be
18AH, but they are exactly the same dimensions as the originals, so
I'm sure that the higher rating is just smoke and mirrors. The only
down side is that they have rather frail terminals for aircraft use. See
http://www.gruberpower.com/purchase/batteries/product.asp?intProdID=13&strCatalog_NAME=Batteries&strSubCatalog_NAME=&strSubCatalogID=&intCatalogID=10001&CurCatalogID
Price for one is $21.85 plus $12 shipping for a total of $33.85
Save even more if you need two or can find a friend to share with. See
http://www.gruberpower.com/purchase/batteries/product.asp?intProdID=40
I thought you might be interested. The batteries are manufactured in Vietnam.
Charlie Kuss
RV-8A
Boca Raton, Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: VOLTAGE FLUCTUATION |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Check your grounds.
John
wrote:
> Upon touch down and roll out everything went back to normal. No
> "discharge" no "low voltage". I checked connections and everything
> seems normal. I can't get it to act up on the ground.
> Any ideas?
> Tom
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. |
good to have)
Hi Charlie, How's it going? I think the reason light
twins are so dangerous is the very slim performance
margin afforded by the power of the remaining engine.
Twin engine jets are a whole different animal. I also
agree that pilot proficiency is a huge factor in the
light twin fatality rate. Professional pilots train
all the time for V1 cuts and other types of engine
outs. They are challenging and I'll bet just about
every pilot goons one in the simulator now and again
but for the most part they become a known quantity. I
have landed twice at airports with one engine running
and one dead on the wing/tail and I never claimed to
be Lindbergh. Both times the training was invaluable
and the real deal was a nonevent. It really was just
like the simulator! If pilots in nonprofessional (not
forced to undergo recurrent training)environments
don't train for engine outs, they become very
dangerous when an engine fails. It has been
documented that some pilots cannot get back to an
airport with an enroute engine failure. I believe
that is due to lack of practice. How well would you
land if you never did it until you had to? Safe
flying, Bob Sultzbach
P.S. Are you going to Oshkosh this year?
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. |
good to have)
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com> |
Insurance companies are forcing recurrent training on almost all insured
twin drivers. I know, I have been going to Flight Safety several times
a year for the past 5 years. I have been lucky enough to never lose
control in the simulator during the 6-10 simulated failures per session.
I agree that training is everything.
Like you, I have had more than my share of issues in flight - a
precautionary engine shutdown IMC at night (try that in a single) over
mountainous terrain (Mt. Whitney). I have had failures of
pressurization system, alternators, vacuum, landing gear, and more I
can't remember. And this is in a very well maintained airplane. (if it
might be broken, fix it)
That said, I really think I am far safer in my twin than in a single,
especially IFR, at night, in the ice. Part is dual everything: engine,
vacuum, alternators, etc. Part is the fact that the systems are more
sophisticated: deice, RADAR, pressurization, etc. And part is the
training.
Still, I am building an RV as a SPORT airplane - fun to fly into smaller
airports in better conditions.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert Sultzbach
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:35 PM
Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements
(required vs. good to have)
Hi Charlie, How's it going? I think the reason light
twins are so dangerous is the very slim performance
margin afforded by the power of the remaining engine.
Twin engine jets are a whole different animal. I also
agree that pilot proficiency is a huge factor in the
light twin fatality rate. Professional pilots train
all the time for V1 cuts and other types of engine
outs. They are challenging and I'll bet just about
every pilot goons one in the simulator now and again
but for the most part they become a known quantity. I
have landed twice at airports with one engine running
and one dead on the wing/tail and I never claimed to
be Lindbergh. Both times the training was invaluable
and the real deal was a nonevent. It really was just
like the simulator! If pilots in nonprofessional (not
forced to undergo recurrent training)environments
don't train for engine outs, they become very
dangerous when an engine fails. It has been
documented that some pilots cannot get back to an
airport with an enroute engine failure. I believe
that is due to lack of practice. How well would you
land if you never did it until you had to? Safe
flying, Bob Sultzbach
P.S. Are you going to Oshkosh this year?
__________________________________________________
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. |
good to have)
Very interesting that you equate the similator to real time. I
have never flown a faa approved similator and have wondered about it's
ability to do so. Thanks for the acknowlgment of experience.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Sultzbach" <endspeed(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:34 PM
Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required
vs. good to have)
>
>
> Hi Charlie, How's it going? I think the reason light
> twins are so dangerous is the very slim performance
> margin afforded by the power of the remaining engine.
> Twin engine jets are a whole different animal. I also
> agree that pilot proficiency is a huge factor in the
> light twin fatality rate. Professional pilots train
> all the time for V1 cuts and other types of engine
> outs. They are challenging and I'll bet just about
> every pilot goons one in the simulator now and again
> but for the most part they become a known quantity. I
> have landed twice at airports with one engine running
> and one dead on the wing/tail and I never claimed to
> be Lindbergh. Both times the training was invaluable
> and the real deal was a nonevent. It really was just
> like the simulator! If pilots in nonprofessional (not
> forced to undergo recurrent training)environments
> don't train for engine outs, they become very
> dangerous when an engine fails. It has been
> documented that some pilots cannot get back to an
> airport with an enroute engine failure. I believe
> that is due to lack of practice. How well would you
> land if you never did it until you had to? Safe
> flying, Bob Sultzbach
>
> P.S. Are you going to Oshkosh this year?
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good ) |
Hey guys I never said multi-engine is better. With "modern" electric
architecture you can achieve system redundancy on parity of a twin.
The only redundancy you can't achieve in a single is thrust redundancy.
The old joke is don't worry we are flying in a twin. If one engine quits
the other will take us to the scene of the accident.
My point is there is only so much you can do. A lighting strike can
take out the entire glass panel. I was agreeing with the Glasair guy
that a mechanical back up for attitude (of different power source/type)
is a good idea. However vacume is a poor alternate and we are stuck
really with all electric. Jets still use air power. We have three kinds
of hydraulic pumps, mechanically driven, electrical and pneumatic.
Basically the same pump but with three types of power sources to
drive them.
My prop falling off comment was philosophical in nature about single
pilot IFR. Having flown both single pilot part 135, middle of the night
in mountainous terrain and part 121 and corporate w/ two pilot plus
flt crews, the weak link is the single pilot, but this is a different topic.
My point is all the fancy avionics may not prevent you from killing
yourself. The comments about flying partial panel with a T&B or TC
is great but as a CFI/CFII/MEI I can tell you many people do not
do much partial panel. Statistics post vacume pump failure is
really bad.
Also a HOT HOMEBUILT fish-tailing thru the sky with the T&B
wagging its tail in real IMC is a hand full. I know I survived a partial
panel in a RV-4. It was not like flying a C-172 partial panel.
An autopilot for single pilot Ops in a hot plane with little roll
stability should be a must.
Just be careful up there and to repeat what was mentioned
training and currency is key and lack thereof is more likely
to kill you than not having dual battiers and alternators.
George M. ATP/CFI/CFII/MEI
>From: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin(at)comcast.net>
>
>You can take the statistics wherever you want to go, but if I'm on top
>or in the clouds in a well maintained twin and lose one engine, I'll have
>a much better chance of getting down intact than any single losing one
>engine on earth, no matter how well equipped.
>From: Kelly McMullen
>
>Multi-engine GA flights have just as many fatals as singles, and more
>from mechanicals. Simple arithmetic...more than two times as many
>devices to fail, more complacency on maintenance because there are
>two, and more difficult to fly on one than the single on none.
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Airspeed and ATP |
>
>Hello,
> Taken in order, two points:
>(1) "From: "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to
>have)
>One small pet peeve of mine - the 196 shows GROUND SPEED (not airspeed). A
>simple point - but add some tailwind and/or density altitude and the
>differences can be disastrous - especially in an emergency when mental
>workload is high. Do yourself a favor and repeat it ten times so you don't
>forget. It shows ground speed not IAS."
Yeah, GPS is for global issues, i.e. navigation. The sensing
and display of air flow over wings and controls is for
aviating and gps receivers are remarkably ignorant of airflow.
>........Amen to that - AND that goes for confusing 'heading' for 'track made
>good' as well.
This is an excellent example of the pollution of meaning when
two mini-cultures come together. The roots of many features in
aviation come from the marine world where the supporting medium
and external forces acting on the vehicle were currents within
fluids - water and air instead of just air. In both boats and airplanes
the vehicle's path is seldom defined by the direction in which
the vehicle is pointed, hence a need to separate heading (pointing)
course (direction of travel) and track (path over the surface of
the earth).
When the folks building GPS receivers for the world market really
began to take off, the vast majority of their customers were
going to be operating over a non-fluid surface were course and
heading were tied together due to lack of drift. The general
public was more likely to understand and latch on to a word like
'heading' (that's where I want to go) as opposed to 'course'
(what . . . are we playing golf?) so the three digits that
quantified direction of travel got labeled heading. Where they
really blew it was when they described the course vector to your
next way point as "bearing".
Our water-borne brothers defined bearing as a vector referenced
from heading. I.e., a change in heading from 30 degrees to 75
degrees was to point the vehicle at some location with a bearing
of 45 degrees to the right of present heading. This says nothing
about course since a change of heading by 45 degrees may not
result in a course change of 45 degrees. The drift equation
may calculate a course change other than 45 degrees when heading,
wind and currents were considered together.
>(2) I see some increasing use of the term 'ATP' to perhaps designate the
>usefulness of advice from an airline pilot. That is a topic ripe for
>fisticuffs since two of them stalled and killed themselves in a trainer I
>helped build. Most "ATPs" will admit that their airline experience is great
>for weather, communications and international trade, but useless in
>operating little one-seaters in the countryside. I think we would all be
>surprised at the number of ATPs reading this, so advice is as you find it,
>not how it's presented.
You betcha! And it happens in every venue when the scale, complexity
and environment spread over a wide range of missions. Rules-of-the-road,
operating techniques and skills for operating a VW on a trip to
the store for bread are widely separated from those governing the
movement of a large piece of machinery over the highways on a 50-
wheeled tractor-trailer. The physics for both situations are
identical . . . simple-ideas that are inviolate. But the manner
in which they are stacked produces systems where the drivers
of each would need intensive re-orientation should their
respective skills and experience be limited to only one of the
situations. Even when a driver has extensive skill and experience
in both, there's a little re-training event that happens when
making a transition from one vehicle to the other. For example,
I'm always taken with the change of focus and profound changes
of environment as I pull onto the highway from the airport after
having just spent hours concentrating on the operation of the airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry L. Tompkins, P.E." <tompkinsl(at)integra.net> |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Westinghouse Alternator B-52? |
Hello,
I have recently acquired a Westinghouse alternator (possibly from a
B-52?). The specs are below. Does anyone have any information on
this unit (parts diag, service manual, etc). Was it mean to be run
with a regulator, or at a constant speed= constant voltage setup? I
plan to use it as part of a generator project, so I'm wondering how
to set it up (since I don't own a B-52....)
Thanks,
Scott
AF SPEC- 32530=D
MFR'S SERIAL NO. AW-131
Volts- 120
KVA- 8
PH- 1
RPM 3800-10000
MFR'S PART NO.- A-24-A9370
Scott Auchinleck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Westinghouse Alternator B-52? |
Can't help with the machine you have, however based on a lot of walk
around inspections, I doubt if you have a B-52 alternator. the
earliest models had 600 KVA brutes with sunstrand drives and were
bleed air driven. They were rather large. There were four of them
in the wheel well areas. Later models have engine driven units and I
do not know what they were however surely they were even bigger.
They were also 205 volts and 400 hertz.
Of course my memory is being stretched a bit since I left that
business in 1968.
Denis Walsh
On Jun 16, 2006, at 07:11 223120006, Scott Auchinleck, Emergi-Tech
wrote:
> Tech" <scott@emergi-tech.qc.ca>
>
> Hello,
>
> I have recently acquired a Westinghouse alternator (possibly from a
> B-52?). The specs are below. Does anyone have any information on
> this unit (parts diag, service manual, etc). Was it mean to be run
> with a regulator, or at a constant speed= constant voltage setup?
> I plan to use it as part of a generator project, so I'm wondering
> how to set it up (since I don't own a B-52....)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott
>
> AF SPEC- 32530=D
> MFR'S SERIAL NO. AW-131
> Volts- 120
> KVA- 8
> PH- 1
> RPM 3800-10000
> MFR'S PART NO.- A-24-A9370
>
> Scott Auchinleck
>
>
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> wiki.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Westinghouse Alternator B-52? |
Dennis,
Your recollection echos my own. I worked on B-52s at Boeing (my first
'real' job out of high school). I was in electronics and didn't have much
interface with the power distribution guys but I do recall seeing the
hardware and hearing something of its capabilities in classes I attended
at Boeing.
I agree that unit Scott has is for a much smaller application. Further,
120v, single phase systems are exceedingly rare in aircraft. The only one's
I've seen were produced from DC by solid state inverters, not from rotating
machines. I suspect his generator was used in some non-aircraft specialty
application.
Bob . . .
>
>Can't help with the machine you have, however based on a lot of walk
>around inspections, I doubt if you have a B-52 alternator. the
>earliest models had 600 KVA brutes with sunstrand drives and were
>bleed air driven. They were rather large. There were four of them
>in the wheel well areas. Later models have engine driven units and I
>do not know what they were however surely they were even bigger.
>They were also 205 volts and 400 hertz.
>
>Of course my memory is being stretched a bit since I left that
>business in 1968.
>Denis Walsh
>
>On Jun 16, 2006, at 07:11 223120006, Scott Auchinleck, Emergi-Tech
>wrote:
>
>><scott@emergi-tech.qc.ca>
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I have recently acquired a Westinghouse alternator (possibly from a
>>B-52?). The specs are below. Does anyone have any information on
>>this unit (parts diag, service manual, etc). Was it mean to be run
>>with a regulator, or at a constant speed= constant voltage setup?
>>I plan to use it as part of a generator project, so I'm wondering
>>how to set it up (since I don't own a B-52....)
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Scott
>>
>>AF SPEC- 32530=D
>>MFR'S SERIAL NO. AW-131
>>Volts- 120
>>KVA- 8
>>PH- 1
>>RPM 3800-10000
>>MFR'S PART NO.- A-24-A9370
>>
>>Scott Auchinleck
>>
>>
>>
>>www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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 divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Westinghouse Alternator B-52? |
It was certainly a long time ago in a place far away so I don't remember
much. I do recall significant differences in the early model Buffs
electrical systems and the later models. In the early versions each
alternator had to be adjusted in frequency until it matched the buss (I
guess) and when you got it close enough it could be added to the buss system
with the others. I am not sure if they had constant speed drives or not. If
I remember correctly the voltage took care of itself but the frequency was
manually controlled and very touchy.
One dark and stormy night over the Pacific, the whole airplane went black.
The alternator control panel looked like a game of pin ball wizard with
flashing lights all over the place. I picked one alternator at time and
tried to get them back on and of course the rest of the crew was yelling at
me to turn the lights back on.
Dick Sipp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Auchinleck, Emergi-Tech" <scott@emergi-tech.qc.ca>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:11 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Westinghouse Alternator B-52?
> <scott@emergi-tech.qc.ca>
>
> Hello,
>
> I have recently acquired a Westinghouse alternator (possibly from a
> B-52?). The specs are below. Does anyone have any information on this
> unit (parts diag, service manual, etc). Was it mean to be run with a
> regulator, or at a constant speed= constant voltage setup? I plan to use
> it as part of a generator project, so I'm wondering how to set it up
> (since I don't own a B-52....)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott
>
> AF SPEC- 32530=D
> MFR'S SERIAL NO. AW-131
> Volts- 120
> KVA- 8
> PH- 1
> RPM 3800-10000
> MFR'S PART NO.- A-24-A9370
>
> Scott Auchinleck
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
Bob:
I note that Z-11 and others show a 7 amp fuse on the alternate feed
line to the Endurance bus. The other feed, through the diode, is not
fused, so why is this fuse there? Is it because that feed has a switch
which provides a possible failure mode that could smoke the wire?
Also, relating to selecting fuses in general, am I correct that the
"10 deg C rise current" column in table 8-3 may be used as a guide to
the maximum fuse rating to use for the various wire sizes?
Thanks,
--
Tom S.
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Low voltage warning light |
On my B&C voltage regulator I get a dim low-voltage warning for a
while after starting. The voltmeter shows that the alternator is
charging and regulating normally and eventually (after 10 minutes)
the light goes away. The light is an LED and I have the recommended
bypass resistor installed. I assume I should possibly go to a lower
value resistor?
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 06/16/06 |
| From: "Scott Auchinleck, Emergi-Tech" <scott@emergi-tech.qc.ca>
| Subject: AeroElectric-List: Westinghouse Alternator B-52?
|
<scott@emergi-tech.qc.ca>
|
| Hello,
|
| I have recently acquired a Westinghouse alternator (possibly from a
| B-52?). The specs are below. Does anyone have any information on
| this unit (parts diag, service manual, etc). Was it mean to be run
| with a regulator, or at a constant speed= constant voltage setup? I
| plan to use it as part of a generator project, so I'm wondering how
| to set it up (since I don't own a B-52....)
|
| Thanks,
|
| Scott
|
| AF SPEC- 32530=D
| MFR'S SERIAL NO. AW-131
| Volts- 120
| KVA- 8
| PH- 1
| RPM 3800-10000
| MFR'S PART NO.- A-24-A9370
|
| Scott Auchinleck
Scott,
If I remember correctly the DC9 (MD-XX, B-919 etc) as did
several others, had a 'Ground Service buss' which was designed to permit
ordinary household vacuum cleaners to be plugged in to clean the aircraft on
stop-overs. This had a fairly robust alternator as a dedicated source with
an on-ground relay to prevent inflight use. This may be it.........
Ferg
Europa Classic 914
PS: Any relation to the "Auch" of North African fame?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
To this subject: I am an airline guy, current experimental homebuilder,
current tail wheel guy, current import military jet guy, and current in
gliders right now! I have three things to say about this discussion: An
ATP rating makes not an airline pilot! Like any other profession,
airline pilots are not perfect and they don=92t know everything! Most
(not all) people are killed in airplanes because of a lack of training
or poor decision making Period! (my opinions based on with 25 Active
years of flying everything and I=92m only 43 years young.)
It doesn=92t matter if it has one engine or two engines, if you don=92t
meet
the ground in a level attitude with a manageable sink rate you are
probably going to die and it doesn=92t matter if the engine is running
or
not. If your really interested in aircraft safety and crash
survivability read the accident reports. I think you=92ll find that
most
fatal accidents hit the ground out of control. Remember your early
instruction, if you lose the engine and have to land in a stand of trees
land between two solid objects. The key to that statement is the word
Land.
Mike Larkin
Lancair Legacy
TS-11 Iskra
Kitfox
Airbus
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:28 PM
to have)
You maybe an airline guy, but you don't read the stats too closely.
Multi-engine GA flights have just as many fatals as singles, and more
from mechanicals. Simple arithmetic...more than two times as many
devices to fail, more complacency on maintenance because there are two,
and more difficult to fly on one than the single on none. Been much
studied over the years, and there simply is no statistical evidence that
a twin is safer.
KM
HYPERLINK "mailto:gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com"gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
Bruce I am an airline guy and two things. Don't get a little GA plane's
mixed up with a large turbojet air transport category aircraft.
All the standby instruments in the world will not help when the
the single engine stops or the crankshaft cracks and the prop falls off.
Single engine, single pilot IFR is a little risky anyway.
George ATP/CFII
>From: "Bruce Gray" <HYPERLINK
"mailto:Bruce(at)glasair.org"Bruce(at)glasair.org>
>
>OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't
>wantanother
=========================
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
=========================
=========================
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=========================
===========
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV7A Tip Up Canopy Latch Mod....Plus IFR continued |
Hi To all
Since I started construction of my 7A I knew I was going to try a different
latching mod for the tip up canopy. My requirements were to try and use a a
lock set for exterior entry and or key less remote entry, auto type latch
mechanism for interior opening/closing. Over the past three days I have been
able to accomplish 1/3 of the task. I used an old junk yard purchased 90's
vintage 1/2 ton Dodge truck latch/key set to fabricate the interior opening
and closing mechanism. With some Lowe's Aero supplies/tap and die's/Al angle
and sheet stock I was able to fabricate a great interior opening and closing
latching system that uses WD 617 canopy latch similar to Van's typical set
up.
Now for the questions????????????? Any ideas or info on how the keyless
remote can be attached?My idea right now is attach it to the starboard
baggage side wall skin and have it's pull rod move forward through the seat
bulk head and attach to the WD 617 canopy latch.
The final third of the fabrication is to have the exterior lock set attach
to the port side interior latch mechanism so the key can be used to open the
canopy. I have some ideas on how to do this also but any suggestion would be
appreciated.
I will set up the panel in this airplane to fly IFR!......But I am under no
illusions as to the capability of this airplane to fly what some call, "hard
IFR". If there is a hint of ice, convective activity, or harsh weather I
will enjoy another day on the ground knowing that Van's never intended this
palne to be capable in these harsh conditions. My notion is that on those
rare occassions where the fog layer is at minimums plus or the weather
changes radically from pre planned status and a need to use IFR to get down
and out of the weather fast, or I would like to be under the watchful EYE of
ATC I will file IFR. I have really enjoyed all of the comments surrounding
this subject and don't see it on par with primer
wars................................Thanks for all your insights.
One final note. Last Firday I had my first flight in a 7A. My wife, oldest
son, and I toured the Van's plant. Bruce then took me up for the intro ride.
To say the least, after a year and a half of building and wondering if I
made the right decision, I can now say I know what an RV grin is. Now, mind
you, mine is just a partial grin but I do look forwrd to when I have the
full grin!!!!!
Thanks to all for allowing me these ramblings and all the info you pass my
way
Frank @ SGU and SLC Canopy and yes still ,looking for $$$$$$$$$$$$ to finish
this plane
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
>
>On my B&C voltage regulator I get a dim low-voltage warning for a
>while after starting. The voltmeter shows that the alternator is
>charging and regulating normally and eventually (after 10 minutes)
>the light goes away. The light is an LED and I have the recommended
>bypass resistor installed. I assume I should possibly go to a lower
>value resistor?
That would be my guess. Cut it about in half.
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 divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VOLTAGE FLUCTUATION |
>I have had 55 hours of flying with no electrical problems until
>now! Recently I saw something in flight that bothered me.
>My panel lights started flickering a bit and the (Electronics
>International) voltmeter showed varying voltages anywhere from 12.3
>volts up to 14 volts ... kind of erratically. Then the "Discharge"
>light on the voltmeter lit up. Then the "Low Voltage" light coming
>from my voltage regulator lit up.
>
>I have the B & C Solid State Voltage Regulator (Model LR3C-14) and the B &
>C L-60 Alternator.
>
>Upon touch down and roll out everything went back to normal. No
>"discharge" no "low voltage". I checked connections and everything
>seems normal. I can't get it to act up on the ground.
>Any ideas?
You need a way to monitor field voltage output of the regulator
while in flight. It's useful to know what the voltage is the
next time it happens.
See figure Z-23
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 divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ray Cole" <raycole(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Generator/regulator test |
Curt,
Did you ever get an answer on this?
Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: Curt
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 3:05 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Generator/regulator test
I have a C90 with a 12v generator and electro-mechanical regulator
(Delco). They do not seem to work Where can I acquire a test procedure
for these? Any help greatly appreciated. N7733
Curt Crosby
CCA, Inc
269 N. 2700 East Road
Pana, Il 62557
Ofc: 217-562-2618
Cell: 217-827-1517
Pager: 217-562-7719
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
Gary -
If you are substitutung an LED for the lamp that came with the regulator,
Bob Nuckolls recommends a second resistor to make the LED function like
the lamp. Both of the resistors are 540 ohm, 1/2W and use an NKK LED Lamp.
I'll send you a copy of the wiring we are using in our ES. It uses an LED.
Cheers,
John
wrote:
>
>
> On my B&C voltage regulator I get a dim low-voltage warning for a while
> after starting. The voltmeter shows that the alternator is charging and
> regulating normally and eventually (after 10 minutes) the light goes
> away. The light is an LED and I have the recommended bypass resistor
> installed. I assume I should possibly go to a lower value resistor?
>
> Gary Casey
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: IFR Requirements |
>
>I don't have any problems with glass panels. I have a problem with how
>some builders implement them.
>
>If you take a look at part 121 and most heavy iron aircraft with full
>glass you'll see that they have duel independent EFIS systems (including
>duel AHRS) with an electronic comparator/alerter and a third gyro
>instrument. Now why do they have all this?
>
>We've many hours behind our old steam gauges and know their failure modes.
>Not so with EFIS. Remember, it's a computer, and can fail in ways you've
>never seen before. In some cases you won't even know it's failed. That
>brings us to training.
>
>The airlines spend big bucks training their guys in EFIS switchology and
>failure modes. Just where are we to get this kind of training? Our local
>CFII? Some of these failure modes can't be duplicated in the aircraft and
>need a simulator to do it right. But you say 'I'm good at partial panel',
>so was this poor guy.
><http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=8F3C17D0-5398-4355-BBB0-D47B0DAC1D23&Dynamic=1>http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=8F3C17D0-5398-4355-BBB0-D47B0DAC1D23&Dynamic=1.
>Those EFIS screens are very hypnotic and compelling. Remember when you
>were doing partial panel with your CFII and he failed the ADI? He did that
>by covering the instrument. In real life, the instrument just starts
>leaning in pitch or roll. It's very difficult not to follow the gauge even
>when you know it's failed. Imagine how difficult it would be with an EFIS.
>If the AHRS goes bonkers and you still need the screen for ASI and
>altitude. The best thing to do is just pull the breaker and fly with
>what's left.
>
>I don't have the answers, perhaps others do.
I've been watching this thread for several days. Didn't have time
to participate . . . been hand-cuffed to the screen-room in
the EMC lab chasing gremlins out of a new electronic window shade
system. Finished up the hammer-n-tongs phase, got a bizillion-
page report to do next week.
May I suggest the following with respect to outfitting an OBAM aircraft
for flight into IMC?
It doesn't matter if your primary navigation data comes from stuff that
spins, sucks, blows, hums or is splashed on the panel in high-definition
pixels and millions of colors . . . it IS going to break sometime. The
reliable flight SYSTEM is failure tolerant and the weakest link in
most IFR control loops is the hunk of meat sitting in the left seat.
Irrespective of what you use to fly the airplane manually,
how about dual, independent, GPS aided wing levelers each with
it's own power path and GPS data source? Then you can do
ALL IMC maneuvers using hardware that flies a whole lot better
than you do and doesn't fatigue in the process. Put what ever
glass or spinny-things on the panel that make you (or your
favorite bureaucrat) happy. But have an ace up your sleeve
that he doesn't even have to know about and probably wouldn't care
if he did know about it.
One can debate part 91, TSO, STC, certification, qualification
and regulations 'til the cows come home and none of those discussions
will lead you to the holy grail of safety when stirring the crud.
So you've done something that the bureaucrat's minions wouldn't
'approve'. When was the last time the guy running clearance delivery
grilled you about what hardware you had on board or how skilled
you were in using it?
The only time debates about your choice of equipment and
having skills to use it makes a difference to others is
when they're digging your remains out of the smoking hole.
Don't know about the rest of you, but an investigator's opinion
of the propriety of my hardware or his judgment of my qualifications
to use it are the least of my concerns. My personal requirements
for system reliability depend on tools I understand and can make
work for me. The goal is to reduce risk of having a debate about
my hardware choices and operating skills by not bringing myself
to the crash investigator's attention.
A friend of mine got about as close to a failure tolerant system
as the FAA would allow and died anyhow. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/All_Electric/N79NL.pdf
Seems the shuttle valve between mechanical and electrical
vacuum pumps hung up and didn't transfer when the electrically
driven pump was turned on.
This underscores the value of totally independent systems,
not backups to highly stressed pieces of the same system.
For all the $time$ invested in the panel equipment for that
aircraft, it still didn't supply the pilot's basic expectations
when needed.
A stand-alone, kilo-buck wing leveler would have been less
expensive than the standby vacuum pump and could have been
totally independent of the highly integrated, highly stressed
components "certified" onto that aircraft and holy-watered by
those who claim to know more about airplanes than we do.
There are folks with an air of authority who will assure you
that worship before the altar of FARS is the path to salvation
but enough folks buy the farm every year to make their claims
suspect . . . but then, they also run the investigative agency that
can burn a little incense (blow smoke in our eyes) and chant
"pilot error" a few times before filing the story of your last
flight in the cabinets along side N79NL.
The LAST back up hardware I would choose are panel displays that
depend on my abilities to keep the airplane right side up while
there was a need to attend to other duties as well. The pilot
of N79NL was about as skilled and experienced as they come.
He took every refresher and every pilot who flew with him
regarded his abilities as "the best". The one thing that never
gets tested in practice is loosing the main nav source AND the back
up source AND having to recover the airplane while your head is
spinning in disbelief that this is really happening (after all,
he installed holy-watered hardware to KEEP this from happening).
Now, he still has needle-ball-airspeed and a 3" electric vertical
gyro. He also had an adrenaline level running 1000% of normal and
a cabin full of panicked passengers.
The FARS are silent on those points as they should be . . . even the
FAA wouldn't propose to control them. How to avoid it? Make sure that
you've got enough redundancy in the SIMPLEST practical hardware to hold
a heading with precision. It's not hard. It's not expensive. Best
yet, it keeps adrenaline levels for both you and your passengers
at normal levels. Only then can the passengers be properly impressed
with your favorite spinny-things and/or bright colors on the panel . . .
blissfully unaware that you don't plan to NEED them to keep order in
the cockpit when the ground disappears.
The very BEST system is one that requires the LEAST training, offers
the SIMPLEST instruction manual, has the LOWEST parts count and
MINIMIZES the human component in the sensor->display->human->controls
attitude stabilization loop. Unlike our spam-can driving brothers, we can
craft a system where the instructions fit on one side of a recipe card
and requires only sufficient training to demonstrate that you understand
the words written on it. All you need to aviate is knowing what the
ON/OFF switch does and what the 1-degree increment buttons do when
you hold them down (standard rate turn) while you stay out of the loop.
We've had lengthy debates on the list about the best kind of display for
recovering an airplane after upset . . . I prefer a design that prevents
upset in the first place. Mooney got as close as they could to this
condition
with the PC (positive control) feature that was stock on some models. They
were limited by what a turn-coordinator, vacuum pump and tomato-juice-can
servos could do in 1960. With dirt cheap electronics, we can elevate
Mooney's
45 year-old philosophy to a modern, practical implementation that is about
as robust as prop bolts.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: IFR Requirements |
Good Morning Bob,
It is difficult to make a comment without appearing to be one of "those who
claim to know more about airplanes than we do."
Nevertheless, I feel duty bound to reiterate my position.
I agree that the Mooney system had merit.
I also feel it would be great to have a reliable automatic system that could
control the aircraft while the human pilot was confused.
As stated before, it is my theory, totally unsupported by any scientific
evaluation, that we began to experience more and more loss of control accidents
as we added more and more complication to the cockpit.
When there are a multitude of instruments providing conflicting information,
it is very difficult to sort out which is correct.
Just for a minute, let's assume that the only flight attitude indicting
instruments in the cockpit were two T&Bs. One electric and one vacuum powered.
If
one failed, how hard would it be for the pilot to determine which one was
still working?
Switching paths for a minute, what is really important in those moments when
the pilot is confused?
I believe the most important thing is to stop the turn.
I agree that leveling the wings will generally stop the turn, but I also
feel that it is difficult to convince our mind to disregard what our senses are
telling us and believe the instruments.
If we can just get the turn stopped, we will survive.
Whether the turn is stopped by the pilot using a turn indicator or by an
"automatic pilot" device is not important.
What is important is STOPPING the turn.
Make no turn and you will survive.
For the reasons I have often stated in the past, I believe it is a lot
easier to stop the turn using a T&B (NOT a Turn Coordinator, but an old fashioned
Turn and Bank instrument!) than it is with any other instrument now readily
available to the aviation community.
I do have some thoughts as to what may be better, but the T&B is readily
available and twenty hours of good concentrated training will teach anyone how
to use it well enough that they WILL develop confidence in the instrument that
will allow them to use it to stop the turn regardless of whether or not
their brain tells them that the wings are level.
Obviously, if we could purchase a component that would save the day without
the need for any training, that would be ideal.
Meanwhile
---- It is a shame that such a simple device is cast aside while we look for
something better.
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 6/17/2006 11:00:43 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
A stand-alone, kilo-buck wing leveler would have been less
expensive than the standby vacuum pump and could have been
totally independent of the highly integrated, highly stressed
components "certified" onto that aircraft and holy-watered by
those who claim to know more about airplanes than we do.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good) kelly & mike |
Dear Mike and Kelly:
I wish I never mentioned twin engines, because you both lost the point.
>From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
>An ATP rating makes not an airline pilot!
Mike not sure what the ATP airline comment means or has to do with
anything. My ATP came when I was flying Citation's for a corporation, but
now I am a 44 year young B757 Captain. I could say a military pilot
makes not necessarily a good airline pilot. Let's keep it to instrument
redundancy for IFR flight.
Mike as great and as well trained a pilot as you are, you would agree that
if your glass instrument panel goes dark IMC w/ no other gyro instrument,
you'll exit the clouds at some point and enter the ground. As far as training
Mike, you obviously did not read what I subsequently wrote. This was my
point, dual EFIS, twin engines are all great, but the pilot (training) to use
these safety features is key. The pilot in a single pilot IFR Ops is truly a
weak link. The airline connection or point is simple, two pilot redundancy.
Bruce you are right light twins don't have a safer record than singles
statistically I should know. Even though I am a 44 year young airline guy
and fly a big twins (B757&B767), I came up thru GA as a CFI, CFII, MEI.
I have thousands of hours in single engine and as much in piston twins
and had an engine failures, one in a single piston plane and one in a
TWIN. I got to an airfield both times. In the case of the single I was
lucky to be in the right place. In the twin I had a ton of freight, at night,
IMC over the Cascades mountains. With the twin I was able to extend
my glide, if you will, with the second engine. If I was in a single I would
have likely died in the mountains.
Just for argument sake a second engine CAN make a difference. MY point
relative to IFR EFIS instrument redundancy is you need the TRAINNING,
SKILL and proficiency to use that second engine or backup instruments.
If either of you would have bothered to read what I wrote after I mentioned
twin engine planes you might have noticed my point, training and the pilot
is the weak link. It does not matter if you back your EFIS panel up with a
dual EFIS, mechanical gyro - elect or Vac or just "needle ball and
airspeed". You have to practice your partial panel. I spend a lot of time
with all my students in partial panel.
If you are planning on flying with just a T&B airspeed and altimeter you
better practice. As I also later wrote, which you missed Mike is a T&B in
a Cessna is not a T&B in RV which fishtails and yaws in any turbulence.
Trying to fly IMC with a T&B in clouds in a RV with a little turbulence
is a a little spooky, I know. I had the pleasure of flying partial panel in a
RV-4 after the Vacuum pump failed.
A friend had a vacume failure in his Piper IMC. I had just did a Inst Comp
check with him the month before. He came over and thanked me for saving
his life? We had spent at least 70-80 minutes on partial panel the month
before. He felt that with out that currency and training he might not have
made it.
Point is you might want to plan on a attitude gyro of some kind as your
back up. If that is a T&B only you better practice, a lot!
Please enough with the single engine twin engine thing. We get it light
twins are dangerous. As I wrote, which you missed the old joke is:
Don't worry ladies and gentleman, this is a twin engine plane, if we
lose one engine the good one will take us to the scene of the accident.
Cheers
George M. ATP RV-4/RV-7/SA227/CE500/B737/757/767/CFII-MEI
>From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
>
>To this subject: I am an airline guy, current experimental homebuilder,
>current tail wheel guy, current import military jet guy, and current in
>gliders right now! I have three things to say about this discussion:
>An ATP rating makes not an airline pilot!
>
>Mike Larkin
>From: "Kelly McMullen"
>
>You maybe an airline guy, but you don't read the stats too closely.
>Multi-engine GA flights have just as many fatals as singles, and more
>from mechanicals.
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: IFR Requirements |
Hello Old Bob,
This is old Jim here, with early flight training of the era you
apparently experienced.
I have been reading all the inputs on this list on this instrumentation
subject versus IFR for several years and finally have to come out and
say how correct you are in my view!
My early training was exactly as you have frequently described and we
became totally comfortable under the hood AND in the clag with nothing
other than the T&B. We even had to do entire instrument check rides
with ONLY T&B. Even basic acrobatics this way at night or under the hood
was not considered showing off--only proving that you were comfortable
with just the basics. The only time that I got severe vertigo(stupidly
self-induced in solid IMC)I just automatically focused on the T&B and
used rudder and airspeed/throttle/elevator control exclusively for some
several minutes (eternity-it seemed) until my personal sensations became
slowly in agreement with the instruments.
As far as the T&B versus TC, I mentally just interpret them the same by
viewing the vertical axis of the banked airplane depiction in the TC
as if it were the needle in the T&B. The TC seems more sensitive to
small turn rates than the T&B because it responds to both bank and yaw
changes, but that simply allows you to make small corrections sooner and
usually stop either condition before it can become a larger excursion.
To me that seems to be a positive feature favoring the TC over the T&B,
but doesn't otherwise diminish the more important features you have been
discussing. Your message on the importance of the T&B relative to all
the other instruments when the stuff hits the fan in huge quantities is
DEAD ON (pun intended).
Jim McCulley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Bob,
>
> It is difficult to make a comment without appearing to be one of "those
> who claim to know more about airplanes than we do."
>
> Nevertheless, I feel duty bound to reiterate my position.
>
> I agree that the Mooney system had merit.
>
> I also feel it would be great to have a reliable automatic system that
> could control the aircraft while the human pilot was confused.
>
> As stated before, it is my theory, totally unsupported by any scientific
> evaluation, that we began to experience more and more loss of control
> accidents as we added more and more complication to the cockpit.
>
> When there are a multitude of instruments providing conflicting
> information, it is very difficult to sort out which is correct.
>
> Just for a minute, let's assume that the only flight attitude indicting
> instruments in the cockpit were two T&Bs. One electric and one vacuum
> powered. If one failed, how hard would it be for the pilot to determine
> which one was still working?
>
> Switching paths for a minute, what is really important in those moments
> when the pilot is confused?
>
> I believe the most important thing is to stop the turn.
>
> I agree that leveling the wings will generally stop the turn, but I also
> feel that it is difficult to convince our mind to disregard what our
> senses are telling us and believe the instruments.
>
> If we can just get the turn stopped, we will survive.
>
> Whether the turn is stopped by the pilot using a turn indicator or by an
> "automatic pilot" device is not important.
>
> What is important is STOPPING the turn.
>
> Make no turn and you will survive.
>
> For the reasons I have often stated in the past, I believe it is a lot
> easier to stop the turn using a T&B (NOT a Turn Coordinator, but an old
> fashioned Turn and Bank instrument!) than it is with any other
> instrument now readily available to the aviation community.
>
> I do have some thoughts as to what may be better, but the T&B is readily
> available and twenty hours of good concentrated training will teach
> anyone how to use it well enough that they WILL develop confidence in
> the instrument that will allow them to use it to stop the turn
> regardless of whether or not their brain tells them that the wings are
> level.
>
> Obviously, if we could purchase a component that would save the day
> without the need for any training, that would be ideal.
>
> Meanwhile
> ---- It is a shame that such a simple device is cast aside while we look
> for something better.
>
> 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 6/17/2006 11:00:43 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
>
> A stand-alone, kilo-buck wing leveler would have been less
> expensive than the standby vacuum pump and could have been
> totally independent of the highly integrated, highly stressed
> components "certified" onto that aircraft and holy-watered by
> those who claim to know more about airplanes than we do.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: IFR Requirements |
>Good Morning Bob,
>
>It is difficult to make a comment without appearing to be one of "those
>who claim to know more about airplanes than we do."
>
>Nevertheless, I feel duty bound to reiterate my position.
>
>I agree that the Mooney system had merit.
>
>I also feel it would be great to have a reliable automatic system that
>could control the aircraft while the human pilot was confused.
So why should that not be the design goal and
what are the barriers to achieving that goal?
>
>As stated before, it is my theory, totally unsupported by any scientific
>evaluation, that we began to experience more and more loss of control
>accidents as we added more and more complication to the cockpit.
Exactly. N79NL was 'loaded' . . . all the bells and
whistles . . . all expensive and each offered with
the regulator promise and a promotional sales pitch
that "this gizmo can help save your life".
>
>When there are a multitude of instruments providing conflicting
>information, it is very difficult to sort out which is correct.
>
>Just for a minute, let's assume that the only flight attitude indicting
>instruments in the cockpit were two T&Bs. One electric and one vacuum
>powered. If one failed, how hard would it be for the pilot to determine
>which one was still working?
>
>Switching paths for a minute, what is really important in those moments
>when the pilot is confused?
>
>I believe the most important thing is to stop the turn.
>
>I agree that leveling the wings will generally stop the turn, but I also
>feel that it is difficult to convince our mind to disregard what our
>senses are telling us and believe the instruments.
>
>If we can just get the turn stopped, we will survive.
>
>Whether the turn is stopped by the pilot using a turn indicator or by an
>"automatic pilot" device is not important.
>
>What is important is STOPPING the turn.
>
>Make no turn and you will survive.
>
>For the reasons I have often stated in the past, I believe it is a lot
>easier to stop the turn using a T&B (NOT a Turn Coordinator, but an old
>fashioned Turn and Bank instrument!) than it is with any other instrument
>now readily available to the aviation community.
>
>I do have some thoughts as to what may be better, but the T&B is readily
>available and twenty hours of good concentrated training will teach anyone
>how to use it well enough that they WILL develop confidence in the
>instrument that will allow them to use it to stop the turn regardless of
>whether or not their brain tells them that the wings are level.
>
>Obviously, if we could purchase a component that would save the day
>without the need for any training, that would be ideal.
No disagreement here . . . but you're arguing an
alternative design goal. I'm suggesting that
the neophyte pilot in a J-3 with independent
battery operated, GPS aided wing levelers has
a higher order probability of survival in clouds
than the 10,000 hour guy with a loaded panel
when both are presented with a stack of stressors
that instructors neglected to add to the flight
training syllabus.
This is because there are two schools of
thought:
(1) give the pilot plenty of training and useful
visual presentation such that he can
(a) fly the airplane and . . .
(b) recover gracefully if the airplane upsets
irrespective of anticipated hardware
failures or . . .
(2) give the pilot redundant, simple, low cost
hardware that doesn't even offer a presentation.
The goal here is to . . .
(a) don't depend on the pilot for basic
manipulation of controls in IMC and
(b) offer a high order probability that the
airplane never becomes upset in spite of
equipment failure.
We're talking about working further down the
bell-curve for individuals who are skilled and
practiced in venue (1). Just because more owner/
pilots choose to equip themselves for flight
into IMC does not alter their personal position
on the bell-curve for the ultimate limits of
human capabilities under real stress. This is
independent of equipment or training. I'm only
suggesting that a reasoned expansion of the
IMC capable pilot/machine combination is better
served by exploiting what modern electronics
can offer - a means for
(1) reducing probability of upset to near zero
which in turn offers . . .
(2) a calm pilot who is no longer distracted
by a need to stay right side up so that
he/she can make good decisions about which
way the airplane should be pointed.
It serves little purpose to be in total control
of the airplane's attitude and fly into a
mountainside because you're too busy flying
and cannot navigate well.
Single-pilot IFR is a demonstrably high-risk
endeavor. Launching a summer trip across Death Valley
in a 1910 Model T is also demonstrably high-risk.
One can consider the same trip in a new car as
routine. In 1961, I probably could count on at least two
flat tires a year . . . I can't even remember the
last time I had a flat tire. The driver hasn't
changed but the hardware has.
Too much of the way we think about hardware in
airplanes today is rooted in 50 year old ideas
that more hardware with more stringent certification
installed to give a pilot more options had value
as the fledgling electronics industry matured. I'll
suggest that it peaked for return on investment
a couple of decades ago. It's now possible and
practical to virtually eliminate the need for options
and the decision-making work-loads that go with
them. The result is a high order of system reliability
for a fraction of the investment demanded by our
1960's mentality for panel design.
The probability of upset in IMC for airplanes needs
to be pushed as far down the risk scales as we have
for flat tires on cars . . . and for proportionately
fewer dollars than it cost us for tires in 1960.
I'm suggesting that it CAN BE DONE.
>
>Meanwhile
>---- It is a shame that such a simple device is cast aside while we look
>for something better.
Who's casting anything aside? The goal is to make
any decision the builder makes for choice of displays
insignificant with respect to the outcome of a choice
to fly into a cloud. The task is to make it unnecessary
for him to ever need to look, perceive, interpret, and
react appropriately when the gods of weather, machines
and human frailties taunt him with a bad day in the cockpit.
My comment about "those who claim to know more about
airplanes that we do" was referring to the regulators
who's understanding of physics, the art of building and
flying airplanes is in decline. They offset this deficiency
with renewed vigor of promoting old rules while dreaming up
volumes of new ones or more creative ways to implement old
ones. I've just spent about 200 hours of time over the past
year wrestling with an ACO that shall remain unnamed. They
cost a manufacturer tons of money, drove time-to-market up
by a year and ultimately demanded that we do tests and write
reports about those tests that will never be read by anyone.
A year later, we're going to get the STC. None, repeat
none of the discoveries and remedies generated by the
testing will change the reliability or utility of the
product . . . only make it more expensive. But should
this product become a player in an unhappy event aboard
the airplane, it will not happen because of anything that
certification and testing missed. It will happen because
there was either (1) a design flaw or (2) lack of
craftsmanship in manufacture.
The price of tickets to enter aviation's coliseum
are becoming so expensive that the gladiator's are short
on funds to finance the battle once inside. They are also
short of equipment and training when development budgets
are burdened with no-value-added regulatory hat-dancing
are part of the price of admission.
The demonstrable results are that many products making their
way onto airplanes do not meet the owner's expectations
for return on investment in spite of the ceremony and
hazing the manufacturer endured for the privilege of
entering the arena.
This situation is ruthlessly governed by the law of
optimal proportionality. Engines run best when fuel/air
ratios are optimized to stoichiometric proportions.
Food tastes best with the optimal amount of salt. Plants
grow best with the optimal proportioning of many components.
The best loaf of bread is crafted from carefully controlled
proportions and techniques.
Manufacturing will benefit from the artful application
of regulation when it promotes consumer confidence and prevents
the dishonorable and/or incompetent from offering bad product
to an unsuspecting consumer. However, there always comes a time
when adding more of what was a good thing to do become a poison
that destroys.
I have a ring-side seat in the arena of Type Certification where
I am witnessing a slow death by poison of of the craft which has been
my cherished career for over 40 years. The vast majority of my
compatriots in aviation engineering are now occupied with creation
and management of great piles of paper. They never create new
products. They never touch an airplane. They never watch a customer
fly a new airplane away from the field with both the consumer and
suppliers grinning ear to ear knowing that the transaction
just completed was based on the best they know how to do. Walter
would be saddened to see what we've done to his airplane company.
The comment was never appropriate for the skilled and experienced
practitioners. In fact, were I tasked with assembling a team
for designing the next generation of cockpit hardware, I would
seek out folks like yourself who can sift through the simple-
ideas needed to craft the elegant design. Here in the
alternative arena of OBAM aircraft, elegant solutions are
sought out and the laws of optimal proportionality are still
observed. A necessary component of success is the guidance
and counsel of those with experience and understanding.
I am pleased that you choose to share with us sir.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Lightspeed & sheilded wires, crimping Coax pins |
Bob,
I have been cruising through the archives looking for an answer to this, and
I think I found one but wanted to confirm my conclusion.
I am installing the Lightspeed Plasma II ignition on one side of my
Aerosport Power IO-360-B1B. The instructions say to take the RPM input for
an electric tach off one pin of the 15 pin DB connector with a shielded
wire, and to connect the shield up to another pin of the connector. The
connector is the solder type and I am concerned about being able to solder
even 1 more wire to a pin, let alone the rolled up shielding from the same
wire to another pin. The instructions say to ground the other end of this
shield to the electric tach, which in my case is a Bluemountain EFIS/one. My
conclusion from reading the archives is to just solder a 20 or 22ga wire to
the proper pin and ignore the shielding.
Another question about another part of the same installation: Klaus's
instructions now say to use RG-400 instead of RG-58 coax between the control
unit and the ignition coils, so I started installing a coax connector to one
end of some RG-400. When I crimp the pin with my pin crimper (Paladin
PA1440), it distorts the pin so much it can't be removed from the small
opening in the crimper. The 4 little teeth that come in to the pin from 4
sides come so close together they almost touch, which seems to put way too
much crimp on the pin. The ratcheting mechanism won't release until it is
completely crimped, which is too much. Do I have the wrong crimper? Can I
just crimp the pin with my really old automotive crimper that only indents 1
side?
Thanks. I really appreciate all your help.
Terry
RV-8A
Seattle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Lightspeed & sheilded wires, crimping Coax pins |
Never mind the second part of my previous question. I found the part of my
coax crimping tool for crimping the pins. Funny. I swear that wasn't there
an hour ago.
Thanks,
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
ok you guys,
i dont understand the difference between a turn and bank indicator and a turn
coordinator. could someone please explain. thanks in advance, bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightspeed & sheilded wires, crimping |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I have been cruising through the archives looking for an answer to this, and
>I think I found one but wanted to confirm my conclusion.
>
>I am installing the Lightspeed Plasma II ignition on one side of my
>Aerosport Power IO-360-B1B. The instructions say to take the RPM input for
>an electric tach off one pin of the 15 pin DB connector with a shielded
>wire, and to connect the shield up to another pin of the connector. The
>connector is the solder type and I am concerned about being able to solder
>even 1 more wire to a pin, let alone the rolled up shielding from the same
>wire to another pin. The instructions say to ground the other end of this
>shield to the electric tach, which in my case is a Bluemountain EFIS/one. My
>conclusion from reading the archives is to just solder a 20 or 22ga wire to
>the proper pin and ignore the shielding.
As you've accurately noted, solder-cups on d-subs are intended for
one and one wire only. Here's how you get bunches of shield ground
into one pin. One also may butt-splice numerous wires into a single
pigtail for soldering to the d-sub. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
>Another question about another part of the same installation: Klaus's
>instructions now say to use RG-400 instead of RG-58 coax between the control
>unit and the ignition coils, so I started installing a coax connector to one
>end of some RG-400. When I crimp the pin with my pin crimper (Paladin
>PA1440), it distorts the pin so much it can't be removed from the small
>opening in the crimper. The 4 little teeth that come in to the pin from 4
>sides come so close together they almost touch, which seems to put way too
>much crimp on the pin. The ratcheting mechanism won't release until it is
>completely crimped, which is too much. Do I have the wrong crimper? Can I
>just crimp the pin with my really old automotive crimper that only indents 1
>side?
No, I'd suggest soldering first. Carefully tin the strands
of RG400 . . . and wipe 'clean' so that the diameter of the
stranded layup does not increase. It's usually easier to strip
an extra long center conductor. Tin the strands, then wipe them
while hot with a dry rag. Then cut to desired length with a pair
of flush-cutters (flat side toward cable) for the cleanest finished
cut.
Put a length of solder in the pin's hole where the wire goes. Hold
the pin with needle nose while heating it from the outside and
pressing the solder filled opening to the end of your RG-400 center
conductor. When the solder inside the pin melts, the pin will slip
right onto the wire. Remove heat and let it cool.
Your tool is obviously not matched to the task. Just because the
label says it's good for coax fittings on RG-whatever doesn't insure
success with the connectors you have. I've always encouraged builders
to get their tools and connectors from the same source and only after
they told you that they've been checked for compatibility.
>Thanks. I really appreciate all your help.
My pleasure sir.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-16 OV simplification ? |
Hi Bob and all,
A buddy homebuilder, who does research in electricity, finds the OV
protection in figure Z-16 somewhat complex, and advocates using a simple
component similar to a Zener to prevent overvoltage.
Any comment or opinion on the pros and cons, or hidden issues ?
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 6/18/2006 7:09:28 P.M. Central Standard Time,
icubob(at)newnorth.net writes:
ok you guys,
i dont understand the difference between a turn and bank indicator and a
turn coordinator. could someone please explain. thanks in advance, bob noffs
Good Evening Bob,
The Turn Coordinator utilizes the same gyroscope that the Turn and Bank uses
but it is mounted at an angle to horizontal.
The T&B has a needle, usually hinged at the bottom, but some old ones were
hinged at the top.
To show a yaw, the needle is displaced to one side or the other a varying
amount that is dependent on the rate of turn.
The TC has a presentation that looks a lot like an attitude indicator, but
it is still a rate instrument, not a displacement or attitude instrument.
The result is that if you roll the instrument, it shows an indication and if
you yaw the instrument, it shows the same indication.
Kinda difficult for me to explain, but if I had a spinning gyroscope, I
could show the TC action quite easily by canting the forward end up. The gyro is
hooked to a bar that looks just like the bar in an attitude indicator, but it
has no pitch information. If you roll or yaw, the little "airplane" shows a
"Bank" type picture.
The history comes from a development by ITT of a low cost autopilot. They
used a standard T&B mounted with the leading edge (the part forward behind the
panel, at about a forty degree angle above the fore and aft axis of the
aircraft. That way, if the airplane was rolled, the instrument thought it was
being yawed. If it yawed, it also thought it was being yawed.
Brittain, Century and a few other manufacturers picked up on the ITT idea
and used a "canted" gyro for their low cost autopilots. S-Tec still uses it.
After a couple of years, somebody got the idea of hooking the canted gyro up
to the little airplane type indicator and using it in place of the standard
turn and bank instrument.
Any help? If you want further information, I would be happy to send more off
list.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
> ok you guys,
> i dont understand the difference between a turn and bank
> indicator and a turn coordinator. could someone please explain.
> thanks in advance, bob noffs
There is a picture along with an explanation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_coordinator
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-16 OV simplification ? |
> A buddy homebuilder, who does research in electricity, finds the OV
> protection in figure Z-16 somewhat complex, and advocates using a simple
> component similar to a Zener to prevent overvoltage.
>
> Any comment or opinion on the pros and cons, or hidden issues ?
Eric sells a device for this purpose:
http://www.periheliondesign.com/suppressors.htm
I've got one, but I also have OV protection to
try to cut off the alternator so it doesn't just
keep putting out energy.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-16 OV simplification ? |
Hi Mickey,
>
>
> I've got one, but I also have OV protection to
> try to cut off the alternator so it doesn't just
> keep putting out energy.
>
What are the advantages of one over the other ?
And what is the point of having both ?
Thanks,
Regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-16 OV simplification ? |
On 18 Jun 2006, at 21:07, Gilles Thesee wrote:
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Hi Bob and all,
>
> A buddy homebuilder, who does research in electricity, finds the OV
> protection in figure Z-16 somewhat complex, and advocates using a
> simple component similar to a Zener to prevent overvoltage.
>
> Any comment or opinion on the pros and cons, or hidden issues ?
The zener would need to be sized to handle a lot of watts, as it
would have to dissapate the amperage of the alternator at whatever
set point the zener had. How many amps could a 60 amp alternator
produce, if the voltage regulator failed? 80a? 80a times 16v = 1280
watts. How big and expensive is a 16v zener rated for 1280w,
continuously? The ones I've found only seem to be rated to handle
that power level for a very short period. They don't look beefy
enough to handle it continuously.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-16 OV simplification ? |
Kevin,
Thank you for your message.
>
> The zener would need to be sized to handle a lot of watts, as it would
> have to dissapate the amperage of the alternator at whatever set point
> the zener had. How many amps could a 60 amp alternator produce, if
> the voltage regulator failed? 80a? 80a times 16v = 1280 watts. How
> big and expensive is a 16v zener rated for 1280w, continuously? The
> ones I've found only seem to be rated to handle that power level for a
> very short period. They don't look beefy enough to handle it
> continuously.
I should have mentionned that the figure Z16 concerns the Rotax PM
alternator. The rated output is in the vicinity of 20 amps.
That's about 300 W for the Zener or whatever takes its place.
Does it look like a more manageable power ?
By the way, it just occurs to me that if you rely on this component only
to tackle with an OV event, you need some means of alerting the crew of
the OV condition.
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Bob-
RE: ok you guys,
i dont understand the difference between a turn and bank indicator and a
turn coordinator. could someone please explain. thanks in advance, bob noffs
As a practical matter, the T&B needle displays yaw rate only, and a TC will
show yaw and / or roll. A result of this is that when flying in other than
smooth air, the TC will start to dance around and be much more difficult to
use well than the much more steady TC needle.
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Treff, Arthur" <Arthur.Treff(at)smartm.com> |
| Subject: | Power line behind Avionics stack? |
I've got a wire routing question for the list.
Three connections are on the battery side of the starter solenoid on the
firewall:
1) 2AWG from the battery solenoid in the rear of the aircraft.
2) 4AWG from the primary alternator output.
3) 2AWG going aft to power the fuse blocks located behind the instrument
panel.
The whole ship has been wired, fuse blocks, single point ground, battery
cable, etc. I need to run the fuse block supply (#3 above) and the best
route to the fuse blocks behind the instrument panel will put the supply
cable right behind the avionics stack, running parallel to the rear of
the radio trays, specifically the Garmin 430. Is this OK? Would it be
OK if I constructed some sort of Farraday shield out of copper pipe and
a ground wire? I did a google search and searched the Matronics
archives, but can't see if anyone's covered this. Thanks for your help.
Art Treff
Asheville, NC
N666AT RV-8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
One of the main reasons the TC was created is to provide immediate
positive feedback for recovery from unusual attitudes.
A T&B indicator remains pegged as long as the turn rate is at or above
the maximum rate it indicates. Many years ago, researchers found that
pilots using a T&B would initially respond correctly to recover from an
unusual attitude with a high rate of turn. But quite often they would
not wait long enough for the turn rate to decrease and unpeg the needle,
and would subsequently reverse their initial response, aggravating the
unusual attitude. The conclusion was that the pilots needed some
positive feedback to let them know they were doing the right thing.
So the TC was created with it's canted gyro so that, no matter how high
the rate of turn, the pilot received positive feedback when the proper
recovery control inputs were used. It was credited with dramatically
improving partial panel unusual attitude recoveries.
If you want to do 'precision' partial panel flying, the T&B is the way
to go. That is what it was designed to do, (way) back when it was the
only gyro instrument in the panel. The TC was designed for a different
requirement.
If you don't religiously practice needle, ball and airspeed flying, and
you want something to help you stay right-side up in an emergency, I'll
suggest that the TC is the way to go.
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <William.P.Dube(at)noaa.gov> |
The difference is the angle of the gyro gimbal inside. For the
traditional turn and bank indicator, the gimbal axis is in line with the
direction of flight (like the crankshaft axis.) In the Turn Coordinator,
the gimbal axis is inclined so that a bit of the roll information is
combined with turn information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Turninst4.jpg
Bill Dube'
Glen Matejcek wrote:
>
>Hi Bob-
>
>RE: ok you guys,
>i dont understand the difference between a turn and bank indicator and a
>turn coordinator. could someone please explain. thanks in advance, bob noffs
>
>As a practical matter, the T&B needle displays yaw rate only, and a TC will
>show yaw and / or roll. A result of this is that when flying in other than
>smooth air, the TC will start to dance around and be much more difficult to
>use well than the much more steady TC needle.
>
>Glen Matejcek
>aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Hi Bob-
>
>RE: ok you guys,
>i dont understand the difference between a turn and bank indicator and a
>turn coordinator. could someone please explain. thanks in advance, bob noffs
>
>As a practical matter, the T&B needle displays yaw rate only, and a TC will
>show yaw and / or roll. A result of this is that when flying in other than
>smooth air, the TC will start to dance around and be much more difficult to
>use well than the much more steady TC needle.
Yes, the T&B is a pure yaw rate sensor and indicates
rate of turn about the yaw axis only.
A Turn Coordinator has the axis of the rate gyro canted
off-vertical by some amount . . . typically 30 degrees.
This drops the sensitivity to yaw by cosine of 30 (sensitivity
factor of .86) and inserts a sensitivity to roll by the sine
of 30 degrees (sensitivity factor of 0.5).
This feature was found useful because single axis wing
levelers performed poorly in terms of ride quality
when they were made privy only to yaw rate. This is because
with feet off the peddles, a turn is preceded by some
component of roll. If roll could be held at zero, then
a yaw component would be held at zero too. Ride quality
went up markedly when the autopilot was capable of anticipating
impending yaw by making it also privy to present roll
component. Of course, one could design an autopilot with
two rate sensors, one for yaw and one for roll. Then signals
from the two could be mixed electronically at what ever
proportions made for the best ride quality (like .86/.5) and one
might preserve the pure yaw rate sensing feature of
the T&B as both pilot display and yaw rate sensor for the
a/p.
However, since the goal was to produce the maximum
performance for minimum cost and parts count, making
the rate sensor sensitive to both components of rotation
by canting the axis of the gyro, the desired ratio of
display sensitivity could be achieved by controlling
the off-axis angle with a single sensor.
As it turns out, a human pilot's ability to smoothly
control turning rate benefited from the same mixing
of sensitivities in the same display. This discovery
ushered in the era of low cost, single sensor autopilots
that were really two-axis devices due to the mechanical
mixing of roll and yaw stimulus.
I'm not in a position to debate the value of one
display over the other for the purposes recovering from
an upset condition. Plenty of articulate debaters have
offered their arguments for one side or the other.
It may well be that polluting the pure yaw display
with a component of roll makes recovery from upset
more problematic . . . but the design goal of folks
who were pondering the low cost a/p problem over 40
years ago was to prevent upset from happening in the
first place.
This meant that optimizing the display for both
automatic and manual maintenance of heading was a
useful thing to do. It reduced pilot fatigue, improved
quality of ride for passengers and reduced probability
of upset when two-axis sensitivity was combined onto
the single display.
I used to ride safety pilot for one of my co-workers
at Videmation who would do his obligatory currency
approaches with the gyros covered. He argued that
to be truly 'current' one should be skilled at the
most challenging presentation of the task. I've
watched him shoot many approaches (without timing
assists from ATC) using needle-ball-airspeed and
mag compass.
Today, it's quite possible to craft a small servo
that contains a solid state rate sensor, a micro-
controller and a GPS engine all in one package.
Hook up 14v through an on/off switch. Attach mechanical
output to the aileron mechanism. Install and attach
GPS antenna. Install three wires to a pair of
push-buttons on panel labeled RtTurn and LtTurn.
A bill of materials for such a product could be
under $100 which means they could probably retail
for under $1,000.
When ON, device holds present course +/- one
degree. Tap one of the push buttons, you get
one degree increment or decrement of present
course. Press and hold either button and you
get standard rate turn in that direction. This is
95% of everything I ever wanted an a/p to do.
With two such devices installed in a system crafted
for failure tolerance, one could easily demonstrate
an ability to fly any maneuvers called for by ATC
or your instrument flight plan without visual
references to any panel displays for attitude. Further,
you would have system reliability equal to or greater
than any of those mandated by the regulators.
This is the vision of possibilities for the future
that are practical and attractive only because of
the availability of low cost, solid state rate
sensors, very simple stepper motors, low cost GPS
engines, and jelly-bean micro-controllers. And
yes, the rate sensor would be canted off-axis
by some amount that offers best ride quality
with a minimum of software.
This would elevate Mooney's vision for flight
safety in IMC to new heights for a fraction of
the costs that were required to implement Positive
Control 40 years ago.
Debates about "requirements" for flight in IMC
are a separate issue that has lost sight of the
mission and was never plugged into the quantum jumps
in capability and value that consumer products enjoy.
By the time committees crafting new requirements
can quit arguing about it and publish new rules,
the technologies they're considering are already
old-hat.
Yes, there will always be "requirements" to be met
so that the pests will go away. After that, you can
move on with what ever personal goals you have for
improvements that can stand well above what's required.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-16 OV simplification ? |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi Bob and all,
>
>A buddy homebuilder, who does research in electricity, finds the OV
>protection in figure Z-16 somewhat complex, and advocates using a simple
>component similar to a Zener to prevent overvoltage.
>
>Any comment or opinion on the pros and cons, or hidden issues ?
A company called Pelican Aviation proposed this many years ago.
There's a member of this list who called me one evening to report
that he'd experienced a problem with the first running of his
electrical system . . . seems the system suffered an ov event.
After we discussed the means for deducing and correcting root cause,
he noted in passing that the "little plastic thing on the back
of the alternator disappeared". Seems the Pelican supplied zener
diode from b-lead to ground simply exploded leaving a couple
of bare wires.
Yes, if you have a zener diode rated to soak up ALL the excess
energy available from a runaway alternator, it would be required
to dissipate say 16v at 60 amps or 960 watts in some aircraft;
and 16v at 20A (320 watts) in a Rotax system described in Z-16.
That's a real boss-hog zener. Further, adding such a zener would
only keep the voltage from rising, it would not SHUT OFF or DISCONNECT
the offending system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 6/19/2006 9:42:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,
dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com writes:
One of the main reasons the TC was created is to provide immediate
positive feedback for recovery from unusual attitudes.
Good Morning Dennis,
Your explanation of the origin of the canted gyro instrumentation may have
merit, but it is certainly NOT the way my ancient brain recalls the facts.
I am not claiming my version is the only correct one, but here goes!
The canted gyro was first used in an autopilot designed by a Chicago based
college professor. It was never placed in a high production, though quite a few
units were built and later sold for parts by a wholesale house in southern
Michigan.
It used a stock T&B mounted at an angle. I believe his first choice was to
use a forty degree angle. Later adopters of the idea used other angles.
Brittain and Century were among the many autopilot manufacturers that
adopted the Canted gyro for their low cost single axis autopilots. When some of
the
Century engineers went off on their own to start S-Tec, they used the canted
gyro and the company still does so.
After a couple of years of production, the idea was promoted that if it
worked to make an autopilot smoother and more responsive, why not make a
presentation of the same information directly to the pilot?
Some experimentation was done and several different visual presentations
were tried. The result was tested and approved by the FAA to be substituted for
the standard T&B. Doing so saved panel space and reduced the number of
gyroscopes needed for flight.
Since it had already been approved as a substitute for the T&B, it was
decided to build the TC as a stand alone instrument even though it was not serving
a sensor for an autopilot.
I really do not believe that there was anyone searching for an improvement
over the T&B. It just became available because of it's use as an autopilot
sensor.
I installed them in all of my trainers because it was the "latest, finest
and fastest" available.
After a few years, I noted that pilots who had trained using the TC had more
difficulty handling partial panel on their annual IFR check rides than did
those who had been trained in the days of the T&B.
In addition, as the years went by, our industry started to have more and
more accidents where the pilot had lost the airplane following the failure of an
attitude gyro. It was obvious that the pilots were having difficulty flying
partial panel.
That did not seem to be a problem in the days when proficiency in needle,
ball and airspeed flight was common.
I realize that the increase in accidents may have had some other cause and
the fact that it all started happening after the industry started to switch
over to the TC may be just coincidental, but it COULD have been a factor.
I believe it was.
Other anomalies came to light and I now feel that switching to the TC
instead of the T&B was a BAD idea.
Too many reasons to go into on an electronically oriented list, but it is my
hypotheses that the problem is primarily one of presentation.
The TC looks too much like an attitude gyro. When one's mind is confused, it
is difficult to accept that the instrument is correct and the mind is wrong.
Autopilots don't have that problem, but most of us humans do.
The T&B looks like nothing else on the instrument panel. It tells us just
one thing. Either the airplane is turning or it is not. It never confuses us as
to which way is up or whether or not the wings are level.
If the aircraft is not turning, we will survive.
It makes no difference which way we THINK is 'up'.
If we stop the turn we will survive.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)fdic.gov> |
| Subject: | VOR/GS Antenna Installation |
I know that a VOR/GS antenna is a dipole antenna and does not need a
ground plane. The RG-400 co-ax cable that connects my Nav radio to the
VOR/GS antenna in my all-aluminum kit plane has a center wire and the
outer shield. The shield is attached to the outer portion of the BNC
connector, which mates to a female connector on the radio that touches
the metal radio frame - thus the outer shield on the cable is grounded.
Also, the way my antenna is currently mounted, the outer shield portion
of the female BNC connector of the antenna also touches the airframe and
is thus, grounded.
What effect does the fact that one side of the antenna connection is
grounded have on the performance of the VOR/GS antenna? I know that the
antenna does not have to be grounded to work, but what happens if it is?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
hi all,
thanks to all who answered my question about the differences between t and b and
tc. now i get it !
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | strobes remote power |
hi all ,
i have wingtip strobes to mount that also carry nav lights and position lights.
my power supply will be in the cabin. aeroflash says to shield the strobe wires.
their price for a cable made up seems steep at $1.70 per foot. do all 3
strobe wires from the power pack to the wingtip need to be shielded ? if not,
which should i use shielded for ? the paperwork with the unit doesnt say much
about this. thanks in advance,
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: VOR/GS Antenna Installation |
Bob,
That depends somewhat on exactly what the configuration of your antenna is.
Please describe the antenna in some detail.
VOR antennas from the "factory" use a balun to make the antenna balanced
with respect to ground. This balun device (meaning BALanced to UNbalanced) is
often a special small 1:1 transformer. A balun makes the pattern symmetrical
with respect to ground, or more ideal. From antenna information given in
Narco VOR manuals, it is important to be sure the antenna is horizontally
polarized. Without the balun the feedline can become part of the antenna system
and
the polarity may no longer be purely horizontal. This would make the
antenna more prone to respond to reflected signals which of course would come
from
a direction other than where the VOR station is located.
A broadband balun which can be used for VOR (because the VOR band is between
TV channels 6 and 7) can be found in almost all older TV sets which have
both balanced (300 ohm twin lead) and unbalanced (75 ohm coax) antenna
connections on the back.
When the received signal is fairly strong, the grounded coax shield will not
make any difference. When the signal is weak is when the "ideal" antenna
becomes more necessary.
Dan K9WEK
Walton, IN
RV-7A
In a message dated 6/19/2006 12:40:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
BRogers(at)fdic.gov writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rogers, Bob J."
I know that a VOR/GS antenna is a dipole antenna and does not need a
ground plane. The RG-400 co-ax cable that connects my Nav radio to the
VOR/GS antenna in my all-aluminum kit plane has a center wire and the
outer shield. The shield is attached to the outer portion of the BNC
connector, which mates to a female connector on the radio that touches
the metal radio frame - thus the outer shield on the cable is grounded.
Also, the way my antenna is currently mounted, the outer shield portion
of the female BNC connector of the antenna also touches the airframe and
is thus, grounded.
What effect does the fact that one side of the antenna connection is
grounded have on the performance of the VOR/GS antenna? I know that the
antenna does not have to be grounded to work, but what happens if it is?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | SD-8 PM Alternator |
Bob N,
Here is some in-flight data I obtained while waiting for your comments
on my 5/7/06 response to your questions. The flight configuration is the
same as the ground test set-up with 15k resistor at the diodes and 3k
resistor across a capacitor of 56k mf. All RPM is that of the engine,
with the alternator turning at 1.3 times the engine RPM.
Engine RPM 600 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1800 2700
Capacitor Volts 5.98 8.47 10.4 12.61 13.31 14.4 14.42 14.42
Upon engine start with only the Master on for cranking and then
immediately turned off, the voltage across the capacitor rises very
slowly over several minutes to stabilize at the above listed values.
As soon as the voltage across the capacitor eventually rises above
0.601, the alternator will come alive if the alternator switch is
activated. If the alternator is not turned on the capacitor voltage
will track the above listed values as the engine RPM is varied up or
down, but there is a time lag dependent upon the size of the capacitor.
An interesting observation is that the initial very slow rise after
engine start to the 0.601 capacitor voltage then takes an immediate jump
from 0.601 to 5.98 volts (or any above listed voltage based on the
engine RPM at that moment) and thereafter never again falls below 0.601
volts unless the engine is shut down. Therefore, the alternator is
always available to come on line by activating the alternator switch
once the 0.601 condition has been reached and the engine has not been
shut down.
Tests were conducted using cockpit adjustable pots for both the
resistance at the diodes as well as across the capacitor. A capacitor of
only 1kmf was also tested. The diode resistor seems optimum at 10k to
15k with 3k across the capacitor. The 1kmf capacitor is too little to
prevent voltage excursions up to 16 volts and probably higher if not
carefully monitored. This may not be a problem since the alternator is
not on line at that time, but it might be if the alternator were to be
switched on during that condition, even though the regulator recovered
quickly in the one instance when I did switch it on at that point.
At this time, I am comfortable with the system when using the component
values as listed in the first paragraph above. Some lower value
capacitor could be used with good results I would think, but my guess is
it probably should be at least in the ball park of 10 to 20kmf,
My personal opinion at this time is that this set-up provides the SD-8
with an automatic capability to be brought on line at any time without
depending on a voltage source being present such as the battery or a
powered buss that the SD-8 is being switched onto. If the engine is
running or being motored above 600 RPM (780 alternator RPM) the pilot
can activate the alternator switch and bring power to even a dead buss
if he chooses. Also, for anyone wanting an alternator power source but
without a battery or starter, this will work if hand propping is the
planned mode.
Please review and comment when your time permits.
Jim McCulley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)fdic.gov> |
| Subject: | VOR/GS Antenna Installation |
My antenna is a factory manufactured Comant V dipole VOR/GS antenna with
an integral balun (hockey puck style). My main concern is whether the
shield portion of the feed line (RG-400 cable) must be isolated from the
airframe. Right now, it is connected to ground at both the antenna end
and at the radio end. I do not know whether that makes a difference in
the performance of the antenna/nav radio.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:30 AM
Bob,
That depends somewhat on exactly what the configuration of your antenna
is.
Please describe the antenna in some detail.
VOR antennas from the "factory" use a balun to make the antenna
balanced
with respect to ground. This balun device (meaning BALanced to
UNbalanced) is
often a special small 1:1 transformer. A balun makes the pattern
symmetrical
with respect to ground, or more ideal. From antenna information given
in
Narco VOR manuals, it is important to be sure the antenna is
horizontally
polarized. Without the balun the feedline can become part of the
antenna system and
the polarity may no longer be purely horizontal. This would make the
antenna more prone to respond to reflected signals which of course
would come from
a direction other than where the VOR station is located.
A broadband balun which can be used for VOR (because the VOR band is
between
TV channels 6 and 7) can be found in almost all older TV sets which
have
both balanced (300 ohm twin lead) and unbalanced (75 ohm coax) antenna
connections on the back.
When the received signal is fairly strong, the grounded coax shield will
not
make any difference. When the signal is weak is when the "ideal"
antenna
becomes more necessary.
Dan K9WEK
Walton, IN
RV-7A
In a message dated 6/19/2006 12:40:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
BRogers(at)fdic.gov writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rogers, Bob J."
I know that a VOR/GS antenna is a dipole antenna and does not need a
ground plane. The RG-400 co-ax cable that connects my Nav radio to the
VOR/GS antenna in my all-aluminum kit plane has a center wire and the
outer shield. The shield is attached to the outer portion of the BNC
connector, which mates to a female connector on the radio that touches
the metal radio frame - thus the outer shield on the cable is grounded.
Also, the way my antenna is currently mounted, the outer shield portion
of the female BNC connector of the antenna also touches the airframe
and
is thus, grounded.
What effect does the fact that one side of the antenna connection is
grounded have on the performance of the VOR/GS antenna? I know that
the
antenna does not have to be grounded to work, but what happens if it
is?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Sylvania DOT-it LED Lights |
Hi,
Has anyone considered these or something similar for cockpit lighting?
http://tinyurl.com/llbjp
They seem to be battery powered, and just stick onto
any surface. Seems like the future...
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
Attachment: http://www.matronics.com/enclosures/f34b6cb1ce42b990d861137c04dc469c3210e178.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <tomvelvick(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Aluminum bus bar |
Hi Bob,
I am relocating and rewiring the switches/circuit breakers in my wifes plane.
I found that the switch breakers in the panel were all connected to power with
a .025 1/2 by 6 inch aluminum bus bar. I have never seen anyone use a thin piece
of aluminum before. It seems woefully inadequate to me. Just wondering
how bad an installation this was and what would have happened if all of the switches
were on together for a long time. Since we dont do much night flying,
most of the switches are normally off.
Regards,
Tom Velvick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum bus bar |
>
>Hi Bob,
>I am relocating and rewiring the switches/circuit breakers in my wifes
>plane. I found that the switch breakers in the panel were all connected
>to power with a .025 1/2 by 6 inch aluminum bus bar. I have never seen
>anyone use a thin piece of aluminum before. It seems woefully inadequate
>to me. Just wondering how bad an installation this was and what would
>have happened if all of the switches were on together for a long
>time. Since we dont do much night flying, most of the switches are
>normally off.
It's been done many times. Not recommended but I'm also
not aware of any cases where use of aluminum versus brass
or copper was the cause of any problem. Getting a gas-tight
connection at the fasteners is the key irrespective of what
materials are used.
If you have an opportunity to swap out for brass, it wouldn't
be a bad thing to do . . .
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 divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | VOR/GS Antenna Installation |
>
>My antenna is a factory manufactured Comant V dipole VOR/GS antenna with
>an integral balun (hockey puck style). My main concern is whether the
>shield portion of the feed line (RG-400 cable) must be isolated from the
>airframe. Right now, it is connected to ground at both the antenna end
>and at the radio end. I do not know whether that makes a difference in
>the performance of the antenna/nav radio.
Probably no problem but it's only necessary that the coax
shield have good connection at the balun and radio connectors.
If the coax shield becomes grounded to airframe at the antenna
end due to the way the antenna is designed, then so be it.
Comant knows what they're doing. But if I were building a cat-whisker
antenna to attach to the end of a coax, I'd leave the shield free
of airframe ground at the antenna end.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sylvania DOT-it LED Lights |
Kinda big and not dimmable. I wonder how the reusable adhesive will hold up to
vibration, heat and such.
I use a lip light that I bought at Wicks for about $40. The battery case is kinda
clunky, but the light is perfect. The light clamps onto your headset mike
boom. You can put dimmable red or white light wherever you look.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Mickey Coggins wrote:
Hi,
Has anyone considered these or something similar for cockpit lighting?
http://tinyurl.com/llbjp
They seem to be battery powered, and just stick onto
any surface. Seems like the future...
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
Attachment: http://www.matronics.com/enclosures/f34b6cb1ce42b990d861137c04dc469c3210e178.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sylvania DOT-it LED Lights |
Looks like a fantastic idea if the batteries last 100 hours as
stated. I was planning on going with basicly the same type of lights but
wired. These should be much simpler and save some wiring time and weight. I
think I will give them a try. Thanks for the link.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:08 AM
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone considered these or something similar for cockpit lighting?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/llbjp
>
> They seem to be battery powered, and just stick onto
> any surface. Seems like the future...
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Attachment:
> http://www.matronics.com/enclosures/f34b6cb1ce42b990d861137c04dc469c3210e178.jpg
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Darrah" <RDarrah(at)austin.rr.com> |
I didn't think that how they worked made much difference, the big difference
is the presentation to the pilot. The turn nedle shows the direction and
rate of turn. Very hard to misinterperate. If it points to the left, you
are yawing (turning) to the left. If you made one with a canted gyro, it
would be just as usful to the pilot.
The turn coordinator looks too much like the attitude indicator. It, unlike
the attitude indicator, showes which way you are turning by showing a
banking airplane, while the attitude indicator showes your relation to the
horizon. These presentations end up being exactly opposite to each other
leading to easy misinterpratation of the turn cooridnator.
I'll take the turn needle every time.
New Bob (as apposed to Old Bob and the other Bob's)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Re: Sylvania DOT-it LED Lights (off subject) |
I am going a bit off subject here.
Am going to install these inside wings and fuse:
http://www.besthongkong.com/product_info.php?cPath=6&products_id=84
Have clear inspection covers and am going to wire a reed switch so can
inspect prior to flight. Will add LEDs if needed. Pretty nice thing for a
dollar or less, has Lithium battery.
Check out their LEDs, you could add angle of choice LED to this package on
the cheap and stick anywhere you wish in cockpit. It has a momentary
switch and a leaveitonalltheetime switch. Even sell one with black light.
Also off subject is using these for interior?? :
http://www.besthongkong.com/index.php?cPath=9_30
http://www.besthongkong.com/index.php?cPath=9_37
http://www.besthongkong.com/product_info.php?cPath=9_20&products_id=102
You need to supply power, a battery, ship power, hand crank or Faraday
generator will do.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Hello Old Bob,
I don't remember where I found the explanation I posted - I came across
it when I was teaching ground school at Parks College (in the late '70s
through early '90s). Saying 'one of the main reasons it was created' is
undoubtedly overstatement/embellishment based on inaccurate
recollection, but I clearly remember that the main point was the
'advantage' of the canted gyro being positive feedback for the pilot in
a high-rate turn, which is why it stuck with me. It makes sense that
it's roots are in autopilot design. Sounds like the stuff I remember
was part of the justification (or sales pitch) for making it a
stand-alone instrument.
Dennis Glaeser
-------------------------------------
Good Morning Dennis,
Your explanation of the origin of the canted gyro instrumentation may
have merit, but it is certainly NOT the way my ancient brain recalls the
facts. I am not claiming my version is the only correct one, but here
goes!
...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jlundberg(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Com Installation Sign Off |
I am installing am ICOM A200 com in my Aeronca Champ (I am not an A&P or IA) -
What is the correct documentation in the logbooks??? Can I have an A&P sign
it off or do I need a repair station sign off.?
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-16 OV simplification ? |
> 16v at 20A (320 watts) in a Rotax system described in Z-16.
> That's a real boss-hog zener.
>
Bob,
Thank you.
Is the problem the same with a transil ?
Regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Com Installation Sign Off |
In a message dated 6/20/2006 5:17:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
jlundberg(at)cox.net writes:
I am installing am ICOM A200 com in my Aeronca Champ (I am not an A&P or
IA) - What is the correct documentation in the logbooks??? Can I have an
A&P sign it off or do I need a repair station sign off.?
John
Good Evening John,
Nothing authoritative to point to, but my WAG is that you will need to file
a 337 if it is a permanent installation. Are you using an external antenna and
powering the set from the aircraft's electrical system or is just a handheld
that is in a clip using a rubber ducky and internal batteries?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: VOR/GS Antenna Installation |
Bob,
It is probably OK to ground the shield at both ends. In any case, the
recommendations of the manufacturer should be followed. If it has a balun, that
should solve the problem of making both sides of the antenna equally "hot."
Dan
In a message dated 6/20/2006 10:10:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
BRogers(at)fdic.gov writes:
My antenna is a factory manufactured Comant V dipole VOR/GS antenna with
an integral balun (hockey puck style). My main concern is whether the
shield portion of the feed line (RG-400 cable) must be isolated from the
airframe. Right now, it is connected to ground at both the antenna end
and at the radio end. I do not know whether that makes a difference in
the performance of the antenna/nav radio.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:30 AM
Bob,
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-16 OV and miscellaneous |
> 16v at 20A (320 watts) in a Rotax system described in Z-16.
> That's a real boss-hog zener. Further, adding such a zener would
> only keep the voltage from rising, it would not SHUT OFF or DISCONNECT
> the offending system.
>
Bob,
Thank you for responding.
By the way, my buddy also raised an issue apropos the OV protection in
figure Z16. He suggest that the sense (C) wire be connected to the
capacitor and never be severed, lest the Rotax regulator should lose
voltage reference and go berserk.
What's your opinion ?
Thanks,
Regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-16 OV simplification ? |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>
>>16v at 20A (320 watts) in a Rotax system described in Z-16.
>> That's a real boss-hog zener.
>>
>
>Bob,
>
>Thank you.
>Is the problem the same with a transil ?
Yes. TVS, Transorbs, Transil, etc are all cousins of the
zener diode. They're designed to avalanche (break down)
when reverse biased and at reasonably calibrated voltages.
Instead of designing for accuracy and stability as voltage
regulators, transient catchers are optimized for power and
speed . . . but they're still linear mode gizmos. So while
a 1500 watt Transorb is barely larger physically than a
1N5400 series diode that's rated to dissipate 3A at 0.7 volts
indefinitely, that's just over two watts.
Guess what? A 1.5KE series transient suppressor is rated
for 1500 watts . . . for milliseconds. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Semiconductors/15ke.pdf
The operative word for using these devices is "transient" meaning
relatively short (tens of milliseconds) events. A runaway alternator
is an all-day event until you get it turned off . . . linear
voltage clamping devices tied to the output of alternators are
not OV protection devices.
They might mitigate load dumps but folks on the list have reported
problematic results in tests where load dump events trashed
a Transorb.
OV protection needs to be discriminating (not to nuisance
trip on true transient conditions) but they also need
to have absolute control over the alternator in terms of
shutting it off.
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 divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sylvania DOT-it LED Lights (off subject) |
The 12v hardwired ones are similar to the ones I have bought from
http://autolumination.com/fixtures.htm they put out plenty of light for
passengers and luggage bay, even thought about mounting them overhead pilot
& co-pilot, but do not have a switch built into them. I think I will
purchase some of the 12v Sylvania's even if I don't use them in airplane
they will be handy for other ap's. I think your idea of the clear inspection
cover's is very good do you mind if I steal it ?
Randy
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:52 PM
>
> I am going a bit off subject here.
>
> Am going to install these inside wings and fuse:
> http://www.besthongkong.com/product_info.php?cPath=6&products_id=84
> Have clear inspection covers and am going to wire a reed switch so can
> inspect prior to flight. Will add LEDs if needed. Pretty nice thing for a
> dollar or less, has Lithium battery.
>
> Check out their LEDs, you could add angle of choice LED to this package on
> the cheap and stick anywhere you wish in cockpit. It has a momentary
> switch and a leaveitonalltheetime switch. Even sell one with black light.
>
> Also off subject is using these for interior?? :
> http://www.besthongkong.com/index.php?cPath=9_30
> http://www.besthongkong.com/index.php?cPath=9_37
> http://www.besthongkong.com/product_info.php?cPath=9_20&products_id=102
> You need to supply power, a battery, ship power, hand crank or Faraday
> generator will do.
>
> Ron Parigoris
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sylvania DOT-it LED Lights (off subject) |
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US wrote:
>
>I am going a bit off subject here.
>
>Am going to install these inside wings and fuse:
>http://www.besthongkong.com/product_info.php?cPath=6&products_id=84
>Have clear inspection covers and am going to wire a reed switch so can
>inspect prior to flight. Will add LEDs if needed. Pretty nice thing for a
>dollar or less, has Lithium battery.
>
>Check out their LEDs, you could add angle of choice LED to this package on
>the cheap and stick anywhere you wish in cockpit. It has a momentary
>switch and a leaveitonalltheetime switch. Even sell one with black light.
>
>Also off subject is using these for interior?? :
>http://www.besthongkong.com/index.php?cPath=9_30
>http://www.besthongkong.com/index.php?cPath=9_37
>http://www.besthongkong.com/product_info.php?cPath=9_20&products_id=102
>You need to supply power, a battery, ship power, hand crank or Faraday
>generator will do.
>
>Ron Parigoris
>
If you're building an AL airframe, you might want to check with the kit
designer before replacing the inspection covers with plexi. Some
designers treat the covers as structural parts of the airframe.
FWIW...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Com Installation Sign Off |
In a message dated 6/20/2006 5:17:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
jlundberg(at)cox.net writes:
I am installing am ICOM A200 com in my Aeronca Champ (I am not an A&P or
IA) - What is the correct documentation in the logbooks??? Can I have an
A&P sign it off or do I need a repair station sign off.?
John
Good Evening Once again John,
I guess I should have added that a 337 needs to be submitted by an IA or a
repair station. An A&P can fill it out and sign for the work, but it must be
approved by an A&P holding an IA or a repair station inspector before it is
submitted. At least that is my often wrong interpretation of the pertinent
regulations!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
I don't vote for a TC or T&B as back-up, I vote for an attitude
indicator.
I have good sound reasons to say so and it is not based
on any pilot should be able to fly partial panel. It comes
from many years of giving instruction.
As Bob and others pointed out a T&B or TC does not tell
if the wings are level. I understand Bob's statement if you
are not yawing you are no turning, BUT you are also not
necessarily wings level.
Also on the other hand you can be wings level and be
yawing (turning). Example, a skidding turn w/ rudder and
opposite aileron. Wings level but yawing. The point is the
T&B and TC do not tell you if the wings are level.
Given the choice I would want a pictorial ATTITUDE
indication, with a direct indication of wing (roll) and
pitch, even though I know I can fly a T&B.
With a T&B as long as I keep it upright I am good, but
once you've lost it you're in a pretty bad situation and
may not survive. Statistics bare this out. I realize some
auto pilots are Yaw based but than they do a better
job keeping it upright than most pilots. I doubt many
yaw only autopilots can recover from an unusual
attitude.
Flying with only a T&B you have no direct indication of
the wings being level. With an attitude indicator you do,
which is better, obviously. I don't think I am going to
get an argument here.
However to recover from unusual attitude with just
altimeter, airspeed, T&B and slip skid ball (needle ball and
airspeed) is a real talent, and most pilots will NOT survive
if faced with this. This is fact based on studies. Many
vacume failures in IMC, leaving just the T&B has resulted
in the loss of aircraft and crew. What makes us think we
can survive, for real, under high stress actual IMC?
Who last practiced or last attempted an unusual attitude
recovery under the hood or IMC with just Needle Ball &
airspeed?
The best and only way to recover from a unusual nose
low dive or graveyard spiral is level the wings first before
applying back pressure. What is the best way to know
if the wings are level? An ATTITUDE indicator. A real
time pictorial depiction of aircraft roll and pitch.
So lets say IMC diving with only a T&B you get it to stop
yawing, where are the wings? How do you level the wings?
If in a hot homebuilt you are way past Vne and dead.
T&B and TC are dampened. Too much dampening they
are useless for recovery because of the lag. If they don't
have enough damping they are useless because they
are flopping around with any yaw or turbulence.
I appreciate Bob's old school attitude, but I have been
teaching in aviation for over 20 years and I know the
skills of mere mortals, typical pilots. They respond and
consistently perform better with an attitude display not
a yaw display. Many old time pilots have died trying
to fly after the Vac pump failed. The history of real
partial plane with real pilots in real IMC is poor.
I appreciates Bob's pride in being able to fly needle ball
and airspeed. I can do it too. However if you have not
done it, for real in turbulence or IMC in a small home
built with natural roll stability, sensitive control and a
low drag configuration that builds speed very fast when
pointed down hill, I think we would all want a back-up
ATTITUDE indicator.
Yaw is great but a picture of you wings being level is
more important or priceless as they commercial says.
With the advent of cheap battery powered ATTITUDE
indicators I think the day of T&B or TC only back up
are gone.
Now if you want to practice "partial panel" I suggest
you find a good safety pilot who knows their job, safety
and looking for traffic. Get a Francis IFR hood,
http://www.ifrhood.com/ ,
not an el-cheepo foggles or plastic visor. Use some
tape and cardboard paper and blank out areas of the
canopy you might cheat, peripheral or straight ahead,
but don't block the safety pilots view.
Best practice is at night over sparsely populated area.
Also a good idea is get ATC flight following for your
practice. Now do partial panel unusual attitude recovery.
Look down at the floor and let the safety pilot roll the
pitch the plane, who than will give it back to you as you
look up to the panel. If you can recover consistently
than good. Most will not with just a T&B. With an
attitude indicator everyone will recover with a little
practice. With just a T&B your chance of getting it
level is limited. Never let the speed get to Vne. The
safety pilot should take over early. There is no need
to push it. Of course the safety pilot must have enough
currency in type and visual clues to recover safely.
I am not talking about training that is so over the top
that no one can survive. I am talking about real training
that is realistic that gives you a real indication of your
ability to fly and recover IMC partial panel.
A Cessna you can almost just let go and it will almost
recover. A hot home built forget it; they have the stability
of a jet fighter. There was a time when more military
fighters where lost to IFR accidents than lost due to
combat.
That is my point. Don't cheat forget the T&B and TC if
you really want a back up. It's 2006; there are many
backup attitude indicators available for less than $1000.
They are all electric but so is a T&B or TC.
These are my opinions after 1000 hours teaching GA
and airline pilots in planes and simulators. I am NOT
saying you CAN'T fly with just a T&B but that is ONLY
and indirect indication of wing level. I don't think I will
get an argument that an ACTUAL indication of WING
level is better than an old fashion yaw indicator. I do
think it still has a place in the panel, but be realistic
in you ability to save the say with JUST a T&B.
Cheers George M. RV-4/RV-7 ATP, CFI-CFII-MEI
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
Good Morning George,
You wrote:
"The best and only way to recover from a unusual nose
low dive or graveyard spiral is level the wings first before
applying back pressure. What is the best way to know
if the wings are level? An ATTITUDE indicator. A real
time pictorial depiction of aircraft roll and pitch."
JFK Jr and Carnahan both had operative Attitude Indicators available.
They are both dead.
'Lectric Bobs Autopilot would have saved their lives.
Skill with either an attitude indicator, a T&B or a TC would also have saved
their lives.
My reasons for preferring the T&B over the TC have to do with how the mind
works. My reason for having the T&Bs in my panel has to do with cost,
reliability and availability.
To me, that means training to use a T&B combined with reasonable reliability
for the instrument used.
I totally disagree with your premise that an attitude indicator is "best" or
"better".
Best or Better is dependent on the training of the user, the reliability of
the instrument and the modes of failure.
When automatic flight becomes economically feasible and suitably reliable,
we will be able to have airplanes that anyone can fly with little or no
training.
I have no objection to that goal, but, in the meantime, I want what I can
afford.
The Air Bus is a step in the direction of machine controlled flight. As a
trained pilot, I am not sure I like that trend, but we have accepted a similar
scene with automobiles and all manner of other conveniences in our lives.
I agree that we will have to agree to disagree ---- Totally!
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 6/21/2006 11:19:45 A.M. Central Standard Time,
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes:
I don't vote for a TC or T&B as back-up, I vote for an attitude
indicator.
I have good sound reasons to say so and it is not based
on any pilot should be able to fly partial panel. It comes
from many years of giving instruction.
As Bob and others pointed out a T&B or TC does not tell
if the wings are level. I understand Bob's statement if you
are not yawing you are no turning, BUT you are also not
necessarily wings level.
Also on the other hand you can be wings level and be
yawing (turning). Example, a skidding turn w/ rudder and
opposite aileron. Wings level but yawing. The point is the
T&B and TC do not tell you if the wings are level.
Given the choice I would want a pictorial ATTITUDE
indication, with a direct indication of wing (roll) and
pitch, even though I know I can fly a T&B.
With a T&B as long as I keep it upright I am good, but
once you've lost it you're in a pretty bad situation and
may not survive. Statistics bare this out. I realize some
auto pilots are Yaw based but than they do a better
job keeping it upright than most pilots. I doubt many
yaw only autopilots can recover from an unusual
attitude.
Flying with only a T&B you have no direct indication of
the wings being level. With an attitude indicator you do,
which is better, obviously. I don't think I am going to
get an argument here.
However to recover from unusual attitude with just
altimeter, airspeed, T&B and slip skid ball (needle ball and
airspeed) is a real talent, and most pilots will NOT survive
if faced with this. This is fact based on studies. Many
vacume failures in IMC, leaving just the T&B has resulted
in the loss of aircraft and crew. What makes us think we
can survive, for real, under high stress actual IMC?
Who last practiced or last attempted an unusual attitude
recovery under the hood or IMC with just Needle Ball &
airspeed?
The best and only way to recover from a unusual nose
low dive or graveyard spiral is level the wings first before
applying back pressure. What is the best way to know
if the wings are level? An ATTITUDE indicator. A real
time pictorial depiction of aircraft roll and pitch.
So lets say IMC diving with only a T&B you get it to stop
yawing, where are the wings? How do you level the wings?
If in a hot homebuilt you are way past Vne and dead.
T&B and TC are dampened. Too much dampening they
are useless for recovery because of the lag. If they don't
have enough damping they are useless because they
are flopping around with any yaw or turbulence.
I appreciate Bob's old school attitude, but I have been
teaching in aviation for over 20 years and I know the
skills of mere mortals, typical pilots. They respond and
consistently perform better with an attitude display not
a yaw display. Many old time pilots have died trying
to fly after the Vac pump failed. The history of real
partial plane with real pilots in real IMC is poor.
I appreciates Bob's pride in being able to fly needle ball
and airspeed. I can do it too. However if you have not
done it, for real in turbulence or IMC in a small home
built with natural roll stability, sensitive control and a
low drag configuration that builds speed very fast when
pointed down hill, I think we would all want a back-up
ATTITUDE indicator.
Yaw is great but a picture of you wings being level is
more important or priceless as they commercial says.
With the advent of cheap battery powered ATTITUDE
indicators I think the day of T&B or TC only back up
are gone.
Now if you want to practice "partial panel" I suggest
you find a good safety pilot who knows their job, safety
and looking for traffic. Get a Francis IFR hood,
_http://www.ifrhood.com/_ (http://www.ifrhood.com/) ,
not an el-cheepo foggles or plastic visor. Use some
tape and cardboard paper and blank out areas of the
canopy you might cheat, peripheral or straight ahead,
but don't block the safety pilots view.
Best practice is at night over sparsely populated area.
Also a good idea is get ATC flight following for your
practice. Now do partial panel unusual attitude recovery.
Look down at the floor and let the safety pilot roll the
pitch the plane, who than will give it back to you as you
look up to the panel. If you can recover consistently
than good. Most will not with just a T&B. With an
attitude indicator everyone will recover with a little
practice. With just a T&B your chance of getting it
level is limited. Never let the speed get to Vne. The
safety pilot should take over early. There is no need
to push it. Of course the safety pilot must have enough
currency in type and visual clues to recover safely.
I am not talking about training that is so over the top
that no one can survive. I am talking about real training
that is realistic that gives you a real indication of your
ability to fly and recover IMC partial panel.
A Cessna you can almost just let go and it will almost
recover. A hot home built forget it; they have the stability
of a jet fighter. There was a time when more military
fighters where lost to IFR accidents than lost due to
combat.
That is my point. Don't cheat forget the T&B and TC if
you really want a back up. It's 2006; there are many
backup attitude indicators available for less than $1000.
They are all electric but so is a T&B or TC.
These are my opinions after 1000 hours teaching GA
and airline pilots in planes and simulators. I am NOT
saying you CAN'T fly with just a T&B but that is ONLY
and indirect indication of wing level. I don't think I will
get an argument that an ACTUAL indication of WING
level is better than an old fashion yaw indicator. I do
think it still has a place in the panel, but be realistic
in you ability to save the say with JUST a T&B.
Cheers George M. RV-4/RV-7 ATP, CFI-CFII-MEI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
| Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
Hello George,
In practice, if the 2 AI's disagree, how does the pilot break the tie (an
issue Bruce Gray has raised)? With a panel that has a T&B and single AI,
if there's conflict, no flag on the T&B, and the T&B wiggles, the T&B
wins.
Moving the controls to center the T&B and center the skid indicator should
yield upright wings-level flight. Coordinating application of ailerons and
rudder gets you there.
I don't have your years of instruction (nor that much hot homebuilt time -
mostly my Varieze, which is properly stable, and some RV time).. When
people have a tough time recovering from unusual attitudes, do they have
the ball centered, but just continue to turn? Or do they flop about,
varying in and out of coordination? Maybe marginally stable-unstable
airplanes that lack sophisticated autopilots are poor candidates for IFR
flight..
Regards,
Matt-
>
> I don't vote for a TC or T&B as back-up, I vote for an attitude
> indicator.
>
> I have good sound reasons to say so and it is not based
> on any pilot should be able to fly partial panel. It comes
> from many years of giving instruction.
>
> As Bob and others pointed out a T&B or TC does not tell
> if the wings are level. I understand Bob's statement if you
> are not yawing you are no turning, BUT you are also not
> necessarily wings level.
>
> Also on the other hand you can be wings level and be
> yawing (turning). Example, a skidding turn w/ rudder and
> opposite aileron. Wings level but yawing. The point is the
> T&B and TC do not tell you if the wings are level.
>
> Given the choice I would want a pictorial ATTITUDE
> indication, with a direct indication of wing (roll) and
> pitch, even though I know I can fly a T&B.
>
> With a T&B as long as I keep it upright I am good, but
> once you've lost it you're in a pretty bad situation and
> may not survive. Statistics bare this out. I realize some
> auto pilots are Yaw based but than they do a better
> job keeping it upright than most pilots. I doubt many
> yaw only autopilots can recover from an unusual
> attitude.
>
> Flying with only a T&B you have no direct indication of
> the wings being level. With an attitude indicator you do,
> which is better, obviously. I don't think I am going to
> get an argument here.
>
>
> However to recover from unusual attitude with just
> altimeter, airspeed, T&B and slip skid ball (needle ball and
> airspeed) is a real talent, and most pilots will NOT survive
> if faced with this. This is fact based on studies. Many
> vacume failures in IMC, leaving just the T&B has resulted
> in the loss of aircraft and crew. What makes us think we
> can survive, for real, under high stress actual IMC?
>
> Who last practiced or last attempted an unusual attitude
> recovery under the hood or IMC with just Needle Ball &
> airspeed?
>
> The best and only way to recover from a unusual nose
> low dive or graveyard spiral is level the wings first before
> applying back pressure. What is the best way to know
> if the wings are level? An ATTITUDE indicator. A real
> time pictorial depiction of aircraft roll and pitch.
>
> So lets say IMC diving with only a T&B you get it to stop
> yawing, where are the wings? How do you level the wings?
> If in a hot homebuilt you are way past Vne and dead.
>
> T&B and TC are dampened. Too much dampening they
> are useless for recovery because of the lag. If they don't
> have enough damping they are useless because they
> are flopping around with any yaw or turbulence.
>
> I appreciate Bob's old school attitude, but I have been
> teaching in aviation for over 20 years and I know the
> skills of mere mortals, typical pilots. They respond and
> consistently perform better with an attitude display not
> a yaw display. Many old time pilots have died trying
> to fly after the Vac pump failed. The history of real
> partial plane with real pilots in real IMC is poor.
>
>
> I appreciates Bob's pride in being able to fly needle ball
> and airspeed. I can do it too. However if you have not
> done it, for real in turbulence or IMC in a small home
> built with natural roll stability, sensitive control and a
> low drag configuration that builds speed very fast when
> pointed down hill, I think we would all want a back-up
> ATTITUDE indicator.
>
> Yaw is great but a picture of you wings being level is
> more important or priceless as they commercial says.
>
> With the advent of cheap battery powered ATTITUDE
> indicators I think the day of T&B or TC only back up
> are gone.
>
> Now if you want to practice "partial panel" I suggest
> you find a good safety pilot who knows their job, safety
> and looking for traffic. Get a Francis IFR hood,
>
> http://www.ifrhood.com/ ,
>
> not an el-cheepo foggles or plastic visor. Use some
> tape and cardboard paper and blank out areas of the
> canopy you might cheat, peripheral or straight ahead,
> but don't block the safety pilots view.
>
> Best practice is at night over sparsely populated area.
> Also a good idea is get ATC flight following for your
> practice. Now do partial panel unusual attitude recovery.
> Look down at the floor and let the safety pilot roll the
> pitch the plane, who than will give it back to you as you
> look up to the panel. If you can recover consistently
> than good. Most will not with just a T&B. With an
> attitude indicator everyone will recover with a little
> practice. With just a T&B your chance of getting it
> level is limited. Never let the speed get to Vne. The
> safety pilot should take over early. There is no need
> to push it. Of course the safety pilot must have enough
> currency in type and visual clues to recover safely.
>
> I am not talking about training that is so over the top
> that no one can survive. I am talking about real training
> that is realistic that gives you a real indication of your
> ability to fly and recover IMC partial panel.
>
> A Cessna you can almost just let go and it will almost
> recover. A hot home built forget it; they have the stability
> of a jet fighter. There was a time when more military
> fighters where lost to IFR accidents than lost due to
> combat.
>
> That is my point. Don't cheat forget the T&B and TC if
> you really want a back up. It's 2006; there are many
> backup attitude indicators available for less than $1000.
> They are all electric but so is a T&B or TC.
>
> These are my opinions after 1000 hours teaching GA
> and airline pilots in planes and simulators. I am NOT
> saying you CAN'T fly with just a T&B but that is ONLY
> and indirect indication of wing level. I don't think I will
> get an argument that an ACTUAL indication of WING
> level is better than an old fashion yaw indicator. I do
> think it still has a place in the panel, but be realistic
> in you ability to save the say with JUST a T&B.
>
>
> Cheers George M. RV-4/RV-7 ATP, CFI-CFII-MEI
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-16 OV variation |
Bob,
Hope you won't mind my sending again this message about figure Z 16 :
> Bob,
>
> Thank you for responding.
> By the way, my buddy also raised an issue apropos the OV protection in
> figure Z16. He suggests that the sense (C) wire be connected to the
> capacitor and never be severed, lest the Rotax regulator should lose
> voltage reference and go berserk.
>
> What's your opinion ?
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-16 OV simplification ? |
>
> OV protection needs to be discriminating (not to nuisance
> trip on true transient conditions) but they also need
> to have absolute control over the alternator in terms of
> shutting it off.
>
>
Bob,
Thanks again.
Regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
In a message dated 6/21/2006 1:42:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mprather(at)spro.net writes:
Hello George,
In practice, if the 2 AI's disagree, how does the pilot break the tie (an
issue Bruce Gray has raised)? With a panel that has a T&B and single AI,
if there's conflict, no flag on the T&B, and the T&B wiggles, the T&B
wins.
Moving the controls to center the T&B and center the skid indicator should
yield upright wings-level flight. Coordinating application of ailerons and
rudder gets you there.
Good Evening Matt,
Methinks you have it precisely correct!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net> |
If I get continuity between my ground block and all unpainted parts of the
engine, do I still need to run 2 ground wires specifically for the engine?
Steve
RV7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
All-
As I recall it, a T&B or TC can't tumble, as opposed to AH's. There are
aerobatic (360 degree) AH / AI / ADI's, but not sub kilobuck, as I
understand it.
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Audio input to video camera |
Looking for a small microphone to put in my headset earphone cup to pickup
the audio for my video camera aux microphone input. Or, would it work to use
the rear seat headset jack ear phone portion for the audio to directly input to
the camera? Would there be an impedance matching problem? Anyone done this
that could guide me thru the process?
Thanks, Pat
Pat Long
PGLong(at)aol.com
N120PL
RV4
Bay City, Michigan
3CM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine grounds |
Steve,
Just getting continuity doesn't mean it will handle the amperage
required - especially for starting. My son (also building a 7A) tried
cranking his engine before installing his grounds, and it barely turned
over. Once he installed the grounds, it spun like a top. Also, without
dedicated grounding, your engine instrumentation could potentially be
intermittent or inaccurate, and difficult to diagnose.
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A Fuselage
If I get continuity between my ground block and all unpainted parts of
the
engine, do I still need to run 2 ground wires specifically for the
engine?
Steve
RV7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
I don't vote for a TC or T&B as back-up, I vote for an attitude
indicator. Not the point.
I have good sound reasons to say so and it is not based
on any pilot should be able to fly partial panel. It comes
from many years of giving instruction.
What is needed is RECEIVING instruction.
As Bob and others pointed out a T&B or TC does not tell
if the wings are level. I understand Bob's statement if you
are not yawing you are not turning, BUT you are also not
necessarily wings level. The whole point is, YES they are.
Also on the other hand you can be wings level and be
yawing (turning). ...and the T&B says so. Example, a
skidding turn w/ rudder and opposite aileron. Wings
level but yawing. The point is the T&B and TC do not
tell you if the wings are level. In the aircraft under
discussion, you start a turn with rudder - elementary
aerodynamics. Only jet pilots cruise with their feet on
the floor.
Given the choice I would want a pictorial ATTITUDE
indication, with a direct indication of wing (roll) and
pitch, even though I know I can fly a T&B. Not the topic.
With a T&B as long as I keep it upright I am good, but
once you've lost it you're in a pretty bad situation and
may not survive. Statistics bare bear this out. I realize some
auto pilots are Yaw based but than they do a better
job keeping it upright than most pilots. I doubt many
yaw only autopilots can recover from an unusual
attitude. ...nor will cigar lighters. Not the point.
Flying with only a T&B you have no direct indication of
the wings being level. If one rudders the ball into the
middle, it will be level. WHY? ... because the rudder pressure
will right the aircraft.
With an attitude indicator you do, which is better, obviously. I
don't think I am going to With get an argument here.
If operating properly, perhaps.
However to recover from unusual attitude with just
altimeter, airspeed, T&B and slip skid ball (needle ball and
airspeed) is a real talent, and most pilots will NOT survive
if faced with this. (because of advocates against training
for it). This is fact based on studies. Many
vacume failures in IMC, leaving just the T&B has resulted
in the loss of aircraft and crew. What makes us think we
can survive, for real, under high stress actual IMC?
I venture to say more lives are lost from failed attitude
indicators than from failed T&Bs. What is the recourse
to failed AIs? Three of them. One will kill you, Two will
confuse you. But three will get you a majority for survival.
But the minute you are confused as to display, get on the
T&B with rudder.
Who last practiced or last attempted an unusual attitude
recovery under the hood or IMC with just Needle Ball &
airspeed? In my day WE ALL DID. Failure to do so was
failure to graduate.
The best and only way to recover from a unusual nose
low dive or graveyard spiral is level the wings first before
applying back pressure. What is the best way to know
if the wings are level? An ATTITUDE indicator. A real
time pictorial depiction of aircraft roll and pitch. For
decades, AIs tumbled after so many degrees of rotation.
I don't remember the amount, but I'll bet old Bob does.
The only recovery from a failed/tumbled AI was via the
T&B! PS: This is true in the Vampire - a jet we flew before
there was a US jet.in squadron service.
So lets say IMC diving with only a T&B you get it to stop
yawing, where are the wings? Levelling as above.
How do you level the wings? Centre the ball with T&B.
If in a hot homebuilt you are way past Vne and dead.
T&B and TC are dampened. (damped ). They should
not be dampened. Too much dampening (damping) they
are useless for recovery because of the lag. If they don't
have enough damping they are useless because they
are flopping around with any yaw or turbulence.
The damping is regulated by the commisioning authority.
Too much damping is like too much TNT.
I appreciate Bob's old school attitude, but I have been
teaching in aviation for over 20 years and I know the
skills of mere mortals, typical pilots. They respond and
consistently perform better with an attitude display not
a yaw display. Many old time pilots have died trying
to fly after the Vac pump failed. - particularly when the AI
is VAC-driven. The history of real partial plane with real
pilots in real IMC is poor.
I appreciates Bob's pride in being able to fly needle ball
and airspeed. I can do it too. However if you have not
done it, for real in turbulence or IMC in a small home
built with natural roll stability, sensitive control and a
low drag configuration that builds speed very fast when
pointed down hill, I think we would all want a back-up
ATTITUDE indicator. Not the point.
Yaw is great but a picture of you wings being level is
more important or priceless as they commercial says.
Wrong. Those of us properly trained can loop your
aircraft without a joystick or wheel.
With the advent of cheap battery powered ATTITUDE
indicators I think the day of T&B or TC only back up
are gone. Wrong. "Which" is the topic......
Now if you want to practice "partial panel" I suggest
you find a good safety pilot who knows their (his/her )
job, safety and looking for traffic. Get a Francis IFR hood,
http://www.ifrhood.com/ ,
not an el-cheepo foggles or plastic visor. Use some
tape and cardboard paper and blank out areas of the
canopy you might cheat, peripheral or straight ahead,
but don't block the safety pilots view. Not the topic.
Best practice is at night over sparsely populated area.
Also a good idea is get ATC flight following for your
practice. Now do partial panel unusual attitude recovery.
Look down at the floor and let the safety pilot roll the
pitch the plane, who than will give it back to you as you
look up to the panel. If you can recover consistently
than good. Most (untrained) will not with just a T&B.
With an attitude indicator everyone will recover with a little
practice. Not the topic. With just a T&B your chance of
getting it level is limited. (by lack of trainung). Never let the
speed get to Vne. The safety pilot should take over early.
There is no need to push it. Of course the safety pilot
must have enough currency in type and visual clues to
recover safely. Is this instruction by website?
I am not talking about training that is so over the top
that no one can survive. I am talking about real training
that is realistic that gives you a real indication of your
ability to fly and recover IMC partial panel. Not the topic.
A Cessna you can almost just let go and it will almost
recover. A hot home built forget it; they have the stability
of a jet fighter. There was a time when more military
fighters where were lost to IFR accidents than lost due to
combat. Still probably so - the first sample is greater.
That is my point. Don't cheat forget the T&B and TC if
you really want a back up. It's 2006; there are many
backup attitude indicators available for less than $1000.
They are all electric but so is a T&B or TC.
These are my opinions after 1000 hours teaching GA
and airline pilots in planes and simulators. Get some
time in.
I am NOT saying you CAN'T fly with just a T&B but that
is ONLY and indirect indication of wing level. I don't think
I will get an argument that an ACTUAL indication of WING
level is better than an old fashion yaw indicator. I do
think it still has a place in the panel, but be realistic
in you ability to save the say with JUST a T&B. Not
the topic.
Cheers George M. RV-4/RV-7 ATP, CFI-CFII-MEI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Yes but only one not two...You need a strap between the block and the
grounding point on the firewall.
Apart from potential (electrical joke ...get it..:)..) of ground loops
making noise on your radios, there is a smal risk of sending high
current though unpleasant places...Like bearings in your engine. It is
possible to arc weld your bearings to the crank!
Needless to say this is not good!
Even though your meter may say you have continuity its really not
sensitive enough for the low volts/high current situation of when you
engage the starter.
A short length of #2 welding cable (nice and flexible) is all that is
required.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
& Denise
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 4:37 AM
-->
If I get continuity between my ground block and all unpainted parts of
the engine, do I still need to run 2 ground wires specifically for the
engine?
Steve
RV7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Disorientation. Was: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual |
attitude)
Good Morning Rodney,
Since you are not an experienced IFR pilot, may I suggest that you wait a
while before you make a firm decision on what will and what will not work for
you?
As to flight without an attitude gyro, it was done all of the time before
the WWII boys came home from the wars. Up until about 1956 , the CAA would not
allow the use of an attitude gyro or a directional gyro during the conduct of
an instrument check ride.
My first two Bonanzas did not have attitude gyros. They did have directional
gyros and that was a much bigger aid than was the attitude gyro. I was a
chicken even back in those days and I did add an electric T&B to the factory
installed vacuum powered unit.
There is no doubt that it IS easier to fly IFR with an attitude gyro. Such
gyros had been available almost as long as had the rate of turn gyros. However,
they were very expensive and quite unreliable. Even from the very beginning
of IFR flight, the T&B had proven to be extremely reliable.
During WWII, it was decided that the military services would equip all of
their airplanes with a "Full Panel" It was much easier to teach "attitude"
instrument flying that it was to teach "rate" instrument flying. Rate instrument
flying continued to be taught, but only as a back up emergency technique to
be used when attitude instruments failed. It was then titled "Partial Panel".
Many such simplifications of training were used during WWII. It was
necessary to get the pilots over the target in the shortest amount of time possible.
It was also hoped that they would be capable of getting themselves, their
crew and the aircraft home if something went wrong, but the major effort was
directed at getting the pilots adequately trained in the shortest amount of time
possible. Many fine points of aviation were skipped over at the time.
It was called War time Expediency Flight Training.
It worked very well. We did win the war! (Not me, I was only fifteen when it
was over.)
Our industry is still suffering from some of the Old Wives Tales that
developed due to that shortened training period, but I am digressing from the
IFR
discussion.
When those folks who did win the war came home, the ones that had found a
proficiency at, and a love for, aviation became the teachers and the regulators
of the rest of us. It was realized that it had taken much less time to train
IFR pilots using the attitude method. It was also noted that attitude gyro
instruments were becoming more reliable.
By 1956, it was decided that attitude instruments would be required for all
IFR flight. That meant that the training time could be reduced and more pilots
would fly IFR.
I HAD to add an attitude gyro to my Bonanza so that I could continue to fly
it IFR in the manner that I, and many others, had been doing for several
years using rate instruments.
I am not a particularly competent pilot nor have I ever been the Ace of the
Base. I did start as a flight instructor in 1949 and taught many people how to
fly IFR in the manner then required by the regulations. Some found it very
easy, other had to work at it a bit, but I never had a student that did not
eventually pass the test. When the FAA was formed and the full panel became a
requirement, we did manage to bring the applicants up to the new standards
faster than we had been able to do it using the older methods.
To shift gears here a moment. You mention that it is not rocket science to
determine which instrument has failed.
It may be simple for you and others who are blessed with rapid minds and
superior intuition, but many of the rest of us have found it difficult to do.
When our minds are telling us that we are sideways and our instruments are
telling us something else, we find it very difficult to reconcile the
situation.
I have found that many of us who have that problem find it easier to rely on
an instrument that tells us whether or not we are turning as against an
instrument that tells us whether or not our wings are level.
If I center the needle of a T&B, the turn will have been stopped.
If the turn is stopped, I will survive.
There are other instruments that can serve the same purpose, but most of
them will cause a conflict with my mind.
IF I have the needle centered, and, IF I have the ball in the middle, the
wings will be level, but IF my mind still says I am flying sideways and that I
am turning, I can just leave that feeling alone. I do not have to fight it or
try to make it feel that I am level. As long as the needle is in the center
and the ball is in the center, my mind can be telling me anything it wants to
and I do not care. After a few moments of flight in that manner, most of us
will find that our mind accepts the truth.
I do feel that we should be able to build an instrument that will do the job
better and easier with modern technology, but I have not yet found one that
is as cheap and reliable as is the T&B.
There are very few attitude gyros that are completely non tumbling. Most,
even the most modern ones, still tumble during an upset. The ones used by the
airlines as a backup instrument are priced between twenty-five and fifty -five
thousand dollars. Well out of my reach. And I do not know if they can be
tumbled or not! Probably not.
Even then, I am not sure they would help me to recover from a spin if I
should inadvertently get in one. The T&B works great for that purpose. The TC
may
or may not help in spin recovery, it is dependent on the degree of flatness
involved in the spin.
I have very little experience in spin recovery using a TC, but experts have
told me that it does not work as consistently as does the T&B. Fortunately
or unfortunately, we don't do much spin training while IFR anymore!
I recognize that this disjointed discourse has become far too long. I wish
I had the time to get it better organized, but that time is not available
just now.
The main point I hope to get across to you is if you should ever find
yourself in a situation where you may have some confusion as to which way is up,
the choice of instrumentation to trust may be difficult.
JFK Jr and Carnahan both had working attitude gyros and they both died. Both
also had a considerable amount of training using the instrumentation which
they did have available.
One final point.
A failure of an altitude gyro is often very insidious, it just starts to get
the leans. If you make a correction for that "lean", it looks perfectly
normal. However, you will find that your rate instruments start to disagree with
the attitude instruments. That is the point at which confusion has it's chance
to take hold.
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 6/22/2006 6:39:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com writes:
As for tie breaker... Well, it's the same ole same ole. ASI, ALT and VSI for
pitch info. TC (or T&B) and DG for bank info. If the lights are out, don't
trust the electric stuff. If the suction gauge says kaplooey, don't trust
the vacuum Stuff. If you've got an electric AND a vacuum AI, you go with the
one that agrees with whichever system is operational and cover up the other
one. This isn't rocket surgery!
I think the tie breakers for this discussion are the NTSB reports. How many
times have we read that the pilot and passengers were killed when the plane
broke up in flight soon after the AI went tits up? That pilot was surely
trained in partial panel ops but when the chips were down, he couldn't
handle the situation and his victims paid the price for his penny pinching
in IMC. If you can afford to fly IFR, you can afford a back-up AI.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engine grounds |
Steve,
I couldn't agree more. Just imagine putting the starter current through
your throttle and mixture cables! That voltage had to be dropped somewhere.
The second ground is to prevent this just in case the first one opens up for
any reason.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 6/22/2006 8:42:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A"
Steve,
Just getting continuity doesn't mean it will handle the amperage
required - especially for starting. My son (also building a 7A) tried
cranking his engine before installing his grounds, and it barely turned
over. Once he installed the grounds, it spun like a top. Also, without
dedicated grounding, your engine instrumentation could potentially be
intermittent or inaccurate, and difficult to diagnose.
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A Fuselage
If I get continuity between my ground block and all unpainted parts of
the
engine, do I still need to run 2 ground wires specifically for the
engine?
Steve
RV7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
Bob and Matt:
Good points, I'll address, Bob first.
>posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>
>JFK Jr and Carnahan both had operative Attitude Indicators available.
>Skill with either an attitude indicator, a T&B or a TC would also have
>saved their lives.
>
>My reason for having the T&Bs in my panel has to do with cost,
>reliability and availability.
>
>I totally disagree with your premise that an attitude indicator is
>"best" or "better".
Bob:
You make good points and each to his own.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think an AI is far
superior to staying alive in IMC than just needle ball, airspeed.
I DID IT ONCE, for real, IMC and it was not fun. I have 100's hrs
practicing partial panel as pilot and instructor. It is one thing to
be VFR under a hood and another to be in the soup with no
attitude/DG gyros. Even a DG would be better than a T&B.
May be your Bonanza V35B is super stable and easy to fly.
A C-182 flys it self. However stats show people don't do so
good (dead) just on a T&B for real. This not only my opinion
but what I observe and what the NTSB stats show. COST is not
a good reason to scrimp on a good back-up. I am just being
realistic.
You may have supreme confidence in your partial panel ability.
You should, because your life and life of your passengers
depend on it as PIC, Captain. As a pilot I owe my passengers
the best I can give them. That is why I don't fly IFR in single
engine planes, single pilot, with vacuum pumps and a sole
T&B for a back up and no autopilot. Just too much can go
wrong.
I flew 100's of hours of solid actual as a CFII with students,
in the foggy, rainy low stratus North West, in basic low tech
C-172's. I also have supreme confidence in my skill, but as
I get older, I see the limitations and CHOOSE not to take the
risk. Why do it? It is your choice as PIC and plane owner to
make your decisions on the level of safety you want to operate.
You can improve your IFR safety with:
-Trainning
-Currency
-Autopilot
- and a good independant back-up AI source.
If outfitting my RV-7 for IFR flight my back-up will be an AI.
You are going with the tried and true T&B back-up, great, but
just because it's the old way of doing it, does not make it good.
We have the technology for relatively cheap electronic gyro
back-ups, ranging in price from $500-$2200.
No ego; no I CAN FLY ANY plane and the crate it came in,
stuff. Just a realistic understanding of the limitation of partial
flight under actual conditions with real GA pilots.
You can deny it, but I challenge you to get real unusual attitude
training under the hood with partial panel. I have seen pilots roll
the plane inverted, over correct an go almost vertical in pitch and
so on. There ARE limitations to that instrument you put your
faith in. IT is not the be all end all, the AI is. Survival almost
is a matter of not only skill but luck. If a pilot can not do
aerobatics VFR, the certainty are unlikely to recover from an
extreme attitude with just a T&B, slip/skid ball, airspeed and
altimeter. It can be done, but it is unlikely.
The T&B. It worked for decades and is a good cross check, but
as a stand alone solo gyro to fly with, it is marginal in practice.
That is my story and I am sticking to it. Good night and good luck.
>posted by: "Matt Prather"
>
>In practice, if the 2 AI's disagree, how does the pilot break
> the tie (an issue Bruce Gray has raised)? With a panel that
> has a T&B and single (AI), if there's conflict, no flag on the
> T&B, and the T&B wiggles, the T&B wins.
Matt the answer is the fundamentals of instrument scan:
- Cross Check
- Interpret
- Control
If one AI says right turn and climbing
The other, second AI, says nose low left turn
The airspeed is increasing
The DG or heading shows a left turn
The second wins
If the opposite is happening,
the first (AI) wins.
Remember primary secondary instruments
or Controlling and monitoring. It is not a big deal.
There is no substitute for a good scan, understanding what it
means (rate, change, direction) and control.
My point is an Attitude Indication (AI) is better than a T&B or TC.
I agree for the cheap a T&B / TC is useful. However if choosing
an independant backup to my EFIS, which is what started this
whole thing, I want a second AI and don't want to just count on
a T&B. Cost is not a driving factor, if I am going to take on the
serious business of flying IFR.
Here are some suggestions:
http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&did=19&product_id=7439
read the sales pitch but they do have a point
http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&did=19&product_id=7439#desc
There are a dozen of these electronic Attitude indicators that
would make excellent back-ups ($500-$2200)
http://www.flynavgps.com/egyro.htm
http://www.pcflightsystems.com/pcefis.html
http://www.pcflightsystems.com/products.html
http://www.pcflightsystems.com/egyro.html
http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/elitesupport.php
http://www.dynondevelopment.com/docs/EFIS_intro.html
http://www.xbow.com/General_info/gyro_guide.htm#display
http://www.aveousa.com/avionics/instruments/aveoMax/assets/HRS-3,4.jpg
http://www.aveousa.com/avionics/instruments/aveoMax/index.php
(5th item from bottom)
Mechanical gyros wear out, need repair. Do aerobatics with
your mech gyros, vacume or electric, does not matter, do you
think it's wise to fly IMC with those same mechanical gyros
you have just been ringing out doing acro?
A NEW TC with plug is about $600! Are you going to get
a bargain basement WWII T&B or some Chinese made one
to save your life? Get a solid state AI with battery power.
Cheers George
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B (OLD GYROS) |
I forgot, here is a good alternative to a T&B or TC.
http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ttfsinstruments.html
-Bank angle is instantaneous gyro data.
-Pitch is gyro enhanced vertical speed.
-Direction is an electronic DG showing track.
-Solid state rate for gyros for pitch and roll
-Built in GPS (optional)
-Backup battery (optional) 12-28 volts
-Extreme bank angle flashing red arrows indicate required stick-motion to correct
unusual attitude.
-Low airspeed warning is enunciated by
flashing A-S on the display.
$1100 (add $250 for self contained GPS and battery options)
Now consider this from the junk bin at the airshow
http://www.astory.com/aircraft/instrument/3696.JPG
I am being a little toung in cheek, but if you want a NEW
modern TC or T&B from a good manufacture you need to
shell out almost $800.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/in/turnbankindicators.html
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/in/turncoordinators.html
The Falcon for $352 will last how long..................?
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Treff, Arthur" <Arthur.Treff(at)smartm.com> |
| Subject: | Farraday cage for power distribution? |
I've got a wire routing question for the list.
Three connections are on the battery side of the starter solenoid on the
firewall:
1) 2AWG from the battery solenoid in the rear of the aircraft.
2) 4AWG from the primary alternator output.
3) 2AWG going aft to power the fuse blocks located behind the instrument
panel.
The whole ship has been wired, fuse blocks, single point ground, battery
cable, etc. I need to run the fuse block supply (#3 above) and the best
route to the fuse blocks behind the instrument panel will put the supply
cable right behind the avionics stack, running parallel to the rear of
the radio trays, specifically the Garmin 430. Is this OK? Would it be
OK if I constructed some sort of Farraday shield out of copper pipe and
a ground wire? I did a google search and searched the Matronics
archives, but can't see if anyone's covered this. Thanks for your help.
Art Treff
Asheville, NC
N666AT RV-8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | IFR backup (T&B or TC) |
Will you please stop discussing this off topic (remember - aeroelectric
list) which has gone far beyond any reasonable length.
Yeah, I know, I can always hit the DEL key, but I'm getting tired doing it,
and everybody's point are now very much clear
Thanks
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lee.logan(at)gulfstream.com |
| Subject: | Comant VOR/GS antennas |
Is it possible to mount blade antennas under the fiberglass wingtips on an
otherwise all aluminum aircraft and get good electronic performance? They
would be separated by the wingspan of the aircraft which would be a wider
distance than is typical on a vertical fin installation, for example, but
otherwise could/would be horizontal and in the same plane. Could be
mounted on a plate against the outboard rib and oriented fore and aft, aft
of the nav/strobe/landing light complex.
Gotta be something here I don't know about?!!
Lee...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | IFR backup (T&B or TC) |
I strongly disagree! I find it very appropriate and informative.
This is exactly how we silence the people who know what they are talking
about. Asking people to quit posting is how to destroy a list. Considerate
people think you are speaking for everyone and clam up; the less thoughtful
ignore you and plow right ahead. The quality of the posts suffers.
When you subscribe to a newspaper or a magazine, do you complain when some
of the articles are not of interest to you, or do you pass them up for the
ones you subscribed for?
Terry
Will you please stop discussing this off topic (remember - aeroelectric
list) which has gone far beyond any reasonable length.
Yeah, I know, I can always hit the DEL key, but I'm getting tired doing it,
and everybody's point are now very much clear
Thanks
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Comant VOR/GS antennas |
>Is it possible to mount blade antennas under the fiberglass wingtips on an
>otherwise all aluminum aircraft and get good electronic performance?
If I understand your question correctly then yes, I believe that Bob Archer
used to offer a Nav antenna for this exact configuration.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harold" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR backup (T&B or TC) |
This may be off topic, but the discussion I believe, invaluable for
inexperienced folk like me.
I'm starting to think about my panel, and tho' I'm a VFR pilot, this
discussion has preved helpful has given me much to ponder during my
planning. I have the option to read,use or discard what doesn't work for
me....but it is helpful, and thanks to all the contributors.
Harold, RV-9 fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Farraday cage for power distribution? |
>
>
>I've got a wire routing question for the list.
>
>Three connections are on the battery side of the starter solenoid on the
>firewall:
>
>1) 2AWG from the battery solenoid in the rear of the aircraft.
plenty big . . .
>2) 4AWG from the primary alternator output.
plenty big too . . .
>3) 2AWG going aft to power the fuse blocks located behind the instrument
>panel.
A bit too much. Consider that full load on the fuse block
will not exceed rating of alternator and is generally limited
by design to something on the order of 75 to 80 percent of
rating. If you have a 40A alternator, #8 is good, a 60A alternator
would prompt a #6 bus feeder.
>
>The whole ship has been wired, fuse blocks, single point ground, battery
>cable, etc. I need to run the fuse block supply (#3 above) and the best
>route to the fuse blocks behind the instrument panel will put the supply
>cable right behind the avionics stack, running parallel to the rear of
>the radio trays, specifically the Garmin 430. Is this OK?
Beats me. Many a high current, fat wire has been run along side
potential victims with no observable effects . . .but then
there are fat wires that DO couple alternator noise into
vulnerable wires when given the opportunity.
The rule of thumb is not to have fat power wires and
small signal wires share spaces. There's no guarantee
that it's necessary but I prefer to eliminate the
possibility of problems by observing the rules.
> Would it be
>OK if I constructed some sort of Farraday shield out of copper pipe and
>a ground wire? I did a google search and searched the Matronics
>archives, but can't see if anyone's covered this. Thanks for your help.
Why not drop the feeder to 6 or 8 awg and re route it? Save
weight and hassles to boot while eliminating the potential
for problems by design.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Disorientation. |
In a message dated 6/22/2006 6:35:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com writes:
You mentioned training and proficiency. I submit that that is indeed the
weak link in the NTSB reports scenario and the number 1 reason to backup
with an AI. We simply must take into account the human factor. If we can
design in a better backup, why on Earth wouldn't we??? It simply is not
reasonable to expect human males to stay proficient at partial panel flying
when they all just KNOW that they'll never need that skill. So much easier
to slip an EFIS into that extra 3.25" hole and everybody lives long and
prospers :o)
Rodney (wet behind the ears whipper snapper) in Tennessee
Good Evening Rodney,
If you will check back on what I have written, you will note that I often
mention that we should be getting something better than the T&B. The problem
is, so far, nothing has been approved.
I also realize that an experimental airplane may not require an approved
unit. Nevertheless, if I am going to hang my life on the instrumentation, I want
it to be quite reliable. I do not have any experience with any of the GA
style EFIS units. I did fly the glass cockpit in the 767 when it first came on
the scene. I am strongly in favor of all such improvements.
I particularly like the Dynon unit, but I have been told that it does not,
as yet, meet the requirements of a certified set. Something about high rates of
rotation making it lose a signal? That may be way off base.
I do have an idea for a unit that I feel will be better than the T&B.
Unfortunately, I have neither the expertise or the financial capability to make
any
appropriate tests.
However, a bigger concern is determining the failure of a standard attitude
instrument. What will happen to a solid state unit is beyond my knowledge.
If you have two attitude instruments, choosing the one that is failing is not
as simple as it may seem. Even if you have three of them and the one that
fails is the one you are using, it is quite likely that your mind will be
somewhat out of synch before you discover the failure. If control of the aircraft
is
to be maintained, the pilot must make a very rapid decision and take action
that will eliminate the offending instrument from use. The more experienced
pilot has a tougher job disregarding the failed instruments indication than
does a low time pilot. The problem has to do with our habit patterns. If we are
devoting all of our attention to keeping the airplane right side up, things
work quite well. However, as soon as we try to tune a radio or make any other
manipulation, our habits take over and a correction is likely to be made
based on what the failed unit is telling us. The easiest answer is to cover the
offending instrument. That gets rid of the unit that is providing false
information.
It is easiest to fly strictly needle, ball, and airspeed if there is no
other attitude instrumentation in the airplane. I have never flown an attitude
gyro that would not tumble. If there is such a thing, I suppose it would be
acceptable. I imagine the solid state units currently used as backup by the
aircarriers are non tumbling, but the ones we had when I was gainfully employed
would tumble. In any case, you really do need a backup in which you have
absolute confidence.
There is not time to make evaluations and choices. Both JFK Jr and Carnahan
went from somewhere around seven thousand feet to dead within forty-five
seconds. Both had fully operative attitude indications available. Carnahan had
an
instrument rating and a knowledgeable, though not IFR current, copilot.
If you have an autopilot to fly the airplane, that is obviously the best,
but you will have very little time to make a decision to engage it. For complete
safety, it would have to be used as is the stability unit in an airbus. It
needs to be controlling the airplane full time.
Whatever unit you decide to use as your last ditch survival capability, you
must know how to use it and be able to immediately have full confidence that
what it is telling you is correct.
I have had the pleasure of using a T&B for recoveries when I was inverted,
in spins, in grave yard spirals and in fully stalled configurations. If the
needle is wiggling, I trust it. Whatever you choose must instill as much trust
in you as to your ability to recover the aircraft by it's use as I have
developed trust in the T&B.
I hope for a modern replacement, I just have not yet seen one.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Disorientation. |
On Jun 22, 2006, at 9:30 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> I particularly like the Dynon unit, but I have been told that it
> does not,
> as yet, meet the requirements of a certified set. Something about
> high rates of
> rotation making it lose a signal? That may be way off base.
Not so far off-base Bob. All of the AHRS being used in various PFDs
use solid-state rate gyros. Since these are rate gyros like the T&B,
they cannot tumble.
Each AHRS has three rate gyros for pitch, roll, and yaw. Since a rate
gyro cannot tell its initial position, i.e. which way is up, the AHRS
incorporates three accelerometers. If the airplane is not
accelerating at all, then there will be 1G sensed by the
accelerometers. If the vector sum of the accelerations in all three
axes has a magnitude of 1G then the "brain" knows that the airplane
is not accelerating and the direction of the acceleration must be
"up". That is then used to "erect" the gyro.
Once "up" has been determined the rate information will let you
determine a new attitude. For instance, if the roll gyro senses a 10
degree/sec rate of roll for three seconds then the airplane must be
in a 30 degree bank.
But like all rate gyros, there is a maximum rate which may be sensed.
Even the TC and T&B have this problem. Eventually the rate of yaw can
get high enough that the needle is "pinned". An increase in yaw rate
is not displayed on the T&C because the needle cannot move any
farther. Solid state rate gyros have this same problem. If the rate
is too high the gyro will indicate maximum rate even though that is
not the correct rate. The "brain" does not sense the correct rate so
it gets more and more behind. Now it no longer knows which way is
"up". Since roll rates usually can exceed pitch or yaw rates, roll is
usually the limiting factor.
Note that if, at any time, the airplane stops accelerating, even for
a fraction of a second, the "brain" can use the accelerometer data to
"reset" and "erect" the gyro.
Does this help?
BTW, I am going to try to talk my FSDO into letting me install a
Dynon D-10 in the panel of my Aztec as an "extra" instrument without
removing any of the stanard "six-pack". It strikes me as it would
make a dandy backup to the iron gyros.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
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-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Scratched Cad plating? |
I hope not too off List topic.
When you scratch or mar Cad plating on steel hardware and parts, any
suggestions how to get back some or all protection once assembled?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Garmin 296 - Dynon D10A T+B (or TC)? |
I have been following the thread bout the difference between a TC and T+B.
On the panel page of a Garmin 296, does the little aeroplane with wings
give information close to a T+B (or TC)?
On a Dynon D10A they have a Primary function called Turn Rate, is the
information given close to a T+B (or TC)?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Panel Layout |
Hello Paul
"I know that my thoughts and questions require speculative answers, but I
would appreciate some input from the forum"
For what its worth here is what I am doing for my VFR Europa:
****SIRS Compass
****Winter ASI
****Dynon D10A primarily for AH, Turn rate, DG and VSI (along with Vario)
and ball (along with illuminated mechanical ball)
****Sensitive TSOed Altimeter
****Ilec Vario with 1 second and 3 second switch, and switch for Total
Energy or static
****Illuminated mechanical ball
****Panel mounted Garmin 296 that will probably mutilate and void the
warrenty but get a switch on control stick to allow easy toggle to panel
page
I had a 1948 Cessna 170 with a venturi, and old style AH with no inop
flag, and a electric turn and bank. After owning the plane for 15 years,
flying a good amount at night, not IFR rated and years since practice
partial panel I took off at night from Lebanin NH. Great visibility, high
cloud deck, blackest night I have ever experienced, no lights, no horizon
and at 200 feet I was fighting to keep from rolling upside down. I knew I
had plane trimmed for take off and something was really wrong. I knew
plane well and fooled hard when first got it. Let go of controls, unless
something aerodynamic changed, I knew plane would fly, then according to
AH was past 90 degrees, got worst case of spatial disorientation ever, but
Airspeed and climb was good in free flight mode, and I practiced my plan
long ago just to add right rudder enough to keep ball reasonable centered,
and make sure compass was not turning too fast. After 1000 feet AGL
determined that the AH failed, just when I needed it most. I took it apart
and the bearings decided at that very moment to drag up just a bit. There
is a lot to be said for a airplane that will fly like a big free flight
model, and for planes that are not inherent stable, Bobs idea of making
them that way is a good one.
Good luck
Ron P.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 296 - Dynon D10A T+B (or TC)? |
On 23 Jun 2006, at 02:55,
wrote:
>
> I have been following the thread bout the difference between a TC
> and T+B.
>
> On the panel page of a Garmin 296, does the little aeroplane with
> wings
> give information close to a T+B (or TC)?
>
> On a Dynon D10A they have a Primary function called Turn Rate, is the
> information given close to a T+B (or TC)?
>
I believe the Garmin 296 just looks at the rate of change of the GPS
track, and then if the track is changing it will bank the little
airplane symbol. It would be interesting to see what it showed in a
spin, where the aircraft track was essentially straight down.
The Dynon Turn rate function is somewhat similar to a T+B. But, if
any of the measured rates (i.e. pitch rate, roll yate or yaw rate) go
high enough the unit senses that the rate gyros may have been
saturated. Then it changes the display to sort of a grey on black to
tell you that it is no longer really sure what the attitude is. The
turn rate bar might be harder to see if this happens, as it might in
a spin.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Garmin 296 - Dynon D10A T+B (or TC)? |
Good Morning Ron,
The information given on the 296 is strictly yaw in relation to the ground
track, not the heading.
I believe Garmin made a mistake when they made it look like a TC because it
will NOT show roll. Showing a T&B needle would have been closer, but it
would still not be correct. I doubt very much that it would be of any use for
a
recovery from a spin. It may or may not be usable for a recovery from a well
developed grave yard spiral.
I have done flight testing using no other instrumentation other than the
handheld GPS Garmin 196, 295 and 296. the tests were conducted in a late model
Bonanza. All instruments were covered by placing a blanket over my head so that
nothing could be seen except the handheld.
The safety pilot then put the airplane in as extreme attitudes as he felt
were safe. We found that I had little trouble bringing the airplane back to a
designated altitude and heading.
Please recognize that I do maintain reasonable proficiency in normal partial
panel flight and I was flying an airplane with which I am very familiar.
\While I had no skid - slip indication other than the seat of my pants, I
did use that sense as well as I could.
I found the 296 to be the easiest to use. All three were usable, but I have
doubts as to how well I would do if the aircraft was really in trouble and I
had already lost my equilibrium before I went to the handheld. I do believe it
would be fairly easy to handle a situation where I was on top and needed to
descend through an overcast or one where the failure was noted in time to
revert to the backup before control was lost.
I think it would have been better if Garmin had shown a picture of an
airplane being looked down upon. It would turn right or left from straight ahead
when turning and be pointing straight to the top when no yaw of the ground
track existed. That would eliminate any conflict with a false sense of where up
is located and yet would allow the turn to be stopped which is what will save
your life.
I have no knowledge of how the DYNON works. Based on the excellent
information Brian Lloyd gave us, I would say it would be usable as long as no
unusual
roll, pitch or yaw rates had been encountered prior to the loss of other
reference.
I will keep my T&B for a while more!
PS I do wish to emphasize that I think anyone who does not feel completely
comfortable using a T&B for a back up instrument should plan on taking fifteen
to twenty hours of training from an instructor who does champion the
instrument to gain reasonable proficiency.
I also believe that it should be used in the pilot's everyday instrument
scan.
The FARs still tell us that we should be checking the rate of turn for every
turn we make while IFR. When maneuvering in an airspace of restricted
dimension (i.e. during an approach) we are supposed to make standard rate turns
with a limitation on bank that is dependent on whether the airplane is being
hand flown or flown using an autopilot/flight director system. Without checking
the FARs. I believe the maximum angle required to be used is thirty degrees
for hand flown and twenty-seven for most autopilot/flight director systems.
By including the T&B in normal IFR flight to check whether or not a standard
rate is being used, the instrument is constantly being monitored and any
failure of either the T&B or the attitude instrument will be readily apparent.
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 6/23/2006 3:48:27 A.M. Central Standard Time,
rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us writes:
On the panel page of a Garmin 296, does the little aeroplane with wings
give information close to a T+B (or TC)?
On a Dynon D10A they have a Primary function called Turn Rate, is the
information given close to a T+B (or TC)?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Disorientation. |
In a message dated 6/23/2006 7:10:25 A.M. Central Standard Time,
rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com writes:
Rodney (still wet behind his IFR ears) in Tennessee
Good Morning Rodney,
I really do appreciate your efforts at analyzing the problems, but I do not
believe you fully comprehend the trouble some of us get into when orientation
is lost.
My knowledge of almost everything is limited, but I do know how it feels
when I get the wrong idea as to where up is located.
My contention is that we need to emphasize that the turn needs to be
stopped. The rest can be sorted out later when the mind is back to normal. Your
mind is probably much more competent than is mine.
I know how confused I can get.
By concentrating on nothing other than stopping the turn, I have been able
to survive.
It is my non scientifically analyzed firm belief that JFK Jr and Carnahan
were both very intelligent and well rounded personalities. If you have knowledge
of their human frailties, you have knowledge beyond any that I have now or
will ever attain.
Had they gone to a last ditch mode of stopping the turn until their minds
settled down, I THINK they would have survived, but there is no doubt that I
could be very wrong!
I totally disagree with your analysis that Complacency played a part in
either situation.
Lack of PROPER training and practice played a MAJOR role.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sid Hausding <avidsid(at)yahoo.com> |
Old Bob,
I do believe you have missed the point here..........with all due respect, Rod
has put the situation into perspective, and may actually be relating some of
his own experience(s)!
No one will ever know what those two pilots were going through, but the known
facts and with radars tapes to show the 'classic' symtoms.....its quite easy
to see how the 'accidents' came to happen. Not nice to see, but clearly something
we all must learn and remember as ever evolving and learning pilots.
Not trying to out vote you here, but we have to stick to the criteria for judging
these cases..........staying alert to the changing environment as we fly
is the training and learned lessons for all of us, complacency allows us to forget,
ignore, or just overrule our best intentions and training.
Believe your instruments, not the seat of your pants, if, by chance, you should
find yourself in something like they did.
Can I get a ride in your Stearman?
Sid
Alpena, Mi
N204S
--------------------------------
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/23/2006 7:10:25 A.M. Central Standard Time, rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com
writes:
Rodney (still wet behind his IFR ears) in Tennessee
Good Morning Rodney,
I really do appreciate your efforts at analyzing the problems, but I do not believe
you fully comprehend the trouble some of us get into when orientation is
lost.
My knowledge of almost everything is limited, but I do know how it feels when
I get the wrong idea as to where up is located.
My contention is that we need to emphasize that the turn needs to be stopped.
The rest can be sorted out later when the mind is back to normal. Your mind
is probably much more competent than is mine.
I know how confused I can get.
By concentrating on nothing other than stopping the turn, I have been able to
survive.
It is my non scientifically analyzed firm belief that JFK Jr and Carnahan were
both very intelligent and well rounded personalities. If you have knowledge
of their human frailties, you have knowledge beyond any that I have now or will
ever attain.
Had they gone to a last ditch mode of stopping the turn until their minds settled
down, I THINK they would have survived, but there is no doubt that I could
be very wrong!
I totally disagree with your analysis that Complacency played a part in either
situation.
Lack of PROPER training and practice played a MAJOR role.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
"Why can't we all just get along?"
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Sports Fantasy Football 06 - Go with the leader. Start your league today!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Disorientation. |
In a message dated 6/23/2006 8:59:26 A.M. Central Standard Time,
avidsid(at)yahoo.com writes:
I do believe you have missed the point here..........
Here I must disagree. What has happened is that I have failed to make my
point.
If either of those unfortunate souls had stopped the turn, they would have
survived.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 296 - Dynon D10A T+B (or TC)? |
On Jun 23, 2006, at 2:55 AM,
wrote:
>
> I have been following the thread bout the difference between a TC
> and T+B.
>
> On the panel page of a Garmin 296, does the little aeroplane with
> wings
> give information close to a T+B (or TC)?
>
> On a Dynon D10A they have a Primary function called Turn Rate, is the
> information given close to a T+B (or TC)?
It is going to be rate-of-turn, just like a T&B. The only problem is,
it is not a separate function from the vertical gyro function (AI).
If any one of the three rate gyros fail or any one of the
accelerometers fail, *all* of the gyro functions fail. So if
something goes wrong with your Dynon you have to expect to lose *all*
of the gyro functions. You are going to want some sort of backup gyro
or perhaps a second D-10 on the other side of the panel.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brianl at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
"Five percent of the people think.
Ten percent of the people think they think.
Eighty-five percent of the people would rather die than think."
---Thomas A. Edison
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
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-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
Brain,
Something that I think needs to be mentioned here is that, according to my
understanding my Bluemountain EFIS/one and some other solid state AHRS
systems use GPS as an input to in a sense keep the AHRS honest. I looked for
but couldn't find the discussions about how this works.
Terry
RV-8A with BMA efis/one finishing
Seattle
Each AHRS has three rate gyros for pitch, roll, and yaw. Since a rate
gyro cannot tell its initial position, i.e. which way is up, the AHRS
incorporates three accelerometers. If the airplane is not
accelerating at all, then there will be 1G sensed by the
accelerometers. If the vector sum of the accelerations in all three
axes has a magnitude of 1G then the "brain" knows that the airplane
is not accelerating and the direction of the acceleration must be
"up". That is then used to "erect" the gyro.
Once "up" has been determined the rate information will let you
determine a new attitude. For instance, if the roll gyro senses a 10
degree/sec rate of roll for three seconds then the airplane must be
in a 30 degree bank.
But like all rate gyros, there is a maximum rate which may be sensed.
Even the TC and T&B have this problem. Eventually the rate of yaw can
get high enough that the needle is "pinned". An increase in yaw rate
is not displayed on the T&C because the needle cannot move any
farther. Solid state rate gyros have this same problem. If the rate
is too high the gyro will indicate maximum rate even though that is
not the correct rate. The "brain" does not sense the correct rate so
it gets more and more behind. Now it no longer knows which way is
"up". Since roll rates usually can exceed pitch or yaw rates, roll is
usually the limiting factor.
Note that if, at any time, the airplane stops accelerating, even for
a fraction of a second, the "brain" can use the accelerometer data to
"reset" and "erect" the gyro.
Does this help?
BTW, I am going to try to talk my FSDO into letting me install a
Dynon D-10 in the panel of my Aztec as an "extra" instrument without
removing any of the stanard "six-pack". It strikes me as it would
make a dandy backup to the iron gyros.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
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-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brett Ferrell <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
Terry,
This has been true with the BMA products, but apparently the latest generation
does not do this.
http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/talk/showpost.php?p=9447&postcount=10
Brett
Quoting Terry Watson :
>
> Brain,
>
> Something that I think needs to be mentioned here is that, according to my
> understanding my Bluemountain EFIS/one and some other solid state AHRS
> systems use GPS as an input to in a sense keep the AHRS honest. I looked for
> but couldn't find the discussions about how this works.
>
> Terry
> RV-8A with BMA efis/one finishing
> Seattle
>
>
>
>
> Each AHRS has three rate gyros for pitch, roll, and yaw. Since a rate
> gyro cannot tell its initial position, i.e. which way is up, the AHRS
> incorporates three accelerometers. If the airplane is not
> accelerating at all, then there will be 1G sensed by the
> accelerometers. If the vector sum of the accelerations in all three
> axes has a magnitude of 1G then the "brain" knows that the airplane
> is not accelerating and the direction of the acceleration must be
> "up". That is then used to "erect" the gyro.
>
> Once "up" has been determined the rate information will let you
> determine a new attitude. For instance, if the roll gyro senses a 10
> degree/sec rate of roll for three seconds then the airplane must be
> in a 30 degree bank.
>
> But like all rate gyros, there is a maximum rate which may be sensed.
> Even the TC and T&B have this problem. Eventually the rate of yaw can
> get high enough that the needle is "pinned". An increase in yaw rate
> is not displayed on the T&C because the needle cannot move any
> farther. Solid state rate gyros have this same problem. If the rate
> is too high the gyro will indicate maximum rate even though that is
> not the correct rate. The "brain" does not sense the correct rate so
> it gets more and more behind. Now it no longer knows which way is
> "up". Since roll rates usually can exceed pitch or yaw rates, roll is
> usually the limiting factor.
>
> Note that if, at any time, the airplane stops accelerating, even for
> a fraction of a second, the "brain" can use the accelerometer data to
> "reset" and "erect" the gyro.
>
> Does this help?
>
> BTW, I am going to try to talk my FSDO into letting me install a
> Dynon D-10 in the panel of my Aztec as an "extra" instrument without
> removing any of the stanard "six-pack". It strikes me as it would
> make a dandy backup to the iron gyros.
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> 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-Exupry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Disorientation. |
Dear Old Bob,
It would be an honor to have you seated next to me showing me the ropes. I
know I'm a smart-a$$ kid wet behind the ears in such matters. I yield to
your experience and knowledge.
Rodney in Tennessee
dio not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org> |
| Subject: | Ammeter surge problem |
I am helping a friend with his RV and he is experiencing a strange problem.
When he hits the PTT button with the radio on, the ammeter shows a 30
amp surge! We are trying to figure out why.
Here are some relevant facts:
1. The radio works ok - transmission is clear and normal, the antenna
is installed and hooked up properly.
2. We put a hand held ammeter in series from the battery positive
cable to the battery post, and no such real surge is occurring -
all other components (like various lights) are showing a normal
current load. The radio shows a 1.3 amp load on receive, and a 3 amp
load or so on transmit - consistent with it's specified load rating.
3. The ammeter itself is a shunt type, the standard one that Van's
sells. It requires a separate power input to run the meter - I am
guessing that there is a circuit in there to compensate for a voltage
range across the shunt, but I am guessing about that. (It is not used
for internal lighting, that is yet another lead.) The shunt appears
to be installed ok.
4. The same ammeter shows normal current consumption for other things
like strobes, pos lights, etc.
5. All of this is done using only the aircraft battery. The engine
and alternator are not operating yet.
I kind of find it hard to believe that the RF is causing it, but we
are stumped.
Any ideas?
TIA,
Gary Liming
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter surge problem |
Hi, Gary!
Sounds to me like the sensitive ammeter is being swamped by the RF from
the transmitter, and that the RF carrier is somehow getting rectified
enough to create a small DC voltage across the shunt (which shows up as
a surge on the ammeter). Is there a solid state rectifier or regulator
somewhere in the RV's electrical system? It could be happening there.
I suppose there's a couple of things that might "fix" it.
1). You could trying relocating the offending antenna.
2). A small filter capacitor between the DC buss and ground might be
enough to kill the induced RF.
3). You could add a small label to the "Amps" one that says "and
Carrier Output".
Rick Lindstrom
Gary Liming wrote:
>
>
> I am helping a friend with his RV and he is experiencing a strange
> problem.
>
> When he hits the PTT button with the radio on, the ammeter shows a 30
> amp surge! We are trying to figure out why.
>
> Here are some relevant facts:
>
> 1. The radio works ok - transmission is clear and normal, the antenna
> is installed and hooked up properly.
>
> 2. We put a hand held ammeter in series from the battery positive
> cable to the battery post, and no such real surge is occurring - all
> other components (like various lights) are showing a normal current
> load. The radio shows a 1.3 amp load on receive, and a 3 amp load or
> so on transmit - consistent with it's specified load rating.
>
> 3. The ammeter itself is a shunt type, the standard one that Van's
> sells. It requires a separate power input to run the meter - I am
> guessing that there is a circuit in there to compensate for a voltage
> range across the shunt, but I am guessing about that. (It is not used
> for internal lighting, that is yet another lead.) The shunt appears to
> be installed ok.
>
> 4. The same ammeter shows normal current consumption for other things
> like strobes, pos lights, etc.
>
> 5. All of this is done using only the aircraft battery. The engine
> and alternator are not operating yet.
>
> I kind of find it hard to believe that the RF is causing it, but we
> are stumped.
>
> Any ideas?
>
>
> TIA,
>
> Gary Liming
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter surge problem |
On 23 Jun 2006, at 17:25, Gary Liming wrote:
>
>
> I am helping a friend with his RV and he is experiencing a strange
> problem.
>
> When he hits the PTT button with the radio on, the ammeter shows a
> 30 amp surge! We are trying to figure out why.
>
> Here are some relevant facts:
>
> 1. The radio works ok - transmission is clear and normal, the
> antenna is installed and hooked up properly.
>
> 2. We put a hand held ammeter in series from the battery positive
> cable to the battery post, and no such real surge is occurring -
> all other components (like various lights) are showing a normal
> current load. The radio shows a 1.3 amp load on receive, and a 3
> amp load or so on transmit - consistent with it's specified load
> rating.
>
> 3. The ammeter itself is a shunt type, the standard one that Van's
> sells. It requires a separate power input to run the meter - I am
> guessing that there is a circuit in there to compensate for a
> voltage range across the shunt, but I am guessing about that. (It
> is not used for internal lighting, that is yet another lead.) The
> shunt appears to be installed ok.
>
> 4. The same ammeter shows normal current consumption for other
> things like strobes, pos lights, etc.
>
> 5. All of this is done using only the aircraft battery. The engine
> and alternator are not operating yet.
>
> I kind of find it hard to believe that the RF is causing it, but we
> are stumped.
>
> Any ideas?
Since you have satisfied yourself that it is not a real current
spike, only a false indication, and it only happens when you
transmit, perhaps the best solution is simply to not look at the
ammeter when you transmit.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sid Hausding <avidsid(at)yahoo.com> |
they augered in, how does this have anything to do with turning...........wings
level you can still die, straight down.
shee................
Sid
write to me personally avidsid(at)yahoo.com I'm interested in your thought
process on this one.
------------------------------------enough, unless its more to the point of homebuilt
electrics.
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/23/2006 8:59:26 A.M. Central Standard Time, avidsid(at)yahoo.com
writes:
I do believe you have missed the point here..........
Here I must disagree. What has happened is that I have failed to make my point.
If either of those unfortunate souls had stopped the turn, they would have survived.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
"Why can't we all just get along?"
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
>posted by: Kelly McMullen
>
>In a spin, neither the DG nor the AI will tell you anything.
>Using turn coordinator and airspeed recovery was rather
>easy...easier than having a spinning earth out the windshield.
It has been fun debating. The T&B / TC camp has made a
great case for the T&B and I have a renewed respect for this
instrument. However it is fading from modern instrument
panels for better or worse. Clearly in the early days it was
a main stay and saving grace for the original unreliable
Artificial Horizon as they where called.
T&B is very reliable device and does tell you which way you
are yawing or turning. It is also a great cross check for the
AI when all is well or not. No doubt. However a T&B as a
stand alone back-up instrument to a EFIS, I am not a big fan.
(Look at certified Cirrus and Lancair's)
Yes the T&B or TC does give you the initial direction to recover
for a unusual attitude or spin, but I always taught and found the
subsequent final recovery is by AI. I never found the AI tumble
w/ just a single spin in one direction. Yes a basic vacuum AI
found in a Cessna has limits and hits the stops but still it is
effective as long as you are not doing aerobatics.
As some one said the AI needs no interpolation and you can
correct quickly and accurately, once you got it off the stops.
Of course modern EFIS attitude indicators are AEROBATIC
if you will.
When you where doing your spin recovery, whether you knew
it or not you where likely getting info from the AI and outside.
The fundamental of any attitude instrument flying is to cross
check, LOOK at all the instruments and interpret. Initial scan
on T&B yes, but than use all instruments.
T&B (TC) does not tumble or is less likely because it's a single
axis gimble and they are centered by a centering force (springs
or similar). The T&B (TC) stays centered when not powered.
More stable but less sensitive. A T&B is very limited but that's
it's charm. So what makes it reliable makes it less usable as
a stand alone attitude instrument.
Notice a mechanical gyro (AI) dies and flops over to the side
when you shut the power off (elect or vac). This is what makes
it more sensitive. There are centering forces (pendulum vanes),
that are more complicated than a T&B, but also allows it to tumble.
However we have progressed in technology. They early 50's
mechanical gyros where HORRIBLE and failed daily. Later
and more modern mechanical gyros, Vac or Elect since the
70's or 80's where much much better, not perfect but good.
The weak link has been for some time the dry vacuum pump.
The elect mechanical AI's are good but expensive. Now
today's EFIS with no moving parts as eclipsed the mechanical
gyro for reliability and cost are coming down. My $2000 Dynon
is an amazing piece of equipment. Not perfect but good.
Here is a good article
http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/183240-1.html
You CAN'T buy a new airliner or business plane w/ mechanical
gyros anymore. My guess is GA planes also will stop coming
w/ mech gyros and yes T&B's. Already all top end GA planes
have EFIS and no T&B. Cirrus / Lancair all EFIS and no T&B.
These top of line EIFS GA planes do come with backup
mechanical airspeed, altimeter and attitude indicator (AI)
but no T&B.
Here is the clincher, I'm NOT saying T&B /TC have NO
current use. They are required! REQUIRED by the FAR's.
If you have a regular AI you must have a T&B or TC (rate
of turn indicator). However EFIS have the RATE a turn
indication. My Dynon does.
Also the Regs allow you to omit a rate of turn indicator
altogether if you have AI's at each pilot station and one
back-up AI with independent power source. So you don't
see T&B's on Cirrus, Lancair or Jets but you will see two
or three AI's.
I bring this up because this is what the FAA says. If no
T&B is good for airliners than may be we can live with
out them, provide we have acceptable AI back-ups.
As T&B and TC become less popular with EFIS panels
the T&B price goes up. To buy an old WWII T&B is a bad
idea in my opinon. No matter if you get it rebuilt, it will
not be a safe reliable accurate instrument. (I know)
T&B and TC are not bad and have a use but it was from the
limitations of technology and the first (AI's) in the old days.
As far as inverted IFR IMC spin recovery, you are seriously
screwed at that point. The idea is an (AI) is less likely going
to allow you to get to that point, but as Bob pointed an AI
is no guarantee of success. However I say you got a better
chance with a (AI) than JUST a T&B. However the training
to read the T&B and AI (cross check) may save your tail.
I just say I never want to spin IMC. I also never want to fly
partial panel IMC (AGAIN)!
>Posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
>
>Modern avionics include device traditionally called gyro's that
>contain not even one moving part. Nothing
You make good points, an electronic AI (EFIS) should keep
up with the any gyration and not tumble like an old mechanical
gyro. My Dynon EFIS is aerobatic and has a rate of turn bar.
To be fair to Bob O. back in the day old T&B where the most
reliable gyro, because the state of the art AI gyro where terrible.
My 1958 Apache came with a BIG old black and white AN job.
I did lots of partial panel.
Just flying along the ancient AI would just ROLL over and die
on occasion. It would come to life. I just ignored it and used
the DG. Thankfully I replaced the DG with a modern vertical
card, verses the old barrel window type it had. After a little while
the AI would erect again with a little LEAN. You could re-cage
and it would be fine for a while. I replaced it needless to say
with a modern AI.
Of course the Apache (a twin) had dual generators and Vac
pumps. Please no twin wars.
Again T&B or Rate of turn is still required, BUT the regs do
require it, provided you have a AI at each pilot station and
an independent AI back-up. You will not find rate of turn,
T&B or TC in jets anymore. THEY ARE GONE.
Now with a GPS hdg / track we don't use the compass much,
do we?
Do the Cirrus or Lancair Columbia have T&B's? No
(for better or worse?)
>posted by: "Carlos Trigo"
>
>Will you please stop discussing this off topic (remember -
>aeroelectric-list) which has gone far beyond any reasonable
>length.
I feel your pain that is why I am making another post. (kidding)
Chill man we are having fun and learning.
I did not know you became the Post Police. May I suggest
instruments, back-up inst., redundancy and electrical
systems are very relevant.
---------------------------------
at 1/min.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
A few points. The gyros of the 50s and sixties were actually WWII
manufacture AN gyros, and they were very good, if properly overhauled. I
flew behind them for 25 years. Only overhauled once. Only partial panel
was due to loss of vacuum. If your experience is different, you were
getting mishandled, crappy overhauls.
As for spin recovery...in a plane with the more modern 3 1/8
instruments...AH was useless throughout the recovery, still tumbled, and
once the turn was stopped, no need for AH, just ease the yoke back to
pull out of dive, still ensuring no turn.
AI or AH are still the same as made in the '70s and just as crappy.
Rarely last 5 years without overhaul, because the bearings and rotor are
much smaller than AN gyros. Only when you move up to HSI and flight
director do you get some quality bearings and long life.
Jury is still out on solid state sensors, and in the GA price range I
don't think any are approved for certified aircraft.
Rate of turn instruments can now be legally replaced with Art. Horizon
as Hal Sheevers(Sportys) prevailed with the FAA and there is advisory
circular approving same, as long as you still maintain redundant power
between the gyros.
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> It has been fun debating. The T&B / TC camp has made a
> great case for the T&B and I have a renewed respect for this
> instrument. However it is fading from modern instrument
> panels for better or worse. Clearly in the early days it was
> a main stay and saving grace for the original unreliable
> Artificial Horizon as they where called.
>
>
> When you where doing your spin recovery, whether you knew
> it or not you where likely getting info from the AI and outside.
>
> The fundamental of any attitude instrument flying is to cross
> check, LOOK at all the instruments and interpret. Initial scan
> on T&B yes, but than use all instruments.
>
>
> However we have progressed in technology. They early 50's
> mechanical gyros where HORRIBLE and failed daily. Later
> and more modern mechanical gyros, Vac or Elect since the
> 70's or 80's where much much better, not perfect but good.
>
> The weak link has been for some time the dry vacuum pump.
> The elect mechanical AI's are good but expensive. Now
> today's EFIS with no moving parts as eclipsed the mechanical
> gyro for reliability and cost are coming down. My $2000 Dynon
> is an amazing piece of equipment. Not perfect but good.
>
>
> Here is a good article
> http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/183240-1.html
>
>
> You CAN'T buy a new airliner or business plane w/ mechanical
> gyros anymore. My guess is GA planes also will stop coming
> w/ mech gyros and yes T&B's. Already all top end GA planes
> have EFIS and no T&B. Cirrus / Lancair all EFIS and no T&B.
> These top of line EIFS GA planes do come with backup
> mechanical airspeed, altimeter and attitude indicator (AI)
> but no T&B.
>
>
> Here is the clincher, I'm NOT saying T&B /TC have NO
> current use. They are required! REQUIRED by the FAR's.
> If you have a regular AI you must have a T&B or TC (rate
> of turn indicator). However EFIS have the RATE a turn
> indication. My Dynon does.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | CB Size requirements? |
Hello Group:
I have searched the web without any luck ... I'm looking for the CB
requirements for a King KX 125, would anyone have info on this?
Thank you for your assistance,
Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CB Size requirements? |
On 24 Jun 2006, at 24:43, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
> Hello Group:
>
> I have searched the web without any luck ... I'm looking for the CB
> requirements for a King KX 125, would anyone have info on this?
>
The purpose of the CB is to protect the wire from overheating if
there is a short. The purpose is not to protect the radio. The only
thing the wiring can do that can hurt the radio is provide high
voltage if the alternator's voltage regulator fails. You need an
overvoltage protection system to prevent this. A CB cannot stop high
voltage, as a CB is triggered based on excessive current, not
excessive voltage.
The size of CB depends you need depends on the size of the wire.
What size wire provides power to the radio?
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Thompson" <dave.thompson(at)verizon.net> |
I for one have enjoyed the discussions on TB, TC & AI.
OK, this should give you old guys chuckle. Sorry if this is too far off
subject.
Qualification or Disqualification:
I am 23 years out of currency with only 125 hours in C-150 & C-172s plus 5
hours in my fathers Quickie and about 50 unlogged hours in our B1RD
ultralight. I am tooling up (both physically and mentally) to build a
601XL/Corvair. I plan to get current again in the rental 601XL at the local
FBO when mine gets close to flying.
Now that I have finished building my shop and am waiting for kit money, I
have been playing around drawing panel layouts using Microsoft Visio.
Somewhere in the past I found a great article on typical instrument layout.
It discussed typical T configuration and six-pack etc layouts. I have lost
it now that I really need it. Can anyone direct me to sources of info on
proper and typical flight instrument layouts? I will be flying VFR Day until
I obtain enough time and instruction to properly transition into VFR night
and so on. I want to plan my panel accordingly. Most likely, at first, I
will have covered instrument holes for later upgrades. I want a proper panel
with the right things in the right places. I plan to use only 3-3/8 inch
flight instrumentation, no glass panels.
At this point I have an Alt, electric T&B and whisky compass salvaged from
the Quickie. I plan to add an AS, VSI and eventually an electric AI. I am
not sure what the PROPER arrangement should be.
I have read the aeroelectric connection with updates three times. I have not
started the electrical design yet. I have to pull lots of rivets first.
Thank you in advance for any input.
Dave Thompson
dave.thompson(at)verizon.net
601XL rudder workshop rudder, building a Corvair
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout |
In a message dated 6/24/06 6:30:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dave.thompson(at)verizon.net writes:
> Most likely, at first, I
> will have covered instrument holes for later upgrades. I want a proper
panel
> with the right things in the right places. I plan to use only 3-3/8 inch
> flight instrumentation, no glass panels.
==================================
Dave:
The basic 6 pack view is available in ACS Catalog. But, I have to ask WHY no
glass panels? You can save TIME, MONEY, PANEL SPACE and make your instal so
much nicer, easier and develop a 100% better scan. There are so many other
advantages such as resale value, lighter in weight less materials, lower points
of failure. AND if you want radiancy just and a second unit and second
battery. Why go backwards in time even the new planes are going glass and they
have
to fight with the FAA to do so ... You do not!
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
PS
The gages are 3 1/8" Diameter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Disorientation |
GMCJetPilot said:
You CAN'T buy a new airliner or business plane w/ mechanical
gyros anymore. My guess is GA planes also will stop coming
w/ mech gyros and yes T&B's. Already all top end GA planes
have EFIS and no T&B. Cirrus / Lancair all EFIS and no T&B.
These top of line EIFS GA planes do come with backup
mechanical airspeed, altimeter and attitude indicator (AI)
but no T&B.
All true, and one of the prime reasons the FAA has recently started a new
training initiative (FAA/Industry Training Standard [FITS] for
Technologically Advanced Aircraft [TAA]) aimed at preparing general aviation
pilots for the rigors of flying with all the new technology. Many flight
schools offer this training; some refer to it as "glass panel transition"
training. Aircraft manufacturers offering glass panel technology in their
aircraft offer (strongly suggest) FITS even for their VFR pilot customers.
Note that this training is in addition to that required to attain your
private pilot certificate.
GMCJetPilot said:
Also the Regs allow you to omit a rate of turn indicator
altogether if you have AI's at each pilot station and one
back-up AI with independent power source. So you don't
see T&B's on Cirrus, Lancair or Jets but you will see two
or three AI's.
Your arguments about airliners (and other aircraft) that may dispense with
rate of turn instruments by installing attitude instruments at both pilot
stations is a good one -- as long as a trained, competent pilot occupies the
other seat. I'm not telling you anything new when I point out that two-pilot
operations is one of the primary factors behind the phenomenal safety record
of the airline industry. Using panel-design standards optimized for
two-pilot ops in a single-pilot aircraft might not yield the same result.
If your significant other has ever shared intimate knowledge of their past
significant others you may have thought to yourself "too much information."
I can easily see the TMI beast rearing it's ugly head in the cockpit
equipped not only with an EFIS (which will, like it or not, become your
PRIMARY attitude instrument) and artificial horizons all over the place.
You'd better carry several of those instrument suction cup thingies to cover
the ones that make you feel uncomfortable...
As to the relative value of the rate of turn instrument, I'd like to help
clarify what I believe to be Old Bob's point. If I'm speaking out of turn
here Old Bob, please feel free to slap me back to my place, but I believe
the point you are trying to make is "stop the turn." Yeah, I think I read
that!
In my youth I had occasion to attend USAF Physiological Training (otherwise
known as the Altitude Chamber). Aside from discussing the effects of high
altitude on human physiology, we were given the opportunity for a ride in a
device, the Vertigon, that demonstrates the effects of a discontinuity in
the motion perceived by your brain and the motion you are actually
experiencing, otherwise knows as vertigo. The individual is placed inside
the Vertigon, which is a mock up cockpit with no external visual cues. Once
inside and "flying" on instruments, ATC directs a climbing right turn, at
which point the Vertigon begins a slow spin around the vertical axis -- to
the occupant it feels just like a climbing right turn!
Contrary to popular misunderstanding, your vestibular system (that's your
body's seat-of-the-pants motion detection system) does not sense motion or
movement, it senses acceleration through the displacement of small hairs
disturbed by fluid in a tube in your ear. As your head is moved, the fluid
in the tube tries to remain stationary (a body at rest tends to remain at
rest...). The tube, attached to your head, moves "around" the stationary
fluid, and the sensing hairs are "bent" by the stationary fluid. The faster
the movement the greater the bending of the hairs, which is interpreted by
your brain as ever more violent movement, but is actually acceleration. If
you continue the movement, eventually the friction between the tube/sensing
hairs and the fluid will cause the fluid to accelerate to the same speed as
the movement -- your brain interprets this as continuing movement. If you
suddenly stop the movement, the fluid, due to it's momentum, continues to
move displacing the hairs in the opposite direction and, voila', VERTIGO!
(For a really good demonstration of this, get a friend [you trust] to spot
you while you spin around on your feet for about a minute or so with your
eyes closed in the back yard. If you suddenly stop spinning [keep your eyes
closed] I can almost guarantee you will have great difficulty remaining on
your feet -- that's why you want to do it in your back yard so if/when you
fall down and go boom you don't hurt yourself or the furniture.) Your brain
can "update" your vestibular inputs with visual stimuli. This is how figure
skaters are able to stand up after those violent spins; they've TRAINED
their brain to override vestibular sensation with visual sensation. And
that's how pilots are able to control their aircraft using only instruments.
But if a motion is allowed to continue long enough, and the pilot is
unpracticed in dealing with the resulting conflicting vestibular/visual data
presented, disaster...
Back to Physiological Training. The unsuspecting occupant has been spinning
slowly in the Vertigon (it doesn't take much, maybe 10 RPM) for some time
when he/she is asked to change the squawk -- the control panel for which
happens to be between the pilot's legs. The movement of tilting the head
forward from vertical to look down between your legs wreaks all kinds of
havoc with the vestibular system, and is enough to create an almost
overwhelming feeling of vertigo. Spectators standing around the Vertigon can
usually tell exactly when vertigo has occurred from the sometimes violent
noises made by the victim's flailing limbs as he/she tries desperately to
keep from falling out of his/her seat. It's truly a remarkable experience, a
sickening-frightening-disorienting feeling which is almost impossible to
describe with words. So what's my point?
Well, it's the same point Old Bob has been trying to make. Airplanes don't
spin around the lateral or longitudinal axis, they spin around the vertical
axis. If an un-commanded turn develops in IMC and is allowed to continue,
eventually the fluid in the tubes of your vestibular system will accelerate
to the same speed as the spin about the vertical axis. As you now know, when
you try to stop the motion, you WILL experience vertigo -- the more violent
the spin, the more violent the vertigo. Obviously, this greatly compounds
the pilot's task of recovery. What's the best way to avoid this? STOP THE
TURN IMMEDIATELY!
What Bob has been trying to impress on everyone is that controlling the turn
makes all other aircraft control tasks possible. If you loose control of the
vertical axis then your chances of VERTIGO go up exponentially. The T&B/TC
instrument is designed for one purpose, controlling the turn. Controlling an
aircraft solely by means of instruments is tricky enough without having also
to contend with vertigo. The best method of avoiding vertigo is to stop the
turn.
Next time you IFR pilots (VFR pilots might consider bringing your CFII along
for this one) are flying about boring holes in the air with nothing better
to do try this: slow and trim the aircraft to best-glide speed, close the
throttle, take your hands off the control yoke (put them in your lap), and
use the rudder to keep the ball & needle centered if you have a T&B, or keep
the ball centered and the small aircraft level if you have a TC. You will
now be in a 1000' - 1200' foot/min descent with the wings level at a
relatively slow airspeed. In fact, if you experiment you'll find you can
start/stop shallow (standard-rate) turns in this configuration quite easily
using only the rudder. By adding throttle you can slow/stop the descent, and
now you're safely flying the aircraft with only the rudder and throttle, by
reference to only the rate of turn instrument and the altimeter. The T&B/TC
is the only instrument you can do this with easily -- it's almost a
no-brainer. And it's all possible by CONTROLLING THE TURN!
DISCLAIMER: The last-ditch maneuver described above should only be used
under the hood while training with a competent CFII or in the case of
EMERGENCY. If you find yourself in IMC accidentally with no clear idea which
way to turn to get back out you might use this maneuver to get yourself
down. The intent is that you pop out the bottom of the cloud with enough
altitude to continue flying and find a good spot to put it down safely, but
if you hit level ground in this attitude you'll probably survive unless you
fly directly into an obstacle. The VFR pilot should NOT PLAN to use this
maneuver as a method to descend through an overcast. If you find yourself on
top of an overcast you should turn around and fly back to IMC IMMEDIATELY.
You definitely don't want to attempt this maneuver for the first time in
actual IMC -- PRACTICE WITH YOUR INSTRUCTOR!
Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legecyfgbuilder.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: CB Size requirements? |
Kevin has described the rationale for the "maximum size" circuit breaker
in a circuit powering a radio (or other electrical device) which is to
protect the power feed wire in the event of a short. There is also a
"minimum size" CB required to pass enough electrical power to the device
(avionics engineers that I know like the term "appliance"). Since
voltage is generally fixed at close to 12 -14 volts, this really means
getting enough current to power the device. Typically a VHF radio will
use something like 200-400 milliamps on receive (depending on the audio
volume and squelch settings) and 3-5 amps on transmit. Too small a CB
means a nuisance trip of the CB every time you attempt to transmit -
nothing is wrong just the CB is too small to pass enough power to the
radio when it is transmitting. Typically a 50% extra capacity is added
to deal with power surges as the transmit cycle begins so if 5 amps
needed - use 7.5 amps, etc.
The manufacturers are reluctant to widely advertise the installation
details of their equipment perhaps to encourage buyers to hire the
dealers who sell the stuff to do the installation as well thus sending a
bit of business their way. So that's why the power supply specs are less
than readily available. The KX-125 specs seem to suggest a 5 watt
transmitter (RF) power output. Most radios in this range will do fine
with a 10 amp CB so, failing anything else, try that size of CB. This
means sizing the wiring so that it is big enough to pass that amount of
current continuously without harm in the event of a short. A bit of
oversize on the wiring does no harm and helps reduce voltage drop at the
radio which is a separate issue but related issue when powering a
device. No harm is done if the wiring will take more current than the CB
will pass as the wire is quite adequately protected by the CB.
Jim Oke
Wpg., MB
RV-6A C-GKGZ
Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Jun 2006, at 24:43, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>> Hello Group:
>>
>> I have searched the web without any luck ... I'm looking for the CB
>> requirements for a King KX 125, would anyone have info on this?
>>
>
> The purpose of the CB is to protect the wire from overheating if
> there is a short. The purpose is not to protect the radio. The only
> thing the wiring can do that can hurt the radio is provide high
> voltage if the alternator's voltage regulator fails. You need an
> overvoltage protection system to prevent this. A CB cannot stop high
> voltage, as a CB is triggered based on excessive current, not
> excessive voltage.
>
> The size of CB depends you need depends on the size of the wire.
> What size wire provides power to the radio?
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Disorientation |
In a message dated 6/24/2006 10:48:15 A.M. Central Standard Time,
marknlisa(at)hometel.com writes:
As to the relative value of the rate of turn instrument, I'd like to help
clarify what I believe to be Old Bob's point. If I'm speaking out of turn
here Old Bob, please feel free to slap me back to my place, but I believe
the point you are trying to make is "stop the turn." Yeah, I think I read
that!
Good Morning Mark,
I only wish I were educated and eloquent enough to state it as you have so
graciously and effectively done!
Thank you very much!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: CB Size requirements? |
In a message dated 6/24/06 12:42:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, wjoke(at)shaw.ca
writes:
> Typically a 50% extra capacity is added
> to deal with power surges as the transmit cycle begins so if 5 amps
> needed - use 7.5 amps, etc.
>
> The manufacturers are reluctant to widely advertise the installation
> details of their equipment perhaps to encourage buyers to hire the
> dealers who sell the stuff to do the installation as well thus sending a
> bit of business their way. So that's why the power supply specs are less
> than readily available. The KX-125 specs seem to suggest a 5 watt
> transmitter (RF) power output. Most radios in this range will do fine
> with a 10 amp CB so, failing anything else, try that size of CB. This
> means sizing the wiring so that it is big enough to pass that amount of
> current continuously without harm in the event of a short. A bit of
> oversize on the wiring does no harm and helps reduce voltage drop at the
> radio which is a separate issue but related issue when powering a
> device. No harm is done if the wiring will take more current than the CB
> will pass as the wire is quite adequately protected by the CB.
>
> Jim Oke
> Wpg., MB
> RV-6A C-GKGZ
================================
Jim:
Thank you for a very realistic answer. I should have phrased my question
better ... "What is the current draw of a King KX 125?"
I found that the current draw on a Garmin GNC 250 XL is rated at 5.5 Amps
during transmit. Of course that also has a moving map and its additional current
draw. If I subtract 0.5 Amps for the GPS and moving map that leaves me with
5.0 Amps. Taking that with a 50% safety margin that puts me right at 7.5 Amps
... :-) Good size for a CB.
GOOD SUGGESTION Jim.
I wired the feed to the Radio Buss with 12 AWG and the Buss itself with 14
AWG so I have ample capacity.
Now here is a follow up question. I don't have much experience with radar,
but the Xponder only requires a 5 AMP CB; yet the power output of the unit is
250 Watts. How come such a low CB?
I'm taking a WAG here, does it have to do with the Duty Cycle of the
transmission?
Thanks again Jim,
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
Perhaps some one with a KT-76C transponder can explain this.
I have an old KT-76C, not installed yet, and am trying to figure out the
display lighting. The operating manual describes adjusting the display
brightness by selecting "TST" mode and pushing the 0 key to decrease
brightness and 7 key to increase it. Sounds great - it controls it's
own brightness.
However, the pinout on the connector specifies that pin 2 should be
hooked up to the 14v panel light dimmer. Why 2 brightness controls?
Does this input on pin 2 actually power the LED display? Why not just
connect this to +12v and use the front panel feature to control
brightness? If I do hook this up to a dimmer, how much power does it
draw? I can't find any reference to power consumption in the specs.
Thanks,
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Disorientation. |
On Jun 23, 2006, at 3:11 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> So far, the T&B, with suitable training, has been my instrument of
> choice. It does seem that, with all that has been done in the
> roughly eighty years since it was first used, we should be able to
> come up with something that is better!
Well, the instruments aren't the problem; it is the human brain. It
has to decide which instrument is lying when it is lying to itself.
>
> The fact that we are losing airplanes that are equipped with
> working attitude gyros tells me that the current attitude gyro is
> NOT the answer.
Actually I think that the attitude gyro *IS* the answer. It tells you
the attitude of the airplane, plain and simple. When all else fails
you want to get the airplane straight and level. If the wings are
level and the nose is not up or down, the airplane is not going to be
doing anything nasty.
The real problem is when the AI lies to you. When the AI fails and
doesn't tell you that it has failed, you have to rely on secondary
indications that it has failed, e.g. if the AI says you are straight
and level while the T&B is pinned and the airspeed indicator is
rapidly increasing, the AI is lying to you. And you are right that
AI's are prone to failure. The iron AI is a complex mechanical device
with an MTBF of about 500 hours. Not exactly the thing I want to
stake my life on. (In spite of the fact that I have staked my life on
such a critter for a long time flying IFR.)
Because the AI is more complex than the T&B it is far more likely
that the AI will fail than that the T&B will fail. Likewise the
airspeed indicator is pretty darned simple and unlikely to fail. That
is why people have been trusting them over vertical gyros for a long
time.
But it is possible to build a vertical gyro that exceeds both the T&B
and the ASI in reliability. The current crop of AHRS use solid state
rate gyros and solid-state accelerometers that have mean-times
between failure (MTBF) measured in hundreds of thousands of hours,
not hundreds of hours like our current crop of iron gyros (T&B
included). They don't have motors and they don't have bearings. They
just aren't likely to break. You have to make sure that your rate
gyros are capable of handling the maximum rates of pitch, roll, and
yaw that your airplane can achieve, even in departed flight. That is
very possible to do.
Now you do want to accommodate those times when something does fail.
For that you build in triple redundancy. Three AHRS with a voting
unit that allows two of the AHRS to override bogus information from
the third. At that point you have a system that is so unlikely to
fail that you don't need to worry about it anymore.
So rather than talking about which iron gyros one wants to have in
the panel it is time to think in terms of fail-safe instrumentation
now that it is both possible and cost effective to do so.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
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 . . .
=97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pete & Farrell Rouse" <pete-farrell(at)kc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | FW: Fw: AMBER ALERT !!! |
PLEASE PRAY FOR THIS CHILD TO COME HOME SAFELY (EVERYONE STOP AND PRAY FOR
HER AND PASS IT OUT TO EVERYONE MAYBE SOMEONE WILL SEE THEM.) GOD PUT YOUR
PROTECTIVE ARMS AROUND HER AND KEEP HER SAFE LORD. AMEN
AMBER ALERT!!!!! I need everyones help!!!! Please repost this ASAP. This is
the daughter of a very close personal friend. Her worst nightmare came true
as a parent. Her little girl was abducted by what they thought was a family
friend. We need to get the word around so we can get this sweet little girl
back to her family. Follow the instructions at the bottom to repost this
message please!!
Larry
BEFORE YOU SKIP THIS, LOOK AT THE KID. DO IT AGAIN. NOW TRY TO REPOST. IT
TAKES 10 SECONDS. PEOPLE ARE MISSING HER AND SHE WANTS TO BE HOME. DO
SOMETHING GOOD.
If you were to see her, or had any information, you would contact the Minot
Police Department at
(701)852-0111.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter surge problem |
On Jun 23, 2006, at 5:25 PM, Gary Liming wrote:
> I kind of find it hard to believe that the RF is causing it, but we
> are stumped.
You are 100% correct in that it is the RF that is causing the
problem. You will probably find that the ammeter requires power
because it has an amplifier in it to amplify the very small signal
from the shunt. This amplifier is being affected by the RF coming
from the shunt or from the power lead.
Try bypassing the power lead to the ammeter indicator. That will
probably solve the problem.
Folks: when it comes to troubleshooting RF problems in the cockpit it
is hard to beat the ARRL Radio Amateur's Handbook. It has a whole
chapter on how to solve problems with RF getting into other
electronics. It tells you how to bypass power leads, how to install
chokes, etc. It also has all the information you might need to
construct your own antennas. Definitely worth the price of admission
even if it does now cost about $40. (I paid $4 for my first one in
1962.)
http://www.arrl.org/catalog/9485/
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
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-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: KT-76C lighting |
In a message dated 6/24/06 4:25:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sarg314(at)comcast.net writes:
> However, the pinout on the connector specifies that pin 2 should be
> hooked up to the 14v panel light dimmer. Why 2 brightness controls?
> Does this input on pin 2 actually power the LED display? Why not just
> connect this to +12v and use the front panel feature to control
> brightness? If I do hook this up to a dimmer, how much power does it
> draw? I can't find any reference to power consumption in the specs.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
===========================
Tom:
The purpose of hooking up the KT-76C to the panel light dimmer is ONLY to
have the entire panel light system TURNED ON & OFF from one common point. Once
it is On then you can adjust the light intensity on the Xponder as you wish.
The only part you or the instructions did not mention is WHERE on the dimmer do
you tap off the power? You do want ON & OFF control of the panel lighting
BUT as you guessed, if the power tap off is on the adjusted output then if the
panel lights are DIM the Xponder lights may be nonexistent. All you really
need is common ON - OFF control of the lights for the Xponder.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Disorientation. |
Sometimes it is best to get back to basics. There is a great deal of
both heat and light going on here so I am going to go back to looking
at the forest instead of the trees.
Bob Nuckolls has been doing a very good job of getting people to
think about systems, how they fail, and how to minimize the impact
when they fail. I am going to try to use some of his approach in the
selection of instrumentation systems.
First, we need to ask ourselves some questions:
1. What is most likely to fail?
2. How do I know it has failed?
3. What is the impact on my flight if this fails?
I am going to start with the most basic answer to item #1: power.
Power for your instruments is the most likely thing to fail. 'Lectric
Bob has shown you how to deal with this problem with things that eat
electricity. I can't add anything here. OTOH if you have chosen to
use air-powered gyros (for God's sake why?) then you need to know how
you are going to recognize and deal with that. Backup air supply is a
lot more difficult than a backup electrical power supply. Still, it
is possible.
OK, you have dealt with power and we need to go back up to the top of
our list and ask again, what is most likely to fail? I would hold
that it is probably our iron AI as that is the least reliable of the
gyros. Now the next two questions becomes critical. How do you detect
failure of the AI and what impact is that going to have on your
operations?
The simplest answer I can come up with is: know thy instruments. Get
a sim and practice having the thing fail your various gyros and then
keep doing it over and over until you know what to expect and how to
deal with it. (BTW, set the sim for moderate turbulence as that is
what you are going to have when the gyro fails.) I would hold that it
is not flying partial-panel that kills people so much as the brain
trying to detect the failure of the AI and then transition to partial-
panel flying. This transition is much like "continued VFR into IMC."
It isn't the same and the rules have just changed. You have to make
that mental switch and most people just don't do that very well. You
have to practice making that mental switch so that you become
comfortable with it. Frankly, the choice of T&B vs. TC has a very
small impact when compared to making that mental choice to a) detect
instrument failure and, b) change to partial-panel flying.
And BTW, having your instructor slap a post-it over the AI and say,
"you just lost your AI," does NOT count. He/she has already
simplified your decision-making process by making the decision for
you. The only way to really get a feel for it is to have it sneak up
on you insidiously and that is only going to happen is in a sim or
for real.
Soon we will have fail-safe gyro panels using multiple solid-state
gyros. Right now you can't buy one. Right now no matter what you have
you will need to detect and deal with instrument failure regardless
of whether it is iron or glass. Figure out how you are going to do
that or don't fly IFR.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
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-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org> |
| Subject: | Ammeter surge problem |
I am helping a friend with his RV and he is experiencing a strange problem.
When he hits the PTT button with the radio on, the ammeter shows a 30
amp surge! We are trying to figure out why.
Here are some relevant facts:
1. The radio works ok - transmission is clear and normal, the antenna
is installed and hooked up properly.
2. We put a hand held ammeter in series from the battery positive
cable to the battery post, and no such real surge is occurring -
all other components (like various lights) are showing a normal
current load. The radio shows a 1.3 amp load on receive, and a 3 amp
load or so on transmit - consistent with it's specified load rating.
3. The ammeter itself is a shunt type, the standard one that Van's
sells. It requires a separate power input to run the meter - I am
guessing that there is a circuit in there to compensate for a voltage
range across the shunt, but I am guessing about that. (It is not used
for internal lighting, that is yet another lead.) The shunt appears
to be installed ok.
4. The same ammeter shows normal current consumption for other things
like strobes, pos lights, etc.
5. All of this is done using only the aircraft battery. The engine
and alternator are not operating yet.
I kind of find it hard to believe that the RF is causing it, but we
are stumped.
Any ideas?
TIA,
Gary Liming
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS -Lite Problem |
Hello my fellow electron chasers:
I have a problem, my doctor already knows that but I thought I would share it
with you.
I just installed a Blue Mountain EFIS-Lite in the panel of an RV-6A.
With the engine OFF and MASTER ON I then turn on the EFIS.
The unit boots normally and the AI screen comes up.
It takes a few seconds and the horizon stabilizes.
[I feel it is not stabilizing SOLID the way a vacuum AI would.]
Here comes the real problem ...
Master ON, EFIS OFF - Normal procedures I start the engine.
All the vacuum gages stabilized.
I then turn ON the EFIS.
The AI NEVER stabilizes there is a slow tumble until I see either nothing but
sky or ground. NEVER STABILIZING!
Has anyone ever run across this problem and if so what was the cause and cure?
It has been suggested that I perform two (2) operations:
1 - Upgrade the Software from Ver 2.21 to Ver 2.64
2 - Hook up the keyboard and do a Warm System reboot from the keyboard
What are your thoughts? Does this sound like a cure? Of course the software
upgrade is required and will be done.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Corner <jcorner(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: CB Size requirements? |
I too will soon be installing a KX 125 and was able to purchase an
installation manual
from AC Spruce.
The manual recommends a 10 amp fuse as deduced below, and shows a max
transmit
power consumption of 6 amps.
It also recommends power wiring to be 2 #18 AWG wires to the circuit
breaker
and also 2 #18 wires to ground. What would be the advantage of this
over the 12 and 14 AWG
being installed by Barry? More resistance to breakage or is there
another reason?
Jim Corner
Kitfox 5 under construction.
Kitfox 2 flying
On Jun 24, 2006, at 2:04 PM, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 6/24/06 12:42:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wjoke(at)shaw.ca
> writes:
>
>> Typically a 50% extra capacity is added
>> to deal with power surges as the transmit cycle begins so if 5 amps
>> needed - use 7.5 amps, etc.
>>
>> The manufacturers are reluctant to widely advertise the installation
>> details of their equipment perhaps to encourage buyers to hire the
>> dealers who sell the stuff to do the installation as well thus
>> sending a
>> bit of business their way. So that's why the power supply specs
>> are less
>> than readily available. The KX-125 specs seem to suggest a 5 watt
>> transmitter (RF) power output. Most radios in this range will do
>> fine
>> with a 10 amp CB so, failing anything else, try that size of CB.
>> This
>> means sizing the wiring so that it is big enough to pass that
>> amount of
>> current continuously without harm in the event of a short. A bit of
>> oversize on the wiring does no harm and helps reduce voltage drop
>> at the
>> radio which is a separate issue but related issue when powering a
>> device. No harm is done if the wiring will take more current than
>> the CB
>> will pass as the wire is quite adequately protected by the CB.
>>
>> Jim Oke
>> Wpg., MB
>> RV-6A C-GKGZ
> ================================
> Jim:
>
> Thank you for a very realistic answer. I should have phrased my
> question
> better ... "What is the current draw of a King KX 125?"
>
> I found that the current draw on a Garmin GNC 250 XL is rated at
> 5.5 Amps
> during transmit. Of course that also has a moving map and its
> additional current
> draw. If I subtract 0.5 Amps for the GPS and moving map that
> leaves me with
> 5.0 Amps. Taking that with a 50% safety margin that puts me right
> at 7.5 Amps
> ... :-) Good size for a CB.
> GOOD SUGGESTION Jim.
>
> I wired the feed to the Radio Buss with 12 AWG and the Buss itself
> with 14
> AWG so I have ample capacity.
>
> Now here is a follow up question. I don't have much experience
> with radar,
> but the Xponder only requires a 5 AMP CB; yet the power output of
> the unit is
> 250 Watts. How come such a low CB?
> I'm taking a WAG here, does it have to do with the Duty Cycle of the
> transmission?
>
> Thanks again Jim,
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | PC-680 Revisited |
My Odyssey PC-680 has been in my non-flying RV for about three years
- most of the time uncharged. It keeps a charge for months, and after
topping off, it started a new, cold engine repeatedly with no
problems. I'm impressed
The nomenclature that came with the PC-680 battery says it as a Dry
Cell. I remember an AeroElectric discussion a few years back about
lead acid, sealed lead acid, gel cell, and recombinant gas batteries.
According to the archives that I found, the PC-680 is described as a
Recombinant Gas and/or Sealed Lead Acid battery. I wonder if it
really is a dry cell or if that is just a manufacturer's line?
I recently bought one of the BB17-12 el-cheapo batteries to power an
electric gate. It is the same size and shape as the PC-680 but it is
labeled as a valve-regulated, sealed lead acid, rechargeable
battery. It seems to work flawlessly, though I don't think I would
trust it in my airplane.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PC-680 Revisited |
Charles Brame wrote:
>
> My Odyssey PC-680 has been in my non-flying RV for about three years
> - most of the time uncharged. It keeps a charge for months, and after
> topping off, it started a new, cold engine repeatedly with no
> problems. I'm impressed
>
> The nomenclature that came with the PC-680 battery says it as a Dry
> Cell. I remember an AeroElectric discussion a few years back about
> lead acid, sealed lead acid, gel cell, and recombinant gas batteries.
> According to the archives that I found, the PC-680 is described as a
> Recombinant Gas and/or Sealed Lead Acid battery. I wonder if it
> really is a dry cell or if that is just a manufacturer's line?
>
> I recently bought one of the BB17-12 el-cheapo batteries to power an
> electric gate. It is the same size and shape as the PC-680 but it is
> labeled as a valve-regulated, sealed lead acid, rechargeable
> battery. It seems to work flawlessly, though I don't think I would
> trust it in my airplane.
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
>
Hi Charlie,
My understanding is that it's called a "dry" cell because if you break
the case, acid won't come out. The can be shipped as non-hazardous
because of that. These are starved electrolyte or recombinant gas
batteries using lead acid chemistry.
I have two in my plane and one in my motorcycle.
Bob W.
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (first engine start 1/7/06)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PC-680 Revisited |
Charles, the Odyssey is actually a "Wet cell". The electrolyte is embedded
in a material that is in effect like a cloth soaked in battery acid, so in
that sense, the acid will not spill out if you turn it on it's side. So it
is sometimes referred to as a "Dry Cell" since it does not leak liquid.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 8:32 PM
>
> My Odyssey PC-680 has been in my non-flying RV for about three years -
> most of the time uncharged. It keeps a charge for months, and after
> topping off, it started a new, cold engine repeatedly with no problems.
> I'm impressed
>
> The nomenclature that came with the PC-680 battery says it as a Dry Cell.
> I remember an AeroElectric discussion a few years back about lead acid,
> sealed lead acid, gel cell, and recombinant gas batteries. According to
> the archives that I found, the PC-680 is described as a Recombinant Gas
> and/or Sealed Lead Acid battery. I wonder if it really is a dry cell or
> if that is just a manufacturer's line?
>
> I recently bought one of the BB17-12 el-cheapo batteries to power an
> electric gate. It is the same size and shape as the PC-680 but it is
> labeled as a valve-regulated, sealed lead acid, rechargeable battery. It
> seems to work flawlessly, though I don't think I would trust it in my
> airplane.
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS -Lite Problem |
On Jun 24, 2006, at 6:13 PM, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
> Here comes the real problem ...
> Master ON, EFIS OFF - Normal procedures I start the engine.
> All the vacuum gages stabilized.
> I then turn ON the EFIS.
> The AI NEVER stabilizes there is a slow tumble until I see either
> nothing but
> sky or ground. NEVER STABILIZING!
Sounds exceedingly broken to me.
> Has anyone ever run across this problem and if so what was the
> cause and cure?
>
> It has been suggested that I perform two (2) operations:
> 1 - Upgrade the Software from Ver 2.21 to Ver 2.64
> 2 - Hook up the keyboard and do a Warm System reboot from the keyboard
>
> What are your thoughts? Does this sound like a cure? Of course
> the software
> upgrade is required and will be done.
You know, IMHO no gyro device should ever require the pilot to do
anything to make it work right. It should come up and work flawlessly
from the moment you turn it on and it erects. But that is just my
opinion.
It is not the hardware that scares me with glass -- it is the software.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
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-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS -Lite Problem |
Barry,
I'd call Greg and the guys and get their opinion. First, the older BMA
products need a good GPS fix to get an attitude solution, but this doesn't
sound like your problem. It sounds more likely to me that your magnetometer
is being affected by a large current near it, which I believe can also cause
a poor attitude solution. Does your heading indication wander as well? I
have the E/1, and I've never had this sort of issue.
Brett
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 6:13 PM
>
> Hello my fellow electron chasers:
>
> I have a problem, my doctor already knows that but I thought I would share
> it
> with you.
>
> I just installed a Blue Mountain EFIS-Lite in the panel of an RV-6A.
> With the engine OFF and MASTER ON I then turn on the EFIS.
> The unit boots normally and the AI screen comes up.
> It takes a few seconds and the horizon stabilizes.
> [I feel it is not stabilizing SOLID the way a vacuum AI would.]
> Here comes the real problem ...
> Master ON, EFIS OFF - Normal procedures I start the engine.
> All the vacuum gages stabilized.
> I then turn ON the EFIS.
> The AI NEVER stabilizes there is a slow tumble until I see either nothing
> but
> sky or ground. NEVER STABILIZING!
>
> Has anyone ever run across this problem and if so what was the cause and
> cure?
>
> It has been suggested that I perform two (2) operations:
> 1 - Upgrade the Software from Ver 2.21 to Ver 2.64
> 2 - Hook up the keyboard and do a Warm System reboot from the keyboard
>
> What are your thoughts? Does this sound like a cure? Of course the
> software
> upgrade is required and will be done.
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PC-680 Revisited |
On Jun 24, 2006, at 8:32 PM, Charles Brame wrote:
>
>
> My Odyssey PC-680 has been in my non-flying RV for about three
> years - most of the time uncharged. It keeps a charge for months,
> and after topping off, it started a new, cold engine repeatedly
> with no problems. I'm impressed
>
> The nomenclature that came with the PC-680 battery says it as a Dry
> Cell. I remember an AeroElectric discussion a few years back about
> lead acid, sealed lead acid, gel cell, and recombinant gas
> batteries. According to the archives that I found, the PC-680 is
> described as a Recombinant Gas and/or Sealed Lead Acid battery. I
> wonder if it really is a dry cell or if that is just a
> manufacturer's line?
>
> I recently bought one of the BB17-12 el-cheapo batteries to power
> an electric gate. It is the same size and shape as the PC-680 but
> it is labeled as a valve-regulated, sealed lead acid, rechargeable
> battery. It seems to work flawlessly, though I don't think I would
> trust it in my airplane.
There are a lot of words used to describe these batteries. Here is
some nomenclature that might help this make sense:
Lead-acid -- describes the chemistry. Electrical energy is stored as
a chemical change in lead plates using a sulphuric acid electrolyte.
All of the batteries we use in our airplanes are lead-acid unless
they are NiCd.
sealed lead-acid -- you can't add water to it.
AGM -- absorbed glass mat. The liquid acid electrolyte is held
between the plates by capillary action in a thin fiberglass mat so
you don't need a lot of electrolyte. Since there is no free
electrolyte to slosh around you can use it in any position. (Imagine
water held in a paper towel if you want to get an idea of what I mean.)
starved electrolyte -- AGM.
"Dry" lead-acid or "dry cell" -- starved electrolyte or AGM.
Gel-cell -- the sulphuric acid electrolyte is mixed with a binder
that turns it into something like Jello. This keeps it between the
plates and it can't slosh around. You can use these in any position.
Recombinant gas or RG -- this means that the excess hydrogen and
oxygen that would be allowed to bubble away at the end of the charge
cycle are made to recombine back into water at the plate. This keeps
you from having to add water as it doesn't escape into the atmosphere
like a typical "wet" battery but stays in the battery. Both AGM and
Gel-cell batteries are RG batteries.
Valve regulated, valve regulated lead-acid, or VRLA -- If you
overcharge an RG battery it will produce H2 and O2 faster than they
can recombine. The result is excess gas trapped in the cell. If the
overcharge is removed and the battery left to its own devices the H2
and O2 will eventually recombine. If the overcharge is allowed to
continue the pressure in the cell continues to rise. Each cell has a
pop-off valve that will relieve the pressure before the case bursts.
The only problem is, if this happens the water that is needed inside
the battery escapes into the atmosphere and now you have shortened
the life and capacity of the battery. As far as I have been able to
learn, all AGM and gel-cell batteries are VRLA batteries.
There are two big differences between AGM and gel-cell batteries:
1. They need different charging and float voltages. Gel-cells like
about 13.8V for charge and about 13.4V for float (charger applied all
the time to keep the battery maintained at full charge). Flooded cell
batteries and AGMs like about 14.2V for charge but only about 13.2V
for float. (These numbers are for a temperature of 20C. The voltages
need to be decreased as the temperature rises or increased if the
temps are cold.)
2. AGMs are *great* for delivering a LOT of current from a relatively
small cell. This makes them great for starting engines. Gel-cells are
not as good for delivering a lot of current but will give you more
charge/discharge cycles in deep cycle usage. In all probability you
want an AGM battery for your airplane but only if you are taking care
to prevent overcharge.
So you want to know whether the battery is AGM or gel-cell. Just
having someone tell you VRLA or "sealed" doesn't tell you much.
With regard to overcharge: neither AGMs nor gel-cells will tolerate
overcharge very well. It kills them pretty quickly. One interesting
thing is that you can split the difference between charge and float
voltages on a gel-cell and still get good service but need only one
voltage. You can't do that very well with an AGM battery.
OTOH flooded cells handle overcharge pretty well. It just makes them
bubble and give off H2 and O2 gas. As long as you don't overheat the
battery with a gross overcharge you fix the overcharge by adding more
water.
So the "el-cheapo" battery you have and the PC-680 are both "valve
regulated, sealed lead-acid, rechargeable" batteries. In all
probability both are AGMs as well. I am sure your "el-cheap" battery
would work just fine in your airplane too.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
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-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS -Lite Problem |
In a message dated 6/24/06 9:43:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bferrell(at)123mail.net writes:
> Barry,
>
> I'd call Greg and the guys and get their opinion. First, the older BMA
> products need a good GPS fix to get an attitude solution, but this doesn't
> sound like your problem. It sounds more likely to me that your
magnetometer
>
> is being affected by a large current near it, which I believe can also
cause
>
> a poor attitude solution. Does your heading indication wander as well? I
> have the E/1, and I've never had this sort of issue.
>
> Brett
>
==========================
Brett:
I have tried the unit with and without the magnetometer hooked up. Same
results! The BALL does not wander and the DG is stable. I do have to make a
better mount for the magnetometer, yet I don't believe that is the problem or what
is affecting the AI part of the unit.
At BMA, Larry suggested two steps:
1 - Upgrade the software and
2 - Do the warm reboot with the keyboard.
Then if it still does not erect call him back.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: CB Size requirements? |
In a message dated 6/24/06 7:21:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jcorner(at)shaw.ca
writes:
> I too will soon be installing a KX 125 and was able to purchase an
> installation manual from AC Spruce.
>
> The manual recommends a 10 amp fuse as deduced below, and shows a max
> transmit power consumption of 6 amps.
>
> It also recommends power wiring to be 2 #18 AWG wires to the circuit
> breaker and also 2 #18 wires to ground. What would be the advantage of
this
> over the 12 and 14 AWG being installed by Barry? More resistance to
breakage or is there another reason?
>
> Jim Corner
==================================
JIm:
Thanks for the post.
This install manual, is it by King or ACS? I would have to really question
that manual. I do not see ANY advantage of using two 18 AWG wires running in
parallel. Maybe it was done for ease of routing and soldering to connectors?
Yes, there is the current carrying capacity but there is also the extra work,
extra weight, extra points to fail ... Now when talking failure points, what
are the possibilities of wire harness failure? Pretty low even on GA aircraft.
Maybe the double runs are for future use? I tend to do double runs for
further expansion. I also will go up one size for expansion or where a voltage
drop might be a problem; such as in alternator and ACU systems.
18 AWG = 10 Amps
16 AWG = 15 Amps
14 AWG = 20 Amps
12 AWG = 30 Amps
This circuit/PROBLEM I'm working on was built by someone else. They used
POP-RIVITS to attach wires to CB'ers. They also tied ALL radios [Xponder, 2 Coms
and Audio Panel] to one 10 AMP CB-Switch. I'm just breaking each item out
with their own wiring and CB.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Disorientation and Old Bob's Eloquence |
Bob,
Don't sell yourself short. Confidence, experience and civility will get you
a lot farther than education and eloquence, at least in my opinion!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter surge problem |
In a message dated 6/24/06 6:10:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gary(at)liming.org
writes:
> I kind of find it hard to believe that the RF is causing it, but we
> are stumped.
>
June 13, 2006 - June 25, 2006
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ft