AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-hk
November 23, 2007 - December 07, 2007
On Nov 23, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> Doing some house maintenance this weekend and during
> a trip to Home Depot for some parts and supplies, I
> was "sucked in" by a Black and Decker "VPX Power" display
> at the checkout stand.
>
> http://www.vpxsystem.com/
>
> The battery for this new line of cordless power tools
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Black_and_Decker/
> VPX_Battery_1.jpg
>
> is LiIon and the battery on display was advertised at 7 volts.
>
> A very compact critter . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Black_and_Decker/
> VPX_Charger_F1.jpg
>
> but no place on the packaging (or later on the 'net)
> was I able to discover the capacity of this device.
> Sooooo . . . keeping Lord Kelvin's admonition about
> numbers in mind, I purchased a battery/charger
> combination to do some testing.
>
> I've got the battery on charge right now. Will cap-test
> it later today and report the results. This product
> (or a pair of them) might offer some interesting
> solutions to brown-out protection and/or small
> back-up batteries. Watch this space.
>
> In the mean time, I'll get back to making little
> piles of sawdust and drill chips.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)NetZero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ps Engineering intercom noise |
It is very loud airplane noise, as if the mics are picking up cabin so
unds, I am going to crawl under the panel this afternoon and check conne
ctions... Thanks for responding..
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- Charlie England wrote:
south.net>
n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
> Guys, I have a Ps 1000ll in my experimental and it has worked flawless
ly
> for three years. On my last couple of flights there is an annoying noi
se
> when i use the intercom between the pilot and co pilot. Some facts..
>
> The plane is quite noisy. mostly due to the V-8 Ford up front. ya it h
as
> mufflers but...
>
> When I call ATC they say my transmissions are clear and noise free.
>
> This only happens at high noise levels in the cockpit, on the ground o
r
> throttled back the intercom works great.
>
> I use Lightspeed 20-3G's for headphones and it happens with ANR either
> on or off.
>
> Any ideas guys???
>
> Ben Haas
> N801BH
> www.Haaspowerair.com <http://www.Haaspowerair.com>
What is the nature of the 'annoying noise'? Is it electronic in nature,
or just very loud airplane noise?
This might not be relevant, but what's the condition of the ear pads on
the Lightspeeds? If the slick-feeling 'skins' on the ear muffs (at least
on my older 15XL's) are cracked and/or peeling, it totally destroys the
noise reduction ability of the headset.
Charlie
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Batteries.com AA Alkaline Cell Tests |
The tests I promised on the Batteries.com AA
cells is done. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Bat_dot_Com_AA_Tests.jpg
One of the cells was markedly 'short' compared to
the other one. Even this cell contained 91% of the
average energy for all cells tested. The 'hot' cell
was right in the ball park with some el-cheeso Harbor
Freight cells I looked at several months ago.
Typically, these "low cost" cells can be had for
20 to 25-cents per cell. The cost per watt-hour
for all devices tested to date have been relatively
attractive.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric- Batteries |
>Bob,
>A week or two back I sent you two AA cells to test. Have you had time to
>do so?
>Just curious to find out if I made a good purchase or not.
>Kevin Boddicker
>Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.4 hours
>Luana, IA.
Just posted the data. How much did you pay for these?
They held their own in the constellation of low-cost
cells to date. If you picked these up for 30 cents or
less, I would think they're a good value.
Of course, this was a VERY small sample but the
data was encouraging enough to warrant some
in-service testing. Let us know what your impressions
are after you've used up a couple dozen.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Batteries.com AA Alkaline Cell Tests |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 19:26 11/23/2007, you wrote:
>The tests I promised on the Batteries.com AA
>cells is done. See:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Bat_dot_Com_AA_Tests.jpg
Volts vs. Time (minutes ?)
What was the load current or wattage?
RonQ.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wilco STC for concorde batteries |
11/23/2007
Hello Scott, Thank you for your input copied below, but I am not entirely
convinced. If you will go to this web page:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/gillbatt.php
you will find this wording: "Installations not shown on D.O.T. FAA/PMA
listings will require field approval using FAA Form 337 or FAA approved
STC."
Note that it says "FAA form 337" OR "FAA approved STC". This means to me
that one or the other is required, but not both.
Since Wilco has STC SA00638WI for all Raytheon / Beech models 24 (My friend
has a C24R)
I don't see why an FAA Form 337 would be required. Can you please provide a
specific reference to the contrary?
See the page "Wilco held STCs" at this web site.
http://www.wilcoaircraftparts.com/LineCard.htm#
Thanks for your help.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
-----------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "scott klemptner" <bmwr606(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 2:01 PM
Subject: Wilco STC for concorde batteries
> Hello,
>
> To be legal in a certified airplane, your friend will need the STC from
> Wilco and a form 337 filed with the FAA.
>
> An IA must fill out the 337
>
> WIlcom sells the batteries at a fair price ( in my experience) and
> includes the STC for free
>
>
> bmwr606(at)yahoo.com (scottk)
> Y! IM bmwr606
> http://360.yahoo.com/bmwr606
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Batteries.com AA Alkaline Cell Tests |
>
>At 19:26 11/23/2007, you wrote:
>>The tests I promised on the Batteries.com AA
>>cells is done. See:
>>
>>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Bat_dot_Com_AA_Tests.jpg
>
>Volts vs. Time (minutes ?)
>What was the load current or wattage?
Sorry, I clipped the test data from the right
side of the image. I test these cells at 300 milliamperes
constant current load. The bottom of the plot is
ampere-hours so these cells will support a 300 mA
load for something on the order of 5 hours.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ps Engineering intercom noise |
>It is very loud airplane noise, as if the mics are picking up cabin
>sounds, I am going to crawl under the panel this afternoon and check
>connections... Thanks for responding..
As I recall, PS engineering's products feature an
automatic squelch system that differentiates between
ambient noise and human speech. Most older intercoms
have a pilot adjustable squelch that needs resetting
between say ground ops and cruising flight.
If you're hearing "cabin noise" and your intercom
doesn't have a manual noise squelch adjustment, then
it may be that this portion of the intercom's
circuitry has failed.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Batteries.com AA Alkaline Cell Tests |
>
>At 19:26 11/23/2007, you wrote:
>>The tests I promised on the Batteries.com AA
>>cells is done. See:
>>
>>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Bat_dot_Com_AA_Tests.jpg
>
>Volts vs. Time (minutes ?)
>What was the load current or wattage?
Sorry, I clipped the test data from the right
side of the image. I test these cells at 300 milliamperes
constant current load. The bottom of the plot is
ampere-hours so these cells will support a 300 mA
load for something on the order of 5 hours.
P.S. I've added the load and units callout to
the bottom of the plot . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
Below are a few more of the nice comments Listers have been making along with their
Contributions in support of the Lists this year. Please make your Contribution
today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these services.
Remember, there is _no advertising budget_ to keep these Lists funded. It is
solely through your generosity that they continue.
Please make a Contribution:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
------------------------------What Listers Are Saying------------------------------
The list has been invaluable in the building of my Zenith CH701.
George R
Thanks for keeping the lists a non-commercial venue for us
to gather and share knowledge.
Neal G
What a fantastic resource!
Ralph C
It's a pretty cheep troubleshooting tool with and unlimited
resource of personal knowledge.
Bruce G
A full house of Info & Ideas...
Ellery B
I really enjoy the Piet list.
Steven D
The Lists are an indispensable resource for those of us
building OBAM aircraft.
Bret S
..a great service.
Frank D
..all in all it is a great resource if you ask specific
questions.
Richard S
Your list has really helped me in my first build.
Michael W
Always a pleasure to support this great resource...
Richard W
I enjoy the lists very much, they are very beneficial.
Bob L
Great place to chat with other builders and Flyers.
Ellery B
Your lists are a great service to builders and owners!
Richard D
A real good place for someone that is starting to get
interested into flying without investing any money at
first.
Ellery B
The list has been an great help to my building process.
David B
I'm close to finishing my Zenith 601 thanks to you and
the Zenith List.
Jeff D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wilco STC for concorde batteries |
Good Morning OC,
I am certain I have missed something on this thread, but isn't the reference
to a 337 rather ambiguous?
If you are going to install something via an STC, you do need to file a 337
showing that they STC'd item was installed. The STC IS the required approved
data.
If you ask for a "local" approval, the local FED MAY sign Block Three and
that becomes the approved data.
In either case, a 337 IS required to be filed.
Or so it seems to me. What is your interpretation?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/23/2007 10:23:24 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
Note that it says "FAA form 337" OR "FAA approved STC". This means to me
that one or the other is required, but not both.
Since Wilco has STC SA00638WI for all Raytheon / Beech models 24 (My friend
has a C24R)
I don't see why an FAA Form 337 would be required. Can you please provide a
specific reference to the contrary?
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wilco STC for concorde batteries |
The 337 is the vehicle to document major mods and alterations, which an STC
is by definition. The STC constitutes the approved data for the mod so a 337
referencing one is pretty much a formality. The IA can sign it off without
getting prior FAA approval. Getting that approval on a non-STC 337 can be a
big deal depending on your FSDO but with an STC it is a non event. There's
no reason to fear a 337 for an STC.
Regards,
Greg Young
> -----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, November 23, 2007 10:21 PM
> To: scott klemptner; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wilco STC for concorde batteries
>
>
> 11/23/2007
>
> Hello Scott, Thank you for your input copied below, but I am
> not entirely convinced. If you will go to this web page:
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/gillbatt.php
>
> you will find this wording: "Installations not shown on
> D.O.T. FAA/PMA listings will require field approval using FAA
> Form 337 or FAA approved STC."
>
> Note that it says "FAA form 337" OR "FAA approved STC". This
> means to me that one or the other is required, but not both.
>
> Since Wilco has STC SA00638WI for all Raytheon / Beech models
> 24 (My friend has a C24R) I don't see why an FAA Form 337
> would be required. Can you please provide a specific
> reference to the contrary?
>
> See the page "Wilco held STCs" at this web site.
>
> http://www.wilcoaircraftparts.com/LineCard.htm#
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to
> gather and understand knowledge."
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "scott klemptner" <bmwr606(at)yahoo.com>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 2:01 PM
> Subject: Wilco STC for concorde batteries
>
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > To be legal in a certified airplane, your friend will need
> the STC from
> > Wilco and a form 337 filed with the FAA.
> >
> > An IA must fill out the 337
> >
> > WIlcom sells the batteries at a fair price ( in my experience) and
> > includes the STC for free
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > bmwr606(at)yahoo.com (scottk)
> > Y! IM bmwr606
> > http://360.yahoo.com/bmwr606
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ps Engineering intercom noise |
FWIW... Unless it has signal processing, I'd expect the same noise on
the radio as on the intercom though once the squelch opens. Presumably
you've tried rotating the Lightspeed mic? My lightspeed mic has a
tendancy to rotate and if left too long, the noise cancelling goes to
pot and you can even find yourself speaking into the backside of the mic
which is very noisy. Next I'd be tempted to reduce the mic gain a bit
if you have an adjustment screw on the mic as per my 15XL. As a wild
guess, since many intercoms use a mechanical relay to switch between
intercom and radio it might even be possible that the relay contacts are
noisy (dirty). If that were the case, on my particular intercom it would
only affect the pilot or the passenger, not both as they each have a
different relay.
The intercom that I use (different manuafacturer) does have signal
processing for the intercom but not the radio. It transmits whatever
background ambient noise that the mic does not cancel but the signal
processing eliminates that noise when using the intercom.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> It is very loud airplane noise, as if the mics are picking up cabin
>> sounds, I am going to crawl under the panel this afternoon and check
>> connections... Thanks for responding..
>
>
> As I recall, PS engineering's products feature an
> automatic squelch system that differentiates between
> ambient noise and human speech. Most older intercoms
> have a pilot adjustable squelch that needs resetting
> between say ground ops and cruising flight.
>
> If you're hearing "cabin noise" and your intercom
> doesn't have a manual noise squelch adjustment, then
> it may be that this portion of the intercom's
> circuitry has failed.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New consumer product battery |
I've been taken in by the new offering as well, but decided that the
drill I wanted was the 14volt "2VPX" model, which is not available at
any WalMart within 50 miles for the past month. All have a place on
the shelf for the dual battery drill, and all will sell it for $99
when they come in, but apparently it's a back-order item.
I wonder about ease of secure connection to the battery's terminals in
hobby applications... have you worked something out, Bob?
-Bill B
On 11/23/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> Doing some house maintenance this weekend and during
> a trip to Home Depot for some parts and supplies, I
> was "sucked in" by a Black and Decker "VPX Power" display
> at the checkout stand.
>
> http://www.vpxsystem.com/
>
> The battery for this new line of cordless power tools
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Black_and_Decker/VPX_Battery_1.jpg
>
> is LiIon and the battery on display was advertised at 7 volts.
>
> A very compact critter . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Black_and_Decker/VPX_Charger_F1.jpg
>
> but no place on the packaging (or later on the 'net)
> was I able to discover the capacity of this device.
> Sooooo . . . keeping Lord Kelvin's admonition about
> numbers in mind, I purchased a battery/charger
> combination to do some testing.
>
> I've got the battery on charge right now. Will cap-test
> it later today and report the results. This product
> (or a pair of them) might offer some interesting
> solutions to brown-out protection and/or small
> back-up batteries. Watch this space.
>
> In the mean time, I'll get back to making little
> piles of sawdust and drill chips.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)NetZero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ps Engineering intercom noise |
First of all I want to say a BIG thanks to all who have responded. Here'
s the scenerio. I took the beast up for a pre test flight. As I was gett
ing ready I plugged in the pilot side headphones. The speaker plug went
in with no problem, as I plugged in the smaller mic plug I got alot of s
tatic. Wiggled it and nothing seems to change ,,still scatchy noise. Fle
w the plane and noise issue was present. Rolled it back into its hangar,
crawled under the panel, removed the connector in the back of the inter
com, looked very carefully at the pins and sockets. They all looked good
so I Plugged it back in. Did the pilot side replug in and this time no
scratchy noise, flew it and the intercom worked perfectly. Landed and ro
lled it back in, crawled back under the panel,let me add at this time I
can tell I am getting old because once under there I forgot what all cou
ld start hurting, . Removed the plug again, applied some contact clea
ner and some dielectric grease with a small Qtip. Plugged it back togeth
er and flew the heck out of it, positiveG's negativeG's, a good "firm" l
anding and so far, knock on wood it is back to its old great working con
dition. My gut feeling is it was a intermitant ground issue... Thanks ag
ain to all who chime in. This experimental community and Bob and others
are the BEST . !!!!!!! I am not going to do _ _ _ archive this becaus
e this might happen to someone else and they can search this topic.
Safe flyin guys
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
olls.bob(at)cox.net>
>It is very loud airplane noise, as if the mics are picking up cabin
>sounds, I am going to crawl under the panel this afternoon and check
>connections... Thanks for responding..
As I recall, PS engineering's products feature an
automatic squelch system that differentiates between
ambient noise and human speech. Most older intercoms
have a pilot adjustable squelch that needs resetting
between say ground ops and cruising flight.
If you're hearing "cabin noise" and your intercom
doesn't have a manual noise squelch adjustment, then
it may be that this portion of the intercom's
circuitry has failed.
Bob . . .
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Batteries.com AA Alkaline Cell Tests |
Thanks Bob.
At 12=A2 per cell that isn't bad. Using your method of changing cells
before each flight, and keeping the "used" cells for other toys, the
cost per flight is 48=A2. Can't even get a cup of coffee from Mac D's
for that.
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.4 hours
Luana, IA.
On Nov 23, 2007, at 9:26 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> The tests I promised on the Batteries.com AA
> cells is done. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Bat_dot_Com_AA_Tests.jpg
>
> One of the cells was markedly 'short' compared to
> the other one. Even this cell contained 91% of the
> average energy for all cells tested. The 'hot' cell
> was right in the ball park with some el-cheeso Harbor
> Freight cells I looked at several months ago.
>
> Typically, these "low cost" cells can be had for
> 20 to 25-cents per cell. The cost per watt-hour
> for all devices tested to date have been relatively
> attractive.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wilco STC for concorde batteries |
Good Morning Rumen,
Just a bit of expansion if I may.
The submitting IA will always have to sign that he/she has checked the
installation for conformity.
If he/she also does the installation, they would sign as the certificated
installing agency.
The only time the FAA signs anything is if they sign Block Three. In that
case, the inspector who signs that Block is taking the responsibly as to the
suitability of the installation and that becomes the "approved data".
The installing mechanic or repairman will still sign as the installing
agency and the submitting IA signs for the conformity of the installation to the
approved data whether it is from the Block Three approval of the data submitted
or from the STC.
Does that agree with your interpretation?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/24/2007 9:06:36 A.M. Central Standard Time,
rd2(at)evenlink.com writes:
- 337 is always required when there is a "major" mod/alteration (whatever
the definition of major is). The differences are who needs to sign the 337
in which case.
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Batteries.com AA Alkaline Cell Tests |
>Thanks Bob.
>At 12 per cell that isn't bad. Using your method of changing cells before
>each flight, and keeping the "used" cells for other toys, the cost per
>flight is 48. Can't even get a cup of coffee from Mac D's for that.
You got it my friend. Get some "come clean" pricing stickers
from an office supply (they'll come in a box of hundreds but
they're also handy at a garage sale). Put a sticker on each
new cell as you toss it into the flight bag. Before installing
a stickered cell in your hand-held, pull the sticker off.
This makes it easy to separate the fresh cells from used ones
when you are cleaning all the candy wrappers, peanut shells and
old newspapers out of the cabin when you get home from the
trip!
But the most important revelation of this simple experiment
is that MOST of what we pay for when purchasing a so-called
premium cell has little to do with what's inside the cell.
I worked a task for Electro-Mech many moons ago where we
helped a gentleman realize an idea for a product . . . a
device that with the push of a button, slides a cab-over
camper out of a truck and puts it gently on the ground. A
reverse of this action would pick it up, put it back on
the truck and hold it securely in place.
We joined our customer at the Wichita Home, Boat and Travel
show the following spring and did indeed sell a dozen of these
systems for about $400 as I recall. It was this experiment
that illuminated the task before our newly minted entrepreneur.
One could easily project sales of this product in the thousands
of systems per year, each one possibly netting the entrepreneur
$100 each. However, to accomplish that goal he would need to
make its features and availability known to hundreds of
thousands of potential buyers with the notion that he might
capture 1% of those individuals as customers. The profits from
sales at that show did not offset the costs of having the
booth.
A few queries to companies who offered to provide the
necessary promotion revealed that the campaign
would cost perhaps $1,000,000 per year in advertising.
Hmmm . . . that's a burden of $500 each of 2,000 units
sold which would boost the purchase price to $900. Now,
what's the potential market for this product at $900 a
copy? It was perceived "not much" when the average cab-over
camper was selling for $2,500 new.
Last time I was in the attic at Electro-Mech, there were
boxes full of sprockets, shafts, chains, gears and gearboxes
left over from the initial production run of the great
idea that did not have benefit of the Internet for low
cost, mass marketing. Another "plus" would have been access
to a low cost manufacturing facility (Pacific rim?) instead
of that $high$ aerospace engineering and manufacturing
company.
And so it is with AA alkaline cells. If you want to
be the big dog in the hunt for consumers of such
products, you need to advertise to a sufficient number
of folk in sufficiently persuasive words to accomplish
retail sales that exceed your costs of production and
marketing (i.e. profit). Obviously, the glittzy brands
you see pushed on TV have crafted such a recipe for
success or they would not continue to do it. The
unfortunate side of this discovery is that what's being
touted as the best-of-the-best is still a Big Mac in
a fancy wrapper. The fortunate side is that product
like this keeps lots of nice folks employed running
television stations and cable systems and other folks
employed selling and crafting ads. The jury is still out
on folks who craft the programming that goes between
the ads. My perceived worth for most of THAT stuff
is way under the value of my $time$ that it takes to
watch it. The really cool lesson to be learned here
is more about economics than choosing the AA cell
with the right goo inside.
So . . . when you pass that peg board display in the store
festooned with blister packs of shiny, well advertised
cells you can pass them by with the comfortable knowledge
and understanding that you know how to light that
flashlight, spin that CD, or track that satellite for
a whole lot less.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New consumer product battery |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Sounds great.
I also want to recommend watching Firefly Energy:
http://www.fireflyenergy.com/
In Summer 2008 (6 months!) they plan to sell Oasis(tm) batteries.
Although I stand guilty of believing that this-or-that battery technology was the
Next Big Thing....Caterpillar is behind this deal, and it seems to be real.
Cool....I hope.
"Hey, it ain't rocket surgery!"
--anonymous
--------
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=148259#148259
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fatwire Super-2-CCA |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I finally figured out that SteinAir sells a lot of wire and I would do better having
them sell Perihelion Design Super-2-CCA Fatwire.
I still sell the Super-4-CCA for now, but that will be transfered when I run out.
So contact Stein Bruch at SteinAir, Inc. Website www.SteinAir.com
--------
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=148261#148261
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I get a fabulous download from Global Sources with mostly Chinese leds. My experience
is that buying them is easy to do and reliable. Quantities requirements
vary...often you can buy a few, often you can get a free sample (if you pay for
shipping), often you need to start a business.
There are MANY assemblies quite suitable for landing lights and general illumination.
Most big LEDs in cool white are now about 100 lumens per watt. I don't
have any plans to sell landing lights right now, so for those who want to explore
this subject, or buy now, please email me and I will forward you the Global
Spec info. (You can register for free yourself if you want).
--------
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=148263#148263
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Newton" <enewton57(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
I'll soon be getting my Bearhawk ready for final FAA (or DAR) inspection
and have a question.
Does anyone know if the remote compass that displays the heading
information on my Dynon D100 qualifies as the required compass with the
FAA. My thinking is that it isn't too different than a panel mounted
vertical card compass with a remote sender.
What do you guys/gals think?
Thanks,
Eric Newton - Long Beach, MS
BH #682- Mississippi Mudbug
BEARHAWK BUILDER'S MANUALS
http://mybearhawk.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
In a message dated 11/24/2007 7:32:03 PM Central Standard Time,
enewton57(at)cableone.net writes:
What do you guys/gals think?
Would be a good idea to ask your Examiner/DAR before he/she shows up and
refuses a pink slip based on their personal interpretation of the rules as to what
constitutes a "magnetic heading indicator".
I just witnessed a pink slip issued on an RV where the only non-electronic
instrument on the plane was the Hula Girl "attitude indicator/G-meter/slip-skid
indicator" clamped to the glareshield! 8-)
Seriously...
Mark
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michel Creek" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Hi Eric,
FSDO's differ somewhat, but I asked the Reno, NV office that question and
was told I would still need a whiskey compass. I'm equipped with a GRT
Sport EFIS (with GPS and magnetometer), GPS496, TT AP, and SL30. So that is
two GPS's, two magnetometers, and a VOR; and they still want a whiskey
compass even though they are mostly useless in a tube and rag air frame. Go
figure.
You may want to call your local FSDO and ask; I hope you have better luck
than I did.
A question for the group though, given at least one of us has to install a
compass are there any recommendations for brand/type and for locations in a
tube airframe?
Thanks,
Mike Creek
Bearhawk QB
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Newton
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 5:27 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
I'll soon be getting my Bearhawk ready for final FAA (or DAR) inspection and
have a question.
Does anyone know if the remote compass that displays the heading information
on my Dynon D100 qualifies as the required compass with the FAA. My thinking
is that it isn't too different than a panel mounted vertical card compass
with a remote sender.
What do you guys/gals think?
Thanks,
Eric Newton - Long Beach, MS
BH #682- Mississippi Mudbug
BEARHAWK BUILDER'S MANUALS
http://mybearhawk.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Good Evening Eric,
I don't really know, but I will bet a milkshake the FAA won't buy it.
The Douglas DC-8 was built without a magnetic compass because it had so many
electronic heading sources available. When it came to certification time,
the FAA would not approve it without a whiskey compass.
Douglas had no good place to mount it up front, so they placed it in the
overhead behind the captain's seat. They then mounted a couple of mirrors on the
glare shield and a mirror behind the compass. By flipping the mirrors up, the
captain and the copilot could look via the mirrors at the compass.
In all the years I flew the DC-8. I never once looked at the compass other
than during the preflight. We checked that it was there and that the light
turned on when the switch was flipped. I only did that because it was a
required preflight check list item.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/24/2007 7:32:03 P.M. Central Standard Time,
enewton57(at)cableone.net writes:
Does anyone know if the remote compass that displays the heading information
on my Dynon D100 qualifies as the required compass with the FAA. My thinking
is that it isn't too different than a panel mounted vertical card compass
with a remote sender.
What do you guys/gals think?
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New consumer product battery |
>
>I've been taken in by the new offering as well, but decided that the
>drill I wanted was the 14volt "2VPX" model, which is not available at
>any WalMart within 50 miles for the past month. All have a place on
>the shelf for the dual battery drill, and all will sell it for $99
>when they come in, but apparently it's a back-order item.
>
>I wonder about ease of secure connection to the battery's terminals in
>hobby applications... have you worked something out, Bob?
The terminals on the battery are "female" designed
to accept a tab on the order of .03" thick and .2"
wide. I'm using pieces of brass shim stock right
now. I would think that a silver plated brass tab
would be the best connection.
The connection could be problematic. If we develop
a way to charge it in situ then sculpturing the
battery case to allow soldering would be an attractive
option. Obviously, as soon as the battery is "modified"
one cannot use the stock drop-in charger. I wasn't
aware of a 14V version. The battery I'm testing is
a 7V device, two would be needed to craft a system
battery.
The first discharge run a 5 amps produced a capacity
of 0.9 A.h. for a total time of .18 hours or 11 minutes.
The second test at 1 amp produced the expected, slightly
better capacity value of 1.0 A.h. and 1 hour to discharge.
I'm recharging the battery now and will repeat the 5 amp
test to see if this technology shows a slight improvement
in capacity when placed into initial service. Then I'll do
the 1 amp test again. The charger that came with this
particular battery takes about 6 hours to do a full
recharge.
When I'm done with the cap checks, we'll do some
pulsed high current loads to look at internal
resistance. These are not going to be engine
cranking batteries . . . but they might be something
to consider for brownout protection for loads of up
to 10A total or so. We'll see.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New consumer product battery |
>
>I've been taken in by the new offering as well, but decided that the
>drill I wanted was the 14volt "2VPX" model, which is not available at
>any WalMart within 50 miles for the past month. All have a place on
>the shelf for the dual battery drill, and all will sell it for $99
>when they come in, but apparently it's a back-order item.
Bill, take a look at
http://tinyurl.com/2347vm
There is a discussion thread below the
promotional data.
I've not found a 14V "2VPX" battery but did
see a two-holer charger offered with a 2VPX
tool. Do you suppose the same battery is used
in both the VPX and 2VPX tools . . . with the
latter requiring two batteries?
After becoming aware of this product line
at Home Depot, I've been watching for it to
pop up in other stores. Haven't seen it
any place else . . . yet.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchronousdesign.com> |
| Subject: | Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Dick,
Below is a response to an email on the Aeroelectric List forum. It
discusses whether the whisky compass is required. I claim that the FARs
require a compass that does not need any input except the Earth's magnetic
field. Mike Creek below claims that the Reno FSDO requires a whiskey
compass. Since my airplane is already built, I would not need to go through
a FSDO. Instead, I would have to file a form that says I am going to change
the panel. The real problem comes when I am flying around the country, and
I have either an accident or the FAA ramp checks me. If I go to Nevada and
have an accident, I will be scrooed!
imon Ramirez, Consultant
Synchronous Design, Inc.
Oviedo, FL 32765 USA
407-365-8928: home/office
407-221-8928: mobile
Xilinx Alliance Partner
Copyright C 2007
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michel
Creek
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:23 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
Hi Eric,
FSDO's differ somewhat, but I asked the Reno, NV office that question and
was told I would still need a whiskey compass. I'm equipped with a GRT
Sport EFIS (with GPS and magnetometer), GPS496, TT AP, and SL30. So that is
two GPS's, two magnetometers, and a VOR; and they still want a whiskey
compass even though they are mostly useless in a tube and rag air frame. Go
figure.
You may want to call your local FSDO and ask; I hope you have better luck
than I did.
A question for the group though, given at least one of us has to install a
compass are there any recommendations for brand/type and for locations in a
tube airframe?
Thanks,
Mike Creek
Bearhawk QB
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Newton
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 5:27 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
I'll soon be getting my Bearhawk ready for final FAA (or DAR) inspection and
have a question.
Does anyone know if the remote compass that displays the heading information
on my Dynon D100 qualifies as the required compass with the FAA. My thinking
is that it isn't too different than a panel mounted vertical card compass
with a remote sender.
What do you guys/gals think?
Thanks,
Eric Newton - Long Beach, MS
BH #682- Mississippi Mudbug
BEARHAWK BUILDER'S MANUALS
http://mybearhawk.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Checked by AVG.
7:39 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Eric,
<< Dynon .. remote compass .. qualifies as the required compass >>
Technically, none of the "required" equipment is required. The
applicable FAR (91.205) specifically states it applies only to
aircraft having a "standard category US airworthiness
certificate". This is administratively corrected by
"co-ordinating" all FAA and DAR inspectors to include conformance
with FAR 91.205 as part of the Operating Limitations issued with
the Special Airworthiness Certificate. Ain't nit picking
gum'mint rules fun.
So to specifically address your question, FAR 91.205(3) requires
a "Magnetic Direction Indicator" period. This means no-one can
legitimately complain if your Dynon has been calibrated. If they
do, politely ask them to show you where in the regs it says your
Magnetic Direction Indicator has to be unpowered. Point out the
Dynon is not a gyro direction indicator, without the remote
magnetic sensor it gives no heading readout.
Parts 23 and 25 (the rules governing Type Certification) do
require a "nonstabilized magnetic compass", hence the reason for
a wet compass in a DC-8 (and a Boeing and an Airbus and a Piper
Cub...). But, by definition, homebuilt experimental aircraft are
outside their applicability.
Just remember when dealing with inspectors, being right doesn't
always win the battle. If they wish, they can always find some
other reason to not grant the certificate. Personally, my Dynon
D-180 equipped Sportsman has a vertical card compass on the
glareshield. Call it part of my electrical emergency backup
instrumentation (along with steam gauge Airspeed and Altimeter).
Tom Kuffel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Black and Decker VPX 7V Tool battery tests |
The results of a dynamic load test of the VPX 7V
tool battery may be viewed at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Black_and_Decker/VPX_7V_Z-Test.jpg
The results of this test suggest that two
such batteries in series (total weight of
about 260 gm) would offer a 14v, 1.0 a.h.
battery (1 hour rate) with an internal
impedance on the order of 0.12 ohms.
The curve shows that a VPX 2-battery array
loaded to about 7.5 amps will easily
maintain a terminal voltage right at 12V
for a period of a minute. This suggests
brown-out protection for systems drawing
7.5A or less would be nicely supported by
a couple of these batteries. More testing
to come.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
All of our Air Carrier aircraft need an independent compass capable of
corrections for N-E-S-W and have a current compass correction card
posted. I don't know if you guys need the same compliance. Come to
think of it, every aircraft including hot air balloons needed to meet
that requirement until a few years ago when the LTA's were exempted.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of S.
Ramirez
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 8:27 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
Dick,
Below is a response to an email on the Aeroelectric List forum. It
discusses whether the whisky compass is required. I claim that the FARs
require a compass that does not need any input except the Earth's
magnetic field. Mike Creek below claims that the Reno FSDO requires a
whiskey compass. Since my airplane is already built, I would not need
to go through a FSDO. Instead, I would have to file a form that says I
am going to change the panel. The real problem comes when I am flying
around the country, and I have either an accident or the FAA ramp checks
me. If I go to Nevada and have an accident, I will be scrooed!
imon Ramirez, Consultant
Synchronous Design, Inc.
Oviedo, FL 32765 USA
407-365-8928: home/office
407-221-8928: mobile
Xilinx Alliance Partner
Copyright (c) 2007
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Michel Creek
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:23 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
Hi Eric,
FSDO's differ somewhat, but I asked the Reno, NV office that question
and was told I would still need a whiskey compass. I'm equipped with a
GRT Sport EFIS (with GPS and magnetometer), GPS496, TT AP, and SL30. So
that is two GPS's, two magnetometers, and a VOR; and they still want a
whiskey compass even though they are mostly useless in a tube and rag
air frame. Go figure...
You may want to call your local FSDO and ask; I hope you have better
luck than I did.
A question for the group though, given at least one of us has to install
a compass are there any recommendations for brand/type and for locations
in a tube airframe?
Thanks,
Mike Creek
Bearhawk QB
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Newton
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 5:27 PM
Bearhawk(at)yahoogroups.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
I'll soon be getting my Bearhawk ready for final FAA (or DAR) inspection
and have a question.
Does anyone know if the remote compass that displays the heading
information on my Dynon D100 qualifies as the required compass with the
FAA. My thinking is that it isn't too different than a panel mounted
vertical card compass with a remote sender.
What do you guys/gals think?
Thanks,
Eric Newton - Long Beach, MS
BH #682- Mississippi Mudbug
BEARHAWK BUILDER'S MANUALS
http://mybearhawk.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
h
ref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.m
a
tronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
Checked by AVG.
11/23/2007 7:39 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Hi John
"Come to
> think of it, every aircraft including hot air balloons needed to meet
> that requirement until a few years ago when the LTA's were exempted."
Hot Air balloons were exempt from needing a compass before at least 1979.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Okay, so it was back in 1973-1979. Wow, am I getting old. Steering
them to the intended target was the fun back then, with or without the
obnoxious compass.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 9:27 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
Hi John
"Come to
> think of it, every aircraft including hot air balloons needed to meet
> that requirement until a few years ago when the LTA's were exempted."
Hot Air balloons were exempt from needing a compass before at least
1979.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuses vs. Circuit Breakers |
>
>In reading several posts, I've noticed that most builders seem to prefer
>fuses rather than circuit breakers. Can someone tell me the advantages of
>one over the other?
>Thanks,
See http://aeroelectric.com and do a search on
"fuse". There's a wealth of information and discussion
on this topic posted there.
The very short answer is that fuses are faster, less
expensive, lighter, easier to install, lower cost
to replace and if you've crafted a failure tolerant
design, no reason to fiddle with them in flight.
I.e., no good reason to let them use up valuable
panel space.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
S. Ramirez wrote:
> Dick,
>
>
>
> Below is a response to an email on the Aeroelectric List forum. It
> discusses whether the whisky compass is required. I claim that the FARs
> require a compass that does not need any input except the Earth's magnetic
> field. Mike Creek below claims that the Reno FSDO requires a whiskey
> compass. Since my airplane is already built, I would not need to go through
> a FSDO. Instead, I would have to file a form that says I am going to change
> the panel. The real problem comes when I am flying around the country, and
> I have either an accident or the FAA ramp checks me. If I go to Nevada and
> have an accident, I will be scrooed!
>
I've heard rumors that a $2, suction-cup base, water-filled compass from
the dollar stare is sufficient to satisfy the bean counters.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Hi John
"> Okay, so it was back in 1973-1979. Wow, am I getting old. Steering
> them to the intended target was the fun back then, with or without the
> obnoxious compass."
Ironic, but I now find a compass useful once in a while for navagating
balloon out of wilderness!
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Now, that is my kinda gondola. I particularly like the comfort stations.
However, will that puny little burner actually get the bag light enough to lift
the Gondola? How about a full blown quadro instead? And, how big a bag? I
doubt if my 55,000 footer would have budged it before it melted!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/25/2007 3:09:31 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US writes:
Ironic, but I now find a compass useful once in a while for navigating
balloon out of wilderness!
Ron Parigoris
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Hi Bob
"> However, will that puny little burner actually get the bag light enough
to lift
> the Gondola? How about a full blown quadro instead? And, how big a bag?"
I build that puny little burner in 1985. I needed something light when
driving. It uses 36 feet of Inconel 600 3/8" .035" wall. "IT IS 30,000,000
BTUs!!!". On in other words ~ 7,500 hp (converted BTUs to calories then to
HP). Compared to a 10,000,000 BTU Raven RX-6 burner that uses 1 pound in a
4.3 second blast, this beast uses 3 pounds in 4.3 seconds! Notice it locks
in position for ground ops. Even compared to todays standards, it is right
there! Very blue flame, tight and I adjusted where we can't hear a lot of
noise (used 13 strategic adjustable aim jets, dogs sure can hear noise!
Had a Golden Retriever (wanted to change heritage to balloon retriever)
when would shoot burner would go into bedroom closet and not come out!)
Envelope is 95,036 cubic feet (weighs 236 lbs) Big "8" ball
The closest thing at the time, a Honda Oddysey weighs in at 450 lbs
without any provisions for tanks, burner and associated things to fly, and
only carries 1 person. "Screwball" weighs in at 140lbs drivable (22HP 6
speed) and carries 3 people (can hang 1 person from top of balloon!)
Flight ready with 31 gallons is 600lbs.
During certification I loaded up balloon trailer and lifted 2750 lbs.
Usual like to fly 15 pounds per thousand, flys OK even at 20, at 30 its a
dog. Have had a 7 hour and 15 minute flight with a pretty heavy take off
weight. Real drag having to carry tank-age when empty.
Ron Parigoris
NJ8AX "Screwball" Balloon has 4 wheels and flies
N4211W Europa Monowheel (work in ProgMess) has 4 wheels and flies
Garbage trucks too have 4 wheels and flies
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New consumer product battery |
The 2VPX drill I want to get my hands on loads two of the 7 volt batteries
in its base to obtain 14v. As far as I can tell, the entire product line is
standardized on the use of the 7 volt batteries. At WalMart, the batteries
are 19.99 each.
One concern I have is that the starting voltage of two of these cells in
series, freshly topped off, might be enough to push some avionics to the
limit. What if there are 16v SMT devices in my Garmin 296 that will fizzle
at a tad less, say 15.5 volts, and the fresh cells exceed that at the moment
of initial use? Something to get numbers for and think about.
Keep us posted.
-Bill
On Nov 24, 2007 10:17 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>
>
> >
> >
> >I've been taken in by the new offering as well, but decided that the
> >drill I wanted was the 14volt "2VPX" model, which is not available at
> >any WalMart within 50 miles for the past month. All have a place on
> >the shelf for the dual battery drill, and all will sell it for $99
> >when they come in, but apparently it's a back-order item.
>
> Bill, take a look at
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2347vm
>
> There is a discussion thread below the
> promotional data.
>
> I've not found a 14V "2VPX" battery but did
> see a two-holer charger offered with a 2VPX
> tool. Do you suppose the same battery is used
> in both the VPX and 2VPX tools . . . with the
> latter requiring two batteries?
>
> After becoming aware of this product line
> at Home Depot, I've been watching for it to
> pop up in other stores. Haven't seen it
> any place else . . . yet.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
>From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
You absolutly DO NOT NEED ANOTHER COMPASS or Non-electric compass.
Call the EAA legal department. They don't work in a vacuum, they work with the
FAA.
If a DAR denies you based on NOT having an OLD Jelly Jar compass with deviation,
lead/lag and parallax, he's wrong. FAA has "regulatory guide lines" that do
not show up to the general public.
Her is the ignorance WE DO NOT HAVE TO MEET PART 23 AT ALL. That is where is
says you need one non-electric compass. Experimental is not a PART 23 plane.
Part 91 does NOT say you must have a non-electric compass.
Also get realistic. Not only do you have a magnetic indicator, albeit electric
you have GPS with track. In the airlines I have not flown a heading in 13 years,
we fly TRACK UP on the EFIS. Who cares what your heading is if you can TRACK.
As illogical as it seems, you can fly without a compass at all in an experimental
for VFR day. However for VFR night/IFR you do need a compass. Again don't
argue, just call the EAA legal or someone in the FSDO that knows what going on
and get your proof. I know some guys that add the wet compass and try and swing
it, but what a waste of time. You will never use it. Now if IFR, yea put one
in from common sense, as a good backup.
Cheers George
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel cables and d-sub connectors |
| From: | "Terry Phillips" <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net> |
Thanks to all who responded both on and off line. I have a much more clear picture
of what to do now. I will definitely be using d-subs extensively. I think
they can really save some precious space in the engine compartment, while providing
a reliable connection.
I do have 2 questions about using the DB-9 in the elevator.
It seems to me that it would be easier to fab a nice little mount for the DB-9
inside the elevator than it would be to modify the DB-9 to Bob's ultralight configuration
(that could be more easily supported by the wiring.) Would a std DB-9
with a shrink cover provide adequate protection from moisture?
Bob's write up uses soldered pins. I have ordered a crimp tool and a supply of
crimp pins from SteinAir. Would crimp pins be adequate in the elevator?
Thank you again for the help.
Terry
--------
Terry Phillips
Corvallis, MT
ttp44<at>rkymtn.net
Zenith 601XL/Jab 3300 slow build kit - Rudder done--finally; working on the stab
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=148464#148464
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 11/24/07 |
Eric,
You have to have a magnetic direct read compass (whiskey of vertical card).
The EFIS won't do the trick. Look at the Being 757 and its front and center
over the eyebrw panel.
...Jon
**************************************
Check out AOL's list of 2007's
hottest products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sam ray <sam95037(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | sweat soldering fast-on tabs |
Bob
I'm curious how you sweat soldered the fast-on tabs
to the bronze substrate- did you use electrical rosin
core or solid along with some flux?
Thank you,
Sam Ray
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel cables and d-sub connectors |
>
>Thanks to all who responded both on and off line. I have a much more clear
>picture of what to do now. I will definitely be using d-subs extensively.
>I think they can really save some precious space in the engine
>compartment, while providing a reliable connection.
>
>I do have 2 questions about using the DB-9 in the elevator.
>
>It seems to me that it would be easier to fab a nice little mount for the
>DB-9 inside the elevator than it would be to modify the DB-9 to Bob's
>ultralight configuration (that could be more easily supported by the
>wiring.) Would a std DB-9 with a shrink cover provide adequate protection
>from moisture?
>
>Bob's write up uses soldered pins. I have ordered a crimp tool and a
>supply of crimp pins from SteinAir. Would crimp pins be adequate in the
>elevator?
>
>Thank you again for the help.
Two things. It depends on what size holes that
the terminated cable needs to pass, the "minaturized"
d-sub is optimized to go through the smallest possible
hole. Obviously, you can forego trimming if you'd
rather mount the connector on some form of bracket.
The solder cup connector is recommended for the actuator
side . . . Ray-Allen (and MAC before them) is/was
really pedantic about their tefzel covered cat hair
wires.
I hit them up in the booth at OSH several years running
to suggest that the motor wires should be different
colors so that I could publish drawings that would
let a builder wire it up right the first time by
knowing in advance which wire was (+)extend and
(+)retract. Finally, the stuff was too small
for the neophyte and really too small as an "airframe"
wire. Even if you choose to use crimped pins, double
the strip length to increase amount of wire inside the
pin -AND- support at the back with E6000 to give these
small wires extra support.
I've put several Ray-Allen actuators into test
fixtures and the first thing I do is install
a "soldered and glued" connector as shown to
give me a robust interface to 'real' wires
on the other side of the mated connectors.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Black and Decker VPX 7V LiIon Batteries |
>The 2VPX drill I want to get my hands on loads two of the 7 volt batteries
>in its base to obtain 14v. As far as I can tell, the entire product line
>is standardized on the use of the 7 volt batteries. At WalMart, the
>batteries are 19.99 each.
Yeah, found those at Wally-World a few hours
ago myself. Home Depot was $20 a battery too.
I picked up a battery + charger for $39.
So, looks like the 1VPX battery is the
"magic bullet" to be explored.
>One concern I have is that the starting voltage of two of these cells in
>series, freshly topped off, might be enough to push some avionics to the
>limit. What if there are 16v SMT devices in my Garmin 296 that will
>fizzle at a tad less, say 15.5 volts, and the fresh cells exceed that at
>the moment of initial use? Something to get numbers for and think about.
I just pulled one off the charger and it reads
7.01 volts so a pair would be right in the
appropriate ball-park.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: sweat soldering fast-on tabs |
Hi Sam
I tinned the copper substrate that I used then pop rivetted the tabs on
with steel pop rivets. Then heated the substrate with a torch. All with
rosin core solder. Worked well.
Ken
sam ray wrote:
>
>Bob
> I'm curious how you sweat soldered the fast-on tabs
>to the bronze substrate- did you use electrical rosin
>core or solid along with some flux?
>
>Thank you,
>Sam Ray
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: sweat soldering fast-on tabs |
>
>Bob
> I'm curious how you sweat soldered the fast-on tabs
>to the bronze substrate- did you use electrical rosin
>core or solid along with some flux?
Electrical 63/37 with a synthetic rosin flux. Kester
"44" is what I use around here the most. You can use
any 60/40 or 63/37 solder with what ever flux gives
you a good flow. Run the finished part through a cleaning
with lacquer thinner (carburetor cleaner in a spray
can) followed by a run through the dishwasher. This
will remove all remnants of flux after the assembly
is completed.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bryan" <bhcishere(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Comm Radio Problem |
Need help from the RF guru's,
I have been trying to resolve a problem with a friend's comm radio for
some time now with no success.
Transmit is never a problem and reception is good most of the time. The
problem is local to some areas, frequencies and direction of flight.
Specific example: Depart CNO talking to SoCal on 125.5, all is well
when flying westbound. On return leg (eastbound) to CNO, unable to
receive SoCal but the controller receives me perfect (this is evident by
other aircraft relaying messages from the controller and the fact that
once I can hear the controller he is not very happy). It does not
appear to be an issue with SoCal as I can hear them when flying
eastbound with an Icom handheld.
This same problem occurs in other areas also but is very prominent in
the example given.
The same problem remains after multiple changes: KX-170B, Garmin SL-30,
Stainless antenna, two different fiberglass whip antenna's and have
tried both top and bottom mounting. The only thing that has not (yet)
changed is the coax which is currently RG-58.
I am at whit's end, any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
Bryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Dabney <jdabney(at)rice.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: sweat soldering fast-on tabs |
Bob,
Is it feasible to use a custom crimp tool positioner like
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/crmptool.pdf) to crimp the
high-density d-sub pins (such as Garmin) using an inexpensive (B&C)
crimp tool?
Jim Dabney
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Good Evening Ron,
Absolutely fabulous!
A lot has changed since I had my Raven!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/25/2007 4:34:15 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US writes:
During certification I loaded up balloon trailer and lifted 2750 lbs.
Usual like to fly 15 pounds per thousand, flys OK even at 20, at 30 its a
dog. Have had a 7 hour and 15 minute flight with a pretty heavy take off
weight. Real drag having to carry tank-age when empty.
Ron Parigoris
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Black and Decker VPX 7V LiIon Batteries |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Hi Bob
"Yeah, found those at Wally-World a few hours ago myself. Home Depot was
$20 a battery too. I picked up a battery + charger for $39. So, looks like
the 1VPX battery is the "magic bullet" to be explored."
When you are testing this "magic bullet", please explore and share at what
amperage drain is needed to shatter this bullet and burst into flames (if
it will in fact do so), and if it is somehow protected to prevent this. No
matter, a nice number to know and fuse or fusible link short of that
'short' number if no internal protection provided.
Another concern is bursting into flames during charging if overcharged.
Worth it to have a good look at charger, and see just how robust circuit
is to failing in overcharge mode.
Also is there protection to prevent discharge to point it will damage
cells?
On purpose discharge only 1 cell of the 2 cell pack to lets say 1.75
volts. Then go charge and see if charger is smart enough to not burn the
house down.
When you are on purpose testing, not a bad idea to do so over an area that
will not catch fire, and hang a plastic bag with sand in it over battery.
This way "when" it catches fire it will melt bag and extinguish.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
I hesitate to get involved in a "discussion" with George
(gmcjetpilot). He is correct about type certified aircraft
needing a "nonstabilized magnetic compass" but homebuilts only
needing a "Magnetic Direction Indicator" But his statement "you
can fly without a compass at all in an experimental for VFR day.
However for VFR night/IFR you do need a compass" is in error.
AOPA always advises in their CFI refresher clinics to reply to
any FAR question with "I don't know. Let's read what they say."
Parts 23 (General Aviation and Commuter) and 25 (Transport) cover
certification of aircraft. They contain the only reference in
the FARs to a compass equipment requirement. And they don't
apply to homebuilt experimental aircraft. By reference, we do
have to comply with 91.205 which covers required equipment for
day VFR, night VFR and IFR (day or night) among other conditions.
91.205(b) is day VFR. 91.205(b)(3) requires a "Magnetic
Direction Indicator" without any other qualification. This is
the legal authority to use a Dynon in lieu of a wet compass.
91.205(c) covers night VFR. It says you must have the stuff in
91.205(b) and then some other stuff (lights, etc.) but no other
reference to direction. But we have already established
91.205(b) doesn't require a compass. Thus neither does 91.205(c)
for night VFR.
91.205(d) is for IFR. Same story. It requires the stuff in
91.205(b) and, for night, the stuff in 91.205(c) and then a lot
of other stuff without reference to any compass. 91.205(d)(9)
does require a "Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro
or equivalent)". The "or equivalent" is what lets the Dynon also
be acceptable for IFR.
Bottom line there is no *legal* requirement for a homebuilt
experimental aircraft to have a compass for day, night or IFR.
But I still have one to avoid hassles (and as a backup).
The idea of temporarily mounting a cheap compass might put you in
a gray area. It can be argued if your plane was certified with a
compass then it must always have a compass. Removal might give
an out to an insurance company or a justification to a "helpful"
FAA ramp or accident inspector.
Tom Kuffel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Published |
Dec 1!
Dear Listers,
The List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! On December 1st I post
a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists.
Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their
appreciation for the Lists.
As a number of people have pointed out in their Contribution comments, these Lists
seems at least as valuable of a building/flying/recreating tool as a typical
your magazine subscription! And how interactive is a magazine, after all?
Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others
that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists
is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore CA 94551-0347
USA
(Please include your email address on the check!)
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps
these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment
about how the Lists have helped you!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm Radio Problem |
Bryan, I did battle with my Garmin 530 communications radio for
months in my Glastar after an instrument panel re-do. It had been
great for 7 years, after the panel overhaul. I had similar
communications problems. At various times it worked great, other times
not at all. Ultimately I found a bad coax connection. The shield of
the coax was not making connection with connector at the radio end. It
was one of those coax connectors that uses a set-screw to connect the
shield to the connector body. It was not a crimp on style. I
changed the connector to a crimp on type and the problem has been
solved. We tried everything under the sun, including getting a
loaner 530 from Garmin, but the smoking gun was in the connector.
Bob Newman
www.tcwtech.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: RV trim tab connector, was Tefzel cables and d-sub |
connectors
Hi Terry-
I used an annular connector from RS, soldered and shoe gooed. It is heat
shrunk and clamped in place on the deck under the emp fairing. Results in
a smaller hole in the spars for pass through and more protection from wx
for the connector.
FWIW-
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
>
>I hesitate to get involved in a "discussion" with George
>(gmcjetpilot). He is correct about type certified aircraft needing a
>"nonstabilized magnetic compass" but homebuilts only needing a "Magnetic
>Direction Indicator" But his statement "you can fly without a compass at
>all in an experimental for VFR day. However for VFR night/IFR you do need
>a compass" is in error.
>
>AOPA always advises in their CFI refresher clinics to reply to any FAR
>question with "I don't know. Let's read what they say."
The vast majority of unhappy events in airplanes
happen because somebody did something careless
or stupid.
The survival of the agencies that craft
virtual libraries of "rules to make us safe"
hinges upon the ignorance of both agency
foot soldiers AND citizen subjects. Ignorance
of all parties in the discussion obscures
the great rules to make us safe hoax.
The "real" problem is that like most no-
value-added activities that government
bestows upon the great numbers of ignorant
and unwashed among us is that members of
these august organizations are products of
the same schools and lifestyles to which
we subject our children today.
When a group of individuals like those who
choose to become competent builders and operators
of airplanes begin to examine "the rules",
they are confounded by the lack of clarity
for what the rules are intended to accomplish
exacerbated by lack of understanding and
practical authority on the part of agency
foot soldiers.
The inevitable result of discussions intended
to clarify the unclear is not unlike the
Presbyterians debating the Baptists
as to which of them is going to hell because
he/she is not correctly interpreting and
observing the "true and proper rule."
Not once in my admittedly limited flying
career have I found it necessary or even
useful to refer to the magnetic heading
indicator hanging from the windshield other
than to set the DG before takeoff . . . and
knowing the runway alignment gets one in
the ballpark for DG settings anyhow.
I fly with dual, hand-held, battery powered
GPS as sole source of really useful navigation
information. This makes stuff on the panel
my multiply redundant backup for the hand-helds
which (if blessed with well considered management
of batteries) have never failed to offer
data needed for competent navigation. Data
with stability and quality that far exceeds
anything the cork bobbling in the bottle
or stuff on the panel can offer.
But like TSA folks who "make us safe" from
terrorism my frisking old ladies and babies
for box cutters, crusaders against
stupid behavior are obligated to enforce
their (or their supervisor's) interpretation
of the rules. Like the Presbyterians and Baptists,
no matter how the discussion resolves,
the participants remain just just as vulnerable to
acts of stupid behavior as if the rules
had never existed.
If someone with the power to make your
life miserable says "you gotta have a compass"
then the really smart people click their
heals, salute and say "SIR, YES SIR!"
Once that little piece of paper is signed
assuring one and all that stupid behavior
is hereby and forever banished from your
airplane's cockpit, take the thing out.
Your successful recipe for mitigating risk
has more to do with understanding design
goals that go to assuring a long and prosperous
life than will dutiful observance of "rules
against stupid behavior".
Yeah, there's always risk of crossing
paths with the dreaded and sometimes dangerous
predators known as ramp-checkers. Tell
them the compass was pulled to go
into a shop for re-juicing and a health
checkup . . . then ask if you can buy
them a cup of coffee. But try to
avoid further debate about which of
you is going to hell for failure to
observe any particular rule.
I am observing a slow but inexorable climb
in "warranty expense" to manufacturers who
have embraced the great "rules against
stupid behavior" hoax (ISO9000 among others).
The rise in cost of ownership for a contemporary
production airplane continues to outpace inflation.
Return on investment for both manufacturer
and owner keeps getting worse because a
penchant for crafting and enforcing rules
has replaced the need for understanding
and individual pride of competent craftsmanship.
You folks here on the List may be among the
last communities in aviation where relative
safety happens because you're more focused on
doing a competent job than upon "dancing to the
music of the rule books."
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Henderson" <wf-k(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | What Are You Thankful For...? |
Matt,
Thank you for all your work.
I wish to stay on the RV list but please rmove me from the
AreoElectric-List.
David Henderson RV-7
N925LW (Lord Willing)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Dralle
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 3:13 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: What Are You Thankful For...?
Dear Listers,
Here in the United States, Thursday is our National day of Thanksgiving.
Many of us will be traveling to be with our families and friends to share in
generous feasts of plenty and giving thanks for many blessings that have
been bestowed upon us.
Many Listers have expressed over the last couple of weeks how thankful they
are for the Email Lists and Forums here on the Matronics servers and for all
of the assistance and comradery they have experienced being a part of the
Lists. One of my favorite kind of comments is when write to me and says
something like, "Its the first thing I do in the morning while I'm having my
morning coffee!". That's a wonderful tribute to the purpose and function of
these Lists. Its always great to hear I'm not the only one that jumps out
of bed each morning to check my List email!!
Won't you take a minute today and show your appreciation for these Lists and
for their continued operation and upgrade?
The List Contribution Site is:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you in advance for your kind consideration,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stringham <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Bob
Thanks for stating my sentiments.........now back to fending off those that
believe the letter of law (always) trumps common sense.
Frank @ SGU RV7A 96% done 90% to go.....Z13/8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | What Are You Thankful For...? |
David,
You get off the List at the same place you got
on the List . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Bob . . .
>
>
>Matt,
>
>Thank you for all your work.
>I wish to stay on the RV list but please rmove me from the
>AreoElectric-List.
>
>David Henderson RV-7
>N925LW (Lord Willing)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm Radio Problem |
>Need help from the RF guru's,
>
>I have been trying to resolve a problem with a friend's comm radio for
>some time now with no success.
>
>Transmit is never a problem and reception is good most of the time. The
>problem is local to some areas, frequencies and direction of flight.
>
>Specific example: Depart CNO talking to SoCal on 125.5, all is well when
>flying westbound. On return leg (eastbound) to CNO, unable to receive
>SoCal but the controller receives me perfect (this is evident by other
>aircraft relaying messages from the controller and the fact that once I
>can hear the controller he is not very happy). It does not appear to be
>an issue with SoCal as I can hear them when flying eastbound with an Icom
>handheld.
>
>This same problem occurs in other areas also but is very prominent in the
>example given.
>
>The same problem remains after multiple changes: KX-170B, Garmin SL-30,
>Stainless antenna, two different fiberglass whip antenna's and have tried
>both top and bottom mounting. The only thing that has not (yet) changed
>is the coax which is currently RG-58.
>
>I am at whit's end, any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
Bob Newman has made an excellent suggestion that
I can only echo. If your radio bench-checks okay,
then something is amiss in the installation and the
MOST likely culprit will be the antenna system. Since
you can't do much to hose up a piece of steel
once crafted into an antenna, this leaves the coax
and connectors.
See if you can get an SWR bridge to check your
antenna's electrical performance and go over
the connectors with a fine toothed comb.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: HD pins for D-sub connectors |
>
>Bob,
>
>Is it feasible to use a custom crimp tool positioner like
>(http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/crmptool.pdf) to crimp the
>high-density d-sub pins (such as Garmin) using an inexpensive (B&C) crimp tool?
>
>Jim Dabney
I believe it is. I don't use the HD connectors
in my practice so I don't have inventory on those
materials to do any tests. I've used the $low$
crimp tool to install some 22AWG HD pins some
years ago and the cursory test for pull-out
resistance looked good.
The pin-positioner is the wrong shape for
HD pins so you have to manually position the
pin in the tool jaws. Of course, if you can
find a tool like that shown in the article
you cited, it is adjustable for exactly
the right crimp. However, I think the tool
sold by B&C will work.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Black and Decker VPX 7V LiIon Batteries |
>
>Hi Bob
>
>"Yeah, found those at Wally-World a few hours ago myself. Home Depot was
>$20 a battery too. I picked up a battery + charger for $39. So, looks like
>the 1VPX battery is the "magic bullet" to be explored."
>
>When you are testing this "magic bullet", please explore and share at what
>amperage drain is needed to shatter this bullet and burst into flames (if
>it will in fact do so), and if it is somehow protected to prevent this. No
>matter, a nice number to know and fuse or fusible link short of that
>'short' number if no internal protection provided.
Sure. After I've fully explored the chemistry I'll take
one apart and see what fusible links, over-temp switches,
etc have been included in fabricating the device. I'll
also do a dead-short test on one to see how it behaves.
>Another concern is bursting into flames during charging if overcharged.
>Worth it to have a good look at charger, and see just how robust circuit
>is to failing in overcharge mode.
>
>Also is there protection to prevent discharge to point it will damage
>cells?
>
>On purpose discharge only 1 cell of the 2 cell pack to lets say 1.75
>volts. Then go charge and see if charger is smart enough to not burn the
>house down.
>
>When you are on purpose testing, not a bad idea to do so over an area that
>will not catch fire, and hang a plastic bag with sand in it over battery.
>This way "when" it catches fire it will melt bag and extinguish.
Given the recent events on battery fires (limited to
certain combinations of chemistry) there is increased
focus on LiIon battery battery safety. I would be surprised
if B&D hasn't covered all the bases here. While LiIon
may be the acknowledged wave of the future, a company
with pockets as deep as B&D is going to do everything
they can to keep cash-diggers at arms length. Besides,
it's really bad for business if the peddlers of
crisis du jour point their fingers at you an scream "Fire Bug".
I think we're on pretty good ground for safety. The
issues to be resolved will probably hinge on performance.
UL is going to do the beat-n-bash on this product.
I suspect my friends a the Crane Navel Battery
Testing Labs will get their hands on them too. I'll
make some phone calls.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
The Kuffels wrote:
>
> By reference, we do have to comply with 91.205 which covers required
> equipment for day VFR, night VFR and IFR (day or night) among other
> conditions.
As far as I can tell, experimental aircraft flying day VFR do not
have to comply with 91.205. Your Operating Limitations on your
experimental aircraft generally say something like "After completion of
Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or
instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be
operated under VFR, day only".
91.205 itself says " Powered civil aircraft with standard category
U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment
requirements.", which does not apply to experimental aircraft on its
own, but only by reference to the above statement in your Operating
Limitations.
It would appear that experimental aircraft only have to follow
91.205 if flying at night or IFR.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sweat soldering fast-on tabs |
sam ray wrote:
>
> Bob
> I'm curious how you sweat soldered the fast-on tabs
> to the bronze substrate- did you use electrical rosin
> core or solid along with some flux?
>
> Thank you,
> Sam Ray
>
I used standard electrical rosin cored solder. Lined the tabs up on the
strip, and heated from the bottom with a pencil torch. Touch the hole
in the center of each tab till it fills with solder. Takes less time to
set up and solder a strip than it does to type this email.
If I had to do it over again, I'd just order from StenAir. At a buck
for a 10-gang unit, it's not worth the hassle of chasing down the
materials and getting set up for the job to do my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <brinker(at)suddenlinkmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments most experimental
builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install one that can be
removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one could just reach to the
readilly available compass and slide it into place. I don't think there is anything
stated in the FAR's requiring the compass to be permanently mounted. If
ramp checked one could use an excuse something like "I dismounted it for better
visability while landing". This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep
everyone happy.
Randy
---- The Kuffels wrote:
>
> I hesitate to get involved in a "discussion" with George
> (gmcjetpilot). He is correct about type certified aircraft
> needing a "nonstabilized magnetic compass" but homebuilts only
> needing a "Magnetic Direction Indicator" But his statement "you
> can fly without a compass at all in an experimental for VFR day.
> However for VFR night/IFR you do need a compass" is in error.
>
> AOPA always advises in their CFI refresher clinics to reply to
> any FAR question with "I don't know. Let's read what they say."
>
> Parts 23 (General Aviation and Commuter) and 25 (Transport) cover
> certification of aircraft. They contain the only reference in
> the FARs to a compass equipment requirement. And they don't
> apply to homebuilt experimental aircraft. By reference, we do
> have to comply with 91.205 which covers required equipment for
> day VFR, night VFR and IFR (day or night) among other conditions.
>
> 91.205(b) is day VFR. 91.205(b)(3) requires a "Magnetic
> Direction Indicator" without any other qualification. This is
> the legal authority to use a Dynon in lieu of a wet compass.
>
> 91.205(c) covers night VFR. It says you must have the stuff in
> 91.205(b) and then some other stuff (lights, etc.) but no other
> reference to direction. But we have already established
> 91.205(b) doesn't require a compass. Thus neither does 91.205(c)
> for night VFR.
>
> 91.205(d) is for IFR. Same story. It requires the stuff in
> 91.205(b) and, for night, the stuff in 91.205(c) and then a lot
> of other stuff without reference to any compass. 91.205(d)(9)
> does require a "Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro
> or equivalent)". The "or equivalent" is what lets the Dynon also
> be acceptable for IFR.
>
> Bottom line there is no *legal* requirement for a homebuilt
> experimental aircraft to have a compass for day, night or IFR.
> But I still have one to avoid hassles (and as a backup).
>
> The idea of temporarily mounting a cheap compass might put you in
> a gray area. It can be argued if your plane was certified with a
> compass then it must always have a compass. Removal might give
> an out to an insurance company or a justification to a "helpful"
> FAA ramp or accident inspector.
>
> Tom Kuffel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA |
>From: The Kuffels kuffel(at)cyberport.net
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
>Inspection
>
>I hesitate to get involved in a "discussion" with George
>(gmcjetpilot). He is correct about type certified aircraft
>needing a "nonstabilized magnetic compass" but homebuilts only
>needing a "Magnetic Direction Indicator" But his statement "you
>can fly without a compass at all in an experimental for VFR day.
>However for VFR night/IFR you do need a compass" is in error.
Tom I hesitate to discuss on AeroElectic as well but the reason is below. If
you don't believe me call EAA legal. (see the table below) I agree good practice
and what you can get away with are not the same. It comes down to FAA Order
8130.2F, which omits Day VFR. However ELT and transponder may still be needed.
According to the EAA you can fly with out ANY instruments in an experimental
DAY VFR, ANY!. See the list below. Not sure if the pagination will display properly.
I think your logic is GOOD but the FAR's are legal documents don't always make
sense, aka legal loop-holes. The FAA must follow the law. However they have
these "positions" that get inertia and become de facto law. I am talking legal
not practical or de facto positions.
Fact is the FAR's are struggling to keep up with modern EFIS GA planes. You can
lean and recive your pvt, inst ratings 100% in a Garmin 1000 airplane and its
legal to fly IFR the day after your check ride in a 1978 steam gauge Cessna,
or vise a verse. There is a need to rewrite the FAR's.
MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
Introduction: The table below is intended to give the builder of amateur built
experimental aircraft a ready reference for the instrument and equipment requirements
for his aircraft. The builder should note that some items required by
the FARs are described in the FARs as needing to be approved, but since there
are no certification standards established for amateur built experimental aircraft
no formal individual item approval, such as meeting a TSO (Technical Standard
Order) or FAR Part 23, is required. However certain items must interface
properly with ATC (Air Traffic Control), other aircraft, or other entities external
to the aircraft. Transponders, communication radios, exterior lighting
and ELTs (Emergency Locator Transmitters) are examples of such equipment. Therefore,
the builder can expect that the initial airworthiness inspection of his
aircraft will require evidence that this type of equipment in the aircraft is
acceptable to the FAA.
The Special Airworthiness Certificate issued for each amateur built experimental
aircraft includes specific Operating Limitations. Per FAA Order 8130.2F the
Operating Limitations state: After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless
appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with
91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only. The FARs, FAA
Order 8130.2F, and current FAA policy have been used in constructing the below
amateur built experimental aircraft configuration requirements table.
THIS TABLE DOES NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BEST PRACTICES. INSTALLING ONLY
THE MINIMUM REQUIRED ITEMS MAY NOT BE PRUDENT OR SAFE.
By Owen C. Baker with appreciation to Richard E. Koehler.
MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
DAY NIGHT DAY OR
FAR & ITEM DESCRIPTION (See Notes Below Table) VFR
VFR NIGHT IFR
1. 91.205 (b) (1) Airspeed Indicator
NR R R
2. 91.205 (b) (2) Altimeter
NR R R
3. 91.205 (b) (3) Magnetic Direction Indicator
NR R R
4. 91.205 (b) (4) Tachometer for Each Engine
NR R R
5. 91.205 (b) (5) Oil Pressure Gauge for Each Engine
Using a Pressure System
NR R R
6. 91.205 (b) (6) Temperature Gauge for Each
Liquid Cooled Engine
NR R R
7. 91.205 (b) (7) Oil Temperature Gauge for Each
Air Cooled Engine
NR R R
8. 91.205 (b) (8) Manifold Pressure Gauge for
Each Altitude Engine
NR R R
9. 91.205 (b) (9) Fuel Gauge Indicating Quantity of Fuel
In Each Tank
NR R R
10. 91.205 (b) (10) Landing Gear Position Indicator, If Retractable
NR R R
11. 91.205 (b) (11) Anti-Collision Light System -
(Small civil airplanes certified after 3/11/96)
NR R R
12. 91.205 (b) (13) Approved Safety Belts With Metal to Metal
Buckles for Each Occupant (2 yrs or older)
NR R R
13. 91.205 (b) (14) Approved Shoulder Harness for Each Front
Seat - For Small Civil Airplanes Manufactured After 7/18/78
NR R R
14. 91.205 (b) (15) ELT (If required by Sec. 91.207, i.e. >one seat
and >50 miles)
AR AR AR
15. 91.205 (b) (16) Approved Shoulder Harness for Each Seat
Airplanes With 9 or Less Seats Manufactured After 12/12/86 NR
R R
16. 91.205 (b) (17) Shoulder Harness for Each Seat For
Rotorcraft Manufactured After 9/16/92
NR R R
17. 91.205 (c) (2) Approved Position (navigation) Lights
NR R R
18. 91.205 (c) (3) Anti-Collision Light System
(Systems installed after 8/11/71- see reference)
NR R R
19. 91.205 (c) (5) Adequate Source of Electrical Energy for
Installed Equipment
NR R R
20. 91.205 (c) (6) One Spare Set of Fuses or Three Fuses
of Each Kind Required, Must be Accessible to Pilot In Flight
NR R R
21. 91.205 (d) (2) Two-Way Radio Communication System and
Navigational Equipment Appropriate to Ground Facilities Used NR
NR R
22. 91.205 (d) (3) Gyroscopic Rate of Turn Indicator
(Some Exceptions, See Reference)
NR NR R
23. 91.205 (d) (4) Slip-Skid Indicator
NR NR R
24. 91.205 (d) (5) Sensitive Altimeter Adjustable for
Barometric Pressure, (See FAR 91.411, Altimeter System
Inspection Required Every 24 Calendar Months)
NR NR R
25. 91.205 (d) (6) Clock Displaying Hours, Minutes, and Seconds
Sweep Second Pointer or Digital
NR NR R
26. 91.205 (d) (7) Electrical Generator or Alternator
of Adequate Capacity
NR NR R
27. 91.205 (d) (8) Gyroscopic Bank and Pitch Indicator
(Artificial Horizon)
NR NR R
28. 91.205 (d) (9) Gyroscopic Direction Indicator
(Directional Gyro or Equivalent)
NR NR R
29. 91.205 (e) DME Above FL 240
N/A N/A AR
30. 91.215, Transponder in Certain Airspace, (See FAR 91.413,
Inspection Required Every 24 Calendar Months)
AR AR AR
Notes:
(1) AR = As Required, NR = Not Required, N/A = Not Applicable, R = Required
(2) A fourth flight operation category, Day (only) Instruments, is not included
above.
ABEA Minimum Inst Requirements 7.doc 11/17/2005
---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: sweat soldering fast-on tabs |
>
>
>sam ray wrote:
>>
>>Bob
>> I'm curious how you sweat soldered the fast-on tabs
>>to the bronze substrate- did you use electrical rosin
>>core or solid along with some flux?
>>
>>Thank you,
>>Sam Ray
>>
>I used standard electrical rosin cored solder. Lined the tabs up on the
>strip, and heated from the bottom with a pencil torch. Touch the hole in
>the center of each tab till it fills with solder. Takes less time to set
>up and solder a strip than it does to type this email.
>
>If I had to do it over again, I'd just order from StenAir. At a buck for
>a 10-gang unit, it's not worth the hassle of chasing down the materials
>and getting set up for the job to do my own.
Interesting observation sir! I've always encouraged
builders to be aware of the economics of their use
of $time$. If the goal is to minimize the total cost
of $time$ to get an airplane licensed and flying, then
it makes sense to consider the make/buy decision when
it comes to acquiring all the goodies needed to finish
the project.
I think I recall an gentleman at OSH telling me years
ago that he would have been $time$ ahead to get a
second job and pay a "pro" to build his airplane.
Of course, he would would run the risk of
knowing no more about the airplane than if he
were flying a spam-can. Bottom line is that education
is always expensive so the expenditure of
$time$ has to be weighed against the perceived
value of education and the pleasure of doing
it yourself.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
>
> The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments most
> experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install one
> that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one could
> just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place. I
> don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the compass
> to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse
> something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing".
> This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy.
Sounds good to me. Cuts way down on the
need for "A glass of Jack and an aspirin
sandwich."
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
I completely agree. Why do some fret over such trivial bs when there are
much bigger problems behind your panel? If you want to be a real cheapo,
just borrow one from your neighbor. For the price of my 330 transponder
I could decorate the hanger with compasses.
Next topic please
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
brinker(at)suddenlinkmail.com
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
Inspection
The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments most
experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install one
that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one could
just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place. I
don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the compass
to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse
something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing".
This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy.
Randy
---- The Kuffels wrote:
> -->
>
> I hesitate to get involved in a "discussion" with George
> (gmcjetpilot). He is correct about type certified aircraft
> needing a "nonstabilized magnetic compass" but homebuilts only
> needing a "Magnetic Direction Indicator" But his statement "you
> can fly without a compass at all in an experimental for VFR day.
> However for VFR night/IFR you do need a compass" is in error.
>
> AOPA always advises in their CFI refresher clinics to reply to
> any FAR question with "I don't know. Let's read what they say."
>
> Parts 23 (General Aviation and Commuter) and 25 (Transport) cover
> certification of aircraft. They contain the only reference in
> the FARs to a compass equipment requirement. And they don't
> apply to homebuilt experimental aircraft. By reference, we do
> have to comply with 91.205 which covers required equipment for
> day VFR, night VFR and IFR (day or night) among other conditions.
>
> 91.205(b) is day VFR. 91.205(b)(3) requires a "Magnetic
> Direction Indicator" without any other qualification. This is
> the legal authority to use a Dynon in lieu of a wet compass.
>
> 91.205(c) covers night VFR. It says you must have the stuff in
> 91.205(b) and then some other stuff (lights, etc.) but no other
> reference to direction. But we have already established
> 91.205(b) doesn't require a compass. Thus neither does 91.205(c)
> for night VFR.
>
> 91.205(d) is for IFR. Same story. It requires the stuff in
> 91.205(b) and, for night, the stuff in 91.205(c) and then a lot
> of other stuff without reference to any compass. 91.205(d)(9)
> does require a "Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro
> or equivalent)". The "or equivalent" is what lets the Dynon also
> be acceptable for IFR.
>
> Bottom line there is no *legal* requirement for a homebuilt
> experimental aircraft to have a compass for day, night or IFR.
> But I still have one to avoid hassles (and as a backup).
>
> The idea of temporarily mounting a cheap compass might put you in
> a gray area. It can be argued if your plane was certified with a
> compass then it must always have a compass. Removal might give
> an out to an insurance company or a justification to a "helpful"
> FAA ramp or accident inspector.
>
> Tom Kuffel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JSMcGrew(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Radio Static Help |
Hi,
I appreciate all the suggestions regarding my radio static problems. I
finally got my hands on another SL-30 unit and slid it into the tray... problem
solved. Turns out my brand new SL-30 radio was the culprit. I sent it back for
repair and just got word from Garmin that there was a bad solder joint inside
my radio.
-Jim
RV-10 N312JE
In a message dated 10/29/2007 6:10:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
frank.hinde(at)hp.com writes:
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
ScooterF15
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 1:33 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio Static Help
Hi,
I've been on the RV-10 list for a few years, but I've never posted to
AeroElectric. I've searched the list and haven't found anything that
helped to solve my problem. I'd appreciate any suggestions that you can
offer:
I've spent the last few weeks trying to track down a problem with radio
static on my Garmin SL-30 Nav/Comm in my Vans RV-10. The SL-30 is
attached to a Garmin GMA-340 Audio panel. The static itself sounds
random (i.e. not obviously uniform like I would expect from an ignition
system), however, it is somehow associated with engine throttle setting.
The static starts around 2000 RPM and gets progressively worse as
throttle increases. On takeoff, it is so bad you can not comprehend any
received transmissions. During cruise it appears to be somehow
associated with manifold pressure (i.e. throttle setting, not RPM). It
makes listening to ATC difficult to impossible. I also think it may be
affecting my radio transmissions as well, because when I have a hard
time comprehending ATC, they also have a hard time understanding me.
This static appears to be only affecting the Comm audio, there is no
static on NAV audio reception. I have a belly mounted bent whip VHF
antenna and a wingtip!
VOR antenna. My handheld ICOM VHF radio does not have any static when
used inside the cockpit. Also, I have a Lycoming IO-540 with one mag and
one LightSpeed Plasma II+ ignition.
I have searched various lists for ideas and tried to solve this problem,
but I have had no success in changing it at all (for better or worse).
Any suggestions for what to try or where to look will be welcome. Below
is a list of some things I have tried with no luck.
General
-Shut off all avionics (except SL-30) and both ignition systems (not
both at the same time)
--So it doesn't appear to be interference from other electronics
Antenna/Coaxial cable
-Added ferrite signal filters at various locations along comm coax.
-Connected SL-30 to a different comm antenna using a piece of RG-400
(tried various routings to antennas) -Connected SL-30 Comm to VOR
antenna (great reception, still static)
--So it doesn't appear to be antenna related
Power/ground
-Ensured engine grounding cables have good contacts on both ends
-Apparently new Slick Magnetos have internal suppression and do not need
a filter -Separated SL-30 power/ground leads from bundle to reduce
potential interference from other wires -Ran SL-30 +12V and ground leads
directly to battery -Disconnected serial connection between my SL-30 and
EFIS indicator -Connected SL-30 to separate 12V battery sitting on floor
of aircraft, disconnected power/ground to GMA-340. Attached ICOM
handheld antenna directly to unit (SL-30 completely isolated from
aircraft)-reception still has static -Ran ground wire from battery to
SL-30 tray -Checked to ensure headseat jacks were isolated from aircraft
ground.
-Checked the shield connections for tachometer and fuel flow sensor
wires
I can't think of anything else to try. Again, I'd be happy to hear any
suggestions.
Thanks.
-Jim
N312JE
Jim "Scooter" McGrew
http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=142588#142588
Jim "Scooter" McGrew
_http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew)
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Dj and others say:
<< experimental aircraft flying day VFR do not have to comply
with 91.205. Your Operating Limitations on your
experimental aircraft generally say something like "After
completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately
equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with
91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only". >>
My operating limitations say:
"The aircraft shall contain .. equipment as required for type of
flight, in accordance with FAR # 91.205." No exceptions for me.
The moral here is better check your own specific operating
limitations before thinking a generalized table is valid for you.
But remember, the question was what is legal not reasonable. My
planes always have a compass even if it's not "required".
Tom Kuffel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
brinker(at)suddenlinkmail.com wrote:
>
> The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments most experimental
builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install one that can be
removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one could just reach to the
readilly available compass and slide it into place. I don't think there is anything
stated in the FAR's requiring the compass to be permanently mounted. If
ramp checked one could use an excuse something like "I dismounted it for better
visability while landing". This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep
everyone happy.
>
The hassle isn't having it on the panel, I would think. It is having to
install it in the first place. If you've already gone through the
fabrication to have a place for it, why would you store it in the
baggage compartment 8*)
I'm going to use a marine type compass on my project. One like
http://www.fishreports.net/fishing-gear/images/marine-compass.jpg
I'll cut a hole in the top of my dash that the compass will recess down
into, right even with the bottom of the globe part. Just a half ball
above the dash. It is just an ornamental piece in this day'n'age, so
might as well make it an ornament.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Newton" <enewton57(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
I'm NOT "fretting" over the money - I'm fretting over cluttering up my
glareshield with something I don't really need. Sorry if I irritated you.
"Next topic" is fine with me.
Eric Newton
----- Original Message -----
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:09 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
>
> I completely agree. Why do some fret over such trivial bs when there are
> much bigger problems behind your panel? If you want to be a real cheapo,
> just borrow one from your neighbor. For the price of my 330 transponder
> I could decorate the hanger with compasses.
>
> Next topic please
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> brinker(at)suddenlinkmail.com
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:03 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
> Inspection
>
>
> The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments most
> experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install one
> that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one could
> just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place. I
> don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the compass
> to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse
> something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing".
> This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy.
>
> Randy
>
>
> ---- The Kuffels wrote:
>> -->
>>
>> I hesitate to get involved in a "discussion" with George
>> (gmcjetpilot). He is correct about type certified aircraft
>> needing a "nonstabilized magnetic compass" but homebuilts only
>> needing a "Magnetic Direction Indicator" But his statement "you
>> can fly without a compass at all in an experimental for VFR day.
>> However for VFR night/IFR you do need a compass" is in error.
>>
>> AOPA always advises in their CFI refresher clinics to reply to
>> any FAR question with "I don't know. Let's read what they say."
>>
>> Parts 23 (General Aviation and Commuter) and 25 (Transport) cover
>> certification of aircraft. They contain the only reference in
>> the FARs to a compass equipment requirement. And they don't
>> apply to homebuilt experimental aircraft. By reference, we do
>> have to comply with 91.205 which covers required equipment for
>> day VFR, night VFR and IFR (day or night) among other conditions.
>>
>> 91.205(b) is day VFR. 91.205(b)(3) requires a "Magnetic
>> Direction Indicator" without any other qualification. This is
>> the legal authority to use a Dynon in lieu of a wet compass.
>>
>> 91.205(c) covers night VFR. It says you must have the stuff in
>> 91.205(b) and then some other stuff (lights, etc.) but no other
>> reference to direction. But we have already established
>> 91.205(b) doesn't require a compass. Thus neither does 91.205(c)
>> for night VFR.
>>
>> 91.205(d) is for IFR. Same story. It requires the stuff in
>> 91.205(b) and, for night, the stuff in 91.205(c) and then a lot
>> of other stuff without reference to any compass. 91.205(d)(9)
>> does require a "Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro
>> or equivalent)". The "or equivalent" is what lets the Dynon also
>> be acceptable for IFR.
>>
>> Bottom line there is no *legal* requirement for a homebuilt
>> experimental aircraft to have a compass for day, night or IFR.
>> But I still have one to avoid hassles (and as a backup).
>>
>> The idea of temporarily mounting a cheap compass might put you in
>> a gray area. It can be argued if your plane was certified with a
>> compass then it must always have a compass. Removal might give
>> an out to an insurance company or a justification to a "helpful"
>> FAA ramp or accident inspector.
>>
>> Tom Kuffel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Was Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Has anyone tried to have the wording of their op-lims changed (or
customized) before they were issues (when it might arguably be easier to
accomplish)? Maybe even talk to the DAR before he comes out and ask him
how they are going to be worded..
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Dj and others say:
>
> << experimental aircraft flying day VFR do not have to comply
> with 91.205. Your Operating Limitations on your
> experimental aircraft generally say something like "After
> completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately
> equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with
> 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only". >>
>
> My operating limitations say:
>
> "The aircraft shall contain .. equipment as required for type of
> flight, in accordance with FAR # 91.205." No exceptions for me.
>
> The moral here is better check your own specific operating
> limitations before thinking a generalized table is valid for you.
>
> But remember, the question was what is legal not reasonable. My
> planes always have a compass even if it's not "required".
>
> Tom Kuffel
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
In a message dated 11/25/2007 5:05:29 PM Central Standard Time,
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes:
Call the EAA legal department. They don't work in a vacuum, they work with
the FAA.
>>>
Debate this all you want- bottom line is that when the DAR is standing in
front of you, inspection done and paperwork sitting on the desk awaiting a
signature and he/she sez "I'm sorry, but you don't have (blahblahblahblah) so I
can't issue your certificate- but get into compliance and make another appointment
(and bring a check for another $100 for my trouble) and I'll slip you the
pink...
You folks know your airplanes inside & out- does it make any sense to NOT get
to know your DAR and what he/she expects to see on the appointed day
beforehand?
Avoid surprises- preflight your DAR...
Mark
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Since I will soon be spending a lot of time with my DAR, I took a lot of
interest in this discussion and I think I learned something out of it.
Thanks to all of you, especially Ron Parigor. The more I learn about the
FAR's the better off I am, in my opinion, and this group is a wealth of
knowledge on the subject. I will be very careful when I read my op limits.
Rick Girard
On Nov 26, 2007 7:26 PM, Eric Newton wrote:
> enewton57(at)cableone.net>
>
> I'm NOT "fretting" over the money - I'm fretting over cluttering up my
> glareshield with something I don't really need. Sorry if I irritated you.
>
> "Next topic" is fine with me.
>
> Eric Newton
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:09 PM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
> Inspection
>
>
> >
> > I completely agree. Why do some fret over such trivial bs when there are
> > much bigger problems behind your panel? If you want to be a real cheapo,
> > just borrow one from your neighbor. For the price of my 330 transponder
> > I could decorate the hanger with compasses.
> >
> > Next topic please
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > brinker(at)suddenlinkmail.com
> > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:03 PM
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
> > Inspection
> >
> >
> >
> > The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments most
> > experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install one
> > that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one could
> > just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place. I
> > don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the compass
> > to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse
> > something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing".
> > This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy.
> >
> > Randy
> >
> >
> > ---- The Kuffels wrote:
> >> -->
> >>
> >> I hesitate to get involved in a "discussion" with George
> >> (gmcjetpilot). He is correct about type certified aircraft
> >> needing a "nonstabilized magnetic compass" but homebuilts only
> >> needing a "Magnetic Direction Indicator" But his statement "you
> >> can fly without a compass at all in an experimental for VFR day.
> >> However for VFR night/IFR you do need a compass" is in error.
> >>
> >> AOPA always advises in their CFI refresher clinics to reply to
> >> any FAR question with "I don't know. Let's read what they say."
> >>
> >> Parts 23 (General Aviation and Commuter) and 25 (Transport) cover
> >> certification of aircraft. They contain the only reference in
> >> the FARs to a compass equipment requirement. And they don't
> >> apply to homebuilt experimental aircraft. By reference, we do
> >> have to comply with 91.205 which covers required equipment for
> >> day VFR, night VFR and IFR (day or night) among other conditions.
> >>
> >> 91.205(b) is day VFR. 91.205(b)(3) requires a "Magnetic
> >> Direction Indicator" without any other qualification. This is
> >> the legal authority to use a Dynon in lieu of a wet compass.
> >>
> >> 91.205(c) covers night VFR. It says you must have the stuff in
> >> 91.205(b) and then some other stuff (lights, etc.) but no other
> >> reference to direction. But we have already established
> >> 91.205(b) doesn't require a compass. Thus neither does 91.205(c)
> >> for night VFR.
> >>
> >> 91.205(d) is for IFR. Same story. It requires the stuff in
> >> 91.205(b) and, for night, the stuff in 91.205(c) and then a lot
> >> of other stuff without reference to any compass. 91.205(d)(9)
> >> does require a "Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro
> >> or equivalent)". The "or equivalent" is what lets the Dynon also
> >> be acceptable for IFR.
> >>
> >> Bottom line there is no *legal* requirement for a homebuilt
> >> experimental aircraft to have a compass for day, night or IFR.
> >> But I still have one to avoid hassles (and as a backup).
> >>
> >> The idea of temporarily mounting a cheap compass might put you in
> >> a gray area. It can be argued if your plane was certified with a
> >> compass then it must always have a compass. Removal might give
> >> an out to an insurance company or a justification to a "helpful"
> >> FAA ramp or accident inspector.
> >>
> >> Tom Kuffel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Was Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
The contents of the OP Limits are dictated by the local FSDO, and except for
some minor points cannot be changed by the ABDAR without approval from the
FSDO.
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 Matt
Prather
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Was Compass Requirements for FAA
Inspection
Has anyone tried to have the wording of their op-lims changed (or
customized) before they were issues (when it might arguably be easier to
accomplish)? Maybe even talk to the DAR before he comes out and ask him
how they are going to be worded..
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Dj and others say:
>
> << experimental aircraft flying day VFR do not have to comply
> with 91.205. Your Operating Limitations on your
> experimental aircraft generally say something like "After
> completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately
> equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with
> 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only". >>
>
> My operating limitations say:
>
> "The aircraft shall contain .. equipment as required for type of
> flight, in accordance with FAR # 91.205." No exceptions for me.
>
> The moral here is better check your own specific operating
> limitations before thinking a generalized table is valid for you.
>
> But remember, the question was what is legal not reasonable. My
> planes always have a compass even if it's not "required".
>
> Tom Kuffel
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [Please Read] What are "The Lists" and Who's This Matt |
Dralle?
Dear Listers,
Who is Matt Dralle and what exactly are these Lists? Well, I've been working in
the information technology industry for nearly 25 years primarily in computer
networking design and implementation. I have also done extensive work in web
development and CGI design during that time, along with some embedded system
development as well.
I started the Matronics Email Lists back in 1990 with about 30 fellow RV builders
from around the world. Since that time, I have added 63 other kinds of aircraft
related Lists to the line up and numerous other List related services such
as the Forums, Wiki, Archives and Search Engine just to name a few.
For flexibility and reliability, I have chosen to run all of my own servers here
locally. Other List-related systems include a 1 Gigabit, fully switched network
infrastructure, a commercial-grade Netscreen firewall, a Barracuda spam filter,
a local T1 Internet router, and a commercial-grade business T1 Internet
connection with full static addressing.
The computer servers found here include a quad-processor Xeon Linux server for
List web services, a dual-processor Xeon Linux system dedicated to the email processing
List functions, and another P4 Linux system serving as a remote storage
disk farm for the archives, databases, and for an on-line hard drive-based
backup system with 3.2 Terra Bytes of storage! This entire system is protected
by three large, commercial-grade uninterrupted power supply (UPS) systems that
assure the Lists are available even during a local power outage! Speaking
of power, imagine how much electricity it takes to run all of these systems. One
month last Summer, I had a staggering $1368 bill for electricity alone!
I recently upgraded all of the computer racking infrastructure including new power
feeds and dedicated air conditioning for the room that serves as the Computer
Center for the Matronics Email Lists. Last year I added another rack to
house the MONSTER quad-processor web system that didn't quite fit into the first
rack! Here's a composite photo of the List Computer Center before the addition
of the second rack:
http://www.matronics.com/MattDralle-ListComputerCenter.jpg
As you can see, I take running these Lists very seriously and I am dedicated to
providing an always-on, 24x7x365 experience for each and every Lister.
But building and running this system isn't cheap. As I've stated before, I don't
support any of these systems with commercial advertising on the Lists. It is
supported 100% through List member Contributions! That means you... and you...
and YOU!
To that end, I hold a List Fund Raiser each November and ask that members make
a small Contribution to support the continued operation and upgrade of this ever-expanding
system. Its solely YOUR Contributions that keeps it running!
Won't you please take a moment to make a Contribution to support these Lists!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore CA 94551-0347
USA
(Please include your email address on the check!)
There are some great gifts available with qualifying Contribution levels too!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Compass Requirements for FAA |
4/27/2007
Hello George, You wrote:
1) "See the list below. Not sure if the pagination will display properly."
Thank you for giving my table more exposure. If anyone would like a copy of
this table in Microsoft Word, properly paginated, just email me and I will
send you one as an attachment to a return email.
2) "There is a need to rewrite the FAR's."
Here is an invitation to do so.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-22346.pdf
'OC' (Owen C. Baker) Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
--------------------------------------------------
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
>From: The Kuffels kuffel(at)cyberport.net
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
Tom I hesitate to discuss on AeroElectic as well but the reason is below. If
you don't believe me call EAA legal. (see the table below) I agree good
practice
and what you can get away with are not the same. It comes down to FAA Order
8130.2F, which omits Day VFR. However ELT and transponder may still be
needed.
According to the EAA you can fly with out ANY instruments in an experimental
DAY VFR, ANY!. See the list below. Not sure if the pagination will display
properly.
>Inspection
------------ BIG SKIP ---------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
11/27/2007
Hello Tom, You wrote: "The aircraft shall contain .. equipment as required
for type of
flight, in accordance with FAR # 91.205." No exceptions for me."
Good advice. Here is what FAA Order 8130.2F, up to date with Change 3 dated
4/18/2007 incorporated, says should be written into your aircraft's
Operating Limitations:
"153. b. (8) After completion of phase I flight testing, unless
appropriately equipped for night
and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be
operated under VFR, day only."
You can read this on the FAA's own web site here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/1ba6ee60e8779bd7862572c90063c0ac/$FILE/Order%208130.2f%20incorp%20with%20chg%203.pdf
It would appear that your FAA Inspector or DAR did not follow the FAA order
when he wrote your aircraft's Operating Limitations.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
--------------------------------------------------------
From: The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
Dj and others say:
<< experimental aircraft flying day VFR do not have to comply
with 91.205. Your Operating Limitations on your
experimental aircraft generally say something like "After
completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately
equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with
91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only". >>
My operating limitations say:
"The aircraft shall contain .. equipment as required for type of
flight, in accordance with FAR # 91.205." No exceptions for me.
The moral here is better check your own specific operating
limitations before thinking a generalized table is valid for you.
But remember, the question was what is legal not reasonable. My
planes always have a compass even if it's not "required".
Tom Kuffel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA |
The new FAR=92s should read like this: For all certified experimental
aircraft fly at your own risk! And enjoy!
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
>From: The Kuffels HYPERLINK
"mailto:kuffel(at)cyberport.net"kuffel(at)cyberport.net
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
>Inspection
>
>I hesitate to get involved in a "discussion" with George
>(gmcjetpilot). He is correct about type certified aircraft
>needing a "nonstabilized magnetic compass" but homebuilts only
>needing a "Magnetic Direction Indicator" But his statement "you
>can fly without a compass at all in an experimental for VFR day.
>However for VFR night/IFR you do need a compass" is in error.
Tom I hesitate to discuss on AeroElectic as well but the reason is
below. If you don't believe me call EAA legal. (see the table below) I
agree good practice and what you can get away with are not the same. It
comes down to FAA Order 8130.2F, which omits Day VFR. However ELT and
transponder may still be needed. According to the EAA you can fly with
out ANY instruments in an experimental DAY VFR, ANY!. See the list
below. Not sure if the pagination will display properly.
I think your logic is GOOD but the FAR's are legal documents don't
always make sense, aka legal loop-holes. The FAA must follow the law.
However they have these "positions" that get inertia and become de facto
law. I am talking legal not practical or de facto positions.
Fact is the FAR's are struggling to keep up with modern EFIS GA planes.
You can lean and recive your pvt, inst ratings 100% in a Garmin 1000
airplane and its legal to fly IFR the day after your check ride in a
1978 steam gauge Cessna, or vise a verse. There is a need to rewrite the
FAR's.
MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
Introduction: The table below is intended to give the builder of amateur
built experimental aircraft a ready reference for the instrument and
equipment requirements for his aircraft. The builder should note that
some items required by the FAR=92s are described in the FAR=92s as
needing
to be approved, but since there are no certification standards
established for amateur built experimental aircraft no formal individual
item approval, such as meeting a TSO (Technical Standard Order) or FAR
Part 23, is required. However certain items must interface properly with
ATC (Air Traffic Control), other aircraft, or other entities external to
the aircraft. Transponders, communication radios, exterior lighting and
ELT=92s (Emergency Locator Transmitters) are examples of such equipment.
Therefore, the builder can expect that the initial airworthiness
inspection of his aircraft will require evidence that this type of
equipment in the aircraft is acceptable to the FAA.
The Special Airworthiness Certificate issued for each amateur built
experimental aircraft includes specific Operating Limitations. Per FAA
Order 8130.2F the Operating Limitations state: =93After completion of
Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or
instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be
operated under VFR, day only.=94 The FAR=92s, FAA Order 8130.2F, and
current FAA policy have been used in constructing the below amateur
built experimental aircraft configuration requirements table.
THIS TABLE DOES NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BEST PRACTICES.
INSTALLING ONLY THE MINIMUM REQUIRED ITEMS MAY NOT BE PRUDENT OR SAFE.
By Owen C. Baker with appreciation to Richard E. Koehler.
MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
DAY NIGHT DAY OR
FAR &
ITEM DESCRIPTION (See Notes Below Table) VFR VFR
NIGHT IFR
1.
91.205 (b) (1) Airspeed Indicator NR R R
2.
91.205 (b) (2) Altimeter NR R R
3.
91.205 (b) (3) Magnetic Direction Indicator NR R
R
4.
91.205 (b) (4) Tachometer for Each Engine NR R
R
5.
91.205 (b) (5) Oil Pressure Gauge for Each Engine
Using a Pressure System NR R R
6.
91.205 (b) (6) Temperature Gauge for Each
Liquid Cooled Engine NR R R
7.
91.205 (b) (7) Oil Temperature Gauge for Each
Air Cooled Engine NR R R
8.
91.205 (b) (8) Manifold Pressure Gauge for
Each Altitude Engine NR R R
9. 91.205
(b) (9) Fuel Gauge Indicating Quantity of Fuel
In Each Tank NR R R
10. 91.205 (b) (10)
Landing Gear Position Indicator, If Retractable NR R
R
11.
91.205 (b) (11) Anti-Collision Light System -
(Small civil airplanes certified after 3/11/96) NR R
R
12. 91.205 (b)
(13) Approved Safety Belts With Metal to Metal
Buckles for Each Occupant (2 yrs or older) NR
R R
13. 91.205 (b) (14) Approved Shoulder Harness for Each Front
Seat - For
Small Civil Airplanes Manufactured After 7/18/78 NR R
R
14. 91.205 (b)
(15) ELT (If required by Sec. 91.207, i.e. >one seat
and >50 miles) AR AR AR
15. 91.205 (b) (16) Approved Shoulder Harness for Each Seat '
Airplanes With
9 or Less Seats Manufactured After 12/12/86 NR R
R
16. 91.205
(b) (17) Shoulder Harness for Each Seat For
Rotorcraft ' Manufactured After 9/16/92 NR R
R
17. 91.205
(c) (2) Approved Position (navigation) Lights NR R
R
18.
91.205 (c) (3) Anti-Collision Light System
(Systems installed after 8/11/71- see reference) NR R
R
19. 91.205 (c)
(5) Adequate Source of Electrical Energy for
Installed Equipment NR R R
20. 91.205
(c) (6) One Spare Set of Fuses or Three Fuses
of Each Kind
Required, Must be Accessible to Pilot In Flight NR R
R
21. 91.205 (d) (2)
Two-Way Radio Communication System and
Navigational
Equipment Appropriate to Ground Facilities Used NR NR
R
22.
91.205 (d) (3) Gyroscopic Rate of Turn Indicator
(Some Exceptions, See Reference) NR NR R
23.
91.205 (d) (4) Slip-Skid Indicator NR NR R
24.
91.205 (d) (5) Sensitive Altimeter Adjustable for
Barometric Pressure, (See FAR 91.411, Altimeter System
Inspection Required Every 24 Calendar Months) NR NR
R
25. 91.205 (d) (6)
Clock Displaying Hours, Minutes, and Seconds '
Sweep Second Pointer or Digital NR NR R
26.
91.205 (d) (7) Electrical Generator or Alternator
of Adequate Capacity NR NR R
27. 91.205 (d) (8) Gyroscopic Bank and Pitch Indicator
(Artificial Horizon) NR NR R
28.
91.205 (d) (9) Gyroscopic Direction Indicator
(Directional Gyro or Equivalent) NR NR R
29. 91.205 (e) DME Above FL 240
N/A N/A AR
30. 91.215, Transponder in Certain Airspace, (See FAR 91.413,
Inspection Required Every 24 Calendar Months) AR AR
AR
Notes:
(1) AR = As Required, NR =
Not
Required, N/A = Not Applicable, R = Required
(2) A fourth flight operation category, Day (only) Instruments, is not
included above.
ABEA Minimum Inst Requirements 7.doc 11/17/2005
_____
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you ">Try it now.
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
As a pilot / mechanic / builder I have worked to certify more then a
dozen homebuilt and exhibition airplanes. This is the best advice I
have read on this site so far. Get to know your DAR or FAA rep before
they show up. It costs a lot more time and money to change inspectors
after they show up.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
Inspection
In a message dated 11/25/2007 5:05:29 PM Central Standard Time,
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes:
Call the EAA legal department. They don't work in a vacuum, they work
with the FAA.
>>>
Debate this all you want- bottom line is that when the DAR is standing
in front of you, inspection done and paperwork sitting on the desk
awaiting a signature and he/she sez "I'm sorry, but you don't have
(blahblahblahblah) so I can't issue your certificate- but get into
compliance and make another appointment (and bring a check for another
$100 for my trouble) and I'll slip you the pink...
You folks know your airplanes inside & out- does it make any sense to
NOT get to know your DAR and what he/she expects to see on the appointed
day beforehand?
Avoid surprises- preflight your DAR...
Mark
_____
Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the HYPERLINK
"http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop0003000000000
1" \nhottest products and HYPERLINK
"http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aolto
p00030000000002" \ntop money wasters of 2007.
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Was Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
11/27/2007
Hello Matt, The answer to your question below is "sorta, yes".
My initial aircraft Operating Limitations were written without the aerobatic
permission paragraph. At my request the FAA Inspector went back to the
computer and rewrote them.
Then he put in a ridiculous restriction that the aircraft had to be tested
for aerobatics in some locally established aerobatic competition practice
boxes that were far too small for anything other than a competition
aerobatic aircraft to maneuver within.
Again at my request he eliminated that aerobatic box requirement and
expanded my test area so that I could do the testing well away from airways.
I also recently observed an FAA inspection of an RV-7 wherein the head
inspector was training some new inspectors. One of the new inspectors had
prepared the Operating Limitations and had forgotten to include one of the
required paragraphs and that was not discovered until the actual inspection.
They went back to the computer and rewrote the Operating Limitations.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Was Compass Requirements for FAA
Inspection
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Has anyone tried to have the wording of their op-lims changed (or
customized) before they were issues (when it might arguably be easier to
accomplish)? Maybe even talk to the DAR before he comes out and ask him
how they are going to be worded..
Regards,
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Was Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
11/27/2007
Hello Bruce, I would suggest that the contents of the Operating Limitations
are dictated by FAA Order 8130.2F. Available here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet
The FSDO, the FAA Inspectors, and the DAR's should be in compliance with
that order.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
---------------------------------------------
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Was Compass Requirements for FAA
Inspection
The contents of the OP Limits are dictated by the local FSDO, and except for
some minor points cannot be changed by the ABDAR without approval from the
FSDO.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Operating Limitations (Compass) |
bakerocb wrote:
<< FAA Order 8130.2F, up to date with Change 3 dated 4/18/2007
incorporated, says should be written .. It would appear that your
FAA Inspector or DAR did not follow the FAA order when he wrote
your aircraft's Operating Limitations. >>
Mine were written in 1996, who knows what the standards were
then. It's nice the limitations for my new homebuilt should be
more liberal. Fact remains, once they are issued, that's what
you must abide with. It's sometimes possible to get the
limitations changed but since I always comply with 91.205 anyway
it's more trouble than it's worth.
Lesson remains, check your own operating limitations. Nothing
else supersedes them unless the FAA specifically says so.
Tom Kuffel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Amen!
The magnetic Gyro in my Dynon backed up with my GNS430 and trutrak autopilo
t was more than adequate for Mr FSDO...I.e no compass required...I just cal
led him up defore the day to confirm.
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
In a message dated 11/25/2007 5:05:29 PM Central Standard Time, gmcjetpilot
@yahoo.com writes:
Call the EAA legal department. They don't work in a vacuum, they work with
the FAA.
>>>
Debate this all you want- bottom line is that when the DAR is standing in f
ront of you, inspection done and paperwork sitting on the desk awaiting a s
ignature and he/she sez "I'm sorry, but you don't have (blahblahblahblah) s
o I can't issue your certificate- but get into compliance and make another
appointment (and bring a check for another $100 for my trouble) and I'll sl
ip you the pink...
You folks know your airplanes inside & out- does it make any sense to NOT g
et to know your DAR and what he/she expects to see on the appointed day bef
orehand?
Avoid surprises- preflight your DAR...
Mark
________________________________
Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products<http://money.a
ol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001> and top money
wasters<http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID
=aoltop00030000000002> of 2007.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy" <brinker(at)suddenlinkmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
I personally do not want a panel mounted compass to take up
more space. And I do not want it taking up windscreen space either. With
all the fabrication and time involved in building a panel, building another
bracket is a small thing to me. From what I gather your installation will
be faily elaborate, mine will not be. I never said anything about storing it
in a baggage compartment. I said "If ramp checked one could just reach to
the readilly available compass and slide it into place." a compass is
relatively small and could be stored any number of places within reach. By
some slim chance it could even come in handy at times. So it would not be
wise to put it in a baggage compartment out of reach. A simple quick release
mount on top of the panel will work out well for me I think and it sounds as
though your method will work well for you.
But be aware that anything you recesss into the top of the
dash could accually take up panel space you may need later, since it will
protrude downward and could be an abstacal to any future device you may want
to mount. I am sure you probably thought of that also but figured I would
mention. If you have plenty of left over panel space this would probably be
of no consequence.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
>
>
> brinker(at)suddenlinkmail.com wrote:
>>
>> The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments most
>> experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install one
>> that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one could
>> just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place. I
>> don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the compass
>> to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse
>> something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing".
>> This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy.
> The hassle isn't having it on the panel, I would think. It is having to
> install it in the first place. If you've already gone through the
> fabrication to have a place for it, why would you store it in the baggage
> compartment 8*)
>
> I'm going to use a marine type compass on my project. One like
> http://www.fishreports.net/fishing-gear/images/marine-compass.jpg
>
> I'll cut a hole in the top of my dash that the compass will recess down
> into, right even with the bottom of the globe part. Just a half ball
> above the dash. It is just an ornamental piece in this day'n'age, so
> might as well make it an ornament.
>
>
> --
> 269.16.8/1153 - Release Date: 11/26/2007 9:08 PM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sam ray <sam95037(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | sweat soldering fast-on tabs |
I'm with you guys on only making what is necessary-
these projects take way too long as it is! I'm
building an RV8, which doesn't have a lot of firewall
space avaialable outside the forward baggage area,
that is also close to the battery, and stays clear of
the rudder pedals. I came up with a clever way to use
Bob's grounding system, but it requires making a
special single row of fast-on tabs. I'll have 6
fast-on tab pairs, which will be plently since I can
rely on Bob's new Instrument Panel Ground using D-subs
to handle the bulk of the wires. One of my design
goals is not to use the baggage compartments for
wiring and electrical systems overflow so I can have
maximum baggage space. Looks like I'll be able to pull
it off and also have a good grounding system. Thank
you for your all your help!
Sam Ray
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
I don't understand all this reluctance to install a compass. If you don't
have an EFIS or a slaved HSI then your going to want to reset your DG every
15 minutes or so. If most of you would sit in your airplane and look out the
windshield, you'd see that a compass mounted on your glare shield would not
take any sky viewing area at all. It would sit in the area blocked by your
nose cowling.
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 Randy
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
I personally do not want a panel mounted compass to take up
more space. And I do not want it taking up windscreen space either. With
all the fabrication and time involved in building a panel, building another
bracket is a small thing to me. From what I gather your installation will
be faily elaborate, mine will not be. I never said anything about storing it
in a baggage compartment. I said "If ramp checked one could just reach to
the readilly available compass and slide it into place." a compass is
relatively small and could be stored any number of places within reach. By
some slim chance it could even come in handy at times. So it would not be
wise to put it in a baggage compartment out of reach. A simple quick release
mount on top of the panel will work out well for me I think and it sounds as
though your method will work well for you.
But be aware that anything you recesss into the top of the
dash could accually take up panel space you may need later, since it will
protrude downward and could be an abstacal to any future device you may want
to mount. I am sure you probably thought of that also but figured I would
mention. If you have plenty of left over panel space this would probably be
of no consequence.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
>
>
> brinker(at)suddenlinkmail.com wrote:
>>
>> The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments most
>> experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install one
>> that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one could
>> just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place. I
>> don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the compass
>> to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse
>> something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing".
>> This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy.
> The hassle isn't having it on the panel, I would think. It is having to
> install it in the first place. If you've already gone through the
> fabrication to have a place for it, why would you store it in the baggage
> compartment 8*)
>
> I'm going to use a marine type compass on my project. One like
> http://www.fishreports.net/fishing-gear/images/marine-compass.jpg
>
> I'll cut a hole in the top of my dash that the compass will recess down
> into, right even with the bottom of the globe part. Just a half ball
> above the dash. It is just an ornamental piece in this day'n'age, so
> might as well make it an ornament.
>
>
> --
> 269.16.8/1153 - Release Date: 11/26/2007 9:08 PM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Operating Limitations (Compass) |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
The Kuffels wrote:
>
> Mine were written in 1996, who knows what the standards were then.
> It's nice the limitations for my new homebuilt should be more
> liberal. Fact remains, once they are issued, that's what you must
> abide with. It's sometimes possible to get the limitations changed
> but since I always
Hi Tom,
You are in luck! It is very easy to get your Op Lims updated to the
latest incarnation (or at least it was for me). My Glasair Op Lims were
written in 1983, and all it took was a trip to the local FSDO and they
gave me an updated set. No inspection necessary, just some paperwork.
I called ahead of time, explained what I wanted to do, and setup an appt
to have it done. No hassles at all.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA |
Is your EFIS mag heading GOOD or NOT.
I don't like games like getting a Walmart car compass and than taking it out.
Put it in if you are worried or need to because THE MAN said so and you don't
want to argue.
I never could get a wet compass to work well in a RV with the roll cage and small
seperation to engine, engine mount and other wires. I even tried Degaussing
the steel roll bar. With a self powered EFIS & GPS do I really need a wet compass
for VFR day? Do you need to back up your MAGNETIC EFIS heading?
Truth is the FAA is struggling with GPS and EFIS in the FARS. The FAA has non-regulatory
"Guidance", Policy, AIM, NPRM, AC, Orders, TSOs and its hard to keep
track of. Many are "reglatory in nature". Great than make them FAR's. They
need to update the FAR's to deal with the glass cockpit in GA planes. G
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
>Inspection
>
>
> The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments
most
> experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install
one
> that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one
could
> just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place.
I
> don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the
compass
> to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse
> something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing".
> This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy.
>> Sounds good to me. Cuts way down on the
>> need for "A glass of Jack and an aspirin
>> sandwich."
---------------------------------
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy" <brinker(at)suddenlinkmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
I will not have a DG I will have an EFIS with magnemometer. I
don't think anyone would argue with you of the nessesity of a compass with a
DG. The thing is that the far's are rather sketchy. As can be seen by the
arguments this thread has caused. One could be ramp checked in different
local's and each FAA inspector may have his opinion on how to read the FAR
also. I do agree that the compass will not take up much viewing area when
dash mounted but why permanantly mount one when it will be used very little
if at all.
Basicly all I am driving at is that if in doubt a simple easy to
build quick release dash mount might be the way to go. There is no way of
changing a mind that has been made up but there are ways to compromise. Each
to his own. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Personnaly I think
this simple subject has been beaten to death. Put a fork in me and roll me
over I'm done.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
>
> I don't understand all this reluctance to install a compass. If you don't
> have an EFIS or a slaved HSI then your going to want to reset your DG
> every
> 15 minutes or so. If most of you would sit in your airplane and look out
> the
> windshield, you'd see that a compass mounted on your glare shield would
> not
> take any sky viewing area at all. It would sit in the area blocked by your
> nose cowling.
>
> 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 Randy
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:05 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
> Inspection
>
>
>
> I personally do not want a panel mounted compass to take up
> more space. And I do not want it taking up windscreen space either. With
> all the fabrication and time involved in building a panel, building
> another
> bracket is a small thing to me. From what I gather your installation will
> be faily elaborate, mine will not be. I never said anything about storing
> it
>
> in a baggage compartment. I said "If ramp checked one could just reach to
> the readilly available compass and slide it into place." a compass is
> relatively small and could be stored any number of places within reach. By
> some slim chance it could even come in handy at times. So it would not be
> wise to put it in a baggage compartment out of reach. A simple quick
> release
>
> mount on top of the panel will work out well for me I think and it sounds
> as
>
> though your method will work well for you.
> But be aware that anything you recesss into the top of the
> dash could accually take up panel space you may need later, since it will
> protrude downward and could be an abstacal to any future device you may
> want
>
> to mount. I am sure you probably thought of that also but figured I would
> mention. If you have plenty of left over panel space this would probably
> be
> of no consequence.
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:41 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
> Inspection
>
>
>>
>>
>> brinker(at)suddenlinkmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments most
>>> experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install one
>>> that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one could
>>> just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place. I
>>> don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the compass
>>> to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse
>>> something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing".
>>> This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy.
>> The hassle isn't having it on the panel, I would think. It is having to
>> install it in the first place. If you've already gone through the
>> fabrication to have a place for it, why would you store it in the baggage
>> compartment 8*)
>>
>> I'm going to use a marine type compass on my project. One like
>> http://www.fishreports.net/fishing-gear/images/marine-compass.jpg
>>
>> I'll cut a hole in the top of my dash that the compass will recess down
>> into, right even with the bottom of the globe part. Just a half ball
>> above the dash. It is just an ornamental piece in this day'n'age, so
>> might as well make it an ornament.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 269.16.8/1153 - Release Date: 11/26/2007 9:08 PM
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 11/26/2007 9:08 PM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Randy wrote:
> But be aware that anything you recesss into the top of
> the dash could accually take up panel space you may need later, since
> it will protrude downward and could be an abstacal to any future
> device you may want to mount. I am sure you probably thought of that
> also but figured I would mention. If you have plenty of left over
> panel space this would probably be of no consequence.
>
Good point, Randy. Everyone's situation is different.
The underside of my panel looks like this:
http://ernest.isa-geek.org/Delta/Pictures/InstrumentPanelUnderside.jpg
The front side looks like:
http://ernest.isa-geek.org/Delta/Pictures/InstrumentPanelComplete.jpg
I already have the GPS antennae slid into a pocket there. I found a
compass at Autozone for $9 last night. It actually has compensators to
adjust it. It's about 1.5" high and 2" square. Only about 1" will need
to protrude above the panel, and the rest could well fit between a
couple other instruments.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy" <brinker(at)suddenlinkmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Ernest you are building a very interesting plane. I'll
bet you will have a hard time with a quick arrival or departure at the small
airports with the inquisitive airport bums. lol
Very nice job on the panel. If I need advise on building
with resin I know who to contact.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
>
>
> Randy wrote:
>> But be aware that anything you recesss into the top of the
>> dash could accually take up panel space you may need later, since it will
>> protrude downward and could be an abstacal to any future device you may
>> want to mount. I am sure you probably thought of that also but figured I
>> would mention. If you have plenty of left over panel space this would
>> probably be of no consequence.
>>
> Good point, Randy. Everyone's situation is different.
>
> The underside of my panel looks like this:
> http://ernest.isa-geek.org/Delta/Pictures/InstrumentPanelUnderside.jpg
>
> The front side looks like:
> http://ernest.isa-geek.org/Delta/Pictures/InstrumentPanelComplete.jpg
>
> I already have the GPS antennae slid into a pocket there. I found a
> compass at Autozone for $9 last night. It actually has compensators to
> adjust it. It's about 1.5" high and 2" square. Only about 1" will need
> to protrude above the panel, and the rest could well fit between a couple
> other instruments.
>
>
> --
> 269.16.8/1153 - Release Date: 11/26/2007 9:08 PM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions |
| From: | "BuckWynd" <buckwynd(at)aol.com> |
It's that time in my building process where I'm making the big decisions regarding
the electrical system. At this point I like the idea of a 20-amp aux alternator
in addition to the main alternator. I want to see if I've got my design
concepts straight here. Maybe someone can help.
1. What is the main benefit of a Z-13/20 over a Z-12 system? Is it that with a
Z-12, you must manually load-shed your system in the event of a main alternator
failure? Both designs have 20-amp aux alternators, both have one main battery,
and both have E-buses. The biggest difference I can see is that the Z-13/20
has an SPDT "E-Bus Alt Master" switch controlling an E-bus contactor, while the
Z-12 merely has a switch powering the E-bus from the main battery.
2. This one might help me answer the previous question for myself: On the Z-13/20
system, is the "E-bus Alt Master" switch intended to remain off until needed,
or does it stay on during normal ops, allowing the 20A alternator to pick up
the E-bus load after a failure of the main alternator?
3. Although my planned E-bus load is approximately 10A right now, I'd definitely
consider lowering it below 8A, and use a SD-8 PM alternator and the Z-13/8 design,
if the complexity and weight were big enough of an issue. While perusing
the two designs side-by-side, I could not help but notice that the 8A alternator
requires the use of a voltage regulator, a 20-50uF capacitor, an over-voltage
module, a contactor and the related connectors and wiring for these items.
The 20A alternator requires just an LR-3 controller, apparently. Is the weight
savings of the 8A alternator worth the tradeoff in less individual components
and wiring that is apparently required for a 20A one? I can't find the weights
of these items anywhere.
Thanks to the members of this list for a great learning resource!
--------
Buck Wyndham
RV-8 N18XL (working on fuselage & systems)
Northern Illinois
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=148911#148911
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Randy wrote:
>
>
> Ernest you are building a very interesting plane.
> I'll bet you will have a hard time with a quick arrival or departure
> at the small airports with the inquisitive airport bums. lol
> Very nice job on the panel. If I need advise on
> building with resin I know who to contact.
>
Thank you, but be aware that I'm careful not to take to many closeups of
my resin work. 8*)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions |
>
>It's that time in my building process where I'm making the big decisions
>regarding the electrical system. At this point I like the idea of a 20-amp
>aux alternator in addition to the main alternator. I want to see if I've
>got my design concepts straight here. Maybe someone can help.
>
>1. What is the main benefit of a Z-13/20 over a Z-12 system? Is it that
>with a Z-12, you must manually load-shed your system in the event of a
>main alternator failure? Both designs have 20-amp aux alternators, both
>have one main battery, and both have E-buses. The biggest difference I can
>see is that the Z-13/20 has an SPDT "E-Bus Alt Master" switch controlling
>an E-bus contactor, while the Z-12 merely has a switch powering the E-bus
>from the main battery.
First, why are you considering the SD20 in the first
place. How do you plan to use your airplane and what
equipment do you plan to install that drives a
10+ amps ebus loads?
>2. This one might help me answer the previous question for myself: On the
>Z-13/20 system, is the "E-bus Alt Master" switch intended to remain off
>until needed, or does it stay on during normal ops, allowing the 20A
>alternator to pick up the E-bus load after a failure of the main alternator?
>
>3. Although my planned E-bus load is approximately 10A right now, I'd
>definitely consider lowering it below 8A, and use a SD-8 PM alternator and
>the Z-13/8 design, if the complexity and weight were big enough of an
>issue. While perusing the two designs side-by-side, I could not help but
>notice that the 8A alternator requires the use of a voltage regulator, a
>20-50uF capacitor, an over-voltage module, a contactor and the related
>connectors and wiring for these items. The 20A alternator requires just an
>LR-3 controller, apparently. Is the weight savings of the 8A alternator
>worth the tradeoff in less individual components and wiring that is
>apparently required for a 20A one? I can't find the weights of these items
>anywhere.
I'm having trouble imagining any ENDURANCE-bus load
that makes addition of 6 pounds and ~$700 to build
costs an attractive notion.
Let's talk about that before we dissect architectures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Newton" <enewton57(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
My Dynon EFIS has a separate, remote magnetic compass that feeds it heading
info. My feeling is - No need for another magnetic compass when you already
have one.
Eric Newton
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
>
> I don't understand all this reluctance to install a compass. If you don't
> have an EFIS or a slaved HSI then your going to want to reset your DG
> every
> 15 minutes or so. If most of you would sit in your airplane and look out
> the
> windshield, you'd see that a compass mounted on your glare shield would
> not
> take any sky viewing area at all. It would sit in the area blocked by your
> nose cowling.
>
> 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 Randy
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:05 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
> Inspection
>
>
>
> I personally do not want a panel mounted compass to take up
> more space. And I do not want it taking up windscreen space either. With
> all the fabrication and time involved in building a panel, building
> another
> bracket is a small thing to me. From what I gather your installation will
> be faily elaborate, mine will not be. I never said anything about storing
> it
>
> in a baggage compartment. I said "If ramp checked one could just reach to
> the readilly available compass and slide it into place." a compass is
> relatively small and could be stored any number of places within reach. By
> some slim chance it could even come in handy at times. So it would not be
> wise to put it in a baggage compartment out of reach. A simple quick
> release
>
> mount on top of the panel will work out well for me I think and it sounds
> as
>
> though your method will work well for you.
> But be aware that anything you recesss into the top of the
> dash could accually take up panel space you may need later, since it will
> protrude downward and could be an abstacal to any future device you may
> want
>
> to mount. I am sure you probably thought of that also but figured I would
> mention. If you have plenty of left over panel space this would probably
> be
> of no consequence.
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:41 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
> Inspection
>
>
>>
>>
>> brinker(at)suddenlinkmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments most
>>> experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install one
>>> that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one could
>>> just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place. I
>>> don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the compass
>>> to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse
>>> something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing".
>>> This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy.
>> The hassle isn't having it on the panel, I would think. It is having to
>> install it in the first place. If you've already gone through the
>> fabrication to have a place for it, why would you store it in the baggage
>> compartment 8*)
>>
>> I'm going to use a marine type compass on my project. One like
>> http://www.fishreports.net/fishing-gear/images/marine-compass.jpg
>>
>> I'll cut a hole in the top of my dash that the compass will recess down
>> into, right even with the bottom of the globe part. Just a half ball
>> above the dash. It is just an ornamental piece in this day'n'age, so
>> might as well make it an ornament.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 269.16.8/1153 - Release Date: 11/26/2007 9:08 PM
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
What's a DG?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
Inspection
I don't understand all this reluctance to install a compass. If you
don't
have an EFIS or a slaved HSI then your going to want to reset your DG
every
15 minutes or so. If most of you would sit in your airplane and look out
the
windshield, you'd see that a compass mounted on your glare shield would
not
take any sky viewing area at all. It would sit in the area blocked by
your
nose cowling.
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 Randy
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
Inspection
I personally do not want a panel mounted compass to take
up
more space. And I do not want it taking up windscreen space either.
With
all the fabrication and time involved in building a panel, building
another
bracket is a small thing to me. From what I gather your installation
will
be faily elaborate, mine will not be. I never said anything about
storing it
in a baggage compartment. I said "If ramp checked one could just reach
to
the readilly available compass and slide it into place." a compass is
relatively small and could be stored any number of places within reach.
By
some slim chance it could even come in handy at times. So it would not
be
wise to put it in a baggage compartment out of reach. A simple quick
release
mount on top of the panel will work out well for me I think and it
sounds as
though your method will work well for you.
But be aware that anything you recesss into the top of the
dash could accually take up panel space you may need later, since it
will
protrude downward and could be an abstacal to any future device you may
want
to mount. I am sure you probably thought of that also but figured I
would
mention. If you have plenty of left over panel space this would probably
be
of no consequence.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
Inspection
>
>
> brinker(at)suddenlinkmail.com wrote:
>>
>> The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments
most
>> experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install
one
>> that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one
could
>> just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place.
I
>> don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the
compass
>> to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse
>> something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing".
>> This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy.
> The hassle isn't having it on the panel, I would think. It is having
to
> install it in the first place. If you've already gone through the
> fabrication to have a place for it, why would you store it in the
baggage
> compartment 8*)
>
> I'm going to use a marine type compass on my project. One like
> http://www.fishreports.net/fishing-gear/images/marine-compass.jpg
>
> I'll cut a hole in the top of my dash that the compass will recess
down
> into, right even with the bottom of the globe part. Just a half ball
> above the dash. It is just an ornamental piece in this day'n'age, so
> might as well make it an ornament.
>
>
> --
> 269.16.8/1153 - Release Date: 11/26/2007 9:08 PM
>
>
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Good Evening mlas,
I don't know if you have your tongue in your cheek, but I am confident he
was referring to a Directional Gyroscope
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/27/2007 7:28:06 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mlas(at)cox.net writes:
What's a DG?
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Directional gyro.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:23 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
>
> What's a DG?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
> Gray
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:25 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
> Inspection
>
>
>
> I don't understand all this reluctance to install a compass. If you
> don't
> have an EFIS or a slaved HSI then your going to want to reset your DG
> every
> 15 minutes or so. If most of you would sit in your airplane and look out
> the
> windshield, you'd see that a compass mounted on your glare shield would
> not
> take any sky viewing area at all. It would sit in the area blocked by
> your
> nose cowling.
>
> 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 Randy
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:05 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
> Inspection
>
>
>
> I personally do not want a panel mounted compass to take
> up
> more space. And I do not want it taking up windscreen space either.
> With
> all the fabrication and time involved in building a panel, building
> another
> bracket is a small thing to me. From what I gather your installation
> will
> be faily elaborate, mine will not be. I never said anything about
> storing it
>
> in a baggage compartment. I said "If ramp checked one could just reach
> to
> the readilly available compass and slide it into place." a compass is
> relatively small and could be stored any number of places within reach.
> By
> some slim chance it could even come in handy at times. So it would not
> be
> wise to put it in a baggage compartment out of reach. A simple quick
> release
>
> mount on top of the panel will work out well for me I think and it
> sounds as
>
> though your method will work well for you.
> But be aware that anything you recesss into the top of the
>
> dash could accually take up panel space you may need later, since it
> will
> protrude downward and could be an abstacal to any future device you may
> want
>
> to mount. I am sure you probably thought of that also but figured I
> would
> mention. If you have plenty of left over panel space this would probably
> be
> of no consequence.
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:41 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
> Inspection
>
>
>>
>>
>> brinker(at)suddenlinkmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments
> most
>>> experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install
> one
>>> that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one
> could
>>> just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place.
> I
>>> don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the
> compass
>>> to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse
>>> something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing".
>
>>> This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy.
>> The hassle isn't having it on the panel, I would think. It is having
> to
>> install it in the first place. If you've already gone through the
>> fabrication to have a place for it, why would you store it in the
> baggage
>> compartment 8*)
>>
>> I'm going to use a marine type compass on my project. One like
>> http://www.fishreports.net/fishing-gear/images/marine-compass.jpg
>>
>> I'll cut a hole in the top of my dash that the compass will recess
> down
>> into, right even with the bottom of the globe part. Just a half ball
>> above the dash. It is just an ornamental piece in this day'n'age, so
>> might as well make it an ornament.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 269.16.8/1153 - Release Date: 11/26/2007 9:08 PM
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
>
>
> 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions |
| From: | "BuckWynd" <buckwynd(at)aol.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net wrote:
> First, why are you considering the SD20 in the first
> place. How do you plan to use your airplane and what
> equipment do you plan to install that drives a
> 10+ amps ebus loads?
> I'm having trouble imagining any ENDURANCE-bus load
> that makes addition of 6 pounds and ~$700 to build
> costs an attractive notion.
>
> Let's talk about that before we dissect architectures.
>
Hi Bob,
To answer your questions, I'm considering installing an SD20 because, frankly,
a). it's available and b). I'm comfortable with a bit of "overkill" when it comes
to electrical power generation. Cost is simply not an issue, and weight-saving,
while important to me, is secondary to building a robust electrical system.
(As an aside, I'm saving over 30 pounds from a "stock" RV-8 by using a lightweight
composite prop and lightweight aluminum landing gear. Other improvements
will save even more weight.)
My airplane will be used for a lot of day VFR, but also some fairly regular IFR
cross-country, and occassional night flying. It wil be highly-electrical dependent,
with dual GRT EFIS displays, a backup Dynon D-10A, a Garmin 430, a Garmin
SL-30, a Garmin 330 transponder, a PMA9000 audio panel, and a Trutrak Digiflight
II VSVG autopilot. Not all of these items are on the E-bus, of course,
but some are.
My concept of the E-bus (and I do NOT mind calling it an Essential Bus -- it does
not scare me or exude a negative connotation -- it's what every sophisticated
airplane I've flown in 28 years calls it) is to cover the loads of the aircraft's
important avionics and some carefully selected accessories while I comfortably
divert to a suitable airport where maintenance can be undertaken. I do
not necessarily want to continue to my planned destination -- that goes against
my personal ideas of safety. (That topic is a whole other thread which I do
not want to get into here...)
So there you have it -- I guess I'm attracted to a 20-amp alternator because it
exists; because installing one would allow me a margin of "comfortable operability"
without utilizing my main battery's capacity one iota while I'm diverting
to a suitable airport; and because cost is not part of the equation.
So what remains in the equation are weight, complexity (number of parts, wires
and connectors), and reliability.
If you need to have a complete list of my E-bus loads, I'll certainly post them
here in a day or so when I return home and consult my notebook...
Thanks in advance. I truly appreciate all input on this matter.
Buck
--------
Buck Wyndham
RV-8 N18XL (working on fuselage & systems)
Northern Illinois
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=148988#148988
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
It was answer A. :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
Inspection
Good Evening mlas,
I don't know if you have your tongue in your cheek, but I am confident
he was referring to a Directional Gyroscope
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/27/2007 7:28:06 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mlas(at)cox.net writes:
What's a DG?
_____
Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the HYPERLINK
"http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop0003000000000
1" \nhottest products and HYPERLINK
"http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aolto
p00030000000002" \ntop money wasters of 2007.
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Batteries.com AA Alkaline Cell Tests |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 07:26 11/24/2007, you wrote:
>Typically, these "low cost" cells can be had for
>20 to 25-cents per cell. The cost per watt-hour
>for all devices tested to date have been relatively
>attractive.
Another source to check out...
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/campaigns/campaigntemplate.asp?CampaignID=389&CMP=EMC-TIGEREMAIL&SRCCODE=WEM1506C
or
http://tinyurl.com/24oj9b
For a selection from TigerDirect.
RonQ.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions |
>
>
>nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net wrote:
> > First, why are you considering the SD20 in the first
> > place. How do you plan to use your airplane and what
> > equipment do you plan to install that drives a
> > 10+ amps ebus loads?
>
>
> > I'm having trouble imagining any ENDURANCE-bus load
> > that makes addition of 6 pounds and ~$700 to build
> > costs an attractive notion.
> >
> > Let's talk about that before we dissect architectures.
> >
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>To answer your questions, I'm considering installing an SD20 because,
>frankly, a). it's available and b). I'm comfortable with a bit of
>"overkill" when it comes to electrical power generation. Cost is simply
>not an issue, and weight-saving, while important to me, is secondary to
>building a robust electrical system. (As an aside, I'm saving over 30
>pounds from a "stock" RV-8 by using a lightweight composite prop and
>lightweight aluminum landing gear. Other improvements will save even more
>weight.)
>
>My airplane will be used for a lot of day VFR, but also some fairly
>regular IFR cross-country, and occassional night flying. It wil be
>highly-electrical dependent, with dual GRT EFIS displays, a backup Dynon
>D-10A, a Garmin 430, a Garmin SL-30, a Garmin 330 transponder, a PMA9000
>audio panel, and a Trutrak Digiflight II VSVG autopilot. Not all of these
>items are on the E-bus, of course, but some are.
Which ones are and what are their en-route
current requirements?
>My concept of the E-bus (and I do NOT mind calling it an Essential Bus --
>it does not scare me or exude a negative connotation -- it's what every
>sophisticated airplane I've flown in 28 years calls it) is to cover the
>loads of the aircraft's important avionics and some carefully selected
>accessories while I comfortably divert to a suitable airport where
>maintenance can be undertaken. I do not necessarily want to continue to my
>planned destination -- that goes against my personal ideas of safety.
>(That topic is a whole other thread which I do not want to get into here...)
>
>So there you have it -- I guess I'm attracted to a 20-amp alternator
>because it exists; because installing one would allow me a margin of
>"comfortable operability" without utilizing my main battery's capacity one
>iota while I'm diverting to a suitable airport; and because cost is not
>part of the equation.
>
>So what remains in the equation are weight, complexity (number of parts,
>wires and connectors), and reliability.
>
>If you need to have a complete list of my E-bus loads, I'll certainly post
>them here in a day or so when I return home and consult my notebook...
Hmmmm . . . if you really want the SD-20, then
go with Z-12. Z-13/20 sucks and I'm taking it out
at the next revision. It wasn't a very good idea
in the first place. . . In fact, I think I'll
take it out of Appendix Z now.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
| From: | "AirMike" <Mikeabel(at)pacbell.net> |
While I agree with a lot of what you say, I must say that I once has a total electrical
failure and my PAI vertical card compass sure came in handy to fly the
reciprocal backs to Carson City from the middle of the Nevada desert
--------
OSH '08 or Bust
Q/B Kit - Doors/windows/fiberglass stuff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149018#149018
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Wow! A Ton of Comments! |
Dear Listers,
I've been getting a ton of great comments from Listers along with their List Support
Contributions lately! I've shared a bunch more below. Please read over
some of them and see what your fellow Listers think of the Lists and Forums.
There are just a couple more days left before the official end of this year's Fund
Raiser. Please make a Contribution today to support the continued upgrade
and operation of these services.
There are still lots of awesome gifts available, so browse the extensive selection
and pickup a nice item along with your qualifying Contribution.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you in advance for your generous support! It is very much appreciated!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
----------- What Listers Are Saying About The Lists -----------
In the big picture, you are most certainly saving lives.
The fact that you do it at a very good level of service,
quality, and simplicity is just icing on the cake. We
all owe you a debt of gratitude.
Bruce M
Can't go a single day without reading my lists. Even
when I am overseas.
Terry W
Best list ever. No comparison.
Johann J
I get the digest for the two lists I subscribe to each
morning -- they go great with my coffee! I can't tell
you how much I've learned from this great service...
Mark S
..great lists, best on the Net!
Robert S
It is very nice to enjoy a SPAM free list.
Ken L
You run a great list. Makes a builder feel like there's
lots of help out there for the asking, and it's
appreciated.
Steve T
The list is a very valuable resource.
Thomas S
You run a good list.
James G
Thanks for a great forum.
Jimmy Y
Thanks for a well-maintained list(s).
Michael M
Great job! Worth every penny!
Stephen T
Helps me learn and think about issues I didn't know I
didn't know.
Martin H
I find the list very useful...
Robert F
What you do provides me with daily contact with a passion
of my life, aviation.
Wendell M
..the list it is very valuable information.
Dwayne H
..a great service to homebuilders.
Andrew H
I have learned quite a lot from reading the Forums. I
have been reading at the forum pages and I like the way
it works.
Ron L
[The List] makes a builder feel like there's lots of
help out there for the asking, and it's appreciated.
Steve T
The list service many purposes, not the least of which is
motivation to join my fellow RVer in completing my project
and getting in the air.
John S
Thanks for running a great site. Its simplicity is its
greatness. Don't know how I would have been successful
without it.
Timothy F
..terrific service to experimental and general aviation.
James F
You have a well run operation. I am happy to support what
you do.
Mark S
A wonderful service to the GA community.
David M
Great list - let's keep it ad-free!
Ben C
They have been of great help, learning and friendship
for all the members Worldwide. Great job of yours, a
little idea that grew really big and wonderful.
Gary G
..a thoroughly enjoyable and informative List.
John W
A GREAT LEARNING TOOL!!
Dwayne Y
This is a very well-run list and it is a valuable resource
for the Pietenpol enthusiast.
Graham H
Thanks for running this great site - helps those of
us on the east of the pond keep in touch.
Malcolm H
Thanks for the major contribution to my continuing
education program.
Oldbob S
I'm just getting started in the building process & find
Matronics to be the most valuable site.
Scott D
Without the information and encouragement from the listers
my project would have been sitting in the corner of my shop
collecting dust long ago. Now it's almost ready for final
assemble and covering.
Edward G
Great List. No Ads, just RV-10 builders. Keep it
going.
Rick E
Wonderful source of info for building & flying...
Graham H
The Yak-list is a superb single source to get answers to
questions on the operation of these aircraft.
Craig W
This list is valuable to everyone and your hard work is
very much appreciated.
Jim S
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re-GPS Antenna Coax Length |
11/28/2007
Hello Wayne, I recently had my Garmin 430 upgraded to a 430W.
The Garmin installation manual specifically calls out both the type of cable
to be used (RGU 400 or 142) and the required length of that cable for the
430W installation.
The specific antenna cable length for the 430W installation is there to
provide the desired signal strength between the powered antenna and the
box -- not too strong, not too weak. The cable length that is excess to my
installation needs is just coiled up.
I don't know why the technician that you talked to was either ignorant of or
in violation of the installation manual instructions, but if you have his
name I would call back and ask him to clarify.
Please let us know what you learn.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
------------------------------------
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Avionics-List: Re-GPS Antenna Coax Length
When in doubt, go to the front end of the horse.
Straight from the "horse's mouth" (Garmin installation tech rep
913-397-8200); there is no requirement for either the GNS430 or GNS530W
minimum or maximum coax cable length.
Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | " Peter Laurence" <Dr.Laurence(at)mbdi.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions |
Buck,
I'll put my three cents in here.
Having wired two aiplanes as per Bob's drawings, I 've wonderd whether the E
buss concept was necessary. One wiring project was a velocity with a
B&c 40 amp alt on the vacuum pad, a 60 main with an E buss. It seems that
the only time one will have to use the E buss is 1. failure of the battery
contactor (and that's another issue ) or 2. failure of both alternators.
For that to happen your engine is probably not running!.
If your going to use a dual alternators, split the buses and eliminate the E
buss. Or, use a main buss and eliminate the E buss.
I'm wiring my RV9A and decided that all devices will go on the main buss.
In the event of an alt failure, pull the field breaker and if necessary,
turn off the battery contactor. Have a 50 to 60 amp breaker/switch from the
battery plus to the main buss. You become the E buss and shut down non
essentail devices--It takes about 5 to 10 seconds.
Close the breaker and you have an essential buss. It seems to me that at one
time or another, all these instruments are "essential" to flight.
Peter
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> To answer your questions, I'm considering installing an SD20 because,
> frankly, a). it's available and b). I'm comfortable with a bit of
> "overkill" when it comes to electrical power generation. Cost is simply
> not an issue, and weight-saving, while important to me, is secondary to
> building a robust electrical system. (As an aside, I'm saving over 30
> pounds from a "stock" RV-8 by using a lightweight composite prop and
> lightweight aluminum landing gear. Other improvements will save even more
> weight.)
>
> My airplane will be used for a lot of day VFR, but also some fairly
> regular IFR cross-country, and occassional night flying. It wil be
> highly-electrical dependent, with dual GRT EFIS displays, a backup Dynon
> D-10A, a Garmin 430, a Garmin SL-30, a Garmin 330 transponder, a PMA9000
> audio panel, and a Trutrak Digiflight II VSVG autopilot. Not all of these
> items are on the E-bus, of course, but some are.
>
> My concept of the E-bus (and I do NOT mind calling it an Essential Bus --
> it does not scare me or exude a negative connotation -- it's what every
> sophisticated airplane I've flown in 28 years calls it) is to cover the
> loads of the aircraft's important avionics and some carefully selected
> accessories while I comfortably divert to a suitable airport where
> maintenance can be undertaken. I do not necessarily want to continue to my
> planned destination -- that goes against my personal ideas of safety.
> (That topic is a whole other thread which I do not want to get into
> here...)
>
> So there you have it -- I guess I'm attracted to a 20-amp alternator
> because it exists; because installing one would allow me a margin of
> "comfortable operability" without utilizing my main battery's capacity one
> iota while I'm diverting to a suitable airport; and because cost is not
> part of the equation.
>
> So what remains in the equation are weight, complexity (number of parts,
> wires and connectors), and reliability.
>
> If you need to have a complete list of my E-bus loads, I'll certainly post
> them here in a day or so when I return home and consult my notebook...
>
> Thanks in advance. I truly appreciate all input on this matter.
>
> Buck
>
> --------
> Buck Wyndham
> RV-8 N18XL (working on fuselage & systems)
> Northern Illinois
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=148988#148988
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
>
>While I agree with a lot of what you say, I must say that I once has a
>total electrical failure and my PAI vertical card compass sure came in
>handy to fly the reciprocal backs to Carson City from the middle of the
>Nevada desert
That's why I fly with dual, $100 hand-held
GPS receivers that do not depend on power
from the ship's electrical system.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions |
>
>
>Buck,
>
>I'll put my three cents in here.
>
>Having wired two aiplanes as per Bob's drawings, I 've
>wonderd whether the E buss concept was necessary.
Not if you have design goals that eliminate it . . .
The concept of "necessary" is unique to individual
percepti
> One wiring project was a velocity with a B&c 40 amp alt on the vacuum
> pad, a 60 main with an E buss. It seems that the only time one will have
> to use the E buss is 1. failure of the battery contactor (and that's
> another issue ) or 2. failure of both alternators. For that to happen
> your engine is probably not running!.
Yup, that's figure Z-12 . . .
>If your going to use a dual alternators, split the buses and eliminate the
>E buss. Or, use a main buss and eliminate the E buss.
>I'm wiring my RV9A and decided that all devices will go on the main buss.
>In the event of an alt failure, pull the field breaker . . .
Your alternator field power doesn't go through the
ship's DC PWR MASTER switch?
> and if necessary, turn off the battery contactor.
. . . when would it be necesary? What indications
does the pilot get and how are they interpreted
to drive a decision to open the battery contactor?
>Have a 50 to 60 amp breaker/switch from the battery plus to the main buss.
????
>You become the E buss and shut down non essentail devices--It takes about
>5 to 10 seconds.
>Close the breaker and you have an essential buss. It seems to me that at
>one time or another, all these instruments are "essential" to flight.
The ENDURANCE-Bus is crafted for minimum power
consumption for battery only operations. In no
way is it intended or crafted to make any ESSENTIAL
device unavailable to the pilot. Further, piling
"all these instruments" into the classification
of "essential" suggests that everything on the
panel should have backups . . .
I respectfully suggest that (1) with modern
alternators and (2) artfully maintained RG
batteries that Z-11 offers DC SYSTEM reliability
that far exceeds that which is being flown
in tens of thousands of TC aircraft wired
like a 1970 C-150.
This condition exists irrespective of
the suite of devices installed or
which ones are deemed "essential".
If one does nothing other than to
exploit what modern alternators and
batteries have to offer, SYSTEM
reliability is at least equal to and
probably MUCH better than what's flying
in most light GA aircraft toay.
Exploiting an unused vacuum pump
pad by plugging the hole with something
other than a cover plate is icing on
the cake. An SD-8 alternator offers
ENDURANCE load support for a fist-
full of goodies for en-route operations
while retaining 100% of the well-
maintained battery's capacity for
approach to landing. An approach where EVERY
electro-whizzie in the airplane
is available for comfortable termination
of flight.
Note that all of the above makes no
mention of numbers, kinds or
"criticality" of any particular
piece of equipment. Crafting that
list (and deciding which bus to
drive it from) is driven by anticipate
missions to be flown, panel space and
weight issues and the size of one's
pocketbook.
But in no case, does the artfully
crafted, failure tolerant system
deprive the pilot of any piece of
functional equipment. Once the
alternator(s)/battery decisions are
are made, then it matters very little
what architecture is adopted.
This is where design goals should
strive to minimize weight, parts count
and pilot-duties for perceiving and
reacting to RARE failures of DC
PWR supply equipment.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions |
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>To answer your questions, I'm considering installing an SD20 because,
>frankly, a). it's available and b). I'm comfortable with a bit of
>"overkill" when it comes to electrical power generation. Cost is simply
>not an issue, and weight-saving, while important to me, is secondary to
>building a robust electrical system. (As an aside, I'm saving over 30
>pounds from a "stock" RV-8 by using a lightweight composite prop and
>lightweight aluminum landing gear. Other improvements will save even more
>weight.)
>
>My airplane will be used for a lot of day VFR, but also some fairly
>regular IFR cross-country, and occassional night flying. It wil be
>highly-electrical dependent, with dual GRT EFIS displays, a backup Dynon
>D-10A, a Garmin 430, a Garmin SL-30, a Garmin 330 transponder, a PMA9000
>audio panel, and a Trutrak Digiflight II VSVG autopilot. Not all of these
>items are on the E-bus, of course, but some are.
>
>My concept of the E-bus (and I do NOT mind calling it an Essential Bus --
>it does not scare me or exude a negative connotation -- it's what every
>sophisticated airplane I've flown in 28 years calls it) is to cover the
>loads of the aircraft's important avionics and some carefully selected
>accessories while I comfortably divert to a suitable airport where
>maintenance can be undertaken. I do not necessarily want to continue to my
>planned destination -- that goes against my personal ideas of safety.
>(That topic is a whole other thread which I do not want to get into here...)
>
>So there you have it -- I guess I'm attracted to a 20-amp alternator
>because it exists; because installing one would allow me a margin of
>"comfortable operability" without utilizing my main battery's capacity one
>iota while I'm diverting to a suitable airport; and because cost is not
>part of the equation.
>
>So what remains in the equation are weight, complexity (number of parts,
>wires and connectors), and reliability.
>
>If you need to have a complete list of my E-bus loads, I'll certainly post
>them here in a day or so when I return home and consult my notebook...
>
>Thanks in advance. I truly appreciate all input on this matter.
First, I'll suggest that your system should
be capable of continued flight to airport
of intended destination. Comfortable
completion of flight with a failed piece
of equipment is dependent upon planing
and understanding which leads to comfortable
decision making.
Yes, taking the family out to McD's with
$1,000 cash in hand assuages any concerns
about paying for the meal, but if you have
to traverse 30 miles of sparsely populated
terrain and have no spare tire, then your
cash comfort is overshadowed by your inability
to deal with an easily anticipated and
planned-for failure.
I'm only suggesting that your willingness
to pile on levels of comfort because you
have all this extra weight carrying ability
is 'easy' but perhaps not the best we know
how to do. I met an RV flyer at an airshow
some years ago with Z-14, dual EFIS (can
fly IFR from either seat) and the guy
said he wasn't instrument rated, didn't
fly with instrument rated passengers but
thought the system would improve on the
resale price of the airplane!
I'm only suggesting that the optimum design
minimizes weight, parts count, cost of
ownership and probability of pilot error
for failure management. Take care that
the "wad of hundreds in the wallet" don't
lull you into a false sense of security
while increasing overall cost of ownership
for your airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions |
| From: | "BuckWynd" <buckwynd(at)aol.com> |
Thanks, Bob, for the information. I agree that money does not buy happiness and
does not cover for poor design or sloppy implementation.
Im back from my trip, and Ive looked up the information on my particular requirements.
My enroute E-Bus loads:
EFIS/MFD 1 1.5 A
EFIS/MFD 2 1.5 A
AHRS/Magnetometer 0.25 A
EIS (Engine Monitor) 0.5 A
Alt Field 1.0 A
TruTrak Autopilot head 0.5 A
A/P servo Roll 1.0 A
A/P servo Pitch 1.0 A
Garmin 430 NAV/GPS 1.65 A
Garmin 330 1.0 A
Flexible map light 0.1 A
TOTAL: 10.0
Wow, you say. I see some stuff that could be moved off the bus. Yes, youre right.
The total is 10 amps, but I could move one of the EFIS displays and the EIS
off the E-bus, for a savings of 2 amps. However, the Garmin 430 draws up to 6
amps (intermittent) when transmitting, so were back up to 14 already. I could
consider the transmit feature of the radio to be off-limits until I get on the
ground. Airplanes can certainly be flown without transmitting on the radio.
I could also delete the autopilot head and servos, and just hand-fly.
These modifications would definitely keep me below 8 amps. However, my stated goal
is to be able to SAFELY and COMFORTABLY fly the airplane IFR to the nearest
suitable place where repairs can be made. Coordinating my divert with ATC and
getting vectors and an approach clearance are part of the safety and comfort
clause, in my opinion. Therefore, I think that both the transponder and radio
should be part of an IFR E-Bus. Similarly, an autopilot is an invaluable tool
in an irregular operation such as this -- a partial electrical failure in IFR
conditions.
By the way, my Dynon D-10A is not listed because it has an internal battery.
So lets say I install a backup 7.2 Ah battery for my EFIS displays, the EIS, and
the AHRS (something Ive been contemplating doing anyway). Were still at over
12 amps when the comm radio is transmitting. See the issue? If I want my alternator
to easily handle the entire E-bus load, not share it with the main battery
at all, an 8A alternator appears to be too small to handle my particular IFR
panel, at least when transmitting.
VFR is a totally different story. I can safely recover a plane VFR (or even IFR
but good VMC) with a zero load on my E-Bus. Its when we get into the clouds that
an 8A alternator appears to be insufficient for my needs.
I dont want to debate what should or should not be on a persons E-bus that discussion
could go on for years (and has). People can justify whatever makes them
comfortable.
Am I wrong in thinking that Id like to save my ENTIRE main battery for the approach
and landing phase of my emergency? If so, then I have no problem with an
8A aux alternator. Somebody slap me around if I need to get off that particular
train of thought.
Finally, Bob, you have recently been talking down the Z-13/20, but mostly without
further comment just that it sucks. Since youre the guy who designed it, Ill
have to take your word for it. But before I abandon all my cool CAD drawings
and start over, it would be helpful to know a bit more about why youve soured
on it does the design have some missing functionality, less-than-optimal reliability,
or a hidden gotcha that a person should know about? Is it that you
disagree with peoples design requirements and that you feel no one should have
a need for more than an 8A endurance load? Is the SD20 not living up to peoples
expectations somehow? I havent seen any of these things addressed here in this
forum.
Whatever the answer is, its just fine with me. I have no particular attachment
to any one design. I just want to get the job done: a 10+ amp E-bus, provided
entirely by a standby alternator.
If the Z-12 is the answer, great.
But how about a little more information for all of us regarding the Z-13/20?
Thanks, as always, for your input!
Buck
--------
Buck Wyndham
RV-8 N18XL (working on fuselage & systems)
Northern Illinois
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149148#149148
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
There are occasional questions about fusible links on the Aeroelectric.
Fusible links were common long ago, but lately engineers have eschewed them. I
have seen a demo online regarding what happens when a fusible link blows--the
wire inside vaporizes and the plasma arc blows through the covering. This is
not good in a bundle, or when fuel or flammables or conductive surfaces may be
present.
Usually instructions for making fusible links do include layers of non-flammable
silicone and fiber over-covering. The link covering may not be capable of enclosing
the rupture arc, especially since the rupture arc may occur (probably
will occur) near the ends.
So for those who have puzzled about the fusible link issue, here's my advice: Use
standard fuses/breakers or whatever instead. That's my plan.
"When trouble arises and things look bad,
there is always one individual who perceives
a solution and is willing to take command.
Very often, that individual is crazy.
--Dave Barry"
--------
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=149151#149151
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Re-post of info per request.
Each item has three categories Day VFR, Night VFR, IFR (day or night). The format
is still messed up but it should go through
MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
Introduction: The table below is intended to give the builder of amateur built
experimental
aircraft a ready reference for the instrument and equipment requirements for his
aircraft. The
builder should note that some items required by the FAR's are described in the
FAR's as
needing to be approved, but since there are no certification standards established
for amateur built experimental aircraft no formal individual item approval,
such as meeting a TSO (Technical Standard Order) or FAR Part 23, is required.
However certain items must interface properly with ATC (Air Traffic Control),
other aircraft, or other entities external to the aircraft. Transponders, communication
radios, exterior lighting and ELT's (Emergency
Locator Transmitters) are examples of such equipment. Therefore, the builder can
expect that the initial airworthiness inspection of his aircraft will require
evidence that this type of
equipment in the aircraft is acceptable to the FAA.
The Special Airworthiness Certificate issued for each amateur built experimental
aircraft
includes specific Operating Limitations. Per FAA Order 8130.2F the Operating Limitations
state: "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped
for night
and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated
under VFR,
day only." The FAR's, FAA Order 8130.2F, and current FAA policy have been used
in
constructing the below amateur built experimental aircraft configuration requirements
table.
THIS TABLE DOES NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BEST PRACTICES.
INSTALLING ONLY THE MINIMUM REQUIRED ITEMS MAY NOT BE PRUDENT OR
SAFE.
By Owen C. Baker with appreciation to Richard E. Koehler.
MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
FAR & ITEM DESCRIPTION (See Notes Below Table)
(DAY VFR) (NIGHT VFR) (IFR)
1. 91.205 (b) (1) Airspeed Indicator NR R R
2. 91.205 (b) (2) Altimeter NR R R
3. 91.205 (b) (3) Magnetic Direction Indicator NR R R
4. 91.205 (b) (4) Tachometer for Each Engine NR R R
5. 91.205 (b) (5) Oil Pressure Gauge for Each Engine
Using a Pressure System NR R R
6. 91.205 (b) (6) Temperature Gauge for Each
Liquid Cooled Engine NR R R
7. 91.205 (b) (7) Oil Temperature Gauge for Each
Air Cooled Engine NR R R
8. 91.205 (b) (8) Manifold Pressure Gauge for
Each Altitude Engine NR R R
9. 91.205 (b) (9) Fuel Gauge Indicating Quantity of Fuel
In Each Tank NR R R
10. 91.205 (b) (10) Landing Gear Position Indicator, If Retractable NR R R
11. 91.205 (b) (11) Anti-Collision Light System -
(Small civil airplanes certified after 3/11/96) NR R R
12. 91.205 (b) (13) Approved Safety Belts With Metal to Metal
Buckles for Each Occupant (2 yrs or older) NR R R
13. 91.205 (b) (14) Approved Shoulder Harness for Each Front
Seat - For Small Civil Airplanes Manufactured After 7/18/78 NR R R
14. 91.205 (b) (15) ELT (If required by Sec. 91.207, i.e. >one seat
and >50 miles) AR AR AR
15. 91.205 (b) (16) Approved Shoulder Harness for Each Seat -
Airplanes With 9 or Less Seats Manufactured After 12/12/86 NR R R
16. 91.205 (b) (17) Shoulder Harness for Each Seat For
Rotorcraft - Manufactured After 9/16/92 NR R R
17. 91.205 (c) (2) Approved Position (navigation) Lights NR R R
18. 91.205 (c) (3) Anti-Collision Light System
(Systems installed after 8/11/71- see reference) NR R R
19. 91.205 (c) (5) Adequate Source of Electrical Energy for
Installed Equipment NR R R
20. 91.205 (c) (6) One Spare Set of Fuses or Three Fuses
of Each Kind Required, Must be Accessible to Pilot In Flight NR R R
21. 91.205 (d) (2) Two-Way Radio Communication System and
Navigational Equipment Appropriate to Ground Facilities Used NR NR R
22. 91.205 (d) (3) Gyroscopic Rate of Turn Indicator
(Some Exceptions, See Reference) NR NR R
23. 91.205 (d) (4) Slip-Skid Indicator NR NR R
24. 91.205 (d) (5) Sensitive Altimeter Adjustable for
Barometric Pressure, (See FAR 91.411, Altimeter System
Inspection Required Every 24 Calendar Months) NR NR R
25. 91.205 (d) (6) Clock Displaying Hours, Minutes, and Seconds -
Sweep Second Pointer or Digital NR NR R
26. 91.205 (d) (7) Electrical Generator or Alternator
of Adequate Capacity NR NR R
27. 91.205 (d) (8) Gyroscopic Bank and Pitch Indicator
(Artificial Horizon) NR NR R
28. 91.205 (d) (9) Gyroscopic Direction Indicator
(Directional Gyro or Equivalent) NR NR R
29. 91.205 (e) DME Above FL 240 N/A N/A AR
30. 91.215, Transponder in Certain Airspace, (See FAR 91.413,
Inspection Required Every 24 Calendar Months) AR AR AR
Notes:
(1) AR = As Required, NR = Not Required, N/A = Not Applicable, R = Required
(2) A fourth flight operation category, Day (only) Instruments, is not included
above.
ABEA Minimum Inst Requirements 7.doc 11/17/2005
---------------------------------
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
In a message dated 11/28/2007 12:56:46 PM Central Standard Time,
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes:
Therefore, the builder can expect that the initial airworthiness inspection
of his aircraft will require evidence that this type of
equipment in the aircraft is acceptable to the FAA.
Regurgitating the FARs is most likely deja-vu to most builders. "Evidence"
here is just as open to interpretation as the result of what King James did to
the "Bible". Still best to find out how your DAR reads chapter&verse. You
spent years of your life building the sumbitch, why crash&burn on judgement day?
Mark (Ohhhhmmmmm..........)
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Piper Cherokee <pipercherokee(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Hi folks
does anyone know how to go about to ***Unsubscribe to this email mailing li
st****** Please help, Thanks
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.comDate: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:54:01 -0500Subject: Re: Ae
roElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA InspectionTo: aeroelectri
c-list(at)matronics.com
In a message dated 11/28/2007 12:56:46 PM Central Standard Time, gmcjetpilo
t(at)yahoo.com writes:
Therefore, the builder can expect that the initial airworthiness inspection
of his aircraft will require evidence that this type of equipment in the a
ircraft is acceptable to the FAA.
Regurgitating the FARs is most likely deja-vu to most builders. "Evidence"
here is just as open to interpretation as the result of what King James di
d to the "Bible". Still best to find out how your DAR reads chapter&verse.
You spent years of your life building the sumbitch, why crash&burn on judg
ement day?
Mark (Ohhhhmmmmm..........)
Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money
wasters of 2007.
_________________________________________________________________
Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista=AE + Windows Live=99.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_C
PC_MediaCtr_bigscreen_102007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Just Two Days Left... |
Dear Listers,
There are just a couple days left for this year's List Fund Raiser. Over all,
participation has been good, but things have been pretty slow this week for some
reason. If you've been putting off making your Contribution until the last
minute, this is it! The last minute, that is... :-)
Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists
and the *only* means of keeping these Lists running is through your Contributions
during this Fund Raiser.
Please make a Contribution today!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Compass RequiremeWas: |
The directions to unsubscribe are given at the bottom of every transmission.
Here is a copy from your own message!
It will be repeated again at the bottom of this one.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/29/2007 1:07:51 A.M. Central Standard Time,
pipercherokee(at)hotmail.com writes:
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Taylor" <FlyDad57(at)neo.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Go to http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/ and follow the instructions.
Bob Taylor
----- Original Message -----
From: Piper Cherokee
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com ;
all.aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:04 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
Inspection
Hi folks
does anyone know how to go about to ***Unsubscribe to this email
mailing list****** Please help, Thanks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:54:01 -0500
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
Inspection
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
In a message dated 11/28/2007 12:56:46 PM Central Standard Time,
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes:
Therefore, the builder can expect that the initial airworthiness
inspection of his aircraft will require evidence that this type of
equipment in the aircraft is acceptable to the FAA.
Regurgitating the FARs is most likely deja-vu to most builders.
"Evidence" here is just as open to interpretation as the result of what
King James did to the "Bible". Still best to find out how your DAR reads
chapter&verse. You spent years of your life building the sumbitch, why
crash&burn on judgement day?
Mark (Ohhhhmmmmm..........)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top
money wasters of 2007.
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
ist"
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
p://forums.matronics.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. Power up!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Imbedded links to sites not related to the subject |
matter
I noted the appearance of url links intended to
promote the interests of entities outside this
discussion group. To wit:
>Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the
><http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001>hottest
>products and
><http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aoltop00030000000002>top
>money wasters of 2007.
I'll suggest that we accomplish due diligence
to avoid dilution of the focus for our
activities here on the list. As we move about
our daily lives, it is difficult to ignore
increasing pressures on our $time$ and attention
for the purpose of parting us with our $time$
in exchange for something we probably don't
want . . . or we would be out looking for it.
It may seem like a tiny thing but all leaky pipes
started with a drip and Kudzu came to the 1876
Worlds Fair being promoted as a forage crop
and ornamental plant!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions |
>
>Thanks, Bob, for the information. I agree that money does not buy
>happiness and does not cover for poor design or sloppy implementation.
>
>Im back from my trip, and Ive looked up the information on my
>particular requirements.
>
>My enroute E-Bus loads:
>
>EFIS/MFD 1 1.5 A
>EFIS/MFD 2 1.5 A
>AHRS/Magnetometer 0.25 A
>EIS (Engine Monitor) 0.5 A
>Alt Field 1.0 A
>TruTrak Autopilot head 0.5 A
>A/P servo Roll 1.0 A
>A/P servo Pitch 1.0 A
>Garmin 430 NAV/GPS 1.65 A
>Garmin 330 1.0 A
>Flexible map light 0.1 A
>
>TOTAL: 10.0
I think the solution is quite clear. Since it's your
goal NOT to craft and exploit the operational features
of an ENDURANCE mode of flight, I suggest that
the SD-8 is quite adequate to your needs. This
presumes that you plan to include and artfully maintain
an RG battery. There's no reason not to include the
battery's capacity in your Plan-B for expediting
a comfortable arrival with the earth in case of
alternator failure. Using the battery to augment
the SD-8 by a couple of amps is a perfectly
valid thing to consider too.
Installing an SD20 goes more to servicing an
endurance mode limited only by volume of fuel
aboard.
In any case, Z-12 or Z-14 are my best recommendations
for incorporating the SD-20 into a robust
architecture.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible Links |
>
>There are occasional questions about fusible links on the Aeroelectric.
>
>Fusible links were common long ago, but lately engineers have eschewed
>them. I have seen a demo online regarding what happens when a fusible link
>blows--the wire inside vaporizes and the plasma arc blows through the
>covering. This is not good in a bundle, or when fuel or flammables or
>conductive surfaces may be present.
>
>Usually instructions for making fusible links do include layers
>of non-flammable silicone and fiber over-covering. The link covering may
>not be capable of enclosing the rupture arc, especially since the rupture
>arc may occur (probably will occur) near the ends.
>
>So for those who have puzzled about the fusible link issue, here's my
>advice: Use standard fuses/breakers or whatever instead. That's my plan.
Fusible links have never been suggested as a general
replacement for other protective devices. The instances
where the fusible links are shown in the Z-figures
are limited to low risk applications where the I(squared)T
robustness of an ANL style current limiter is attractive.
To stir breakers/fuses into the discussions about
fusible links is to brush aside the reason the
fusible links were suggested. They are STILL my
best recommendation for extending the main bus
fuse block out to the alternator field breaker
in systems where crowbar OV protection is present
(obviously not necessary when one chooses to use
breakers on the main bus) AND as a b-lead protection
for the smaller PM alternators.
They're also okay for long service life protection
of instrument leads off of an ammeter shunt. I think
I've made this clear in numerous postings where a
readers were asking about expanding on usage of
fusible links.
I have published instructions and offered sources
for materials to properly craft fusible links in the
smaller sizes appropriate to our needs.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/fuselink/fuselink.html
Also check out the writings at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/anl/anlvsjjs.html
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Misc_PDF/9021704F.pdf
I've conducted numerous tests on the effectiveness
of the fusible links for use as suggested. Concerns
for "arcing" and "rupture" and "plasma blowing holes"
are interesting and perhaps exciting to contemplate
but the reality is quite pedestrian.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
I'll be hitting the asphalt about Oh-Dark-Thirty in
the morning for an appointment with some of our
brothers in Columbus, Ohio next Saturday and
Sunday. I'll be stopping in Cincinnati on the
way back for a day . . . can't pass THAT close
to my sister's house without stopping for a visit.
Plans call for me to be back on line about Tuesday
afternoon.
BTW, we have a new addition to the family tree.
Our 5th grandchild, Calvin Aaron Douglas was born
last Friday just before midnight. THIS one lives
in the same town as I do . . . got great plans
for this little feller!
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Calvin-Aaron.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Juanita_and_Calvin.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Zach_and_Calvin.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/GMa_Dee_GPa_Bob_and_Calvin.jpg
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [Please Read] - Last Official Day of List Fund Raiser! |
Dear Listers,
Its November 30th and that means a couple of things. Its my 44th birthday for
one, but I'm trying to forget about that... But, it also means that its that
last official day of the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser!
If you been drooling over one of the really sweet free gifts that are available
this year with a qualifying Contribution, then now is the time to jump on one!!
If you've been meaning to make a Contribution, but just keep putting it off, then
now is the time!
I will be posting the List of Contributors in a few days, so you'll probably want
to be known as a person that supported the Lists! Rather than the guy that,
er, ah, forgot (or whatever)... :-)
I want to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution so far this
year in support of our Lists. It is your generosity that keeps this operation
a float and I don't ever forget it. Hopefully everyone will feel the same.
The List Contribution page is fast and easy. Please support our habit by making
your Contribution right now:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you all in advance!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brett Ferrell <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | Blue Mountain Magnetometer Swing on Broadcast |
Has anybody solved an issue with thier EFIS mag heading swing when they
broadcast
I've got a Velocity XL and BMA Gen 3 EFIS/1. I've worked pretty hard to get the
heading accurate (including moving it from the nose/canard area to the strake
where there's no metal aside from the wing bolts, which are about a foot away,
where the com coax runs through to the winglet), but now I find that when
taxing around the airport, if I broadcast the mag swings way to one side, and
then returns when I unkey the mic. How irratating. Anyway, I ran shielded wire
to the mag, which I think is unterminated on the mag end, and terminated on the
EFIS end, but I'll have to check. Thoughts?
Also, the strobe wires run through the same area, but don't seem to affect mag
heading.
Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions |
| From: | "tx_jayhawk" <tx_jayhawk(at)excite.com> |
Hi Bob,
Could you help us all understand specifically what you do not like about the Z-13/20?
I may be slow, but I'm not sure I understand the objection at this point.
I originally went with the Z-12 in my project but switched to a Z-13 in part based
on some advice you provided. I'm wondering what may have changed in your
opinion.
Thanks in advance,
Scott
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149803#149803
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions |
| From: | "BuckWynd" <buckwynd(at)aol.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net wrote:
> Using the battery to augment
> the SD-8 by a couple of amps is a perfectly
> valid thing to consider too.
>
> Installing an SD20 goes more to servicing an
> endurance mode limited only by volume of fuel
> aboard.
>
> In any case, Z-12 or Z-14 are my best recommendations
> for incorporating the SD-20 into a robust
> architecture.
>
> Bob . . .
Thanks Bob. I appreciate the input, and I'll definitely keep your thoughts in mind.
It's clear that you feel the 20A alternator is not "robust" in a Z-13 architecture.
I just wish I understood why. I guess I'll have to wait until AEC Edition
12 comes out...
--------
Buck Wyndham
RV-8 N18XL (working on fuselage & systems)
Northern Illinois
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149822#149822
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Allan Wright <allanwright(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | On-board battery charge controller |
Recently, a friend and I bought an RV4, which had been built in 2001 but
not flown much since. Almost immediately, we had to replace the battery
(Gill G25S). I've been looking into battery chargers and desulfators to
try to prolong the life of our new battery. I also read the excellent
chapter on batteries in the AeroElectric Connection.
Based on my reading and online research, it seems like we can buy a
smart charger with a desulfator for somewhere between $80 and $160,
which should do a pretty good job of maintaining the battery when it is
on the ground. However, since our alternator voltage is on the high side
(14.8 to 15.0 volts), the battery will be overcharged every time we fly
the airplane, particularly when it is hot outside which is a lot of the
time in California. Our voltage regulator is not adjustable, and I
really don't want to replace it.
Since I have quite a bit of experience with electronic design (digital
and analog but not power circuits) I thought I might try to design a
circuit that would control the charging of the battery both in-flight
and on the ground. Conceptually, it would work like this:
- the battery would still connect to the main bus through the master
relay, but with a series diode so that current could only flow from the
battery to the bus.
- my circuit would also connect between the battery and the main bus,
and would control the charge current flowing into the battery when the
engine is running
- initially, it would apply the full bus voltage to the battery, and
monitor the charging current as well as the battery temperature
- when the current drops below an adjustable limit such as 0.5 amps, it
would lower the voltage to the temperature-compensated float voltage
recommended by the battery manufacturer
- on the ground, it could be connected to an external power supply to
keep the battery charged
- optionally, an on-board desulfator such as the one from Battery Minder
could be added to the system, which would function both in-flight as
well as on the ground
- optionally, an LCD display could be added which would show the battery
voltage, bus voltage, charge current and battery temperature.
If it works, I could publish the circuit and maybe provide a PCB so that
others could build it if they wanted to.
I wonder if anyone has any comments on this idea? If it has been done
before, I don't want to re-invent the wheel.
Thanks.
Allan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | On-board battery charge controller |
It seems it would be a lot simpler to replace the Voltage regulator with one
that works. Get a B&C with temp compensation.
Then just put the relatively inexpensive battery tender on when you are in
the hanger.
Batteries really like to get brought back to nominal charge with a good
supply of current. Your circuit would need to control a wide range of
currents (large for recharging [Constant Current, Floating Voltage], low
[Constant Voltage, Variable Current] for maintenance). A alternator with a
good voltage regulator, will handle battery charging just fine!
Another negative of your approach is you take the battery out of the system
as a device to overcome transients of over voltage. Now your main bus needs
to handle ALL of the transients on the buss. A good battery is very good at
absorbing transients that might otherwise eat up some of your electronics.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Allan
Wright
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 2:23 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: On-board battery charge controller
Recently, a friend and I bought an RV4, which had been built in 2001 but
not flown much since. Almost immediately, we had to replace the battery
(Gill G25S). I've been looking into battery chargers and desulfators to
try to prolong the life of our new battery. I also read the excellent
chapter on batteries in the AeroElectric Connection.
Based on my reading and online research, it seems like we can buy a
smart charger with a desulfator for somewhere between $80 and $160,
which should do a pretty good job of maintaining the battery when it is
on the ground. However, since our alternator voltage is on the high side
(14.8 to 15.0 volts), the battery will be overcharged every time we fly
the airplane, particularly when it is hot outside which is a lot of the
time in California. Our voltage regulator is not adjustable, and I
really don't want to replace it.
Since I have quite a bit of experience with electronic design (digital
and analog but not power circuits) I thought I might try to design a
circuit that would control the charging of the battery both in-flight
and on the ground. Conceptually, it would work like this:
- the battery would still connect to the main bus through the master
relay, but with a series diode so that current could only flow from the
battery to the bus.
- my circuit would also connect between the battery and the main bus,
and would control the charge current flowing into the battery when the
engine is running
- initially, it would apply the full bus voltage to the battery, and
monitor the charging current as well as the battery temperature
- when the current drops below an adjustable limit such as 0.5 amps, it
would lower the voltage to the temperature-compensated float voltage
recommended by the battery manufacturer
- on the ground, it could be connected to an external power supply to
keep the battery charged
- optionally, an on-board desulfator such as the one from Battery Minder
could be added to the system, which would function both in-flight as
well as on the ground
- optionally, an LCD display could be added which would show the battery
voltage, bus voltage, charge current and battery temperature.
If it works, I could publish the circuit and maybe provide a PCB so that
others could build it if they wanted to.
I wonder if anyone has any comments on this idea? If it has been done
before, I don't want to re-invent the wheel.
Thanks.
Allan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | On-board battery charge controller |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 14:37 12/1/2007, you wrote:
>It seems it would be a lot simpler to replace the Voltage regulator with one
>that works. Get a B&C with temp compensation.
Is anyone aware of a similar product for certified aircraft?
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: On-board battery charge controller |
Good Evening Ron,
I have had excellent results with products purchased from Zeftronics. They
also seem to have very helpful customer service personnel.
B&C does have some products for a certified aircraft. I have one of their
standby alternator systems that is certified on my V35B Bonanza.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 12/1/2007 8:41:39 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rjquillin(at)gmail.com writes:
At 14:37 12/1/2007, you wrote:
It seems it would be a lot simpler to replace the Voltage regulator with one
that works. Get a B&C with temp compensation.
Is anyone aware of a similar product for certified aircraft?
Ron Q.
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. M. Haught Jr. " <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: On-board battery charge controller |
Ron -
I have had excellent service with a Zeftronics Voltage regulator on my
125 HP Pacer. The first two years I owned the airplane, I was having
nothing but trouble with the voltage regulator - got two bad ones in a
row, if you can believe that. Found Zeftronics on line, and they didn't
have the Pacer on their certification, but had the 0290 Lyc certified in
another airplane, so they applied and got it certified. I put in on my
Pacer and have had absolutely NO trouble since that date, and it's now
been 10 or 11 years. Great customer service and great service from the
unit.
M. Haught
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening Ron,
>
> I have had excellent results with products purchased from Zeftronics.
> They also seem to have very helpful customer service personnel.
>
> B&C does have some products for a certified aircraft. I have one of
> their standby alternator systems that is certified on my V35B Bonanza.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
> In a message dated 12/1/2007 8:41:39 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> rjquillin(at)gmail.com writes:
>
> At 14:37 12/1/2007, you wrote:
>> It seems it would be a lot simpler to replace the Voltage
>> regulator with one
>> that works. /_Get a B&C with temp compensation._/
>
> Is anyone aware of a similar product for certified aircraft?
>
> Ron Q.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> hottest products and top money wasters
> <http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aoltop00030000000002>
> of 2007.
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Transponder King KX76A Pin Out Info Needed |
| From: | "Mike Hoffman" <mhoffman9(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
I have a separate wire (pin 2) for my transponder dimmer light. I do not want to
hook it up to a dimmer but would like it to light up when I turn the unit on.
I do not have a pin out for my transponder and wonder if someone could tell
me how to correct this problem (Hook Pin 2 to what Pin).
Thanks [Question]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150022#150022
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Allan Wright <allanwright(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: On-board battery charge controller |
Thanks for your comments.
The problem with the voltage regulator is not just the lack of
temperature compensation. It's that the regulator can't tell whether it
is bulk charging or float charging the battery, which require different
voltages. Typically, the regulator is set to a voltage that is good for
recharging but too high for float charging. Since our airplane usually
starts immediately, the actual time required to recharge the battery is
pretty minimal.
I believe that the Battery Tender product is not recommended for Gill
batteries, it has been known to boil off the electrolyte. There is a
warning on the Aircraft Spruce website not to use them for these batteries.
You make a good point about losing the battery's ability to absorb
transients.
Allan
>
> It seems it would be a lot simpler to replace the Voltage regulator with one
> that works. Get a B&C with temp compensation.
>
> Then just put the relatively inexpensive battery tender on when you are in
> the hanger.
>
> Batteries really like to get brought back to nominal charge with a good
> supply of current. Your circuit would need to control a wide range of
> currents (large for recharging [Constant Current, Floating Voltage], low
> [Constant Voltage, Variable Current] for maintenance). A alternator with a
> good voltage regulator, will handle battery charging just fine!
>
> Another negative of your approach is you take the battery out of the system
> as a device to overcome transients of over voltage. Now your main bus needs
> to handle ALL of the transients on the buss. A good battery is very good at
> absorbing transients that might otherwise eat up some of your electronics.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Allan
> Wright
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 2:23 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: On-board battery charge controller
>
>
>
> Recently, a friend and I bought an RV4, which had been built in 2001 but
> not flown much since. Almost immediately, we had to replace the battery
> (Gill G25S). I've been looking into battery chargers and desulfators to
> try to prolong the life of our new battery. I also read the excellent
> chapter on batteries in the AeroElectric Connection.
>
> Based on my reading and online research, it seems like we can buy a
> smart charger with a desulfator for somewhere between $80 and $160,
> which should do a pretty good job of maintaining the battery when it is
> on the ground. However, since our alternator voltage is on the high side
> (14.8 to 15.0 volts), the battery will be overcharged every time we fly
> the airplane, particularly when it is hot outside which is a lot of the
> time in California. Our voltage regulator is not adjustable, and I
> really don't want to replace it.
>
> Since I have quite a bit of experience with electronic design (digital
> and analog but not power circuits) I thought I might try to design a
> circuit that would control the charging of the battery both in-flight
> and on the ground. Conceptually, it would work like this:
> - the battery would still connect to the main bus through the master
> relay, but with a series diode so that current could only flow from the
> battery to the bus.
> - my circuit would also connect between the battery and the main bus,
> and would control the charge current flowing into the battery when the
> engine is running
> - initially, it would apply the full bus voltage to the battery, and
> monitor the charging current as well as the battery temperature
> - when the current drops below an adjustable limit such as 0.5 amps, it
> would lower the voltage to the temperature-compensated float voltage
> recommended by the battery manufacturer
> - on the ground, it could be connected to an external power supply to
> keep the battery charged
> - optionally, an on-board desulfator such as the one from Battery Minder
> could be added to the system, which would function both in-flight as
> well as on the ground
> - optionally, an LCD display could be added which would show the battery
> voltage, bus voltage, charge current and battery temperature.
>
> If it works, I could publish the circuit and maybe provide a PCB so that
> others could build it if they wanted to.
>
> I wonder if anyone has any comments on this idea? If it has been done
> before, I don't want to re-invent the wheel.
>
> Thanks.
> Allan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: On-board battery charge controller |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 08:23 12/2/2007, you wrote:
>I believe that the Battery Tender product is not recommended for
>Gill batteries, it has been known to boil off the electrolyte. There
>is a warning on the Aircraft Spruce website not to use them for
>these batteries.
The BatteryMINDer folks discontinued selling and no longer recommend
their non-temperature compensated unit for aviation AGM usage, and
now sell one that is temperature compensated.
http://www.thebatteryminder.com/12vaircraftbatteryminder-p-75.html
I spoke to them a few months ago, and for owners of the older unit,
the new compensated unit may be purchased at 50% off retail.
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchronousdesign.com> |
| Subject: | On-board battery charge controller |
Ron,
This is a pretty good unit. Battery Minder sells the 12248-AA-S1 for
$159.95, and Battery Mart sells it for $139.95. Go figure (literally).
Here's their link:
http://www.batterymart.com/c-batteryminder-battery-chargers.html
Simon
Copyright C 2007
-----Original Message-----
At 08:23 12/2/2007, you wrote:
>I believe that the Battery Tender product is not recommended for
>Gill batteries, it has been known to boil off the electrolyte. There
>is a warning on the Aircraft Spruce website not to use them for
>these batteries.
The BatteryMINDer folks discontinued selling and no longer recommend
their non-temperature compensated unit for aviation AGM usage, and
now sell one that is temperature compensated.
http://www.thebatteryminder.com/12vaircraftbatteryminder-p-75.html
I spoke to them a few months ago, and for owners of the older unit,
the new compensated unit may be purchased at 50% off retail.
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: On-board battery charge controller |
I would suggest that the difference in battery life between a
sophisticated charger and a cheap automotive regulator is pretty much
negligible for most of us that fly less than 100 hours per year.
Certainly I'd like a bit less than the 15 volts mentioned. Yes I like
the minimal temperature compensation that most automotive regulators
have. Even with an RG battery I believe that temperature compensation is
more important than fancy charging profiles for most of us. Different
story for marine batteries and standby batteries. My recommendation is
fly it at least every two weeks and charge it if left more than a month
or two or just float it to minimize sulphation. But choose the simplest
and most reliable regulator that is available for reasonable money to
get the least cost of ownership. An extra year of battery life is going
to seem very unimportant if a one of a kind regulator dies far from home...
Ken
Allan Wright wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> The problem with the voltage regulator is not just the lack of
> temperature compensation. It's that the regulator can't tell whether
> it is bulk charging or float charging the battery, which require
> different voltages. Typically, the regulator is set to a voltage that
> is good for recharging but too high for float charging. Since our
> airplane usually starts immediately, the actual time required to
> recharge the battery is pretty minimal.
>
> I believe that the Battery Tender product is not recommended for Gill
> batteries, it has been known to boil off the electrolyte. There is a
> warning on the Aircraft Spruce website not to use them for these
> batteries.
>
> You make a good point about losing the battery's ability to absorb
> transients.
>
> Allan
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Off to Columbus |
| From: | "panhandler1956" <bowens2(at)insight.rr.com> |
Bob,
Thanks for your time and effort at Columbus this weekend. I was in attendance and
I really enjoyed it, especially day 2. I won't be wiring my aircraft for probably
at least another year, but between the seminar, your website, and this
excellent forum, I feel confident in moving into this phase of the build. Hope
you had an uneventful trip home and hope to see you again someday at OSH or other
function.
Regards,
--------
Brent O.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150077#150077
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. M. Haught Jr. " <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | King Handheld Adapter |
My King KX99 handheld radio adapter for Headphone is messing up. I took
it to a radio shop and all the connections were resoldered, but it still
only works about half the time - I suspect several breaks in the wires.
A friend gave me his adapter that came from another type of radio. It
has the two plugs for the headset end but also has the push to talk
wired into the adapter (the King used a plug that inserts into on of
the headset plugs). The other end of the adapter has the correct small
mini plug for the "Phones" jack. However the other connector to the
radio was a screw on type. There are two wires in that cable, one
larger than the other, both with a center insulated wire and a
multistrand surrounding which I assume is shielding.
I know very little about wiring, as I am sure this message
demonstrates! My question is how do I wire the two wires to the
mid-sized miniplug to go to the KX 99? That mini-plug has a tip contact
area, a second contact are a little further back and the shaft contact
area which I assume is the ground.. The plug receptacle on the radio
is marked "MIC".
Anyone have a wiring diagram for the KX99 and adapter or can give me an
idea on how to wire the mini-plug to the mic receptacle?
M. Haught
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Homebuilt Regulations |
12/3/2007
Hello Fellow Listers, I thought that this letter on AVWEB may be of
interest.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
------------------------------------------------------
Homebuilt Regulations
Your question this week about homebuilt regulations compels a more detailed
response (QOTW, Nov. 29).
The regulation and certification of small aircraft in the U.S. is seriously
flawed and in some ways actually reduces safety. Burt Rutan with
SpaceShipOne showed the direction we need to go. In Burt's case, an
incentive in the form of a prize was offered to trigger innovative minds to
come up with new solutions. It has been true for years that many people in
the homebuilt community are motivated to participate not because they want
to build an airplane but because they are not able to acquire the
cutting-edge technology they want in an airplane elsewhere.
The high regulatory barriers to certification of aircraft and
aviation-related products produces new aircraft and products that cost great
sums of money or the products are not available at all. Safety is reduced
because new technology cannot be introduced promptly and at an appropriate
cost. All the new certified diesel engines for aircraft are now produced
outside the U.S. If new regulation to expand the homebuilt options is
possible, it is a good place to start. But it is only a start.
I recently had overhauled two Slick mags for my Cessna 140. My kids are
getting their licenses in this aircraft. In one mag the coil went bad at 700
hours since new. To overhaul and replace both coils cost $1000. It will last
another 700 hours! Because of regulation, no market forces exist forcing the
manufacture to improve this product or permit competing products. New
technology has existed for 75 years and exists in the homebuilt area but is
not permitted in my aircraft. Clearly the safety of my aircraft is reduced
because of the limited reliability of the available products.
Any reduced regulation that permits new technology to be introduced faster
and with more freedom in new and existing products is welcome and needed.
The market will demand and produce innovation that increases safety and
performance far in excess of what regulation will produce.
In Rutan's case the prize was needed. Here the market forces exist; the only
thing needed is for the regulators to get out of the way!
Joe Halsmer
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Recommendation against buying B & C fuse holders |
I normally try to avoid using inline fuse holders as bad memories come
back to me from crawling under my 70's something car trying to patch one
more stupid engineering trick.
When I came across the IFH-2 on the B & C site for $3.00 I thought I'd
give them another try. Well, they suck too. They are nothing more that
two fast on connectors set in an injection mold. Not that this is bad in
itself (they could have used a real buss base instead), but they aren't
even set strait. Both of those I bought have base connectors which sit
at least 20 off of center one way or the other.
The reason I bought these was for testing not installation. So, after
wrestling the first fuse into the socket, I then wanted to test using
another fuse. While trying gently pulling out the first fuse to change
it, the tab on my fuse broke and it was a b&(*( to pull it out.
Bottom line - like a lot of this stuff, take a look down the street
before jumping at the avionics wizards. Except for tefzel wire which
they don't carry (they can probably order) I found a lot of this stuff
at my local NAPA store. NAPA fuse holders, while slightly more $ are
twice the quality and you don't need a lineman's pliers to get the
broken fuse tabs out.
NAPA also carries a premium line of fast on connectors which are well
priced. Don't buy the cheapo blue/yellow jacket ones, but the red ones
are very good. And they don't charge shipping.
The other thing I am learning is that there is no rocket science
involved here. Use the right wire, the right amperage and make pretty
connections. Leave the fancy internals up to Garmin.
Live and Learn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Switches and Lights? |
| From: | "mosquito56" <mosquito-56(at)hotmail.com> |
I purchased some rocker switches from aircraftspruce. On the back it says they
are rated for 20 amps. Can I use one each to run my landing, strobe and position
lights?
I was talking to a well known person and he said that rocker switches don't
handle high current loads very well. Did I accidently get good switches? I figure
this well known person knows what he is talking about so I thought I would
check here.
Part K-4 12v 20amp on-off
14-308
Don
--------
Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals for assistance
in this thing we call life.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150263#150263
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Switches and Lights? |
In a message dated 12/03/2007 7:14:47 PM Central Standard Time,
mosquito-56(at)hotmail.com writes:
I purchased some rocker switches from aircraftspruce. On the back it says
they are rated for 20 amps. Can I use one each to run my landing, strobe and
position lights?
>>>
I showed Bob N. examples of my cheesy $8 Autozone LED pilot-light rockers
(also rated 20amps) at his Nashville seminar back in '03 and his comment was
basically that they should do just fine- just buy several spares in case of future
failure since the market continually changes and replacements may not be
available 10 years hence...
BTW- no failures yet in 500 hours- using them for all the circuits you
mention, among others-
Mark Phillips RV-6A N51PW
_http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/_
(http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/)
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switches and Lights? |
| From: | "mosquito56" <mosquito-56(at)hotmail.com> |
Glad to hear, I like the looks of rockers better than simple pole switches.
Don
--------
Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals for assistance
in this thing we call life.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150309#150309
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions |
>
>
>nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net wrote:
> > Using the battery to augment
> > the SD-8 by a couple of amps is a perfectly
> > valid thing to consider too.
> >
> > Installing an SD20 goes more to servicing an
> > endurance mode limited only by volume of fuel
> > aboard.
> >
> > In any case, Z-12 or Z-14 are my best recommendations
> > for incorporating the SD-20 into a robust
> > architecture.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>
>Thanks Bob. I appreciate the input, and I'll definitely keep your thoughts
>in mind.
>
>It's clear that you feel the 20A alternator is not "robust" in a Z-13
>architecture. I just wish I understood why. I guess I'll have to wait
>until AEC Edition 12 comes out...
The architecture is clumsy. It will "function as advertised"
but it's not a design I'm proud of and it tends to encourage
folks to "overkill" on their engine driven power sources
at the expense of $time$ and weight.
Many folks have mistaken my lack of recommendation
as being advice NOT to do a particular thing. When
I say it's not something I cannot recommend, it's
a personal judgement as to whether or not it's the
best we know how to do . . . the elegant solution.
I.e, it's not a design I would put on my airplane.
When some suggestion has issues of safety,
cost of ownership or obvious design flaws with
respect to performance, I'll be direct in my
suggestion that you DO NOT do this particular
thing and explain in detail why.
I've never told folks NOT to install off-the-shelf
or off-the-junker alternators per anyone's lucid
and accurate instructions. I have discouraged
installation of barefoot IR alternators for reasons
cited and carefully explained many times. However,
these are demonstrably high-quality products with
much lower risks compare to their ancestors. If
one is willing and able to accomplish an educated
consideration and acceptance of those risks,
fine by me.
My mission here is to first educate and then
recommend based on my own recipes for success
and sense of elegant solution. A secondary
goal is to assist the neophyte in steering
around perceived pot-holes. Only then will
my advice become much more energetic than
a recommendation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions |
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Could you help us all understand specifically what you do not like about
>the Z-13/20? I may be slow, but I'm not sure I understand the objection
>at this point.
>
>I originally went with the Z-12 in my project but switched to a Z-13 in
>part based on some advice you provided. I'm wondering what may have
>changed in your opinion.
See other posting. If it's already installed as
13/20 then leave it in.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Switches and Lights? |
>
>
>I purchased some rocker switches from aircraftspruce. On the back it says
>they are rated for 20 amps. Can I use one each to run my landing, strobe
>and position lights?
Sure
> I was talking to a well known person and he said that rocker
> switches don't handle high current loads very well. Did I accidently get
> good switches? I figure this well known person knows what he is talking
> about so I thought I would check here.
>Part K-4 12v 20amp on-off
I can't imagine why. There may be some rocker
switches that have demonstrated poor current
handling ability . . . but a toggle actuator
on the same frame would be just as bad.
There's no differences internal to rocker
switches that would make them less robust
than their toggle switch cousins.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why are wire strands tinned ? |
Hello Gilles,
We recent exchanged e mails regarding your radiator experiments and web
page. I did not recognize at that time we had exchanged e mails before (see
below). Looks like even with my fading memory, a bell finally rings.
Happy Holidays
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Why are wire strands tinned ?
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Ed Anderson a crit :
>
>>
>>
>>I believe it was done primarily for Corrosion resistance. In older
>>automobiles it was not unusual to start to have electrical problems after
>>about 10 years or so due to the oxygen penetrating the plastic insulation
>>and causing oxidation of the copper changing the conducting properties of
>>the wire. Of course it does help the solderability of the wire as well.
>>
>>Your name reminded me - I have an ancestor named Gilles Bertrand from
>>L'eveche De St Brieuc, Bretagne France. Hope to visit someday.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks to Bob, Ed, Eric (in alphabetic order ;-) for your answers.
>
> Ed, the Bretagne is a fascinating land. It is the westernmost part of
> France, forests, fields and moors beaten by the westerlies, ragged rocky
> coasts and menhirs erected by people long forgotten.
> Everywhere in Bretagne you'll feel the presence of the fairies and
> magicians of past centuries, and the sea is ever present.
> And yet in summer it is the warmest of all places.
>
> Well, would you believe I love this land ?
>
> Best regards,
> Amicalement,
> Gilles
> http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Why are wire strands tinned ? |
Ed Anderson a crit :
> We recent exchanged e mails regarding your radiator experiments and
> web page. I did not recognize at that time we had exchanged e mails
> before (see below). Looks like even with my fading memory, a bell
> finally rings.
Ed,
Indeed your memory is far from fading !
I remember those messages on Bretagne and tinned wires. But I too did
not recognize you in our conversation on Kchemann and radiators.
Will soon respond to your other email.
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Off to Columbus |
>
>
>Bob,
>Thanks for your time and effort at Columbus this weekend. I was in
>attendance and I really enjoyed it, especially day 2. I won't be wiring my
>aircraft for probably at least another year, but between the seminar, your
>website, and this excellent forum, I feel confident in moving into this
>phase of the build. Hope you had an uneventful trip home and hope to see
>you again someday at OSH or other function.
it was a LONG one . . . visited my sister
and her husband in Cincinnati for a day
and drove home last night. Took right at
12 hours and got into bed about 4 am local.
I'll be a tad "dingy" for a day or so but
it was a good trip.
I'm pleased that you found it useful. I'll
probably be at OSH this year. Call my cell
phone 3162097528 Fri-Sun and see where I'm
hiding.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions |
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions
> The architecture is clumsy. It will "function as advertised"
> but it's not a design I'm proud of and it tends to encourage
> folks to "overkill" on their engine driven power sources
> at the expense of $time$ and weight.
Bob,
I believe these comments refer specifically to Z13/20, but not Z13/8 ?
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Homebuilt Regulations |
With respect to the certification of small general aviation aircraft:
The first thing you must take into account is the concept at work: The
government is looking to create an aircraft that can be safely flown by
someone who holds no other knowledge then basics to operate the product
period. Therefore any product that has ANY interpretive method of use
will not certify.
Mike
-----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: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:10 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Homebuilt Regulations
12/3/2007
Hello Fellow Listers, I thought that this letter on AVWEB may be of
interest.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
------------------------------------------------------
Homebuilt Regulations
Your question this week about homebuilt regulations compels a more
detailed
response (QOTW, Nov. 29).
The regulation and certification of small aircraft in the U.S. is
seriously
flawed and in some ways actually reduces safety. Burt Rutan with
SpaceShipOne showed the direction we need to go. In Burt's case, an
incentive in the form of a prize was offered to trigger innovative minds
to
come up with new solutions. It has been true for years that many people
in
the homebuilt community are motivated to participate not because they
want
to build an airplane but because they are not able to acquire the
cutting-edge technology they want in an airplane elsewhere.
The high regulatory barriers to certification of aircraft and
aviation-related products produces new aircraft and products that cost
great
sums of money or the products are not available at all. Safety is
reduced
because new technology cannot be introduced promptly and at an
appropriate
cost. All the new certified diesel engines for aircraft are now produced
outside the U.S. If new regulation to expand the homebuilt options is
possible, it is a good place to start. But it is only a start.
I recently had overhauled two Slick mags for my Cessna 140. My kids are
getting their licenses in this aircraft. In one mag the coil went bad at
700
hours since new. To overhaul and replace both coils cost $1000. It will
last
another 700 hours! Because of regulation, no market forces exist forcing
the
manufacture to improve this product or permit competing products. New
technology has existed for 75 years and exists in the homebuilt area but
is
not permitted in my aircraft. Clearly the safety of my aircraft is
reduced
because of the limited reliability of the available products.
Any reduced regulation that permits new technology to be introduced
faster
and with more freedom in new and existing products is welcome and
needed.
The market will demand and produce innovation that increases safety and
performance far in excess of what regulation will produce.
In Rutan's case the prize was needed. Here the market forces exist; the
only
thing needed is for the regulators to get out of the way!
Joe Halsmer
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Recommendation against buying B & C fuse holders |
>I normally try to avoid using inline fuse holders as bad memories come
>back to me from crawling under my 70's something car trying to patch one
>more stupid engineering trick.
>
>When I came across the IFH-2 on the B & C site for $3.00 I thought I'd
>give them another try. Well, they suck too. They are nothing more that two
>fast on connectors set in an injection mold. Not that this is bad in
>itself (they could have used a real buss base instead), but they aren't
>even set strait. Both of those I bought have base connectors which sit at
>least 20 off of center one way or the other.
>
>The reason I bought these was for testing not installation. So, after
>wrestling the first fuse into the socket, I then wanted to test using
>another fuse. While trying gently pulling out the first fuse to change it,
>the tab on my fuse broke and it was a b&(*( to pull it out.
>
>Bottom line - like a lot of this stuff, take a look down the street before
>jumping at the avionics wizards. Except for tefzel wire which they don't
>carry (they can probably order) I found a lot of this stuff at my local
>NAPA store. NAPA fuse holders, while slightly more $ are twice the quality
>and you don't need a lineman's pliers to get the broken fuse tabs out.
>
>NAPA also carries a premium line of fast on connectors which are well
>priced. Don't buy the cheapo blue/yellow jacket ones, but the red ones are
>very good. And they don't charge shipping.
>
>The other thing I am learning is that there is no rocket science involved
>here. Use the right wire, the right amperage and make pretty connections.
>Leave the fancy internals up to Garmin.
Thanks for the feedback here. I'm wondering where
they're getting their inline holders these days. I
think I was using Bussmann when that inventory was
shipped up to B&C some years ago but it's problematic
as to where they might come from today.
I'll do a little research and see if I can identify
another source with more consistent quality.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions |
>
>>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-12 and Z-13/20 features questions
>> The architecture is clumsy. It will "function as advertised"
>> but it's not a design I'm proud of and it tends to encourage
>> folks to "overkill" on their engine driven power sources
>> at the expense of $time$ and weight.
>
>Bob,
>I believe these comments refer specifically to Z13/20, but not Z13/8 ?
>Jeff Page
>Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
Absolutely. If I were building an airplane today,
13/8 would be my architecture of choice. It's
my considered opinion that 13/8 offers the
simplest, lightest and lowest cost approach to
system reliability.
I think 13/20 germinated the morning after
the night before and too many beers . . .
or maybe it was those halbanero peppers . . .
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Off to Columbus |
| From: | "panhandler1956" <panhandler1956(at)gmail.com> |
Cool - thanks Bob!
--------
Brent O.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150604#150604
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
Bob,
I have burned two ANL 60 series limiters in six months. I have no
idea why.
The circumstances were the same both times though. I had just put my
engine back on the plane after some maintenance. After start up I
excite the field. This has been my method to check that the
alternator is working. Both times the LV light has remained on. With
no indication of charging. I thought my battery might have been low,
but putting on the charger this morning indicated not. Not a huge
deal, but at $20 a copy it is getting old.
Any suggestions?
Using a 55 amp DN IR alt. with crowbar OV.
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.6 hours
Luana, IA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
>Bob,
>I have burned two ANL 60 series limiters in six months. I have no idea why.
>The circumstances were the same both times though. I had just put my
>engine back on the plane after some maintenance. After start up I excite
>the field. This has been my method to check that the alternator is
>working. Both times the LV light has remained on. With no indication of
>charging. I thought my battery might have been low, but putting on the
>charger this morning indicated not. Not a huge deal, but at $20 a copy it
>is getting old.
>Any suggestions?
>Using a 55 amp DN IR alt. with crowbar OV.
If you have 70+ hours on the airplane, do I presume
correctly that the system HAS functioned most of
the time without blowing the limiter?
Normally, there's but two things that will open
this limiter. (1) hard fault on the alternator
side of the limiter. I.e. shorted diodes in
alternator or shorted wiring between alternator
and b-lead terminal or (2) battery in backwards.
or external battery connected to system is
jumper cabled in backwards.
If you have an internally regulated alternator
do I also presume correctly that you're using
Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
scheme?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Matronics List Fund Raiser - 2007 List of Contributors |
Dear Listers,
I would like to thank everyone that made a Contribution in support of the Lists
this year! It was really nice to hear all great comments people had regarding
the Lists! As I have said many times before, running these Lists is a labor
of love. Your generosity during the List Fund Raiser underscores the great sentiments
people have made regarding the Lists.
If you haven't yet made a Contribution in support of this year's Fund Raiser please
feel free to do so. The great List Fund Raiser gifts will be available on
the Contribution site for just a little while longer, so hurry and make your
Contribution and get your great gift! Once again, the URL for the Contribution
web site is:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
I would like to thank Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore ( http://www.buildersbooks.com ), Jon Croke of Homebuilt HELP ( http://www.homebuilthelp.com ) and Bob Nuckolls of AeroElectric ( http://www.aeroelectric.com ) for their extremely generous support during this year's Fund Raiser through the contribution of discounted merchandise. These are great guys that support the aviation industry and I encourage each and every Lister to have a look at their products. Thank you Andy, Jon and Bob!! Your support is very much appreciated!
And finally, below you will find a web link to the 2007 List of Contributors current
as of 12/6/07! Have a look at this list of names as these are the people
that make all of these List services possible! I can't thank each of you enough
for your support and great feedback during this year's Fund Raiser!
THANK YOU!
http://www.matronics.com/loc/2007.html
I will be shipping out all of the gifts in the next few weeks and hope to have
everything out by the end of the month. In most cases, gifts will be shipped
via US Postal Service.
Once again, thank you for making this year's List Fund Raiser successful!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | =?iso-8859-1?Q?Th=E9o_Celis?= <theo.celis(at)skynet.be> |
| Subject: | com antenna problem |
Good morning Bob,
Our RV-7A is nearing completion here in Leuven (close to Brussels-Belgium)
On checking the radios, 2 SL30 with the GMA340 ASP, our com 1 has a problem
when transmitting: ammeter deflects full scale (towards the + side !?) when
pushing the PTT - same on both sticks. The com2 shows a normal neg ammeter
deflection when tx.
Switching boxes in the rack: same result. (My knowledge of electronics is
very
limited; before becoming an airline pilot I was a chemical engeneer.)
We then switched antennas behind the instr panel and now com2 had the
problem.
Maybe a bad crimp on the coax connector? So therefore we opened the baggage
rear panel
and connected coax com1 to the belly Comant antenna 2 (com1 ant is on top of
the fuselage)
and now the readings were normal: neg amm deflection. Bad Comant CI 121
antenna #1?
Both ant are new ones, straight out of the box.
Maybe irrelevant , but using the Fluke meter, there is no short between the
base and center
conductor and when testing capacity, the meter tests OL.
Very probably you have seen this before?
I have been reading the e-mails on the list since a few months now and I was
very
interested in all yr comments.
Hope you can help us too. Thanks.
Tho Celis
AeroElectric-List
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: com antenna problem |
>
>
>Good morning Bob,
>
>Our RV-7A is nearing completion here in Leuven (close to Brussels-Belgium)
>On checking the radios, 2 SL30 with the GMA340 ASP, our com 1 has a problem
>when transmitting: ammeter deflects full scale (towards the + side !?) when
>pushing the PTT - same on both sticks. The com2 shows a normal neg ammeter
>deflection when tx.
>Switching boxes in the rack: same result. (My knowledge of electronics is very
>limited; before becoming an airline pilot I was a chemical engeneer.)
>We then switched antennas behind the instr panel and now com2 had the problem.
>Maybe a bad crimp on the coax connector? So therefore we opened the
>baggage rear panel
>and connected coax com1 to the belly Comant antenna 2 (com1 ant is on top
>of the fuselage)
>and now the readings were normal: neg amm deflection. Bad Comant CI 121
>antenna #1?
>Both ant are new ones, straight out of the box.
>Maybe irrelevant , but using the Fluke meter, there is no short between
>the base and center
>conductor and when testing capacity, the meter tests OL.
>Very probably you have seen this before?
You don't mention the type of aircraft. Composite?
What kind of 'ammeter' . . . electronic? Digital
display? The list of observations you've cited
suggests an ammeter that is not designed to live
in the high radio frequency fields that exist in
and around the panels of composite aircraft.
If you've checked out your antenna feedlines then
this hypothesis is more likely. It's not uncommon for
the interference condition to change markedly with
changes of configuration. I've seen a 'problem' that
went away when the mechanic was trying to demonstrate
it for me . . . but came back when I left the cockpit.
Seems that my body mass changed the radiation patterns
in the cockpit enough to shift the condition!
What kind of ammeter display do you have?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
> If you have an internally regulated alternator
> do I also presume correctly that you're using
> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
> scheme?
>
> Bob . . .
Yes I do have the b-lead contactor in line after the ANL 60.
I have had no trouble with the system other than this. Happened
twice. Both times after engine removal. Seems odd.
The first time I thought it was the alternator, so I took the engine
back off and had it checked. The tests came out fine. I think he
checked the diodes, then ran it up to check for output. Again fine.
After I replaced the ANL 60 things were working smoothly. I did have
the engine off during annual, and to trouble with that reinstall when
I fired it up.
Not so this time.
Thanks for your help,
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.6 hours
Luana, IA.
On Dec 5, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> Bob,
>> I have burned two ANL 60 series limiters in six months. I have no
>> idea why.
>> The circumstances were the same both times though. I had just put
>> my engine back on the plane after some maintenance. After start up
>> I excite the field. This has been my method to check that the
>> alternator is working. Both times the LV light has remained on.
>> With no indication of charging. I thought my battery might have
>> been low, but putting on the charger this morning indicated not.
>> Not a huge deal, but at $20 a copy it is getting old.
>> Any suggestions?
>> Using a 55 amp DN IR alt. with crowbar OV.
>
>
> If you have 70+ hours on the airplane, do I presume
> correctly that the system HAS functioned most of
> the time without blowing the limiter?
>
> Normally, there's but two things that will open
> this limiter. (1) hard fault on the alternator
> side of the limiter. I.e. shorted diodes in
> alternator or shorted wiring between alternator
> and b-lead terminal or (2) battery in backwards.
> or external battery connected to system is
> jumper cabled in backwards.
>
> If you have an internally regulated alternator
> do I also presume correctly that you're using
> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
> scheme?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
It's an internally regulated alternator and you "excite the field".. By
what means? Are you just connecting the sense line?
Do you know that the ANL is blown before turning on the alternator? I
wonder if it's actually being blown out by a bad ground. I can't
visualize a conduction path at the moment, but possibly the b-lead
represents a ground path during starter operation?
Another thought.. Are you sure it's actually a 55A alternator? Would a
110A unit blow an ANL60? Maybe not given the long time constant of ANL's,
and assuming a charged battery.
Regards,
Matt-
>> If you have an internally regulated alternator
>> do I also presume correctly that you're using
>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
>> scheme?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
> Yes I do have the b-lead contactor in line after the ANL 60.
> I have had no trouble with the system other than this. Happened
> twice. Both times after engine removal. Seems odd.
> The first time I thought it was the alternator, so I took the engine
> back off and had it checked. The tests came out fine. I think he
> checked the diodes, then ran it up to check for output. Again fine.
> After I replaced the ANL 60 things were working smoothly. I did have
> the engine off during annual, and to trouble with that reinstall when
> I fired it up.
> Not so this time.
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Kevin Boddicker
> Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.6 hours
> Luana, IA.
>
>
> On Dec 5, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bob,
>>> I have burned two ANL 60 series limiters in six months. I have no
>>> idea why.
>>> The circumstances were the same both times though. I had just put
>>> my engine back on the plane after some maintenance. After start up
>>> I excite the field. This has been my method to check that the
>>> alternator is working. Both times the LV light has remained on.
>>> With no indication of charging. I thought my battery might have
>>> been low, but putting on the charger this morning indicated not.
>>> Not a huge deal, but at $20 a copy it is getting old.
>>> Any suggestions?
>>> Using a 55 amp DN IR alt. with crowbar OV.
>>
>>
>> If you have 70+ hours on the airplane, do I presume
>> correctly that the system HAS functioned most of
>> the time without blowing the limiter?
>>
>> Normally, there's but two things that will open
>> this limiter. (1) hard fault on the alternator
>> side of the limiter. I.e. shorted diodes in
>> alternator or shorted wiring between alternator
>> and b-lead terminal or (2) battery in backwards.
>> or external battery connected to system is
>> jumper cabled in backwards.
>>
>> If you have an internally regulated alternator
>> do I also presume correctly that you're using
>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
>> scheme?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | com antenna problem |
Hey Bob, between the lines - it's an RV-7A, you know, one of those
slower metal jobs - sorry.
-----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: Thursday, December 06, 2007 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: com antenna problem
-->
>
>
>Good morning Bob,
>
>Our RV-7A is nearing completion here in Leuven (close to
>Brussels-Belgium) On checking the radios, 2 SL30 with the GMA340 ASP,
>our com 1 has a problem when transmitting: ammeter deflects full scale
>(towards the + side !?) when pushing the PTT - same on both sticks. The
>com2 shows a normal neg ammeter deflection when tx. Switching boxes in
>the rack: same result. (My knowledge of electronics is very limited;
>before becoming an airline pilot I was a chemical engeneer.) We then
>switched antennas behind the instr panel and now com2 had the problem.
>Maybe a bad crimp on the coax connector? So therefore we opened the
>baggage rear panel and connected coax com1 to the belly Comant antenna
>2 (com1 ant is on top of the fuselage)
>and now the readings were normal: neg amm deflection. Bad Comant CI 121
>antenna #1?
>Both ant are new ones, straight out of the box.
>Maybe irrelevant , but using the Fluke meter, there is no short between
>the base and center
>conductor and when testing capacity, the meter tests OL.
>Very probably you have seen this before?
You don't mention the type of aircraft. Composite?
What kind of 'ammeter' . . . electronic? Digital
display? The list of observations you've cited
suggests an ammeter that is not designed to live
in the high radio frequency fields that exist in
and around the panels of composite aircraft.
If you've checked out your antenna feedlines then
this hypothesis is more likely. It's not uncommon for
the interference condition to change markedly with
changes of configuration. I've seen a 'problem' that
went away when the mechanic was trying to demonstrate
it for me . . . but came back when I left the cockpit.
Seems that my body mass changed the radiation patterns
in the cockpit enough to shift the condition!
What kind of ammeter display do you have?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: com antenna problem |
| From: | "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz> |
May need to put a clip-on ferrite over the ammeter sense wires, at both ends or
at cockpit bulkhead. Get the ferrites from a electronics or computer store.
13 to 20 mm size should do. Quite enough RF gets into the cabin of metal A/C,
to upset the electronic gauges.
Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150847#150847
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Richardson" <jrichard(at)ccser.com> |
| Subject: | Erratic Alternator Control with LR3C-28 |
I wonder if anyone else using the LR3C-28 and the Kelly Aerospace 100 A gear
driven alternator (common on new TCM IO-550N) has experienced erratic
overcharging when electrical load is low? Not enough overcharge to trip the
over voltage circuit, but enough to cause the bus voltage to reach 30.5 V in
spikes from the normal 28.5 V. This erratic voltage surging only occurs at
engine RPM over about 2100 and when electrical load is below about 10 A.
Here's just a brief run-down of the couple things I've looked at.
I've replaced ground wires, circuit breakers, re-crimped all ring terminals
and measured voltages on the regulator during flight. In looking at the
"field" terminal of the LR3C (pin 4) with an oscilloscope in flight, I see
an average voltage of about 5 to 6 volts but I also see 25 volt spikes
occurring almost all the time with spacing anywhere from about 10
milliseconds to about 100 milliseconds. These spikes go away when
electrical load is increased and field voltage raises above 10 V.
At low engine RPM, less than 1200, the charging system is stable
independent of load.
If this subtle electrical problem is familiar to you and you have an idea
what might be going on, I'd appreciate a reply.
Thanks
John Richardson
Lancair Legacy, 30 hours flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: com antenna problem |
Palomar engineering sells ferrites for hams
bobf
On 12/6/07, jetboy wrote:
>
>
> May need to put a clip-on ferrite over the ammeter sense wires, at both
> ends or at cockpit bulkhead. Get the ferrites from a electronics or computer
> store. 13 to 20 mm size should do. Quite enough RF gets into the cabin of
> metal A/C, to upset the electronic gauges.
>
> Ralph
>
> --------
> Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150847#150847
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B hours
Luana, IA.
On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Matt Prather wrote:
>
>
> It's an internally regulated alternator and you "excite the
> field".. By
> what means? Are you just connecting the sense line?
I have a split rocker "ala Cessna". After start up I "turn on" excite
the field.
>
> Do you know that the ANL is blown before turning on the alternator? I
> wonder if it's actually being blown out by a bad ground. I can't
> visualize a conduction path at the moment, but possibly the b-lead
> represents a ground path during starter operation?
>
> Another thought.. Are you sure it's actually a 55A alternator?
> Would a
> 110A unit blow an ANL60? Maybe not given the long time constant of
> ANL's,
> and assuming a charged battery.
It is a 55A DN alt. converted from a Geo Metro.
I "think I have it figured out. Not sure yet. I think the B-lead at
the alt contactor is so close to the alum sheet that covers the
firewall, or may be touching. If that is so the current could be able
to go to ground via the firewall, forrest of tabs, ground lug to
engine. I thought this last summer when I had the trouble, but could
not find any sign of an arc. The termination is covered with black
shrink tube, but it has some cracks in it. I do remember it getting
close to the firewall as I tightened it last Sunday night. I also
recall moving it away from the FW last summer and not letting it get
close this fall after engine reinstall. I will check it out ASAP and
let the group know. May be a while it is snowing here, and the
forecast calls for more.
The runway has been close since Saturday due to ice.
Any comments are welcome.
Thanks,
Kevin
>
>
>>> If you have an internally regulated alternator
>>> do I also presume correctly that you're using
>>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
>>> scheme?
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>> Yes I do have the b-lead contactor in line after the ANL 60.
>> I have had no trouble with the system other than this. Happened
>> twice. Both times after engine removal. Seems odd.
>> The first time I thought it was the alternator, so I took the engine
>> back off and had it checked. The tests came out fine. I think he
>> checked the diodes, then ran it up to check for output. Again fine.
>> After I replaced the ANL 60 things were working smoothly. I did have
>> the engine off during annual, and to trouble with that reinstall when
>> I fired it up.
>> Not so this time.
>> Thanks for your help,
>>
>> Kevin Boddicker
>> Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.6 hours
>> Luana, IA.
>>
>>
>> On Dec 5, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bob,
>>>> I have burned two ANL 60 series limiters in six months. I have no
>>>> idea why.
>>>> The circumstances were the same both times though. I had just put
>>>> my engine back on the plane after some maintenance. After start up
>>>> I excite the field. This has been my method to check that the
>>>> alternator is working. Both times the LV light has remained on.
>>>> With no indication of charging. I thought my battery might have
>>>> been low, but putting on the charger this morning indicated not.
>>>> Not a huge deal, but at $20 a copy it is getting old.
>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>> Using a 55 amp DN IR alt. with crowbar OV.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you have 70+ hours on the airplane, do I presume
>>> correctly that the system HAS functioned most of
>>> the time without blowing the limiter?
>>>
>>> Normally, there's but two things that will open
>>> this limiter. (1) hard fault on the alternator
>>> side of the limiter. I.e. shorted diodes in
>>> alternator or shorted wiring between alternator
>>> and b-lead terminal or (2) battery in backwards.
>>> or external battery connected to system is
>>> jumper cabled in backwards.
>>>
>>> If you have an internally regulated alternator
>>> do I also presume correctly that you're using
>>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
>>> scheme?
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Sounds like you might have it.. Can you grind the bolt down any and still
get the not and lug on it? Or dent the firewall a bit with some kind of
round tool (a socket of some sort).
Regards,
Matt-
>
> Kevin Boddicker
> Tri Q 200 N7868B hours
> Luana, IA.
>
>
> On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Matt Prather wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It's an internally regulated alternator and you "excite the
>> field".. By
>> what means? Are you just connecting the sense line?
>
> I have a split rocker "ala Cessna". After start up I "turn on" excite
> the field.
>>
>> Do you know that the ANL is blown before turning on the alternator? I
>> wonder if it's actually being blown out by a bad ground. I can't
>> visualize a conduction path at the moment, but possibly the b-lead
>> represents a ground path during starter operation?
>>
>> Another thought.. Are you sure it's actually a 55A alternator?
>> Would a
>> 110A unit blow an ANL60? Maybe not given the long time constant of
>> ANL's,
>> and assuming a charged battery.
>
> It is a 55A DN alt. converted from a Geo Metro.
> I "think I have it figured out. Not sure yet. I think the B-lead at
> the alt contactor is so close to the alum sheet that covers the
> firewall, or may be touching. If that is so the current could be able
> to go to ground via the firewall, forrest of tabs, ground lug to
> engine. I thought this last summer when I had the trouble, but could
> not find any sign of an arc. The termination is covered with black
> shrink tube, but it has some cracks in it. I do remember it getting
> close to the firewall as I tightened it last Sunday night. I also
> recall moving it away from the FW last summer and not letting it get
> close this fall after engine reinstall. I will check it out ASAP and
> let the group know. May be a while it is snowing here, and the
> forecast calls for more.
> The runway has been close since Saturday due to ice.
> Any comments are welcome.
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>>
>>
>>
>>>> If you have an internally regulated alternator
>>>> do I also presume correctly that you're using
>>>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
>>>> scheme?
>>>>
>>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes I do have the b-lead contactor in line after the ANL 60.
>>> I have had no trouble with the system other than this. Happened
>>> twice. Both times after engine removal. Seems odd.
>>> The first time I thought it was the alternator, so I took the engine
>>> back off and had it checked. The tests came out fine. I think he
>>> checked the diodes, then ran it up to check for output. Again fine.
>>> After I replaced the ANL 60 things were working smoothly. I did have
>>> the engine off during annual, and to trouble with that reinstall when
>>> I fired it up.
>>> Not so this time.
>>> Thanks for your help,
>>>
>>> Kevin Boddicker
>>> Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.6 hours
>>> Luana, IA.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 5, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Bob,
>>>>> I have burned two ANL 60 series limiters in six months. I have no
>>>>> idea why.
>>>>> The circumstances were the same both times though. I had just put
>>>>> my engine back on the plane after some maintenance. After start up
>>>>> I excite the field. This has been my method to check that the
>>>>> alternator is working. Both times the LV light has remained on.
>>>>> With no indication of charging. I thought my battery might have
>>>>> been low, but putting on the charger this morning indicated not.
>>>>> Not a huge deal, but at $20 a copy it is getting old.
>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>> Using a 55 amp DN IR alt. with crowbar OV.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you have 70+ hours on the airplane, do I presume
>>>> correctly that the system HAS functioned most of
>>>> the time without blowing the limiter?
>>>>
>>>> Normally, there's but two things that will open
>>>> this limiter. (1) hard fault on the alternator
>>>> side of the limiter. I.e. shorted diodes in
>>>> alternator or shorted wiring between alternator
>>>> and b-lead terminal or (2) battery in backwards.
>>>> or external battery connected to system is
>>>> jumper cabled in backwards.
>>>>
>>>> If you have an internally regulated alternator
>>>> do I also presume correctly that you're using
>>>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
>>>> scheme?
>>>>
>>>> Bob . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | IFR instrument check question |
Here's a question from a fellow member in our local EAA Chapter.
"Garmin has finally released new software for its 500W and 400W navigators.
I
had it installed today in my 430W and 530W. With this release, my GPSs are
now certified as a sole source navigation device. One benefit of this is
that my alternate airports can have only GPS approaches.
A question I have is do I still need to do the 30-day accuracy checks on my
VOR receivers? I assume the answer is no unless I plan to use my VOR
receivers for navigation. I can't remember the last time I did that and have
no plans to do so in the future. I've always used the GPS even when flying
on airways. At Smyrna (MQY) it's not a big deal since there is a VOT on the
field and it's usually working. There are lots of airports though that don't
have a VOT and you can't receive the VOR on the ground. In that case you
can't launch into IMC unless you have done an accuracy check. Presumably I'm
now exempt from that if my GPS is functioning.
Anyone know the answer?"
Marty in Brentwood TN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | IFR instrument check question |
12/7/2007
Hello Marty, You forwarded: "Garmin has finally released new software for
its 500W and 400W navigators. I had it installed today in my 430W and 530W.
With this release, my GPSs are
now certified as a sole source navigation
device....................skip..........."
Can you please give us a little more information on this software update?
1) How is this software update identified?
2) How does one go about getting it installed in their 430W?
3) Where is there an explanation of the need for this update?
Thanks,
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
-----------------------------
From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question
Here's a question from a fellow member in our local EAA Chapter.
"Garmin has finally released new software for its 500W and 400W navigators.
I
had it installed today in my 430W and 530W. With this release, my GPSs are
now certified as a sole source navigation device. One benefit of this is
that my alternate airports can have only GPS approaches.
A question I have is do I still need to do the 30-day accuracy checks on my
VOR receivers? I assume the answer is no unless I plan to use my VOR
receivers for navigation. I can't remember the last time I did that and have
no plans to do so in the future. I've always used the GPS even when flying
on airways. At Smyrna (MQY) it's not a big deal since there is a VOT on the
field and it's usually working. There are lots of airports though that don't
have a VOT and you can't receive the VOR on the ground. In that case you
can't launch into IMC unless you have done an accuracy check. Presumably I'm
now exempt from that if my GPS is functioning.
Anyone know the answer?"
Marty in Brentwood TN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
Matt,
I know there is plenty of room for the wire. I was just trying to
make things look nice. I can rotate the termination 180=BA. I just need
to angle it away from the FW. I also think I will apply another piece
of shrink tube over the existing one.
Thanks Again,
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 79..6 hours
Luana, IA.
On Dec 6, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Matt Prather wrote:
>
>
> Sounds like you might have it.. Can you grind the bolt down any
> and still
> get the not and lug on it? Or dent the firewall a bit with some
> kind of
> round tool (a socket of some sort).
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
>>
>> Kevin Boddicker
>> Tri Q 200 N7868B hours
>> Luana, IA.
>>
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Matt Prather wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's an internally regulated alternator and you "excite the
>>> field".. By
>>> what means? Are you just connecting the sense line?
>>
>> I have a split rocker "ala Cessna". After start up I "turn on" excite
>> the field.
>>>
>>> Do you know that the ANL is blown before turning on the
>>> alternator? I
>>> wonder if it's actually being blown out by a bad ground. I can't
>>> visualize a conduction path at the moment, but possibly the b-lead
>>> represents a ground path during starter operation?
>>>
>>> Another thought.. Are you sure it's actually a 55A alternator?
>>> Would a
>>> 110A unit blow an ANL60? Maybe not given the long time constant of
>>> ANL's,
>>> and assuming a charged battery.
>>
>> It is a 55A DN alt. converted from a Geo Metro.
>> I "think I have it figured out. Not sure yet. I think the B-lead at
>> the alt contactor is so close to the alum sheet that covers the
>> firewall, or may be touching. If that is so the current could be able
>> to go to ground via the firewall, forrest of tabs, ground lug to
>> engine. I thought this last summer when I had the trouble, but could
>> not find any sign of an arc. The termination is covered with black
>> shrink tube, but it has some cracks in it. I do remember it getting
>> close to the firewall as I tightened it last Sunday night. I also
>> recall moving it away from the FW last summer and not letting it get
>> close this fall after engine reinstall. I will check it out ASAP and
>> let the group know. May be a while it is snowing here, and the
>> forecast calls for more.
>> The runway has been close since Saturday due to ice.
>> Any comments are welcome.
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If you have an internally regulated alternator
>>>>> do I also presume correctly that you're using
>>>>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
>>>>> scheme?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes I do have the b-lead contactor in line after the ANL 60.
>>>> I have had no trouble with the system other than this. Happened
>>>> twice. Both times after engine removal. Seems odd.
>>>> The first time I thought it was the alternator, so I took the
>>>> engine
>>>> back off and had it checked. The tests came out fine. I think he
>>>> checked the diodes, then ran it up to check for output. Again fine.
>>>> After I replaced the ANL 60 things were working smoothly. I did
>>>> have
>>>> the engine off during annual, and to trouble with that reinstall
>>>> when
>>>> I fired it up.
>>>> Not so this time.
>>>> Thanks for your help,
>>>>
>>>> Kevin Boddicker
>>>> Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.6 hours
>>>> Luana, IA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 5, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>> I have burned two ANL 60 series limiters in six months. I have no
>>>>>> idea why.
>>>>>> The circumstances were the same both times though. I had just put
>>>>>> my engine back on the plane after some maintenance. After
>>>>>> start up
>>>>>> I excite the field. This has been my method to check that the
>>>>>> alternator is working. Both times the LV light has remained on.
>>>>>> With no indication of charging. I thought my battery might have
>>>>>> been low, but putting on the charger this morning indicated not.
>>>>>> Not a huge deal, but at $20 a copy it is getting old.
>>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>>> Using a 55 amp DN IR alt. with crowbar OV.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have 70+ hours on the airplane, do I presume
>>>>> correctly that the system HAS functioned most of
>>>>> the time without blowing the limiter?
>>>>>
>>>>> Normally, there's but two things that will open
>>>>> this limiter. (1) hard fault on the alternator
>>>>> side of the limiter. I.e. shorted diodes in
>>>>> alternator or shorted wiring between alternator
>>>>> and b-lead terminal or (2) battery in backwards.
>>>>> or external battery connected to system is
>>>>> jumper cabled in backwards.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have an internally regulated alternator
>>>>> do I also presume correctly that you're using
>>>>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
>>>>> scheme?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob . . .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Here you go OC...
http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2007/071206garmin.html
Bret Smith
RV-9A "Fuselage"
Blue Ridge, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 7:30 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question
>
> 12/7/2007
>
> Hello Marty, You forwarded: "Garmin has finally released new software for
> its 500W and 400W navigators. I had it installed today in my 430W and
> 530W. With this release, my GPSs are
> now certified as a sole source navigation
> device....................skip..........."
>
> Can you please give us a little more information on this software update?
>
> 1) How is this software update identified?
>
> 2) How does one go about getting it installed in their 430W?
>
> 3) Where is there an explanation of the need for this update?
>
> Thanks,
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge."
>
> -----------------------------
>
> From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question
>
>
> Here's a question from a fellow member in our local EAA Chapter.
>
>
> "Garmin has finally released new software for its 500W and 400W
> navigators.
> I
> had it installed today in my 430W and 530W. With this release, my GPSs are
> now certified as a sole source navigation device. One benefit of this is
> that my alternate airports can have only GPS approaches.
>
> A question I have is do I still need to do the 30-day accuracy checks on
> my
> VOR receivers? I assume the answer is no unless I plan to use my VOR
> receivers for navigation. I can't remember the last time I did that and
> have
> no plans to do so in the future. I've always used the GPS even when flying
> on airways. At Smyrna (MQY) it's not a big deal since there is a VOT on
> the
> field and it's usually working. There are lots of airports though that
> don't
> have a VOT and you can't receive the VOR on the ground. In that case you
> can't launch into IMC unless you have done an accuracy check. Presumably
> I'm
> now exempt from that if my GPS is functioning.
>
> Anyone know the answer?"
>
>
> Marty in Brentwood TN
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Good Morning OC,
Since I have not yet seen an answer to your timely question, may I
interject a bit?
I have not yet had the update performed so what I do contribute will be from
a rather faulty memory and hearsay. However I will try my best. Answers
will be inserted in your text as best I can.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 12/7/2007 6:38:43 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
Hello Marty, You forwarded: "Garmin has finally released new software for
its 500W and 400W navigators. I had it installed today in my 430W and 530W.
With this release, my GPSs are
now certified as a sole source navigation
device....................skip..........."
Can you please give us a little more information on this software update?
1) How is this software update identified?
Only a wild guess here, but I am reasonably confident you will be able to
check it at the start up page.
2) How does one go about getting it installed in their 430W?
Take it to your dealer and they will update it in place. My informant's tell
me it takes about ten minutes to do the update and an hour or less for the
paperwork.
3) Where is there an explanation of the need for this update?
That's a bit tougher. My recollection is that there was a service letter, an
AD, or both, which came out a year or two ago telling us that the Garmin 480
was no longer approved for sole source use, but that such use would be
reinstated after an update was done. When the "W" versions were issued, they
contained a similar statement within their paperwork. I don't have mine here just
now, but it did mention the restriction. This software update does whatever
it takes to bring the sets up to sole source standards.
I read a blurb from Garmin a few weeks ago and it did mention other
improvements as well.
Any help at all? -- Old Bob
Thanks,
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | =?iso-8859-1?Q?Th=E9o_Celis?= <theo.celis(at)skynet.be> |
| Subject: | Re: com antenna problem |
Thank you Bob, Ralph & Bob F.,
A few tests confirmed exactly what you said, Bob.
Just moving my body while txmitting resulted in large
needle deflections.
As somebody mentioned, the RV is full metal.
The ammeter is one that Vans sells : a 40A shunt model, -40/0/+40 scale.
The coil is housed in an aluminum cylinder, inside the plastic instrument.
There is a PCB with some resistors, transistors etc.
The instrument itself is located in a centre console under the main instr
panel.
The voltmeters we used to play with during elec lessons were far less
complicated...
We measured 7mV over the shunt with all avionics turned on and when
pressing the PTT it shot up to 12mV.
My friend brought a handheld RX and our tx tested fine.
Thanks a million for yr help.
Tho.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: com antenna problem
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Good morning Bob,
>>
>>Our RV-7A is nearing completion here in Leuven (close to Brussels-Belgium)
>>On checking the radios, 2 SL30 with the GMA340 ASP, our com 1 has a
>>problem
>>when transmitting: ammeter deflects full scale (towards the + side !?)
>>when
>>pushing the PTT - same on both sticks. The com2 shows a normal neg ammeter
>>deflection when tx.
>>Switching boxes in the rack: same result. (My knowledge of electronics is
>>very
>>limited; before becoming an airline pilot I was a chemical engeneer.)
>>We then switched antennas behind the instr panel and now com2 had the
>>problem.
>>Maybe a bad crimp on the coax connector? So therefore we opened the
>>baggage rear panel
>>and connected coax com1 to the belly Comant antenna 2 (com1 ant is on top
>>of the fuselage)
>>and now the readings were normal: neg amm deflection. Bad Comant CI 121
>>antenna #1?
>>Both ant are new ones, straight out of the box.
>>Maybe irrelevant , but using the Fluke meter, there is no short between
>>the base and center
>>conductor and when testing capacity, the meter tests OL.
>>Very probably you have seen this before?
>
> You don't mention the type of aircraft. Composite?
> What kind of 'ammeter' . . . electronic? Digital
> display? The list of observations you've cited
> suggests an ammeter that is not designed to live
> in the high radio frequency fields that exist in
> and around the panels of composite aircraft.
>
> If you've checked out your antenna feedlines then
> this hypothesis is more likely. It's not uncommon for
> the interference condition to change markedly with
> changes of configuration. I've seen a 'problem' that
> went away when the mechanic was trying to demonstrate
> it for me . . . but came back when I left the cockpit.
> Seems that my body mass changed the radiation patterns
> in the cockpit enough to shift the condition!
>
> What kind of ammeter display do you have?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bert Murillo" <bertrv6(at)gmail.com> |
Bob:
I have tried to contact you thru this, but no luck. I guess i had the wrong
e-mail? Some one fro the list gave me this one. Hope you receive it.
I want to add a second radio to my rv6a, but because lack of space I cannot
install an Audio panel.
Question is, if I add another radio, I am thinking of the
MicroAir...small and not
too expensive) Is there any Switch or way that I cfould use both radios, that is
switch from one to another, just as when you have the Audio Panel??
I have now the Kin's radio 125..
Thanks for your reply
Bert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
I'm no expert, but I figure if you have a VOR, you'd have to do the checks
as per FARs - whether you ever turn them on in flight or not - picky thing,
but the ramp checkers are picky.
bobf
On 12/6/07, Emrath wrote:
>
>
> Here's a question from a fellow member in our local EAA Chapter.
>
>
> "Garmin has finally released new software for its 500W and 400W
> navigators.
> I
> had it installed today in my 430W and 530W. With this release, my GPSs are
> now certified as a sole source navigation device. One benefit of this is
> that my alternate airports can have only GPS approaches.
>
> A question I have is do I still need to do the 30-day accuracy checks on
> my
> VOR receivers? I assume the answer is no unless I plan to use my VOR
> receivers for navigation. I can't remember the last time I did that and
> have
> no plans to do so in the future. I've always used the GPS even when flying
> on airways. At Smyrna (MQY) it's not a big deal since there is a VOT on
> the
> field and it's usually working. There are lots of airports though that
> don't
> have a VOT and you can't receive the VOR on the ground. In that case you
> can't launch into IMC unless you have done an accuracy check. Presumably
> I'm
> now exempt from that if my GPS is functioning.
>
> Anyone know the answer?"
>
>
> Marty in Brentwood TN
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Buckaroo Banzai <ornerycuss2001(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Interesting question. SFAR 97 allows the exclusive use of GPS for IFR navigation
in Alaska so if the person asking the question flies only in Alaska the answer
would be obvious.
You don't state if his airplane is certified or experimental. Most experimental
aircraft come with operating limitations that specifically call out FAR 91.205
for IFR operations and FAR 91.205 requires navigation equipment suitable for
the ground facilities to be used. Many people read that as a requirement for
VOR capability in the aircraft (including EAA, I believe).
FAR 91.171 requires the VOR check every 30 days for "...aircraft under IFR using
the VOR system of radio navigation....". No indication what you have to do
if you don't use the VOR system of radio navigation.
This is a case where the regulations need to catch up with the state of the art.
It would appear VOR equipment is required but you don't have to check it unless
you're going to use it.
One question. What are you going to do if you get a RAIM message from your GPS
system that you can't shoot the approach and then have to use VOR to complete
the flight? In my opinion it would be worthwhile to keep the VOR checks up to
date until the regulations catch up.
Greg
Here's a question from a fellow member in our local EAA Chapter.
"Garmin has finally released new software for its 500W and 400W navigators.
I
had it installed today in my 430W and 530W. With this release, my GPSs are
now certified as a sole source navigation device. One benefit of this is
that my alternate airports can have only GPS approaches.
November 23, 2007 - December 07, 2007
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-hk