AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fz
August 11, 2006 - August 22, 2006
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Van's Harness Kit
>
>
>
> Sorry I cannot answer all your question. However, I bought the
> Van's kit
> although I had ever intention of wiring using Bob's schematic. It
> gave me
> lots of parts I did not have to otherwise have to buy. I got to
> see Van's
> wiring diagram which helped build my knowledge base. (Needed that
> at the
> beginning.) But I still bought a lot of stuff cause some things
> were not
> the same. The Van's wire harness while well done was mostly
> worthless using
>
> the fuse bus rather than the CB bus. I valued the wire and
> disassemble most
>
> of it to use it where I could. If I were doing it again, I would
> buy the
> parts (connectors, wire, switches) from B&C or your local reputable
> electrical supplier or Stein and do the whole wire job terminals
> and all
> myself.
>
> The extra and mods needed will depend a lot on the electrical
> components of
> your plane's design. Larry in Indiana
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>>
>>
>> I am curious to find if anyone on the list has started with the Van's
>> wiring harness kit as the basic start of their wiring.
>>
>> What kind of extras or modifications did you include if you used it?
>>
>> Any help or comments would be welcomed.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Electric Elevator Trim connector |
Hi Fred-
>I'm interested in knowing what others have done for electrical
>connectors for the servo, and where they have located that
>connector (i.e., in the tail area or the fuselage).
I found a 7 pin annular connector, perhaps at RS, that works well. By
leaving the outer most shell off, it has a small enough diameter to fit
through the hole. Just make sure that if you use a snap bushing in the
butt rib hole it is oriented correctly for removal of the ass'y. I heat
shrink the connector into one lump which I then ty wrap to the aft deck
between the HS spars.
Hope this helps-
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | encoder approval |
8/11/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Kevin
Horton.
Hello Kevin, Time spent in attempting to correct an injustice or an
absurdity by governments is never wasted. It is a peculiarity of human
nature that once people are placed in a position of authority or officialdom
that a percentage of them will abuse that position either out of ignorance
or arrogance. Left unchallenged, that abuse never diminishes on its own, but
instead tends to grow.
The current situation is that every day companies are manufacturing and
selling more non TSO'd encoders that are better than the TSO calls for, some
builder are buying those encoders or have bought them in the past, avionics
shops are approving those non TSO'd encoders in accordance with the tests
called for in FAR Part 43 Appendix E and F, and many airplanes (hundreds?
thousands?) are flying around with those encoders responding with an
altitude readout that ATC is entirely satisfied with.
And FAA headquarters currently says: "No, that can't be because it is in
violation of FAR 91.217 (b) as we interpret it."
I don't know how this situation would eventually resolve itself if we just
ignored it, but I don't feel that a head-in-the-sand approach is the best
way to go.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<
Good luck. I think you are wasting your time, albeit for a good
cause. Granted, you might manage to find some FSDO that doesn't
understand that 95% probability does in fact mean over the full range
of expected conditions (speaking from experience working with the
aircraft cert FARs for many years). But, once Washington finds out
the FSDO has approved something under 91.217(b) without requiring
testing over the full range of conditions, they will probably release
a policy letter that stops you in your tracks.
I'm not saying that things should be like this, but this is the way
they are, like it or not. The only way out, in my opinion, is a
change to 91.217, but reg changes typically take 10 years or more.
Kevin Horton>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | encoder approval |
8/11/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brett
Ferrell
Hello Brett, Thanks for your input.
In fact it was the EAA web site wording that caused me to take action on
this issue.
My reaction was: How can the EAA, which is supposed to be our amateur built
proponent, ignore the current situation which is that every day companies
are manufacturing and
selling more non TSO'd encoders that are better than the TSO calls for, some
builder are buying those encoders or have bought them in the past, avionics
shops are approving those non TSO'd encoders in accordance with the tests
called for in FAR Part 43 Appendix E and F, and many airplanes (hundreds?
thousands?) are flying around with those encoders responding with an
altitude readout that ATC is entirely satisfied with?
When I corresponded with EAA on this issue their response was: "We stand by
our position."
I could not accept this head-in-the-sand approach and wrote to the FAA.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<
Have you enlisted the help of EAA on this matter? I would think that thier
involvement would be helpful. They've already weighed in on this matter, in
the other direction, supposedly with FAA input!!.....skip.....>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
Hi Owen,
Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons to
require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude, over
the full range of conditions under which it will operate? How can
you be assured that a non-TSO'd encoder will operate correctly at
temperature extremes, or when subjected to vibration, humidity,
voltage variations, electromagnetic interference, etc? If the
manufacturer hasn't tested his encoder under the full range of
conditions, then he has no idea how well it will work there. If he
has done the testing, and it does operate properly over the full
range of conditions, why would the manufacturer not want to get a TSO
for it?
The fact that air traffic control has not detected a problem with
someone's encoder says very little. If there is a problem, it might
not show up until another aircraft, responding to a TCAS alert tries
to avoid your aircraft, yet hits it because the encode was in error.
Is this acceptable? Note: recent regulatory changes will require
more and more aircraft to get TCAS-like systems, so it will become
even more important that all encoders be telling the truth.
If you could write your own wording for 91.217, how would you word it
to make it cheaper to comply, yet still achieve the safely objective?
Kevin Horton
On 11 Aug 2006, at 07:23, wrote:
>
> 8/11/2006
>
> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by
> Kevin Horton.
>
> Hello Kevin, Time spent in attempting to correct an injustice or an
> absurdity by governments is never wasted. It is a peculiarity of
> human nature that once people are placed in a position of authority
> or officialdom that a percentage of them will abuse that position
> either out of ignorance or arrogance. Left unchallenged, that abuse
> never diminishes on its own, but instead tends to grow.
>
> The current situation is that every day companies are manufacturing
> and selling more non TSO'd encoders that are better than the TSO
> calls for, some builder are buying those encoders or have bought
> them in the past, avionics shops are approving those non TSO'd
> encoders in accordance with the tests called for in FAR Part 43
> Appendix E and F, and many airplanes (hundreds? thousands?) are
> flying around with those encoders responding with an altitude
> readout that ATC is entirely satisfied with.
>
> And FAA headquarters currently says: "No, that can't be because it
> is in violation of FAR 91.217 (b) as we interpret it."
>
> I don't know how this situation would eventually resolve itself if
> we just ignored it, but I don't feel that a head-in-the-sand
> approach is the best way to go.
>
> OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
>
> <
>
> Good luck. I think you are wasting your time, albeit for a good
> cause. Granted, you might manage to find some FSDO that doesn't
> understand that 95% probability does in fact mean over the full range
> of expected conditions (speaking from experience working with the
> aircraft cert FARs for many years). But, once Washington finds out
> the FSDO has approved something under 91.217(b) without requiring
> testing over the full range of conditions, they will probably release
> a policy letter that stops you in your tracks.
>
> I'm not saying that things should be like this, but this is the way
> they are, like it or not. The only way out, in my opinion, is a
> change to 91.217, but reg changes typically take 10 years or more.
>
> Kevin Horton>>
>
>
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector |
>>>>
>>>> I'm about to install my Electric Elevator Trim servo in the new RV-7A.
>>>>I'm interested in knowing what others have done for electrical
>>>>connectors for the servo, and where they have located that
>>>>connector (i.e., in the tail area or the fuselage).
>>>> So far, most everything I've seen will not allow the elevator to be
>>>>removed as the connector will not fit through the hole in the elevator
>>>>or the rear spare of the horizontal stab....This includes DB-9
>>>>connectors......
>>>>
>>>>Fred Stucklen
>>>>RV-7A N924RV
>>>
>>>Fred,
>>> The best solution to allow elevator removal is to use Bob Nuckoll's
>>> suggested method. Use D Sub male and female terminals without the S Sub
>>> block. Crimp or solder the male and female terminals to the 5 wires.
>>> Slide heat shrink over the wires then connect the terminals. Use heat
>>> to shrink the heat shrink tubing over the connected joint. This will
>>> hold the connection tight and keep it dry.
>>> To remove, simply slice the heat shrink with a razor blade and
>>> disconnect the D Sub pins. It will allow the connector pins to be
>>> withdrawn through the rather small hole in the elevator spar. Stagger
>>> the connectors to ease removal. Bob has or had a photo "how to" page on
>>> his site. I looked quickly, but couldn't locate it.
Funny thing about that Charlie, I couldn't either. Programming
is such a fussy science. I had one quote sign missing in the
articles index code and it hosed two lines of the index making
a couple of items disappear. The comic book you're remembering
is at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html
and the code has been repaired. Thanks for bringing it up!
Also see last photo at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html
or
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/e.jpg
Keep in mind that the wires provide on the Ray-Allen
servos is (ugh!) 26AWG. The simple female-pin/male-pin splice
illustrated is still pretty fragile in tension on the small-wire
side of the simple shrink-over-D-sub-pin splice. I'd be
a bit more comfortable with the former solution where the
tiny wires are supported by the final doping of uckum-yucky.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for Brian Lloyd |
>
>
>On Aug 10, 2006, at 10:25 PM, Dennis Johnson wrote:
>
>>Hi Brian (and others),
>>
>>A couple of weeks ago you posted a suggestion for connecting a
>>stereo IPod-type device to a mono audio panel. You said to insert
>>a 100 ohm resistor in series in each of the left and right
>>channels, at the stereo jack, before combining the left and right
>>channels together.
>>
>>I'm now wiring my panel and I have a stereo jack that I'll connect
>>to my mono audio panel. I was planning to just jumper the left and
>>right (high) terminals together at the stereo jack so I can listen
>>to my IPod in flight. Can you expand a little on the need for the
>>resistors? I actually have two concerns: One is that I'd like to
>>understand the issue a little bit, and the other is that I've heard
>>that people don't get enough volume from portable entertainment
>>devices, and the resistors might make that problem worse.
>
>Well, it gets to the way solid-state audio amplifier output stages
>are built. They are designed to have very low output impedance. This
>way they can generate a voltage output that isn't much affected by
>the thing receiving the voltage (a speaker or earspeaker in this
>case). In addition they use negative feedback, i.e. part of the the
>output signal is inverted (flipped over) and fed back to the input in
>order to cancel out errors (distortion) generated within the amp
>itself. This further reduces the output impedance. So if you tie one
>output to the other, the output that is NOT generating the signal you
>want will look almost like a dead short to the output that is.
>
>Now many of you have tied the left and right outputs together and you
>get sound. That is because most of the audio is in-phase and a lot of
>the signal is identical in both the left and right channels. You hear
>sound. The problem comes when there is something on the left channel
>that doesn't appear on the right. The right output will then act as
>almost a short to that part of the signal. Very little of what is on
>the left channel will make it to your audio panel or intercom.
>
>So we add the 100 ohm resistors. These keep one output from loading
>down the other. The two signals, left and right, then mix and you get
>the best possible output with less distortion and less load on the
>two amplifier outputs.
Brian's most lucid explanation is illustrated and further
supported in the audio chapter of the 'Connection which one
may presently access at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Christopher Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS Antenna Cable... |
--- 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: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Transponder replacement..... |
I dunno, but I always tend to be suspicious of people trying to sell me
something by bitching about something somebody else is selling...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
Baker
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transponder replacement.....
Just wondering if anyone had any comments concerning the
following issue with Narco transponder units..
http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/NarcoProblems.htm
My old AT-50A is complaining and was looking for a direct
replacement without re-wiring...til I saw this article. Like to have
a 165 but now I'm not so sure....
Thanks.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | New search feature on aeroelectric.com |
While hosting a birthday party for my web-savy nephew last
weekend, we were discussing some enhancements to the aeroelectric.com
website. The amount of material is getting large and hard to access.
I've been working on new indexing pages, albeit slowly . . . very
low priority project.
Nephew CJ suggested that I take advantage of a feature in Google
that lets you build site-unique search queries. At his suggestion,
I've added the code to several top pages on the website. Of course,
when you use this "free" tool, one gets a lot of advertising along
with the search results . . . but the capabilities and utilitarian
value of this tool are indisputable.
I'll encourage folks who use this feature to let me know if there
are any "glitches" in its behavior.
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: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | source for milspec parts |
Thank you all for the replies on the encoder issue. I have a Cessna, so
I'll have to wait on the Rocky Mountain encoder.
My ap is ok with a few items I want to do (isolate avionics bus with
alternate feed for one, annunciator panel for another, replacing the Cessna erector
set flap switch, etc.) but he would feel more comfortable using some sort of
"milspec" pieces-switches, led lights, fuse holders, etc. (wire I have).
Is there a source for small orders of things like these? I've looked on the
internet but no luck.
Thanks for your help, Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector |
Hey Fred,
I used a Dean's 5 pin connector from the hobby shop. This is a thin
connector with VERY tight fitting gold pins. It will fit through the
oval shaped hole in the elevator. The hole in the spar was enlarge to
accommodate.
A rubber grommet was used on the oval hole and works great. I split a
grommet for the hole in the spar. As an added measure of protection I
protected the wires with heat shrink tubing where the wires pass through
the elevator and spar.
Very neat, simple and serviceable unit. Sorry don't have any pictures of
this.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
RV7 N717EE
130+ hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch breakers) |
Like many of you on the list, I've had dealings with the
government on aviation matters for over 40 years. I've observed
a trend within the FAA that is mirrored in the industry. Fewer
and fewer individuals of responsibility UNDERSTAND the science
of their craft. Those who do understand have less and less
authority to exercise their skills free of bureaucratic impediments
to progress. I have been a dismayed witness to the decline of both
government's ability to "protect us from ourselves" and industry's
ability to apply simple-ideas in logical ways to enhance the
value of their product.
With respect to the "legal" modification of TC aircraft at any
level, I crafted this piece about 7 years ago prompted by
a thread on some forum . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/major.html
In the intervening years, I've observed no situations that
would cause me to modify that article in any way. In fact,
just last week, I finished a series of hat-dances driven
by regulation, policy, and procedures that cost hundreds
of thousands of dollars to do a simple, no-brainer mod
to a TC aircraft . . . for all the stacks of paper generated
and $time$ expended, the "certification" effort proved
nothing we didn't already know and prompted no changes
in materials or design. I.e, added no value.
I've often suggested that if there's a bright star on
the horizon for small, personally owned aircraft, it's in
the basements and garages of folks here on the List and
elsewhere who have taken the initiative to seek divorce
from the institutions and philosophies that are presently
strangling general aviation.
Are we a "force" strong enough to resist the relentless,
incremental pressures for which bureaucracies are so
famous? Don't know. But if one plots present trends out
into the future, it is exceedingly difficult to be optimistic.
Enjoy it while you can my friends.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch |
breakers)
What we need is a popular revolt or uprising. A person with
knowledge of how to organize people for civil disobedience. A mutiny
on a grand scale. But positioned so the average Joe on the street
who doesn't know what GA is will be rooting for US.
What do we need? IMPROVED SAFETY. When do we need it? NOW!
The government is allowing AIRLINERS to CRASH because of RED TAPE.
Why? ANTIQUATED ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS.
BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE that impedes the adoption of SAFER SYSTEMS.
What do we want? MODERN ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS.
What will happen if we don't get what we want? MORE CRASHES, MORE FIRES.
What we need is a Rosa Parks who is NOT WILLING TO GET OFF THE E-BUS!
Something along those lines.
:)
Dave Morris
At 09:23 AM 8/11/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>Like many of you on the list, I've had dealings with the
>government on aviation matters for over 40 years. I've observed
>a trend within the FAA that is mirrored in the industry. Fewer
>and fewer individuals of responsibility UNDERSTAND the science
>of their craft. Those who do understand have less and less
>authority to exercise their skills free of bureaucratic impediments
>to progress. I have been a dismayed witness to the decline of both
>government's ability to "protect us from ourselves" and industry's
>ability to apply simple-ideas in logical ways to enhance the
>value of their product.
>
>With respect to the "legal" modification of TC aircraft at any
>level, I crafted this piece about 7 years ago prompted by
>a thread on some forum . . .
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/major.html
>
>In the intervening years, I've observed no situations that
>would cause me to modify that article in any way. In fact,
>just last week, I finished a series of hat-dances driven
>by regulation, policy, and procedures that cost hundreds
>of thousands of dollars to do a simple, no-brainer mod
>to a TC aircraft . . . for all the stacks of paper generated
>and $time$ expended, the "certification" effort proved
>nothing we didn't already know and prompted no changes
>in materials or design. I.e, added no value.
>
>I've often suggested that if there's a bright star on
>the horizon for small, personally owned aircraft, it's in
>the basements and garages of folks here on the List and
>elsewhere who have taken the initiative to seek divorce
>from the institutions and philosophies that are presently
>strangling general aviation.
>
>Are we a "force" strong enough to resist the relentless,
>incremental pressures for which bureaucracies are so
>famous? Don't know. But if one plots present trends out
>into the future, it is exceedingly difficult to be optimistic.
>
>Enjoy it while you can my friends.
>
>Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector |
Darwin,
I suggest you contact Vans regarding enlarging the hole in the left
elevator main spar. I did the same thing, but ended up installing a
doubler plate to shrink the hole back to the original size. When I
spoke to Vans, they said that I should not open that hole, as it will
weaken the spar. The elevator has a fair amount of load placed on it.
Hence my choice of using D Sub pins and heat shrink per the last photo below.
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html
Be sure to stagger the splice connectors, to avoid creating a knot of wire.
Charlie Kuss
>Hey Fred,
>
>I used a Dean's 5 pin connector from the hobby shop. This is a thin
>connector with VERY tight fitting gold pins. It will fit through the
>oval shaped hole in the elevator. The hole in the spar was enlarge
>to accommodate.
>
>A rubber grommet was used on the oval hole and works great. I split
>a grommet for the hole in the spar. As an added measure of
>protection I protected the wires with heat shrink tubing where the
>wires pass through the elevator and spar.
>
>Very neat, simple and serviceable unit. Sorry don't have any pictures of this.
>
>Darwin N. Barrie
>Chandler AZ
>RV7 N717EE
>130+ hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | encoder approval |
What was the input you were responding to? What position is EAA referring
to?
I went thru huge hassles over the encoder question. At that time, EAA was
saying my encoder did not have to be TSOd. BMA & GRT said their built-in
encoders were fine for IFR. But my avionics shop would not install or
calibrate anything but TSOd. Local FSDO agreed. I hassled over it for
months & ended up buying the Sandia TSO encoder.
Details beginning here:
http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsAug04.htm#aug31
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:39 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval
8/11/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brett
Ferrell
Hello Brett, Thanks for your input.
In fact it was the EAA web site wording that caused me to take action on
this issue.
My reaction was: How can the EAA, which is supposed to be our amateur built
proponent, ignore the current situation which is that every day companies
are manufacturing and
selling more non TSO'd encoders that are better than the TSO calls for, some
builder are buying those encoders or have bought them in the past, avionics
shops are approving those non TSO'd encoders in accordance with the tests
called for in FAR Part 43 Appendix E and F, and many airplanes (hundreds?
thousands?) are flying around with those encoders responding with an
altitude readout that ATC is entirely satisfied with?
When I corresponded with EAA on this issue their response was: "We stand by
our position."
I could not accept this head-in-the-sand approach and wrote to the FAA.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<
Have you enlisted the help of EAA on this matter? I would think that thier
involvement would be helpful. They've already weighed in on this matter, in
the other direction, supposedly with FAA input!!.....skip.....>>
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch |
breakers)
>
>What we need is a popular revolt or uprising. A person with knowledge of
>how to organize people for civil disobedience. A mutiny on a grand
>scale. But positioned so the average Joe on the street who doesn't know
>what GA is will be rooting for US.
>
>What do we need? IMPROVED SAFETY. When do we need it? NOW!
>The government is allowing AIRLINERS to CRASH because of RED TAPE.
>Why? ANTIQUATED ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS.
>BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE that impedes the adoption of SAFER SYSTEMS.
>What do we want? MODERN ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS.
>What will happen if we don't get what we want? MORE CRASHES, MORE FIRES.
>
>What we need is a Rosa Parks who is NOT WILLING TO GET OFF THE E-BUS!
>
>Something along those lines.
But what changes would we suggest for the "system". Keep
in mind that you cannot embarrass a bureaucrat for
no-value-added regulation. If the FAA's head-cheese
held a big meeting and said, "Were going to clean house.
We're going to do a top-to-bottom review of all policies
and procedures for the purpose of reducing no-value-added
burdens on fellow citizens."
The troops would jump to their feet, salute, yell
"Sir, yes sir!" and then run in place for a few years
until that particular thorn in their side is replaced
by the next appointee.
Government has zero control over the quality or value
of the product of any industry. The best driver for
product improvement is for the dissatisfied consumer
to switch from Brand X to Brand Y because of a perception
of greater value be it for performance, price or safety.
The role of law in all this is to punish citizens for
their attack upon the liberty of other citizens due
to force or fraud. Failure to deliver on claims of safety
is fraud.
OBAM aviation's safety record is right in line with
TC aviation. OBAM aircraft hit the same mountains, fly
into the same weather, run off the same runways. If
the FAA's oversight of TC aviation were reduced to a level
commensurate with OBAM aviation, you would no doubt see
a spike in incidents involving technical or management
incompetence . . . but those who cannot or choose not
to compete in honorable ways will soon be out of business
anyhow due to lack of customer support piled on top of
lawsuits.
There is very little evidence to support the notion
that any form of regulation will have a positive influence
on losses due lack of quality in production aircraft.
I would judge that more than half our engineering $time$
is spent on no-value-added paperwork. If that burden
went away, we could spend that $surplus$ on improving
our craft. The price of the airplane would go down and
the performance and return on investment would go up.
There's also little evidence to suggest that form and
function of an electrical system has anything at all to
do with safety . . . all the more reason to relieve it
of virtually all bureaucratic impediments to progress.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch |
breakers)
December 17, 2006 - Kitty Hawk
Today over 6,000 aircraft owners collectively defied the Federal
Aviation Administration by installing a jumper across their avionics
master switches. Sven Von Berg, leader of the revolt, stated "The
Avionics Master switch is an antiquated concept that provides a
single point of failure for the entire radio system. We cannot
continue to abide by rules that make our aircraft unsafe, and the FAA
won't do anything about it."
The Deputy Administrator for Safety of the FAA, Snidely Whiplash,
said "We can't allow people to make what are considered Major changes
to the design of their certified aircraft. These people are breaking the law."
The disagreement seems to hinge on the FAA's use of the term "Major"
to describe the 0.1 ounce jumper that the owners are
installing. "The affects the weight and balance of the entire
aircraft", said Whiplash. "Not only that, but think of the millions
of owners' handbooks that will have to be rewritten to take out
references to the avionics master switch. That will cost taxpayers
millions of dollars!"
Von Berg described as "poppycock" the idea that pilots would have to
hire an instructor to teach them how to fly the airplane without the
avionics master switch. Police who were dispatched to airfields
across the country to arrest violators of the FAA regulations were
unable to come to grips with the nature of the offense. Only one
person was actually arrested, and that was for yelling at the police officer.
In an unrelated story, a pilot was prevented from flying his wooden
airplane today during celebrations at Kitty Hawk, because his 3rd
Class Medical had expired a few days prior. "It's not safe for him
to fly today. Last week it would have been safe", said Whiplash.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On Aug 11, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons to
> require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude, over
> the full range of conditions under which it will operate?
How do you know that a TSO'd encoder will do the same? Many encoders
fail, even those meeting TSO at teh time of manufacture. The best
cross check is to have a transponder that reports pressure altitude
from the encoder (my SL-70 does) and cross-reference that to the
mechanical altimeter. Also, if you are on flight following with ATC
and deviate from your altitude by more than 300', even if you are
VFR, the will most likely ask you to check your altimeter setting. At
that point you know that something is amiss if your mechanical
altimeter says you are on your chosen altitude.
So I don't see TSO or type acceptance as being all that valuable.
Cross checking the instruments strikes me as far more interesting.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch |
breakers)
On Aug 11, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Dave N6030X wrote:
>
>
> What we need is a popular revolt or uprising. A person with
> knowledge of how to organize people for civil disobedience. A
> mutiny on a grand scale. But positioned so the average Joe on the
> street who doesn't know what GA is will be rooting for US.
>
> What do we need? IMPROVED SAFETY. When do we need it? NOW!
> The government is allowing AIRLINERS to CRASH because of RED TAPE.
> Why? ANTIQUATED ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS.
> BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE that impedes the adoption of SAFER SYSTEMS.
> What do we want? MODERN ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS.
> What will happen if we don't get what we want? MORE CRASHES, MORE
> FIRES.
>
> What we need is a Rosa Parks who is NOT WILLING TO GET OFF THE E-BUS!
I agree. I am right behind you.
And those who participate can expect to lose their licenses somehow.
(They will be 'Hoovered' by the FAA.) And then you can be involved in
the civil disobedience of flying without a ticket, something that is
NOT going to sell well with the public.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch |
breakers)
On Aug 11, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> The troops would jump to their feet, salute, yell
> "Sir, yes sir!" and then run in place for a few years
> until that particular thorn in their side is replaced
> by the next appointee.
Ah, you have hit the nail on the head.
> Government has zero control over the quality or value
> of the product of any industry. The best driver for
> product improvement is for the dissatisfied consumer
> to switch from Brand X to Brand Y because of a perception
> of greater value be it for performance, price or safety.
The problem is, there is no competition for the government. It
operates outside the laws of economics. I cannot switch my taxes to a
competitive government agency that does better work for me as I can
with businesses producing products.
> The role of law in all this is to punish citizens for
> their attack upon the liberty of other citizens due
> to force or fraud. Failure to deliver on claims of safety
> is fraud.
And rain makes applesauce.
> There is very little evidence to support the notion
> that any form of regulation will have a positive influence
> on losses due lack of quality in production aircraft.
> I would judge that more than half our engineering $time$
> is spent on no-value-added paperwork. If that burden
> went away, we could spend that $surplus$ on improving
> our craft. The price of the airplane would go down and
> the performance and return on investment would go up.
>
> There's also little evidence to suggest that form and
> function of an electrical system has anything at all to
> do with safety . . . all the more reason to relieve it
> of virtually all bureaucratic impediments to progress.
I agree. I suspect most (all?) here do too.
Hmmm. Have you ever read _Unintended_Consequences_, by John Ross?
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: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On 11 Aug 2006, at 12:45, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> yak(at)lloyd.com>
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Owen,
>>
>> Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons to
>> require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude,
>> over the full range of conditions under which it will operate?
>
> How do you know that a TSO'd encoder will do the same? Many
> encoders fail, even those meeting TSO at teh time of manufacture.
> The best cross check is to have a transponder that reports pressure
> altitude from the encoder (my SL-70 does) and cross-reference that
> to the mechanical altimeter. Also, if you are on flight following
> with ATC and deviate from your altitude by more than 300', even if
> you are VFR, the will most likely ask you to check your altimeter
> setting. At that point you know that something is amiss if your
> mechanical altimeter says you are on your chosen altitude.
>
> So I don't see TSO or type acceptance as being all that valuable.
> Cross checking the instruments strikes me as far more interesting.
Interesting point. I agree that regular monitoring of the encoder
output and/or flight following might address the issue. But I
suspect that many pilots wouldn't regularly monitor the encoder
output, and a lot of folks don't like flight following. Can't have
the UN know what you are doing all the time you know :)
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
Hi Guys
I need a special switch to install in my RV-9A, which is an Illuminated tip
Toggle Switch like this ( http://www.nkkswitches.com/pdf/M2100.pdf ), but
an
SPDT On - Off - (On)(momentary) switch, which NKK seems not to have.
Anybody knows a source for this type of switch?
TIA
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | will magnetic screwdriver cause problems |
It would be handy sometimes to use a magnet (hard drive) on my screwdriver,
will that cause any permanent problems with avionics / cdi etc.? Thanks, Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Kevin Horton wrote:
>> So I don't see TSO or type acceptance as being all that valuable.
>> Cross checking the instruments strikes me as far more interesting.
>
> Interesting point. I agree that regular monitoring of the encoder
> output and/or flight following might address the issue. But I
> suspect that many pilots wouldn't regularly monitor the encoder
> output, and a lot of folks don't like flight following. Can't have
> the UN know what you are doing all the time you know :)
Given the proliferation of TFRs with fires and the mindless
wanderings of politicians during mating season with the electorate
down here, (ah, I feel another screwing coming on) it is almost
necessary to use ATC advisories in the US now. Gone is the time when
I used to fly without advisories while listening to my iPod and
enjoying the scenery.
(There is only one area in my common comings and goings where I don't
feel I have to deal with ATC and that is just after leaving Haitian
airspace and before reaching the airspace around Nassau. The Bahamian
waters are beautiful blue-green; the airplanes nonexistant; and the
airspace non-US. The only down side is that there is no one to talk
to should I encounter a problem.)
Given that more people are going for all-in-one PFDs like Dynon, et
al, one is going to want to have a cross-reference for altitude. This
means a display for your encoder. By having a second air-data device
with a display you can cross check with your PFD. Something to think
about.
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: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
At 01:28 PM 8/11/2006, you wrote:
>
>On 11 Aug 2006, at 12:45, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>On Aug 11, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Kevin Horton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi Owen,
>>>
>>>Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons to
>>>require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude,
>>>over the full range of conditions under which it will operate?
>>
>>How do you know that a TSO'd encoder will do the same? Many
>>encoders fail, even those meeting TSO at teh time of manufacture.
>>The best cross check is to have a transponder that reports pressure
>>altitude from the encoder (my SL-70 does) and cross-reference that
>>to the mechanical altimeter. Also, if you are on flight following
>>with ATC and deviate from your altitude by more than 300', even if
>>you are VFR, the will most likely ask you to check your altimeter
>>setting. At that point you know that something is amiss if your
>>mechanical altimeter says you are on your chosen altitude.
>>
>>So I don't see TSO or type acceptance as being all that valuable.
>>Cross checking the instruments strikes me as far more interesting.
>
>Interesting point. I agree that regular monitoring of the encoder
>output and/or flight following might address the issue. But I
>suspect that many pilots wouldn't regularly monitor the encoder
>output, and a lot of folks don't like flight following. Can't have
>the UN know what you are doing all the time you know :)
>
>Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
>Ottawa, Canada
>http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Kevin,
One of the really neat features of the RMI uEncoder is that it's
OAT sensor and internal circuitry allow it to display not only
indicated altitude, but also density altitude,pressure altitude, true
altitude AND reported (encoder) altitude. See the link below to go to
the uEncoder features link once on the main page for more info.
http://www.rkymtn.com/
With a separate altimeter to check against, it's very easy to
determine if the encoder develops an error. I suspect that most of
the EFISs also have this feature.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | will magnetic screwdriver cause problems |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
In A & P school we used to throw fasteners into automotive style bowls
with the magnet in the bottom. Our instructor required we demonstrate
that no magnetism had affected the required fasteners. To our surprise,
all had slight magnetism and had to be discarded when attached to
turbine powerplants.
Electronics techs have their own set of plastic (non metallic) drivers.
Deguss meters were used to confirm the transfer of force field to the
fasteners.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: will magnetic screwdriver cause problems
It would be handy sometimes to use a magnet (hard drive) on my
screwdriver, will that cause any permanent problems with avionics / cdi
etc.? Thanks, Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On 11 Aug 2006, at 14:16, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> yak(at)lloyd.com>
>
> On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>>> So I don't see TSO or type acceptance as being all that valuable.
>>> Cross checking the instruments strikes me as far more interesting.
>>
>> Interesting point. I agree that regular monitoring of the encoder
>> output and/or flight following might address the issue. But I
>> suspect that many pilots wouldn't regularly monitor the encoder
>> output, and a lot of folks don't like flight following. Can't
>> have the UN know what you are doing all the time you know :)
>
> Given that more people are going for all-in-one PFDs like Dynon, et
> al, one is going to want to have a cross-reference for altitude.
> This means a display for your encoder. By having a second air-data
> device with a display you can cross check with your PFD. Something
> to think about.
>
The Dynon EFIS is capable of acting as an encoder, and I would bet
you a case of beer that there are aircraft flying with the Dynon EFIS
acting as an encoder, with no other altimeter on the aircraft. Now
there is absolutely nothing to cross check against. Now even flight
following won't help, as the pilot would be trying to fly to the same
possibly erroneous altitude source that ATC would be looking at.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On Aug 11, 2006, at 3:24 PM, Kevin Horton wrote:
> The Dynon EFIS is capable of acting as an encoder, and I would bet
> you a case of beer that there are aircraft flying with the Dynon
> EFIS acting as an encoder, with no other altimeter on the
> aircraft. Now there is absolutely nothing to cross check against.
> Now even flight following won't help, as the pilot would be trying
> to fly to the same possibly erroneous altitude source that ATC
> would be looking at.
Bingo. I rather like the Rocky Mountain microencoder.
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I'll chime in here too...
I also like WAAS enhanced GPS altitude. My little Garmin backpacker
handheld displays it, and it has only once been off more than 100ft or
so.. And that was when the altimeter in the airplane I was flying got
seriously stuck... I was climbing to get over some terrain that I am
fairly familiar with, and realized that the sight picture didn't make
sense compared to what I was used to seeing (at the altitude I thought I
was climbing through). I was trying to resolve that when I happened to
glance at the GPS which I often wedge between the glareshield and the
windshield and noticed that there was almost exactly 2000ft of discrepancy
between the GPS altitude and the baro instrument (I was at that time at
about 10.5k' MSL, not the planned 8.5kMSL). ??? So, I touched the adjust
knob on the baro instrument, and almost instantly the hands wound around
to match up with the GPS reading. ??? Gives you a very funny feeling. I
am certainly glad nothing like that has happened IFR.
The above said, a baro encoder with an extra display is a nice thing. The
T2000 txp in my Varieze displays encoder altitude, and has an adjustment
which allows correction for barometric pressure. While certainly not as
slick as the micro encoder, it does the job.
Regards,
Matt-
> At 01:28 PM 8/11/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>On 11 Aug 2006, at 12:45, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>>
>>> yak(at)lloyd.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Aug 11, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Kevin Horton wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hi Owen,
>>>>
>>>>Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons to
>>>>require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude,
>>>>over the full range of conditions under which it will operate?
>>>
>>>How do you know that a TSO'd encoder will do the same? Many
>>>encoders fail, even those meeting TSO at teh time of manufacture.
>>>The best cross check is to have a transponder that reports pressure
>>>altitude from the encoder (my SL-70 does) and cross-reference that
>>>to the mechanical altimeter. Also, if you are on flight following
>>>with ATC and deviate from your altitude by more than 300', even if
>>>you are VFR, the will most likely ask you to check your altimeter
>>>setting. At that point you know that something is amiss if your
>>>mechanical altimeter says you are on your chosen altitude.
>>>
>>>So I don't see TSO or type acceptance as being all that valuable.
>>>Cross checking the instruments strikes me as far more interesting.
>>
>>Interesting point. I agree that regular monitoring of the encoder
>>output and/or flight following might address the issue. But I
>>suspect that many pilots wouldn't regularly monitor the encoder
>>output, and a lot of folks don't like flight following. Can't have
>>the UN know what you are doing all the time you know :)
>>
>>Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
>>Ottawa, Canada
>>http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
> Kevin,
> One of the really neat features of the RMI uEncoder is that it's
> OAT sensor and internal circuitry allow it to display not only
> indicated altitude, but also density altitude,pressure altitude, true
> altitude AND reported (encoder) altitude. See the link below to go to
> the uEncoder features link once on the main page for more info.
>
> http://www.rkymtn.com/
>
> With a separate altimeter to check against, it's very easy to
> determine if the encoder develops an error. I suspect that most of
> the EFISs also have this feature.
> Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
Yes, WAAS enhanced GPS altitude can save you from large errors, as
happened to you. But, everyone needs to understand that barometric
altitude, as seen on an altimeter is not at all the same thing as GPS
altitude. They can be differ by many hundreds of feet if the
temperature is significantly different from standard. In cold
temperatures the altimeter will read high than the GPS, and in warm
temperatures it will read lower. The difference will be about 4% for
every 10 deg C that the temperature differs from standard. The
difference will be zero on the ground at the airport where the
altimeter setting came from, and will count up from there. E.g, if
you were at 5500 ft, with an altimeter setting that came from an
airport at 500 ft, and the temperature was 25 deg C colder than
standard, the altimeter would read about 500 ft higher than the GPS.
The air traffic system is built on the premise that people will fly
specific barometric altitudes (i.e. based on a barometric
altimeter). If you use GPS altitude, you may be negating the
altitude separation that is assumed. In the example above, a guy
flying VFR who wanted to be at 5500 ft, and decided to use his GPS as
the altitude reference, would actually be at about 6000 ft barometric
altitude, right at an IFR altitude. Not good.
If you see a significant difference between your altimeter and your
GPS, please continue to fly the altimeter, unless you are in cloud,
at an altitude where obstacle clearance is a concern. In this case,
declare an emergency, tell ATC you really don't know what your
altitude is, and use which ever one is indicating lower as your
reference. Get your altimeter checked by an avionics shop before the
next flight.
Kevin Horton
On 11 Aug 2006, at 16:16, Matt Prather wrote:
>
>
> I'll chime in here too...
>
> I also like WAAS enhanced GPS altitude. My little Garmin backpacker
> handheld displays it, and it has only once been off more than 100ft or
> so.. And that was when the altimeter in the airplane I was flying got
> seriously stuck... I was climbing to get over some terrain that I am
> fairly familiar with, and realized that the sight picture didn't make
> sense compared to what I was used to seeing (at the altitude I
> thought I
> was climbing through). I was trying to resolve that when I
> happened to
> glance at the GPS which I often wedge between the glareshield and the
> windshield and noticed that there was almost exactly 2000ft of
> discrepancy
> between the GPS altitude and the baro instrument (I was at that
> time at
> about 10.5k' MSL, not the planned 8.5kMSL). ??? So, I touched the
> adjust
> knob on the baro instrument, and almost instantly the hands wound
> around
> to match up with the GPS reading. ??? Gives you a very funny
> feeling. I
> am certainly glad nothing like that has happened IFR.
>
> The above said, a baro encoder with an extra display is a nice
> thing. The
> T2000 txp in my Varieze displays encoder altitude, and has an
> adjustment
> which allows correction for barometric pressure. While certainly
> not as
> slick as the micro encoder, it does the job.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On Aug 11, 2006, at 5:17 PM, Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>
> Yes, WAAS enhanced GPS altitude can save you from large errors, as
> happened to you. But, everyone needs to understand that barometric
> altitude, as seen on an altimeter is not at all the same thing as
> GPS altitude. They can be differ by many hundreds of feet if the
> temperature is significantly different from standard.
When flying at 14,000' or so in the dead of winter I have seen errors
as much as 2000'. (This is another reason MEAs have lots of margin
built into them.)
>
> The air traffic system is built on the premise that people will fly
> specific barometric altitudes (i.e. based on a barometric
> altimeter). If you use GPS altitude, you may be negating the
> altitude separation that is assumed. In the example above, a guy
> flying VFR who wanted to be at 5500 ft, and decided to use his GPS
> as the altitude reference, would actually be at about 6000 ft
> barometric altitude, right at an IFR altitude. Not good.
This is what the altitude correction section on your E6B is for. Play
with it. Plug in temp and pressure altitude and see what the
correction factor is. If you correct the barometric altimeter for
pressure and temperature you will find it will compare favorably with
what your GPS reads out.
> If you see a significant difference between your altimeter and your
> GPS, please continue to fly the altimeter, unless you are in cloud,
> at an altitude where obstacle clearance is a concern. In this
> case, declare an emergency, tell ATC you really don't know what
> your altitude is, and use which ever one is indicating lower as
> your reference. Get your altimeter checked by an avionics shop
> before the next flight.
Good advice but try your E6B first. Most of us never spend any time
with this feature when learning to fly but it can make a big
difference when you are in a marginal climb condition and wondering
if you are going to be 100' above or 100' below the ridgeline you are
thinking of crossing. Believe me, 100' can make a big difference
between having a good hair day and a bad hair day.
I have been flying for a lot of years (38 now) and, believe it or
not, I still use my E6B on almost *every* flight (even if for nothing
more than TAS conversion). It is still the same old aluminum
Sanderson E6B my father gave me when I was 15 and getting ready to
take ground school. It still works and the batteries still haven't
worn out.
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: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On 11 Aug 2006, at 18:10, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> yak(at)lloyd.com>
>
> On Aug 11, 2006, at 5:17 PM, Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Yes, WAAS enhanced GPS altitude can save you from large errors, as
>> happened to you. But, everyone needs to understand that
>> barometric altitude, as seen on an altimeter is not at all the
>> same thing as GPS altitude. They can be differ by many hundreds
>> of feet if the temperature is significantly different from standard.
>
> Good advice but try your E6B first. Most of us never spend any time
> with this feature when learning to fly but it can make a big
> difference when you are in a marginal climb condition and wondering
> if you are going to be 100' above or 100' below the ridgeline you
> are thinking of crossing. Believe me, 100' can make a big
> difference between having a good hair day and a bad hair day.
To be honest, I had completely forgotten that an E6B had this
feature. Now I have to try to find mine :)
I wouldn't really on any calculation if you only have a few hundred
feet of obstacle clearance, if you are at altitude. The calculation
is only accurate if you can account for the temperature difference
from ISA at every point from the airport to altitude. The rule of
thumb (and the E6B) use a single number for the temperature
difference, rather than try to use the varying temperature errors at
various altitudes. That is a bit of a long way to say that the
correction factors are only approximate in any real world case. If
you calculate 100 ft of obstacle clearance, turn back, please. I'd
want to calculate at least 1000 ft of clearance, ideally even more.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: will magnetic screwdriver cause problems |
In a message dated 8/11/06 2:23:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
CardinalNSB(at)aol.com writes:
> It would be handy sometimes to use a magnet (hard drive) on my screwdriver,
> will that cause any permanent problems with avionics / cdi etc.? Thanks,
> Skip
----------------------------------------------------
Skip:
I'm not sure what you mean by HARD DRIVE???
As for using a screwdriver with a magnetic tip on instruments ... WHERE on
the instrument? Even as an EXPERIMENTAL plane you are not allowed to go inside
avionics. Unless they are experimental avionics but you would probably void
the warranty if you did. As for the MOUNTING SCREWS, they should be
nonmagnetic, either brass or S/S. So, as you might guess a magnetic screw driver
won't
help.
If you have analog CDIs I would keep magnets away from them as well as any
electrical analog gage/meter; just as a common practices.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder replacement..... |
| From: | "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
Jim Baker wrote:
> Just wondering if anyone had any comments concerning the
> following issue with Narco transponder units..
>
> http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/NarcoProblems.htm
Ive had no problems with my AT-165. If Narco says their transponders work, as
they must, and they pass the biennial check, we can use them. Keith Peshak doesnt
make the rules, and hes been raging about the P4 problem for years to no
apparent avail. FAA ignores.
I had an AT-150 covered by the AD (apparent P4 problem), but never did it. ATC
never said anything. Perhaps a problem in isolated instances (re TCAS, I think).
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54262#54262
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: will magnetic screwdriver cause problems |
Rocky Mountain MicroEncoder is a kit you solder together yourself.
Dave Morris
At 06:15 PM 8/11/2006, you wrote:
>Even as an EXPERIMENTAL plane you are not allowed to go inside
>avionics. Unless they are experimental avionics but you would probably void
>the warranty if you did.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On Aug 11, 2006, at 6:57 PM, Kevin Horton wrote:
> To be honest, I had completely forgotten that an E6B had this
> feature. Now I have to try to find mine :)
I was completely blown away at the cool stuff I could do with my E6B
back when I was a kid. I still am.
>
> I wouldn't really on any calculation if you only have a few hundred
> feet of obstacle clearance, if you are at altitude. The
> calculation is only accurate if you can account for the temperature
> difference from ISA at every point from the airport to altitude.
> The rule of thumb (and the E6B) use a single number for the
> temperature difference, rather than try to use the varying
> temperature errors at various altitudes. That is a bit of a long
> way to say that the correction factors are only approximate in any
> real world case. If you calculate 100 ft of obstacle clearance,
> turn back, please. I'd want to calculate at least 1000 ft of
> clearance, ideally even more.
Some people just get too literal. ;-) The point I think we
both were making was that the altimeter lies. It always lies except
when you are on the ground and you turn the kollsman knob to make it
read airport elevation. (Have you ever noticed that sometimes when
you do that it doesn't match the altimeter setting from the nearby
airport with an ATIS that happens to be at a different altitude?)
But all kidding aside, there really are significant errors and they
get worse as you go up and the temp differs from ISA. But you do only
need OAT and p-alt to get the correction factor. Does the Rocky
Mountain uEncoder provide true altitude? Ah, I see that it does.
Seems like a good thing.
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: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: will magnetic screwdriver cause problems |
Dave,
You can also buy the uEncoder fully assembled. It just costs more.
I suggest buying a used one. You can find them used for about $500.
Parts are cheap. I bought mine from Jerry Carter. I got it with the
optional compass module. I paid $500. Jerry accidently scratched the
screen during a removal. I purchased a replacement screen from RMI.
What do you think it cost????
$100?
Try $24.95! What a deal. I haven't even installed it yet, because the
scratch is barely noticeable. One is for sale on Doug Reeves site. See
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t-16
Charlie Kuss
>
>Rocky Mountain MicroEncoder is a kit you solder together yourself.
>
>Dave Morris
>
>At 06:15 PM 8/11/2006, you wrote:
>>Even as an EXPERIMENTAL plane you are not allowed to go inside
>>avionics. Unless they are experimental avionics but you would probably void
>>the warranty if you did.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On 11 Aug 2006, at 19:44, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> yak(at)lloyd.com>
>
> On Aug 11, 2006, at 6:57 PM, Kevin Horton wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't really on any calculation if you only have a few
>> hundred feet of obstacle clearance, if you are at altitude. The
>> calculation is only accurate if you can account for the
>> temperature difference from ISA at every point from the airport to
>> altitude. The rule of thumb (and the E6B) use a single number for
>> the temperature difference, rather than try to use the varying
>> temperature errors at various altitudes. That is a bit of a long
>> way to say that the correction factors are only approximate in any
>> real world case. If you calculate 100 ft of obstacle clearance,
>> turn back, please. I'd want to calculate at least 1000 ft of
>> clearance, ideally even more.
>
> Some people just get too literal. ;-)
Well, I figured you probably knew that the calculation wasn't
accurate enough to go with a 100 ft margin, but some other people on
the list might not know that.
> But all kidding aside, there really are significant errors and they
> get worse as you go up and the temp differs from ISA. But you do
> only need OAT and p-alt to get the correction factor. Does the
> Rocky Mountain uEncoder provide true altitude? Ah, I see that it
> does. Seems like a good thing.
Yes, you can get an approximate correction factor (emphasis on the
word approximate) with one OAT and a pressure altitude. But, the
temperature ratio to standard temperature is never a constant value
over the altitude band from the airport to the aircraft. When it is
very cold, there is often a temperature inversion in the lower few
hundred feet, with the temperature increasing with altitude. This
sort of thing really fouls up any correction that is based on a
single OAT difference from ISA.
I agree that the uEncoder's "true altitude" function is a nice touch,
but I wish they had chosen a different name. The uEncoder "true
altitude" will still be in error by several hundred feet in many real
world situations.
A whole bunch more info on why corrections using a single OAT value
are only an approximation:
http://mtp.jpl.nasa.gov/notes/altitude/AviationAltiudeScales.html
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "Major" vs. "minor" |
>
>The problem is, there is no competition for the government. It
>operates outside the laws of economics. I cannot switch my taxes to a
>competitive government agency that does better work for me as I can
>with businesses producing products.
Correct. No consumer/supplier relationship . . . and no warranty
either. We are not permitted to seek and accept or reject
the 'service' nor are we blessed with the conditions that
permit us to get our money back when the service is not as
advertised.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder replacement..... |
On Aug 11, 2006, at 7:33 PM, europa flugzeug fabrik wrote:
>
>
>
> Jim Baker wrote:
>> Just wondering if anyone had any comments concerning the
>> following issue with Narco transponder units..
>>
>> http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/NarcoProblems.htm
>
> Ive had no problems with my AT-165. If Narco says their
> transponders work, as they must, and they pass the biennial check,
> we can use them. Keith Peshak doesnt make the rules, and hes
> been raging about the P4 problem for years to no apparent avail.
> FAA ignores.
>
> I had an AT-150 covered by the AD (apparent P4 problem), but never
> did it. ATC never said anything. Perhaps a problem in isolated
> instances (re TCAS, I think).
I have had problems with transponder/RADAR compatibility with a
couple of different transponders, all of which checked out OK on the
bench (with one exception). The problems do exist and it is possible
that a transponder that checks good on the bench will not work
properly with some ATC RADARs. I even received a pink-slip from the
FAA grounding my aircraft until the transponder was repaired. The
funny thing was, it worked fine with Sacramento, "failed" with
Stockton, and then worked fine again when I crossed into Bay
Approach's airspace. (One flight, all within the space of 15
minutes.) Still, I had to pay a shop to recertify my transponder and
then send the paperwork to the FAA before I could fly again. Funny
thing, the shop found the transponder to be working perfectly.
FWIW, I have had problems with the Terra transponder (no longer made)
and the Garmin GTX-320. The 320 was especially troublesome with
obvious engineering deficiencies in that it was almost impossible to
tune it accurately and get it to stay on frequency. The most reliable
transponder I have ever used is the King KT-76A. Right now I have
Apollo SL-70 transponders in my aircraft and they seem to be quite
reliable although I don't have the same number of years of experience
I have had with the KT-76A.
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: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Major" vs. "minor" |
OK, but this is a government "of, by, and for the people". We are
the people. Do we have to let this happen around us with no resistance?
That's why I think (as distasteful as it is to me), we need to do
something like Ralph Nader did, when he turned SAFETY into an issue
that forced the government to make all sorts of changes. It turned
out his "safety" issue was a complete lie and fabrication, and the
Corvair was completely innocent of all charges, but he was able
nonetheless to use that technique to do in a matter of a year or two
what nobody had been able to do before: fight city hall.
How could that be translated into the aviation world? How many
members do AOPA and EAA have combined?
Dave Morris
At 08:41 AM 8/12/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>The problem is, there is no competition for the government. It
>>operates outside the laws of economics. I cannot switch my taxes to a
>>competitive government agency that does better work for me as I can
>>with businesses producing products.
>
> Correct. No consumer/supplier relationship . . . and no warranty
> either. We are not permitted to seek and accept or reject
> the 'service' nor are we blessed with the conditions that
> permit us to get our money back when the service is not as
> advertised.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "Major" vs. "minor" |
>
>December 17, 2006 - Kitty Hawk
>
>Today over 6,000 aircraft owners collectively defied the Federal Aviation
>Administration by installing a jumper across their avionics master
>switches. Sven Von Berg, leader of the revolt, stated "The Avionics
>Master switch is an antiquated concept that provides a single point of
>failure for the entire radio system. We cannot continue to abide by rules
>that make our aircraft unsafe, and the FAA won't do anything about it."
>
>In an unrelated story, a pilot was prevented from flying his wooden
>airplane today during celebrations at Kitty Hawk, because his 3rd Class
>Medical had expired a few days prior. "It's not safe for him to fly
>today. Last week it would have been safe", said Whiplash.
An interesting thing to contemplate but consider that
bureaucracies are like big marsh mellows. You can walk
up and deliver a decidedly satisfying punch . . . perhaps
penetrating all the way up to the elbow. But walk away
and the 'wound' slowly recovers to repair the damage
you thought you delivered.
Take the boat-LORAN phenomenon of some years ago. FAA
was real excited in a regulatory sort of way when they
discovered that owners were hanging marine LORAN receivers
in their airplanes and getting useful performance that
left their esteemed VOR/DME in the dust. Did they do a mass
roundup and wholesale prosecution of those who demonstrated
displeasure by a public defiance of the rules?
No problemo . . . they threw up a few inexpensive
transmitters in the mountains and formalized the
requirements for aircraft LORAN and did an end run
on the folks who thought they'd delivered a real
blow to the FAA marsh mellow. At the same time, they
expanded their domain of "good and necessary
services for the public welfare". The $600 boat
LORAN was bureaucratically 'obsoleted' by a $2000
'certified' product.
If 6,000 owner's bypassed their avionics master
switch, the FAA could easily issue an advisory
circular that formalized the activity and then required
that 337's be executed and filed for each mod.
The aviation community might even be fooled into
believing they pulled off a victory. Instead, a
whole army of bureaucrats would have put yet
another hand into the public wallet.
The only way to end a no-value added activity
is to cut off its source of energy. I.e, it needs
to be eliminated in its entirety. Like forest
fires and crab grass (prune a little here,
poison a little there) you cannot allow remnants
from which the antagonist returns. Further, just like
organisms that are becoming increasingly resistant
to antibiotics, bureaucracies that are badly
injured but not dispatched come back in more
virulent forms. The parasitic human is much more
adaptive than plants and bacteria . . .
Civil disobedience and widely publicized "revolts"
have a certain allure but like all forms of
conflict . . . peace comes only after victory and
defeat and never by reconciliation and compromise.
Successful bureaucrats are masters of the techniques
of survival . . . either by total domination (YOUR defeat)
or finesse (compromise, mostly in their favor . . . a
slight wound but quickly healed).
I recall a scene in "Gandi" where Mahatma Gandhi was
sitting at a table of British bureaucrats and the
head cheese was inquiring of Gandi as to how they might
reach some kind of agreement (i.e. compromise). Gandi
replied that compromise was not possible and the only
recourse for the British was to simply leave.
Our brothers in the TC aircraft world are fully engulfed
by the tendrils and roots of the prevailing "public
welfare". Short of a good dose of Roundup to eliminate
the problem in it's entirety, the best we can hope for
in the OBAM aviation world is to whack off those
"runners" any time we catch one crossing the
edge of the garden. But protection from intrusion
on our craft is not enough. We're obliged to operate
in an environment that is beyond our ability to
influence. We may find ourselves in complete command
of the best aircraft ever built but allowed only to
operate in "uncontrolled airspace" at or below 700'
AGL. Seems silly to contemplate . . . but there's
absolutely nothing in the honorable citizen's bag of
tricks (beyond the election of intelligent and honorable
legislators) to keep such a thing from coming to pass . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "Major" vs. "minor" |
>
>OK, but this is a government "of, by, and for the people". We are the
>people. Do we have to let this happen around us with no resistance?
>
>That's why I think (as distasteful as it is to me), we need to do
>something like Ralph Nader did, when he turned SAFETY into an issue that
>forced the government to make all sorts of changes. It turned out his
>"safety" issue was a complete lie and fabrication, and the Corvair was
>completely innocent of all charges, but he was able nonetheless to use
>that technique to do in a matter of a year or two what nobody had been
>able to do before: fight city hall.
>
>How could that be translated into the aviation world? How many members do
>AOPA and EAA have combined?
>
>Dave Morris
There is no magnitude of public pressure that
will produced the results you seek. Yes, uncle
Ralph had an influence . . . but was it positive?
It's public outcry like Ralph's that prompted the
formation of yet more bureaucracy that ultimately
costs us money but still guarantees nothing.
If Ralph had instead concentrated on remedies in
the marketplace to illuminate and explain the
design deficiencies in a product, the educated consumer
would avoid the product and it would have died for
lack of customers. Remedies for the injured were already
in place within the legal system. But the easy route
is to persuade a majority of legislators and a president
that some new law is a solution to a problem.
I'm sure Mr. Nader believes (as do many of his
devotees) that his efforts produced a good and valuable
activity. But if one studies the economics of the
results of his actions, we're almost certain to find
that return on investment (dollars spent for lives
"saved") cannot be calculated . . . yet EVERY politician
is ready to expand a publicly financed activity in
the interest of "safety" but without a single tool
to know if the expenditure has real benefits to
the consumer. Suppler/consumer relationships are self
regulating as long as there is no force or fraud.
It's much easier and less expensive to investigate
and expose fraud than to legislate, enforce, adjudicate
and punish fraud. But the former creates no bureaucracies
and the later births and feeds many.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Major" vs. "minor" |
On Aug 12, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Dave N6030X wrote:
>
>
> OK, but this is a government "of, by, and for the people". We are
> the people. Do we have to let this happen around us with no
> resistance?
I guess that depends on you.
> That's why I think (as distasteful as it is to me), we need to do
> something like Ralph Nader did, when he turned SAFETY into an issue
> that forced the government to make all sorts of changes. It turned
> out his "safety" issue was a complete lie and fabrication, and the
> Corvair was completely innocent of all charges, but he was able
> nonetheless to use that technique to do in a matter of a year or
> two what nobody had been able to do before: fight city hall.
So the ends justifies the means?
> How could that be translated into the aviation world? How many
> members do AOPA and EAA have combined?
The government is a nasty opponent. How many people are prepared for
the hell all the government agencies could make of their life? I
would expect the "hoovering" to cross agency boundaries. You would
*start* with losing your ticket with the FAA using the justification
of "dangerous and reckless". You can then expect someone to tip off
BATF that you have illegal firearms. Someone would tip off the FBI
that you are a terrorist. Throw in an IRS audit. EPA would discover
that your business is alleged to have dumped toxic waste and is now
liable for the clean-up. Child protective services will hear rumors
that you are sexually abusing your children so they will have to
investigate. DEA will confiscate your aircraft because they have a
tip from a reliable source that you have been running drugs. Need I
go on?
None of this stuff has to actually be true; only the initial
accusation is needed to start the investigatory process. The concept
of "innocent until proven guilty" applies in criminal law but seems
to have been forgotten in administrative law. Sure you can go to
court and fight all of these things. You will probably be exonerated.
You will probably get your property and children back. But since your
adversary will have been the government, don't expect to get any
awards for your costs. Are you prepared to bear the brunt of the
costs yourself?
And the funny thing is, the people involved in these agencies will
actually believe that what they are doing is in the best interests of
the people they are protecting. Almost none of them will harbor any
ill feelings toward you. They are just doing their jobs. These are
the jobs and rules that were created by the agencies that were
created by the laws passed by the representatives that you elected.
So you are are getting government "of, by, and for the people".
So how are you going to fight it?
Sure if you could get *all* the pilots to participate it would
probably work but most people are just going to go along to get
along. There are even those who think that the government is good and
right. So you will never get 100% buy-in. And there are those who
will look at the potential and say, "not me, it just isn't that bad."
Who's left?
I agree with your sentiments. I just think we may be too late to do
anything about it. We fight our little skirmishes and hope we will be
allowed to continue to fly and live the lives we seek to live, more
or less in peace. I don't want to think about the alternatives right
now.
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: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | magnetic screwdrivers |
Thanks for the thoughts on magnetic screwdrivers, perhaps that is why my
mechanic keeps hiding the magnetic glovebox latch that Cessna so thoughtfully
designed. btw, my reference was to the "hard drive" magnets, I have a few
from generations past "neobydium" or something, they are supposed to be among
the strongest. Thanks, Skip Simpson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | altitude encoders |
8/12/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Kevin Horton
Hello Kevin, Thanks for your input.
You wrote: "....skip......But, once Washington finds out the FSDO has
approved something under 91.217(b) without requiring testing over the full
range of conditions, they will probably release
a policy letter that stops you in your tracks.....skip........"
For the most part neither FAA headquarters nor FSDO's are aware of the
situation. For years hundreds of non TSO'd altitude encoders with technology
and performance superior to that called for in the TSO have been built,
sold, installed, flying, tested satisfactorily every two years in accordance
with FAR Part 43, and flying some more.
I am not at risk of being stopped, I have a TSO'd altitude encoder in my
flying amateur built experimental airplane, but I may want to build another
plane with an EFIS and I want the EFIS developers and builders and the FAA
to have reached a rational arrangement by that time.
And I don't want that rational arrangement to include the FAA stifling the
tremendous progress that has been made by EFIS developers by throwing a
prohibitive bureaucratic blanket on the developers. Nor do I want all the
airplanes presently flying with non TSO'd altitude encoders to be grounded.
I think the solution lies in a more rational interpretation of the intent of
FAR 91.217 (b).
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<
Good luck. I think you are wasting your time, albeit for a good
cause. Granted, you might manage to find some FSDO that doesn't
understand that 95% probability does in fact mean over the full range
of expected conditions (speaking from experience working with the
aircraft cert FARs for many years). But, once Washington finds out
the FSDO has approved something under 91.217(b) without requiring
testing over the full range of conditions, they will probably release
a policy letter that stops you in your tracks.
I'm not saying that things should be like this, but this is the way
they are, like it or not. The only way out, in my opinion, is a
change to 91.217, but reg changes typically take 10 years or more.
Kevin Horton>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | encoder approval |
8/12/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Kevin Horton
Hello Again Kevin, Continuing our dialogue on our current favorite subject:
1) You wrote: "Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons
to
require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude, over
the full range of conditions under which it will operate?
Yes.
2) You wrote: " How can you be assured that a non-TSO'd encoder will operate
correctly at
temperature extremes, or when subjected to vibration, humidity,
voltage variations, electromagnetic interference, etc?
I would base my confidence in a proven non TSO'd altitude encoder on two
things:
A) The superior newer technology used in manufacturing the encoder.
B) The actual past performance of that encoder over years of use in the
field.
3) You wrote: "If the manufacturer hasn't tested his encoder under the full
range of
conditions, then he has no idea how well it will work there."
I worked for years in the airborne weapons testing field and I assure you
that there is no such thing as ground or laboratory testing "under the full
range of conditions". Actual satisfactory performance in the field after a
significant period time in use is the best indication of the suitability of
a piece of equipment for its intended use.
4) You wrote: "If he has done the testing, and it does operate properly over
the full
range of conditions, why would the manufacturer not want to get a TSO for
it?
Two words -- time and money. When a small business sets out to create,
manufacture, and sell a better mouse trap that it has developed it can only
operate for so long on the capital available before some income has to
arrive in order to sustain the business. If that capital is totally
dissipated in un needed tests and bureaucratic paper generation before
sufficient income arrives the company dies and the better mouse trap with
it.
5) You wrote: "The fact that air traffic control has not detected a problem
with
someone's encoder says very little."
You are right. But we are not talking about just someone's encoder. We are
talking about hundreds of encoders that have been performing satisfactorily
in flight for years and have satisfactorily passed the FAR Part 43
Appendices E and F tests many times every two years.
6) You wrote: "If there is a problem, it might not show up until another
aircraft, responding to a TCAS alert tries to avoid your aircraft, yet hits
it because the encode was in error.
Is this acceptable?"
No. But I say again, the technology used and the performance of the proven
non TSO'd encoders is superior to that called for in the TSO. No piece of
equipment can guarantee perfect peformance throughout its entire service
life, but the better technology encoder is less likely to have a problem
show up.
7) You wrote: "If you could write your own wording for 91.217, how would you
word it
to make it cheaper to comply, yet still achieve the safely objective?"
My preferred first step in the process to resolve the present situation is
an interpretation from FAA headquarters that automatic pressure altitude
reporting equipment that is installed in amateur built experimental aircraft
and tested in accordance with the appropriate provisions of FAR 91.411,
91.413, and appropriate Appendices to FAR Part 43 are considered to be in
compliance with FAR 91.217 (b).
I'll let the experts and lawyers work on a permanent rational solution.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<
Hi Owen,
Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons to
require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude, over
the full range of conditions under which it will operate? How can
you be assured that a non-TSO'd encoder will operate correctly at
temperature extremes, or when subjected to vibration, humidity,
voltage variations, electromagnetic interference, etc? If the
manufacturer hasn't tested his encoder under the full range of
conditions, then he has no idea how well it will work there. If he
has done the testing, and it does operate properly over the full
range of conditions, why would the manufacturer not want to get a TSO
for it?
The fact that air traffic control has not detected a problem with
someone's encoder says very little. If there is a problem, it might
not show up until another aircraft, responding to a TCAS alert tries
to avoid your aircraft, yet hits it because the encode was in error.
Is this acceptable? Note: recent regulatory changes will require
more and more aircraft to get TCAS-like systems, so it will become
even more important that all encoders be telling the truth.
If you could write your own wording for 91.217, how would you word it
to make it cheaper to comply, yet still achieve the safely objective?
Kevin Horton>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
snipped
>Given that more people are going for all-in-one PFDs like Dynon, et
>al, one is going to want to have a cross-reference for altitude. This
>means a display for your encoder. By having a second air-data device
>with a display you can cross check with your PFD. Something to think
>about.
>
>Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
>brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
>+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
Brian,
The RMI uEncoder is a great addition for the need stated above. I
gives you redundancy for all 3 primary instruments as well as an
encoder which is tied to the altimeter function. It only takes up one
3.125" hole in the panel. It's also handy for simplifying your scan
during "partial panel" practice.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On 12 Aug 2006, at 18:27, wrote:
>
> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by
> Kevin Horton
>
> 2) You wrote: " How can you be assured that a non-TSO'd encoder
> will operate correctly at
> temperature extremes, or when subjected to vibration, humidity,
> voltage variations, electromagnetic interference, etc?
>
> I would base my confidence in a proven non TSO'd altitude encoder
> on two things:
>
> A) The superior newer technology used in manufacturing the encoder.
>
> B) The actual past performance of that encoder over years of use in
> the field.
>
> 3) You wrote: "If the manufacturer hasn't tested his encoder under
> the full range of
> conditions, then he has no idea how well it will work there."
>
> I worked for years in the airborne weapons testing field and I
> assure you that there is no such thing as ground or laboratory
> testing "under the full range of conditions". Actual satisfactory
> performance in the field after a significant period time in use is
> the best indication of the suitability of a piece of equipment for
> its intended use.
So, once an encoder had a significant period of satisfactory in-
service use, it would be legal to use that encoder in service. This
might work for currently existing encoders, if we accept that there
is a reasonable probability that an in-service problem would be
detected. But how would this approach help for a new encoder?
>
> 4) You wrote: "If he has done the testing, and it does operate
> properly over the full
> range of conditions, why would the manufacturer not want to get a
> TSO for it?
>
> Two words -- time and money. When a small business sets out to
> create, manufacture, and sell a better mouse trap that it has
> developed it can only operate for so long on the capital available
> before some income has to arrive in order to sustain the business.
> If that capital is totally dissipated in un needed tests and
> bureaucratic paper generation before sufficient income arrives the
> company dies and the better mouse trap with it.
Surely the manufacturer must do a reasonable amount of testing before
they determine that the encoder actually works correctly. I wonder
why they can't document that testing and use it as part of a TSO
submission. Maybe the answer is to improve the TSO process. Review
the TSO, pull out any unneeded tests, reduce the bureaucratic
paperwork, and streamline the review process. As it is, my
recollection is that the FAA has 30 days from the time a TSO package
is submitted to accept it. That isn't bad (if my memory hasn't
failed me).
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On Aug 12, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Charlie Kuss wrote:
> Brian,
> The RMI uEncoder is a great addition for the need stated above. I
> gives you redundancy for all 3 primary instruments as well as an
> encoder which is tied to the altimeter function. It only takes up
> one 3.125" hole in the panel. It's also handy for simplifying your
> scan during "partial panel" practice.
It looks like a good instrument. The only problem with a digital
display is that it makes it hard to see trends. With steam gauges or
tapes, I get information from how fast they are moving, something
hard to see with changing numbers.
Regardless, it does give you a lot of information in one hole. I
think that if I had AoA to give me airspeed trends I wouldn't care.
Something like the uEncoder combined with an electric AI and I would
have good backup for a glass PFD.
> Charlie Kuss
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: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "Major" vs. "minor" |
Just to cheer you guys up a bit, there are at least some intelligent
folks in the FAA that do understand the bigger picture.
Consider the policy on flying Canadian homebuilts in US airspace.
The FAA website says:
"From the FAA's standpoint, manpower and budgetary resources required
for the process of completing the appropriate forms, issuing
authorizations and keeping and maintaining records exceeds the safety
benefits, if any, realized....."
therefore (my words now) download this letter, put it in your logbook,
and fly in the USA subject to the listed conditions until further notice
is issued..
A most impressive and enlightened position IMO. Hopefully the person
responsible is rising through the ranks quickly ;)
Ken
snip
> The only way to end a no-value added activity
> is to cut off its source of energy. I.e, it needs
> to be eliminated in its entirety. Like forest
> fires and crab grass (prune a little here,
> poison a little there) you cannot allow remnants
> from which the antagonist returns.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder replacement..... |
| From: | "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
brian wrote:
> I have had problems with transponder/RADAR compatibility with a couple of different
transponders, all of which checked out OK on the bench (with one exception).
The problems do exist and it is possible that a transponder that checks
good on the bench will not work
> properly with some ATC RADARs....FWIW, I have had problems with the Terra transponder
(no longer made).
Going from memory here, as Mr. Peshaks writings are too hard to follow to read
again and to avoid accusation of slander, but he makes interesting allegations.
One is that hardly any transponder meets the TSO, because if they did, ATC
systems wouldnt work, post-TCAS apparently. How FAA issues a very detailed TSO
and then privately and contrarily tells King, Collins, RCA, Narco, etc., he
doesnt say, but apparently re the "P4 pulse" potentially indistinguishable from
noise to suppress a reply. Perhaps guidance inserted as planned with each mfr
inside a Wash Post and left on a park bench near FAA @ 800 Independence Ave.
SW?
Now he says only the Terra does actually comply with the TSO, but consequently
breaks ATC interrogator/software systems. So FAA couldnt legally insist on an
AD for Terra to fix, so FAA then installed a software Terra patch. Allegedly
also an occasional interrogator sweep to detect any Terras squawking out there.
Okey dokey...I guess.
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54465#54465
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
It also has an RS-232 output that you can feed
into a laptop if you want to record it, graph it,
or use it to create your own flight instrument
displays. Combine it with a $100 GPS from
Wal-Mart, and you can do this: http://www.myglasscockpit.com/FMSSample1.jpg
Dave Morris
At 07:02 PM 8/12/2006, you wrote:
>
>On Aug 12, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Charlie Kuss wrote:
>
>>Brian,
>> The RMI uEncoder is a great addition for the need stated above. I
>>gives you redundancy for all 3 primary instruments as well as an
>>encoder which is tied to the altimeter function. It only takes up
>>one 3.125" hole in the panel. It's also handy for simplifying your
>>scan during "partial panel" practice.
>
>It looks like a good instrument. The only problem with a digital
>display is that it makes it hard to see trends. With steam gauges or
>tapes, I get information from how fast they are moving, something
>hard to see with changing numbers.
>
>Regardless, it does give you a lot of information in one hole. I
>think that if I had AoA to give me airspeed trends I wouldn't care.
>Something like the uEncoder combined with an electric AI and I would
>have good backup for a glass PFD.
>
>>Charlie Kuss
>
>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: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | encoder approval |
8/12/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by "Brian
Meyette"
Hello Brian,
1) You wrote: "What was the input you were responding to?'
I assume that you were addressing this question to me. The input that I was
responding to was a posting by Brett Ferrell.
2) You wrote: "What position is EAA referring to?"
Brett included the EAA position on TSO'd encoders in his posting. He copied
it off EAA's web site. I objected to the EAA position (as I described) and
when they brushed me off I wrote to the FAA.
I'll extract a bit of the EAA's position and copy it below:
"The requirements for altitude reporting equipment associated with the
transponder are called out in 91.217(c), which states that, the altimeters
and digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88,
respectively. TSO-C10b applies to the sensitive altimeter itself, and
TSO-C88 applies to the automatic altitude reporting equipment. Again the
equipment is required to meet the standards of the applicable TSO's, but not
necessarily be produced under a TSO authorization. But as with the
transponder, the easiest way for a builder to meet this requirement is to
install equipment manufactured under a TSO authorization.
Remember that, in order to legally operate this equipment under IFR, you
must also comply with the maintenance and testing requirements of parts
91.411 (for altimeter and altitude reporting equipment), and 91.413 (for the
transponder). Note that the requirements of 91.413 apply even if the
aircraft is operated only under VFR."
My objections were:
A) The EAA position completely ignored the existence of FAR 91.217 (b).
B) The EAA position completely ignored the existence of hundreds of amateur
built experimental aircraft currently flying satisfactorily with non TSO'd
transponders.
C) The EAA position completely ignored the existence of EFIS incorporating
non TSO'd transponders.
D) I did not feel that the EAA position was proactive enough in support of
their members interests.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
PS: I greatly enjoyed looking at your web site. I shall return.
<
What was the input you were responding to? What position is EAA referring
to?
I went thru huge hassles over the encoder question. At that time, EAA was
saying my encoder did not have to be TSOd. BMA & GRT said their built-in
encoders were fine for IFR. But my avionics shop would not install or
calibrate anything but TSOd. Local FSDO agreed. I hassled over it for
months & ended up buying the Sandia TSO encoder.
Details beginning here:
http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsAug04.htm#aug31>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
>
>8/12/2006
>
>Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Kevin Horton
>
>Hello Again Kevin, Continuing our dialogue on our current favorite subject:
>
>1) You wrote: "Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons to
>require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude, over
>the full range of conditions under which it will operate?
>
>Yes.
>
>2) You wrote: " How can you be assured that a non-TSO'd encoder will
>operate correctly at
>temperature extremes, or when subjected to vibration, humidity,
>voltage variations, electromagnetic interference, etc?
>
>I would base my confidence in a proven non TSO'd altitude encoder on two
>things:
>
>A) The superior newer technology used in manufacturing the encoder.
>
>B) The actual past performance of that encoder over years of use in the field.
>
>3) You wrote: "If the manufacturer hasn't tested his encoder under the
>full range of
>conditions, then he has no idea how well it will work there."
>
>I worked for years in the airborne weapons testing field and I assure you
>that there is no such thing as ground or laboratory testing "under the
>full range of conditions". Actual satisfactory performance in the field
>after a significant period time in use is the best indication of the
>suitability of a piece of equipment for its intended use.
>
>4) You wrote: "If he has done the testing, and it does operate properly
>over the full
>range of conditions, why would the manufacturer not want to get a TSO for it?
>
>Two words -- time and money. When a small business sets out to create,
>manufacture, and sell a better mouse trap that it has developed it can
>only operate for so long on the capital available before some income has
>to arrive in order to sustain the business. If that capital is totally
>dissipated in un needed tests and bureaucratic paper generation before
>sufficient income arrives the company dies and the better mouse trap with it.
>
>5) You wrote: "The fact that air traffic control has not detected a
>problem with
>someone's encoder says very little."
>
>You are right. But we are not talking about just someone's encoder. We are
>talking about hundreds of encoders that have been performing
>satisfactorily in flight for years and have satisfactorily passed the FAR
>Part 43 Appendices E and F tests many times every two years.
>
>6) You wrote: "If there is a problem, it might not show up until another
>aircraft, responding to a TCAS alert tries to avoid your aircraft, yet
>hits it because the encode was in error.
>Is this acceptable?"
>
>No. But I say again, the technology used and the performance of the proven
>non TSO'd encoders is superior to that called for in the TSO. No piece of
>equipment can guarantee perfect peformance throughout its entire service
>life, but the better technology encoder is less likely to have a problem
>show up.
>
>7) You wrote: "If you could write your own wording for 91.217, how would
>you word it
>to make it cheaper to comply, yet still achieve the safely objective?"
>
>My preferred first step in the process to resolve the present situation is
>an interpretation from FAA headquarters that automatic pressure altitude
>reporting equipment that is installed in amateur built experimental
>aircraft and tested in accordance with the appropriate provisions of FAR
>91.411, 91.413, and appropriate Appendices to FAR Part 43 are considered
>to be in compliance with FAR 91.217 (b).
>
>I'll let the experts and lawyers work on a permanent rational solution.
I've been watching this thread for several days. Permit me
to offer some observations:
A large portion of my career has been used in efforts to track
down, identify and resolve system malfunctions in broad range
of aircraft. ALL of the mis-behaving systems were tested, blessed,
beat, bashed, certified, etc., etc. Most had LONG histories of
reasonably satisfactory service. Nonetheless, none of the above prevented
expensive failures in these systems. If gizmos in airplanes
didn't break, FBOs would go out of business.
Irrespective of an encoder's pedigree, the ultimate system reliability
is achieved not by filling out one's pre-installation dance-card.
Due diligence the third, forth, and fifth questions
in a Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) as described in . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles//FMEA.pdf
. . . is a more useful activity.
In the case of encoders, the person at the ATC 'scope
could not care less whether your encoder is a 30 year old
electro-mechanical marvel/nightmare or last year's latest
and greatest, all solid state design. He/she doesn't care
if it's TSO'd and fabricated from space-grade parts
or whether you built the thing on your workbench from
recycled TV set parts.
What he expects is for you to report level when arriving at
various assigned altitudes and/or reporting present altitude
on initial contact. As you speak the words, he checks for
reasonably accurate representation of your words
displayed on his screen. This operating procedure is a
due diligence to question 3.
Periodic ramp checks are important for both checking
agreement between separate encoder/altimeter combinations
-AND- finding leaks in the system that might cause
significant errors in BOTH systems. While not a pre-flight
test, your hand-off from tower to departure control is
an early-on test of encoder function when you report present
indicated altitude. This has been a reasonable due diligence
to question 4.
Going to question 5 . . . let's consider the probability
of failure while en route combined with the gross numbers
of hours you spend in congested airspace. Here again,
no amount of bureaucratic hat-dancing will guarantee that
the encoder installed on your aircraft will be forever
orderly.
If you perceive a value in reducing risk of en route
failures going un-noticed, then it's up to you and not your
friendly flying-fuzz to mitigate your concerns. If you're
not adverse to having every manner of useful accessory
installed in your airplane, you might consider something
like this:
http://www.airsport-corp.com/
A friend of mine designed these electro-whizzies and
made a living from their manufacture and sale for a number
of years. This is a line of totally independent monitors
of transponder output that offers not only a real-time test
of PRESENT encoder and transponder behavior, additional
features provide pilots with potentially useful aids to
navigation an aviation.
One may argue the FARs 'til the cows come home but I think
everyone will agree that the ultimate goal is to achieve
the lowest practical level of risk for having a bad day
due to encoder malfunction. We're told that the spirit
and intent of the FARs is to insure this golden condition.
I'll simply suggest as both pilot and system designer that
your lowest practical level of risk will be more closely
achieved by YOUR knowledge and understanding. Then combine
understanding with a reasonable implementation of operating,
monitoring and maintenance of the altitude reporting system.
This philosophy goes directly to risk mitigation and is
TOTALLY independent of who made your encoder, who blessed it
or how well/badly it is made.
Once you're airplane is signed off, what's the likelihood
than ANYONE will ask or care what the pedigree of your
encoder is as long as it accurately performs the regulatory
hat-dances? Once your airplane is signed of, what are YOU
going to do to achieve YOUR goals for system reliability?
I'll suggest that an answer to the later question has a
greater influence on your future flying comfort than answers
to the first.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Diagrams Design Software |
David Lloyd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Morris "BigD"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wiring Diagrams Design Software
>
>
>
> After installing and trying many different ones and throwing them
> all out,
> I finally found DesignWorks Lite from Capilano Computing for $39.95.
> I
> bought it a few years ago and have never looked back. It works
> intuitively
> the way a CAD program should. You can design your own components if
> the
> switch or relay or gadget you need doesn't exist in one of their
> libraries.
>
> Here's a schematic I did with it:
> http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Dragonfly%20Electrical/N75UP-Schematic-June2005.pdf
> Here's their web site: http://www.capilano.com/
>
> I highly recommend it for ease of use in drawing schematics. They
> have a
> free trial. I think it's better than any of the other options I've
> heard
> people mention so far.
>
> Dave Morris
>
>
> At 10:04 PM 12/29/2005, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Hi all ...
>>How many OBAM electricians have used the PC based software to draw
>>their
>>wiring diagrams?
>>I'm interested in finding out what you have found and reccomend,
>>don't
>>recomend, like alot or any comments about they are easy to use or
>>not easy.
>>Or is all the PC based stuff a waste of time?
>>I see some on ebay, new ones, outdated programs, cheap and not one
>>bidder
>>... why is that?
>>Any help appreciated ... thanks alot,
>>Jerry Grimmonpre'
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector |
Hi Charlie,
The enlargement of the hole was very minor to get the Deans connector
through. I did check with Vans and they said it was fine I think their
concern is running some type of large connector through that requires a
significant hole.
Darwin N. Barrie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MikeEasley(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Diagrams Design Software |
I used DesignWorks Lite from Capilano also. It was cheap, easy to learn and
created nice looking schematics. It's perfect for someone who wants to get
good documentation of their wiring, but doesn't want to spend a week learning
new software.
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
Lancair Super ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Question for Brian Lloyd |
There have been some excellent replies to this thread.
The only thing that I can add is that due to the extremely low output
impedance of some amplifier circuits, the result is OVERHEATING of the output
devices of both sources as they each attempt to drive the output node to their
own
desired voltage -- instant by instant. This is accompanied of course by
increased current drawn by each amplifier. In some cases the output devices
could fail. The 100 ohm resistors limit the current that can flow between the
two amplifiers.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu> |
| Subject: | Electric Elevator Trim connector |
Hi Darwin,
I just checked the Dean's website and did not find a listing for a five
wire
connector. Can you give me a source for the one you used, or did you use
a
three and a two or ? Thanks.
William Slaughter
RV-8QB Wings
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Darwin N.
Barrie
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector
Hi Charlie,
The enlargement of the hole was very minor to get the Deans connector
through. I did check with Vans and they said it was fine I think their
concern is running some type of large connector through that requires a
significant hole.
Darwin N. Barrie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | cfi(at)conwaycorp.net |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
In regard to our concerns about encoder approvals, lets not be hasty about
accusing the EAA of burying their head in the sand on this important, but not
necessary urgent issue. We must remember that the EAA does not have unlimited
resources, therefore, they (like everyone else) must chose their battles
carefully. To put this issue in the spotlight would be very BAD TIMING in
light of the user fee threat that has been looming for at 10 years now. This
would give the Airline Pilots Association and other opponents to the AOPA/EAA
ammunition to show that we are not capable of following the rules as published
and therefore create a hazard to transportation safety (at least in their eyes)
and should be subjected to the fees to minimize the hazards. I believe the EAA
is correct by standing by 91.217(b) since it is the current rule. It would be
foolish and counter-productive for the EAA to publicly support breaking any FAR.
Excuse the pun, but I believe the encoder issue is under the radar so to
speak since our ATC friends are not complaining about it. Im also not aware
of anybody who has had enforcement action taken against them for using a non
TSOd encoder. If you have, please let us hear about the facts of the
case.
Michael H.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Conway Corporation WebMail -- www.conwaycorp.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder replacement..... |
On Aug 12, 2006, at 8:33 PM, europa flugzeug fabrik wrote:
> Going from memory here, as Mr. Peshaks writings are too hard to
> follow to read again and to avoid accusation of slander, but he
> makes interesting allegations. One is that hardly any transponder
> meets the TSO, because if they did, ATC systems wouldnt work, post-
> TCAS apparently. How FAA issues a very detailed TSO and then
> privately and contrarily tells King, Collins, RCA, Narco, etc., he
> doesnt say, but apparently re the "P4 pulse" potentially
> indistinguishable from noise to suppress a reply. Perhaps guidance
> inserted as planned with each mfr inside a Wash Post and left on a
> park bench near FAA @ 800 Independence Ave. SW?
>
> Now he says only the Terra does actually comply with the TSO, but
> consequently breaks ATC interrogator/software systems. So FAA
> couldnt legally insist on an AD for Terra to fix, so FAA then
> installed a software Terra patch. Allegedly also an occasional
> interrogator sweep to detect any Terras squawking out there. Okey
> dokey...I guess.
The key point is that you have a technical spec for transponders and
then you have manufacturers who build to the spec and their stuff
doesn't work. They fiddle with the design until their transponders
deviate from the spec but actually work and ship them that way. Makes
sense to me.
So, it doesn't matter what the spec is, the equipment has to work.
That is all that matters.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
[rant-mode]
The thing that I don't understand is why this is such a problem. Just
who do you think is going to crawl under your panel to check to see
if your encoder is TSO'd?
Pick the encoder you want, wire it to your transponder, finish the
panel, and present to finished product (airplane) to the radio shop
for a transponder check (encoder/altimeter correspondence test) or
for an IFR certification check (correspondence and pitot-static leak-
down test). They run the test and if it meets spec, they sign your
airframe logbook. They aren't going to check to see if your encoder
is TSO'd. They aren't responsible for the airworthiness of your
airplane. You are. You just need them to certify that the encoder and
altimeter read the same thing at the same altitude.
If there is a problem then drag your airplane away, fix it, and bring
it back. Alternatively, fix it right there *yourself*. Don't ask your
avionics tech, A&P, or IA for their opinion or their blessing. If ATC
squawks your transponder, fix it, get it checked, send the FAA the
paperwork, and go about your business. If your transponder really
breaks, pull it out of the panel, carry it into the radio shop, have
it fixed, and put it back in your panel. Your repairman's certificate
means you get to do that.
You learned how to pound rivets didn't you? You learned to construct
your control systems, didn't you? You learned to lay up fiberglass,
weld tubing, or rib-stitch fabric, didn't you? You learned to wire an
electrical system, didn't you? Well then learn to run #22AWG wire to
D-sub pins, solder, and heat-shrink. Yes, you can build your avionics
wiring too.
OBAM means "owner *built* and *MAINTAINED*". Maintain your avionics.
If there is a problem, FIX IT. That is one of the reasons why you
built your airplane -- so you could save on the cost of maintenance
too. If you really want to sweat all the certification crap then GO
BUY A TYPE-CERTIFIED AIRCRAFT.
[/rant-mode]
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: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
I think things may have wandered away from the original issue here...
I believe we started out discussing the situation where non-TSO'd EFIS units
were being used to provide encoded altitude output, and that some radio
shops are reluctant to sign off on these types of installations.
And from what I have read, with the increasing use of the GRT, Blue
Mountain, and Dynon EFIS units, this is increasingly becoming a problem...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval
[rant-mode]
The thing that I don't understand is why this is such a problem. Just
who do you think is going to crawl under your panel to check to see
if your encoder is TSO'd?
Pick the encoder you want, wire it to your transponder, finish the
panel, and present to finished product (airplane) to the radio shop
for a transponder check (encoder/altimeter correspondence test) or
for an IFR certification check (correspondence and pitot-static leak-
down test). They run the test and if it meets spec, they sign your
airframe logbook. They aren't going to check to see if your encoder
is TSO'd. They aren't responsible for the airworthiness of your
airplane. You are. You just need them to certify that the encoder and
altimeter read the same thing at the same altitude.
If there is a problem then drag your airplane away, fix it, and bring
it back. Alternatively, fix it right there *yourself*. Don't ask your
avionics tech, A&P, or IA for their opinion or their blessing. If ATC
squawks your transponder, fix it, get it checked, send the FAA the
paperwork, and go about your business. If your transponder really
breaks, pull it out of the panel, carry it into the radio shop, have
it fixed, and put it back in your panel. Your repairman's certificate
means you get to do that.
You learned how to pound rivets didn't you? You learned to construct
your control systems, didn't you? You learned to lay up fiberglass,
weld tubing, or rib-stitch fabric, didn't you? You learned to wire an
electrical system, didn't you? Well then learn to run #22AWG wire to
D-sub pins, solder, and heat-shrink. Yes, you can build your avionics
wiring too.
OBAM means "owner *built* and *MAINTAINED*". Maintain your avionics.
If there is a problem, FIX IT. That is one of the reasons why you
built your airplane -- so you could save on the cost of maintenance
too. If you really want to sweat all the certification crap then GO
BUY A TYPE-CERTIFIED AIRCRAFT.
[/rant-mode]
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Bryan -
Thoroughly enjoyable rant and it was the best advice on this subject yet.
One small nit, and I hesitate to argue. The FAA inspector who gave us our
airworthiness certificate last month said that the only thing the
repairman's certificate allows one to do is sign off the annual condition
inspection. My build partner, Ron, will have this. He looked at me and
said that Ron and I could do anything else to the airplane we so desired.
He did caution however that some additions and subtractions to a certified
engine may put the engine into the experimental category. No problems
there, until we decide to sell. The engine would be experimental and that
may not make it easy to sell.
Cheers,
John
Lancair ES - ready for first flight
wrote:
> Your repairman's certificate means you get to do that.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | encoder approval |
8/12/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Kevin
Horton.
Hello Kevin,
1) You wrote: "So, once an encoder had a significant period of satisfactory
in-
service use, it would be legal to use that encoder in service. This
might work for currently existing encoders, if we accept that there
is a reasonable probability that an in-service problem would be
detected. But how would this approach help for a new encoder?"
A) Altitude encoder fundamentals are well understood and the technology is
not that exotic.
B) All encoders, including the newly designed non TSO'd encoder, must
receive the appropriate tests called for in the appropriate provisions of
FAR 91.411, 91.413, and appropriate Appendices to FAR Part 43 before being
used in flight and then every 24 calendar months during use.
C) If the newly designed non TSO'd encoder passed the above listed tests and
was installed in an amateur built experimental aircraft it would be
considered in compliance with FAR 91.217 (b) and legal for in flight use.
D) If the newly designed non TSO'd encoder proved to be deficient in service
after passing the above listed tests pilots, ATC, and the market place would
very quickly have it out of service.
E) Please read FAR 91.217 (b) carefully -- note the use of the words "as
installed". We are not talking shake, bake, rattle, and roll tests in this
paragraph. Then read FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F carefully. Now tell me
that the testing intent of 91.217 (b) is not met by the tests described in
Appendicies E and F.
2) You wrote: "Surely the manufacturer must do a reasonable amount of
testing before
they determine that the encoder actually works correctly."
Agreed. No rational person who expects to remain in business produces a
functioning product and puts it out in the market place for customers to do
all the testing.
3) You wrote: "I wonder why they can't document that testing and use it as
part of a TSO
submission. Maybe the answer is to improve the TSO process. Review
the TSO, pull out any unneeded tests, reduce the bureaucratic
paperwork, and streamline the review process. As it is, my
recollection is that the FAA has 30 days from the time a TSO package
is submitted to accept it. That isn't bad (if my memory hasn't
failed me)."
I can't answer your question from first hand experience, but I'd like to
make two comments:
A) There have been two companies in our arena that I am aware of that have
been through the TSO process for their products in recent years: Vision
Microsystems (Lance Turk) and JP Instruments (Joe P..). Maybe they can shed
some light on the rationallity of the process.
B) There are some very smart and very experienced people in our arena (I
have in mind the Tru Trak people right now) who have produced some very
successful products for the amateur built experimental aircraft community.
Don't you think that they would like to have their products in every type
certificated Cirrus, Diamond, and Columbia airplane that is produced? But so
far the TruTrak people have not created any TSO'd products. Do you suppose
it is because they don't want to get wrapped around the axle of some no
value added TSO approval process?
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<
>
> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by
> Kevin Horton
>
> 2) You wrote: " How can you be assured that a non-TSO'd encoder
> will operate correctly at
> temperature extremes, or when subjected to vibration, humidity,
> voltage variations, electromagnetic interference, etc?
>
> I would base my confidence in a proven non TSO'd altitude encoder
> on two things:
>
> A) The superior newer technology used in manufacturing the encoder.
>
> B) The actual past performance of that encoder over years of use in
> the field.
>
> 3) You wrote: "If the manufacturer hasn't tested his encoder under
> the full range of
> conditions, then he has no idea how well it will work there."
>
> I worked for years in the airborne weapons testing field and I
> assure you that there is no such thing as ground or laboratory
> testing "under the full range of conditions". Actual satisfactory
> performance in the field after a significant period time in use is
> the best indication of the suitability of a piece of equipment for
> its intended use.
So, once an encoder had a significant period of satisfactory in-
service use, it would be legal to use that encoder in service. This
might work for currently existing encoders, if we accept that there
is a reasonable probability that an in-service problem would be
detected. But how would this approach help for a new encoder?
>
> 4) You wrote: "If he has done the testing, and it does operate
> properly over the full
> range of conditions, why would the manufacturer not want to get a
> TSO for it?
>
> Two words -- time and money. When a small business sets out to
> create, manufacture, and sell a better mouse trap that it has
> developed it can only operate for so long on the capital available
> before some income has to arrive in order to sustain the business.
> If that capital is totally dissipated in un needed tests and
> bureaucratic paper generation before sufficient income arrives the
> company dies and the better mouse trap with it.
Surely the manufacturer must do a reasonable amount of testing before
they determine that the encoder actually works correctly. I wonder
why they can't document that testing and use it as part of a TSO
submission. Maybe the answer is to improve the TSO process. Review
the TSO, pull out any unneeded tests, reduce the bureaucratic
paperwork, and streamline the review process. As it is, my
recollection is that the FAA has 30 days from the time a TSO package
is submitted to accept it. That isn't bad (if my memory hasn't
failed me). Kevin Horton >>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Hello Bill,
One data point:
When the tech showed up for the IFR/Altimeter/Encoder/Transponder
certification, he was surprised when he saw the panel and seemed reluctant
to go forward. We have to have this check before the first flight because
we live under the veil of a Class B.
We showed him the pitot tube (looks like any other), the main & aux static
ports (they look like any other) and showed him the BMA EFIS screen and
the Dynon screen. He was happy when he could see the altitudes and
airspeeds. Both altimeters were within tolerance, there were no static or
pitot leaks and the pressure altitude readout on the transponder was right
on.
He even did the airspeed cal for us so we could develop our own AD table.
WE showed him what that meant and how it is done so it meant no additional
work for him. We also told him, that were it necessary, we could do the
same to get an accurate altimeter on the BMA. Incidentally, both airspeed
indications were within a knot or two of each other.
My feeling is that if an OBAMer takes the time to explain how their system
works, and the tests show that it works, it will alleviate a lot of the
angst.
Cheers,
John
> I believe we started out discussing the situation where non-TSO'd EFIS
> units
> were being used to provide encoded altitude output, and that some radio
> shops are reluctant to sign off on these types of installations.
>
> And from what I have read, with the increasing use of the GRT, Blue
> Mountain, and Dynon EFIS units, this is increasingly becoming a
> problem...
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On Aug 13, 2006, at 1:56 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
>
>
> I think things may have wandered away from the original issue here...
Actually, I think I have hit the real nail on the head.
>
> I believe we started out discussing the situation where non-TSO'd
> EFIS units
> were being used to provide encoded altitude output, and that some
> radio
> shops are reluctant to sign off on these types of installations.
I understand that was what people were talking about.
>
> And from what I have read, with the increasing use of the GRT, Blue
> Mountain, and Dynon EFIS units, this is increasingly becoming a
> problem...
That is just it and it is just what I said. The non-TSO'd EFIS units
are just fine. Wire it to your transponder and be happy. Don't worry
about the radio shop.
The only REAL issue with using your EFIS to provide both your display
altitude and your encoded altitude is that a single pressure sensor
is providing both. This is a single-point-of-failure. Use a separate
pressure sensor somewhere so you have two sources.
Along that line someone talked about the Rocky Mountain uEncoder and
then there was a discussion of whether you could use that as it
wasn't TSO'd. Don't worry. Use it. The key point is now you have
separate pressure sensors, one in your EFIS and one in the uEncoder.
The interesting thing is whether they give the same information when
being tested, i.e. for your IFR cert or xpdr correspondence test, and
in flight.
But you can use any encoder you want to. It doesn't have to be TSO'd.
You are responsible for the airworthiness of your aircraft. Satisfy
yourself.
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: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
"Wire it to your transponder and be happy. Don't worry about the radio
shop."
Since the altimeter/encoder/transponder combination have to be inspected and
checked by the radio shop, how could one do this?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval
On Aug 13, 2006, at 1:56 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
>
>
> I think things may have wandered away from the original issue here...
Actually, I think I have hit the real nail on the head.
>
> I believe we started out discussing the situation where non-TSO'd
> EFIS units
> were being used to provide encoded altitude output, and that some
> radio
> shops are reluctant to sign off on these types of installations.
I understand that was what people were talking about.
>
> And from what I have read, with the increasing use of the GRT, Blue
> Mountain, and Dynon EFIS units, this is increasingly becoming a
> problem...
That is just it and it is just what I said. The non-TSO'd EFIS units
are just fine. Wire it to your transponder and be happy. Don't worry
about the radio shop.
The only REAL issue with using your EFIS to provide both your display
altitude and your encoded altitude is that a single pressure sensor
is providing both. This is a single-point-of-failure. Use a separate
pressure sensor somewhere so you have two sources.
Along that line someone talked about the Rocky Mountain uEncoder and
then there was a discussion of whether you could use that as it
wasn't TSO'd. Don't worry. Use it. The key point is now you have
separate pressure sensors, one in your EFIS and one in the uEncoder.
The interesting thing is whether they give the same information when
being tested, i.e. for your IFR cert or xpdr correspondence test, and
in flight.
But you can use any encoder you want to. It doesn't have to be TSO'd.
You are responsible for the airworthiness of your aircraft. Satisfy
yourself.
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Best way to join wires |
| From: | "mchamberlain(at)runbox.com" <mchamberlain(at)runbox.com> |
Hi folks,
I have a bundle of 22 g wires that I need to extend (for the intercom, about 20
of them). What is the preferred method for joining small wires? Is it to solder
and heat shrink over them? Use butt splice joints? These should not need to
be removed ever so I'm thinking a plug of some kind would be overkill.
Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Mark - N234C res
RV-7 - finishing up the wiring.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54596#54596
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On Aug 13, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Rodney Dunham wrote:
>
>
> So........
>
> I've wired my Becker TXPDR with altitude encoding from my Dynon
> EFIS in my VFR only Sonex.
>
> Am I legal???
Yes.
> Must I have to have an avionics shop "sign off" on it??? WHAT!!!!!!!!
Yes. You must have the shop perform a transponder correspondence
check where they verify that the transponder and encoder report the
same altitude as your altimeter over the normal operating range of
your altimeter. This is not an inspection of your installation or of
what equipment you have chosen to use, but is just a check to make
sure it is reporting what it is supposed to report. Every airplane
with a transponder must pass this check.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On Aug 13, 2006, at 5:36 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
>
>
>> From the FAR's, as noted:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> --------
>
> 91.413 ATC transponder tests and inspections.
> (a) No persons may use an ATC transponder that is specified in
> 91.215(a),
> 121.345(c), or 135.143(c) of this chapter unless, within the
> preceding 24
> calendar months, the ATC transponder has been tested and inspected
> and found
> to comply with appendix F of part 43 of this chapter; and
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> --------
>
> 91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.
> (a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not
> conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder
> equipment
> installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements
> of any
> class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with
> altitude
> reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of
> TSO-C112
> (Mode S).
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> --------
>
> As I, and many others, read this and the other portions Part 91, it
> says:
>
> 1. In some places, you are required to have a transponder, but in many
> others you are not REQUIRED to have one.
>
> 2. VFR or IFR is immaterial for the purposes of this particular
> discussion.
>
> 3. If you have a transponder, whether required or not required, it
> must be
> tested and inspected every 24 months.
>
> In short, if you are going to use a transponder in the US Airspace
> system,
> it must MEET TSO SPECIFICATIONS, and it must be inspected every 24
> months.
>
> Like it or not, it makes sense...
And all of this applies to the TRANSPONDER, not to the altitude
encoder feeding altitude information into the transponder. Since you
are buying a transponder that already meets these specs you are home
free. Yes you must have the transponder certified every 24 months but
that is an operational check, not a verification of anything you have
installed.
You guys are trying to make this just WAY too hard.
Here it is, one more time:
1. Buy the transponder you like best. Transponders from reputable
manufacturers of avionics all qualify. (I have had good experience
with King, Narco, and Apollo. I have had bad experience with Terra
and Garmin. YMMV.)
2. Connect it to the encoder you like best, be it your EFIS, a Rocky
Mountain uEncoder, a standard production encoder, etc. It does not
matter what kind of encoder it is so long as it does what it is
supposed to do.
3. Install all this stuff in your airplane using standard practices
and good workmanship. (But you are already doing that anyway because
you know that the butt you save may be your own.)
4. When you are ready to fly your airplane, find someone who can do
the transponder certification check for you. It will probably be your
local radio shop but there may be others. They will do the
*operational* check and make an entry in your airframe logbook.
5. Go fly and have a good time.
6. Go to step 4 in 24 months.
NOTE: at no time in the above five steps do you see the words "get
approval".
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On Aug 13, 2006, at 5:06 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
>
>
> "Wire it to your transponder and be happy. Don't worry about the radio
> shop."
>
> Since the altimeter/encoder/transponder combination have to be
> inspected and
> checked by the radio shop, how could one do this?
Just what I said. Your installation does not need any kind of FAA
approval, IA approval, A&P approval, or radio shop approval. The only
thing you need to get is a transponder check to verify that the
transponder is working, on frequency, and that its mode-C reports the
same altitude as your altimeter. It is not a check of what kind of
encoder you have or of how you installed it. It is just an
operational check. Of course, you want to do that anyway because
*YOU* want to make sure it is working properly. The radio shop has
the tools to interrogate your transponder on the ground and you
essentially want to borrow that.
The radio shop just needs to connect to the static port and place an
antenna from the test box near your transponder antenna. They will
then vary the pressure on your static port. Your altimeter should
show the same altitude that their altimeter shows. Your transponder
should also report the same altitude in its mode-C. That is all there
is to it. If it passes this functional test, you get a logbook entry
and you are good to go.
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: | "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
Brian,
A quick question (I hope) - if the transponder displays what altitude it is
transmitting to ATC, is it still necessary to have the shop do the
calibration? Would seem to me that one would only need to compare one's own
altimeter to the transmitted information. I am speaking of experimental AC,
not certified.
Doug Windhorn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Sent: Sunday, 13 August, 2006 14:58
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Rodney Dunham wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> So........
>>
>> I've wired my Becker TXPDR with altitude encoding from my Dynon EFIS in
>> my VFR only Sonex.
>>
>> Am I legal???
>
> Yes.
>
>> Must I have to have an avionics shop "sign off" on it??? WHAT!!!!!!!!
>
> Yes. You must have the shop perform a transponder correspondence check
> where they verify that the transponder and encoder report the same
> altitude as your altimeter over the normal operating range of your
> altimeter. This is not an inspection of your installation or of what
> equipment you have chosen to use, but is just a check to make sure it is
> reporting what it is supposed to report. Every airplane with a
> transponder must pass this check.
>
> 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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On Aug 13, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Doug Windhorn wrote:
>
>
> Brian,
>
> A quick question (I hope) - if the transponder displays what
> altitude it is transmitting to ATC, is it still necessary to have
> the shop do the calibration?
Yes. The correspondence check is requires by the FARs.
> Would seem to me that one would only need to compare one's own
> altimeter to the transmitted information. I am speaking of
> experimental AC, not certified.
That is a good idea to do on a regular basis but it is not enough.
You must get a transponder certification check every 24 months.
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: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On 13-Aug-06, at 6:33 PM, Doug Windhorn wrote:
>
>
> Brian,
>
> A quick question (I hope) - if the transponder displays what
> altitude it is transmitting to ATC, is it still necessary to have
> the shop do the calibration? Would seem to me that one would only
> need to compare one's own altimeter to the transmitted
> information. I am speaking of experimental AC, not certified.
Ignoring the FAR requirements for a moment - if you haven't had the
system checked, how do you know the altimeter is showing the correct
altitude?
Kevin Horton
RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Best way to join wires |
>
>
>Hi folks,
>
>I have a bundle of 22 g wires that I need to extend (for the intercom,
>about 20 of them). What is the preferred method for joining small wires?
>Is it to solder and heat shrink over them? Use butt splice joints? These
>should not need to be removed ever so I'm thinking a plug of some kind
>would be overkill.
>
>Any suggestions will be appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mark - N234C res
>
>RV-7 - finishing up the wiring.
See series of step=by-step photos at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_SS_Splice
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Elevator Trim connectorElectric Elevator |
Trim connector
Hi William,
My local hobby shop had some 5 pin connectors. Check with a hobby shop
and see. If they don't you can use a 2 and a 3. Pretty simple to use the
3 for the colored wires and the 2 for the power wires.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
RV7 N717EE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
Kevin,
Thought of that after Brian's reply and reading the FAR 43 App F.
Although, as a "Repairman", AND if one had the proper equipment and knew how
to use it, I presume one could sign off a test on their own airplane.
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Sent: Sunday, 13 August, 2006 18:23
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval
>
>
> On 13-Aug-06, at 6:33 PM, Doug Windhorn wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Brian,
>>
>> A quick question (I hope) - if the transponder displays what altitude it
>> is transmitting to ATC, is it still necessary to have the shop do the
>> calibration? Would seem to me that one would only need to compare one's
>> own altimeter to the transmitted information. I am speaking of
>> experimental AC, not certified.
>
> Ignoring the FAR requirements for a moment - if you haven't had the
> system checked, how do you know the altimeter is showing the correct
> altitude?
>
> Kevin Horton
> RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! |
| From: | "mchamberlain(at)runbox.com" <mchamberlain(at)runbox.com> |
Hi Folks,
When I built my wings I installed the Van's capacitive fuel senders in my fuel
tanks. I recently installed a Dynon Flightdeck 180 in my panel which needs a signal
from 0 to 5 volts from the senders. I heard that a company called Princeton
electronics makes a converter, I send them an email a couple of weeks ago
about the senders and got a reply saying that they make them, I wrote back and
asked where I can buy them, since then I can't get a reply back form them, sent
several emails and called a few times.
Anyway, assuming I am unable to contact these guys is there any other way anybody
knows to get this signal to the Dynon? If I can't figure this out it looks
like the only other option is to open up the tanks and change the senders to the
resistive type.
Any help or suggestions will be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
Mark - N234C res
RV-7 Finishing up wiring.
--------
Rv-7 (234C Res)
Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54698#54698
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net> |
What methods have folks used to make local grounds? Screw/washer/nut/eye
terminal, fast-on tab/small forest, etc?
Rob Wright
RV-10 #392
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! |
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that Grand Rapids Technologies also sells
them...
http://www.grtavionics.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
mchamberlain(at)runbox.com
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 10:12 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help!
Hi Folks,
When I built my wings I installed the Van's capacitive fuel senders in my
fuel tanks. I recently installed a Dynon Flightdeck 180 in my panel which
needs a signal from 0 to 5 volts from the senders. I heard that a company
called Princeton electronics makes a converter, I send them an email a
couple of weeks ago about the senders and got a reply saying that they make
them, I wrote back and asked where I can buy them, since then I can't get a
reply back form them, sent several emails and called a few times.
Anyway, assuming I am unable to contact these guys is there any other way
anybody knows to get this signal to the Dynon? If I can't figure this out it
looks like the only other option is to open up the tanks and change the
senders to the resistive type.
Any help or suggestions will be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
Mark - N234C res
RV-7 Finishing up wiring.
--------
Rv-7 (234C Res)
Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54698#54698
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: local grounds |
I have used a nutplate and screw (#6 or #8 size depending...) to locally ground
up to three (the standard max) locals....
I have a 'forest' on either side of my firewall.....
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net>
>Sent: Aug 14, 2006 2:01 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: local grounds
>
>What methods have folks used to make local grounds? Screw/washer/nut/eye
>terminal, fast-on tab/small forest, etc?
>
>
>
>Rob Wright
>
>RV-10 #392
>
>Wings
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | encoder approval |
8/14/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by:
cfi(at)conwaycorp.net
Hello Michael H. Thanks for your input.
1) You wrote: "In regard to our concerns about encoder approvals, lets not
be hasty about
accusing the EAA of burying their head in the sand on this important, but
not
necessary urgent issue. We must remember that the EAA does not have
unlimited
resources, therefore, they (like everyone else) must chose their battles
carefully."
I agree. Maybe my choice of the word "proactive" was not the best. What I
really expected of EAA was for them to acknowledge that a (potential)
problem existed for their members and that the existence and proper
interpretation of FAR 91.217 (b) could solve that problem.
2) You wrote: "This would give the Airline Pilots Association and other
opponents to the AOPA/EAA ammunition to show that we are not capable of
following the rules as published
and therefore create a hazard to transportation safety (at least in their
eyes)
and should be subjected to the fees to minimize the hazards."
I believe that complying with FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F places an
encoder / transponder installation in compliance with the intent of FAR
91.217 (b). Please read those items carefully for yourself and tell us why
you would think differently.
3) You wrote: "I believe the EAA is correct by standing by 91.217(b) since
it is the current rule."
The EAA did not even acknowledge the existence of 91.217 (b) on their
website or in communicating with me. They took the position that only 91.217
(c) -- TSO'd encoders are required -- was relevant.
4) You wrote: "It would be foolish and counter-productive for the EAA to
publicly support breaking any FAR."
I agree. The issue is not breaking an FAR. The issue is a rational
interpretation of the intent of FAR 91.217 (b) which calls for tests of the
installation. It does not call for the elaborate, but undefined tests that
HQ FAA described in response to my letter.
5) You wrote: "Excuse the pun, but I believe the encoder issue is under the
radar so to
speak since our ATC friends are not complaining about it."
I agree. Hundreds of non TSO'd encoders in amateur built experimental
aircraft have been performing satisfactorily both in the tests required by
FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F and in flight under ATC control or radar
contact for many years. This indicates to me that the elaborate tests that
HQ FAA says are required to comply with FAR 91.217 (b) are not needed.
6) You wrote: "Im also not aware of anybody who has had enforcement action
taken against them for using a nonTSOd encoder. If you have, please let
us hear about the facts of the case."
Please see the posting by "Brian Meyette" which
reads in part:
"I went thru huge hassles over the encoder question. At that time, EAA was
saying my encoder did not have to be TSOd. BMA & GRT said their built-in
encoders were fine for IFR. But my avionics shop would not install or
calibrate anything but TSOd. Local FSDO agreed. I hassled over it for
months & ended up buying the Sandia TSO encoder."
I again thank you for your interest and welcome your support on this issue.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<>
<<http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsAug04.htm#aug31>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Streit <wooody04(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! |
mchamberlain(at)runbox.com wrote:
Mark, Check with Electronics International (also sold by Vans) They
make a converter to go between Vans Cap. plates and their EI gauge that
should work.
Jim Streit
RV-9A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | encoder approval |
8/14/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brian Lloyd
Hello Brian, Thanks for your input.
You wrote in part: "But you can use any encoder you want to. It doesn't have
to be TSO'd.
You are responsible for the airworthiness of your aircraft. Satisfy
yourself."
I am in concurrence with the thrust of your statements, but FAR 91.217 is
relevant. If your encoder / transponder is not TSO'd as called for in 91.217
(c) then the installation must pass the tests required by FAR 91.217 (b).
Unfortunately at the present time (until corrected) FAA HQ has described a
testing process for compliance with FAR 91.217 (b) that is unreasonable. See
their response to my letter in a previous posting.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic screwdrivers) |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
There were 2 replies to the magnetic screwdriver thread, one said when
going to A+P school hardware was placed in a bowl that had a magnetic in
the bottom and slight magnetized the hardware and it needed to be
discarded, and there was another reply about having to discard hardware
that becomes magnetic on turbine aircraft.
Where can you not use magnetic hardware safely on a piston, and a turbine
aircraft and why?
I read something from Lycoming when a friend was rebuilding a O-540 about
checking the hydraulic valve lifters with a thin piece of string and a
paperclip and to discard if there was more than some sort of deflection.
Initial I thought it was because it may attract metal particles and fail
the check valve, but it may be that the magnetism may hinder operation of
check valve?
I have a 914 Rotax on a Europa. Has a magnetic plug to catch debris.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wgill10(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! |
Mark,
I installed the AF-2500 engine monitor from Advanced Flight Systems. They did sell
me the converters for the capacitive senders and I believe they are from Princeton
-- they're a little pricey. I'll confirm when I get home or you can phone
Advanced Flight Systems directly.
Bill
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "mchamberlain(at)runbox.com" <mchamberlain(at)runbox.com>
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> When I built my wings I installed the Van's capacitive fuel senders in my fuel
> tanks. I recently installed a Dynon Flightdeck 180 in my panel which needs a
> signal from 0 to 5 volts from the senders. I heard that a company called
> Princeton electronics makes a converter, I send them an email a couple of weeks
> ago about the senders and got a reply saying that they make them, I wrote back
> and asked where I can buy them, since then I can't get a reply back form them,
> sent several emails and called a few times.
>
> Anyway, assuming I am unable to contact these guys is there any other way
> anybody knows to get this signal to the Dynon? If I can't figure this out it
> looks like the only other option is to open up the tanks and change the senders
> to the resistive type.
>
> Any help or suggestions will be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark - N234C res
> RV-7 Finishing up wiring.
>
> --------
> Rv-7 (234C Res)
> Engine
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54698#54698
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mark,
I installed the AF-2500 engine monitor from Advanced Flight Systems. They
did sell me the converters for the capacitive senders and I believe they are
from Princeton -- they're a little pricey. I'll confirm when I get home or
you can phone Advanced Flight Systems directly.
Bill
> --> AeroElectric-List
message posted by: "mchamberlain(at)runbox.com"
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> When I built my wings I installed
the Van's capacitive fuel senders in my fuel
> tanks. I recently
installed a Dynon Flightdeck 180 in my panel which needs a
> signal
from 0 to 5 volts from the senders. I heard that a company called
> Princeton
electronics makes a converter, I send them an email a couple of weeks
>
ago about the senders and got a reply saying that they make them, I wrote
back
> and asked where I can buy them, since then I can't get a reply
back form them,
> sent several emails and called a few times.
>
> Anyway, assuming I am unable to contact t
hese g
rowse,
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic screwdrivers) |
Anything that can be magnetized can be de-magnetized. I have a magnetic
tape eraser from the very early computer days that I use to demagnetize
(degauss) tools, and it would work on a lifter too, I'm sure.
You press the button which turns on the AC, and wave the item to be
degaussed around in its alternating magnetic field while slowly drawing it away.
When it is about 2 feet or more away you can then shut off the AC current, and
you're done.
This is something that I made from an old transformer. If you want details,
I can give 'em.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 8/14/2006 3:36:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
There were 2 replies to the magnetic screwdriver thread, one said when
going to A+P school hardware was placed in a bowl that had a magnetic in
the bottom and slight magnetized the hardware and it needed to be
discarded, and there was another reply about having to discard hardware
that becomes magnetic on turbine aircraft.
Where can you not use magnetic hardware safely on a piston, and a turbine
aircraft and why?
I read something from Lycoming when a friend was rebuilding a O-540 about
checking the hydraulic valve lifters with a thin piece of string and a
paperclip and to discard if there was more than some sort of deflection.
Initial I thought it was because it may attract metal particles and fail
the check valve, but it may be that the magnetism may hinder operation of
check valve?
I have a 914 Rotax on a Europa. Has a magnetic plug to catch debris.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Electric Elevator Trim connector |
>
>The enlargement of the hole was very minor to get the Deans connector
>through. I did check with Vans and they said it was fine I think their
>concern is running some type of large connector through that requires a
>significant hole.
>
>Darwin N. Barrie
Darwin . . . or anyone else. Exactly what is the size of the
hole under discussion?
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:19 PM, wrote:
>
> 8/14/2006
>
> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by
> Brian Lloyd
>
> Hello Brian, Thanks for your input.
>
> You wrote in part: "But you can use any encoder you want to. It
> doesn't have to be TSO'd.
> You are responsible for the airworthiness of your aircraft. Satisfy
> yourself."
>
> I am in concurrence with the thrust of your statements, but FAR
> 91.217 is relevant. If your encoder / transponder is not TSO'd as
> called for in 91.217 (c) then the installation must pass the tests
> required by FAR 91.217 (b).
ARRGGGH! You are making me want to tear my hair out.
OK, I am going to say this just one more time as you are insisting on
muddying the waters, pissing on the wedding cake, as it were.
YOU MAY USE ANY ENCODER YOU WANT TO USE. WIRE IT UP TO YOUR
TRANSPONDER. DRAG YOUR AIRPLANE OVER TO GET A TRANSPONDER
CERTIFICATION AND THEN GO FLY.
Why do I say this? Because of FAR 91.217(b) which reads:
(b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to
transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent
probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the
altimeter normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that
altimeter referenced to
29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum
operating altitude of the aircraft;
Hello! This is the transponder certification test! This is the test
performed by the radio shop on your airplane! They feed absolute
pressure into your static system and check the transponder altitude
(mode-C) output at several pressure altitudes. The mode-C output of
your transponder must track your altimeter to within 125' of what is
indicated on your altimeter.
The key point is that you have TESTED your installation to ensure it
is working.
> Unfortunately at the present time (until corrected) FAA HQ has
> described a testing process for compliance with FAR 91.217 (b) that
> is unreasonable. See their response to my letter in a previous
> posting.
This is what happens when people ask questions of the FAA. You get
some boob who hasn't got a clue to interpret things for you. The key
point is that FAR 91.217(b) is very clear and needs no interpretation.
The transponder certification test is where you test and calibrate
your encoder to transmit altitude data corresponding within 125' of
the indicated or calibrated data of the altimeter normally used to
maintain flight attitude, with that altimeter referenced to 29.92"Hg
for altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the
aircraft.
Notice just how similar my words are to 91.217(b)?
Now, if you don't cease and desist trying to confuse this issue, I am
going to come over there and beat your hands into a bloody pulp with
a hard-bound copy of the FARs so you can't type any more. :-)
(BTW, if you use the same pressure sensor to generate your altitude
readout AND drive your transponder, the altitude sent by the
transponder absolutely MUST be the same indicated since they are both
the same data.)
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Diagrams Design Software |
>I used DesignWorks Lite from Capilano also. It was cheap, easy to learn
>and created nice looking schematics. It's perfect for someone who wants
>to get good documentation of their wiring, but doesn't want to spend a
>week learning new software.
>
>Mike Easley
>Colorado Springs
>Lancair Super ES
Consider also TurboCAD which will open, edit, save and print
LOTS of drawings downloadable from:
http://aeroelectric.com/PPS
It's a lot faster to modify these drawings as needed than
to start over from scratch.
Anything above V7.0 will work and is REALLY cheap. See
item 290017312239 on http://ebay.com
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: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | encoder approval |
8/14/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brian Lloyd.
Hello Brian, Thank you for your inputs on this subject. A bit of
clarification if I may:
1) You wrote: " If your transponder really breaks, pull it out of the panel,
carry it into the radio shop, have it fixed, and put it back in your panel.
Your repairman's certificate means you get to do that."
Actually the only thing that an individual's repairman's certificate for a
specific amateur built experimental aircraft permits that individual to do
is to perform and sign off the condition inspection that is required for
that aircraft during the previous 12 calendar months.
It does not permit him to repair, work on, or maintain that aircraft because
no such permission is required for anyone, I repeat ANYONE, to repair, work
on, or maintain an amateur built experimental aircraft.
So anyone, doesn't have to be the the holder of the repairman's certificate
(aircraft builder), can do what you suggest above.
2) You wrote: "OBAM means "owner *built* and *MAINTAINED*"
As you can see the term OBAM is a bit of a misnomer because, as described
above, any one can repair, work on, or maintain an amateur built
experimental aircraft. I think the acronym ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental
Aircraft) is both more inclusive and more accurate, but it has not received
wide spread use.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
PS:
A)It should be noted that there are FAR's that require that certain aircraft
maintenance records be maintained. ABEA are not excused from those
requirements.
B) It should also be noted that, if the work on an ABEA is determined to be
a major modification, regardless of who does it, the Operating Limitations
for that specific aircraft should be consulted to determine the proper
procedures to be followed.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Z14 wire size question |
The Z14 (Dual Battery, Dual Bus) schematic in the Aero Electric
connection depicts a Cross-Feed contactor who's purpose is to connect
the 2 electrical systems together if required/desired. My question is:
Why is one side of the Cross-Feed contactor wired w/ 10 AWG (Aux Bus)
and the other 4AWG (Main Bus)?????
In my plane the batteries (and contactors)are of necessity mounted in
the rear, the respective distribution buses will be mounted forward
(panel/firewall). If not absolutely necessary I would like to avoid the
4AWG run from the crossfeed contactor in the rear to the main
distribution buss (forward), and replace this with--- say 10AWG? (I have
limited space for wire pulls).
THANKS for any help/advice
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse/finish/Panel
http://deemsrv10.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic screwdrivers) |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Without a cheap handheld degauss meter you are only half the way to
confirming a component is degaussed. A poor man's device is a simple
Boy Scout compass, just FYI.
John
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic
screwdrivers)
Anything that can be magnetized can be de-magnetized. I have a magnetic
tape eraser from the very early computer days that I use to demagnetize
(degauss) tools, and it would work on a lifter too, I'm sure.
You press the button which turns on the AC, and wave the item to be
degaussed around in its alternating magnetic field while slowly drawing
it away. When it is about 2 feet or more away you can then shut off the
AC current, and you're done.
This is something that I made from an old transformer. If you want
details, I can give 'em.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 8/14/2006 3:36:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US writes:
There were 2 replies to the magnetic screwdriver thread, one
said when
going to A+P school hardware was placed in a bowl that had a
magnetic in
the bottom and slight magnetized the hardware and it needed to
be
discarded, and there was another reply about having to discard
hardware
that becomes magnetic on turbine aircraft.
Where can you not use magnetic hardware safely on a piston, and
a turbine
aircraft and why?
I read something from Lycoming when a friend was rebuilding a
O-540 about
checking the hydraulic valve lifters with a thin piece of string
and a
paperclip and to discard if there was more than some sort of
deflection.
Initial I thought it was because it may attract metal particles
and fail
the check valve, but it may be that the magnetism may hinder
operation of
check valve?
I have a 914 Rotax on a Europa. Has a magnetic plug to catch
debris.
Ron
=========================
p; = Use lities Day
=========================
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
bsp; -->
=========================
nbsp; - NEW
MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
=========================
p; - List Contribution
Web Site ;
=========================
=========================
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OBAM vs. ABEA |
>
>2) You wrote: "OBAM means "owner *built* and *MAINTAINED*"
>
>As you can see the term OBAM is a bit of a misnomer because, as described
>above, any one can repair, work on, or maintain an amateur built
>experimental aircraft. I think the acronym ABEA (Amateur Built
>Experimental Aircraft) is both more inclusive and more accurate, but it
>has not received wide spread use.
Bureaucratic nomenclature not withstanding, the idea behind
"OBAM" was to eliminate the terms "experimental" and "amateur"
while substituting equally accurate words for public consumption.
The average Joe on the street thinks getting into any little airplane
is foolhardy. Pasting an "experimental" label on the "amateur" built
machine only serves to elevate the listener/reader's level of
tension/apprehension.
Back when I gave depositions in accident investigations and
analysis we took pains to avoid words like "impact", "crash",
"shattered", etc in favor of equally accurate but less exciting words
like "contact", "event", "failed", etc. When attempting to
explain the finer details of an accident where 90% of the energy
is expended in the first few hundred milliseconds of an event,
it's challenging but useful to downplay the violence while
focusing on the science.
It's easier to keep the listener's attention to facts and
logic if you avoid the kind of words one hears in abundance
on the 6 o-clock news. It worked well in the courtroom and
many of our aviation-ignorant fellow citizens are considered
ideal jury material.
Further, in many venues the owner of a TC aircraft has accomplished
some pretty heavy maintenance and repairs albeit under the watchful
eye of a "certified" individual who ultimately accepts responsibility
for the work.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Toggle Switch Guard |
Hi all,
I am trying to locate some "slim line" toggle switch guards. I seem to
recall seeing some that were smaller than the ones Steinair sells, but I
can't recall where I saw them. Can any one give me some leads.
Thanks, Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Hinchcliff" <cfi(at)conwaycorp.net> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
OC, thanks for your objective response to my message. I appreciate healthy
debate in that it improves my understanding of the issues, in this case FAR
91.217. I now see what you are saying. Everything else aside, 91.217 (c)
does not say the equipment must be TSO certified, but meet the TSO
standards. My question to the non-TSO'd encoder community is this: How do
you prove your equipment meets the required TSO standards? TSO
certification is not in the reg, but MEETING it is. Part (b) just
references how the equipment is to be tested and does not necessarily prove
compliance with the required TSO. My simpleton answer would be to either
A.) formally prove the non TSO'd equipment meets the standard and provide
the paperwork that goes with it, OR B.) save a lot of time and money by
purchasing equipment that's already certified as meeting the standard and
start flying. Perhaps another remedy would be to see if manufacturer of the
non TSO'd equipment has the necessary paperwork/evidence that proves the
equipment meets the standard without having the coveted TSO $tamp. Have you
barked up that tree yet?
Michael H.
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Cc: ;
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 1:55 PM
Subject: encoder approval
> 8/14/2006
>
> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by:
> cfi(at)conwaycorp.net
>
> Hello Michael H. Thanks for your input.
>
> 1) You wrote: "In regard to our concerns about encoder approvals, lets not
> be hasty about
> accusing the EAA of burying their head in the sand on this important, but
> not
> necessary urgent issue. We must remember that the EAA does not have
> unlimited
> resources, therefore, they (like everyone else) must chose their battles
> carefully."
>
> I agree. Maybe my choice of the word "proactive" was not the best. What I
> really expected of EAA was for them to acknowledge that a (potential)
> problem existed for their members and that the existence and proper
> interpretation of FAR 91.217 (b) could solve that problem.
>
> 2) You wrote: "This would give the Airline Pilots Association and other
> opponents to the AOPA/EAA ammunition to show that we are not capable of
> following the rules as published
> and therefore create a hazard to transportation safety (at least in their
> eyes)
> and should be subjected to the fees to minimize the hazards."
>
> I believe that complying with FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F places an
> encoder / transponder installation in compliance with the intent of FAR
> 91.217 (b). Please read those items carefully for yourself and tell us why
> you would think differently.
>
> 3) You wrote: "I believe the EAA is correct by standing by 91.217(b) since
> it is the current rule."
>
> The EAA did not even acknowledge the existence of 91.217 (b) on their
> website or in communicating with me. They took the position that only
> 91.217 (c) -- TSO'd encoders are required -- was relevant.
>
> 4) You wrote: "It would be foolish and counter-productive for the EAA to
> publicly support breaking any FAR."
>
> I agree. The issue is not breaking an FAR. The issue is a rational
> interpretation of the intent of FAR 91.217 (b) which calls for tests of
> the installation. It does not call for the elaborate, but undefined tests
> that HQ FAA described in response to my letter.
>
> 5) You wrote: "Excuse the pun, but I believe the encoder issue is under
> the radar so to
> speak since our ATC friends are not complaining about it."
>
> I agree. Hundreds of non TSO'd encoders in amateur built experimental
> aircraft have been performing satisfactorily both in the tests required by
> FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F and in flight under ATC control or radar
> contact for many years. This indicates to me that the elaborate tests that
> HQ FAA says are required to comply with FAR 91.217 (b) are not needed.
>
> 6) You wrote: "Im also not aware of anybody who has had enforcement action
> taken against them for using a nonTSOd encoder. If you have, please
> let us hear about the facts of the case."
>
> Please see the posting by "Brian Meyette"
> which reads in part:
>
> "I went thru huge hassles over the encoder question. At that time, EAA
> was
> saying my encoder did not have to be TSOd. BMA & GRT said their built-in
> encoders were fine for IFR. But my avionics shop would not install or
> calibrate anything but TSOd. Local FSDO agreed. I hassled over it for
> months & ended up buying the Sandia TSO encoder."
>
> I again thank you for your interest and welcome your support on this
> issue.
>
> OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
>
> <
> In regard to our concerns about encoder approvals, lets not be hasty about
> accusing the EAA of burying their head in the sand on this important, but
> not
> necessary urgent issue. We must remember that the EAA does not have
> unlimited
> resources, therefore, they (like everyone else) must chose their battles
> carefully. To put this issue in the spotlight would be very BAD TIMING in
> light of the user fee threat that has been looming for at 10 years now.
> This
> would give the Airline Pilots Association and other opponents to the
> AOPA/EAA
> ammunition to show that we are not capable of following the rules as
> published
> and therefore create a hazard to transportation safety (at least in their
> eyes)
> and should be subjected to the fees to minimize the hazards. I believe
> the EAA
> is correct by standing by 91.217(b) since it is the current rule. It
> would be
> foolish and counter-productive for the EAA to publicly support breaking
> any FAR.
> Excuse the pun, but I believe the encoder issue is under the radar so to
> speak since our ATC friends are not complaining about it. Im also not
> aware
> of anybody who has had enforcement action taken against them for using a
> non
> TSOd encoder. If you have, please let us hear about the facts of the
> case. Michael H.>>
>
> <<http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsAug04.htm#aug31>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
OC,
If I interpret these comments correctly, you are saying I could go buy an
Experimental category aircraft and do anything I want on it with the
exception of signing off the annual inspection?
That changes my previous perceptions, but I like it. I was under the
impression that the purchaser of an Experimental was in the same boat as a
Certified owner when it came to changing the A/C.
Doug Windhorn
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Sent: Monday, 14 August, 2006 13:42
Subject: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval
>
> 8/14/2006
> snip <<
>
> 1) You wrote: " If your transponder really breaks, pull it out of the
> panel, carry it into the radio shop, have it fixed, and put it back in
> your panel. Your repairman's certificate means you get to do that."
>
> Actually the only thing that an individual's repairman's certificate for a
> specific amateur built experimental aircraft permits that individual to do
> is to perform and sign off the condition inspection that is required for
> that aircraft during the previous 12 calendar months.
>
> It does not permit him to repair, work on, or maintain that aircraft
> because no such permission is required for anyone, I repeat ANYONE, to
> repair, work on, or maintain an amateur built experimental aircraft.
>
> So anyone, doesn't have to be the the holder of the repairman's
> certificate (aircraft builder), can do what you suggest above.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Mac Arthur" <jetfr8t(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Toggle Switch Guard |
Try this: http://www.periheliondesign.com/switchguards.htm
Craig Mac Arthur
>From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Toggle Switch Guard
>Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:05:13 -0500
>
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>I am trying to locate some "slim line" toggle switch guards. I seem to
>recall seeing some that were smaller than the ones Steinair sells, but I
>can't recall where I saw them. Can any one give me some leads.
>
>Thanks, Paul
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Electric Elevator Trim connector |
Bob, here is a pic of the hole in the rear horizontal stabilizer spar
(RV-9). I have mine stored but you can see the hole is approx. 5/8 to 3/4".
Bret Smith
RV-9A (91314)
Mineral Bluff, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 4:22 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector
-->
>
>The enlargement of the hole was very minor to get the Deans connector
>through. I did check with Vans and they said it was fine I think their
>concern is running some type of large connector through that requires a
>significant hole.
>
>Darwin N. Barrie
Darwin . . . or anyone else. Exactly what is the size of the
hole under discussion?
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: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Electric Elevator Trim connector |
Bob,
The measurement on the RV 7 HS is 3/8 inch. Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bret
Smith
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 7:15 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector
Bob, here is a pic of the hole in the rear horizontal stabilizer spar
(RV-9). I have mine stored but you can see the hole is approx. 5/8 to 3/4".
Bret Smith
RV-9A (91314)
Mineral Bluff, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 4:22 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector
-->
>
>The enlargement of the hole was very minor to get the Deans connector
>through. I did check with Vans and they said it was fine I think their
>concern is running some type of large connector through that requires a
>significant hole.
>
>Darwin N. Barrie
Darwin . . . or anyone else. Exactly what is the size of the
hole under discussion?
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: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | encoder approval |
Your perception is correct. Anyone can work on an experimental and do
anything they desire with 2 exceptions. One - the 24 month
transponder/encoder/altimeter certification. This must be done by a licensed
shop. Two - the annual condition inspection. This must be done by an A/P (no
IA required), or by the licensing builder/repairman.
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 Doug
Windhorn
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval
OC,
If I interpret these comments correctly, you are saying I could go buy an
Experimental category aircraft and do anything I want on it with the
exception of signing off the annual inspection?
That changes my previous perceptions, but I like it. I was under the
impression that the purchaser of an Experimental was in the same boat as a
Certified owner when it came to changing the A/C.
Doug Windhorn
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Sent: Monday, 14 August, 2006 13:42
Subject: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval
>
> 8/14/2006
> snip <<
>
> 1) You wrote: " If your transponder really breaks, pull it out of the
> panel, carry it into the radio shop, have it fixed, and put it back in
> your panel. Your repairman's certificate means you get to do that."
>
> Actually the only thing that an individual's repairman's certificate for a
> specific amateur built experimental aircraft permits that individual to do
> is to perform and sign off the condition inspection that is required for
> that aircraft during the previous 12 calendar months.
>
> It does not permit him to repair, work on, or maintain that aircraft
> because no such permission is required for anyone, I repeat ANYONE, to
> repair, work on, or maintain an amateur built experimental aircraft.
>
> So anyone, doesn't have to be the the holder of the repairman's
> certificate (aircraft builder), can do what you suggest above.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: local grounds |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Morgan" <zk-vii(at)rvproject.gen.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Diagrams Design Software |
Something relatively new that I've been using recently and works as
advertised instead of IntelliCAD / ACAD / TurboCAD is from ProgeCAD
http://www.progecad.com/
ProgCAD LT is a full featured CAD package (the 3d solids command subset are
disabled). Some of the core is IntelliCAD based, just another option.....
Carl
--
ZK-VII - RV 7A QB - finishing? - New Zealand
http://www.rvproject.gen.nz/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 8:37 a.m.
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wiring Diagrams Design Software
>
>
> III"
>
>
> >I used DesignWorks Lite from Capilano also. It was cheap, easy to learn
> >and created nice looking schematics. It's perfect for someone who wants
> >to get good documentation of their wiring, but doesn't want to spend a
> >week learning new software.
> >
> >Mike Easley
> >Colorado Springs
> >Lancair Super ES
>
> Consider also TurboCAD which will open, edit, save and print
> LOTS of drawings downloadable from:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/PPS
>
>
> It's a lot faster to modify these drawings as needed than
> to start over from scratch.
>
> Anything above V7.0 will work and is REALLY cheap. See
> item 290017312239 on http://ebay.com
>
>
> Bob . . .
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Electric Elevator Trim connector |
>
>Bob,
>The measurement on the RV 7 HS is 3/8 inch. Don
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
>
>
>OC, thanks for your objective response to my message. I appreciate
>healthy debate in that it improves my understanding of the issues, in this
>case FAR 91.217. I now see what you are saying. Everything else aside,
>91.217 (c) does not say the equipment must be TSO certified, but meet the
>TSO standards. My question to the non-TSO'd encoder community is this:
>How do you prove your equipment meets the required TSO standards? TSO
>certification is not in the reg, but MEETING it is.
. . . and here's where you get the mud stirred up. Folks who
write regulations are never the folks who have to enforce and/or
comply with them. Further, authors are seldom cognizant of how
many ways their words may be interpreted.
I've always operated under the common sense rule. What is the
purpose of this particular regulation? (1) To make sure the guy on
the ATC 'scope is seeing the same numbers you're seeing on your
altimeter and (2) both numbers are reasonably accurate.
The TSO will call out many tests (DO-160 environment, etc)
along with some accuracy requirements. The fact that the
device's label carries a TSO compliance citation says
absolutely NOTHING about your encoder's PRESENT ability to
meet the goals (1) and (2) above.
All the testing, ISO9000, quality assurance tests, inspections,
and citations for NOT having a TSO citation on the sticker
go SERVICE LIFE and says very little about the question:
"Is my encoder working as it should RIGHT NOW?"
Since your personal goals are right in line with the guy
at the 'scope . . . then setting up some protocol for
selection, monitoring and maintenance of your encoder is
the best way to meet those goals. A bureaucrat can only
whack you for a perceived misbehavior. He'd like to believe
that his actions under whatever authority he possesses goes
toward (1) and (2) . . . well . . . 'nuf said.
Bottom line is install whatever encoder rings your chimes
and work with your favorite test equipment operator to
periodically verify performance. Even better, develop
access to your OWN testing abilities with something like
the AirSport display, a hand vacuum pump and a water
manometer. It's simple physics.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z14 wire size question |
>
>The Z14 (Dual Battery, Dual Bus) schematic in the Aero Electric connection
>depicts a Cross-Feed contactor who's purpose is to connect the 2
>electrical systems together if required/desired. My question is:
>Why is one side of the Cross-Feed contactor wired w/ 10 AWG (Aux Bus) and
>the other 4AWG (Main Bus)?????
>In my plane the batteries (and contactors)are of necessity mounted in the
>rear, the respective distribution buses will be mounted forward
>(panel/firewall). If not absolutely necessary I would like to avoid the
>4AWG run from the crossfeed contactor in the rear to the main distribution
>buss (forward), and replace this with--- say 10AWG? (I have limited space
>for wire pulls).
Crossfeed contactor goes on the firewall and becomes a power
distribution point for the two systems. Battery contactors and
battery busses are back next to the batteries.
Wires are sized according to the current they're asked to
carry. Since the battery path is used during cranking, 4AWG
wire is used between battery, battery contactor and crossfeed
contactor. All other paths are commensurate with the size of
the aux alternator . . . in this case the SD-20 so 10AWG
is sufficient.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! |
| From: | "mchamberlain(at)runbox.com" <mchamberlain(at)runbox.com> |
Hi folks,
Thanks for all the great suggestions. Unfortunately still no solution. The EI probes
don't work with the Dynon, they use a different frequency (or something
like that), the ACS converter is supplied by Princeton but unfortunately again
does not supply the correct signal for the Dynon (it is the "S2" model, apparently
I need the S1 model). If I could just get in touch with Princeton my problem
would be sold. I wonder if they have gone out of business or something. It's
not often that I find companies that DON'T want to take my money!
Thanks again for the help guys.
Mark
--------
Rv-7 (234C Res)
Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54912#54912
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Gesele <tgesele(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Dual Battery/Alternator Question |
I'm planning a dual battery/dual alternator electrical system for my
all-electric day/night IFR RV-10 behind an IO-540 and was hoping someone
could help with my battery selection.
I'll be installing the B&C 40 amp & 20 amp alternators and was considering
the following battery options:
1) Dual Odyssey 680.
2) Dual B&C 12 AH.
3) Single Odyssey 680 + B&C 7AH
4) Dual Odyssey 545
My only reason for not going with the dual odyssey 680 solution is the
weight penalty - I'm very concerned that the -10 will be heavy and want to
do anything reasonable to save weight. However, I don't want to compromise
on system reliability/safety since I'll be traveling with my entire family.
Thanks in advance for any insights into the selection and, if there are
other alternatives that I should be considering, please let me know.
- Tom Gesele
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Dual Battery/Alternator Question |
Probably the first thing you need to do it figure out the rest of your
avionics. Then your "no alternator - battery only" current needs and
emergency profiles. Then you'll know better what you need out of a battery.
Cranking amps is only 1/10 of the equation, altho used all the time :)...
Alan
Ps. There are a number of guys on this list that have RV10's and similar
setups, hopefully one will chime in with their specifics. For a starting
point go look at Tim Olson's - www.myrv10.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Gesele
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:34 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Battery/Alternator Question
-->
I'm planning a dual battery/dual alternator electrical system for my
all-electric day/night IFR RV-10 behind an IO-540 and was hoping someone
could help with my battery selection.
I'll be installing the B&C 40 amp & 20 amp alternators and was considering
the following battery options:
1) Dual Odyssey 680.
2) Dual B&C 12 AH.
3) Single Odyssey 680 + B&C 7AH
4) Dual Odyssey 545
My only reason for not going with the dual odyssey 680 solution is the
weight penalty - I'm very concerned that the -10 will be heavy and want to
do anything reasonable to save weight. However, I don't want to compromise
on system reliability/safety since I'll be traveling with my entire family.
Thanks in advance for any insights into the selection and, if there are
other alternatives that I should be considering, please let me know.
- Tom Gesele
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery/Alternator Question |
>
>I'm planning a dual battery/dual alternator electrical system for my
>all-electric day/night IFR RV-10 behind an IO-540 and was hoping someone
>could help with my battery selection.
>
>I'll be installing the B&C 40 amp & 20 amp alternators and was considering
>the following battery options:
>
>1) Dual Odyssey 680.
>2) Dual B&C 12 AH.
>3) Single Odyssey 680 + B&C 7AH
>4) Dual Odyssey 545
>
>My only reason for not going with the dual odyssey 680 solution is the
>weight penalty - I'm very concerned that the -10 will be heavy and want to
>do anything reasonable to save weight. However, I don't want to compromise
>on system reliability/safety since I'll be traveling with my entire family.
>
>Thanks in advance for any insights into the selection and, if there are
>other alternatives that I should be considering, please let me know.
I presume you're talking about Z-14. This system would function
nicely on two light batteries . . . but they tend to be expensive
due to low-volumes of production.
Have you considered Z-13/8? What are your alternator-out system loads?
Z-13/8 with one 17 a.h. battery gives you a total hardware weight on
the order of 25 pounds. What's driving you toward a dual battery
installation?
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: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | encoder approval |
8/14/2006
Responding to an email and posting by Michael Hinchcliff
Hello Michael, Thanks for your response and your kind words. I am not happy
dabbling in the arena of semantics and legalese, but it appears that the
regulations and the FAA's interpretation of the regulations force us in that
direction.
1) You wrote: "Everything else aside, 91.217 (c) does not say the equipment
must be TSO certified, but meet the TSO standards."
Correct.
2) You wrote: "TSO certification is not in the reg, but MEETING it is."
Meeting all of the TSO standards for an altitude encoder is not mandatory or
required.
In my opinion there are three ways to have legal automatic pressure altitude
reporting equipment in an aircraft:
A) Go through the process of obtaining FAA TSO compliant approval for the
manufacturing process, testing, performance, and all related documentation
of your equipment. You will then be authorized to mark the equipment as
meeting the requirements of TSO-C88a. By virtue of this marking your
equipment is presumed to meet the requirement of 91.217 9(c) for equipment
that meets the minimum performance standards in TSO-C88a.
B) Design, build, and test your equipment. Then request a deviation from the
TSO standards from the FAA in accordance with FAR 21.609. See the TSO to
read what those
standards are:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/7F3CE81AFC742A4B86256DC70067B087?OpenDocument
More recent editions of TSO's include an FAA policy statement like this that
head you in the deviation direction:
"Deviations. We have provisions for using alternate or equivalent means of
compliance to the criteria in the MPS of this TSO. If you invoke these
provisions, show that your equipment maintains an equivalent level of
safety. Apply for a deviation under 14 CFR 21.609."
MPS means Minimum Performance Standards. Note that there is a lot more to a
TSO than just the minimum performance standards.
FAR 21.609 reads as follows: "Approval for deviation.
(a) Each manufacturer who requests approval to deviate from any performance
standard of a TSO shall show that the standards from which a deviation is
requested are compensated for by factors or design features providing an
equivalent level of safety.
(b) The request for approval to deviate, together with all pertinent data,
must be submitted to the Manager of the Aircraft Certification Office for
the geographic area in which the manufacturer is located. If the article is
manufactured in another country, the request for approval to deviate,
together with all pertinent data, must be submitted through the civil
aviation authority in that country to the FAA."
C) Design, build, test, and sell equipment that you are confident meets the
testing requirements of 91.217 (b) when installed in an aircraft. What are
the intended testing requirements of 91.217 (b)? That is the issue at hand.
I think that meeting the appropriate testing requirements of FAR Part 43
Appendicies E and F fulfills the intent of 91.217 (b). HQ FAA currently says
not so. I hope to change that position.
Complicating the situation is the existence of hundreds of non TSO'd
encoders already in satisfactory use for years and more being manufactured,
sold to, and installed by amateur builders in their aircraft.
3) You wrote: "Part (b) just references how the equipment is to be tested
and does not necessarily prove compliance with the required TSO."
Agreed -- see paragraph 2 C above.
4) You wrote: "My simpleton answer would be to either A.) formally prove the
non TSO'd equipment meets the standard and provide the paperwork that goes
with it, OR B.) save a lot of time and money by purchasing equipment that's
already certified as meeting the standard and
start flying.
Two questions:
aa) If such a policy as A.) above had been in effect for the last 10 years
what would be
the current status of EFIS development in our community?
bb) How does B.) above deal with all the non TSO'd equipment already
installed and flying,
being installed, and being manufactured?
5) You wrote: "Perhaps another remedy would be to see if manufacturer of the
non TSO'd equipment has the necessary paperwork/evidence that proves the
equipment meets the standard without having the coveted TSO $tamp."
See 2) B) above.
You wrote: " Have you barked up that tree yet?"
No. To date I am only pursuing a more rational interpretation of FAR 91.217
(b) by HQ FAA.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | encoder approval |
8/15/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Doug
Windhorn"
Hello Doug,
1) You wrote: "Although, as a "Repairman", AND if one had the proper
equipment and knew how
to use it, I presume one could sign off a test on their own airplane."
The ONLY privileges that a Repairman's Certificate for a specific amateur
built experimental aircraft grants are for the holder of that certificate to
perform and sign off the condition inspection for that aircraft that is
required every 12 calendar months.
2) If you really want to squeeze through a transponder testing loophole
yourself take a look at FAR 91.413(c) (3). I don't recommend it.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<
Kevin,
Thought of that after Brian's reply and reading the FAR 43 App F.
Although, as a "Repairman", AND if one had the proper equipment and knew how
to use it, I presume one could sign off a test on their own airplane. Doug>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery/Alternator Question |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Tom -
We have Z-14 and a continental IO-550N in a Lancair ES. We put two 20 AH
Panasonic VRLA (AGM) batteries. WE plan to use just one for cranking. So
far, it cranks it like a champ. We can crossfeed if necessary, but will
have to leave the avionics off. The second system is basically our
"avionics" buss.
The batteries are very reasonably priced. We got two (LC-X1220P) from
DigiKey. We did not pay attention to the weight because we needed it in
the aft compartment for W&B purposes. Besides, if you go IFR in an all
electric aircraft, weight for batteries should be lower on the priority
list than reliable electricals. YMMV, IMHO, my .02 cents.
John
> My only reason for not going with the dual odyssey 680 solution is the
> weight penalty - I'm very concerned that the -10 will be heavy and want
> to
> do anything reasonable to save weight. However, I don't want to
> compromise
> on system reliability/safety since I'll be traveling with my entire
> family.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! |
Mark,
This might not help either, but I bought a couple of converters for my
Bluemountain EFIS/one from Bluemountain to convert the capacitive senders in
my tanks.
Terry
RV-8A
Still building
Hi folks,
Thanks for all the great suggestions. Unfortunately still no solution. The
EI probes don't work with the Dynon, they use a different frequency (or
something like that), the ACS converter is supplied by Princeton but
unfortunately again does not supply the correct signal for the Dynon (it is
the "S2" model, apparently I need the S1 model). If I could just get in
touch with Princeton my problem would be sold. I wonder if they have gone
out of business or something. It's not often that I find companies that
DON'T want to take my money!
Thanks again for the help guys.
Mark
--------
Rv-7 (234C Res)
Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54912#54912
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! |
mchamberlain(at)runbox.com wrote:
>
>Hi Folks,
>
>When I built my wings I installed the Van's capacitive fuel senders in my fuel
tanks. I recently installed a Dynon Flightdeck 180 in my panel which needs a
signal from 0 to 5 volts from the senders. I heard that a company called Princeton
electronics makes a converter, I send them an email a couple of weeks ago
about the senders and got a reply saying that they make them, I wrote back and
asked where I can buy them, since then I can't get a reply back form them, sent
several emails and called a few times.
>
>Anyway, assuming I am unable to contact these guys is there any other way anybody
knows to get this signal to the Dynon? If I can't figure this out it looks
like the only other option is to open up the tanks and change the senders to
the resistive type.
>
>Any help or suggestions will be very much appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mark - N234C res
>RV-7 Finishing up wiring.
>
Jim Weir did an article several years ago about building your own cap.
sensors & I believe that it included a 0-5v output to drive a standard
gauge.
Wups, found the link:
http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/articles/KP89SEP.pdf
(more than a few years ago....)
If you know the capacitance of the probes, you can tweak the circuit to
get the correct output. Jim frequents rec.aviation.homebuilt & will
quickly answer questions if you give him good info to work from.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Moore, Warren" <Warren.Moore(at)tidelandsoil.com> |
| Subject: | GPS antenna cable |
I have a Lowrance Airmap 2000c GPS, which came with a RAA-4 remote amplified
antenna. I want to mount the antenna on the rear deck under the canopy of
my RV-4. Is there any problem splicing into the existing cable and adding
about 4ft? Also would like to run the cable thru a conduit which contains
wiring for MAC servo and Position light....will this cause any interference
with the GPS?
Thanks,
Warren Moore
RV-4, Cable Airport, Ca.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GPS antenna cable |
In a message dated 8/15/2006 2:29:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Warren.Moore(at)tidelandsoil.com writes:
I have a Lowrance Airmap 2000c GPS, which came with a RAA-4 remote amplified
antenna. I want to mount the antenna on the rear deck under the canopy of my
RV-4. Is there any problem splicing into the existing cable and adding about
4ft? Also would like to run the cable thru a conduit which contains wiring
for MAC servo and Position light....will this cause any interference with the
GPS?
Thanks,
Warren Moore
RV-4, Cable Airport, Ca.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren:
The only way to correctly splice a coax is to use connectors.
Adding the extra 4 ft will not be a problem as long as connectors are used.
Running it through the tubing, there you will have to experiment. More than
likely you should NOT have any problems. Strobes like to spread their signal
around ... You did say position lights, not strobes.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com> |
Listers,
I'm installing an XCOM760 and want to know a few things.
1) Can I just leave the intercom in the "always on" configuration by tying
the ON (pin 5) to ground??
If so, can I then disable it by using the F/CH knob???
2) Also, if I omit the switch in the backlight lead (pin 8) will the light
go out when I turn the radio off??
In other words, backlight always on but only IF the radio is on???
Same last question for Becker XPDR.
Rodney in Tennessee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Patterson <scc_ron(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Problem with Power Sources |
I just finished my RV-4 and used Bob's Z-11 plan with a Battery Bus, Main Bus and
E Bus. Somehow I have them isolated so that the main works of the Master, the
E bus switch lights the avionics, but I can't get the Main bus to feed the
E Bus without turning it on.
At first I thought I had miswired and blown the Diode, but I replaced that and
still have the same squawk. The plane's electrical systems all work, but I wonder
what I did wrong. I also wonder if I'm placing the whole system in jeopardy
by using both switches to hot up everything. Appreciate any troubleshooting
ideas.
Ron
RV-4 - 10 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | encoder approval |
8/15/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brian Lloyd
Hello Brian,
1) You wrote: "ARRGGGH! You are making me want to tear my hair out."
Please do not tear your hair out or rend your garments on my behalf. Life is
too short for that.
controversial and distracting communications pending the, hopefully
favorable, eventual ruling by FAA on this subject."
desist trying to confuse this issue, I am going to come over there and beat
your hands into a bloody pulp with
a hard-bound copy of the FARs so you can't type any more. :-)"
Sigh
3) You wrote: "YOU MAY USE ANY ENCODER YOU WANT TO USE. WIRE IT UP TO YOUR
TRANSPONDER. DRAG YOUR AIRPLANE OVER TO GET A TRANSPONDER
CERTIFICATION AND THEN GO FLY.
Why do I say this? Because of FAR 91.217(b) which reads:.....skip.....
Hello! This is the transponder certification test! This is the test
performed by the radio shop on your airplane! They feed absolute
pressure into your static system and check the transponder altitude
(mode-C) output at several pressure altitudes. The mode-C output of
your transponder must track your altimeter to within 125' of what is
indicated on your altimeter.
The key point is that you have TESTED your installation to ensure it
is working."
It is more than a bit ironic that you and I are complete agreement on this
point. The problem lies in the fact that HQ FAA (and the EAA) currently do
not agree with you and me. Also neither did the avionics shop and FSDO that
Brian Meyette was dealing with (see his posting). Is there trouble brewing
in River City?
4) You wrote: "OK, I am going to say this just one more time as you are
insisting on
muddying the waters, pissing on the wedding cake, as it were."
You will recall that this thread was started by Skip Simpson who posted: "Is
the Rocky Mountain encoder approved for certificated aircraft, the factory
says that "it conforms to c88a", is that enough, or is there more needed.
Any opinions on the unit. Thanks, Skip Simpson"
I think that it would have been rude of me, and counter to the precepts of
this list, to ignore his request for information / help. I think that it
would have been unfair of me to give him just my opinion alone when I knew
the issue was unresolved. So I responded with the facts as they existed at
that time. Subsequently I have responded to all questions that were posed
directly to me as factually as possible. It would have been rude of me if I
had ignored those postings. If I have left anyone's water muddied or
anyone's cake pissed upon I apologize.
5) You wrote: "This is what happens when people ask questions of the FAA.
You get
some boob who hasn't got a clue to interpret things for you."
I asked FAA HQ for clarification of 91.217 (b) because of a doubtful encoder
situation that arose between a local builder who installed an EFIS, his FAA
inspector, another individual at the local FSDO, and the manufacturer of the
EFIS. I would have preferred to have not gotten a response from "some boob
who hasn't got a clue" on my first try, but I wasn't offered that option. So
I am trying again.
6) You wrote: "The key point is that FAR 91.217(b) is very clear and needs
no interpretation."
Again, I agree, and if this is indeed the case then sooner or later we will
find some rational person at FAA HQ who agrees with your statement and the
issue will be resolved properly. In the meantime I hope that we can deal
with facts and not emotion, adamant statements of our opinions, or name
calling that might turn out to be counter productive.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge
<
On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:19 PM, wrote:
>
> 8/14/2006
>
> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by
> Brian Lloyd
>
> Hello Brian, Thanks for your input.
>
> You wrote in part: "But you can use any encoder you want to. It
> doesn't have to be TSO'd.
> You are responsible for the airworthiness of your aircraft. Satisfy
> yourself."
>
> I am in concurrence with the thrust of your statements, but FAR
> 91.217 is relevant. If your encoder / transponder is not TSO'd as
> called for in 91.217 (c) then the installation must pass the tests
> required by FAR 91.217 (b).
ARRGGGH! You are making me want to tear my hair out.
OK, I am going to say this just one more time as you are insisting on
muddying the waters, pissing on the wedding cake, as it were.
YOU MAY USE ANY ENCODER YOU WANT TO USE. WIRE IT UP TO YOUR
TRANSPONDER. DRAG YOUR AIRPLANE OVER TO GET A TRANSPONDER
CERTIFICATION AND THEN GO FLY.
Why do I say this? Because of FAR 91.217(b) which reads:
(b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to
transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent
probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the
altimeter normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that
altimeter referenced to
29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum
operating altitude of the aircraft;
Hello! This is the transponder certification test! This is the test
performed by the radio shop on your airplane! They feed absolute
pressure into your static system and check the transponder altitude
(mode-C) output at several pressure altitudes. The mode-C output of
your transponder must track your altimeter to within 125' of what is
indicated on your altimeter.
The key point is that you have TESTED your installation to ensure it
is working.
> Unfortunately at the present time (until corrected) FAA HQ has
> described a testing process for compliance with FAR 91.217 (b) that
> is unreasonable. See their response to my letter in a previous
> posting.
This is what happens when people ask questions of the FAA. You get
some boob who hasn't got a clue to interpret things for you. The key
point is that FAR 91.217(b) is very clear and needs no interpretation.
The transponder certification test is where you test and calibrate
your encoder to transmit altitude data corresponding within 125' of
the indicated or calibrated data of the altimeter normally used to
maintain flight attitude, with that altimeter referenced to 29.92"Hg
for altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the
aircraft.
Notice just how similar my words are to 91.217(b)?
Now, if you don't cease and desist trying to confuse this issue, I am
going to come over there and beat your hands into a bloody pulp with
a hard-bound copy of the FARs so you can't type any more. :-)
(BTW, if you use the same pressure sensor to generate your altitude
readout AND drive your transponder, the altitude sent by the
transponder absolutely MUST be the same indicated since they are both
the same data.) Brian Lloyd>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
8/15/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L.
Nuckolls, III"
Hello Bob, I appear to aroused and aggravated two of our most senior gurus
on this list (you and Brian) at the same time -- I feel like I have hit the
quinella.
You wrote: "Bureaucratic nomenclature not withstanding, the idea behind
"OBAM" was to eliminate the terms "experimental" and "amateur"
while substituting equally accurate words for public consumption.
I fully appreciate, understand, and accept your motivation for eschewing the
two dread words, "experimental" and "amateur", under certain circumstances.
I have the following comments:
A) When we call the same thing by two different names or two different
things by the same name sooner or later we sow confusion.
B) Many people, even in our community, do not know that OBAM stands for
Owner Built And Maintained. Maybe a spell out of the acronym the first time
it is used in a document would help.
B) People who see the term OBAM over and over begin to think that it is
indeed only the Owner or only the Builder who may Maintain the aircraft.
This is misleading and needs to be clarified every once in a while, in fact
just recently on this list.
C) Use of the term OBAM causes people tend to think that every aircraft in
our community must have been Built by the current Owner. But ownership by
individuals subsequent to the builder is very common in our community. There
are some significant issues involved with subsequent ownership.
D) When we are attempting to clarify some regulatory point among ourselves
and start to use terms like "registration", "certification",
"airworthiness", "special", "standard", "category", "Operating Limitations",
and "instrument and equipment requirements", it is helpful if we all use the
same terms to mean the same thing and that these are the terms also found in
the regulations.
These are just some of the reasons that I use the term ABEA (Amateur Built
Experimental Aircraft) from time to time when communicating within the
community. The next time that I am in a courtroom I'll fuzzy it up a bit.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<< AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>2) You wrote: "OBAM means "owner *built* and *MAINTAINED*"
>
>As you can see the term OBAM is a bit of a misnomer because, as described
>above, any one can repair, work on, or maintain an amateur built
>experimental aircraft. I think the acronym ABEA (Amateur Built
>Experimental Aircraft) is both more inclusive and more accurate, but it
>has not received wide spread use.
Bureaucratic nomenclature not withstanding, the idea behind
"OBAM" was to eliminate the terms "experimental" and "amateur"
while substituting equally accurate words for public consumption.
The average Joe on the street thinks getting into any little airplane
is foolhardy. Pasting an "experimental" label on the "amateur" built
machine only serves to elevate the listener/reader's level of
tension/apprehension.
Back when I gave depositions in accident investigations and
analysis we took pains to avoid words like "impact", "crash",
"shattered", etc in favor of equally accurate but less exciting words
like "contact", "event", "failed", etc. When attempting to
explain the finer details of an accident where 90% of the energy
is expended in the first few hundred milliseconds of an event,
it's challenging but useful to downplay the violence while
focusing on the science.
It's easier to keep the listener's attention to facts and
logic if you avoid the kind of words one hears in abundance
on the 6 o-clock news. It worked well in the courtroom and
many of our aviation-ignorant fellow citizens are considered
ideal jury material.
Further, in many venues the owner of a TC aircraft has accomplished
some pretty heavy maintenance and repairs albeit under the watchful
eye of a "certified" individual who ultimately accepts responsibility
for the work.
Bob . . .>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Problem with Power Sources |
Ron,
I doubt that you have blown the diode. I'm no expert but have studied Bob's
drawings and have them in front of me. I must assume that when you say "but
I can't get the Main bus to feed the E Bus without turning it on", "it "
refers to the master switch. If this is the case, it is working correctly.
The master switch activates the main contactor which supplies power to the
main buss and then the e-buss via the diode. If the e-buss is not powering
up in this scenario, I would check the orientation of the diode. Having it
reversed is not going to hurt it, but it just won't pass current to the
e-buss components.
When the master switch is turned on and the e-buss alternate feed switch is
turned off, use your voltmeter to look for 12V at the diode, and then at the
e-buss. When taking these readings, the negative lead of the voltmeter
should be touching ground. You should have 12V (give or take) at the diode
and the e-buss.
With master switch on, the e-buss can also get power when the e-buss
alternate feed switch is turned on.
Bevan
RV7A finish kit
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Patterson
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Problem with Power Sources
I just finished my RV-4 and used Bob's Z-11 plan with a Battery Bus, Main
Bus and E Bus. Somehow I have them isolated so that the main works of the
Master, the E bus switch lights the avionics, but I can't get the Main bus
to feed the E Bus without turning it on.
At first I thought I had miswired and blown the Diode, but I replaced that
and still have the same squawk. The plane's electrical systems all work, but
I wonder what I did wrong. I also wonder if I'm placing the whole system in
jeopardy by using both switches to hot up everything. Appreciate any
troubleshooting ideas.
Ron
RV-4 - 10 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Problem with Power Sources |
You definitely want the e-buss to be fed through the diode from the main
buss so that the e-buss switch isn't a single point of failure.
Hotting up everything shouldn't cause any problems that I can see. On
our RV, we have the Master and E-buss switches side by side and turn
them both on every flight. It saves having to remember to turn on the
e-buss prior to offing the master. The way I see it, if the alternator
quits, we just turn off the master and shed whatever loads we can spare
from the e-buss. I'd hate to re-boot the Dynon, GPS and autopilot
(potentially in IMC) just because I got the order wrong.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Patterson
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Problem with Power Sources
I just finished my RV-4 and used Bob's Z-11 plan with a Battery Bus,
Main Bus and E Bus. Somehow I have them isolated so that the main works
of the Master, the E bus switch lights the avionics, but I can't get the
Main bus to feed the E Bus without turning it on.
At first I thought I had miswired and blown the Diode, but I replaced
that and still have the same squawk. The plane's electrical systems all
work, but I wonder what I did wrong. I also wonder if I'm placing the
whole system in jeopardy by using both switches to hot up everything.
Appreciate any troubleshooting ideas.
Ron
RV-4 - 10 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: OBAM vs. ABEA |
Just a point of interest and my 1/2 cent input. (way less than 2 cents).
This thread is the first time I've seen the acronym ABEA, but I have become
very familiar with OBAM over the past few years on this, and other,
Matronics lists. I think OBAM is a much better "sell" to the general public
than any mention of "experimental", "homebuilt", "homemade", or "amateur".
All of those words tend to instil negative connotations to anyone unfamiliar
with our hobby. To those directly involved the semantics are irrelevant, to
those "outsiders" the semantics could mean all the difference between
acceptance, understanding, appreciation, and rejection, mistrust or fear.
(just a thought to keep in the back of our minds when the need for
terminology comes up).
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:20 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: OBAM vs. ABEA
< big snip >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: OBAM vs. ABEA |
The ABEA words can cause negative vibrations in various ways. Once had a
corporate VP question my management competence because I built and flew an
"experimental" airplane.
Dale Ensing
> All of those words tend to instil negative connotations to anyone
unfamiliar
> with our hobby. To those directly involved the semantics are irrelevant,
to
> those "outsiders" the semantics could mean all the difference between
> acceptance, understanding, appreciation, and rejection, mistrust or fear.
> (just a thought to keep in the back of our minds when the need for
> terminology comes up).
>
> Bob McC
>
do not achieve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Gesele <tgesele(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Dual Battery/Alternator Question |
First, thanks to Bob and the others for their responses/suggestions.
I am using Z-14 for the electrical system, the alt out loads are 12-15 amps.
The reason for the dual bat/alt system is simply the piece of mind it gives
for if I'm IMC with my two small children in the plane with me. The concept
of two independent systems has been drummed into me since I started flying.
>From what I can tell, the cost issue amounts to around $40 every couple of
years and, considering the operating costs of the plane, won't influence my
decision and the weight is only an issue for the dual 680 solution. If there
is another reason to go with Z-13 over Z-14, please let me know.
Thanks again for the help
- Tom Gesele
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Battery/Alternator Question
>
>I'm planning a dual battery/dual alternator electrical system for my
>all-electric day/night IFR RV-10 behind an IO-540 and was hoping someone
>could help with my battery selection.
>
>I'll be installing the B&C 40 amp & 20 amp alternators and was considering
>the following battery options:
>
>1) Dual Odyssey 680.
>2) Dual B&C 12 AH.
>3) Single Odyssey 680 + B&C 7AH
>4) Dual Odyssey 545
>
>My only reason for not going with the dual odyssey 680 solution is the
>weight penalty - I'm very concerned that the -10 will be heavy and want to
>do anything reasonable to save weight. However, I don't want to compromise
>on system reliability/safety since I'll be traveling with my entire family.
>
>Thanks in advance for any insights into the selection and, if there are
>other alternatives that I should be considering, please let me know.
I presume you're talking about Z-14. This system would function
nicely on two light batteries . . . but they tend to be expensive
due to low-volumes of production.
Have you considered Z-13/8? What are your alternator-out system loads?
Z-13/8 with one 17 a.h. battery gives you a total hardware weight on
the order of 25 pounds. What's driving you toward a dual battery
installation?
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: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
Anyone know of a good source for 24V LED bulb replacements?
I found some 24V bulbs @ superbrightleds.com but not in the needed config.
What I am looking for is 15 mm bajonet base, 2 prongs at the same level, 2
contacts on bottom. Also smaller bajonets like 1820 bulb.
Intended to replace e.g. 306, 306, 1820 bulbs.
Any pointers?
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Problem with Power Sources |
I agree with Ron, either the diode is bad (not the case since
a new one didn't fix it) or wired wrong which must now be our
working hypothesis. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/s401-25.jpg
and check your wiring against the photo.
Bob . . .
>Ron,
>
>I doubt that you have blown the diode. I'm no expert but have studied
>Bob's drawings and have them in front of me. I must assume that when you
>say "but I can't get the Main bus to feed the E Bus without turning it
>on", "it " refers to the master switch. If this is the case, it is
>working correctly. The master switch activates the main contactor which
>supplies power to the main buss and then the e-buss via the diode. If the
>e-buss is not powering up in this scenario, I would check the orientation
>of the diode. Having it reversed is not going to hurt it, but it just
>won't pass current to the e-buss components.
>
>When the master switch is turned on and the e-buss alternate feed switch
>is turned off, use your voltmeter to look for 12V at the diode, and then
>at the e-buss. When taking these readings, the negative lead of the
>voltmeter should be touching ground. You should have 12V (give or take) at
>the diode and the e-buss.
>
>With master switch on, the e-buss can also get power when the e-buss
>alternate feed switch is turned on.
>
>Bevan
>RV7A finish kit
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
> Patterson
>Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 6:03 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Problem with Power Sources
>
>I just finished my RV-4 and used Bob's Z-11 plan with a Battery Bus, Main
>Bus and E Bus. Somehow I have them isolated so that the main works of the
>Master, the E bus switch lights the avionics, but I can't get the Main bus
>to feed the E Bus without turning it on.
>
>At first I thought I had miswired and blown the Diode, but I replaced that
>and still have the same squawk. The plane's electrical systems all work,
>but I wonder what I did wrong. I also wonder if I'm placing the whole
>system in jeopardy by using both switches to hot up everything. Appreciate
>any troubleshooting ideas.
>Ron
>RV-4 - 10 hours
>
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>-- 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: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Electric Elevator Trim connector |
At 04:21 PM 8/14/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>The enlargement of the hole was very minor to get the Deans
>>connector through. I did check with Vans and they said it was fine
>>I think their concern is running some type of large connector
>>through that requires a significant hole.
>>
>>Darwin N. Barrie
>
> Darwin . . . or anyone else. Exactly what is the size of the
> hole under discussion?
>
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
The hole on my RV-8A (older kit) is 3/8" diameter. Owners of newer
RV models (RV-7A & RV-9A) report holes of 5/8" diameter.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Electric Elevator Trim connector |
Brett,
Your photo shows the rear spar of the horizontal stabilizer, not
the elevator spar. Please check the size of the hole in the elevator spar.
Charlie Kuss
>Bob, here is a pic of the hole in the rear horizontal stabilizer spar
>(RV-9). I have mine stored but you can see the hole is approx. 5/8 to 3/4".
>
>
>Bret Smith
>RV-9A (91314)
>Mineral Bluff, GA
>www.FlightInnovations.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
>Nuckolls, III
>Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 4:22 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector
>
>-->
>
>
> >
> >The enlargement of the hole was very minor to get the Deans connector
> >through. I did check with Vans and they said it was fine I think their
> >concern is running some type of large connector through that requires a
> >significant hole.
> >
> >Darwin N. Barrie
>
> Darwin . . . or anyone else. Exactly what is the size of the
> hole under discussion?
>
>
> 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: | Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic screwdrivers) 2 |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Hmmm, sent this yesterday, never made it onto list. here goes another try:
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006, rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us said:
There were 2 replies to the magnetic screwdriver thread, one said when
going to A+P school hardware was placed in a bowl that had a magnetic in
the bottom and slight magnetized the hardware and it needed to be
discarded, and there was another reply about having to discard hardware
that becomes magnetic on turbine aircraft.
Where can you not use magnetic hardware safely on a piston, and a turbine
aircraft and why?
I read something from Lycoming when a friend was rebuilding a O-540 about
checking the hydraulic valve lifters with a thin piece of string and a
paperclip and to discard if there was more than some sort of deflection.
Initial I thought it was because it may attract metal particles and fail
the check valve, but it may be that the magnetism may hinder operation of
check valve?
I have a 914 Rotax on a Europa. Has a magnetic plug to catch debris.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OBAM vs. ABEA |
>
>
>Just a point of interest and my 1/2 cent input. (way less than 2 cents).
>This thread is the first time I've seen the acronym ABEA, but I have become
>very familiar with OBAM over the past few years on this, and other,
>Matronics lists. I think OBAM is a much better "sell" to the general public
>than any mention of "experimental", "homebuilt", "homemade", or "amateur".
>All of those words tend to instil negative connotations to anyone unfamiliar
>with our hobby. To those directly involved the semantics are irrelevant, to
>those "outsiders" the semantics could mean all the difference between
>acceptance, understanding, appreciation, and rejection, mistrust or fear.
>(just a thought to keep in the back of our minds when the need for
>terminology comes up).
Exactly. Obviously, anyone may craft what ever descriptive
terms they wish to convey meaning to a listener/reader.
I crafted phrase "OBAM" several years ago because I didn't believe
that our craft was well presented to the public -OR- prospective
new builders with words like those you've cited above.
My first introduction to OBAM aviation was about 1967 when
one of the engineers at Cessna's single-engine facility
brought his VW powered Headwind out on a Saturday morning
when we were working overtime on some project. We all went
out to see the airplane and watched Dick fly it away. We had
a good laugh discussing the "toy" airplane and went back
inside to work on "real" airplanes. 20 years later at OSH,
I was amazed at the levels of both craftsmanship and
technology in the amateur-built aircraft community. That
was the year the 'Connection was conceived.
In years since, we're all aware of how far we've come
and many of us have a vision of how far we can still go,
given the right circumstances. Part of those circumstances
include an elevation of our craft from that of a "poor
street urchin" amongst those who make their living
at designing, building, selling, maintaining and
(ugh) regulating aviation. The future is also dependent
on public perceptions . . . for when it comes to
regulation, those who would broaden their professional
horizons will go to Congress for a charter claiming
that we are loose cannons building death traps from which
we and the public must be protected.
OC wrote in an earlier post:
B) People who see the term OBAM over and over begin to think that
it is indeed only the Owner or only the Builder who may Maintain
the aircraft. This is misleading and needs to be clarified every
once in a while, in fact just recently on this list.
I'll suggest that a fundamental attribution error
is at work here. OBAM is not exclusive. It simply
acknowledges the fact that the vast majority of
participants in the OBAM aviation community are
here because they CAN build and maintain their personal
aircraft with an investment of sweat-equity as
opposed hiring "certified" assistance. This is in
stark contrast to the certificated side of the house which
IS very exclusive were the majority of owners do
little maintenance and no building at all.
C) Use of the term OBAM causes people tend to think that every
aircraft in our community must have been Built by the current
Owner.
How so? FAE is in play here too. Owners can both "build"
and "maintain" for the vast majority of what needs to
be done on the airplane.
But ownership by individuals subsequent to the builder is very
common in our community. There are some significant issues involved
with subsequent ownership.
Absolutely . . . but the only exclusion is that subsequent
owners need to seek the occasional sprinkling of holy
water for things that they've done. This is a tiny fraction
of the total $time$ expended on aircraft maintenance or
modification and does not alter the basic premise for
which most folks choose to either build or acquire such
aircraft.
Confusing? Only for those who are mired in tradition
and homage to regulation. I have no arguments with those
who work in and embrace that world. I too work in that
world but choose not to embrace it. If there is to be any future
for small aircraft it's in the OBAM universe not the
ABEA universe . . . and I'm pleased to explain the
differences to anyone who is confused.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic screwdrivers) |
2
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Ron,
I think you should ignore the issue.
A hand compass will disclose a lot. Consider for example that all the steel cans
in your pantry are magnetic (Try it!). A steel tube fuselage will become magnetic
just sitting on the ramp. A ship will become magnetic just sailing along--or
can suddenly become magnetized when smacked by a wave, just a a nail can
be made magnetic when struck with a hammer.
Things can be demagnetized but this is usually only a temporary fix. Most of us
live on a magnetic planet...
Magnetic drainplugs are great. An internet search will tell you far more about
magnetism than you ever wanted to know.
As for the advice of others...If a thing CAN be magnetized, then it will become
magnetized just sitting on the shelf--so take their advice with a grain of salt.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster..."
--Han Solo
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55307#55307
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: OBAM vs. ABEA |
We can quibble over the technical details of OBAM, but what Bob has
done is to apply a bit of marketing savvy to an otherwise technical endeavor.
OBAM is a marketing term. No marketing expert would EVER use the
terms "amateur" or "experimental" in a concept he was trying to sell
to the public as safe and reliable. Would you let your kid go for a
ride in some "amateur-built experimental" made by Larry, Moe and
Curly in their garage?
While I was building my "HOMEBUILT", I was reminded virtually every
day by my boss that I was doing something dangerous, and he would
provide me with a printed copy of every news story of somebody
crashing in an airplane.
In this day and age, perception is more valuable than reality. Just
look at the "V chip". There is no such thing. But in the minds of
millions of Americans, it exists, and the government created it to
help them. What a marketing coup!! Perfume is another great
example. How else could you sell a half ounce of water for over
$100? It's all in the marketing.
Changing the name of that dastardly, dangerous contraption from an
AMATEUR (unskilled) built EXPERIMENTAL (might not work) aircraft to
an "Owner Built and Maintained" is mainly for the consumption of the
PUBLIC, not the people who know that obviously the owner isn't going
to be doing ALL the work on it if he doesn't want to. We can call it
an "uncertified" if we want to. But don't let the public know.
Dave Morris
At 10:36 PM 8/16/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Just a point of interest and my 1/2 cent input. (way less than 2 cents).
>>This thread is the first time I've seen the acronym ABEA, but I have become
>>very familiar with OBAM over the past few years on this, and other,
>>Matronics lists. I think OBAM is a much better "sell" to the general public
>>than any mention of "experimental", "homebuilt", "homemade", or "amateur".
>>All of those words tend to instil negative connotations to anyone unfamiliar
>>with our hobby. To those directly involved the semantics are irrelevant, to
>>those "outsiders" the semantics could mean all the difference between
>>acceptance, understanding, appreciation, and rejection, mistrust or fear.
>>(just a thought to keep in the back of our minds when the need for
>>terminology comes up).
>
> Exactly. Obviously, anyone may craft what ever descriptive
> terms they wish to convey meaning to a listener/reader.
> I crafted phrase "OBAM" several years ago because I didn't believe
> that our craft was well presented to the public -OR- prospective
> new builders with words like those you've cited above.
>
> My first introduction to OBAM aviation was about 1967 when
> one of the engineers at Cessna's single-engine facility
> brought his VW powered Headwind out on a Saturday morning
> when we were working overtime on some project. We all went
> out to see the airplane and watched Dick fly it away. We had
> a good laugh discussing the "toy" airplane and went back
> inside to work on "real" airplanes. 20 years later at OSH,
> I was amazed at the levels of both craftsmanship and
> technology in the amateur-built aircraft community. That
> was the year the 'Connection was conceived.
>
> In years since, we're all aware of how far we've come
> and many of us have a vision of how far we can still go,
> given the right circumstances. Part of those circumstances
> include an elevation of our craft from that of a "poor
> street urchin" amongst those who make their living
> at designing, building, selling, maintaining and
> (ugh) regulating aviation. The future is also dependent
> on public perceptions . . . for when it comes to
> regulation, those who would broaden their professional
> horizons will go to Congress for a charter claiming
> that we are loose cannons building death traps from which
> we and the public must be protected.
>
>OC wrote in an earlier post:
>
>B) People who see the term OBAM over and over begin to think that
>it is indeed only the Owner or only the Builder who may Maintain
>the aircraft. This is misleading and needs to be clarified every
>once in a while, in fact just recently on this list.
>
> I'll suggest that a fundamental attribution error
> is at work here. OBAM is not exclusive. It simply
> acknowledges the fact that the vast majority of
> participants in the OBAM aviation community are
> here because they CAN build and maintain their personal
> aircraft with an investment of sweat-equity as
> opposed hiring "certified" assistance. This is in
> stark contrast to the certificated side of the house which
> IS very exclusive were the majority of owners do
> little maintenance and no building at all.
>
>C) Use of the term OBAM causes people tend to think that every
>aircraft in our community must have been Built by the current
>Owner.
>
> How so? FAE is in play here too. Owners can both "build"
> and "maintain" for the vast majority of what needs to
> be done on the airplane.
>
>But ownership by individuals subsequent to the builder is very
>common in our community. There are some significant issues involved
>with subsequent ownership.
>
> Absolutely . . . but the only exclusion is that subsequent
> owners need to seek the occasional sprinkling of holy
> water for things that they've done. This is a tiny fraction
> of the total $time$ expended on aircraft maintenance or
> modification and does not alter the basic premise for
> which most folks choose to either build or acquire such
> aircraft.
>
> Confusing? Only for those who are mired in tradition
> and homage to regulation. I have no arguments with those
> who work in and embrace that world. I too work in that
> world but choose not to embrace it. If there is to be any future
> for small aircraft it's in the OBAM universe not the
> ABEA universe . . . and I'm pleased to explain the
> differences to anyone who is confused.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Listers,
>
>I'm installing an XCOM760 and want to know a few things.
>
>1) Can I just leave the intercom in the "always on" configuration by tying
>the ON (pin 5) to ground??
Yeah, but this is useful only if the noise cancelling
features in your headset mics is REALLY good. The whole
idea behind headsets is better communications accuity
and noise reduction. Leaving the intercom feature
always hot is a continuously open conduit for noise.
>If so, can I then disable it by using the F/CH knob???
Don't know the details of that radio's operation. Suggest
you contact . . .
Michael Coates
and ask.
>2) Also, if I omit the switch in the backlight lead (pin 8) will the light
>go out when I turn the radio off??
>
>In other words, backlight always on but only IF the radio is on???
Most radio lighting is independent of radio operations.
I suspect not but Michael can help you on this too.
>Same last question for Becker XPDR.
Have no idea. They probably have an information contact
link on their website.
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: 24V LED bulbs |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
LEDs have a series resistor to limit the current. That is the only difference in
LEDs run at different DC voltages. These resistors are often built-in so check
the specs. So if you have a 24V LED you need a resistor to limit the current
to what it would be at 12V. This does not have to be exact. The only caution
is that the wattage must be calculated. W=I X I X R
For example: If the 24V LED has a current of .030 Amps, and a Vf of 2V then the
needed resistor is--
R=(12-Vf)/.030 R=330 Ohms approximately. For 24V this would be:
R= (24-Vf)/.030 R=750 Ohms approximately. So you would need to add R=750-330=430
approximately (Forgive the "resistor-math") if the resistor is built into
the 12V LED.
For the 430 Ohm resistor you will need a 0.030 X 0.030 X 430 Watt resistor, or
4 Watts.
Remember, you can put two 12V LEDs in series pairs to avoid having to mess with
a resistor.
Search Google for "automotive LED". There are more every day.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55311#55311
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Diagrams Design Software |
| From: | Jon & Kathryn Hults <legacy(at)speedband.com> |
Bob,
Do you know if I can download and modify your CAD files (Z figures) with
TurboCAD 3D Macintosh?
Thanks,
Jon Hults
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Diagrams Design Software |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Do you know if I can download and modify your CAD files (Z figures) with
>TurboCAD 3D Macintosh?
I presume that TurboCAD for Mac has the same features
as TurboCAD for Win . . . so my guess would be "yes".
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 24V LED bulbs |
"Eric M. Jones" wrote:
>
> LEDs have a series resistor to limit the current. That is the only difference
in LEDs run at different DC voltages. These resistors are often built-in so check
the specs. So if you have a 24V LED you need a resistor to limit the current
to what it would be at 12V. This does not have to be exact. The only caution
is that the wattage must be calculated. W=I X I X R
>
> For example: If the 24V LED has a current of .030 Amps, and a Vf of 2V then the
needed resistor is--
>
> R=(12-Vf)/.030 R=330 Ohms approximately. For 24V this would be:
> R= (24-Vf)/.030 R=750 Ohms approximately. So you would need to add R=750-330=430
approximately (Forgive the "resistor-math") if the resistor is built into
the 12V LED.
>
> For the 430 Ohm resistor you will need a 0.030 X 0.030 X 430 Watt resistor, or
4 Watts.
>
> Remember, you can put two 12V LEDs in series pairs to avoid having to mess with
a resistor.
>
>
>
> Search Google for "automotive LED". There are more every day.
>
> --------
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge, MA 01550
> (508) 764-2072
> emjones(at)charter.net
>
>
>
Math check. 0.03 X 0.03 = 0.0009
0.0009 X 430 = 0.387, so a 1/2 W resistor should be OK.
Bob W.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 24V LED bulbs |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Bob,
Thanks,
Yes the decimal point vanished someplace.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55372#55372
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: what should antenna resistance read |
If I remove the connector from the back of my radio and measure across the
shield and inner conductor of the antenna coax (leaving the antenna connected
at the other end, what resistance should I see for:
comm antenna Cessna type
dme short type with ball on end
marker beacon wire type
gps Garmin active type
Thank you, Skip Simpson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | MP3 player and microphone input |
>Bob...
>I am trying to connect my mp3 player to my audio panel/intercom through
>the copilot microphone jack. I got it to work once for a very short
>test. After that, my mp3 player would no longer work. (It may be
>fried) I connected the Player ground to the sleeve (mic ground). Then I
>connected The left and right audio together and connected them to the
>audio hi (inner ring) tab of the micro phone jack.
>My question...should I have connected the left and right audio from the
>mp3 to the tip (ptt) instead of the audio hi?
>Also... did I fry my mp3 player by connecting it to the audio hi of the
>mic jack?
Perhaps.
The "Mic Hi" lead from an aircraft audio system
has a dual purpose. It accepts audio from the microphone
but also supplies POWER to the microphone. Aircraft mics
are electronic descendants of the carbon microphones used
in early radio systems (and in telephones for over a century).
See:
http://users.pandora.be/oldmicrophones/microphone_history.htm
http://www.aerialpursuits.com/comms/mikes.htm
The carbon mic needs to be POWERED by the system over the
same leads that bring audio from the mic into the radio.
Contemporary mics have electronics that make the emulate
the original carbon mic operating philosophy. It may be
that voltage that appears on the microphone jack's audio
pin zapped your MP3 player. I'm sure that the MP3 player
was not designed to accept or expect any level of DC
power applied to its output jack.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Neal E Capt 605TES/TSI <Neal.George(at)hurlburt.af.mil> |
Good Morning Bob -
I'm wiring my RV-7 based on Z-13/8.
>From the Refernece section of your website,
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/s704inst.jpg shows a 1N4005 diode
across the Crowbar leads.
Z-13/8 shows the S704-1 Aux Alternator relay connected directly to the
Crowbar unit, no diode. Likewise, the drawings from B&C make no mention of
the diode.
What's the purpose of the diode, and has it been incoorptated into the
Crowbar, or do I need to hang it off the relay?
Neal
RV-7 N8ZG
Navarre, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: what should antenna resistance read |
In a message dated 8/18/06 12:33:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
CardinalNSB(at)aol.com writes:
> If I remove the connector from the back of my radio and measure across the
> shield and inner conductor of the antenna coax (leaving the antenna
> connected at the other end, what resistance should I see for:
> comm antenna Cessna type
> dme short type with ball on end
> marker beacon wire type
> gps Garmin active type
>
>
> Thank you, Skip Simpson
==========================================
Skip:
Don't do it. The word RESISTANCE is a not the proper term and is very
misleading. The proper term is IMPEDANCE and that cannot be read with a VOM.
If you do try to read a resistance there is no way of knowing what it should
or should not read. For example the GPS you said is active, that means it has
an amplifier built in. So you will be reading something that relates to the
output of the amplifier. This could be a transistor, capacitor, resistive or
inductor output. What the value is, is not know or appropriate for a VOM.
The other antennas are also unknown variables due to the different
configurations for impedance matching.
Simple answer: Don't do it. The best you can guess would be IF you see ZERO
OHMS you may have a SHORT. But any reading you get is a GUESS and NOT REAL.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gene Hubbard <enhubbard(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Comm Radio Tx Problem |
I've just mounted a Microair 760 comm radio in my Pietenpol project.
It's attached to a commercial solid-wire antenna that is mounted on a
ground plane internal to the aft fuselage. I'm using the built-in
intercom. It receives just fine, but when I try to transmit, I get a
tone through the headset and the transmission is unintelligible. The
tone generally starts when I start to talk, not when I press the PTT,
though that seems to happen occasionally too. The tone goes away when I
release the PTT. Any Ideas?
Thanks,
Gene Hubbard
San Diego
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Comm Radio Tx Problem |
In a message dated 8/18/06 3:43:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
enhubbard(at)sbcglobal.net writes:
> I've just mounted a Microair 760 comm radio in my Pietenpol project.
> It's attached to a commercial solid-wire antenna that is mounted on a
> ground plane internal to the aft fuselage. I'm using the built-in
> intercom. It receives just fine, but when I try to transmit, I get a
> tone through the headset and the transmission is unintelligible. The
> tone generally starts when I start to talk, not when I press the PTT,
> though that seems to happen occasionally too. The tone goes away when I
> release the PTT. Any Ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Gene Hubbard
> San Diego
===================
Gene:
It is very difficult to try to diagnose a problem when you cannot see or hear
the symptoms. BUT! My first guess is you are getting FEEDBACK. This is due
to wrong wiring.
Start with making sure you have ONLY one headset installed.
If you are trying to use two make sure it is on the head of someone.
Turn down the MIC GAIN on the TX.
Recheck all the wiring.
Have you checked to make sure that the jacks are insulated from the plane?
If you have two headset locations, try from each location. BUT! Disconnect
one headset before you try the other.
Do you know what feedback sounds like?
These are the basics. GOOD LUCK!
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm Radio Tx Problem |
FWIW the guys were spot on about too much mic gain causing lots of
cockpit noise to be picked up by my icom A200 radio. After a couple of
tries and turning the gain on the inside of the radio down at least a
half turn, all is well. Turning down the gain at the mic helped a bit as
well.
Ken
Gene Hubbard wrote:
>
>
> I've just mounted a Microair 760 comm radio in my Pietenpol project.
> It's attached to a commercial solid-wire antenna that is mounted on a
> ground plane internal to the aft fuselage. I'm using the built-in
> intercom. It receives just fine, but when I try to transmit, I get a
> tone through the headset and the transmission is unintelligible. The
> tone generally starts when I start to talk, not when I press the PTT,
> though that seems to happen occasionally too. The tone goes away when
> I release the PTT. Any Ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Gene Hubbard
> San Diego
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | comm radio toubleshooting |
To everyone
I am looking for some help with digonosing a reception problem with my
comm radio.
This is what I have done so far. I have two radios a 530 and a SL 30. The SL
30 works fine. I first suspected the antenna, so I switched them. No change
the sl 30 still works fine no change to the 530. I then borrowed another 530
to try, still no change. On the ground it seems like the 530 is working
fine. I can hear the approach controllers not on my airport.
When I take off there transmission becomes faint. I suspect some sort of
interference with another piece of equipment.
Thanks
Ron Raby
Lancair ES
150 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Good Morning Bob -
>
>I'm wiring my RV-7 based on Z-13/8.
>
> >From the Refernece section of your website,
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/s704inst.jpg shows a 1N4005 diode
>across the Crowbar leads.
>
>Z-13/8 shows the S704-1 Aux Alternator relay connected directly to the
>Crowbar unit, no diode. Likewise, the drawings from B&C make no mention of
>the diode.
>
>What's the purpose of the diode, and has it been incoorptated into the
>Crowbar, or do I need to hang it off the relay?
The purpose of this diode is described in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
The photo you cited above is a generic install recommendation
for any relay in the style of S704-1 device pictured.
Except for rare cases, it doesn't hurt to install a spike
suppression diode, indeed many manufacturers of military
spec relays build the network right into the relay. See
schematics on page 3 of:
http://www.teledynerelays.com/pdf/electromechanical/114.pdf
The diode was not included in the wiring diagram for
Z-13/8 and similar because it was not useful to the
design . . . but it doesn't hurt for the diode to
be there.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
Cheers - I should like to debate the following statements made here today,
because unchallenged they tend to become lore.
"We can quibble over the technical details of OBAM, but what Bob has
done is to apply a bit of marketing savvy to an otherwise technical
endeavor."
I don't think so. What he has done is to describe the condition
which prevails.
"OBAM is a marketing term. No marketing expert would EVER use the terms
"amateur" or "experimental" in a concept he was trying to sell to the public
as safe and reliable.
The author is a victim of his own language. Amateur or Experimantal
are not derogatory terms to the knowledgeable. Amateur infers "lover" in the
dedicated sense. Only baseball players and "professional" pallbearers would
misunderstand the term. I presume trhe author would apply 'professional' to
every tool in his garden shed - not realising that they are rightfully
'Commercial' - because they sell - just like ballplayers.
In fact Amateurs are mostly Professionals since because they love the work
they do, they apply the highest possible quality to their product - whether
it be the Theory of Relativity or hospital volunteering.
Professionals are those who contribute to the best of their ability having
regard for experience, training, practice and conscience and then proclaim
it - profess.
"While I was building my "HOMEBUILT", I was reminded virtually every day by
my boss that I was doing something dangerous, and he would provide me with a
printed copy of every news story of somebody
crashing in an airplane."
Good Lord! I suppose his fulltime work was providing you with
statistics and articles on driving to work.
"In this day and age, perception is more valuable than reality."
What a shame - perception is different for each of us, reality
is the same for all. That homebuilt will be perceived to fly but will it
really? Ask the boss.
"Just look at the "V chip". There is no such thing. But in the minds of
millions of Americans, it exists, and the government created it to help
them. What a marketing coup!!"
I think I've made my point.
" Perfume is another great example. How else could you sell a half ounce
of water for over $100?"
Lie perhaps? - or specialise in advertising to the ignorant?
"It's all in the marketing."
See above.
"Changing the name of that dastardly, dangerous contraption from an AMATEUR
(unskilled) built EXPERIMENTAL (might not work) aircraft to an "Owner Built
and Maintained" is mainly for the consumption of the PUBLIC, ............. "
I suspect the author is putting assumptions (not his swiftest
quality) into Bob Nuckols' intentions. It also implies the PUBLIC is stupid
and easily swayed. If that is true his boss is a perfect example. Perhaps
that is what marketting is - consumption by the stupid?
".........not the people who know that obviously the owner isn't going to be
doing ALL the work on it if he doesn't want to. We can call it an
"uncertified" if we want to. But don't let the public know."
Lord, no. The less they know the better - to sell.
Ferg Kyle
Europa A064 914 Classic
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: what should antenna resistance read |
| From: | "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
CardinalNSB(at)aol.com wrote:
> comm antenna Cessna type
>
> dme short type with ball on end
>
> marker beacon wire type
>
> gps Garmin active type
Some of this is simple. The DME and comm antenna should read infinity (open).
The sled-type marker should read dead short. Active GPS -- whatever.
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55518#55518
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: what should antenna resistance read |
Barry is correct, but I think we can assume the proper DC reading for
the first 3 types listed is infinite resistance. Nix that, if a
(transformer-type) balun is in the line, however.
Best tool for the readings you're wanting to take is an antenna
analyzer, which will reveal the impedance and also any transmission
line (coax) shorts, opens. But don't attach any type of measuring
device to an active GPS antenna unless you absolutely know what you're
doing.
-Bill B.
On 8/18/06, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/18/06 12:33:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> CardinalNSB(at)aol.com writes:
>
> > If I remove the connector from the back of my radio and measure across the
> > shield and inner conductor of the antenna coax (leaving the antenna
> > connected at the other end, what resistance should I see for:
> > comm antenna Cessna type
> > dme short type with ball on end
> > marker beacon wire type
> > gps Garmin active type
> >
> >
> > Thank you, Skip Simpson
> ==========================================
> Skip:
>
> Don't do it. The word RESISTANCE is a not the proper term and is very
> misleading. The proper term is IMPEDANCE and that cannot be read with a VOM.
>
> If you do try to read a resistance there is no way of knowing what it should
> or should not read. For example the GPS you said is active, that means it has
> an amplifier built in. So you will be reading something that relates to the
> output of the amplifier. This could be a transistor, capacitor, resistive or
> inductor output. What the value is, is not know or appropriate for a VOM.
> The other antennas are also unknown variables due to the different
> configurations for impedance matching.
>
> Simple answer: Don't do it. The best you can guess would be IF you see ZERO
> OHMS you may have a SHORT. But any reading you get is a GUESS and NOT REAL.
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
> "Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
> time."
> Yamashiada
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I beg to differ |
Well, you obviously have never been involved in marketing! LOL!
Dave
At 09:45 AM 8/18/2006, you wrote:
>
>Cheers - I should like to debate the following statements made here today,
>because unchallenged they tend to become lore.
>
>"We can quibble over the technical details of OBAM, but what Bob has
>done is to apply a bit of marketing savvy to an otherwise technical
>endeavor."
> I don't think so. What he has done is to describe the condition
>which prevails.
>
>"OBAM is a marketing term. No marketing expert would EVER use the terms
>"amateur" or "experimental" in a concept he was trying to sell to the public
>as safe and reliable.
> The author is a victim of his own language. Amateur or Experimantal
>are not derogatory terms to the knowledgeable. Amateur infers "lover" in the
>dedicated sense. Only baseball players and "professional" pallbearers would
>misunderstand the term. I presume trhe author would apply 'professional' to
>every tool in his garden shed - not realising that they are rightfully
>'Commercial' - because they sell - just like ballplayers.
>In fact Amateurs are mostly Professionals since because they love the work
>they do, they apply the highest possible quality to their product - whether
>it be the Theory of Relativity or hospital volunteering.
>Professionals are those who contribute to the best of their ability having
>regard for experience, training, practice and conscience and then proclaim
>it - profess.
>
>"While I was building my "HOMEBUILT", I was reminded virtually every day by
>my boss that I was doing something dangerous, and he would provide me with a
>printed copy of every news story of somebody
>crashing in an airplane."
> Good Lord! I suppose his fulltime work was providing you with
>statistics and articles on driving to work.
>
>"In this day and age, perception is more valuable than reality."
> What a shame - perception is different for each of us, reality
>is the same for all. That homebuilt will be perceived to fly but will it
>really? Ask the boss.
>
>
> "Just look at the "V chip". There is no such thing. But in the minds of
>millions of Americans, it exists, and the government created it to help
>them. What a marketing coup!!"
> I think I've made my point.
>
> " Perfume is another great example. How else could you sell a half ounce
>of water for over $100?"
> Lie perhaps? - or specialise in advertising to the ignorant?
> "It's all in the marketing."
> See above.
>
>"Changing the name of that dastardly, dangerous contraption from an AMATEUR
>(unskilled) built EXPERIMENTAL (might not work) aircraft to an "Owner Built
>and Maintained" is mainly for the consumption of the PUBLIC, ............. "
> I suspect the author is putting assumptions (not his swiftest
>quality) into Bob Nuckols' intentions. It also implies the PUBLIC is stupid
>and easily swayed. If that is true his boss is a perfect example. Perhaps
>that is what marketting is - consumption by the stupid?
>
>
>".........not the people who know that obviously the owner isn't going to be
>doing ALL the work on it if he doesn't want to. We can call it an
>"uncertified" if we want to. But don't let the public know."
> Lord, no. The less they know the better - to sell.
>
>Ferg Kyle
>Europa A064 914 Classic
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wgill10(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: comm radio toubleshooting |
Ron,
It sounds like you have a bad (or none at all) antenna connection -- possibly at
the radio rack. Do you have the typical 1 foot coax pigtail coming off the
rack with a male BNC connector on the end the then connects to the coax to the
antenna? If so, remove the 530 and do continuity checks on the short coax as
well as the longer coax without any equipment (radio, antenna) connected to the
coax.
Bill
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com>
>
> To everyone
>
> I am looking for some help with digonosing a reception problem with my
> comm radio.
>
> This is what I have done so far. I have two radios a 530 and a SL 30. The SL
> 30 works fine. I first suspected the antenna, so I switched them. No change
> the sl 30 still works fine no change to the 530. I then borrowed another 530
> to try, still no change. On the ground it seems like the 530 is working
> fine. I can hear the approach controllers not on my airport.
> When I take off there transmission becomes faint. I suspect some sort of
> interference with another piece of equipment.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ron Raby
>
> Lancair ES
> 150 hrs
>
>
>
>
>
Ron,
It sounds like you have a bad (or none at all) antenna connection -- possibly
at the radio rack. Do you have the typical 1 foot coax pigtail coming
off the rack with a male BNC connector on the end the then connects to the coax
to the antenna? If so, remove the 530 and do continuity checks
on the short coax as well as the longer coax without any equipment (radio, antenna) connected
to the coax.
Bill
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted
by: "Ron Raby"
>
> To everyone
>
> I am looking for some help with digonosing a reception problem
with my
> comm radio.
>
> This is what I have done so far.
I have two radios a 530 and a SL 30. The SL
> 30 works fine. I first
suspected the antenna, so I switched them. No change
> the sl 30 still
works fine no change to the 530. I then borrowed another 530
> to try,
still no change. On the ground it seems like the 530 is working
> fine.
I can hear the approach controllers not on my airport.
> When I take
off there transmission becomes faint. I suspect some sort of
> interference
with another piece of equipment.
>
&g
t; Tha
m
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: comm radio toubleshooting |
Bill
I do not have a 1 foot pigtail. The case for the radio does have a
feedthru bulkhead type BNC though. The radio connects to one side of
this connector and the bnc from the antenna connects to the other side.
That is a good place to look. I will check it out. Maybe the radio is
not seating all the way into the bulkhead connector.
Thanks
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: wgill10(at)comcast.net
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: comm radio toubleshooting
Ron,
It sounds like you have a bad (or none at all) antenna connection --
possibly at the radio rack. Do you have the typical 1 foot coax pigtail
coming off the rack with a male BNC connector on the end the then
connects to the coax to the antenna? If so, remove the 530 and do
continuity checks on the short coax as well as the longer coax without
any equipment (radio, antenna) connected to the coax.
Bill
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com>
>
> To everyone
>
> I am looking for some help with digonosing a reception problem
with my
> comm radio.
>
> This is what I have done so far. I have two radios a 530 and a SL
30. The SL
> 30 works fine. I first suspected the antenna, so I switched them.
No change
> the sl 30 still works fine no change to the 530. I then borrowed
another 530
> to try, still no change. On the ground it seems like the 530 is
working
> fine. I can hear the approach controllers not on my airport.
> When I take off there transmission becomes faint. I suspect some
sort of
> interference with another piece of equipment.
>
&g t; Tha m
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: what should antenna resistance read |
| From: | "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
sportav8r(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Barry is correct, but I think we can assume the proper DC reading for the first
3 types listed is infinite resistance. Nix that, if a (transformer-type) balun
is in the line, however.
For marker, we have to define "wire type." If suspended between two insulators,
then it should be infinite. However, a 1/4-wave monopole antenna -- comm and
DME -- does not require a balun. I mention this only because if a low resistance
(probably dead short) is found, I wouldn't assume a transformer balun there,
but rather check for a short somewhere, like in the coax.
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55590#55590
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: what should antenna resistance read |
There are some antenna types that will present a dead short at DC and
yet the proper impedance at RF. I don't know that any of your
antennas are of that type, but beware that just because you read a
dead short with a DC voltmeter does not necessarily mean
anything. On the other hand, if you disconnect your antenna from its
coax and still read a dead short between the coax center and braid, I
would look for bad connectors.
Dave Morris
At 03:19 PM 8/18/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>
>sportav8r(at)gmail.com wrote:
> > Barry is correct, but I think we can assume the proper DC reading
> for the first 3 types listed is infinite resistance. Nix that, if
> a (transformer-type) balun is in the line, however.
>
>For marker, we have to define "wire type." If suspended between two
>insulators, then it should be infinite. However, a 1/4-wave
>monopole antenna -- comm and DME -- does not require a balun. I
>mention this only because if a low resistance (probably dead short)
>is found, I wouldn't assume a transformer balun there, but rather
>check for a short somewhere, like in the coax.
>
>Fred F.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55590#55590
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net> |
Are PIDG terminals all the same? I'm wondering if I can resupply locally at
a non-aviation business?
Rob Wright
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu> |
PIDG is a specific type of AMP brand connectors. There are lots of
terminals
(even other AMP brand types) that look the same, but may have different
materials and/or construction. The most important difference is whether
or
not the wire gripping barrel is brazed closed. My local sources tend to
be
unknown brands, so I just order actual PIDG terminals from SteinAir.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob
Wright
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 8:18 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: PIDG
Are PIDG terminals all the same? I'm wondering if I can resupply
locally at
a non-aviation business?
Rob Wright
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>Are PIDG terminals all the same? I m wondering if I can resupply locally
>at a non-aviation business?
>
>
>Rob Wright
"PIDG" is a trade name (Pre Insulated Diamond Grip) of Tyco-Amp
for their particular series of top-notch terminals. An exemplar
part is described at:
http://catalog.tycoelectronics.com/TE/bin/TE.Connect?C=1&M=BYPN&PID=42563&PN=53408-1&I=13
and has features described in . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf#search=%22pidg%22
There are a number of manufacturers who supply similar terminals to
Mil-T-7928/4.
Generally speaking, ANY terminals you find that offer the metal
liner under the plastic insulator will fall in this class of
terminal and are the recommended technology for aircraft.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>Would anybody know the e-mail address of Charlie Kuss, RV builder. I would
>like to contact him regarding his conversion of the brake system to
>automotive grade fluid.
>Thanks
>Franz,
His address appears at the top of every message he's
posted and shows up in my e-mail client as:
Charlie Kuss
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Franz . . . Charlie's address |
>
>Would anybody know the e-mail address of Charlie Kuss, RV builder. I would
>like to contact him regarding his conversion of the brake system to
>automotive grade fluid.
>Thanks
>Franz,
His address appears at the top of every message he's
posted and shows up in my e-mail client as:
Charlie Kuss
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Franz" <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Franz . . . Charlie's address |
Thanks,
Unfortunately I lost all the data in my computer including all outlook data
due to a hard drive failure
Franz
guides(at)lastfrontierheli.com
www.lastfrontierheli.com
tel: 604 639-8455
fax: 604 639-8456
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: August 19, 2006 10:44 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Franz . . . Charlie's address
>
>Would anybody know the e-mail address of Charlie Kuss, RV builder. I would
>like to contact him regarding his conversion of the brake system to
>automotive grade fluid.
>Thanks
>Franz,
His address appears at the top of every message he's
posted and shows up in my e-mail client as:
Charlie Kuss
Bob . . .
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Bob's Dimmner and Electroluminescent strips |
| From: | "N941WR" <one4fun(at)mindspring.com> |
I bought an AeroElectric multi light dimmer from a builder who never used it in
his aircraft.
The dimmer will work great for the few lights, radio, and transponder I am installing
in my RV-9.
One question though, I have an electroluminescent strip above my switch and fuse
panel. Can this be controlled through 'lectric Bob's dimmer?
--------
Bill
RV-9 (Working on the finishing kit)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55817#55817
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
On Aug 15, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Since your personal goals are right in line with the guy
> at the 'scope . . . then setting up some protocol for
> selection, monitoring and maintenance of your encoder is
> the best way to meet those goals. A bureaucrat can only
> whack you for a perceived misbehavior. He'd like to believe
> that his actions under whatever authority he possesses goes
> toward (1) and (2) . . . well . . . 'nuf said.
>
> Bottom line is install whatever encoder rings your chimes
> and work with your favorite test equipment operator to
> periodically verify performance. Even better, develop
> access to your OWN testing abilities with something like
> the AirSport display, a hand vacuum pump and a water
> manometer. It's simple physics.
Oh, how right-on-the-money. But it is even easier than that. Many
transponders will now display the pressure altitude from the encoder.
All you need to do is to dial up 29.92 "Hg or 1013.2 mB in the
Kollsman window and see if the display on the transponder is within
specified limits (150') of the display on the altimeter. You can do
this once on every flight and assure yourself that your encoder and
altimeter are telling you the same thing. If they differ by more than
150' then you know you need to check things out.
I have been away from email for most of the week (flying from FL to
CA via TX and ID) collecting various family members and delivering
them to the necessary places in the country on my way back from the
Caribbean in my Aztruck (Piper PA-27 Aztec to the uninitiated). I am
looking forward to wading back into the fray.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Intercom and backlight |
On Aug 15, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Rodney Dunham wrote:
>
>
> Listers,
>
> I'm installing an XCOM760 and want to know a few things.
>
> 1) Can I just leave the intercom in the "always on" configuration
> by tying the ON (pin 5) to ground??
You can but you won't want to.
>
> If so, can I then disable it by using the F/CH knob???
That I don't know.
One of the things I have learned is that military aircraft put the
PTT button on the throttle, not the stick. I have decided I *really*
like that location. The CJ6A has two buttons, one for PTT, and one
for ICS. I just have to move my thumb on the throttle to decide which
to use. You might want to do something similar and use a button to
key your ICS.
>
> 2) Also, if I omit the switch in the backlight lead (pin 8) will
> the light go out when I turn the radio off??
>
> In other words, backlight always on but only IF the radio is on???
> Same last question for Becker XPDR.
Do you care? When are you going to fly your airplane with the comm
and xpdr turned off? For those few times when you are in the airplane
with the master on and the comm and xpdr off will you really care if
the backlight is turned on?
Remember, simplicity is a virtue.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Problem with Power Sources |
On Aug 15, 2006, at 7:02 PM, Ron Patterson wrote:
> I just finished my RV-4 and used Bob's Z-11 plan with a Battery
> Bus, Main Bus and E Bus. Somehow I have them isolated so that the
> main works of the Master, the E bus switch lights the avionics, but
> I can't get the Main bus to feed the E Bus without turning it on.
You have probably wired the diode wrong. The main bus attaches to the
'~' input (either one or both) and the e-bus connects to the '+' lead
of the bridge. If you are using a regular diode (or preferably a
schottky power diode) you wire it like this:
main-bus ----->|---- e-bus
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: OBAM vs. ABEA |
On Aug 16, 2006, at 8:36 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> I'll suggest that a fundamental attribution error
> is at work here. OBAM is not exclusive. It simply
> acknowledges the fact that the vast majority of
> participants in the OBAM aviation community are
> here because they CAN build and maintain their personal
> aircraft with an investment of sweat-equity as
> opposed hiring "certified" assistance. This is in
> stark contrast to the certificated side of the house which
> IS very exclusive were the majority of owners do
> little maintenance and no building at all.
If one wishes to draw a parallel, consider the production and racing
automotive communities. The new and innovative stuff comes from the
racing community. That then trickles down into the production
community. The unfortunate problem we face is that the FAA acts as a
serious impediment to the flow of new ideas from the experimental to
the production communities.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 24V LED bulbs |
Remember, the forward voltage drop on most red LEDs is about 1.5V.
The forward voltage drop for white LEDs is about 3.0V. You can put
these LEDs in series such that the combined forward voltage drop is
less than the minimum bus voltage and then add a series resistor to
control current.
For instance, if you are using a group of red LEDs that need a 20 mA
current and you want to power it from your 14V bus, you can do the
following. Since you have a minimum bus voltage of 11V, you have to
have a string of LEDs that needs less than 11V. That means you can
put 6 red LEDs in series (6 x 1.5 = 9V) and then put a series
resistor that will limit the current to 20 mA for the max voltage.
The max voltage on your bus is probably 15V. That means that you need
a resistor that will pass 20mA for a drop of 6V (15V-9V). That means
a 4V/.020A = 300 ohm resistor.
If you want to do this with white LEDs use 3V per LED instead of 1.5V
per LED.
If you want to do this for a 28V electrical system then you have a
minimum voltage of 22V and a max voltage of probably 30V. You want a
string of LEDs to be less than 22V forward drop so I would pick
probably something like 14 red LEDs with a forward drop of 14 x 1.5
or 21V. Now I would need a series resistor to limit the current to
20mA for a drop of 30V-21V or 9V. That would be 9V/.020A = 450 ohms.
If you are doing this for a single LED just change the voltage drop
value.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: what should antenna resistance read |
On Aug 17, 2006, at 9:28 PM, CardinalNSB(at)aol.com wrote:
> If I remove the connector from the back of my radio and measure
> across the shield and inner conductor of the antenna coax (leaving
> the antenna connected at the other end, what resistance should I
> see for:
>
> comm antenna Cessna type
infinite ohms or something close to zero ohms. If there is any sort
of matching network in the antenna then the antenna will probably
appear to be at DC ground.
>
> dme short type with ball on end
infinite ohms.
>
> marker beacon wire type
infinite ohms or close to zero ohms. The wire type of MB antenna has
a tap some distance down the antenna but one end of the antenna will
be connected to the airframe. This will make it appear as a dead
short at DC.
>
> gps Garmin active type
Something less than infinite ohms, probably something like a couple
hundred ohms, but make sure that the ohmmeter lead that is positive
goes to the center pin. Most inexpensive ohmmeters have the *black*
lead be positive. Check it with another meter to be sure.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm Radio Tx Problem |
On Aug 18, 2006, at 12:41 AM, Gene Hubbard wrote:
>
>
> I've just mounted a Microair 760 comm radio in my Pietenpol
> project. It's attached to a commercial solid-wire antenna that is
> mounted on a ground plane internal to the aft fuselage. I'm using
> the built-in intercom. It receives just fine, but when I try to
> transmit, I get a tone through the headset and the transmission is
> unintelligible. The tone generally starts when I start to talk,
> not when I press the PTT, though that seems to happen occasionally
> too. The tone goes away when I release the PTT. Any Ideas?
Yes. You have RF feedback into your headset. Things to try:
1. Try a different headset.
2. Wrap the mic lead to the radio around a ferrite core. Several
turns should do. Do this at the headset end and also at the radio end.
3. Move the antenna to a different place on the airframe more removed
from the headsets.
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Definitions: Certified, certificated |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
There has been some confusion over using the terms "Certified" and Certificated"
I hope I can clarify this.
Certified: Endorsed by authorities as having met specific requirements or possessing
certain qualities; e.g. " Certified Public Accountant", i.e., skilled at
altering or destroying documents, ignoring or failing to investigate shell companies
created by insiders who grotesquely enriched themselves while hiding mounting
corporate debt in "off-balance-sheet companies."; Ignoring knowledgeable
whistleblowers and accounting "red flags" that indicate massive fraud is taking
place; misleading investors who continued pouring their money into failing
companies.
Certifiable: Determined to be insane or non compos mentis; e.g. I know who I am.
No one else knows who I am. If I was a giraffe, and someone said I was a snake,
I'd think, no, actually I'm a giraffe. - Richard Gere
Certificated: A person or object that has been judged to meet certain standards,
e.g. airworthiness or as in certificated flight instructor. The term signifies
that a printed official-looking paper (a ticket, slang for certificate) is
likely somewhere to be found.
Discussion--The FAA is reasonably careful to avoid the word certify except in the
sense of swear or confirm. For example:
you only have to certify that you have no medical defect
You must certify the application form by reading, answering, signing, and dating.
to certify the record is true and complete.
Just thought this would help.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55887#55887
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Definitions: Certified, certificated |
But Master Eric, does that mean I'm "certifiable"
if I pay $8,600 for a JPI EDM-900-4 for a
"certified" aircraft, when that same JPI
EDM-900-4 part number is listed at $3,200 if I
install it in an "amateur-built" aircraft? And
if not, does it mean the people who install it in
an "amateur-built" aircraft are getting an
inferior product? Or is this just another case
of "certificated" lawyers and accountants and
other paper-pushers cashing in on $5,400 of free money?
(snicker)
Dave Morris
At 09:59 AM 8/20/2006, you wrote:
>
>There has been some confusion over using the
>terms "Certified" and Certificated" I hope I can clarify this.
>
>Certified: Endorsed by authorities as having met
>specific requirements or possessing certain
>qualities; e.g. " Certified Public Accountant",
>i.e., skilled at altering or destroying
>documents, ignoring or failing to investigate
>shell companies created by insiders who
>grotesquely enriched themselves while hiding
>mounting corporate debt in "off-balance-sheet
>companies."; Ignoring knowledgeable
>whistleblowers and accounting "red flags" that
>indicate massive fraud is taking place;
>misleading investors who continued pouring their money into failing companies.
>
>Certifiable: Determined to be insane or non
>compos mentis; e.g. I know who I am. No one
>else knows who I am. If I was a giraffe, and
>someone said I was a snake, I'd think, no,
>actually I'm a giraffe. - Richard Gere
>
>Certificated: A person or object that has been
>judged to meet certain standards, e.g.
>airworthiness or as in certificated
>flight instructor. The term signifies that a
>printed official-looking paper (a ticket,
>slang for certificate) is likely somewhere to be found.
>
>Discussion--The FAA is reasonably careful to
>avoid the word certify except in the sense
>of swear or confirm. For example:
>
>you only have to certify that you have no medical defect
>You must certify the application form by
>reading, answering, signing, and dating.
>to certify the record is true and complete.
>
>Just thought this would help.
>
>--------
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge, MA 01550
>(508) 764-2072
>emjones(at)charter.net
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55887#55887
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bob's Dimmner and Electroluminescent strips |
Bill
My homebuilt aeroelectric dimmer works well. The dimmer has a 4 volt
minimum brightness setting for incandescant bulbs. With the small cube
inverter that came with my strips I found that the 4 volt minimum
setting was a bit high so I swapped out the 910 ohm resisistor for a 150
ohm resistor so that the minimum voltage is now about 1.7 volts. You may
find that is not necessary on your installation but I like to dim the
strips quite a bit on dark nights.
Ken
N941WR wrote:
>
>I bought an AeroElectric multi light dimmer from a builder who never used it in
his aircraft.
>
>The dimmer will work great for the few lights, radio, and transponder I am installing
in my RV-9.
>
>One question though, I have an electroluminescent strip above my switch and fuse
panel. Can this be controlled through 'lectric Bob's dimmer?
>
>--------
>Bill
>RV-9 (Working on the finishing kit)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Definitions: Certified, certificated |
On Aug 20, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Dave N6030X wrote:
>
>
> But Master Eric, does that mean I'm "certifiable" if I pay $8,600
> for a JPI EDM-900-4 for a "certified" aircraft, when that same JPI
> EDM-900-4 part number is listed at $3,200 if I install it in an
> "amateur-built" aircraft? And if not, does it mean the people who
> install it in an "amateur-built" aircraft are getting an inferior
> product? Or is this just another case of "certificated" lawyers
> and accountants and other paper-pushers cashing in on $5,400 of
> free money?
Yes.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Definitions: Certified, certificated |
On Aug 20, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
>
> There has been some confusion over using the terms "Certified" and
> Certificated" I hope I can clarify this.
I officially induct you into the International Order of Pedants.
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: | "MLAS" <MLAS(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tablet/Laptop use in Aircraft |
Good find for those who fly at 14,500 and lower... Still to low for me...
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 8:00 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tablet/Laptop use in Aircraft
>
> I can get your drive to 14,500 - about:
> From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT?
>
> Here is a note for you tablet PC guys=85. If you plain to fly above
> 10,000 ft msl then you are going to need a solid state =91hard drive=92.
> I
> have experienced many hard drive failures before we figured out what the
> problem was. Come to find out when the air gets thin you don=92t have
> enough air cushion to keep the hard drive head off the memory platters.
> When the head hits the platter the drive fails. We had to convert all
> of our on board pc=92s to solid state drives. This was very expensive
> and
> you only get limited amount of space, so say goodbye to all those music
> files.
>
> Mike Larkin
>
> Lancair Legacy
> TS-11
> Kitfox IV
> A-320
>
> Say, there,
> I can get your drive to 14,500ft - about:
> http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_ee25.pdf
> around 200CAD, or US$1.50/1 EURO/.75UKP
> Good to 40,000ft if you don't turn it on.
>
> Ferg Kyle
> Europa A064 914 Classic
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
Bob,
Just curious if a design element changed, or if they were there due to the
composite structure and some other phenomena.
In your "WireBook" for the Lancair IVP, you use MOV's across lots of
contactors, switches, etc. And yet, your book doesn't show, nor discuss
them at least not as far as I've found. Did something change since you did
that wirebook, or do you recommend them on composites?
Thanks in advanced,
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Supplier question for 2-10 switch |
| From: | "rlnelson5" <rlnelson-5(at)peoplepc.com> |
Hello, I am in the middle of rewiring my plane and would like to use the 2-10 switches
for my mstr/alt and head/taxi lights. I have most other swiches I needed
and just needed those 2 switches. I checked B+C and saw that they are 19.50
each For 2 39 +9 shipping . ouch . I was wondering if that is the best price
for that type of switch or is there other alternative suppliers./part numbers.
Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55989#55989
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Supplier question for 2-10 switch |
>
>Hello, I am in the middle of rewiring my plane and would like to use the
>2-10 switches for my mstr/alt and head/taxi lights. I have most other
>swiches I needed and just needed those 2 switches. I checked B+C and saw
>that they are 19.50 each For 2 39 +9 shipping . ouch . I was wondering
>if that is the best price for that type of switch or is there other
>alternative suppliers./part numbers. Thanks
Those are the low price versions. They go up from there.
See:
http://www.alliedelec.com/Search/ProductDetail.asp?SKU=642-2185&SEARCH=2tl1%2D10&n=&MPN=2TL1%2D10&DESC=2TL1%2D10
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> |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Just curious if a design element changed, or if they were there due to the
>composite structure and some other phenomena.
>
>In your "WireBook" for the Lancair IVP, you use MOV's across lots of
>contactors, switches, etc. And yet, your book doesn't show, nor discuss
>them at least not as far as I've found. Did something change since you did
>that wirebook, or do you recommend them on composites?
Low voltage MOV's are hard to find and more expensive than
diodes. Neat idea but not practical in low voltage DC systems.
Hence the switch to diodes in later documents.
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: Bob's Dimmner and Electroluminescent strips |
| From: | "N941WR" <one4fun(at)mindspring.com> |
Ken,
Thanks for the help. I hope to power it up for the first time today and see how
it looks.
If the strip is blinding I'll put a resistor in line with it.
Bill
--------
Bill
RV-9 (Working on the finishing kit)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=56038#56038
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Coil Suppression:
MOVs are considered to be better than diodes, although they have higher impedance.
But MOVs typically have a limited lifetime.
Diodes are not the best method today. Not even the second-, third-, or fourth-
best method. But in the 1960's they were the way to go.
Mechanical relays and contactors depend upon magnetism generated by an electric
current running through a wire coil. When the current stops, the magnetic field
collapses. But the relay does not know the difference between a wire coil moving
in a magnetic field (as in a generator) or a magnetic field moving in a
wire coil (as in a collapsing magnetic field). Thus a large voltage1000V to 1500V
typicallyis induced in the coil. This current goes the same direction the
original current didso it slows the contact openingallowing arcing, chatter, bouncing,
contact welding and even re-closure! Perihelion Design sells 18V 600W
Bi-Directional Zener Transient Voltage Suppressors (for 14.5V systems) that provide
the most modern Third Millennium technical solution to relay coil suppression.
We sell these as a set of twelve with the typical hardware needed to retrofit
a small airplane.
Every manufacturer of bi-directional Zener transient voltage suppressors seems
to have a trademarked name for these: Transils, Surmetics, Transorbs, TranZorbs,
TransGuards, Mosorbs; the list is endless. We call them SnapJacks.
They also are offered in a range of voltages, packages, and wattages. Perihelion
Design offers the 18 Volt 600 Watt axial lead version of these guys, commonly
known to close friends as P6KE18CA, and includes some of the connectors and
shrink tubing you may need to install them.
Basic Plan: SnapJacks are used to replace coil suppression diodes wherever they
are now installed. For coils, contactors and relays that are internally equipped
with a suppression diode, the best solution may be to buy the equivalent non-diode
part. If possible, install the SnapJacks with the shortest leads possible
consistent with strain relief and mechanical mounting of the part.
SnapJacks have NO POLARITY, regardless of any marking on the parts. Although the
600 W parts will work fine with the biggest relay, contactor, or motor that
your aircraft could lift, you may wish to parallel two SnapJacks on the big loads
for redundancy. In some cases diodes associated with contactors are there
for switching logic purposes, not suppression. These should be left alone.
ref: http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/kilovac/appnotes/transients.asp
See: http://www.periheliondesign.com/suppressors/SnapJack.pdf
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=56118#56118
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Saylor" <Dave(at)AirCraftersLLC.com> |
| Subject: | DPS FUELWATCH Instrument |
Listers,
Does anyone have a fuel monitor called a "DPS FUELWATCH"? It fits a 2 1/4"
hole and has a DB9 connector on the back. I've never seen one before.
We are repairing a plane damaged by fire that uses an instrument like this,
and I need to know how to rewire it and what type of transducer it uses.
Anybody have any information?
Many thanks,
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RPM drop Problem |
| From: | "dennisvh" <dennisvh(at)adelphia.net> |
I have a 1946 Ercoupe with a 85 HP (started out as a 75HP) Continental engine with
a 200 RPM drop on the right mag at run-up. Mechanics have 100% eliminated
as the problem both mags, all plugs, P-leads, and switch system. Also, the engine
ran perfectly for the last 25 hours after a new wiring harness was installed.
The harness was checked out and all wires were fine. We do not know what
to check next. I would appreciate any advice anyone can give us. Thanks.
Dennis Hatfield [Question]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=56221#56221
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RPM drop Problem |
Well, you don't mention the timing being checked.
dennisvh wrote:
>
> I have a 1946 Ercoupe with a 85 HP (started out as a 75HP) Continental engine
with a 200 RPM drop on the right mag at run-up. Mechanics have 100% eliminated
as the problem both mags, all plugs, P-leads, and switch system. Also, the
engine ran perfectly for the last 25 hours after a new wiring harness was installed.
The harness was checked out and all wires were fine. We do not know
what to check next. I would appreciate any advice anyone can give us. Thanks.
Dennis Hatfield [Question]
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RPM drop Problem |
You say that mechanics have 100% eliminated. What did they do to eliminate
those items? It'll save a lot of guessing games if you tell us that.
On 8/21/06, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> kellym(at)aviating.com>
>
> Well, you don't mention the timing being checked.
>
> dennisvh wrote:
> dennisvh(at)adelphia.net>
> >
> > I have a 1946 Ercoupe with a 85 HP (started out as a 75HP) Continental
> engine with a 200 RPM drop on the right mag at run-up. Mechanics have 100%
> eliminated as the problem both mags, all plugs, P-leads, and switch
> system. Also, the engine ran perfectly for the last 25 hours after a new
> wiring harness was installed. The harness was checked out and all wires
> were fine. We do not know what to check next. I would appreciate any
> advice anyone can give us. Thanks. Dennis Hatfield [Question]
> >
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Pullable 80A Circuit Breaker |
Does anybody know a source for a pullable 80A CB to use for the alternator?
I've checked several sources and have found 80A CBs that cannot be pulled -
they can only be reset, but none that are pullable.
I bought one at Sun n Fun only to discover later that it is 28v.
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John F. Herminghaus" <catignano(at)tele2.it> |
What is a super flag? Is there any source where it is described in detail?
John Herminghaus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 08/18/06 |
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>Scott Lewis wrote:
>
>
>>Fergus Kyle wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It also implies the PUBLIC is stupid and easily swayed. If that is
>>>true his boss is a perfect example. Perhaps that is what marketting
>>>is - consumption by the stupid?
>>>
>>>
>>And right there you have hit the nail on the head!!
>>
>>Also, politics is the art of appealing to the fears of the stupid.
>>
>>
>
>I agree but I would change the word "stupid" to "ignorant". I don't
>believe there are hundreds of millions of stupid people around the world
>voting against their own interests, they are simply ignorant of what's
>happening around them.
>
>
>
Never forget that, by definition, 50% of people have below average
intelligence.
I had an argument with one of my wife's girlfriends once over the cheap
generics versus expensive but heavily advertised aspirin. I explained
the long history of aceti-salicyllic acid (sp?). I showed her how the
FDA requires manufacturers to divulge the quantity of each active
ingredient right on the packaging. She countered that "they put other
stuff in that isn't active but makes it work better." I quit arguing.
Advertisers won. In a different instance, another friend was amazed
that all of our dinner plates didn't match. How often do you see
mismatched dishes on a television show that doesn't involve foul-mouthed
trailer trash?
I don't know how it is in other countries, but over the last 50yrs
Americans have been slowly converted from citizens to "consumers". This
has been done with a constant barrage of television and radio
advertising that can create feelings and emotions without having to be
filtered by the cognitive process of reading and digesting the written
word. "Don't think. That's hard. Just have fun. Buy {new shiny
thing}. {slightly used shiny thing} is outdated and no longer
fashionable. You will only be young, beautiful and hip if you have {new
shiny thing}. If one dish breaks, you have to throw out the whole set
and buy another. Store brand apirin won't work. You need 5 different
flavors depending on which quadrant of your head the ache is in."
Cognizant citizens make poor consumers.
It's not smart vs stupid. It's trained vs untrained. Spend an hour in
front of a TV with a typical teenager. Find out what they think about
the advertisements. Everything is cool and exciting. Find a way to
isolate them from the boob-tube for a week or two, and then spend
another hour at it with them. You'll be amazed at the number of times
'stupid' in used in reference to the commercials.
Until we can turn off all the raio an television stations for a few
weeks (which will cut consumerism and put most of us out of our jobs),
we will have to deal with the prevalent conditions. No matter how it
sticks in my craw, I know that I must convince ignoramuses that my
airplane is safe. (Not 'safer than a Cessna'. They think those are all
kamakazi dive bombers.) We must convince them we're safe.
Experimental and amatuer have to be either qualified or not used.
"Experimental? Not really. This design has been flying for well over
40 years." "All 'amatuer' means is that I don't have to make a profit.
Instead, I have to keep rebuilding a part till it is right. I don't
have a schedule for that reason. It will fly only after everything is
perfect." If we can fit those explanations into ABEA, then I'm all for
it; otherwise, let's stick with OBAM for the time being.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pullable 80A Circuit Breaker |
On 22 Aug 2006, at 24:37, Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote:
> Does anybody know a source for a pullable 80A CB to use for the
> alternator? I've checked several sources and have found 80A CBs
> that cannot be pulled - they can only be reset, but none that are
> pullable.
> I bought one at Sun n Fun only to discover later that it is 28v.
I would have thought that the rating meant the maximum voltage that
the CB could be used with. Any lower voltage should be OK. It is
measuring amperage, not voltage, and 80A is 80A, no matter what the
system voltage is.
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
Is this in regards to a bendix-king nav indicator and the wire
connection to the nav super flag? Tell us what model indicator and the
specific question you have.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
F. Herminghaus
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:24 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Super flag
What is a super flag? Is there any source where it is described in
detail?
John Herminghaus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RPM drop Problem |
Dennis:
Here are a few things I would check:
~ Timing
~ Fuel - Have you been using AvGas? If so you may have some coking around the
exhaust valve(s).
~ Spark Plug - Bad plug, carbon or lead fouling, cracked porcelain (swap left
and right plugs. If the problem follows the plugs, then just search down the
bad plug.)
~ Harness - Check the length of the coil springs. Give them a slight pull to
stretch the length. Also check down into the plugs looking for carbon or
arcing. (I'm assuming you are using massive plugs?)
Plugs - While looking down, make sure the screw down there is tight.
Mags - You said you eliminated them as being the problem, but why and how?
Have you looked inside? What is the e-gap and condition of the coil? Does the
problem get worse with time and heat?
OK, that is all I can think about before I have my coffee. Let us know how
you make out.
Barry (McCoy)
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
============================================
I have a 1946 Ercoupe with a 85 HP (started out as a 75HP) Continental engine
with a 200 RPM drop on the right mag at run-up. Mechanics have 100%
eliminated as the problem both mags, all plugs, P-leads, and switch system. Also,
the
engine ran perfectly for the last 25 hours after a new wiring harness was
installed. The harness was checked out and all wires were fine. We do not know
what to check next. I would appreciate any advice anyone can give us.
Thanks. Dennis Hatfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MOV's vs. Diodes for spike suppression |
>
>Coil Suppression:
>
>MOVs are considered to be better than diodes, although they have higher
>impedance. But MOVs typically have a limited lifetime.
The lifetime issue controls when the MOV is stressed
repeatedly to its maximum rated energy levels . . . in
coil spike suppression, the energies are tiny by comparison
and life-limits do not become an issue.
>Diodes are not the best method today. Not even the second-, third-, or
>fourth- best method. But in the 1960's they were the way to go.
Measurements on my bench have failed to demonstrate
the suggestion.
A number of papers have been cited over the years, some
written by some folks who work for big name companies
like Tyco-Amp, Teledyne, etc. wherein authors have suggested
that the readily observable effects of plain diodes on
opening delay (no big deal in 99.99% of applications)
directly translates to slower contact spreading velocity
(extended arcing during contact break).
Two separate conditions are in play. (1) slower rate
of decay in the relay or contactor's coil current and (2)
rate of decay in the magnetic attraction force as the
moveable armature begins to separate from its seated
position within the device. The diode has a profound
effect on (1) but a small effect on (2).
Most of the papers I've read accurately observed
and discussed (1) and even did some measurements but
then went on to improperly assume that similar effects
would be noted for (2) as well.
The trace at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1DelayNoDiode.gif
Shows contact OPENING DELAY of an S704-1 plastic high
current relay when no diode was present across the coil
and the coil current was being interrupted by the "perfect
switch". Note the expected coil spike on channel 2 and the
opening delay of about 2.5 mS. You can see the
arcing across spreading contacts if you look carefully
at the falling trace on channel 1.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1DelayWithDiode.gif
This trace shows what happens when we use the plain-vanilla
diode across the coil. Yes, OPENING DELAY goes up by a factor
of 500% to about 12.5 mS.
Now, let's go take a close look at the arcing phenomenon noted
in the two traces above . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1OpeningTimeNoDiode.gif
. . . with no diode, a series of about 10 measurements produced
an opening time (ARC DURATION) that averaged 210 uS. In the
next trace . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1OpeningTimeWithDiode.gif
. . . the diode was put back on and we see an average of
230 uS ARC DURATION for an increase of about 10%
I did similar experiments with other relays and did not
formalize the data gathering but got similar results.
Bottom line is that the use of the lowly diode for coil
spike suppression does not deserve relegation to the dust
bins of electronic history as a 5th-rate spike suppression
technique. Unfortunately, some big names working for big
companies have stubbed their toes on significant but error
driven assumptions.
The repeatable experiment has demonstrated otherwise.
Continued use of diodes as suggested in the 'Connection
and on many drawings posted to the website is not a
recipe for failure. Substitution of a more "modern"
technique will produce no observable effect on the
service life of your relays and contactors.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MOV's vs. Diodes for spike suppression |
>
>Coil Suppression:
>
>MOVs are considered to be better than diodes, although they have higher
>impedance. But MOVs typically have a limited lifetime.
The lifetime issue controls when the MOV is stressed
repeatedly to its maximum rated energy levels . . . in
coil spike suppression, the energies are tiny by comparison
and life-limits do not become an issue.
>Diodes are not the best method today. Not even the second-, third-, or
>fourth- best method. But in the 1960's they were the way to go.
Measurements on my bench have failed to demonstrate
the suggestion.
A number of papers have been cited over the years, some
written by some folks who work for big name companies
like Tyco-Amp, Teledyne, etc. wherein authors have suggested
that the readily observable effects of plain diodes on
opening delay (no big deal in 99.99% of applications)
directly translates to slower contact spreading velocity
(extended arcing during contact break).
Two separate conditions are in play. (1) slower rate
of decay in the relay or contactor's coil current and (2)
rate of decay in the magnetic attraction force as the
moveable armature begins to separate from its seated
position within the device. The diode has a profound
effect on (1) but a small effect on (2).
Most of the papers I've read accurately observed
and discussed (1) and even did some measurements but
then went on to improperly assume that similar effects
would be noted for (2) as well.
The trace at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1DelayNoDiode.gif
Shows contact OPENING DELAY of an S704-1 plastic high
current relay when no diode was present across the coil
and the coil current was being interrupted by the "perfect
switch". Note the expected coil spike on channel 2 and the
opening delay of about 2.5 mS. You can see the
arcing across spreading contacts if you look carefully
at the falling trace on channel 1.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1DelayWithDiode.gif
This trace shows what happens when we use the plain-vanilla
diode across the coil. Yes, OPENING DELAY goes up by a factor
of 500% to about 12.5 mS.
Now, let's go take a close look at the arcing phenomenon noted
in the two traces above . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1OpeningTimeNoDiode.gif
. . . with no diode, a series of about 10 measurements produced
an opening time (ARC DURATION) that averaged 210 uS. In the
next trace . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1OpeningTimeWithDiode.gif
. . . the diode was put back on and we see an average of
230 uS ARC DURATION for an increase of about 10%
I did similar experiments with other relays and did not
formalize the data gathering but got similar results.
Bottom line is that the use of the lowly diode for coil
spike suppression does not deserve relegation to the dust
bins of electronic history as a 5th-rate spike suppression
technique. Unfortunately, some big names working for big
companies have stubbed their toes on significant but error
driven assumptions.
The repeatable experiment has demonstrated otherwise.
Continued use of diodes as suggested in the 'Connection
and on many drawings posted to the website is not a
recipe for failure. Substitution of a more "modern"
technique will produce no observable effect on the
service life of your relays and contactors.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wgill10(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Flap switches/relay wiring |
Im planning to install a switch for the flaps in the pilot stick grip in addition
to the standard panel mounted switch that Vans supplies. Can I simply hook
both switches to the same relay(s)? Any suggestions regarding relay (P/N & source).
Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Bill Gill
RV-7 wiring
Lees Summit, MO
Im planning to install a switch for the flaps in the pilot stick
grip in addition to the standard panel mounted switch that Vans supplies. Can
I simply hook both switches to the same relay(s)? Any suggestions regarding relay
(P/N & source). Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Bill Gill
RV-7 wiring
Lees Summit, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 08/18/06 |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring |
>I'm planning to install a switch for the flaps in the pilot stick grip in
>addition to the standard panel mounted switch that Van's supplies. Can I
>simply hook both switches to the same relay(s)? Any suggestions regarding
>relay (P/N & source). Thanks in advance for your assistance
You can do this. Wiring is similar to that shown
in . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim/Trim5.pdf
where two switches are used to drive a single set of
direction control relays for pitch trim . . . same
thing works for flaps.
Relay can be like the 137357PS in lower left corner
of page at:
http://www.jameco.com/Jameco/catalogs/c263/P202.pdf
This is similar to the B&C S704-1 illustrated in many
of my drawings.
Now, have you considered design philosophy? Flaps like
trim are motor driven surfaces that can have a profound
effect on flight dynamics and in some cases, stresses
that approach structural limits.
Increased complexity of the flap controls that adds
the relatively un-robust and easy-to-hit stick grip
switches would not pass muster with the customers,
managers and regulators I work for.
Flaps are used very sparingly during a flight. Uncontrolled
operation of flaps under certain conditions are a
recipe for a very bad day. I'll suggest that the
simplest wiring with the most robust components
will minimize probability of an unhappy event.
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: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring |
In a message dated 8/22/06 9:21:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
wgill10(at)comcast.net writes:
> Im planning to install a switch for the flaps in the pilot stick grip in
> addition to the standard panel mounted switch that Vans supplies. Can I
> simply hook both switches to the same relay(s)? Any suggestions regarding
> relay (P/N & source). Thanks in advance for your assistance.
>
> Bill Gill
> RV-7 wiring
> Lees Summit, MO
=================
Bill:
Go for it. Just set the switch up in parallel. BUT! Only ONE switch can be
used at a time.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
>
>Coil Suppression:
>
>Diodes are not the best method today. Not even the second-, third-, or fourth-
>best method. But in the 1960's they were the way to go.
>
>
>
In what aspect does the common, sub-$1, available-everywhere diode fall
short enough to justify paying $30 for your single-source solution?
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Pullable 80A Circuit Breaker |
Hi Stan-
>I bought one at Sun n Fun only to discover later that it is 28v.
28V is the maximum system voltage for that CB. The CB you bought should be
fine for your 14V installation.
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Flap switches/relay wiring |
Have you considered what would happen if you or your passenger inadvertently
activated the flap switch while as cruse speed? Normally, it's not a good
idea to put switches on control sticks that if activated at the wrong time
could adversely impact the safety of the aircraft.
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
wgill10(at)comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:17 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring
I'm planning to install a switch for the flaps in the pilot stick grip in
addition to the standard panel mounted switch that Van's supplies. Can I
simply hook both switches to the same relay(s)? Any suggestions regarding
relay (P/N & source). Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Bill Gill
RV-7 wiring
Lee's Summit, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Flap switches/relay wiring |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
www.aircraftextras.com has both the relay boards and the air speed
switch to cut out the flaps at certain speeds, which is recommended if
you are putting flaps on the sticks because of accidental high speed
deployment by bumping the stick.
Dan
40269 RV10E (N289DT)
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
wgill10(at)comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:17 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring
I'm planning to install a switch for the flaps in the pilot stick grip
in addition to the standard panel mounted switch that Van's supplies.
Can I simply hook both switches to the same relay(s)? Any suggestions
regarding relay (P/N & source). Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Bill Gill
RV-7 wiring
Lee's Summit, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring |
>
>In a message dated 8/22/06 9:21:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>wgill10(at)comcast.net writes:
>
> > Im planning to install a switch for the flaps in the pilot stick
> grip in
> > addition to the standard panel mounted switch that Vans supplies. Can I
> > simply hook both switches to the same relay(s)? Any suggestions regarding
> > relay (P/N & source). Thanks in advance for your assistance.
> >
> > Bill Gill
> > RV-7 wiring
> > Lees Summit, MO
>=================
>Bill:
>
>Go for it. Just set the switch up in parallel. BUT! Only ONE switch can be
>used at a time.
Actually, if wired per my earlier suggestions, operating
both switches at the same to extend/retract flaps will cause the
flaps to continue motion until BOTH switches are released. If
both switches are operated in opposite directions, the motion
simply stops until one switch is released whereupon motion will
happen in response to the switch that is still closed. No damage
will happen due to conflicting commands.
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: | wgill10(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Flap switches/relay wiring |
Hello Bruce,
The flap switch would only be installed on the pilot's stick grip -- not co-pilot
side. Also, the switch will be momentary and mounted on top of the stick making
inadvertent activation difficult.
Bill
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Have you considered what would happen if you or your passenger inadvertently activated
the flap switch while as cruse speed? Normally, it's not a good idea to
put switches on control sticks that if activated at the wrong time could adversely
impact the safety of the aircraft.
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 wgill10(at)comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:17 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring
Im planning to install a switch for the flaps in the pilot stick grip in addition
to the standard panel mounted switch that Vans supplies. Can I simply hook
both switches to the same relay(s)? Any suggestions regarding relay (P/N & source).
Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Bill Gill
RV-7 wiring
August 11, 2006 - August 22, 2006
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fz