AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ho
January 12, 2008 - January 29, 2008
police don't have to go into SAR mode for a wife that
did not come home after work. I guess that is a sales
pitch for ON-Star. FLY SAFE.
Other wise flight following AND file detailed flight planes & fly them.
George RV-7 finishing
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Automatic fuel pump backup switch |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> The Eggenfellner Subaru conversion recommends
> the arrangement I believe you're looking for.
> Their recommended installation calls for a
> pair of pumps, either of which can run the engine
> through appropriate plumbing parts . . .
>
> On the electrical side, he suggests a #1, #2, Auto
> switch for pump selection. #1 and #2 are self
> explanatory. One or the other but not both. The Auto
> position powers the #1 pump through relaxed contacts
> of a relay that is energized by the closing of a low
> pressure switch. Once the relay is energized, contacts
> transition to remove power from #1 and apply power to
> #2 pump. At the same time, the relay is electrically
> latched so that it will not de-energize without some
> externally applied conditions (pilot actions, loss of
> electrical power) that cause the relay to relax.
>
> I'll be incorporating this feature into an Eggenfellner
> version of Z-19 but before that drawing comes out, I'll
> refer you to their webite publications at:
>
> http://eggenfellneraircraft.com/ESeriesInstallationGuide.pdf
>
> Bob . . .
Hi Bob,
I'm confused. I'm pretty sure I remember from the Eggenfellner mailing
list that they currently recommend both pumps on for takeoff and
landing, and to turn off one for cruise. On page 51 of the PDF you
reference, I don't see any of the relays or low pressure switches that
you refer to. In the "green" area of the schematic, there are just two
switches, one for each fuel pump, each inline with a 10A circuit
breaker, that are both attached to pin #8 of the "Bus Master Switch".
In the past Eggenfellner had pressure switches in their installations,
but no longer recommends them due to reliability issues with the
pressure switch and the added complexity of the setup.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Apppendix Z, Rev M |
I've just posted an update to Appendix Z at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11M.pdf
It adds two pages to figure Z-15, grounding architectures
that go into some OK/NOT-OKAY examples for grounding
various equipment items in the airplane. The additional
coverage goes to the goals of (1) avoiding the grounding
of potential victim systems (avionics, instruments) in
more than one place on an airframe that is carrying
(2) significant alternator and other systems noises injected
by local grounds for those antagonists.
It also goes to the notion of a linear system of multiple
ground points. I.e, engine (G1), forward side of firewall (G2),
aft side of firewall (G3) and panel (G5) as a suite of
'single-point' grounds while accommodating a few local
grounds (G4) for potential antagonists where they
do not share ground returns (loops) with potential
victims.
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: Fw: Europa XS with ULPower 260i engine |
>
>I have received the following reply from the ULPower representatvie to my
>question, "Why do I not need to include crowbar OV protection with this
>engine?"
>
>
>Our electronics guy sent me a diagram showing the principle of how our
>type of regulator works. He says (in Dutch below) that:
>
>----------
>our type is a "shunt" regulator which shorts the PMG to ground when the
>battery voltage increases above the nominal level so that the battery can
>never be over charged and damaged.
>The principle of a PMG is different to a Regulated Field Generator
>(typical in cars) where the magnetic field is regulated to vary the
>voltage of the generator.
>A PMG acts as a constant current source and therefore may be shorted out.
>
>----------
>The regulator / rectifier we use is typically used on large capacity
>motorbikes and our supplier says they are very robust.
>
>He also sent the attached schematic:
>
>So as I see it, the attached schematic for my airplane should be sufficient.
>
>Vaughn Teegarden
What you've proposed will be fine. The regulator
topology you cited is a carry through of the
earliest PM alternator regulators. It throttles
or controls alternator output to the system by
putting a dead short on the alternator's stator
windings during short periods where unrestrained
output would boost the system voltage too much.
This is a very simple approach that has been
effective since day-one . . . but does have the
down-side of causing the alternator to run at
max output current 100% of the time whether that
energy is used by the electrical system or not.
Of course, if wire size and cooling considerations
for the alternator are carefully addressed, this
can produce a robust, reliable system.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
All,
One function of a PLB that seems to have been forgotten is the tracking mode
(see http://www.findmespot.com/). Assuming you go down and the PLB is
destroyed, your next of kin have a very good idea of your whereabouts - much
better idea than an ELT provides.
Frankly, if I crash and die, I could care less if someone finds me (I know
my family does not feel that way). What I desire out of my PLB is the
ability to tell someone exactly where I am if I have a problem and survive.
Ya - all kinds of scenario's can be debated but if you MUST have a
completely fail safe solution - don't expect to get it from a $150 device.
Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy
http://www.finleyweb.net
Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative? |
I attended a presentation on this device a few days ago.
- It absolutely does not replace any kind of ELT on aircraft. You must
still have an ELT, either 121.5 or 406 MHz.
- It is a private satellite service. You don't pay the annual fee, it
doesn't work for you.
It seems to be an initially cheaper alternative to portable PLBs, but they
then charge annual fees to make up the cheaper purchase price. Seems really
designed for outdoors hikers, backpackers, sportsmen, etc.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:18 PM
Subject: RV-List: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative?
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England
Anyone know any details about this product?
http://www.findmespot.com/explorespot/spotmessenger.aspx
IF it's using the public SARSAT satellites, maybe it would still work after
the 1st mandatory subscription lapses. (Still be a lot cheaper than typical
PLBs with built in GPS.)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: RV-List: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative? |
| From: | <John.Morrissey(at)csiro.au> |
Hi All,
There are some poor man's versions of tracking for mobile phones that
might do some of the functions outlined here.
Have a look at
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/mobile/FindMe.aspx
It's a program that gets your GPS equipped Mobile phone to report its
location in response to a SMS call.
I would still have the PLB but if the family want to find you then this
may be a cheap alternative using stuff you may already have.
Cheers
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2008 8:09 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph Finch"
I attended a presentation on this device a few days ago.
- It absolutely does not replace any kind of ELT on aircraft. You must
still have an ELT, either 121.5 or 406 MHz.
- It is a private satellite service. You don't pay the annual fee, it
doesn't work for you.
It seems to be an initially cheaper alternative to portable PLBs, but
they
then charge annual fees to make up the cheaper purchase price. Seems
really
designed for outdoors hikers, backpackers, sportsmen, etc.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:18 PM
Subject: RV-List: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative?
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England
Anyone know any details about this product?
http://www.findmespot.com/explorespot/spotmessenger.aspx
IF it's using the public SARSAT satellites, maybe it would still work
after
the 1st mandatory subscription lapses. (Still be a lot cheaper than
typical
PLBs with built in GPS.)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gaye and Vaughn" <vaughnray(at)bvunet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Europa XS with ULPower 260i engine |
Thanks Bob,
I am going down to LSA show in Sebring, Florida to see the guys who make
the engine. I hope it works out well for me.
Vaughn Teegarden
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fw: Europa XS with ULPower 260i engine
>
>
>
>>
>>I have received the following reply from the ULPower representatvie to my
>>question, "Why do I not need to include crowbar OV protection with this
>>engine?"
>>
>>
>>Our electronics guy sent me a diagram showing the principle of how our
>>type of regulator works. He says (in Dutch below) that:
>>
>>----------
>>our type is a "shunt" regulator which shorts the PMG to ground when the
>>battery voltage increases above the nominal level so that the battery can
>>never be over charged and damaged.
>>The principle of a PMG is different to a Regulated Field Generator
>>(typical in cars) where the magnetic field is regulated to vary the
>>voltage of the generator.
>>A PMG acts as a constant current source and therefore may be shorted out.
>>
>>----------
>>The regulator / rectifier we use is typically used on large capacity
>>motorbikes and our supplier says they are very robust.
>>
>>He also sent the attached schematic:
>>
>>So as I see it, the attached schematic for my airplane should be
>>sufficient.
>>
>>Vaughn Teegarden
>
> What you've proposed will be fine. The regulator
> topology you cited is a carry through of the
> earliest PM alternator regulators. It throttles
> or controls alternator output to the system by
> putting a dead short on the alternator's stator
> windings during short periods where unrestrained
> output would boost the system voltage too much.
>
> This is a very simple approach that has been
> effective since day-one . . . but does have the
> down-side of causing the alternator to run at
> max output current 100% of the time whether that
> energy is used by the electrical system or not.
> Of course, if wire size and cooling considerations
> for the alternator are carefully addressed, this
> can produce a robust, reliable system.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Shankland <tshankland(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Automatic fuel pump backup switch |
The way I handled this was on my 601 HD with A Stratus Suburu was to put
both electric pumps is series. This will cause an addition of pressures
so after the pumps I put a fuel pressure regulator adjusted to 5 psi. in
this way I can run both pumps for takeoff and landing, or any other time
I like and not exceed the limits of the carb. By the way one of the
Fauset pumps required a by pass check valve so that either pump could
operate independently. I looked into various automatic systems such as
sensing the pressure and modulating one of the pumps but this was far
simpler and so far with my 65 hours has been trouble free.
Tim Shankland
mtmeans wrote:
>
>I have an auto conversion project with dual high pressure fuel pumps. The fuel
pumps are plumbed in parallel with one way valves and are not happy when running
together (stronger pump blocks flow of weaker), ie harmful to switch secondary
on during critical flight. Reflexes being what they are during these times
I am considering a fuel pressure (or other switch) that could turn on the second
pump if first fails. Any suggestions. I tried to search for this exact issue
and had problems. Thanks.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157617#157617
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Europa XS with ULPower 260i engine (OOPS!!!) |
I just realized that I didn't answer "the question" about justification
for OV protection. ALL engine driven power sources fitted with regulators
have the ability to produce output voltages well in excess of the
system design voltages. RISKS from failure of the regulator are mitigated
by (1) the alternator's limited ability to deliver energy (current limit),
(2) te alternators open-circuit, runaway limits for voltage and (3) the
battery's ability to soak-up what the alternator dishes out for an interval
of time sufficient for OV protection to take notice and shut the system down.
In the case of an SD-8 driving a 18 a.h. battery, a simple OV warning light
might suffice presuming that the owner operator is willing to place him/herself
in the OV protection loop.
Most designers op for some form of automatic device as do all folks who design
systems for certified aircraft. Indeed, all of my z-figures for power
generation
feature some form of automatic OV protection combined with immediate
notification
of LOW VOLTAGE that follows.
I was concentrating on the operating characteristics of your particular
alternator/regulator combination and overlooked the fact that your original
question asked about the value of adding OV protection. There are NO
votlage regualtors for which probability of runaway failure is ZERO. Some are
very good, some are not. Without doing the MTBF/FMEA analysis on every
design to be considered, the prudent thing to do is simply include OV
protection
on every system.
This is a 3-phase machine which I presume is more robust than the 18A
alternator on a Rotax. It's probably capable of boosting bus votlage
to over 16 volts immediately followed by a steady rise to over 18 volts
in a matter of minutes. It would not be my personal choice to hope that
I would notice and react to a regulator failure for the purpose of
mitigating damage to the rest of the system . . . I would recommend
inclusion of OV protection.
To do this on the AC side of a 3-phase system would require a two-pole
relay so perhaps the best approach is leaving the relay on the DC side
so it can be a single-pole device. See figure Z-20.
Bob . . .
>
>
>Thanks Bob,
>
>I am going down to LSA show in Sebring, Florida to see the guys who make
>the engine. I hope it works out well for me.
>
>Vaughn Teegarden
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:33 PM
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fw: Europa XS with ULPower 260i engine
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I have received the following reply from the ULPower representatvie to
>>>my question, "Why do I not need to include crowbar OV protection with
>>>this engine?"
>>>
>>>
>>>Our electronics guy sent me a diagram showing the principle of how our
>>>type of regulator works. He says (in Dutch below) that:
>>>
>>>----------
>>>our type is a "shunt" regulator which shorts the PMG to ground when the
>>>battery voltage increases above the nominal level so that the battery
>>>can never be over charged and damaged.
>>>The principle of a PMG is different to a Regulated Field Generator
>>>(typical in cars) where the magnetic field is regulated to vary the
>>>voltage of the generator.
>>>A PMG acts as a constant current source and therefore may be shorted out.
>>>
>>>----------
>>>The regulator / rectifier we use is typically used on large capacity
>>>motorbikes and our supplier says they are very robust.
>>>
>>>He also sent the attached schematic:
>>>
>>>So as I see it, the attached schematic for my airplane should be sufficient.
>>>
>>>Vaughn Teegarden
>>
>> What you've proposed will be fine. The regulator
>> topology you cited is a carry through of the
>> earliest PM alternator regulators. It throttles
>> or controls alternator output to the system by
>> putting a dead short on the alternator's stator
>> windings during short periods where unrestrained
>> output would boost the system voltage too much.
>>
>> This is a very simple approach that has been
>> effective since day-one . . . but does have the
>> down-side of causing the alternator to run at
>> max output current 100% of the time whether that
>> energy is used by the electrical system or not.
>> Of course, if wire size and cooling considerations
>> for the alternator are carefully addressed, this
>> can produce a robust, reliable system.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------)
>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
>> ( appearance of being right . . . )
>> ( )
>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>269.19.1/1220 - Release Date: 1/11/2008 6:09 PM
>
>
>incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | scott klemptner <bmwr606(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Toggle switch tool |
i use masking tape to protect the panel.
1 horizontal strip of tape above, 1 horizontal strip below and as many vertical
strips as necessary between the switches / circuit breakers.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Automatic fuel pump backup switch |
As another has pointed out, Eggenfellner Aircraft no longer recommends an
auto-switching scheme for the dual pump configuration.
Regards,
Mark Sletten
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gaye and Vaughn" <vaughnray(at)bvunet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Europa XS with ULPower 260i engine (OOPS!!!) |
So if I included OV protection as shown in attached, I can feel good about
protecting my electronics. I noticed that in Z-20, you did not have a 5amp
alt field breaker. I have it in mine. Is it required?
Vaughn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 8:48 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Europa XS with ULPower 260i engine (OOPS!!!)
>
>
> I just realized that I didn't answer "the question" about justification
> for OV protection. ALL engine driven power sources fitted with regulators
> have the ability to produce output voltages well in excess of the
> system design voltages. RISKS from failure of the regulator are mitigated
> by (1) the alternator's limited ability to deliver energy (current limit),
> (2) te alternators open-circuit, runaway limits for voltage and (3) the
> battery's ability to soak-up what the alternator dishes out for an
> interval
> of time sufficient for OV protection to take notice and shut the system
> down.
>
> In the case of an SD-8 driving a 18 a.h. battery, a simple OV warning
> light
> might suffice presuming that the owner operator is willing to place
> him/herself
> in the OV protection loop.
>
> Most designers op for some form of automatic device as do all folks who
> design
> systems for certified aircraft. Indeed, all of my z-figures for power
> generation
> feature some form of automatic OV protection combined with immediate
> notification
> of LOW VOLTAGE that follows.
>
> I was concentrating on the operating characteristics of your particular
> alternator/regulator combination and overlooked the fact that your
> original
> question asked about the value of adding OV protection. There are NO
> votlage regualtors for which probability of runaway failure is ZERO. Some
> are
> very good, some are not. Without doing the MTBF/FMEA analysis on every
> design to be considered, the prudent thing to do is simply include OV
> protection
> on every system.
>
> This is a 3-phase machine which I presume is more robust than the 18A
> alternator on a Rotax. It's probably capable of boosting bus votlage
> to over 16 volts immediately followed by a steady rise to over 18 volts
> in a matter of minutes. It would not be my personal choice to hope that
> I would notice and react to a regulator failure for the purpose of
> mitigating damage to the rest of the system . . . I would recommend
> inclusion of OV protection.
>
> To do this on the AC side of a 3-phase system would require a two-pole
> relay so perhaps the best approach is leaving the relay on the DC side
> so it can be a single-pole device. See figure Z-20.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Thanks Bob,
>>
>>I am going down to LSA show in Sebring, Florida to see the guys who make
>>the engine. I hope it works out well for me.
>>
>>Vaughn Teegarden
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>
>>To:
>>Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:33 PM
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fw: Europa XS with ULPower 260i engine
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have received the following reply from the ULPower representatvie to
>>>>my question, "Why do I not need to include crowbar OV protection with
>>>>this engine?"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Our electronics guy sent me a diagram showing the principle of how our
>>>>type of regulator works. He says (in Dutch below) that:
>>>>
>>>>----------
>>>>our type is a "shunt" regulator which shorts the PMG to ground when the
>>>>battery voltage increases above the nominal level so that the battery
>>>>can never be over charged and damaged.
>>>>The principle of a PMG is different to a Regulated Field Generator
>>>>(typical in cars) where the magnetic field is regulated to vary the
>>>>voltage of the generator.
>>>>A PMG acts as a constant current source and therefore may be shorted
>>>>out.
>>>>
>>>>----------
>>>>The regulator / rectifier we use is typically used on large capacity
>>>>motorbikes and our supplier says they are very robust.
>>>>
>>>>He also sent the attached schematic:
>>>>
>>>>So as I see it, the attached schematic for my airplane should be
>>>>sufficient.
>>>>
>>>>Vaughn Teegarden
>>>
>>> What you've proposed will be fine. The regulator
>>> topology you cited is a carry through of the
>>> earliest PM alternator regulators. It throttles
>>> or controls alternator output to the system by
>>> putting a dead short on the alternator's stator
>>> windings during short periods where unrestrained
>>> output would boost the system voltage too much.
>>>
>>> This is a very simple approach that has been
>>> effective since day-one . . . but does have the
>>> down-side of causing the alternator to run at
>>> max output current 100% of the time whether that
>>> energy is used by the electrical system or not.
>>> Of course, if wire size and cooling considerations
>>> for the alternator are carefully addressed, this
>>> can produce a robust, reliable system.
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------)
>>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
>>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
>>> ( appearance of being right . . . )
>>> ( )
>>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>269.19.1/1220 - Release Date: 1/11/2008 6:09 PM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>>Checked by AVG.
>
>
> 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: Europa XS with ULPower 260i engine (OOPS!!!) |
>So if I included OV protection as shown in attached, I can feel good about
>protecting my electronics. I noticed that in Z-20, you did not have a 5amp
>alt field breaker. I have it in mine. Is it required?
>
>Vaughn
Yes, that's works. Look closer at Z-20. EVERY used
of the crowbar OV protection module has a 2 to 5A
breaker upstream of the crowbar module. In this
case, it's between terminals 1 and 5 on the "master
switch".
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe discharge pop-pop-pop |
> >Ralph,
> >
> >I had this same problem with the strobes in my Cessna 172.
> >I solved it by inserting a 1N4002 diode in the power feed to my
> >intercom and putting a 2200uF/35V capacitor between power and ground
> >on the intercom side.
> >Unfortunately this was after rewiring all the intercom wires which had
> >been shoddily installed and incorrectly grounded at both ends. Parts
> >were what I had at hand. It is an easy thing to for you to try.
> >
> >I also found the problem was much more noticable when testing on the
> >ground when the alternator was not running to boost the voltage than
> >when flying.
>
> Interesting! This demonstrates that the noise is conducted
> and the only way that the flash-tube circuit can couple to
> ship's wiring is magnetic or electrostatic. Twisting of
> the strobe head wires under a shield takes care of both of
> these coupling modes except where a ground loop (something
> connected to airframe at fixture end of wires).
>
> As an experiment, try operating your victim system(s) from
> their own quiet power source . . . say a couple of 6v lantern
> batteries in series. Get some el-cheesos from Wal-Mart.
> If the noise goes away while powered only by the batteries,
> then it's coming in through the +14v power wires. In this case,
> adding the diode and capacitor as cited above is worth exploring.
>
> Alternatively, it's worth exploring how the admittedly intense
> flash tube noises are getting out of their normally tight
> confines.
>
> Bob . . .
In my case, I think the noise wasn't from the discharge itself, but
from the initial surge current as the strobe power pack started to
re-charge its internal capacitors for the next flash. I expect the
inconsistent connection of power and ground to the strobes and
intercom led to a voltage drop across the power feed wire to the
intercom - apparently all the folks who worked on the airplane in its
37 year history hadn't read your book :-)
The internal circuitry of the intercom was unable to compensate for
the power fluctuation, which isn't a surprise to me considering the
extremely poor design of the internal circuitry of the intercom -
sometimes products are popular because of features and price, not
quality :-(
In my case, it was just as easy to try sticking the diode and
capacitor in the line as a test as it would have been to try using
separate batteries as a power source. It worked so well that I left
them there, rathering than trying to optimize the values.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
Just to clarify, 406MHz Personal Location Beacon
(PLB's), is basically a hand held ELT. You register the
owner. It's free and is the official Search and Rescue
(SAR) freq with satellites operated by Governments.
The "Personal Tracking Device" (PTD) is a for FEE
commercial service. Cost of the SPOT service is $110
year, initially. 406Mhz is free. The PTD have their own
satellite or piggy back off one. I don't know how good
their coverage is. It's fairly new. The PTD are geared
for hikers, snowmobile and other out door stuff. Yes I
agree a constant tracking device is a good idea. May
be it is a good substitute for a PLB? Who knows?
True PTD can be used to get an update on location.
Your family can go on the web I guess and look up
your position real time. PLB's is only activated for
emergency. Other wise it's off. It is also passive in that
it must be activated by the user. It gives no position
unless turned on. The PTD is on all the time, which
might be a battery issue, since they run off of two little
AA's.
Some of the PTD out there from different companies
have the ability to send a message to the PTD. At one
time they where talking about future voice capability
(like a satellite phone), but the PTD's have backed
down from that, for technical (cost?) reasons. If you
HAVE a PTD than you MUST have some one
monitor you or at least know to look for you and know you
have a PTD.
A PLB is monitored 24/7 and has world
wide coverage.
>From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net>
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT/PLB
>One function of a PLB that seems to have been
>forgotten is the tracking mode (see
>http://www.findmespot.com/). Assuming you go down
>and the PLB is destroyed, your next of kin have a
>very good idea of your whereabouts much better
i>dea than an ELT provides.
>Frankly, if I crash and die, I could care less if
>someone finds me (I know my family does not feel
>that way). What I desire out of my PLB is the ability
>to tell someone exactly where I am if I have a
>problem and survive. Ya - all kinds of scenario's can
>be debated but if you MUST have a completely fail
>safe solution - don't expect to get it from a $150
>device.
>Jon Finley
>N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy
>http://www.finleyweb.net
>Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
| From: | "Sully" <mr.sully(at)tx.rr.com> |
I wanted to find out if anyone has recent experience with performance and support
from Blue Mountain. I have an opportunity to buy a EFIS/One from someone who
hasn't been satisfied, but most of the negative posts I've seen, seem to be
several months old. Any current info will appreciated.
Sully
--------
Sully
RV-7 In-work
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157917#157917
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
| From: | "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
I have 4 BMA Efis's and 2 autopilots in 2 different planes. Have had them for over
4 years and 500 hrs now. My experience with service and support has been good.
Depending on the Generation of EFIS it may or may not be the right one for you.
It also depends on what you want it to do.
If you are going to use a Garmin 430 or 530 or an autopilot other than BMA I would
not get a BMA EFIS especially if it is a pre gen 4 EFIS and even then I would
be hesitant. They work great with an SL 30.
Also the pre gen 4 units will never be upgradable to the features of the generation
4 units so what you get is what you will have. I enjoy flying my Gen 1 EFIS
1 but it just cant compare to my Gen 4 Sport in features and function.
Support right now for the pre gen 4 units is slow but improving.
BMA had a real nightmare of a launch with the Gen 4 products and appears to have
gotten most (not all) items resolved and hopefully they are now going back and
finishing the un resolved issues with Gen 3.
For me the BMA units did all the things I wanted at the right price and weight.
The delivery delays were not an issue for me but for some they caused considerable
problems and rightfully made a lot of people really angry. Hopefully this
is all in the past.
In any event fully evaluate your needs in an EFIS and what you expect to integrate
it with and then look at all the options available. If the BMA unit fits the
bill and is at a good price I wouldn't hesitate at buying it.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157952#157952
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Intercom Troubleshooting Help Needed |
| From: | "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher(at)ge.com> |
I put power to my PS Engineering PM501 intercom last night for the first time and
have a problem that has me at a dead-end. When I powered it up, the fuse blow
immediately. I metered the power lead to ground and got infinite resistance
which tells me that there are no dead shorts in the wiring. I moved the power
circuit to a breaker, just to eliminate the fuse from contention, and it also
popped. Again, no short to ground with the meter. When the unit is switched
off, power can be applied and the breaker will stay latched. This also appears
to tells me that there are no dead shorts in the wiring. It is only when
turned on that it blows. Is this a problem inside the box that I may not be
able to troubleshoot, let alone fix? Any thoughts on what my options are here,
maybe something I have overlooked?
Thanks,
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL, tail and wings completed,
fueslage almost done. Working engine and electrical systems.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157954#157954
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
PS- On BMA
They won't let customers back onto their board if you leave bad
feedback, that's why you don't see as much negative reporting. I'm not
sure if they do this actively or not but I have sent them three requests
to get on their web board and they don't reply. I gave up so I don't
know what they would say if I pressured them. Besides, I can only deal
with their attitudes for about five minutes a month and I didn't want to
use up all my gum balls.
Here are some of my more recent stories regarding BMA: I ran into a guy
that had two Blue Mountain EFIS One's in his Harmon Rocket. I was
looking at it and I asked why he also had two Dynon's right next to the
EFIS One. His response to me was the EFIS One would fail all the time
and he would simply pull the unites and send them back every oil change
because the most he would every get out of the unit was about 40 hours.
He has over a year and a half on the units and was going to remove them
this winter. This story was from August 2007.
This is a story from my unit: A BMA EFIS Lite G3. For those of you who
read the BMA web boards there is a story about the altimeter freezing up
in flight. The response is that it can't happen from the BMA folks. I
have had that problem twice and was told over the phone that that can't
happen. So I looked into the mirror and said it must be me and the
altimeter is really working and the ground is just not staying in the
correct spot. (on a serious note, I think the problem is a thermal
issue, I think the unit needs forced air to keep it cool so far that
seems to be working. "I fear the day I have to use it in the clouds
fortunately it only backs up a real EFIS and I added a stem gauge!")
This last story is in progress: I have a coworker who is building an
RV8 fastback with a partner. Both are detailed people are doing a high
end build with all the bells and whistles. Attention to detail is a 10
(I'll send photos). One of them is an EE and knows his way around
electronics at the micro level. They purchased a BMA EFIS one and have
not flown yet. Most of the probes had to have trimmers installed so
they would read accurately throughout the range of operations (I told
you they were detailed). Most of the probes went out of cal out of
nominal rest. I will post when we get to first flight.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sully
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 9:20 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I wanted to find out if anyone has recent experience with performance
and support from Blue Mountain. I have an opportunity to buy a EFIS/One
from someone who hasn't been satisfied, but most of the negative posts
I've seen, seem to be several months old. Any current info will
appreciated.
Sully
--------
Sully
RV-7 In-work
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157917#157917
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Removing D-Sub sockets |
Fellow tronners....
Is there a trick to removing D-Sub sockets from the connector?
I have the tool from radio shack (I have actually destroyed three of them) for
the standard sockets. My trouble is that I can't get the tool to go past the
base of the pin to where it would release the 'holding' fingers in the connector
assembly.
It has to be either the tool or my gorilla fisted technique..... every once in
a while, I can wiggle while holding my tongue right, and it'll go in to allow
me to extract the socket.
I have two sockets remaining - I need to get a new tool - is there a better one?
Thanks,
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Intercom Troubleshooting Help Needed |
If you purchased the unit from PS Engineering call them and they should
give you an RMA for a free repair. PSE has always gone over and above
for me both personally and through the shop. If you purchased it second
hand, call them and see what they can do, I'd bet the repair wont be
very much.
Based on your report of the failure, I think the unit has an internal
failure. It doesn't sound like it should be that complicated to repair.
It sounds like a power control problem.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
DaveG601XL
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:40 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Intercom Troubleshooting Help Needed
I put power to my PS Engineering PM501 intercom last night for the first
time and have a problem that has me at a dead-end. When I powered it
up, the fuse blow immediately. I metered the power lead to ground and
got infinite resistance which tells me that there are no dead shorts in
the wiring. I moved the power circuit to a breaker, just to eliminate
the fuse from contention, and it also popped. Again, no short to ground
with the meter. When the unit is switched off, power can be applied and
the breaker will stay latched. This also appears to tells me that there
are no dead shorts in the wiring. It is only when turned on that it
blows. Is this a problem inside the box that I may not be able to
troubleshoot, let alone fix? Any thoughts on what my options are here,
maybe something I have overlooked?
Thanks,
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL, tail and wings completed,
fueslage almost done. Working engine and electrical systems.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157954#157954
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Removing D-Sub sockets |
Hi Ralph,
The tool Bob N. shows on his site,
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/D-Sub_Pin/D-Sub_H.jpg
has two ends on it. The red end only goes about 1/2 way around. The
other end goes about 80% of the way around the pin. If your tool
looks like the white end of Bob's picture, it should work without a lot
of force. In fact a delicate touch and patience is necessary. For
some reason, it takes a long time to get the first one or two out, but
once you develop the "feel", they are pretty easy. Force won't work!
The white end is fairly thin and easily bent.
You might want to review Bob's entire procedure at
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/D-Sub_Pin/Pin-Extraction.html
I cursed a lot of pins out using the wrong tool that looked like the
red end before I learned the difference.
Bob W.
"Ralph E. Capen" wrote:
>
> Fellow tronners....
>
> Is there a trick to removing D-Sub sockets from the connector?
>
> I have the tool from radio shack (I have actually destroyed three of them) for
the standard sockets. My trouble is that I can't get the tool to go past the
base of the pin to where it would release the 'holding' fingers in the connector
assembly.
>
> It has to be either the tool or my gorilla fisted technique..... every once in
a while, I can wiggle while holding my tongue right, and it'll go in to allow
me to extract the socket.
>
> I have two sockets remaining - I need to get a new tool - is there a better one?
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/cables/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Frazier" <fraziernv(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Terminal Tool TT5000 |
Just received mine, and it works great on 6AWG and some 8AWG. Nicely made
and more compact than I expected. Works well in a vice. Not sure about
holding the frame with a wrench or whatever say in the plane. Haven't used
it yet for the larger battery cables, but looks like it will work up to 1AWG
or so.
The tool's not really designed for 8AWG, but if the ferrule is thick enough
(or I suppose if you add a few wire strands to a 8AWG wire in a 6AWG
terminal ala Bobs soldering technique), it works pretty well. Very nice
circumferential squeeze on the ferrule. I used 6AWG splices to join MAXI
fuse holders (6AWG wire) to 8AWG Tefzel, and it worked fine. No extra wire
strands required.
Snip
From: "Michael D. Cencula" <matronics(at)cencula.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Terminal Tool TT5000
Terry Frazier
7A Fuselage
Anyone used one of these:
http://www.averytools.com/pc-937-80-the-terminal-tool.aspx
It looks like it might be good for those heavy gauge wires.
Thanks,
Mike Cencula
RV-7A Fuse
Snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
N395V wrote:
> BMA had a real nightmare of a launch with the Gen 4 products and appears to have
gotten most (not all) items resolved and hopefully they are now going back
and finishing the un resolved issues with Gen 3.
>
This statement right here would eliminate the entire company from any
prospect of doing business with me. Read what is written there. Their
Gen 3 products do not work for the purpose intended. Instead of fixing
that product and making things right for their customers, they're busy
working on the next revision...which they subsequently sell to customers
in a broken state. A flight computer for a GA aircraft lives in a very
constrained environment. Temperature ranges and inertial forces have
well defined limits. There is no excuse for a unit not to be tested to
the extent of those limits. The fact that they would repeatedly push
untested products into a potentially life threatening situation says to
me that the company is less than ethical.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio panel #inputs vs #sources |
Will 1/4 watt be sufficient?
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>Sent: Jan 11, 2008 10:47 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Audio panel #inputs vs #sources
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Bob,
>>
>>I have heard 100ohm, 470ohm, and 510ohm. I'm guessing that either will
>>function properly and that the 470 and 510's will decrease the volume more
>>in addition to preventing the backfeed.
>>
>>Ralph
>
> Astute supposition sir.
>
> Bob . . . ----------------------------------------)
>
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intercom Troubleshooting Help Needed |
| From: | "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher(at)ge.com> |
Mike,
I have the same question into PSE via e-mail to their customer service address.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I made ultra sure that I had no shorts
to ground as well as circuit protection in the loop before firing it up.
Thanks,
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL, tail and wings completed,
fueslage almost done. Working engine and electrical systems.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158021#158021
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing D-Sub sockets |
Thanks, Bob....
I have two broken white ends - and I didn't push hard at all.
I'm guessing there's a bunch of finesse to get this right. Good part is I only
need to remove two more pins - I was able to get the other eight out.....
I'll order a new tool - and go over the stuff from the aeroelectric website......coupled
with a lot less force.......
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
>Sent: Jan 14, 2008 11:17 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Removing D-Sub sockets
>
>
>Hi Ralph,
>
>The tool Bob N. shows on his site,
>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/D-Sub_Pin/D-Sub_H.jpg
>has two ends on it. The red end only goes about 1/2 way around. The
>other end goes about 80% of the way around the pin. If your tool
>looks like the white end of Bob's picture, it should work without a lot
>of force. In fact a delicate touch and patience is necessary. For
>some reason, it takes a long time to get the first one or two out, but
>once you develop the "feel", they are pretty easy. Force won't work!
>The white end is fairly thin and easily bent.
>
>You might want to review Bob's entire procedure at
>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/D-Sub_Pin/Pin-Extraction.html
>
>I cursed a lot of pins out using the wrong tool that looked like the
>red end before I learned the difference.
>
>Bob W.
>
>
>"Ralph E. Capen" wrote:
>
>>
>> Fellow tronners....
>>
>> Is there a trick to removing D-Sub sockets from the connector?
>>
>> I have the tool from radio shack (I have actually destroyed three of them) for
the standard sockets. My trouble is that I can't get the tool to go past the
base of the pin to where it would release the 'holding' fingers in the connector
assembly.
>>
>> It has to be either the tool or my gorilla fisted technique..... every once
in a while, I can wiggle while holding my tongue right, and it'll go in to allow
me to extract the socket.
>>
>> I have two sockets remaining - I need to get a new tool - is there a better
one?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
>3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
>Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/cables/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | KX-155 / KT-76A pin wiring & antennas |
| From: | "txpilot" <djg7(at)comcast.net> |
I am attempting to install a KX-155 (no GS) and KT-76A in my Zenith CH701 project.
I have the pin wiring diagrams from Bendix/King showing what pin does what,
but I'm confused about the pin labeling.
I referenced Bob's site at http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/KX155.pdf and
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/KT76A-76C-78A.pdf
but my unit has a different number of pins. My A1 board is only 15 pins and the
A2 board is 11 pins. How are the pins labeled (1-15, a-z, etc.). Also, what
letters are skipped (I, O)?
Second question: I realize the transponder antenna should not be bundled with
other wires, but is it okay to bundle the COM and NAV antenna cables with other
wires?
Thanks,
Dan Ginty
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158036#158036
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
I work in military avionics (I started out as an aerodynamicist); my
view is that airplane guys who move into electronics produce much better
EFIS and autopilot products than electronics guys who move into
airplanes. Ask about the background of the company who built the product
and make a decision accordingly. I have no direct experience of BMA
products, but their representatives at the various airshows did not talk
enough 'airplane' for me.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sully
Sent: 14 January 2008 04:20
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I wanted to find out if anyone has recent experience with performance
and support from Blue Mountain. I have an opportunity to buy a EFIS/One
from someone who hasn't been satisfied, but most of the negative posts
I've seen, seem to be several months old. Any current info will
appreciated.
Sully
--------
Sully
RV-7 In-work
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157917#157917
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio panel #inputs vs #sources |
>
>
>Will 1/4 watt be sufficient?
Yes or even 1/2 watt. I often use 'oversized'
components just to get mechanically more robust
devices. This is one case where electrical ratings
take a back seat being big, mean and ugly.
Bob . . .
>-----Original Message-----
> >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
> >Sent: Jan 11, 2008 10:47 AM
> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Audio panel #inputs vs #sources
> >
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Bob,
> >>
> >>I have heard 100ohm, 470ohm, and 510ohm. I'm guessing that either will
> >>function properly and that the 470 and 510's will decrease the volume more
> >>in addition to preventing the backfeed.
> >>
> >>Ralph
> >
> > Astute supposition sir.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
Peter,
Your view seems biased to me. You work in military avionics yet ou think that
airplane guys who move into electronics produce much better EFISs and autopilots
than "electronic guys" who move into airplanes. I'm not sure what you mean
by "electronic guys," but I suspect it is workers who produce commercial products.
That's like Lenin claiming that communism is better than capitalism.
I also do not have direct experience with BMA products, but I've seen their reps
at airshows. They seem to know what they're talking about just like the other
guys. If they're having problems, I am willing to bet that they are business
related decisions, i.e., shipping too early to meet deadlines, not ordering
enough parts on time, technical problems due to hurried schedules, etc. These
problems plague any organization that isn't run properly. It has nothing to
do with whether someone has military experience or not.
Henador
----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 3:25:57 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I work in military avionics (I started out as an aerodynamicist); my
view is that airplane guys who move into electronics produce much
better
EFIS and autopilot products than electronics guys who move into
airplanes. Ask about the background of the company who built the
product
and make a decision accordingly. I have no direct experience of BMA
products, but their representatives at the various airshows did not
talk
enough 'airplane' for me.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Sully
Sent: 14 January 2008 04:20
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I wanted to find out if anyone has recent experience with performance
and support from Blue Mountain. I have an opportunity to buy a EFIS/One
from someone who hasn't been satisfied, but most of the negative posts
I've seen, seem to be several months old. Any current info will
appreciated.
Sully
--------
Sully
RV-7 In-work
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157917#157917
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "sam(at)fr8dog.net" <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
I've been in the aircraft business as long as most people on this list,and I've
never head as many complaints about any other vender as Blue Mountain. Why don't
you just blow off the advice of this list,and go ahead and buy there product,
then tell us were wrong! :-)
Sam
---- Henador Titzoff wrote:
============
Peter,
Your view seems biased to me. You work in military avionics yet ou think that
airplane guys who move into electronics produce much better EFISs and autopilots
than "electronic guys" who move into airplanes. I'm not sure what you mean
by "electronic guys," but I suspect it is workers who produce commercial products.
That's like Lenin claiming that communism is better than capitalism.
I also do not have direct experience with BMA products, but I've seen their reps
at airshows. They seem to know what they're talking about just like the other
guys. If they're having problems, I am willing to bet that they are business
related decisions, i.e., shipping too early to meet deadlines, not ordering
enough parts on time, technical problems due to hurried schedules, etc. These
problems plague any organization that isn't run properly. It has nothing to
do with whether someone has military experience or not.
Henador
----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 3:25:57 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I work in military avionics (I started out as an aerodynamicist); my
view is that airplane guys who move into electronics produce much
better
EFIS and autopilot products than electronics guys who move into
airplanes. Ask about the background of the company who built the
product
and make a decision accordingly. I have no direct experience of BMA
products, but their representatives at the various airshows did not
talk
enough 'airplane' for me.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Sully
Sent: 14 January 2008 04:20
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I wanted to find out if anyone has recent experience with performance
and support from Blue Mountain. I have an opportunity to buy a EFIS/One
from someone who hasn't been satisfied, but most of the negative posts
I've seen, seem to be several months old. Any current info will
appreciated.
Sully
--------
Sully
RV-7 In-work
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157917#157917
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
Sam, the advice on this list sometimes gets pretty ridiculous, like telling me
to buy an EFIS that I don't need. What are you, some kind of control freak?
Henador
----- Original Message ----
From: "sam(at)fr8dog.net" <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:31:29 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I've been in the aircraft business as long as most people on this
list,and I've never head as many complaints about any other vender as Blue
Mountain. Why don't you just blow off the advice of this list,and go
ahead and buy there product, then tell us were wrong! :-)
Sam
---- Henador Titzoff wrote:
============
Peter,
Your view seems biased to me. You work in military avionics yet ou
think that airplane guys who move into electronics produce much better
EFISs and autopilots than "electronic guys" who move into airplanes. I'm
not sure what you mean by "electronic guys," but I suspect it is
workers who produce commercial products. That's like Lenin claiming that
communism is better than capitalism.
I also do not have direct experience with BMA products, but I've seen
their reps at airshows. They seem to know what they're talking about
just like the other guys. If they're having problems, I am willing to
bet that they are business related decisions, i.e., shipping too early to
meet deadlines, not ordering enough parts on time, technical problems
due to hurried schedules, etc. These problems plague any organization
that isn't run properly. It has nothing to do with whether someone has
military experience or not.
Henador
----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 3:25:57 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I work in military avionics (I started out as an aerodynamicist); my
view is that airplane guys who move into electronics produce much
better
EFIS and autopilot products than electronics guys who move into
airplanes. Ask about the background of the company who built the
product
and make a decision accordingly. I have no direct experience of BMA
products, but their representatives at the various airshows did not
talk
enough 'airplane' for me.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Sully
Sent: 14 January 2008 04:20
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I wanted to find out if anyone has recent experience with performance
and support from Blue Mountain. I have an opportunity to buy a EFIS/One
from someone who hasn't been satisfied, but most of the negative posts
I've seen, seem to be several months old. Any current info will
appreciated.
Sully
--------
Sully
RV-7 In-work
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Reeves <sreeves(at)gw.med.sc.edu> |
| Subject: | Alternator / Charging issue |
A while back my alternator decided to start cycling on and off every
now and again, mostly when under load. It will never do it during a
day flight, and only during the day when running strobes. I can
induce it at night fairly easily sometimes with the navs, fuel pump,
landing light, and panel lights (no strobes needed..they seem able to
induce the problem by themselves). I was returning from Miss. a few
nights ago and it decided to do this. I shut down the strobes and
everything was fine (as usual). I turned the strobes back on and the
last 30 min or so of the flight was uneventful.
I installed a new B&C battery yesterday and the problem occurred
again yesterday evening 1 time near the beginning of the flight, and
more so on the ground after I landed and had the engine at idle
power. I stayed in the pattern since I had a "known" electrical issue.
Here are few things I may have forgotten to mention, and I can't be
sure if this could be a cause of my problem.
2) I notice both my EI voltmeter as well as the Dynon (backup to my
gyro ;) ) are reporting about 13.5V when in flight. I would assume
this should be around 14.5 or so. I think before this problem it
did. Funny the little things you start to notice when you actually
have a problem.
3) The main problem is that if under load, the system will "shut
down" the charging system intermittently and then come back
online. Sometimes in a rapid (5 secs or so) succession or sometimes
in more erratic unpredictable intervals. Like the flight back the
other night, it acted up then stayed online for the remainder of the
flight. I'll see the voltage annunciator come on and the voltage
drop to 11.8 or 12...then it will go back up to 13.5. It may stay
for a while...the remainder of the flight...or maybe 10 secs. It's crazy.
I thought I had the alternator tested at one time and was told it was fine.
I also just replaced my main solenoid (it was going bad..wouldn't
connect when I turned the master on). That's fine now, but that
didn't help the problem either.
This problem is driving me crazy. Any and all input would be appreciated.
I'm almost convinced I'm never going to find the root if this
thing. Thanks again.
Steve Reeves
Glasair 38SR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
Henador,
I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think you have any idea what you
are talking about as it pertains to Blue Mountain Avionics. I have
written four posts today on this subject on two different sites. I have
been nice and danced around the issue figuring that all could read
between the lines. But for you let me be direct, if a boat anchor is
what you need then BMA is for you. If you want to fly in the clouds
then BMA is not for you....
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Henador Titzoff
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
Peter,
Your view seems biased to me. You work in military avionics yet ou
think that airplane guys who move into electronics produce much better
EFISs and autopilots than "electronic guys" who move into airplanes.
I'm not sure what you mean by "electronic guys," but I suspect it is
workers who produce commercial products. That's like Lenin claiming
that communism is better than capitalism.
I also do not have direct experience with BMA products, but I've seen
their reps at airshows. They seem to know what they're talking about
just like the other guys. If they're having problems, I am willing to
bet that they are business related decisions, i.e., shipping too early
to meet deadlines, not ordering enough parts on time, technical problems
due to hurried schedules, etc. These problems plague any organization
that isn't run properly. It has nothing to do with whether someone has
military experience or not.
Henador
----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 3:25:57 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I work in military avionics (I started out as an aerodynamicist); my
view is that airplane guys who move into electronics produce much
better
EFIS and autopilot products than electronics guys who move into
airplanes. Ask about the background of the company who built the
product
and make a decision accordingly. I have no direct experience of BMA
products, but their representatives at the various airshows did not
talk
enough 'airplane' for me.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Sully
Sent: 14 January 2008 04:20
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I wanted to find out if anyone has recent experience with performance
and support from Blue Mountain. I have an opportunity to buy a EFIS/One
from someone who hasn't been satisfied, but most of the negative posts
I've seen, seem to be several months old. Any current info will
appreciated.
Sully
--------
Sully
RV-7 In-work
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157917#157917
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brett Ferrell <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
Just to play devil's advocate, I HAVE a BMA, and have been satisfied. I think
that for the price, they offer the most capable and current functionality, but
I think you need to be choiceful with your upgrades because being first can
mean things aren't as solid as many expect. I'd rather have the option of
perfectly stable or leading tech with some possibility of issue - at my
discretion. They are certainly not for everyone.
Brett
www.velocityxl.com
Quoting Mike :
>
> Henador,
>
> I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think you have any idea what you
> are talking about as it pertains to Blue Mountain Avionics. I have
> written four posts today on this subject on two different sites. I have
> been nice and danced around the issue figuring that all could read
> between the lines. But for you let me be direct, if a boat anchor is
> what you need then BMA is for you. If you want to fly in the clouds
> then BMA is not for you....
>
> Mike
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rsipp(at)earthlink.net |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator / Charging issue |
Steve,
I saw nearly identical symptoms on my RV4. It turned out to be a poor quality
crimp on the b lead connector on the alternator.
Dick Sipp
RV10 N110DV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Peters" <rv9aplane(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
Wow! So much information from people who have never owned the product! You
know I heard from someone that Elvis is alive...I don't have to listen to
anyone else cause it nust be true!
On Jan 14, 2008 7:59 PM, Brett Ferrell wrote:
> bferrell(at)123mail.net>
>
> Just to play devil's advocate, I HAVE a BMA, and have been satisfied. I
> think
> that for the price, they offer the most capable and current functionality,
> but
> I think you need to be choiceful with your upgrades because being first
> can
> mean things aren't as solid as many expect. I'd rather have the option of
> perfectly stable or leading tech with some possibility of issue - at my
> discretion. They are certainly not for everyone.
>
> Brett
> www.velocityxl.com
>
> Quoting Mike :
>
> >
> > Henador,
> >
> > I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think you have any idea what you
> > are talking about as it pertains to Blue Mountain Avionics. I have
> > written four posts today on this subject on two different sites. I have
> > been nice and danced around the issue figuring that all could read
> > between the lines. But for you let me be direct, if a boat anchor is
> > what you need then BMA is for you. If you want to fly in the clouds
> > then BMA is not for you....
> >
> > Mike
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator / Charging issue |
1/15/2008
Hello Steve, Suggest that you check the wiring, particularly the ground
wire, on your voltage regulator.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
----------------------------------------------
From: Steve Reeves <sreeves(at)gw.med.sc.edu>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator / Charging issue
A while back my alternator decided to start cycling on and off every
now and again, mostly when under load. It will never do it during a
day flight, and only during the day when running strobes. I can
induce it at night fairly easily sometimes with the navs, fuel pump,
landing light, and panel lights (no strobes needed..they seem able to
induce the problem by themselves). I was returning from Miss. a few
nights ago and it decided to do this. I shut down the strobes and
everything was fine (as usual). I turned the strobes back on and the
last 30 min or so of the flight was uneventful.
I installed a new B&C battery yesterday and the problem occurred
again yesterday evening 1 time near the beginning of the flight, and
more so on the ground after I landed and had the engine at idle
power. I stayed in the pattern since I had a "known" electrical issue.
Here are few things I may have forgotten to mention, and I can't be
sure if this could be a cause of my problem.
2) I notice both my EI voltmeter as well as the Dynon (backup to my
gyro ;) ) are reporting about 13.5V when in flight. I would assume
this should be around 14.5 or so. I think before this problem it
did. Funny the little things you start to notice when you actually
have a problem.
3) The main problem is that if under load, the system will "shut
down" the charging system intermittently and then come back
online. Sometimes in a rapid (5 secs or so) succession or sometimes
in more erratic unpredictable intervals. Like the flight back the
other night, it acted up then stayed online for the remainder of the
flight. I'll see the voltage annunciator come on and the voltage
drop to 11.8 or 12...then it will go back up to 13.5. It may stay
for a while...the remainder of the flight...or maybe 10 secs. It's crazy.
I thought I had the alternator tested at one time and was told it was fine.
I also just replaced my main solenoid (it was going bad..wouldn't
connect when I turned the master on). That's fine now, but that
didn't help the problem either.
This problem is driving me crazy. Any and all input would be appreciated.
I'm almost convinced I'm never going to find the root if this
thing. Thanks again.
Steve Reeves
Glasair 38SR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brett Ferrell <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
I'm missing something here, Bruce. As I said, I HAVE owned (and still do) the
product, you can see pictures of it on my website (listed below), so I'm not
sure how this message is relevant. Or, were you not trying to make a relevant
point??
http://www.velocityxl.com/EFIS_one.JPG
B
Quoting Bruce Peters :
> Wow! So much information from people who have never owned the product! You
> know I heard from someone that Elvis is alive...I don't have to listen to
> anyone else cause it nust be true!
>
> On Jan 14, 2008 7:59 PM, Brett Ferrell wrote:
>
> > bferrell(at)123mail.net>
> >
> > Just to play devil's advocate, I HAVE a BMA, and have been satisfied. I
> > think
> > that for the price, they offer the most capable and current functionality,
> > but
> > I think you need to be choiceful with your upgrades because being first
> > can
> > mean things aren't as solid as many expect. I'd rather have the option of
> > perfectly stable or leading tech with some possibility of issue - at my
> > discretion. They are certainly not for everyone.
> >
> > Brett
> > www.velocityxl.com
> >
> > Quoting Mike :
> >
> > >
> > > Henador,
> > >
> > > I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think you have any idea what you
> > > are talking about as it pertains to Blue Mountain Avionics. I have
> > > written four posts today on this subject on two different sites. I have
> > > been nice and danced around the issue figuring that all could read
> > > between the lines. But for you let me be direct, if a boat anchor is
> > > what you need then BMA is for you. If you want to fly in the clouds
> > > then BMA is not for you....
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
Bruce,
I have a BMA EFIS, I=92ll sell it to you for half price!
What I think is funny, is that people who don=92t have one want to
support
it, or people who spent all the money they had are stuck with it and are
forced to love it. I just want to keep people informed and keep them
from make the same mistake others including myself have made. The BMA
product looks good on paper. When I started looking at it I saw the
problems with the original product and the second generation product. I
used some of the same deduction and reasoning that has been exhibited
here on this site. I said self, they should have their shit together by
the third iteration and the price should be right. The whole time the
product litterateur got prettier and prettier. Well it doesn=92t work!
The screens freeze up, the unit crashes, most of the info coming from
the probes on the engine system is not correct, the database they use is
not certified(this may have changed recently), and their product support
in a word sucks (It=92s the worst in the industry). Caveat emptor!
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Peters
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
Wow! So much information from people who have never owned the product!
You know I heard from someone that Elvis is alive...I don't have to
listen to anyone else cause it nust be true!
On Jan 14, 2008 7:59 PM, Brett Ferrell wrote:
"mailto:bferrell(at)123mail.net"bferrell(at)123mail.net >
Just to play devil's advocate, I HAVE a BMA, and have been satisfied. I
think
that for the price, they offer the most capable and current
functionality, but
I think you need to be choiceful with your upgrades because being first
can
mean things aren't as solid as many expect. I'd rather have the option
of
perfectly stable or leading tech with some possibility of issue - at my
discretion. They are certainly not for everyone.
Brett
HYPERLINK "http://www.velocityxl.com/" \nwww.velocityxl.com
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
>
>
>I've been in the aircraft business as long as most people on this list,and
>I've never head as many complaints about any other vender as Blue
>Mountain. Why don't you just blow off the advice of this list,and go ahead
>and buy there product, then tell us were wrong! :-)
>Sam
What we're witnessing here is a "snowstorm" of
anecdotal data and the attempts by many to deduce
a "degree of goodness" for a product based on
analysis of that data.
In the TC aircraft world, we rely on repeatable
experiments that put a product through a representative
set of tests that benchmark performance.
These tests are completely independent of the
producer's talents for design, manufacturing and
customer service.
Complaints are valuable information but must be
sorted for relevance to (1) science or (2)
business model. The world's most elegant product
is worthless when it cannot be supported by
quality workmanship and honorable marketing.
On the other hand, many a marginal and/or
even dangerous product has gained a marketplace
toe-hold when manufactured and promoted by
persuasive individuals. Just watch late night
TV for a host of examples for the later class
of merchandise.
We've all heard less than complimentary reports
about Blue Mountain. I've received numerous
stories from knowledgeable system integrators,
pilots and marketing folks who had nothing
but good wishes for success of this product. They
wanted to sell it as a supporting system in their
own airframes.
All of these stories are dated. I would hope
that Blue Mountain's longevity in the marketplace
has more to do with IMPROVEMENTS to both their
science and marketing than for an ability to
squeeze, bottle and sell snake-oil.
When evaluating the usefulness of anecdotal data
from the field, one would do well to view that
data through the filters of reasonableness. Does
the data item make sense? The data items need to
be sorted into two piles: (1) science and (2)
production, marketing and customer service. Finally,
one is well advised to deduce the story teller's
intent . . . informative, humorous, persuasive
or simply hurtful.
If this sounds like more effort and skill
than most of us are able to bring to the argument,
the risk to value for participating in such
discussions becomes obvious. It's an fundamental
element of human nature that individuals with unhappy
experiences will tend toward persuasive words
intended to hurt. But without knowing the
simple-ideas which support an individual's
experience, the intent and value of their words
is not calculable.
I hope individuals who wish to contribute
to the List's collective knowledge and understanding
will do a bit of pre-filtering for their own words
before committing them to the archives. Try to be
informative as to fact and the outcomes of repeatable
experiments. Avoid passing on information that
was not observed/experienced first hand.
Whether you support or disfavor a product or service,
be specific as to the PERSONAL command of facts
upon which you've based your opinion.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: KX-155 / KT-76A pin wiring & antennas |
>
>I am attempting to install a KX-155 (no GS) and KT-76A in my Zenith CH701
>project. I have the pin wiring diagrams from Bendix/King showing what pin
>does what, but I'm confused about the pin labeling.
>
>I referenced Bob's site at
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/KX155.pdf and
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/KT76A-76C-78A.pdf
>
>but my unit has a different number of pins. My A1 board is only 15 pins
>and the A2 board is 11 pins. How are the pins labeled (1-15, a-z,
>etc.). Also, what letters are skipped (I, O)?
The data posted on my website was purloined from an
out of print publication called "Where the wires go",
the effort of an avionics technician that bothered to
compile and share his personal library of knowledge.
I have no way to confirm or deny the accuracy of these
drawings. Obviously, if the drawing differs physically
from what your particular equipment items show, then
the data are suspect and probably cannot be relied upon.
Suggest you visit an avionics shop on a small airport
and make friends with the owner. Years ago, I was
privileged to enjoy the friendship of one of the real
grey-beards in avionics. He had a library of data that
went all the way back to these wonderful products:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Radios/P1012765.JPG
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Radios/P1012780.JPG
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Radios/P1012763.JPG
I used to buy, refurbish and sell these radios back
in the days when I was the proud holder of a 1st
Class Radio Telephone License.
The radios you're wrestling with are not nearly so
dated . . . but finding useful data out in the wild
is becoming increasingly difficult. If you do find some
information that's more useful than what I've
published, I'd be pleased to receive some copies
which I will scan and make available to others.
>Second question: I realize the transponder antenna should not be bundled
>with other wires, but is it okay to bundle the COM and NAV antenna cables
>with other wires?
There are no fundamentals in physics that recommend
separation of wires between potentially antagonistic
systems. There are two purposes for DO-160 testing
against a TSO document for TC aircraft appliances.
(1) make sure the device performs as advertised and
(2) relieve the installer from making concessions
to one system versus another system for happy
coexistence in an airplane.
Folks who experienced success at eliminating
interference by repositioning wires have only
succeeded in masking the root cause of a
problem. The practice of sorting wire bundles
as a prophylactic against interference problems
is not an industry practice.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator / Charging issue |
>
>A while back my alternator decided to start cycling on and off every now
>and again, mostly when under load. It will never do it during a day
>flight, and only during the day when running strobes. I can induce it at
>night fairly easily sometimes with the navs, fuel pump, landing light, and
>panel lights (no strobes needed..they seem able to induce the problem by
>themselves). I was returning from Miss. a few nights ago and it decided
>to do this. I shut down the strobes and everything was fine (as
>usual). I turned the strobes back on and the last 30 min or so of the
>flight was uneventful.
>
>I installed a new B&C battery yesterday and the problem occurred again
>yesterday evening 1 time near the beginning of the flight, and more so on
>the ground after I landed and had the engine at idle power. I stayed in
>the pattern since I had a "known" electrical issue.
>
>Here are few things I may have forgotten to mention, and I can't be sure
>if this could be a cause of my problem.
>
>
>2) I notice both my EI voltmeter as well as the Dynon (backup to my gyro
>;) ) are reporting about 13.5V when in flight. I would assume this
>should be around 14.5 or so. I think before this problem it did. Funny
>the little things you start to notice when you actually have a problem.
>
>3) The main problem is that if under load, the system will "shut down"
>the charging system intermittently and then come back online. Sometimes
>in a rapid (5 secs or so) succession or sometimes in more erratic
>unpredictable intervals. Like the flight back the other night, it acted up
>then stayed online for the remainder of the flight. I'll see the voltage
>annunciator come on and the voltage drop to 11.8 or 12...then it will go
>back up to 13.5. It may stay for a while...the remainder of the
>flight...or maybe 10 secs. It's crazy.
>
> I thought I had the alternator tested at one time and was told it
> was fine.
>
>I also just replaced my main solenoid (it was going bad..wouldn't connect
>when I turned the master on). That's fine now, but that didn't help the
>problem either.
>
>This problem is driving me crazy. Any and all input would be appreciated.
>
>I'm almost convinced I'm never going to find the root if this
>thing. Thanks again.
I've never encountered a system problem that was not
fixable.
You don't say what kind of alternator. External or internally
regulated?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
Bob,
I respect your opinion but I must make a distinction between designing
systems vs. purchasing high dollar systems that you have really no
practical way of modifying or changing. A system where failure is
common vs. occasional. Most of the issues discussed on this site are
based on simple boiler plate system design that can be tested thoroughly
prior to full use. My fear is people will add these off the shelf
products using the marketing as fact on units that seem to work and
sometimes do for a short period of time, this leading toward a false
sense of security. The bottom line is most of what is reported here is
not opinion but fact of failure regard failure with out systematic data
collection. For example I have experienced more then 20 hard failures
of my BMA system while running side by side with a Chelton non-certified
EFIS and an Advanced Flight System AF engine system with no failures at
all on these unites over a period of 18 months and three hundred hours
of in-flight time. Just to clarify!
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
>
>
>I've been in the aircraft business as long as most people on this
list,and
>I've never head as many complaints about any other vender as Blue
>Mountain. Why don't you just blow off the advice of this list,and go
ahead
>and buy there product, then tell us were wrong! :-)
>Sam
What we're witnessing here is a "snowstorm" of
anecdotal data and the attempts by many to deduce
a "degree of goodness" for a product based on
analysis of that data.
In the TC aircraft world, we rely on repeatable
experiments that put a product through a representative
set of tests that benchmark performance.
These tests are completely independent of the
producer's talents for design, manufacturing and
customer service.
Complaints are valuable information but must be
sorted for relevance to (1) science or (2)
business model. The world's most elegant product
is worthless when it cannot be supported by
quality workmanship and honorable marketing.
On the other hand, many a marginal and/or
even dangerous product has gained a marketplace
toe-hold when manufactured and promoted by
persuasive individuals. Just watch late night
TV for a host of examples for the later class
of merchandise.
We've all heard less than complimentary reports
about Blue Mountain. I've received numerous
stories from knowledgeable system integrators,
pilots and marketing folks who had nothing
but good wishes for success of this product. They
wanted to sell it as a supporting system in their
own airframes.
All of these stories are dated. I would hope
that Blue Mountain's longevity in the marketplace
has more to do with IMPROVEMENTS to both their
science and marketing than for an ability to
squeeze, bottle and sell snake-oil.
When evaluating the usefulness of anecdotal data
from the field, one would do well to view that
data through the filters of reasonableness. Does
the data item make sense? The data items need to
be sorted into two piles: (1) science and (2)
production, marketing and customer service. Finally,
one is well advised to deduce the story teller's
intent . . . informative, humorous, persuasive
or simply hurtful.
If this sounds like more effort and skill
than most of us are able to bring to the argument,
the risk to value for participating in such
discussions becomes obvious. It's an fundamental
element of human nature that individuals with unhappy
experiences will tend toward persuasive words
intended to hurt. But without knowing the
simple-ideas which support an individual's
experience, the intent and value of their words
is not calculable.
I hope individuals who wish to contribute
to the List's collective knowledge and understanding
will do a bit of pre-filtering for their own words
before committing them to the archives. Try to be
informative as to fact and the outcomes of repeatable
experiments. Avoid passing on information that
was not observed/experienced first hand.
Whether you support or disfavor a product or service,
be specific as to the PERSONAL command of facts
upon which you've based your opinion.
Bob . . .
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Off Subject - Barry Controls Engine Mounts |
I have 4 new in box Barry Controls mounts. They are Barry Controls part
number 94150-41. They are for the Lancair O-235, O-320, or O-360 per the
Aircraft Spruce catalog. They sell them for $104.95 each. AeroCraftParts
(Lancair) sells them for $95 each plus shipping in each case.
You can have mine for $50 each and I will pay shipping. They have a CD of
0346. (Construction Date of 46th week of 2003) Tech support at BM says that
they have a shelf life of 10 years.
If you need to replace your mounts now or in the near future, you will not
find a better deal.
Thanks,
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Brent, I think you might be missing something. Many are reading these
posts and wondering the viability of a specific product. Greg does a
sizzling hot job on a web page to promote his products (Marketing
wise)but I have heard static for three years on service, tech support
and product reliability.
It is always great to hear of people who are happy. Knowing if they
have 10 hours or 600 on the system helps establish a benchmark.
I have a close friend that bought the highest end BMA four years ago for
a tandem seat project rebuild. Two years ago, Greg said the equipment
(New and in the box) was value-less and the sub-manufacturers had gone
south. The owner had to pay twice and the aircraft is still yet to fly.
These discussions tap on an important discussion point as firms such as
AFS court larger suitors and companies like OP Technologies sell out to
bigger fish.
My question remains "Who will be here in three years and which products
are well supported for the Experimental Build market. EFIS is grand but
a shakeout is inevitable.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brett
Ferrell
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I'm missing something here, Bruce. As I said, I HAVE owned (and still
do) the
product, you can see pictures of it on my website (listed below), so I'm
not
sure how this message is relevant. Or, were you not trying to make a
relevant
point??
http://www.velocityxl.com/EFIS_one.JPG
B
Quoting Bruce Peters :
> Wow! So much information from people who have never owned the product!
You
> know I heard from someone that Elvis is alive...I don't have to listen
to
> anyone else cause it nust be true!
>
> On Jan 14, 2008 7:59 PM, Brett Ferrell wrote:
>
> > bferrell(at)123mail.net>
> >
> > Just to play devil's advocate, I HAVE a BMA, and have been
satisfied. I
> > think
> > that for the price, they offer the most capable and current
functionality,
> > but
> > I think you need to be choiceful with your upgrades because being
first
> > can
> > mean things aren't as solid as many expect. I'd rather have the
option of
> > perfectly stable or leading tech with some possibility of issue - at
my
> > discretion. They are certainly not for everyone.
> >
> > Brett
> > www.velocityxl.com
> >
> > Quoting Mike :
> >
> > >
> > > Henador,
> > >
> > > I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think you have any idea what
you
> > > are talking about as it pertains to Blue Mountain Avionics. I
have
> > > written four posts today on this subject on two different sites.
I have
> > > been nice and danced around the issue figuring that all could read
> > > between the lines. But for you let me be direct, if a boat anchor
is
> > > what you need then BMA is for you. If you want to fly in the
clouds
> > > then BMA is not for you....
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I respect your opinion but I must make a distinction between designing
>systems vs. purchasing high dollar systems that you have really no
>practical way of modifying or changing. A system where failure is
>common vs. occasional. Most of the issues discussed on this site are
>based on simple boiler plate system design that can be tested thoroughly
>prior to full use. My fear is people will add these off the shelf
>products using the marketing as fact on units that seem to work and
>sometimes do for a short period of time, this leading toward a false
>sense of security. The bottom line is most of what is reported here is
>not opinion but fact of failure regard failure with out systematic data
>collection. For example I have experienced more then 20 hard failures
>of my BMA system while running side by side with a Chelton non-certified
>EFIS and an Advanced Flight System AF engine system with no failures at
>all on these unites over a period of 18 months and three hundred hours
>of in-flight time. Just to clarify!
>
>Mike
I don't see where I've argued with you. Your
data are first-hand, unarguable facts which
should given due attention by folks who are
making up their own minds as to how the best
investment of $time$ is made for their project.
I didn't intend to come down for or against
Blue Mountain. The preponderance of evidence
in the marketplace is decidedly not in their
favor. My hope is that folks learn sift the
clouds of floobydust that invariably arise
when searching out useful data.
This is especially important when the equipment
is part of a closed loop stabilization and
navigation system. Doing a reliable display
based on rate sensors as opposed to gyros
is an exceedingly non-trivial software task.
Not only is there a need for robust sensing,
interpretation, calculation for valid display,
there's an equally critical task for sensing
and notification of crew when the display is
not valid.
I've been intimately involved in programs that
replaced iron gyros with laser rate sensors
for the autopilots in 0.5M to 4.0M targets
which maneuvered at up to 10Gs! I've watched
those processes. We expended manpower and
taxpayer dollars that would make most of the
low-cost EFIS OBAM aircraft systems look like
crystal sets.
So in no way do I want to trivialize anyone's
offering of hard data. I do want to encourage
folks to make decisions based on hard data
and to sift that data from information that
is more emotional noise than data.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
Henador,
It has nothing to do with military experience, it has to do with the
experience of the designer with systems that have flown and acquired
time in an airborne environment. That environment is very different from
a lab or a car.
There are some useful and useless questions to ask,
Useless: How many colors on the display
Useful: What is the update rate of the display when using the full color
palate?
Useless: How fast is the processor?
Useful: What is the latency from the air data or attitude sensor sensing
a parameter to it being displayed when the system is displaying its most
complex page? If more than 100ms you will notice the lag, it will be
more difficult to fly the airplane than with a faster system).
Useless: How fast does the internal data bus run at, what is the update
rate of the screen?
Useful: How many times a second does the flight data get updated on the
screen when displaying the most complex page? If less than 20Hz
(preferably 40 or 60Hz) you will notice jumpiness in the display.
Useless: What language did you use for coding?
Useful: What precautions did you take with the software and hardware
designs to ensure accurate and reliable data is always presented to the
pilot, and that any data that is unreliable or stale is not displayed?
The point is airplane guys usually understand what is required from a
system to allow a pilot to properly fly the airplane, what kind of
dynamic response is desireable, and where to optimise the system at the
design stage. Electronics guys might be tempted to use a better
resolution screen, but not consider updates rates or latency in the
basic systems architecture. Errors at the design stage are difficult to
overcome during testing and development.
Any company who claims you should buy their product because it has a big
display that shows lots of data doesn't understand the task that display
will have to perform! If they claim that the basic flight data is
updated much more quickly than the graphics intensive map or terrain
data, then that would make much more sense.
It is really difficult for the average homebuilder to get a good
assessment of the real world performance that might be offered by any
particular EFIS or similar. There are very few comparative evaluations.
One of the only factors is the skill and background of the folks who
designed and built the equipment.
Peter
PS If anyone can answer the above questions for Blue Mountain (or any
other EFIS) I, for one, would be interested.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Henador Titzoff
Sent: 15 January 2008 01:17
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
Peter,
Your view seems biased to me. You work in military avionics yet ou
think that airplane guys who move into electronics produce much better
EFISs and autopilots than "electronic guys" who move into airplanes.
I'm not sure what you mean by "electronic guys," but I suspect it is
workers who produce commercial products. That's like Lenin claiming
that communism is better than capitalism.
I also do not have direct experience with BMA products, but I've seen
their reps at airshows. They seem to know what they're talking about
just like the other guys. If they're having problems, I am willing to
bet that they are business related decisions, i.e., shipping too early
to meet deadlines, not ordering enough parts on time, technical problems
due to hurried schedules, etc. These problems plague any organization
that isn't run properly. It has nothing to do with whether someone has
military experience or not.
Henador
----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 3:25:57 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I work in military avionics (I started out as an aerodynamicist); my
view is that airplane guys who move into electronics produce much
better
EFIS and autopilot products than electronics guys who move into
airplanes. Ask about the background of the company who built the
product
and make a decision accordingly. I have no direct experience of BMA
products, but their representatives at the various airshows did not
talk
enough 'airplane' for me.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Sully
Sent: 14 January 2008 04:20
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I wanted to find out if anyone has recent experience with performance
and support from Blue Mountain. I have an opportunity to buy a EFIS/One
from someone who hasn't been satisfied, but most of the negative posts
I've seen, seem to be several months old. Any current info will
appreciated.
Sully
--------
Sully
RV-7 In-work
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157917#157917
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
>
>
>Henador,
>
>It has nothing to do with military experience, it has to do with the
>experience of the designer with systems that have flown and acquired
>time in an airborne environment. That environment is very different from
>a lab or a car.
>
>There are some useful and useless questions to ask,
>
>Useless: How many colors on the display
>Useful: What is the update rate of the display when using the full color
>palate?
>Useless: How fast is the processor?
>Useful: What is the latency from the air data or attitude sensor sensing
>a parameter to it being displayed when the system is displaying its most
>complex page? If more than 100ms you will notice the lag, it will be
>more difficult to fly the airplane than with a faster system).
>Useless: How fast does the internal data bus run at, what is the update
>rate of the screen?
>Useful: How many times a second does the flight data get updated on the
>screen when displaying the most complex page? If less than 20Hz
>(preferably 40 or 60Hz) you will notice jumpiness in the display.
>Useless: What language did you use for coding?
>Useful: What precautions did you take with the software and hardware
>designs to ensure accurate and reliable data is always presented to the
>pilot, and that any data that is unreliable or stale is not displayed?
>
>The point is airplane guys usually understand what is required from a
>system to allow a pilot to properly fly the airplane, what kind of
>dynamic response is desireable, and where to optimise the system at the
>design stage. Electronics guys might be tempted to use a better
>resolution screen, but not consider updates rates or latency in the
>basic systems architecture. Errors at the design stage are difficult to
>overcome during testing and development.
>
>Any company who claims you should buy their product because it has a big
>display that shows lots of data doesn't understand the task that display
>will have to perform! If they claim that the basic flight data is
>updated much more quickly than the graphics intensive map or terrain
>data, then that would make much more sense.
>
>It is really difficult for the average homebuilder to get a good
>assessment of the real world performance that might be offered by any
>particular EFIS or similar. There are very few comparative evaluations.
>One of the only factors is the skill and background of the folks who
>designed and built the equipment.
>
>Peter
Exactly!
To your list of questions I would add:
Has your product been designed to comply with design goals
set forth in DO-160? If so, which levels and which chapters?
Have any tests been conducted to confirm compliance?
Does your product feature any form of data integrity
monitoring? Does the software monitor internally or
externally developed data for reasonableness? If any
item becomes suspect, how is it handled in displays
to the pilot?
Are there provisions for useful if degraded performance
if some feature of normal operations is no longer
reliable?
Are there any maneuvers that exceed the sensor/software
ability to deduce true conditions? If the system falls
out of bed, how fast and under what conditions might
the user expect the system to get stood up again?
There are probably more questions but these came to
mind first. Peter is right, the average homebuilder
should not be expected to know enough to ask such
questions or understand the answers. But these ARE
questions that should be addressed in detail in the
product's published specifications, installation
and service data. No details as to circuit design,
software or even sources of components need be revealed.
All these questions go to the designer's ability to
do the job right and the manufacturer's ability
and willingness to support it. The capable and
honorable supplier will have no problems with
answering them. These are exactly the kind of
questions I'm expected to answer for clients
. . . clients who couldn't care less about the
gee-whiz and do care a lot about delivering
to customer's expectations at a price he/she
is pleased to pay.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "sam(at)fr8dog.net" <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
No, my apologies, just tired of of vendors that stretch the truth, to sell there
junk. You can find the answer to your questions if you read between the lines
here on this fourm. These are the people that have been at your crossroads
in life and taken both roads, at one time or another.
Sam
---- Henador Titzoff wrote:
============
Sam, the advice on this list sometimes gets pretty ridiculous, like telling me
to buy an EFIS that I don't need. What are you, some kind of control freak?
Henador
----- Original Message ----
From: "sam(at)fr8dog.net" <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:31:29 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I've been in the aircraft business as long as most people on this
list,and I've never head as many complaints about any other vender as Blue
Mountain. Why don't you just blow off the advice of this list,and go
ahead and buy there product, then tell us were wrong! :-)
Sam
---- Henador Titzoff wrote:
============
Peter,
Your view seems biased to me. You work in military avionics yet ou
think that airplane guys who move into electronics produce much better
EFISs and autopilots than "electronic guys" who move into airplanes. I'm
not sure what you mean by "electronic guys," but I suspect it is
workers who produce commercial products. That's like Lenin claiming that
communism is better than capitalism.
I also do not have direct experience with BMA products, but I've seen
their reps at airshows. They seem to know what they're talking about
just like the other guys. If they're having problems, I am willing to
bet that they are business related decisions, i.e., shipping too early to
meet deadlines, not ordering enough parts on time, technical problems
due to hurried schedules, etc. These problems plague any organization
that isn't run properly. It has nothing to do with whether someone has
military experience or not.
Henador
----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 3:25:57 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I work in military avionics (I started out as an aerodynamicist); my
view is that airplane guys who move into electronics produce much
better
EFIS and autopilot products than electronics guys who move into
airplanes. Ask about the background of the company who built the
product
and make a decision accordingly. I have no direct experience of BMA
products, but their representatives at the various airshows did not
talk
enough 'airplane' for me.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Sully
Sent: 14 January 2008 04:20
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I wanted to find out if anyone has recent experience with performance
and support from Blue Mountain. I have an opportunity to buy a EFIS/One
from someone who hasn't been satisfied, but most of the negative posts
I've seen, seem to be several months old. Any current info will
appreciated.
Sully
--------
Sully
RV-7 In-work
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
Sam, you are a noble man. I must apologize to you, also.
Well, you aren't the only one who's tired of vendors who don't deliver and when
they do, they deliver crapp product. I believe we all are. The reason I've
been abrupt with you and Peter is because I believe that both of you misread what
I initially said. Nowhere in my response did I say that I wanted an EFIS.
And nowhere did I defend or condone BMA products. What I simply said is that
Peter is biased being a military guy and saying that only airplane guys know
how to design autopilot and EFISs. Being a military guy has nothing to do with
it unless you want to pay 85% slouches and 15% good guys to get the job done.
Later on he makes the same mistake you made and tells me to blow off the advice
of the people on this list and go buy BMA products. Again, I never said
I wanted to buy BMA products nor do I condone them, because I have no direct
experience with them. I plainly say that I do not have direct experience with
them, but that I have seen BMA
guys at airshows, and they seem to know what they're talking about. Anybody can
talk good shiite, because they are salespeople and have static displays to
show. This is true of any company. The only way to evaluate a good product is
to try it out under normal and extended operating conditions. Nothing beats
experience. What you hear on this email list is, as Bob said, lots of anecdotal
data, no -prefiltering of data, and some good stuff. Often times, when people
post to this and other lists, their intentions are to either sale, sale,
sale what they bought regardless of how good or bad it is, or condemn, condemn,
condemn for several reasons, some being questionable.
P.S. I'm perfectly happy with the equipment I have. If I ever decide to move
up in the EFIS world, I will ride shotgun in people's planes who have such equipment,
then make up my own mind. I know enough EFIS owners already, and they
all talk great about what they have (sale, sale, sale).
Henador
----- Original Message ----
From: "sam(at)fr8dog.net" <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net>
Cc: Henador Titzoff
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:02:22 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
No, my apologies, just tired of of vendors that stretch the truth, to
sell there junk. You can find the answer to your questions if you read
between the lines here on this fourm. These are the people that have
been at your crossroads in life and taken both roads, at one time or
another.
Sam
---- Henador Titzoff wrote:
============
Sam, the advice on this list sometimes gets pretty ridiculous, like
telling me to buy an EFIS that I don't need. What are you, some kind of
control freak?
Henador
----- Original Message ----
From: "sam(at)fr8dog.net" <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:31:29 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I've been in the aircraft business as long as most people on this
list,and I've never head as many complaints about any other vender as
Blue
Mountain. Why don't you just blow off the advice of this list,and go
ahead and buy there product, then tell us were wrong! :-)
Sam
---- Henador Titzoff wrote:
============
Peter,
Your view seems biased to me. You work in military avionics yet ou
think that airplane guys who move into electronics produce much better
EFISs and autopilots than "electronic guys" who move into airplanes.
I'm
not sure what you mean by "electronic guys," but I suspect it is
workers who produce commercial products. That's like Lenin claiming
that
communism is better than capitalism.
I also do not have direct experience with BMA products, but I've seen
their reps at airshows. They seem to know what they're talking about
just like the other guys. If they're having problems, I am willing to
bet that they are business related decisions, i.e., shipping too early
to
meet deadlines, not ordering enough parts on time, technical problems
due to hurried schedules, etc. These problems plague any organization
that isn't run properly. It has nothing to do with whether someone
has
military experience or not.
Henador
----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 3:25:57 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I work in military avionics (I started out as an aerodynamicist); my
view is that airplane guys who move into electronics produce much
better
EFIS and autopilot products than electronics guys who move into
airplanes. Ask about the background of the company who built the
product
and make a decision accordingly. I have no direct experience of BMA
products, but their representatives at the various airshows did not
talk
enough 'airplane' for me.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Sully
Sent: 14 January 2008 04:20
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I wanted to find out if anyone has recent experience with performance
and support from Blue Mountain. I have an opportunity to buy a EFIS/One
from someone who hasn't been satisfied, but most of the negative posts
I've seen, seem to be several months old. Any current info will
appreciated.
Sully
--------
Sully
RV-7 In-work
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
Mike,
I know you're not trying to be rude, but please go back and read what I said again.
Nowhere does it say that I am in the market for an EFIS, BMA or whatever.
Nowhere does it say that I am condoning BMA products. I did say that I've
talked to their salespeople at airshows, and they seem to know what they're talking
about. This does NOT amount to my condoning their products. Anybody can
talk a good talk. My post was to contradict Peter about military guys and why
companies get in trouble and nothing else.
Have a wonderful evening, Mike and Peter and Sam.
Henador
----- Original Message ----
From: Mike <mlas(at)cox.net>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:41:50 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
Henador,
I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think you have any idea what you
are talking about as it pertains to Blue Mountain Avionics. I have
written four posts today on this subject on two different sites. I
have
been nice and danced around the issue figuring that all could read
between the lines. But for you let me be direct, if a boat anchor is
what you need then BMA is for you. If you want to fly in the clouds
then BMA is not for you....
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Henador Titzoff
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
Peter,
Your view seems biased to me. You work in military avionics yet ou
think that airplane guys who move into electronics produce much better
EFISs and autopilots than "electronic guys" who move into airplanes.
I'm not sure what you mean by "electronic guys," but I suspect it is
workers who produce commercial products. That's like Lenin claiming
that communism is better than capitalism.
I also do not have direct experience with BMA products, but I've seen
their reps at airshows. They seem to know what they're talking about
just like the other guys. If they're having problems, I am willing to
bet that they are business related decisions, i.e., shipping too early
to meet deadlines, not ordering enough parts on time, technical
problems
due to hurried schedules, etc. These problems plague any organization
that isn't run properly. It has nothing to do with whether someone has
military experience or not.
Henador
----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 3:25:57 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I work in military avionics (I started out as an aerodynamicist); my
view is that airplane guys who move into electronics produce much
better
EFIS and autopilot products than electronics guys who move into
airplanes. Ask about the background of the company who built the
product
and make a decision accordingly. I have no direct experience of BMA
products, but their representatives at the various airshows did not
talk
enough 'airplane' for me.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Sully
Sent: 14 January 2008 04:20
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I wanted to find out if anyone has recent experience with performance
and support from Blue Mountain. I have an opportunity to buy a EFIS/One
from someone who hasn't been satisfied, but most of the negative posts
I've seen, seem to be several months old. Any current info will
appreciated.
Sully
--------
Sully
RV-7 In-work
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
Hello All,
I have a Bendix-King KLN 94 GPS (IFR certified unit) in an RV-7. During
discussions with an FAA inspector, I was told that I was not allowed to
use this unit for IFR use until I completed a 337 form with a field
approval, and completed the required test flight. I was not aware that
the experimental ships had to jump through the same hoops as the Type
Certificated aircraft. Can this possibly be true? I welcome all input on
this subject.
Bill
RV-7
Lee's Summit, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator / Charging issue |
Hello Steve,
The 13.5 volt output appears to be too low, possibly due to a bad diode.
The intermittent nature also could be due to excessive leakage from one
or more of the other diodes when the alternator gets hot. It might be
wise to take it to an alternator overhaul shop to be checked vs. the
local auto parts establishment. What type of alternator do you have? Any
cooling via blast tube? Please let us know what you find. Thanks.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Reeves
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:35 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator / Charging issue
A while back my alternator decided to start cycling on and off every
now and again, mostly when under load. It will never do it during a
day flight, and only during the day when running strobes. I can
induce it at night fairly easily sometimes with the navs, fuel pump,
landing light, and panel lights (no strobes needed..they seem able to
induce the problem by themselves). I was returning from Miss. a few
nights ago and it decided to do this. I shut down the strobes and
everything was fine (as usual). I turned the strobes back on and the
last 30 min or so of the flight was uneventful.
I installed a new B&C battery yesterday and the problem occurred
again yesterday evening 1 time near the beginning of the flight, and
more so on the ground after I landed and had the engine at idle
power. I stayed in the pattern since I had a "known" electrical issue.
Here are few things I may have forgotten to mention, and I can't be
sure if this could be a cause of my problem.
2) I notice both my EI voltmeter as well as the Dynon (backup to my
gyro ;) ) are reporting about 13.5V when in flight. I would assume
this should be around 14.5 or so. I think before this problem it
did. Funny the little things you start to notice when you actually
have a problem.
3) The main problem is that if under load, the system will "shut
down" the charging system intermittently and then come back
online. Sometimes in a rapid (5 secs or so) succession or
sometimes
in more erratic unpredictable intervals. Like the flight back the
other night, it acted up then stayed online for the remainder of the
flight. I'll see the voltage annunciator come on and the voltage
drop to 11.8 or 12...then it will go back up to 13.5. It may stay
for a while...the remainder of the flight...or maybe 10 secs. It's
crazy.
I thought I had the alternator tested at one time and was told
it was fine.
I also just replaced my main solenoid (it was going bad..wouldn't
connect when I turned the master on). That's fine now, but that
didn't help the problem either.
This problem is driving me crazy. Any and all input would be
appreciated.
I'm almost convinced I'm never going to find the root if this
thing. Thanks again.
Steve Reeves
Glasair 38SR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements |
>Hello All,
>
>
>I have a Bendix-King KLN 94 GPS (IFR certified unit) in an RV-7. During
>discussions with an FAA inspector, I was told that I was not allowed to
>use this unit for IFR use until I completed a 337 form with a field
>approval, and completed the required test flight. I was not aware that the
>experimental ships had to jump through the same hoops as the Type
>Certificated aircraft. Can this possibly be true? I welcome all input on
>this subject.
It would be interesting to see who he recommends for
an IA to sign this off! Assuming you can get it submitted,
it would be interesting to watch what happens to the document
once it hit the appropriate offices for approval and filing.
337's are the equivalent of a one-time STC against a particular
certificated airframe.
The guys here tell me to install it, go fly it, satisfy yourself
that it is functioning as advertised and be done with it. Be
cautious about getting into any serious discussions with
a bureaucrat.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | OT-- Solar panel overvoltage |
| From: | "vozzen" <vozzen(at)yahoo.com> |
Sorry to drift off topic, but chalk it up to Remote Hangar Power-Supply Project.
I've got a couple solar (PV) panels, each rated 48 watt, 3 amp @ 16 volts, 18-19
volts open circuit. Problem is that I bought an inverter that has a 15.5 high-voltage
cutoff, so no worky for 110a/c.
My question(s):
If I got a "Solar Charge Controller", designed to limit charge into batteries,
could I use it to supply the inverter ??
And how about a 12-v. resistive load, or pump/fan motors, (no inverter) that
would pull down the voltage at max draw ?? ... assuming the charge controller
could handle the current.
Any other ideas for regulating 16 v down to a usable 13-14 (for 6 A.)
Thanks in advance for any advice.
--Richard V., 601xl in a cold shop in KC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158464#158464
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 22 Msgs - 01/14/08 |
David,
I have a different model PSE intercom in my Cessna. It has a failover
mode that connects the radio directly to the headset when the intercom
power is off. When you turn it on, some relays click and the intercom
inserts itself into the radio to headset circuitry. So with the power
off, you cannot measure a short.
Try measuring for a short between the headset, mic and ptt leads to
ground and see if you mis-wired something.
PSE has great tech support. I spent quite a while talking with a tech
named Brad when I had a weird incompatibility issue with the intercom
and my headset.
They will take your unit back for test and trade, but check all your
wiring first. Just disconnect the connector at the back of the unit
and search for grounds that are not supposed to be.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Intercom Troubleshooting Help Needed
> From: "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher(at)ge.com>
>
> I put power to my PS Engineering PM501 intercom last night for the
> first time and
> have a problem that has me at a dead-end. When I powered it up, the
> fuse blow
> immediately. I metered the power lead to ground and got infinite resistance
> which tells me that there are no dead shorts in the wiring. I moved
> the power
> circuit to a breaker, just to eliminate the fuse from contention, and it also
> popped. Again, no short to ground with the meter. When the unit is switched
> off, power can be applied and the breaker will stay latched. This
> also appears
> to tells me that there are no dead shorts in the wiring. It is only when
> turned on that it blows. Is this a problem inside the box that I may not be
> able to troubleshoot, let alone fix? Any thoughts on what my
> options are here,
> maybe something I have overlooked?
>
> David Gallagher
> 601 XL, tail and wings completed,
> fueslage almost done. Working engine and electrical systems.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: OT-- Solar panel overvoltage |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 20:16 1/15/2008, you wrote:
>
>Sorry to drift off topic, but chalk it up to Remote Hangar
>Power-Supply Project.
>
>I've got a couple solar (PV) panels, each rated 48 watt, 3 amp @ 16
>volts, 18-19 volts open circuit. Problem is that I bought an
>inverter that has a 15.5 high-voltage cutoff, so no worky for 110a/c.
>My question(s):
>If I got a "Solar Charge Controller", designed to limit charge into
>batteries, could I use it to supply the inverter ??
>
> And how about a 12-v. resistive load, or pump/fan motors, (no
> inverter) that would pull down the voltage at max draw ?? ...
> assuming the charge controller could handle the current.
>
>Any other ideas for regulating 16 v down to a usable 13-14 (for 6 A.)
>
>Thanks in advance for any advice.
>--Richard V., 601xl in a cold shop in KC
Why not just dump them into a battery and the inverter in parallel?
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements |
Good Morning Bill,
I agree with 'Lectric Bob's comment, but may I add a bit more?
What it basically amounts to is that you are the certifying agent. As long
as the equipment operates in the manner required to meet the IFR requirement
s,
you are good to go. However, that does seem to mean that you should do the
checks that would be required for the flight testing to assure yourself that
the set is working properly. Just follow the directions given in the
installation manual for the test flight and so certify in the ship's papers
.
I don't have the regulations memorized, but EAA has issued a paper on the
subject of IFR certification of experimental aircraft. It may have been auth
ored
by Earl Lawrence, but I am not sure. Hopefully, someone more knowledgeable
than I will pipe up with a better reference.
In any case, don't get in an argument with a local FSDO inspector.
Remember, even though most of them are great guys who want to do a good job
,
they are still at the very bottom of the food chain.
Just listen and then do what you want! You are the responsible party. No
arguments needed.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 1/15/2008 9:44:48 P.M. Central Standard Time,
wgill10(at)comcast.net writes:
Hello All,
I have a Bendix-King KLN 94 GPS (IFR certified unit) in an RV-7. During
discussions with an FAA inspector, I was told that I was not allowed to use
this
unit for IFR use until I completed a 337 form with a field approval, and
completed the required test flight. I was not aware that the experimental s
hips
had to jump through the same hoops as the Type Certificated aircraft. Can t
his
possibly be true? I welcome all input on this subject.
Bill
RV-7
Lee=99s Summit, MO
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Talbot" <richard(at)talbots.net.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
I don't personally own a BMA unit but I have certainly evaluated every
competitor out there. There are a few observations I would make about their
top of the line product:
* Until recently very few of the avionics shops would sell it.
Several privately told me to consider why that was but did not actually give
me a specific reason.
* As far as I am aware only one is openly selling BMA stuff today.
That same person told me at Oshkosh several years ago that he wouldn't sell
it and recommended another product. Times change and commercial realities
change that is for sure, but has the reason for the original decision
changed? I don't know.
* Second hand BMA stuff seems to come on the market frequently. I
have not seen this occur with too much other gear that is to all intents and
purposes the latest model.
* Stories abound if you ask about of people that are not happy with
the product, many continue to swear by it though. Some must have had good
service, some may not wish to conclude they spent a lot of money on
something that is not perfect. Some are happy pushing the envelope or
investing in the technology. However other vendors exist that no one has a
bad thing to say about. Surely this would make many people's decision easy
if they are looking for a polished product. However, I would say this is
experimental aviation and each has their own reason for purchasing.
What really convinced me is the method these guys use to develop and ship
code. This is something I am very well qualified to comment on as I work in
the software industry and have been doing so for many years. From
discussions with them and observation of the activities on their message
board I would not fly their latest code under the IFR. This was my priority
and it was a deal breaker for me. I could ask why people buy these units
when they do not want to fly NVFR or IFR, but that would be a whole other
can of worms.
However, If you own BMA hardware, or you want to buy it, please do not take
offense. I support the nature of experimental aviation and your continuing
investment in the technology will no doubt lead to competition and
improvements in the marketplace for everyone. BMA is not for me, for the
reasons I outlined above. If you want to buy it, then that is cool too.
Good luck with your project and happy flying!
Richard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
Bob,
This inspector said he has done over 50 field inspections via 337 in
experimental aircraft in the Kansas City area. He did not say who the
submitting agency was, but I believe it was a repair station that he has
oversight responsibility. Strange. I will take everyone's advice and
quietly stay back away from the FAA and proceed. I have done a flight
test in visual conditions performing GPS approaches (as well as LOC/ILS
approaches) and all went great. Thanks for your input.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS requirements
>Hello All,
>
>
>I have a Bendix-King KLN 94 GPS (IFR certified unit) in an RV-7. During
>discussions with an FAA inspector, I was told that I was not allowed to
>use this unit for IFR use until I completed a 337 form with a field
>approval, and completed the required test flight. I was not aware that
the
>experimental ships had to jump through the same hoops as the Type
>Certificated aircraft. Can this possibly be true? I welcome all input
on
>this subject.
It would be interesting to see who he recommends for
an IA to sign this off! Assuming you can get it submitted,
it would be interesting to watch what happens to the document
once it hit the appropriate offices for approval and filing.
337's are the equivalent of a one-time STC against a particular
certificated airframe.
The guys here tell me to install it, go fly it, satisfy yourself
that it is functioning as advertised and be done with it. Be
cautious about getting into any serious discussions with
a bureaucrat.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | " Peter Laurence" <Dr.Laurence(at)mbdi.org> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements |
Bill
I did a bit of research on this subject last year. The FAA inspector is
WRONG!
Peter Laurence
----- Original Message -----
From: William Gill
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com ; rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:39 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS requirements
Hello All,
I have a Bendix-King KLN 94 GPS (IFR certified unit) in an RV-7.
During discussions with an FAA inspector, I was told that I was not
allowed to use this unit for IFR use until I completed a 337 form with a
field approval, and completed the required test flight. I was not aware
that the experimental ships had to jump through the same hoops as the
Type Certificated aircraft. Can this possibly be true? I welcome all
input on this subject.
Bill
RV-7
Lee's Summit, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: OT-- Solar panel overvoltage |
Ron Quillin wrote:
>
>
> At 20:16 1/15/2008, you wrote:
>>
>> Sorry to drift off topic, but chalk it up to Remote Hangar
>> Power-Supply Project.
>>
>> I've got a couple solar (PV) panels, each rated 48 watt, 3 amp @ 16
>> volts, 18-19 volts open circuit. Problem is that I bought an
>> inverter that has a 15.5 high-voltage cutoff, so no worky for 110a/c.
>> My question(s):
>> If I got a "Solar Charge Controller", designed to limit charge into
>> batteries, could I use it to supply the inverter ??
>>
>> And how about a 12-v. resistive load, or pump/fan motors, (no
>> inverter) that would pull down the voltage at max draw ?? ...
>> assuming the charge controller could handle the current.
>>
>> Any other ideas for regulating 16 v down to a usable 13-14 (for 6 A.)
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any advice.
>> --Richard V., 601xl in a cold shop in KC
>
> Why not just dump them into a battery and the inverter in parallel?
>
> Ron Q.
My thought exactly. This will have the added advantage of allowing you
to draw more than 6amps on the rare occasion that you need it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: OT-- Solar panel overvoltage |
| From: | "vozzen" <vozzen(at)yahoo.com> |
>Why not just dump them into a battery and the inverter in parallel?
I really wanted to see what was possible without a battery...
--RJV
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158503#158503
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
| From: | "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
> Just Curious, how many successfull flight hours do you have behind your BMA?
>
>
About 700hrs.
>
> What I think is funny, is that people who don?t have one want to support it,
or people who spent all the money they had are stuck with it and are forced to
love it.
>
>
Yeah,
My first two units sucked so bad I felt compelled to buy 3 more guess I'm just
lucky that my 5 units are the only ones in the world that work .
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158505#158505
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
1/16/2008
Hello Bill, Avoid that poor soul -- he has not been around long enough or
cared enough to learn that type certificated aircraft and amateur built
experimental aircraft are treated very differently in the FAA's paperwork
system.
What he has described in the way of paperwork approval just simply does not
apply to your airplane.
Here is a quote from the signature section of the FAA Form 337:
"I certify that the repair and/or alteration made to the unit(s) identified
in item 5 above and described on the reverse or attachments hereto have been
made in accordance with the requirements of Part 43 of the U.S. Federal
Aviation Regulations and that the information furnished herein is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge."
And here is a quote from FAR Part 43.1:
"(b) This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued
an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a
different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft."
Since part 43 does not apply to amateur built aircraft issued a Special
Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental Category for the purpose of
operating amateur-built aircraft (FAR 21.191 (g)) how can one properly
comply with the signature certification requirement on the FAA Form 337?
Several years ago a poster described his mistaken attempt to comply with all
FAA type certificated regulatory and advisory circular requirements for the
IFR GPS installation in his amateur built experimental airplane. He even
flew a test flight with a terrified FAA inspector who spent the entire
flight frantically looking out the window in fear of a mid air collision.
The entire effort was wasted because no FAA agency or procedure for the
approval existed -- just initial erroneous assumptions by uninformed FAA
employees.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
-----------------------------------------
From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>Subject: IFR GPS requirements
Date: Jan 15, 2008
Hello All,
I have a Bendix-King KLN 94 GPS (IFR certified unit) in an RV-7. During
discussions with an FAA inspector, I was told that I was not allowed to
use this unit for IFR use until I completed a 337 form with a field
approval, and completed the required test flight. I was not aware that
the experimental ships had to jump through the same hoops as the Type
Certificated aircraft. Can this possibly be true? I welcome all input on
this subject.
Bill
RV-7
Lee's Summit, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements |
Peter, et al, It depends on what the inspector wrote into you ops limits. If
he referenced 91.205 as a requirement for IFR flight, then you must get the
system tested by an FAA certified shop. If not you can proceed as you wish.
In the Ops Limits I received yesterday, Item 11:
"After completion of phase 1 testing, unless appropriately equipped for
night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is
to be operated VFR day only."
Rick Girard
On Jan 16, 2008 7:27 AM, Peter Laurence wrote:
> Bill
>
> I did a bit of research on this subject last year. The FAA inspector is
> WRONG!
>
> Peter Laurence
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* William Gill
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com ; rv-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:39 PM
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS requirements
>
> Hello All,
>
>
> I have a Bendix-King KLN 94 GPS (IFR certified unit) in an RV-7. During
> discussions with an FAA inspector, I was told that I was not allowed to use
> this unit for IFR use until I completed a 337 form with a field approval,
> and completed the required test flight. I was not aware that the
> experimental ships had to jump through the same hoops as the Type
> Certificated aircraft. Can this possibly be true? I welcome all input on
> this subject.
>
>
> Bill
>
> RV-7
>
> Lee's Summit, MO
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: OT-- Solar panel overvoltage |
vozzen wrote:
>
>
>> Why not just dump them into a battery and the inverter in parallel?
>>
>
> I really wanted to see what was possible without a battery...
> --RJV
>
>
You can operate without a battery. Anything is possible, if you throw
enough money at it. But the utility you will get from a couple of
batteries will be by far the biggest bang for the buck. Not only will
they let you have an occasional large power draw that the panels
wouldn't support, but they will let you have limited power at night or
when it's cloudy. If you're rotating cheap batteries as Bob suggests,
then you should be able to rotate the 2yr old battery into a "solar
panel support" position. A spare lawn tractor battery would suffice
until it's time to rotate one in from the airplane. The batteries
should last a LONG time, being constantly charged and only occasionally
drained, so you can keep adding capacity by hooking more up in series as
they rotate out of the plane.
Again, it's possible to solve the problem with some creative
electronics. You could chop the panel's DC to create AC, then run that
through a regulator, then rectify it back to DC. Or you could put a
large capacitor and enough Zener diodes to handle 6amps across the
panel's output. What you'll end up with is some electronics to
maintain, without the added benefits of the stored capacity. You'll
spend a lot more than the $30 battery will cost, even if you kit and
build it yourself.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
Milt,
You must live next door to the shop or married into the family. :)
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of N395V
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:59 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS
> Just Curious, how many successfull flight hours do you have behind
your BMA?
>
>
About 700hrs.
>
> What I think is funny, is that people who don?t have one want to
support it, or people who spent all the money they had are stuck with it
and are forced to love it.
>
>
Yeah,
My first two units sucked so bad I felt compelled to buy 3 more guess
I'm just lucky that my 5 units are the only ones in the world that work
.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158505#158505
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements |
Good Morning Rick,
That is exactly the way it should read!
The next step is to equip it in accordance with the specifications of 14 CFR
Part 91, section 91.205 for the type of flight you wish to conduct and make
an entry into the ship's papers stating that you have done so.
No need to change anything on your ops spec and no need to contact any Fed.
Just install the equipment and test it in accordance with the manufacturers
directions. As long as you have the proper equipment, just hop in the machine
and go fly IFR and/or night
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 1/16/2008 8:53:03 A.M. Central Standard Time,
jindoguy(at)gmail.com writes:
In the Ops Limits I received yesterday, Item 11:
"After completion of phase 1 testing, unless appropriately equipped for
night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to
be
operated VFR day only."
Rick Girard
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
| From: | "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
mlas(at)cox.net wrote:
> Milt,
>
> You must live next door to the shop or married into the family. :)
>
> Mike
>
> --
Nah! they are way too ugly to marry but it is a short flight to the shop.
In all seriousness though I am lucky in that my units have functioned well and
I have had a pleasant experience when interacting with them.
I do know many BMA owners who rightfully are really pissed off at them and have
had nothing but trouble with their units and have had anything but a pleasant
experience in attempting to obtain service. Also know a lot of BMA owners who
got the unit, slapped it in their plane and tried to use it without ever looking
at the install manual, installed them incorrectly nand then raised hell
with BMA.
I think currently BMAs major problem is support for the older units. They do not
have enough staff to fully bring the Gen 4s online and support the gen1s and
3s at the same time. Their G4 launch was a real nightmare for those who needed
their units in a timely fashion. (timely meaning on the date promised)
I do not think BMA or its owners are unethical or do not care about their customers
I think they are exceedingly brilliant techno geeks who hadn't a clue on
how to run a company and had no knowledge of consumer relations.
Hopefully they have learned a lesson and hopefully will survive the past and continue
to grow.
While I am a happy customer and an unashamed supporter I do recognize the problems
they have had and the problems they still have.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158533#158533
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
>
>Bob,
>
>This inspector said he has done over 50 field inspections via 337 in
>experimental aircraft in the Kansas City area. He did not say who the
>submitting agency was, but I believe it was a repair station that he has
>oversight responsibility. Strange. I will take everyone's advice and
>quietly stay back away from the FAA and proceed. I have done a flight
>test in visual conditions performing GPS approaches (as well as LOC/ILS
>approaches) and all went great. Thanks for your input.
>
>Bill
What he "has done" compared to what he is supposed
"to do" may have some serious disconnect here. But
then KC is the home of the Small Aircraft Directorate.
As Thomas Paine noted many moons ago: When subject to
dictatorships, monarchy, or oligarchy, at least we
KNOW the source from which our irritations emanate.
With democracies, we can only just begin to perceive
the major players in a mass of individuals who's
power needs to be metered through constitutional
boundaries. It would not surprise me that what
was recited to you by this individual was a portent
of things to come. After all, the FAA is only here
to help! With the numbers of TC light aircraft
dwindling, he's only looking for more things to
do.
The prohibition against night and/or IFR flight
speaks only to having the necessary equipment under
part 91 rules to safely conduct such operations.
It does not speak to whether it's silver plated,
platinum plated, or holy-watered by individuals
knighted by the oligarchy.
A wise mentor of many years ago once advised me
never to ask a question of anyone with power unless
I already knew what that answer would be. Seems
like a silly notion but as I grew older, it made
a lot of sense. Folks with much power over my life
leave a trail of activities that can be researched
for predictors of their answers. If you don't like
what the answer is going to be, then don't ask it.
It many cases, the expenditure of $time$ to receive
permission far exceeds the $time$ expended to
beg forgiveness.
So sifting through the pile of wreckage after
bagging your remains they discover that your
GPS was not holy-watered . . . what are they
going to do, fine you?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
Guys, I don't own an EFIS of any kind. I have no personal interest in any of
this except in the ad hominem attacks that are escalating daily. Bob created
this site for information exchange, how about keeping it that way and leave
the personal insults and disingenuous apologies to political hacks. Enough,
please.
Rick Girard
On Jan 16, 2008 9:01 AM, Mike wrote:
>
> Milt,
>
> You must live next door to the shop or married into the family. :)
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com ] On Behalf Of N395V
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:59 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS
>
>
>
>
> > Just Curious, how many successfull flight hours do you have behind
> your BMA?
> >
> >
>
>
> About 700hrs.
>
>
> >
> > What I think is funny, is that people who don?t have one want to
> support it, or people who spent all the money they had are stuck with it
> and are forced to love it.
> >
> >
>
>
> Yeah,
>
> My first two units sucked so bad I felt compelled to buy 3 more guess
> I'm just lucky that my 5 units are the only ones in the world that work
> .
>
> --------
> Milt
> 2003 F1 Rocket
> 2006 Radial Rocket
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158505#158505
>
>
> 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
>
>
> 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
Rick,
Go look up reading between the lines=85. The intended reader got it!
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Richard Girard
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS
Guys, I don't own an EFIS of any kind. I have no personal interest in
any of this except in the ad hominem attacks that are escalating daily.
Bob created this site for information exchange, how about keeping it
that way and leave the personal insults and disingenuous apologies to
political hacks. Enough, please.
Rick Girard
On Jan 16, 2008 9:01 AM, Mike wrote:
"mailto:mlas(at)cox.net" \nmlas(at)cox.net>
Milt,
You must live next door to the shop or married into the family. :)
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: HYPERLINK "mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com"
\nowner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:HYPERLINK "mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com"
\n owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com ] On Behalf Of N395V
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:59 AM
\naeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS
> Just Curious, how many successfull flight hours do you have behind
your BMA?
>
>
About 700hrs.
>
> What I think is funny, is that people who don?t have one want to
support it, or people who spent all the money they had are stuck with it
and are forced to love it.
>
>
Yeah,
My first two units sucked so bad I felt compelled to buy 3 more guess
I'm just lucky that my 5 units are the only ones in the world that work
.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
HYPERLINK "http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158505#158505"
\nhttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158505#158505
HYPERLINK "http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158505#158505"
\n
HYPERLINK "http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158505#158505"
\n
HYPERLINK "http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158505#158505"
===========
HYPERLINK "http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158505#158505"
HYPERLINK "http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158505#158505"
HYPERLINK "http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158505#158505"
HYPERLINK "http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158505#158505"
HYPERLINK "http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158505#158505"
HYPERLINK "http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158505#158505"
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Rick,
The postings aren't necessarily insults and attacks; they are just raw
data. We're all grown ups. It would be nice, but not necessary, that
posting be routed through a "pleasantness filter", but I suspect
everyone is able to do their own receipt inspection of the information
and recalibrate it as necessary. Sugar coating is best left to cakes
and donuts. I've seen postings, pro and con, on the BMA matter and take
it all at face value as I'm sure others do.
Bob prefers posting be tilted more toward facts and conclusions based on
repeatable data. Unfortunately, in this matter, its virtually
impossible to conduct objective testing that's useful for the potential
buyer/user. In this case, we are stuck with reliance on anecdotal
observations and subjective opinions. I personally don't put great
weight in any one anecdotal observation, but as the observations,
objective or subjective, continue to pile up on one side of the ledger,
then at some point I decide that yes, that may be useful information.
Even if some of the postings were quite blunt, even harsh, I don't
perceive it as a coordinated attack against any individual, company or
product. If there happens to be a large number of unhappy users, then
that is the problem of the Seller and his product, not of the
individuals who posted their personal experience, even if in colorful
and direct language. So, the open exchanges of information is
commission no great sin, but useful information has been exchanged that
can be used as seen appropriate.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Richard Girard
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS
Guys, I don't own an EFIS of any kind. I have no personal interest in
any of this except in the ad hominem attacks that are escalating daily.
Bob created this site for information exchange, how about keeping it
that way and leave the personal insults and disingenuous apologies to
political hacks. Enough, please.
Rick Girard
On Jan 16, 2008 9:01 AM, Mike < mlas(at)cox.net> wrote:
Milt,
You must live next door to the shop or married into the family. :)
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:
owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com ] On Behalf Of N395V
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:59 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS
< Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>
> Just Curious, how many successfull flight hours do you have behind
your BMA?
>
>
About 700hrs.
>
> What I think is funny, is that people who don?t have one want to
support it, or people who spent all the money they had are stuck with it
and are forced to love it.
>
>
Yeah,
My first two units sucked so bad I felt compelled to buy 3 more guess
I'm just lucky that my 5 units are the only ones in the world that work
.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158505#158505
<http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158505#158505>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
Couldn't agree more. I'm totally tired of the BMA bashing. Let's get
back to the basics.
On Jan 16, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Guys, I don't own an EFIS of any kind. I have no personal interest
> in any of this except in the ad hominem attacks that are escalating
> daily. Bob created this site for information exchange, how about
> keeping it that way and leave the personal insults and disingenuous
> apologies to political hacks. Enough, please.
>
> Rick Girard
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Question about Annunciating Lights |
Found a nice example while browsing. Why build anything? Just install
the lights in the panel and label to suit.
http://www.advanced-flight-systems.com/Installations/RobbinsPanel.JPG
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brett
Ferrell
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:18 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Question about Annunciating Lights
-->
I made my panel out of Honeywell microswitches. It's not really a cheap
way, but the results are nice, and it's fairly straight-forward, with
"dead face" (labels so you KNOW the lamp is out, because it cannot be
read unless illuminated from behind). I also built a push-to-test
circuit.
http://www.velocityxl.com/Electrical.htm
(just the pictures)
http://www.velocityxl.com/annunciator.JPG
http://www.velocityxl.com/press_to_test.JPG
http://www.velocityxl.com/IMAGES2/GRT3.JPG
I bought mine from these folks http://www.fmw411.com/
Brett
Quoting Carl Morgan :
> I took Mark's work as a basis, and this is what I ended up with....
>
> Close up: http://www.rvproject.gen.nz/photos/2007-06/Web_Img_9760.jpg
>
> http://www.rvproject.gen.nz/dailylog/dailylog_2007-07-28.html the
> final look,
>
>
> http://www.rvproject.gen.nz/dailylog/dailylog_2007-06-18.html and
> http://www.rvproject.gen.nz/dailylog/dailylog_2007-06-19.html for some
> of the fabrication process.
>
> Just another possible source of ideas.
>
> Carl
>
> --
> Carl Morgan - ZK-VII - RV 7A - Inspection next Tue!
> http://www.rvproject.gen.nz/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
> Sent: 10 January 2008 18:14
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Question about Annunciating Lights
>
>
> Here's another take on rollin' yer own:
>
>
> http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=5126
>
> Click on fotos for bigger view and Next Entry>> for more info
> (several
> pages) including wiring diagram, part #s etc...
>
> From The PossumWorks in TN
> Mark Phillips
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> --
> Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new
year.
>
>
> 10:16
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFISBlue Mountain EFISBlue Mountain |
EFIS
As often happens during forum debates, we tend to veer from the original qu
estion and digress into personalities. FWIW, I'm now wiring the panel in my
-8A, and spent more time by far on the EFIS decision than any other compon
ent over the past 3 years (hey, I may be old, but I'm awfully slow). My goi
ng in PANEL requirements were an IFR capability (please do not start a deba
te on whether RVs are really IFR airplanes - I have significant IFR experie
nce and wanted my plane to have the capability if I wanted to ever exercise
it). That implied an HSI and ILS capability, and the ability to tie to a G
PS and SL30. Display could be a 106 or internal to the EFIS. Reliability ma
tters. So does customer relations. Just like the basic safety rule of aviat
ion: Listen to the experiences of others - you can't possibly live long eno
ugh to experience them all yourself. Word of mouth reputation matters, but
should be taken as a subjective assessment unless hard data is presented. C
ost was a concern, but not the driver. Autopilot compatibility was also att
ractive.
I initially ranked BMA ahead of GRT, with Dynon third (because of lack of H
IS stuff at the time). As I researched more, GRT became first choice. Then
AFS came out with the 3500. After talking to them and learning more about t
he company and the reputation of their other products, I settled on an AFS
3500 and a TruTrak ADI Pilot. No regrets - customer service from both compa
nies has been outstanding, and the capabilities of the 3500 satisfy all my
personal requirements at reasonable cost. Even though I am over a year from
first flight, I have continued to acquire additional EFIS knowledge - and
haven't found anything yet to imply I made an incorrect - or even marginal
- decision.
Rightly or wrongly, in the fast-moving, public world of experimental avioni
cs, you're only as good as your last sortie - or customer experience. There
was enough unanswered negative stuff about BMA to make me think "Why bothe
r", when other companies offered similar or better capabilities at comparab
le or affordably higher cost. As always, it gets back to personal requireme
nts and personal hot buttons that need to be addressed in satisfying those
requirements. There is no cook book. However, a "Do you guys have time to s
hoot the breeze about EFIS systems?" call to customer service (with your ho
mework already done) of each company will give you some pretty good indicat
ors.
And another FWIW - I also carefully researched engine choices, and in the e
nd paid Bart & Sue at Aerosport over $28K for a new IO-360 - mainly because
their approach to customer service resonated so well with me. Other compan
ies would have also satisfied my requirements - perhaps even more cheaply -
but Bart and Sue had an attitude and approach that worked for me.
In this business you will almost never have the 100% solution - and many ti
mes not even the 75% solution. Sometimes your ahead if you're only 51% sure
. Just like Dirty Harry sez: "Do ya' feel lucky, punk? Well do ya?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | EFIS screen brightness |
Does anybody know which is the brightness / resolution (in nits) of the
AFS-3400 EFIS' displays ?
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lee Logan" <leeloganster(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 26 Msgs - 01/15/08 |
"Being a military guy has nothing to do with it unless you want to pay 85%
slouches and 15% good guys to get the job done."
Say what?
I must have never been introduced to the 85% of Marines I served with who
were "slouches"...
Glad to discuss this with you personally some time, however...
Lee...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OT-- Solar panel overvoltage |
Sorry to drift off topic, but chalk it up to Remote Hangar Power-Supply
Project.
I've got a couple solar (PV) panels, each rated 48 watt, 3 amp @ 16 volts,
18-19 volts open circuit. Problem is that I bought an inverter that has a
15.5 high-voltage cutoff, so no worky for 110a/c.
My question(s):
If I got a "Solar Charge Controller", designed to limit charge into
batteries, could I use it to supply the inverter ??
Kinda, sorta . . . Solar panels have a significant source
impedance. Hence the drop from 19 volts no load to 16 volts
at a 3A load. DeltaV of 3 volts divided by DeltaI of 3A
yields a source impedance on the order of 1 ohm. Two panels
in parallel would drop this to 1/2 ohm for the array.
16 volts would smoke most 12/14v accessories and some
accessories would draw less than 6A which boosts the
voltage still more.
The most "stable" application of solar power is to combine
the array with a battery maintainer designed to integrate
the array with a rechargeable battery. This allows you to
store energy even if you're not using it for the moment
(until battery is charged). It also allows you to tax the
system with loads much larger than 6A albeit intermittently.
And how about a 12-v. resistive load, or pump/fan motors, (no inverter)
that would pull down the voltage at max draw ?? ... assuming the charge
controller could handle the current.
Any other ideas for regulating 16 v down to a usable 13-14 (for 6 A.)
A Google search for "solar battery charger" yielded
a bucket full of hits . . . a few are cited below.
http://tinyurl.com/ybh9wz
http://tinyurl.com/246w34
http://tinyurl.com/2c3orf
Suggest you team the solar panels with a regulating
charger, the largest battery you're willing to
acquire and maintain. NOW you have an energy source
that will run a pretty hefty inverter and permit
you to run a variety of loads rain or shine.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey W. Skiba" <jskiba(at)icosa.net> |
| Subject: | Note #24 in appendix Z part number ? |
Hello List
I am getting ready to order some parts for my OBAM aircraft electrical
system and would like to verify I have found the correct Diode Bridge per
note #24 in appendix Z.
I found this at digi key
Is it the correct part?
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?name=GBPC3502A-N
D
My next question is how big of a heat sink do I need for it if the device
getting power from it draws about 6 amps?
Thanks in advance
Jeff.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Note #24 in appendix Z part number ? |
>
>Hello List
>
>I am getting ready to order some parts for my OBAM aircraft electrical
>system and would like to verify I have found the correct Diode Bridge per
>note #24 in appendix Z.
>
>I found this at digi key
>Is it the correct part?
>http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?name=GBPC3502A-N
>D
>
>My next question is how big of a heat sink do I need for it if the device
>getting power from it draws about 6 amps?
Mount it to any metal surface and it
will be fine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott R. Shook" <sshook(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | EFIS screen brightness |
Rob at AFS should be able to answer that question. Just go to their website
and ask.
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos
Trigo
Sent: Wednesday, 16 January, 2008 16:06
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFIS screen brightness
Does anybody know which is the brightness / resolution (in nits) of the
AFS-3400 EFIS' displays ?
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: IFR GPS requirements |
Hi Bill et al-
Re: >Hello Bill, Avoid that poor soul -- he has not been around long
enough or
>cared enough to learn that type certificated aircraft and amateur built
>experimental aircraft are treated very differently in the FAA's paperwork
>system.
While I greatly appreciate and highly regard and respect the source of that
comment, I couldn't disagree more. If this inspector has run 50
unnecessary 337's through the system, he has cost a lot of people a lot of
money, spread misinformation across the system, and will no doubt cause
other improperly educated or motivated inspectors to take the
'conservative' (ignorant) route at our collective expense. In other words,
there has been a gross misuse of governmental power. These kinds of topics
have gone to DC and back via OSH, and we have the tools to correct the
problem you are facing.
My personal experience with an amateur built rule hose-up was to be very
(politely) clear with the person involved about the nature and basis for
our disconnect, and then call OSH with the details. Within 24 hours they
had achieved understanding with the head of the directorate involved, and
within another 24 the fed involved had been re-educated. That ended the
problem for me, and, presumably, everyone who came along after.
Also, the feds now have a program to handle customer service issues in
house. As I understand it, it's the equivalent of 'let me speak to your
supervisor', although I don't recall the precise terminology. Mike, can
you fill us in?
While I don't advocate getting into hostile conflicts with The Man, I
strongly urge you (and anyone else having bogus reg interpretation issues)
to fight the good fight with the resources we have developed and paid for
through our EAA dues and those gate fees at OSH we are all unhappy about.
Heck, Brian got a law in Jacksonville repealed with a little help from his
friends. What's one confused inspector?
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey W. Skiba" <jskiba(at)icosa.net> |
| Subject: | Note #24 in appendix Z part number ? |
Bob, Thanks for the quick reply about the heat sink, so that does mean that
I found the correct part for this function at digikey ?
Info shows:
Technical/Catalog Information
GBPC3502A-ND
<http://rocky.digikey.com/scripts/ProductInfo.dll?Site=US&V=698&M=GBPC3502A>
Standard Package <http://dkc1.digikey.com/US/EN/help/help14.html>
100
Category
Discrete Semiconductor Products
Family
Bridge Rectifiers
Vendor
Vishay IR <http://www.digikey.com/scripts/Redirect/Redirect.dll?R=9&V=698>
Diode/Rectifier Type
Single Phase
Voltage - Rated
200V
Current Rating
35A
Package / Case
GBPC-A
Packaging
Bulk
Speed
Standard Recovery > 200mA
Reverse Recovery Time (trr)
-
Lead Free Status
Lead free
RoHS Status
RoHS compliant
Other Names
*GBPC3502A
GBPC3502A
GBPC3502A-ND
-----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: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Note #24 in appendix Z part number ?
>
>Hello List
>
>I am getting ready to order some parts for my OBAM aircraft electrical
>system and would like to verify I have found the correct Diode Bridge per
>note #24 in appendix Z.
>
>I found this at digi key
>Is it the correct part?
>http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?name=GBPC3502A-
N
>D
>
>My next question is how big of a heat sink do I need for it if the device
>getting power from it draws about 6 amps?
Mount it to any metal surface and it
will be fine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Controlling defrost fans |
I have a pair of 1.5"x1.5" fans (Radio Shack 273-240) mounted forward of the instrument
panel on my 6A slider - think about the intersection of the support bulkhead
parallel and forward of the instrument panel and the ribs that point aft
that support the top of the instrument panel in three places.
I am wondering if a straight on-off switch is sufficient or should I put in a rheostat
to control the fan speed? KISS would dictate that a simple on-off switch
would work - but has anyone out there wished for a half-speed?
Here on the DelMarVa peninsula - I'm certain that I'll need it on a regular basis
Thanks,
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Controlling defrost fans |
I doubt it...Just give it full blast to de-mist then shut them off...Once your
flying I doubt you'll ever turn 'em back on.
I wish I had installed a fan now too on my tip up in Western oregon
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:36 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Controlling defrost fans
-->
I have a pair of 1.5"x1.5" fans (Radio Shack 273-240) mounted forward of the instrument
panel on my 6A slider - think about the intersection of the support bulkhead
parallel and forward of the instrument panel and the ribs that point aft
that support the top of the instrument panel in three places.
I am wondering if a straight on-off switch is sufficient or should I put in a rheostat
to control the fan speed? KISS would dictate that a simple on-off switch
would work - but has anyone out there wished for a half-speed?
Here on the DelMarVa peninsula - I'm certain that I'll need it on a regular basis
Thanks,
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Controlling defrost fans |
I just put a 5 ohm resistor across a SPDT switch to give a? high-off-low option.
Works great in the garage, but not flying yet.
Jim Timoney
-----Original Message-----
From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Sent: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:15 am
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Controlling defrost fans
I doubt it...Just give it full blast to de-mist then shut them off...Once your
flying I doubt you'll ever turn 'em back on.
I wish I had installed a fan now too on my tip up in Western oregon
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:36 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Controlling defrost fans
-->
I have a pair of 1.5"x1.5" fans (Radio Shack 273-240) mounted forward of the
instrument panel on my 6A slider - think about the intersection of the support
bulkhead parallel and forward of the instrument panel and the ribs that point
aft that support the top of the instrument panel in three places.
I am wondering if a straight on-off switch is sufficient or should I put in a
rheostat to control the fan speed? KISS would dictate that a simple on-off
switch would work - but has anyone out there wished for a half-speed?
Here on the DelMarVa peninsula - I'm certain that I'll need it on a regular
basis
Thanks,
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: OT-- Solar panel overvoltage |
| From: | "vozzen" <vozzen(at)yahoo.com> |
> Suggest you team the solar panels with a regulating
charger, the largest battery
Yep, those are the charge controllers I'd looked at, and I understand the role
of the battery.
I had tested a direct-driven 12v. boat bilge pump (1.5A) in a water-garden-fish-pond,
but found the 16-18v roasted the pump (it did work for a whole summer).
Other thought was for an attic exhaust fan-- but without controller, will have
same problem.
Will head down to local H.F. Chinese outlet store, get a controller, and go from
there.
Thanks, Bob, and others, for suggestions.
--RJV
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158804#158804
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
1/17/2008
Hello Rick, Thanks for your input and interest in this subject. You wrote:
1) "It depends on what the inspector wrote into you ops limits."
The FAA Inspector or DAR is directed by FAA Order 8130.2_ (edition F, with
change 3 incorporated is the current version) what to write into the
Operating Limitations when issuing the Special Airworthiness Certificate for
an amateur built experimental aircraft. His prerogative to ad lib in this
specific area (IFR GPS requirements) is extremely limited to non existent.
2) "If he referenced 91.205 as a requirement for IFR flight, then you must
get the
system tested by an FAA certified shop." and "If not you can proceed as you
wish."
These two statements are misleading / incorrect.
2A) First off, There is no "if" about it. He most certainly will reference
91.205 as a requirement for IFR flight. He will do this by incorporating
this statement into the Operating Limitations: "After completion of phase 1
testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in
accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated VFR day only." See
paragraph 1 above.
2B) Second, Other than the normal regulatory requirements for periodic
inspections of the altitude encoder, the altimeter, and the transponder
(these inspection requirements also apply to type certificated aircraft)
there is no requirement to "get the system tested by an FAA certified shop."
2C) Third, It is not clear what you mean when you write the word "system".
I have prepared a table that serves as a quick reference on this subject:
MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT
EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.
I will email a copy of this table to any reader requesting it.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
-------------------------------------------------------
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS requirements
Peter, et al, It depends on what the inspector wrote into you ops limits. If
he referenced 91.205 as a requirement for IFR flight, then you must get the
system tested by an FAA certified shop. If not you can proceed as you wish.
In the Ops Limits I received yesterday, Item 11:
"After completion of phase 1 testing, unless appropriately equipped for
night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is
to be operated VFR day only."
Rick Girard
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-11 Main Battery Bus |
| From: | "AlRice" <Allen(at)AllenRice.net> |
Bob:
On diagrams Z-11 and Z-13 I notice that you have the Hobbs meter powered off the
main battery bus which is on all the time. Shouldn't the Hobbs come off the
main power bus instead?
--------
Al Rice
Skybolt 260
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158861#158861
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Hi Bob,
Could you send me a copy of the list? I am setting up for lite
IFR but having the right stuff is important also.
Jim Nelson
N15JN
RV9-A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bryan" <bhcishere(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements |
Bob,
I could sure use a copy of your table.
Thank You,
Bryan
>
> I have prepared a table that serves as a quick reference on this subject:
>
> MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT
> EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.
>
> I will email a copy of this table to any reader requesting it.
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge."
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements |
Good Afternoon OC,
I would appreciate a copy of your listing!
_BobsV35B(at)aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 1/17/2008 1:07:41 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT
EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.
I will email a copy of this table to any reader requesting it.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements |
Good evening OC:
I also would appreciate a copy.
Thanks
hammer408(at)comcast.net
Henry
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS requirements
Good Afternoon OC,
I would appreciate a copy of your listing!
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 1/17/2008 1:07:41 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR
BUILT
EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.
I will email a copy of this table to any reader requesting it.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather
and
understand knowledge."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-11 Main Battery Bus |
>
>Bob:
>On diagrams Z-11 and Z-13 I notice that you have the Hobbs meter powered
>off the main battery bus which is on all the time. Shouldn't the Hobbs
>come off the main power bus instead?
A Hobbs may be POWERED by the battery bus (as it is
in virtually ALL Cessna single engine aircraft) it is
CONTROLLED by an oil pressure switch so that it records
engine run time, not bus hot time.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Oil_Pressure/Oil_P_Warn.pdf
Bob . . .
>--------
>Al Rice
>Skybolt 260
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158861#158861
>
>
>--
>9:01 AM
>
>
>incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG.
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: Z-11 Main Battery Bus |
Good Evening Al Rice,
For What It Is Worth!
It is done that way to make it more difficult for the thieves who would turn
the Master Switch off in an effort to cheat the FBO!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 1/17/2008 9:14:15 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net writes:
A Hobbs may be POWERED by the battery bus (as it is
in virtually ALL Cessna single engine aircraft) it is
CONTROLLED by an oil pressure switch so that it records
engine run time, not bus hot time.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Oil_Pressure/Oil_P_Warn.pdf
Bob . . .
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-11 Main Battery Bus |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Keeps the FBO's renting out airplanes in business... :)
Matt-
>
>
>
>>
>>Bob:
>>On diagrams Z-11 and Z-13 I notice that you have the Hobbs meter powered
>>off the main battery bus which is on all the time. Shouldn't the Hobbs
>>come off the main power bus instead?
>
> A Hobbs may be POWERED by the battery bus (as it is
> in virtually ALL Cessna single engine aircraft) it is
> CONTROLLED by an oil pressure switch so that it records
> engine run time, not bus hot time.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Oil_Pressure/Oil_P_Warn.pdf
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>>--------
>>Al Rice
>>Skybolt 260
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158861#158861
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>9:01 AM
>>
>>
>>incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>>Checked by AVG.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-11 Main Battery Bus |
| From: | "AlRice" <Allen(at)AllenRice.net> |
I didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification.
--------
Al Rice
Skybolt 260
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158963#158963
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
1/18/2008
Hello Glen, You are absolutely correct and I apologize for that moment of
weakness when I wrote to just avoid the ignorant bureaucrat.
If we don't (politely) confront these people who are misusing their
position, either out of ignorance or ego, we will suffer further abuses down
the line.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
--------------------------------------------------
From: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: IFR GPS requirements
Hi Bill et al-
Re: >Hello Bill, Avoid that poor soul -- he has not been around long
enough or
>cared enough to learn that type certificated aircraft and amateur built
>experimental aircraft are treated very differently in the FAA's paperwork
>system.
While I greatly appreciate and highly regard and respect the source of that
comment, I couldn't disagree more. If this inspector has run 50
unnecessary 337's through the system, he has cost a lot of people a lot of
money, spread misinformation across the system, and will no doubt cause
other improperly educated or motivated inspectors to take the
'conservative' (ignorant) route at our collective expense. In other words,
there has been a gross misuse of governmental power. These kinds of topics
have gone to DC and back via OSH, and we have the tools to correct the
problem you are facing.
My personal experience with an amateur built rule hose-up was to be very
(politely) clear with the person involved about the nature and basis for
our disconnect, and then call OSH with the details. Within 24 hours they
had achieved understanding with the head of the directorate involved, and
within another 24 the fed involved had been re-educated. That ended the
problem for me, and, presumably, everyone who came along after.
Also, the feds now have a program to handle customer service issues in
house. As I understand it, it's the equivalent of 'let me speak to your
supervisor', although I don't recall the precise terminology. Mike, can
you fill us in?
While I don't advocate getting into hostile conflicts with The Man, I
strongly urge you (and anyone else having bogus reg interpretation issues)
to fight the good fight with the resources we have developed and paid for
through our EAA dues and those gate fees at OSH we are all unhappy about.
Heck, Brian got a law in Jacksonville repealed with a little help from his
friends. What's one confused inspector?
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Changing Prop & FSDO |
1/18/2008
Hello Ron, You wrote:
1) "Another thing that the FSDO told me, even when an experimental aircraft
is sold and there is a new owner, along with the FAA registration records
update, the new owner needs to get a new Airworthiness Certificate with the
himself as the owner (the original builder info stays the same). He
mentioned that very few owners of experimental aircraft that they bought
from pervious owners know this,......"
I would venture that very few subsequent owners of amateur built
experimental aircraft do not know of this requirement because it is not
true.
2) ",,,,,,,,,, plus the FAA has this requirement too deeply hidden in the
regulations."
No matter how deeply hidden in the regulations this requirement may be it
has to be written down. I would dearly love for you to contact this gent and
find out just exactly where it is written so that we can read it for
ourselves. The FAA is not in the business of having secret regulations.
Many thanks.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
--------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronko" <ronko1(at)peoplepc.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Changing Prop & FSDO
Thanks for your response.
I called the local FSDO in West Chicago, Illinois, and they gave me the same
instructions that you outlined. Interesting set of responses from the
group.
Another thing that the FSDO told me, even when an experimental aircraft is
sold and there is a new owner, along with the FAA registration records
update, the new owner needs to get a new Airworthiness Certificate with the
himself as the owner (the original builder info stays the same). He
mentioned that very few owners of experimental aircraft that they bought
from pervious owners know this, plus the FAA has this requirement too deeply
hidden in the regulations. The guy that I talked to at the FSDO told me my
situation was not a problem. With the new prop process, I will get both
requirements met.
Thanks again for your feedback.
Best regards,
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: IFR GPS requirements |
Hi O.C.-
Thanks for the feedback / response, O.C. It's always a nuisance to have to
go through this with bureaucrats, but we are the front line when it comes
to protecting our rights and interests.
Also, sorry about the spamblocker. It is very effective and protective.
I've told it to allow anything you should choose to send in the future, but
it has a bit of a mind of it's own. Should you send me something and get
one of those 'allowed sender requests' again, just ignore it. I'll still
get your note, albeit with a bit of a delay.
Best regards-
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
> [Original Message]
> From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
> To: ; ;
> Date: 1/18/2008 9:24:31 AM
> Subject: IFR GPS requirements
>
> 1/18/2008
>
> Hello Glen, You are absolutely correct and I apologize for that moment of
> weakness when I wrote to just avoid the ignorant bureaucrat.
>
> If we don't (politely) confront these people who are misusing their
> position, either out of ignorance or ego, we will suffer further abuses
down
> the line.
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge."
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> From: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: IFR GPS requirements
>
>
> Hi Bill et al-
>
> Re: >Hello Bill, Avoid that poor soul -- he has not been around long
> enough or
> >cared enough to learn that type certificated aircraft and amateur built
> >experimental aircraft are treated very differently in the FAA's paperwork
> >system.
>
> While I greatly appreciate and highly regard and respect the source of
that
> comment, I couldn't disagree more. If this inspector has run 50
> unnecessary 337's through the system, he has cost a lot of people a lot of
> money, spread misinformation across the system, and will no doubt cause
> other improperly educated or motivated inspectors to take the
> 'conservative' (ignorant) route at our collective expense. In other
words,
> there has been a gross misuse of governmental power. These kinds of
topics
> have gone to DC and back via OSH, and we have the tools to correct the
> problem you are facing.
>
> My personal experience with an amateur built rule hose-up was to be very
> (politely) clear with the person involved about the nature and basis for
> our disconnect, and then call OSH with the details. Within 24 hours they
> had achieved understanding with the head of the directorate involved, and
> within another 24 the fed involved had been re-educated. That ended the
> problem for me, and, presumably, everyone who came along after.
>
> Also, the feds now have a program to handle customer service issues in
> house. As I understand it, it's the equivalent of 'let me speak to your
> supervisor', although I don't recall the precise terminology. Mike, can
> you fill us in?
>
> While I don't advocate getting into hostile conflicts with The Man, I
> strongly urge you (and anyone else having bogus reg interpretation issues)
> to fight the good fight with the resources we have developed and paid for
> through our EAA dues and those gate fees at OSH we are all unhappy about.
> Heck, Brian got a law in Jacksonville repealed with a little help from his
> friends. What's one confused inspector?
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator / Charging issue |
>
>
>
Steve,
I'm going on vacation tomorrow morning early. Didn't see
a response as to what kind of alternator we're trying
to troubleshoot.
Bob . . .
>>A while back my alternator decided to start cycling on and off every now
>>and again, mostly when under load. It will never do it during a day
>>flight, and only during the day when running strobes. I can induce it at
>>night fairly easily sometimes with the navs, fuel pump, landing light,
>>and panel lights (no strobes needed..they seem able to induce the problem
>>by themselves). I was returning from Miss. a few nights ago and it
>>decided to do this. I shut down the strobes and everything was fine (as
>>usual). I turned the strobes back on and the last 30 min or so of the
>>flight was uneventful.
>>
>>I installed a new B&C battery yesterday and the problem occurred again
>>yesterday evening 1 time near the beginning of the flight, and more so on
>>the ground after I landed and had the engine at idle power. I stayed in
>>the pattern since I had a "known" electrical issue.
>>
>>Here are few things I may have forgotten to mention, and I can't be sure
>>if this could be a cause of my problem.
>>
>>
>>2) I notice both my EI voltmeter as well as the Dynon (backup to my gyro
>>;) ) are reporting about 13.5V when in flight. I would assume this
>>should be around 14.5 or so. I think before this problem it did. Funny
>>the little things you start to notice when you actually have a problem.
>>
>>3) The main problem is that if under load, the system will "shut down"
>>the charging system intermittently and then come back online. Sometimes
>>in a rapid (5 secs or so) succession or sometimes in more erratic
>>unpredictable intervals. Like the flight back the other night, it acted
>>up then stayed online for the remainder of the flight. I'll see the
>>voltage annunciator come on and the voltage drop to 11.8 or 12...then it
>>will go back up to 13.5. It may stay for a while...the remainder of the
>>flight...or maybe 10 secs. It's crazy.
>>
>> I thought I had the alternator tested at one time and was told
>> it was fine.
>>
>>I also just replaced my main solenoid (it was going bad..wouldn't connect
>>when I turned the master on). That's fine now, but that didn't help the
>>problem either.
>>
>>This problem is driving me crazy. Any and all input would be appreciated.
>>
>>I'm almost convinced I'm never going to find the root if this
>>thing. Thanks again.
>
>
> I've never encountered a system problem that was not
> fixable.
>
> You don't say what kind of alternator. External or internally
> regulated?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>--
>269.19.2/1224 - Release Date: 1/14/2008 5:39 PM
>
>
>incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lee Logan" <leeloganster(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 29 Msgs - 01/16/08 |
Hernador: If no insult was intended, then none taken.
Semper Fi
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Of Line for a week |
Dr. Dee and I are headed southeast tomorrow. A friend of
many years and a co-worker at Beech's Missiles Division
bought a condo in P.R. about 25 years ago when he was
having to spend many weeks working out of Roosevelt Roads
naval base to support target launches.
Nowadays, he and his wife spend three months in P.R.
every winter. They have proven generous and graceful
hosts to a number of the Missiles families. This will
be our second trip to take in the sights and snorkel
in some pretty amazing waters.
We'll be back on Sunday, Jan 27.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Back to the scrap bins |
Does anyone have some single conductor shielded wire (S906-1-22 or equiv) in
their scrap bins?
I need a one foot piece and a three foot piece.
Thanks in advance,
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neil Clayton <harvey4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Infinity Stick connector? |
I chose to install my Infinity sticks on my Cozy so that they were
not hard-wired into the plane, but "plugged into" the plane via
24-pin Molex connectors through the instrument panel bulkhead. That
way, if the sticks ever needed servicing, they can be completely
removed from the plane by detaching the plug.
I should have kept it simple - I have discovered intermittent
connections, which I've narrowed down to the Molex connectors. By
joggling them about I can make or break circuits. It's time to dump
these sloppy plastic connectors and go with something more robust.
I've searched Digikey's catalogue but they offer such a dizzying
array of "through bulkhead" circular connectors of 17+ wire cables,
I'm confused about what to select. Without eyeballing each one I'm
sure to order something that won't work.
I need a twist-on or bayonet M-to-F connector, through-bulkhead, 17+
pins, solder or crimp, large enough to accept the ~1/2" diameter blue
cable that come with Infinity sticks. Could anyone please propose a
model number/type of connector that will satisfy this need?
Would D-sub connectors be able to handle the high operating currents
that the pitch trim and speed brake motors draw?
Many thanks
Neil
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Back to the scrap bins |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
If that's just single conductor shielded, send me your address.
Ron Q.
At 18:26 1/20/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>Does anyone have some single conductor shielded wire (S906-1-22 or
>equiv) in their scrap bins?
>
>I need a one foot piece and a three foot piece.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Infinity Stick connector? |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 18:56 1/20/2008, you wrote:
>I need a twist-on or bayonet M-to-F connector, through-bulkhead, 17+
>pins, solder or crimp, large enough to accept the ~1/2" diameter
>blue cable that come with Infinity sticks. Could anyone please
>propose a model number/type of connector that will satisfy this need?
Try the AMP 19 position CPC series
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Back to the scrap bins |
Ron,
Exactly what I need.
Here's the snail directions.....
Ralph Capen
27215 Patriot Dr
Salisbury, MD 21801
Thanks,
Ralph
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Quillin" <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Back to the scrap bins
>
> If that's just single conductor shielded, send me your address.
>
> Ron Q.
>
> At 18:26 1/20/2008, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Does anyone have some single conductor shielded wire (S906-1-22 or equiv)
>>in their scrap bins?
>>
>>I need a one foot piece and a three foot piece.
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>Ralph
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Infinity Stick connector? |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Take a look at the wire gauge in the Infifity. How high do you think the
current can be?
Almost any airworthy connector can take it.
I completely agree with you about the Molex connectors.
They don't seem to wipe well and the crimps from Radio Shack don't
hold the wire reliably despite using my ProCrimp tool on them.
At the very least solder them after crimping.
Personally, I removed all of the Molex (0.6 and 0.9 sizes) before 200hr
on my airframe.
Cheers,
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159761#159761
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Hi All,
This thread about BMA has made for interesting reading over the past few
days. I've enjoyed it and feel modestly motivated to weigh in.
I am a BMA customer, in fact, one of the first E/1 black plastic boxes came to
me. Why did I choose it? Features for price, an analysis that, in my
eyes is as true today as it was 6 years ago. I upgraded to the gold box
when it was available, and just recently replaced it with a Gen4 E/2. Yes,
I paid the freight and kept going with BMA.
The original up to the Gen3 models got a bad rep for what I consider a
poor reason. The original schema was completely flexible in its input
configuration. That meant for people like me with a rotax, could use
the probes that came with the engine, any probes would work. They
just needed to be calibrated, a concept it turns out in practice was
foreign to many builders, "system integrators (I think panel builders
is a far more accurate description BTW)", and especially non-building
owners of experimental aircraft. It turns out, most of the general aviation
never calibrates anything except the mandated encoder. This is really
sloppy practice for non-mated sensor / indicators, especially when they
are non mil or medical grade. My little experience informs me that
you cant expect better than 10%, maybe 20% accuracy in an automotive
sensor unless you calibrate it to the indicator. How many people
calibrate their oil temp and pressure probes on their RV? Not many.
Does the 10% really matter, not really in most applications. But the
BMA required calibration. The BMA also had its ADCs outside the
engine compartment and the repeated warnings about low resistance
gounds to the battery and engine block were apparently inadequate
for many people. Digital avionics and low level voltage signals just require
more care in grounding and layout than older analog systems, especially
in composite airframes (like mine). I will certainly grant you that the
manuals are a bit sparse, but then I always found that the telephone worked for
me.
For what Greg has told me, most problematic installations eventually work
once external wiring errors are caught and corrected. The BMA guys
sought to simplify installation wiring by mandating a fixed set of sensors,
none of which are unipolar and return back through the engine block.
Wiring is now much simpler as I can attest in my own install last month.
Calibration is no longer needed. I think that BMA will be out with a skin
for the Rotax engines soon so I can integrate the VDO sensors built in
to the engine.
The stuff works and I believe it provides the most advanced EFIS functions
for the price. It is also among the simplest to use in flight.
So there have been some problems with the company. I see these kinds
of issues in IT all the time. Greg chose the brand-new at the time SISC
CPU chip for Gen 1-2. Many thought SISC would win out the future of
computing over CISC chips like the Pentium. It was faster and cheaper
right up until SISC guys went out of business. No more parts. No
evolution of SISC. Technology moves fast, airplane building slow.
I bought early, so do most. Some get more burned than others. Anyone
want a Mode S transponder? ANyone want a 430, I heard the WAAS
upgrade will be simple and very cheap!
Most of Gen3 features worked out the door, but some did not. Some
worked for some owners and not for others. More strenuous beta testing
might help. Again not very different for many vendors from airframe kits
to headsets. Ever hear of ADs?
I don't work for Greg, et al, I'm just a customer who has appreciated life
on the bleeding edge with my experimental aircraft. You might even
find me at the BMA booth at SnF talking about my experience in using
the EFIS for nearly 4 years. I am always delighted to talk to fellow
listers ;-)
Cheers
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159780#159780
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | " Peter Laurence" <Dr.Laurence(at)mbdi.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Infinity Stick connector? |
If one wants quality connectors, take a look a Deutsch. They're distributed
by Ladd Industries. LADD Industries- Deutsch IPD Electrical Connectors
Used them on a Velocity. Four years and five hindred hours later not a peep
from the connectors. These are high end products and are not cheap..
However, neither is building an airplane.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:28 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Infinity Stick connector?
>
> Take a look at the wire gauge in the Infifity. How high do you think the
> current can be?
> Almost any airworthy connector can take it.
>
> I completely agree with you about the Molex connectors.
> They don't seem to wipe well and the crimps from Radio Shack don't
> hold the wire reliably despite using my ProCrimp tool on them.
>
> At the very least solder them after crimping.
>
> Personally, I removed all of the Molex (0.6 and 0.9 sizes) before 200hr
> on my airframe.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --------
> Ira N224XS
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159761#159761
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Infinity Stick connector? |
Peter Laurence wrote:
>
>
> If one wants quality connectors, take a look a Deutsch. They're
> distributed by Ladd Industries. LADD Industries- Deutsch IPD
> Electrical Connectors
> Used them on a Velocity. Four years and five hindred hours later not a
> peep from the connectors. These are high end products and are not cheap..
> However, neither is building an airplane.
>
; however, neither is building an *expensive* airplane.
There, I fixed that for you.
Truth be told, I'll end up spending much less over 6 years of building
than most guys spend on golfing, or what my brother spends on smoking.
Building airplanes gets expensive in the same way they get heavy.
Adding one more support. Beefing up a connector just a bit. Using a
material that is just a bit stronger. High end connectors might be
needed, if you're planning a trip into space or you expect the connector
to hold the wing on. Probably not even then. Makes more economic sense
to use decent hardware, then support and protect it properly. The need
for high-end parts evaporates.
I talk to a lot of fellows that are immediately resistant to the idea of
building an airplane, because they assume that it is prohibitively
expensive. We do our community a disservice if we perpetuate the myth.
Building an airplane is only expensive if we choose for it to be so.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | MagnaFlite MZ-6222 starter |
| From: | "jayb" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com> |
A (yellow tagged) MZ-6222 lightweight MagnaFlite starter came with my rebuilt O-540
engine. Does anyone know of a source to estimate real world current draw
at starter engagement so as to properly size the wire? I'm pretty sure #2 would
be safe, but can it be quantified a bit better than "hundreds of amps"?
The unit looks like it's in pretty good shape (teeth are not worn at least). Is
there any way to test the state of internal electrical stuff besides disassembly?
Thanks in advance for replies.
Regards,
Jay
RV-10 Builder
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159889#159889
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
Ira,
Nice response. And, in my opinion, accurate.
Stan Sutterfield
Hi All,
This thread about BMA has made for interesting reading over the past few
days. I've enjoyed it and feel modestly motivated to weigh in.
I am a BMA customer, in fact, one of the first E/1 black plastic boxes came
to
me. Why did I choose it? Features for price, an analysis that, in my
eyes is as true today as it was 6 years ago. I upgraded to the gold box
when it was available, and just recently replaced it with a Gen4 E/2. Yes,
I paid the freight and kept going with BMA.
The original up to the Gen3 models got a bad rep for what I consider a
poor reason. The original schema was completely flexible in its input
configuration. That meant for people like me with a rotax, could use
the probes that came with the engine, any probes would work. They
just needed to be calibrated, a concept it turns out in practice was
foreign to many builders, "system integrators (I think panel builders
is a far more accurate description BTW)", and especially non-building
owners of experimental aircraft. It turns out, most of the general aviation
never calibrates anything except the mandated encoder. This is really
sloppy practice for non-mated sensor / indicators, especially when they
are non mil or medical grade. My little experience informs me that
you cant expect better than 10%, maybe 20% accuracy in an automotive
sensor unless you calibrate it to the indicator. How many people
calibrate their oil temp and pressure probes on their RV? Not many.
Does the 10% really matter, not really in most applications. But the
BMA required calibration. The BMA also had its ADCs outside the
engine compartment and the repeated warnings about low resistance
gounds to the battery and engine block were apparently inadequate
for many people. Digital avionics and low level voltage signals just require
more care in grounding and layout than older analog systems, especially
in composite airframes (like mine). I will certainly grant you that the
manuals are a bit sparse, but then I always found that the telephone worked
for
me.
For what Greg has told me, most problematic installations eventually work
once external wiring errors are caught and corrected. The BMA guys
sought to simplify installation wiring by mandating a fixed set of sensors,
none of which are unipolar and return back through the engine block.
Wiring is now much simpler as I can attest in my own install last month.
Calibration is no longer needed. I think that BMA will be out with a skin
for the Rotax engines soon so I can integrate the VDO sensors built in
to the engine.
The stuff works and I believe it provides the most advanced EFIS functions
for the price. It is also among the simplest to use in flight.
So there have been some problems with the company. I see these kinds
of issues in IT all the time. Greg chose the brand-new at the time SISC
CPU chip for Gen 1-2. Many thought SISC would win out the future of
computing over CISC chips like the Pentium. It was faster and cheaper
right up until SISC guys went out of business. No more parts. No
evolution of SISC. Technology moves fast, airplane building slow.
I bought early, so do most. Some get more burned than others. Anyone
want a Mode S transponder? ANyone want a 430, I heard the WAAS
upgrade will be simple and very cheap!
Most of Gen3 features worked out the door, but some did not. Some
worked for some owners and not for others. More strenuous beta testing
might help. Again not very different for many vendors from airframe kits
to headsets. Ever hear of ADs?
I don't work for Greg, et al, I'm just a customer who has appreciated life
on the bleeding edge with my experimental aircraft. You might even
find me at the BMA booth at SnF talking about my experience in using
the EFIS for nearly 4 years. I am always delighted to talk to fellow
listers ;-)
Cheers
--------
Ira N224XS
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: LED Lighting |
Dan,
As Bevan mentioned, aeroleds.com is manufacturing two LED based
landing/taxi/recognition lights. I don't know if they perform well as I haven't
seen
them in person yet. I was on the verge of ordering a pair when I discovered
they have a 10% restocking fee. That, in my opinion, is too high, so I didn't
order them. I would like to try them out - and if suitable I would keep them.
I'm experimenting with 1W LEDs with optics and it appears you can produce
enough illumination with multiple LEDs to at least make an acceptable
taxi/recognition light. I'm not yet convinced they will suffice for a landing
light.
I'm also experimenting with MR-16 lights, but they get very hot and would
require cooling to be mounted in an enclosed wingtip.
I intend to use HIDs for the landing lights and perhaps the Aerosun Lite for
the taxi/recognition light.
Stan Sutterfield
_www.rv-8a.net_ (http://www.rv-8a.net)
Has anyone thought much of making LED landing/taxi lights?
Just something that might be fun to mess around with.
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Sorry for the confusion,
After medical school, RISC became SISC for me ;-)
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159969#159969
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
| From: | "CharlieTango" <ed.cesnalis(at)mammothlakesinsulation.com> |
i have 300 hours of flying with a BMA EFIS. first i flew with a gen 4 EFIS Lite
Plus, it was the largest unit offered that fit my panel.
i fly mostly in the high sierra nevada with terrain up to 14,000'+ all around while
limited to 10,000' ( sport pilot limitation ) the bma unit with the synthetic
vision was the best choice for me. the vertical and horizontal terrain
views are very useful when flying below the surronding terrain.
on a flight last year i went imc due to shifting smoke from southern california
fires, turning back didn't help. i was without visibility for 40 minutes and
was perfectly comfortable with the situational awareness provided by the bma.
since then i upgraded to a larger unit, the 9" EFIS / two. i can't imagine ever
flying without.
the company is matured and they have gone the extra mile in providing service.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159991#159991
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Mode S & 430 - Was Blue Mountain EFIS |
Hey Ira,
Interesting thoughts. If you need to sell a Mode S txpdr or non WAAS 430
you could always send them to Europe. No WAAS and we will all have to
have Mode S very soon.
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rampil
Sent: 22 January 2008 17:27
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS
Hi All,
This thread about BMA has made for interesting reading over the past few
days. I've enjoyed it and feel modestly motivated to weigh in.
I am a BMA customer, in fact, one of the first E/1 black plastic boxes
came to
me. Why did I choose it? Features for price, an analysis that, in my
eyes is as true today as it was 6 years ago. I upgraded to the gold box
when it was available, and just recently replaced it with a Gen4 E/2.
Yes,
I paid the freight and kept going with BMA.
The original up to the Gen3 models got a bad rep for what I consider a
poor reason. The original schema was completely flexible in its input
configuration. That meant for people like me with a rotax, could use
the probes that came with the engine, any probes would work. They
just needed to be calibrated, a concept it turns out in practice was
foreign to many builders, "system integrators (I think panel builders
is a far more accurate description BTW)", and especially non-building
owners of experimental aircraft. It turns out, most of the general
aviation
never calibrates anything except the mandated encoder. This is really
sloppy practice for non-mated sensor / indicators, especially when they
are non mil or medical grade. My little experience informs me that
you cant expect better than 10%, maybe 20% accuracy in an automotive
sensor unless you calibrate it to the indicator. How many people
calibrate their oil temp and pressure probes on their RV? Not many.
Does the 10% really matter, not really in most applications. But the
BMA required calibration. The BMA also had its ADCs outside the
engine compartment and the repeated warnings about low resistance
gounds to the battery and engine block were apparently inadequate
for many people. Digital avionics and low level voltage signals just
require
more care in grounding and layout than older analog systems, especially
in composite airframes (like mine). I will certainly grant you that the
manuals are a bit sparse, but then I always found that the telephone
worked for me.
For what Greg has told me, most problematic installations eventually
work
once external wiring errors are caught and corrected. The BMA guys
sought to simplify installation wiring by mandating a fixed set of
sensors,
none of which are unipolar and return back through the engine block.
Wiring is now much simpler as I can attest in my own install last month.
Calibration is no longer needed. I think that BMA will be out with a
skin
for the Rotax engines soon so I can integrate the VDO sensors built in
to the engine.
The stuff works and I believe it provides the most advanced EFIS
functions
for the price. It is also among the simplest to use in flight.
So there have been some problems with the company. I see these kinds
of issues in IT all the time. Greg chose the brand-new at the time SISC
CPU chip for Gen 1-2. Many thought SISC would win out the future of
computing over CISC chips like the Pentium. It was faster and cheaper
right up until SISC guys went out of business. No more parts. No
evolution of SISC. Technology moves fast, airplane building slow.
I bought early, so do most. Some get more burned than others. Anyone
want a Mode S transponder? ANyone want a 430, I heard the WAAS
upgrade will be simple and very cheap!
Most of Gen3 features worked out the door, but some did not. Some
worked for some owners and not for others. More strenuous beta testing
might help. Again not very different for many vendors from airframe kits
to headsets. Ever hear of ADs?
I don't work for Greg, et al, I'm just a customer who has appreciated
life
on the bleeding edge with my experimental aircraft. You might even
find me at the BMA booth at SnF talking about my experience in using
the EFIS for nearly 4 years. I am always delighted to talk to fellow
listers ;-)
Cheers
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159780#159780
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mode S & 430 - Was Blue Mountain EFIS |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Pete,
Sadly, I project there will not be a market in Europe much longer for
general aviation products. The EU seems absolutely bound and determined
to terminate private flight. A buddy of mine just returned from London,
where he tells me a C172 rents for over 200 BPS per hour, thats over
$400/hr!
Who can afford a used Garmin after that?
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160085#160085
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mode S & 430 - Was Blue Mountain EFIS |
That's why we build our own planes here as you do in the US!
Werner (from Switzerland)
rampil wrote:
>
> Hi Pete,
>
> Sadly, I project there will not be a market in Europe much longer for
> general aviation products. The EU seems absolutely bound and determined
> to terminate private flight. A buddy of mine just returned from London,
> where he tells me a C172 rents for over 200 BPS per hour, thats over
> $400/hr!
>
> Who can afford a used Garmin after that?
>
> --------
> Ira N224XS
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160085#160085
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Mono Isolation Amp - Where to get circuit board? |
| From: | "Craig Winkelmann, CFI" <capav8r(at)gmail.com> |
I am adding a second radio to a plane that has no room for a full audio panel without
making a whole new panel. I am going to route two coms and one marker
beacon to the intercom. I have speced out the switched and dome a wiring diagram.
I looked at the Isolation Amp at the AeroElectric web site. However, under
parts, I don't see where I can order the circuit board to make the amp (part
no 9009-301-2A).
Where do I get one?
Craig
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160175#160175
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LED Lighting |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I have written about this extensively on this list and IMHO--
1) Aeroleds is to be saluted for making their led landing and taxi light.
There will be many good led products. I have said to interested parties that any
led product you can now buy becomes obsolete in the time it takes to develop
a product. The design engineer's current nightmare!
The best LED product efficiency is nearly 100 lumens/watt and soon will be 150
lumens/watt (7X better than halogens).
For experimenters, I recommend you check--
http://www.dealextreme.com/products.dx/category.917
Dig around the site until your head spins. Also Kaidoman.com .
Cheap prices, fast shipping. Amazing stuff. As for LED landing lights, you could
just tape together a few of their big flashlights and do the job cheaply. Check
their 20W and 50W leds!!!! Awesome.
I still have a couple LED technical notes on my website:
www.periheliondesign.com/downloads/aircraft_beacons_using_leds.pdf
(out of date now but still interesting).
www.periheliondesign.com/downloads/redandgreenledpositionlights.pdf
and I still sell the LED tail light, which I have upgraded to a 2X brighter led.
--------
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=160190#160190
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MagnaFlite MZ-6222 starter |
| From: | "jayb" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com> |
#2 wire it is...
Response received from Kelly Aerospace:
The only information we have is for testing the starters in a "no load" condition
on our test bench which does not correlate to the current draw under load with
the starter turning the engine. I recall from past experiences that the current
draw during cranking would be 250 - 350 amps under normal conditions, obviously
higher at the initial onset of the start, then tapering off as the engine
rotates.
I think the best idea would be to review a service manual for a production aircraft
and use its electrical system schematic as a guide. Any Piper PA-235 Commanche
or PA-23-250 Aztec series might be good examples to consider. Each of them
run a Lycoming 540 engine.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160204#160204
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Low Volt Warning breaker |
Just curious why there is a breaker for the Low Volt OV sense - on the LR3C regulator
- Z13 - and not just combined with the ALT field breaker?
Tks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Voltage drop under load |
I noticed today that my voltage would drop from about 14.5 volts down to
13.3 volts when I turned all my lights on. That is two 100W landing, two
100W taxi, position, and strobe lights.
I made sure that I had plenty of rpm to be certain that the alternator was
putting out its max. The alternator is rated at 55A.
Is it possible that I am pulling more amps than the alternator can handle?
Is the drop of voltage an indicator of this?
What should be the size of the B lead wire for a 55A alternator?
Thanks,
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LED Lighting |
| From: | "mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com> |
I purchased the AeroSun 800 for my weight shift trike nose landing light. Flying
sport pilot I don't fly at night, but do land in civil twilight.
The product is well made, very sturdy, bright as hell, easy to wire up. My single
light is controlled with one switch, as either light or wig-wag/flasher.
I talked to the folks at Aerosun before purchase. They even sent me to Aircraft
Spruce for a lesser price than direct from them.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/1105710.php
Yes, I could build my own LED light but for the $$ their unit is very nice, works
well. Whatever floats your boat.
Fly safe,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160321#160321
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage drop under load |
Yes voltage starts to sag as the alternator output starts to lag demand.
Quick math suggests that your alternator is working properly. (100 watts
divided by 13.3 volts is about 7.5 amps per 100 watt load) My alternator
can handle all loads but the voltage will drop a bit if I pull the
throttle to idle on approach. No big deal if the battery helps out for a
few dozen seconds on final approach. In cruise my taxi lights wig wag
which halves the current draw.
Ken
Bill Bradburry wrote:
>
> I noticed today that my voltage would drop from about 14.5 volts down to
> 13.3 volts when I turned all my lights on. That is two 100W landing, two
> 100W taxi, position, and strobe lights.
> I made sure that I had plenty of rpm to be certain that the alternator was
> putting out its max. The alternator is rated at 55A.
>
> Is it possible that I am pulling more amps than the alternator can handle?
> Is the drop of voltage an indicator of this?
>
> What should be the size of the B lead wire for a 55A alternator?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill B
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Volt Warning breaker |
If the ALT breaker pops (and it will in milliseconds in an OV situation)
wouldn't that also kill the low voltage warning and defeat the purpose
of it?
Ken
John Tvedte wrote:
>
> Just curious why there is a breaker for the Low Volt OV sense - on the LR3C regulator
- Z13 - and not just combined with the ALT field breaker?
>
> Tks.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
| From: | "Rv7flyer" <jbeckley(at)MCHSI.COM> |
I too am a BMA customer with a G4 lite plus. I have gone through the same problems
that others have mentioned. looking back I can remember several occasions
that I wanted to rip out the unit and drive over it with my truck.
Nothing worked as advertised, Software was incomplete, Features were missing etc...
It has been over a year now and with the updates that have been released
it has become quite useful. Right now as it stands I have a very stable and informative
EFIS. The autopilot is now functional and has good integration with
external device as the Sl30 and GNS430. I now trust it for my primary IFR but
i also have backup gauges. I can not find a single EFIS system out there that
I would trust solely for IFR without some backup anyway.
Trust me.. I looked at every EFIS company out there. I looked at the features
and performance and still I stayed with the Blue Mountain.
It has been a love hate relationship with them. Greg is not the best business
manager I have ever dealt with. He really screwed the pooch with the roll out
of the G4 line. Releasing it before it was fully tested or the software was fully
implemented would not have been my first choice. But I do not know the full
story or what his game plan was.
I know he was forced to put out the G4 line as the design for the G3 had too many
limitations.
In the last six months I have seen a huge change in the product and his efforts
to release quality updates. Every update is carefully tested and refined and
shows major improvements. The first six months the releases were just to add
the functionality he promised it was to have and the last six months the updates
have refined small issues. Over all I now have a unit that is 95.5% of what
was first promised.
I have not found any EFIS that has everything that I would like to have.
Dynon has a good unit but the decision not to support 3rd party autopilots is a
Big turn off for me. BMA has their own autopilot that now works very very good
but they still chose to allow integration with other autopilots. Bravo!!
Advance's EFIS has a really complicated GUI.
BMA is a small company. Releasing the G4 line before it was fully ready might have
been a financial one but I am happy that they stuck with it and now they can
focus on marketing a product that can hold it's own against any other.
I find it really ironic that I am defending them after all this time. But I really
like the design and simplicity of the design now. I would defiantly put
another one in my next plane.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160329#160329
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dimmer hookup to Avionics |
| From: | "ronaldcox" <flyboyron(at)gmail.com> |
I know some (ALL?) of you folks know a lot more about this than I do, and rather
than take a chance of frying something, I'm going to ask here.
I am hooking up several of the AeroElectric dimmer boards units Bob used to sell
on the AEC site to my panel, (Now B&C sells them as DIM15-14's) and one of them
is to be used for dimming the internal lighting on my MAC 1700 (Really a KX-170A)
radio, and a King KT-76 transponder.
I want to make sure I get the hookups right. I hate letting the smoke out of expensive
"stuff".
On the pre-wired harness I bought (years ago) with the NavCom, it had one wire
labeled "Lighting" and another yellow wire labeled "Dimmer".
I don't want to just start trying things, so can any of you tell me which of those
wires I need to hook to the output of the dimmer unit?
Does one of these wires from the radio go to +14VDC, and the other to the dimmer
board output?
I have tested the dimmers and they work fine with light bulbs, etc., but I don't
want to fry anything internally in the radio(s).
Thanks in advance.
--------
Ron Cox
Glasair Super II F/T
Under Construction at C77
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160331#160331
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "FLAGSTONE" <flagstone(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
Hi:
For those of you with non-certified EFIS systems that you also use to encode
your transponder, what do you have to do to comply with FAR 91.217(c) in
meeting the requirements of TSO-88C.
Thanks
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: LED Lighting |
In a message dated 1/24/2008 3:00:52 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com writes:
Stan, thanks for the reply. How are you coming on the lights?
I have just started messing around with them and was wondering if anyone
else had
come up with anything.
I agree about the charge for restocking for something you don't know will be
as
advertised.
Dan,
I did some experiments about a year ago and then again recently. I'm using
Luxeon K2s which are one watt and produce about 80 lumen. Later model LEDs
produce more lumen per watt.
I have some optics for them that focus the light nicely but it would require
6 or 8 to adequately illuminate in front of the plane. Also, mounting them
and heat sinking are problems to be solved. The number of LEDs in series on
a single power supply has to be carefully studied to make sure you don't over
or under voltage them too much. With the Luxeon K2s, I can have only 4 on a
single 12v power supply.
It appears the aeroleds.com guys have solved the problems and the best
solution may be to wait for them (or someone else) to work out the bugs. ACS
sells the AeroSun 800 for $155 each. My estimate is that you will have to invest
about $100-120 to develop a similar light yourself, so their price is not
too bad.
If the AeroSun 800 produces sufficient light, then I believe that is the
best current option for LED-based landing/taxi lighting.
Stan
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
In essence, passing the bi-annual check, satisfies the regulation.
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 FLAGSTONE
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C
Hi:
For those of you with non-certified EFIS systems that you also use to encode
your transponder, what do you have to do to comply with FAR 91.217(c) in
meeting the requirements of TSO-88C.
Thanks
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
My FAA office required a certified encoder, I think it was about a
$200.00 box. Yours may not be so stupid, because the EFIS encoder is a
superior unit.
Sam
FLAGSTONE wrote:
>
> Hi:
>
> For those of you with non-certified EFIS systems that you also use to encode
> your transponder, what do you have to do to comply with FAR 91.217(c) in
> meeting the requirements of TSO-88C.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
Good Morning Sam,
Maybe I have missed something, but how did the FSDO get involved?
As near as I can tell, there is no need to ask them anything.
If you elect to fly your experimental airplane IFR, all that is required is
that it meet the specified functional requirements. There is no requirement
that any piece of equipment be TSO'd. The only requirement is that it perform
properly.
What am I missing here?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 1/25/2008 7:58:18 A.M. Central Standard Time,
sam(at)fr8dog.net writes:
My FAA office required a certified encoder, I think it was about a $200.00
box. Yours may not be so stupid, because the EFIS encoder is a superior unit.
Sam
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
The avionics shop that does the static check, wouldn't certify the test
without an approved encoder. The avionics inspector from the FSDO was
there when I made my inquiry as to what is required. He said I had to
have a three things before a shop in his district would approve an
installation. TSO altimeter, TSO encoder, and a TSO transponder.
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Sam,
>
> Maybe I have missed something, but how did the FSDO get involved?
>
> As near as I can tell, there is no need to ask them anything.
>
> If you elect to fly your experimental airplane IFR, all that is
> required is that it meet the specified functional requirements. There
> is no requirement that any piece of equipment be TSO'd. The only
> requirement is that it perform properly.
>
> What am I missing here?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> 628 West 86th Street
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>
> In a message dated 1/25/2008 7:58:18 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> sam(at)fr8dog.net writes:
>
> My FAA office required a certified encoder, I think it was about a
> $200.00 box. Yours may not be so stupid, because the EFIS encoder
> is a superior unit.
> Sam
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL
> Music.
> <http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000002548>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Sam Marlow wrote:
> The avionics shop that does the static check, wouldn't certify the
> test without an approved encoder. The avionics inspector from the FSDO
> was there when I made my inquiry as to what is required. He said I had
> to have a three things before a shop in his district would approve an
> installation. TSO altimeter, TSO encoder, and a TSO transponder.
>
You should chat with the EAA and ask if they would be willing to
talk to this person. In an experimental aircraft, the avionics shops
are not required to approve any installation - you do this as the
builder of the aircraft. All they have to do is run the tests to see if
the equipment passes or not.
-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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
While I don't think redundancy is necessarily a bad thing, a TSO
blind encoder is not strictly necessary. Maybe the presence of the
FSDO guy in the shop spooked the boys. When I had my gold box
BMA EFIS/1 it was approved for its biennial without a peep as the
encoder for my SL-70 transponder. Well, not quite. The shop guys
had never before seen a transponder squawk within 1 foot of all 10
target altitudes from zero to 16000! This was after it had warmed up
for an hour or so.
Having said that, when I upgraded to the BMA Gen4, the panel lost
so much weight, that when I saw a good price on a TransCal encoder,
I bought it.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160441#160441
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
I understand I really only have to meet the specifications of the TSO,
but the avionics shop won't do it unless it satisfies the local Feds.
Which means if they did certify the static and transponder, and I wasn't
TSO equipment, then they could lose there certificate.
I can't certify the static and txp checks as a builder, so I'm bound by
my local FSDO bureaucracy!
Sam
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> Sam Marlow wrote:
>> The avionics shop that does the static check, wouldn't certify the
>> test without an approved encoder. The avionics inspector from the
>> FSDO was there when I made my inquiry as to what is required. He said
>> I had to have a three things before a shop in his district would
>> approve an installation. TSO altimeter, TSO encoder, and a TSO
>> transponder.
>>
>
> You should chat with the EAA and ask if they would be willing to
> talk to this person. In an experimental aircraft, the avionics shops
> are not required to approve any installation - you do this as the
> builder of the aircraft. All they have to do is run the tests to see
> if the equipment passes or not.
>
> -Dj
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
Sam Marlow wrote:
> I understand I really only have to meet the specifications of the TSO,
> but the avionics shop won't do it unless it satisfies the local Feds.
> Which means if they did certify the static and transponder, and I
> wasn't TSO equipment, then they could lose there certificate.
> I can't certify the static and txp checks as a builder, so I'm bound
> by my local FSDO bureaucracy!
> Sam
As the builder, it is my understanding that you 'certify' EVERYTHING on
the project. You're not asking that the avionics shop certify the
setup. You're just asking them to test it and provide you with the raw
data. It is *YOU* that gets to decide if it meets the requirements.
Or have I completely misunderstood it all?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Sam Marlow wrote:
> I understand I really only have to meet the specifications of the TSO,
> but the avionics shop won't do it unless it satisfies the local Feds.
> Which means if they did certify the static and transponder, and I
> wasn't TSO equipment, then they could lose there certificate.
> I can't certify the static and txp checks as a builder, so I'm bound
> by my local FSDO bureaucracy!
> Sam
>
Hi Sam,
All they can do is run the tests and tell you if the equipment
passes the test, or not. As I understand it, their responsibility ends
there.
There have been many discussions about this that can be found in
this list's archives if you want to read more about it. Bottom line is
that your avionics shop and your local FSDO are not properly following
the guidelines set forth and documented by the FAA.
Within the last few months a similar situation was discussed on this
list that was happening (in Florida I think), and the builder contacted
the EAA, who in turn contacted the FAA, who in turn contacted the FSDO
and set them straight. In the end the builder used his EFIS encoder to
drive the transponder and it passed the tests, so he was all set to go.
In my sometimes-not-so-humble opinion, you would be doing builders
in your area a great service if you were to place a phone call to the
EAA to report this, and hopefully they will also be able to correct your
local FSDO's incorrect interpretation of the FAA rules.
-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: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
I would call up your local inspector at FSDO...Explain to him what the requ
irements are and ask him to send an email to the local shop.
FSDO is bound by federal aviation law, they can't go round making up their
own rules...My guess is they are not clear on what the rules are so I would
get on the EAA website and download the document about experimenatls and f
lying IFR...The EAA did an exposee on this very subject and got an "interpr
etation" of the law from the FAA itself.
So you need to get this document into the hands of the local FSDO inspector
.
I have found they are usually pretty normal people with a genuine interest
in aviation....I'm sure its just a misunderstanding somewhere.
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Marlow
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C
I understand I really only have to meet the specifications of the TSO, but
the avionics shop won't do it unless it satisfies the local Feds. Which mea
ns if they did certify the static and transponder, and I wasn't TSO equipme
nt, then they could lose there certificate.
I can't certify the static and txp checks as a builder, so I'm bound by my
local FSDO bureaucracy!
Sam
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
You can have Radio Shack and WallyWorld stuff behind the panel. For IFR certification,
the Avionics shop doesn't pass judgment on what they think of the equipment,
but simply if it meets the accuracy requirements. If it meets the accuracy
requirements at all the appropriate altitudes, then they give you approval
and they can keep their opinions of what they think of the setup to themselves.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dj
Merrill
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C
Sam Marlow wrote:
> I understand I really only have to meet the specifications of the TSO,
> but the avionics shop won't do it unless it satisfies the local Feds.
> Which means if they did certify the static and transponder, and I
> wasn't TSO equipment, then they could lose there certificate.
> I can't certify the static and txp checks as a builder, so I'm bound
> by my local FSDO bureaucracy!
> Sam
>
Hi Sam,
All they can do is run the tests and tell you if the equipment
passes the test, or not. As I understand it, their responsibility ends
there.
There have been many discussions about this that can be found in
this list's archives if you want to read more about it. Bottom line is
that your avionics shop and your local FSDO are not properly following
the guidelines set forth and documented by the FAA.
Within the last few months a similar situation was discussed on this
list that was happening (in Florida I think), and the builder contacted
the EAA, who in turn contacted the FAA, who in turn contacted the FSDO
and set them straight. In the end the builder used his EFIS encoder to
drive the transponder and it passed the tests, so he was all set to go.
In my sometimes-not-so-humble opinion, you would be doing builders
in your area a great service if you were to place a phone call to the
EAA to report this, and hopefully they will also be able to correct your
local FSDO's incorrect interpretation of the FAA rules.
-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: | Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
I can't do a static check or transponder ck, without thousands of
dollars worth of equipment. So I have to depend on an avionics shop for
this. It doesn't matter if I built it or Beech built it, it still has to
be checked by an approved shop with approved equipment, every 24 months.
Ernest Christley wrote:
>
>
> Sam Marlow wrote:
>> I understand I really only have to meet the specifications of the
>> TSO, but the avionics shop won't do it unless it satisfies the local
>> Feds. Which means if they did certify the static and transponder, and
>> I wasn't TSO equipment, then they could lose there certificate.
>> I can't certify the static and txp checks as a builder, so I'm bound
>> by my local FSDO bureaucracy!
>> Sam
> As the builder, it is my understanding that you 'certify' EVERYTHING
> on the project. You're not asking that the avionics shop certify the
> setup. You're just asking them to test it and provide you with the
> raw data. It is *YOU* that gets to decide if it meets the requirements.
>
> Or have I completely misunderstood it all?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
Yes, but they won't do it period. I've tried to deal with the FAA on
several similar matters, I'm an IA, but it's just a loosing battle. They
have their little kingdom, cushy chairs, and GS pay schedules, and they
do make up their own rules, as they go.
I've given up............let someone else fight that battle, that's what
we pay dues to EAA for, right.
Chuck Jensen wrote:
>
> You can have Radio Shack and WallyWorld stuff behind the panel. For IFR certification,
the Avionics shop doesn't pass judgment on what they think of the equipment,
but simply if it meets the accuracy requirements. If it meets the accuracy
requirements at all the appropriate altitudes, then they give you approval
and they can keep their opinions of what they think of the setup to themselves.
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dj
> Merrill
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 2:02 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C
>
>
> Sam Marlow wrote:
>
>> I understand I really only have to meet the specifications of the TSO,
>> but the avionics shop won't do it unless it satisfies the local Feds.
>> Which means if they did certify the static and transponder, and I
>> wasn't TSO equipment, then they could lose there certificate.
>> I can't certify the static and txp checks as a builder, so I'm bound
>> by my local FSDO bureaucracy!
>> Sam
>>
>>
>
> Hi Sam,
> All they can do is run the tests and tell you if the equipment
> passes the test, or not. As I understand it, their responsibility ends
> there.
>
> There have been many discussions about this that can be found in
> this list's archives if you want to read more about it. Bottom line is
> that your avionics shop and your local FSDO are not properly following
> the guidelines set forth and documented by the FAA.
>
> Within the last few months a similar situation was discussed on this
> list that was happening (in Florida I think), and the builder contacted
> the EAA, who in turn contacted the FAA, who in turn contacted the FSDO
> and set them straight. In the end the builder used his EFIS encoder to
> drive the transponder and it passed the tests, so he was all set to go.
>
> In my sometimes-not-so-humble opinion, you would be doing builders
> in your area a great service if you were to place a phone call to the
> EAA to report this, and hopefully they will also be able to correct your
> local FSDO's incorrect interpretation of the FAA rules.
>
> -Dj
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
Good Afternoon Sam,
You are absolutely correct that it needs to be checked in accordance with
the regulatory requirements and that you are unlikely to have the equipment and
expertise to do the checks required. The local avionics shop is probably
the best place to get the checks performed.
However, they don't have to approve it.
All they need to do is provide you with the data they found. You are the
certifying entity and it is up to you to decide if it meets the regulatory
requirements or not.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 1/25/2008 2:29:03 P.M. Central Standard Time,
sam(at)fr8dog.net writes:
I can't do a static check or transponder ck, without thousands of dollars
worth of equipment. So I have to depend on an avionics shop for this. It
doesn't matter if I built it or Beech built it, it still has to be checked by
an
approved shop with approved equipment, every 24 months.
Ernest Christley wrote:
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Sam Marlow wrote:
>
> Yes, but they won't do it period. I've tried to deal with the FAA on
> several similar matters, I'm an IA, but it's just a loosing battle.
> They have their little kingdom, cushy chairs, and GS pay schedules,
> and they do make up their own rules, as they go.
> I've given up............let someone else fight that battle, that's
> what we pay dues to EAA for, right.
Unless the EAA knows there is a problem, they can't do much about
it. Any chance you'd be willing to give them a call to let them know
there is an issue with your local FSDO? Hopefully they can then take it
from there.
-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: | Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
Your correct Bob, but the shop is afraid of loosing it's certificate if
they certify it meets requirement on non TSD'd equipment. They do, have
to certify it meets min requirements, just look at the log book entry.
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Afternoon Sam,
>
> You are absolutely correct that it needs to be checked in accordance
> with the regulatory requirements and that you are unlikely to have the
> equipment and expertise to do the checks required. The local avionics
> shop is probably the best place to get the checks performed.
>
> However, they don't have to approve it.
>
> All they need to do is provide you with the data they found. You are
> the certifying entity and it is up to you to decide if it meets the
> regulatory requirements or not.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> 628 West 86th Street
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>
> In a message dated 1/25/2008 2:29:03 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> sam(at)fr8dog.net writes:
>
> I can't do a static check or transponder ck, without thousands of
> dollars worth of equipment. So I have to depend on an avionics
> shop for this. It doesn't matter if I built it or Beech built it,
> it still has to be checked by an approved shop with approved
> equipment, every 24 months.
>
> Ernest Christley wrote:
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL
> Music.
> <http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000002548>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
Are you kidding, walk into a FSDO and challenge them. I'd never get
another 337 approved. Not me, I'm done dealing on that level. If one of
you guy's want to, that's well and good, I'll even drive you.
I just want to enjoy flying, and not argue and bicker with every new FAA
guy that thinks he's God's gift to aviation.
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> Sam Marlow wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but they won't do it period. I've tried to deal with the FAA on
>> several similar matters, I'm an IA, but it's just a loosing battle.
>> They have their little kingdom, cushy chairs, and GS pay schedules,
>> and they do make up their own rules, as they go.
>> I've given up............let someone else fight that battle, that's
>> what we pay dues to EAA for, right.
>
> Unless the EAA knows there is a problem, they can't do much about
> it. Any chance you'd be willing to give them a call to let them know
> there is an issue with your local FSDO? Hopefully they can then take
> it from there.
>
> -Dj
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Sam Marlow wrote:
> Are you kidding, walk into a FSDO and challenge them.
That is not at all what I said... :-) I simply suggested making a
phone call to the EAA and let them handle it, which leaves you out of
the direct confrontation.
If we as individuals do not stand up for ourselves, or at the very
least notify the organizations that represent us, then we give the power
to "every new FAA guy that thinks he's God's gift to aviation" to act in
whatever way they wish.
-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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Sam,
The simple problem is that you picked the wrong avionics shop.
Thats all. Or, as I said before, the guys were spooked by Mr FSDO
standing there as you said.
My airframe log note from my local shop simply says, that as per the
relevant regs, my system meets the accuracy required for flight in
the NAS.
The point of calling the EAA is simply so they can cite for you all the
needed CFRs and other publications to make it clear to the shop that
homebuilts follow a different protocol. I assure you that my local
shop is a major national shop which does 135 and warbird work as well
as part 91 and homebuilts. They know the score and what they are doing
is fully complying with all the regs.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160490#160490
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
This wouldn't be the Richmond FSDO, of dual brakes fiasco fame? Most
feds will not get too huffy if you ask them to politely educate you as
to which FAR or other publication states whatever their position is.
Something along the lines of "I'm from Missouri, I'd sleep better if you
could please show me where that requirement is for experimental aircraft".
KM
also an IA
Sam Marlow wrote:
>
> Yes, but they won't do it period. I've tried to deal with the FAA on
> several similar matters, I'm an IA, but it's just a loosing battle.
> They have their little kingdom, cushy chairs, and GS pay schedules,
> and they do make up their own rules, as they go.
> I've given up............let someone else fight that battle, that's
> what we pay dues to EAA for, right.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
I suppose so, but I didn't have much choice, considering my location.
rampil wrote:
>
> Sam,
>
> The simple problem is that you picked the wrong avionics shop.
> Thats all. Or, as I said before, the guys were spooked by Mr FSDO
> standing there as you said.
>
> My airframe log note from my local shop simply says, that as per the
> relevant regs, my system meets the accuracy required for flight in
> the NAS.
>
> The point of calling the EAA is simply so they can cite for you all the
> needed CFRs and other publications to make it clear to the shop that
> homebuilts follow a different protocol. I assure you that my local
> shop is a major national shop which does 135 and warbird work as well
> as part 91 and homebuilts. They know the score and what they are doing
> is fully complying with all the regs.
>
> --------
> Ira N224XS
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160490#160490
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
Yea, well you know the battle I've been fighting for years, it just
takes to much out of me to fight all the time. I just want enjoy
aviation, and have fun.
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> This wouldn't be the Richmond FSDO, of dual brakes fiasco fame? Most
> feds will not get too huffy if you ask them to politely educate you as
> to which FAR or other publication states whatever their position is.
> Something along the lines of "I'm from Missouri, I'd sleep better if
> you could please show me where that requirement is for experimental
> aircraft".
> KM
> also an IA
> Sam Marlow wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but they won't do it period. I've tried to deal with the FAA on
>> several similar matters, I'm an IA, but it's just a loosing battle.
>> They have their little kingdom, cushy chairs, and GS pay schedules,
>> and they do make up their own rules, as they go.
>> I've given up............let someone else fight that battle, that's
>> what we pay dues to EAA for, right.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
And that's exactly whats happened. Sadly enough.
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> Sam Marlow wrote:
>> Are you kidding, walk into a FSDO and challenge them.
>
>
> That is not at all what I said... :-) I simply suggested making a
> phone call to the EAA and let them handle it, which leaves you out of
> the direct confrontation.
>
> If we as individuals do not stand up for ourselves, or at the very
> least notify the organizations that represent us, then we give the
> power to "every new FAA guy that thinks he's God's gift to aviation"
> to act in whatever way they wish.
> -Dj
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
This may sound like a dumb thought...but why don't you just take it to
another shop?
Bret Smith
RV-9A N16BL
Blue Ridge, Ga
www.FlightInnovations.com <http://www.flightinnovations.com/>
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Marlow
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C
Are you kidding, walk into a FSDO and challenge them. I'd never get another
337 approved. Not me, I'm done dealing on that level. If one of you guy's
want to, that's well and good, I'll even drive you.
I just want to enjoy flying, and not argue and bicker with every new FAA guy
that thinks he's God's gift to aviation.
Dj Merrill wrote:
Sam Marlow wrote:
Yes, but they won't do it period. I've tried to deal with the FAA on several
similar matters, I'm an IA, but it's just a loosing battle. They have their
little kingdom, cushy chairs, and GS pay schedules, and they do make up
their own rules, as they go.
I've given up............let someone else fight that battle, that's what we
pay dues to EAA for, right.
Unless the EAA knows there is a problem, they can't do much about it.
Any chance you'd be willing to give them a call to let them know there is an
issue with your local FSDO? Hopefully they can then take it from there.
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MagnaFlite MZ-6222 starter |
>
>A (yellow tagged) MZ-6222 lightweight MagnaFlite starter came with my
>rebuilt O-540 engine. Does anyone know of a source to estimate real world
>current draw at starter engagement so as to properly size the wire? I'm
>pretty sure #2 would be safe, but can it be quantified a bit better than
>"hundreds of amps"?
>
>The unit looks like it's in pretty good shape (teeth are not worn at
>least). Is there any way to test the state of internal electrical stuff
>besides disassembly?
>
>Thanks in advance for replies.
If your battery and engine are on the same
end of the airplane, #4 would probably be
fine for all of your "fat" wires . . . #2
would certainly be okay.
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: TurboCAD software at a discount |
>
>I recently purchased a copy of TurboCAD Deluxe 14 from
>academicsuperstore.com for $70 (including shipping). This price seemed
>like a really good deal as it retails for $149.
>
>Here's the catch... You have to have a student in your household to qualify.
If one is primarily interested in opening, editing, saving
and printing AeroElectric Connection .dwg files, then
any version 7 or later will work. The last V7 I purchased
of Ebay was $10 plus postage. Obviously, if one needs the
more advanced features of a later version, the $higher$
editions are indicated.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Volt Warning breaker |
>
>Just curious why there is a breaker for the Low Volt OV sense - on the
>LR3C regulator - Z13 - and not just combined with the ALT field breaker?
Because the B&C devices are not just "regulators" . . . they
contain OV protection, alternator regulation AND LV Warning.
Further, these regulators conform to design goals that have
become pretty much standard over the last 20+ years: DON'T
MAKE FIELD SUPPLY AND VOLTAGE SENSE LINES TO THE BUS SHARE
A COMMON CONDUCTOR. This is called, "remote sensing for
voltage regulation".
This prevents the very common ammeter oscillation
phenomenon common in many light aircraft of yesteryear.
It also insures that the LV warning system stays
operational even if the alternator has been taken off
line manually or by reason of an OV condition.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
Bob, I agree with you, but there are requirements for
TSO even on a homebuilt/experimental/amateur built:
ELT
IFR GPS
Transponder
I agree encoder is not a TSO item, and if it passes
the 24 month pitot / static test than its good.
>From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C
>There is no requirement that any piece of equipment be TSO'd.
>The only requirement is that it perform properly.
>
>What am I missing here? Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>Ancient Aviator
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TurboCAD software at a discount |
Davinci Technologies has a product called Airplane PDQ $99 that is
built on Intellicad, it is ACAD compatible, you may want to take a look.
This quote is from their website "AirplanePDQ is a
conceptual/preliminary design tool for light homebuilt and general
aviation aircraft."
I use it to translate newer ACAD files to the R14 version that I use.
http://www.davincitechnologies.com/
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
Great post. 100% right on.
With the web you have advice of many, and everyone
is in such agreement, plus lots of excellent advice,
you should be encouraged.
1 Go to different shop
2 Call EAA, get all the regs references to back you up.
3 Call the FAA and politely ask, "educate me?"
4 Than challenge FAA to advice shop its OK.
(EAA not sure they make calls for you, but their legal will advise you.)
Once you educate them if you have, they will know
they're wrong and it would make them look bad;
they will agree and tell the shop it's OK to do a
Pitot Static test. That is ALL it is a TEST for accuracy,
not certification of the equip.
Sometimes its ego and they don't want to back down,
but they will if you have the information. It's not even
a gray area. They are wrong.
Some times you have to take a stand. Be an
advocate for all EAA'ers. You can do it and it
will not take that much time. You can do it
all on the phone most likely.
Here are some Reg Ref links for FUN?
Sec. 91.215 ATC transponder and altitude
reporting equipment and use.
http://www.ferrer-aviation.com/far91215.htm
Sec. 91.217 - Data correspondence between
automatically reported pressure altitude data
and the pilot's altitude reference.
http://www.ferrer-aviation.com/far91217.htm
TSO-10b (altimeter)
http://tinyurl.com/2f8rla
TSO-C88 (alt reporting / digitizing)
http://tinyurl.com/2ez4a3
Don't panic, when you see TSO. It's a definition and
many sections of part 91 Ref. part 21, 23, 34, 43, 47 &
TSO's to name a few. None (almost) apply to experimentals.
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements/TSO-88C |
I did some more research and here is the break
down of TSO'ed equip, including encoder in an
experimental plane.
Great thread on BMA. Check out page 2 and even
more page 3, which are most relevant.
http://tinyurl.com/2au2pe
Paper on legality of experimental EFIS (encoder,
altimeter, GPS, aka none TSO) in experimentals.
http://tinyurl.com/2fbloa
Bottom line is the pitot/static test is not an approval
of the equip. As the builder you state it meets the
TSO. I posted on Dynon's forum the same
question. Some manufactures like GRT say their
encoder meets the TSO.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Circuit breaker polarity |
I am rewiring my Navion panel using busses with Potter-Brumfield W31 switch
breakers and Klixon 7277 c/b's. I put the P-B buss bar on the bottom
following their Load-Line labeling but put the Klixon bar on top to ease
access to the load terminals. My IA neighbor (not my supervising IA) tried
to tell me it was backward but I had already checked and there is no
labeling on the Klixon c/b's. I see no intuitive reason it should care about
polarity but then I don't have a real understanding of their inner workings.
Did I miss something? Does polarity matter for the Klixons? If so, I can
change my buss. If not, why does P-B label their units (it's also on their
W23 c/b's?) Is it real or just a case of eliminating choice? Thanks for the
education.
Regards,
Greg Young
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Circuit breaker polarity |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Breakers have no polarity. Element heating occurs in either
direction!
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160648#160648
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mono Isolation Amp - Where to get circuit board? |
>
>
>I am adding a second radio to a plane that has no room for a full audio
>panel without making a whole new panel. I am going to route two coms and
>one marker beacon to the intercom. I have speced out the switched and
>dome a wiring diagram. I looked at the Isolation Amp at the AeroElectric
>web site. However, under parts, I don't see where I can order the circuit
>board to make the amp (part no 9009-301-2A).
>
>Where do I get one?
I've had a lot of requests for this
item and I'm in the process of placing
it back on the website order form. I'll
try to get this done in the next few days.
I've been out of town for a week and have
some taller fires to beat down first.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage drop under load |
>
>Yes voltage starts to sag as the alternator output starts to lag demand.
>Quick math suggests that your alternator is working properly. (100 watts
>divided by 13.3 volts is about 7.5 amps per 100 watt load) My alternator
>can handle all loads but the voltage will drop a bit if I pull the
>throttle to idle on approach. No big deal if the battery helps out for a
>few dozen seconds on final approach. In cruise my taxi lights wig wag
>which halves the current draw.
>Ken
>
>Bill Bradburry wrote:
>>
>> I noticed today that my voltage would drop from about 14.5 volts down to
>>13.3 volts when I turned all my lights on. That is two 100W landing, two
>>100W taxi, position, and strobe lights.
>>I made sure that I had plenty of rpm to be certain that the alternator was
>>putting out its max. The alternator is rated at 55A.
>>Is it possible that I am pulling more amps than the alternator can handle?
>>Is the drop of voltage an indicator of this?
>>What should be the size of the B lead wire for a 55A alternator?
>>Thanks,
>>Bill B
13.3 is TOO low. You need to put a temporary lead wire
on the alternator's b-lead terminal and bring it into
the cockpit for attaching a voltmeter. You MAY find that
the alternator voltage at the b-lead is holding up just
fine and that your wiring is too small . . . i.e. accounts
for the drops under load that you've observed.
I recommend 4AWG minimum for all the "fat" wires in
the airplane. There's so little of it that weight deltas
are insignificant . . . but 4AWG or larger makes for
very solid voltage regulation at all loads.
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: Circuit breaker polarity |
>I am rewiring my Navion panel using busses with Potter-Brumfield W31
>switch breakers and Klixon 7277 c/b's. I put the P-B buss bar on the
>bottom following their Load-Line labeling but put the Klixon bar on top to
>ease access to the load terminals. My IA neighbor (not my supervising IA)
>tried to tell me it was backward but I had already checked and there is no
>labeling on the Klixon c/b's. I see no intuitive reason it should care
>about polarity but then I don't have a real understanding of their inner
>workings. Did I miss something? Does polarity matter for the Klixons? If
>so, I can change my buss. If not, why does P-B label their units (it's
>also on their W23 c/b's?) Is it real or just a case of eliminating choice?
>Thanks for the education.
Intuitively, the physics of a series-connected
heat-tripped, switch do not suggest a reason why
the breaker would care which way electrons flow
through it . . . and in particular, AC system
breakers where electrons are known to turn around
and run the other direction 120 times a second!
You've already had some good responses but I'll
take this opportunity to elaborate. Not all
breakers are rudimentary . . . i.e. a simple
spring-loaded, heater-tripped latch holding a
set of single or double-break contacts closed.
Breakers can be had with auxiliary switches,
indicator lights, voltage sense coils, and
all manner of enhancements where proper function
of the enhancement depends on a connection to
power being available even when the breaker is
open. Obviously, some third terminal is necessary
for an enhancement to function, this is sometimes
an obvious connection, or perhaps it gets hooked
up through the mounting.
In any case, it's not uncommon for a manufacturer
to use common tooling to mold a breaker housing
for all versions, hence you often see the word
"load", "line" or both formed right next to the
breaker's terminals . . .
I've asked several tech reps for breakers and
except for enhanced breakers, orientation in
the system doesn't matter. Interestingly enough,
if an electrician encounters "line" and/or "load"
labels on a breaker, he'll wire it up that way
whether it matters or not. And I suspect many
aviation techs do too . . . not because the
physics matters but because some inspector who
doesn't know any better can be counted on to
insist that the protocols be followed.
The only time I've encountered this as a
"problem" is when a builder finds it convenient
to fabricate a two-row bus-bar and take load
feeders off opposite ends of the breaker. When
they come stamped with a breaker rating,
they look pretty funky with one row upside-down
in their holes!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
I have been sitting in the back row on this list, hoping to learn something.
I was born without any electronic genes. I am building an all metal light
sport plane.(Zenith) Right or wrong, I developed the habit (over five decades of
personal, military and commercial flying) of listening to broadcast radio on
the ADF. I'm thinking that I need to install an of the shelf automobile radio in
my project. No second hand Ebay ADF's. My two questions are: Will I fry the
radio if I use only a headset and no speakers? About the antenna. I know that I
should mount it vertically, but it must withstand airspeed excursions to Vne
(156kts/180mph) without going L shaped. I've come up with somehow jamming it
inside the canopy, or insulating it and mounting against the landing gear, or
inside some kind of tubular mast on the belly. I did come across a NOS
Volkswagen telescoping antenna in my shop. It would be great if that Lyc carburetor
turns up again the same way. Somebody stop me if I'm on the wrong track. This
isn't the most pressing problem out there, but all suggestions are appreciated.
Bob Dingley
**************
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in
shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Power Board on EBay |
| From: | "h&jeuropa" <butcher43(at)att.net> |
Check out Item # 120215336354 or search for "Power Board" for an auction for a
Blue Mountain Avionics Power Board.
Jim Butcher
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160699#160699
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | LEDs at 24volts? |
| From: | "Dawson-Townsend,Timothy" <tdawson-townsend(at)aurora.aero> |
I have my reasons, so let's not get into that, but we're building a
24/28 volt airplane.
Question: Can I take an LED with built-in resistor for 12 volt
operation (as bought at Radio Shack) and run it at 24 volts? On the
bench it seems to operate fine. Even if it reduces LED life somewhat,
with the insane life that LEDs have anyway, and an application as
warning light that is intermittant at best, maybe it will do fine.
Thoughts?
TDT
RV-10
40025
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jon(at)finleyweb.net |
=0AHi Bob,=0A=0A =0A=0AMight I suggest you take a look at satellite radio -
like XM (http://www.xmradio.com) or Sirius? I've been flying with an XM s
etup (Roady XL) and love it. I can move it from car to airplane to house o
r listen on my computer/Internet, in-flight station reception doesn't fade
out every 15 minutes (as I fly away from a station), and the antenna is a l
ittle tiny thing that is mounted inside my airplane (zero drag). It does r
equire a subscription so is not free. In my plane, I just connect the radi
o output to my intercom music input.=0A=0A =0A=0AJon=0A=0A=0A-----Original
Message-----=0AFrom: MaxNr(at)aol.com=0ASent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 3:49pm
=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: Dumb q
uestions=0A=0AI have been sitting in the back row on this list, hoping to l
earn something. I was born without any electronic genes. I am building an a
ll metal light sport plane.(Zenith) Right or wrong, I developed the habit (
over five decades of personal, military and commercial flying) of listening
to broadcast radio on the ADF. I'm thinking that I need to install an of t
he shelf automobile radio in my project. No second hand Ebay ADF's. My two
questions are: Will I fry the radio if I use only a headset and no speakers
? About the antenna. I know that I should mount it vertically, but it must
withstand airspeed excursions to Vne (156kts/180mph) without going L shaped
. I've come up with somehow jamming it inside the canopy, or insulating it
and mounting against the landing gear, or inside some kind of tubular mast
on the belly. I did come across a NOS Volkswagen telescoping antenna in my
shop. It would be great if that Lyc carburetor turns up again the same way.
Somebody stop me if I'm on the wrong track. This isn't the most pressing p
roblem out there, but all suggestions are appreciated.=0ABob Dingley =0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb questions |
Bob, I'm no expert, but I did learn this from one. Some automotive audio
systems use completely separate grounds for each channel. For that you'd
have to rewire your headphones and run three jacks instead of two. This info
may be old, it was a few years ago and things move on, but it never hurts to
ask the sales guy or look at the wiring layout of any system you're thinking
of buying.
Rick
On Jan 27, 2008 2:49 PM, wrote:
> I have been sitting in the back row on this list, hoping to learn
> something. I was born without any electronic genes. I am building an all
> metal light sport plane.(Zenith) Right or wrong, I developed the habit (over
> five decades of personal, military and commercial flying) of listening to
> broadcast radio on the ADF. I'm thinking that I need to install an of the
> shelf automobile radio in my project. No second hand Ebay ADF's. My two
> questions are: Will I fry the radio if I use only a headset and no speakers?
> About the antenna. I know that I should mount it vertically, but it must
> withstand airspeed excursions to Vne (156kts/180mph) without going L shaped.
> I've come up with somehow jamming it inside the canopy, or insulating it and
> mounting against the landing gear, or inside some kind of tubular mast on
> the belly. I did come across a NOS Volkswagen telescoping antenna in my
> shop. It would be great if that Lyc carburetor turns up again the same way.
> Somebody stop me if I'm on the wrong track. This isn't the most pressing
> problem out there, but all suggestions are appreciated.
> Bob Dingley
>
>
> **************
> Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LEDs at 24volts? |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
LED Resistor exist to limit the current flow through the LED.
You did not mention want kind of 24v supply you used to test your
12v LED with, I wonder if it had high internal resistance.
Your safest bet is to add a serial resistor, otherwise the lifetime of the
LED may be VERY short
Ira
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160713#160713
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
Reading through the docs on E-Mag and P-Mag products, I think the
wiring as shown on Z13-8 version N is incorrect.
First, the labels are switched. The P-Mag is the one with the
internal power generator.
Second, the wiring for the real P-Mag I believe is incorrect.
As shown, in the center test position, the P-lead, pin 4 is grounded
and the battery bus is applied to pin 5. The engine should stop if
the P-lead is grounded and it is not possible to test the internal
power generator if there is power externally applied.
Keep the wiring all the same, but specify the switch as S700-2-1 and I
think it should be correct.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | LEDs at 24volts? |
If you know or measure the current of the LED at 12 V you can divide 12
by the current and obtain the correct series resistor to maintain the
same current at 24. Assuming about 20ma for a run of the mill led you
would get 600 ohms. 12V across 600 ohms will dissipate .24W so a 1/2
watt resistor would be in order. You will probably find that if the LED
doesn't fail at 24V it's series resistor may!! You will find either 560
or 620 ohm resistors are common values and either would work.
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z13-8 N error ? |
>
>Reading through the docs on E-Mag and P-Mag products, I think the
>wiring as shown on Z13-8 version N is incorrect.
>
>First, the labels are switched. The P-Mag is the one with the
>internal power generator.
>
>Second, the wiring for the real P-Mag I believe is incorrect.
>As shown, in the center test position, the P-lead, pin 4 is grounded
>and the battery bus is applied to pin 5. The engine should stop if
>the P-lead is grounded and it is not possible to test the internal
>power generator if there is power externally applied.
>Keep the wiring all the same, but specify the switch as S700-2-1 and I
>think it should be correct.
I checked the drawings again and they are correct as
published. The P-Mag is wired to the main bus. This
lets you do the occasional "test" of the internal alternator
by shutting down the main bus while the engine is running.
This is easy to do by configuring the system to the
ENDURANCE MODE where flight is sustained with only the E-bus
and battery-bus hot. Emagair suggests this test be conducted
infrequently . . . about as often as you would test the
ENDURANCE MODE of operation for your electrical system.
Emagair's drawings do not exploit this feature unique to
Z-13/8 . . . and it should not. The vast majority of their
customers will not be using Z-13/8. I hope that the majority
of my customers ARE using Z-13/8.
The E-mag is wired to run from the always-hot battery bus.
A means by which power can be removed from the ignition
system at shutdown is necessary. Hence the double-pole, three-
position, progressive transfer switch offers independent
control of E-Mag power and ONLY AFTER the E-mag has been shut
down by means of grounding pin 4 (control) has been suggested.
This particular architecture was crafted to support AeroElectric
Connection philosophy for having all electrically dependent engine
functions run from a battery bus. This goes toward a design
goal that allows shutting down the entire electrical system
with minimal (if not zero) influence on engine operations.
Since the E-Mag needs power, it has been wired to the battery
bus. The P-Mag is internally powered and needs only occasional
tests of its internal power operations . . . which is easy to do
when wired as shown by combing the ignition tests with any
ENDURANCE MODE tests one might choose to conduct on the
rest of the system.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Circuit breaker polarity |
>
> In any case, it's not uncommon for a manufacturer
> to use common tooling to mold a breaker housing
> for all versions, hence you often see the word
> "load", "line" or both formed right next to the
> breaker's terminals . . .
That's likely. There are a bunch of P-B series that use the same case.
>
> I've asked several tech reps for breakers and
> except for enhanced breakers, orientation in
> the system doesn't matter. Interestingly enough,
> if an electrician encounters "line" and/or "load"
> labels on a breaker, he'll wire it up that way
> whether it matters or not. And I suspect many
> aviation techs do too . . . not because the
> physics matters but because some inspector who
> doesn't know any better can be counted on to
> insist that the protocols be followed.
It just happened that the labeling on the P-B's matched my preferred bus bar
mounting. The Klixon row below it has the bar on the opposite terminals
which then looked wrong to the "do it the standard way and don't ask why"
crowd.
> The only time I've encountered this as a
> "problem" is when a builder finds it convenient
> to fabricate a two-row bus-bar and take load
> feeders off opposite ends of the breaker. When
> they come stamped with a breaker rating,
> they look pretty funky with one row upside-down
> in their holes!
>
> Bob . . .
>
Thanks for reaffirming my choices. Insightful as always.
Regards,
Greg Young
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey W. Skiba" <jskiba(at)icosa.net> |
Okay,
I am having a hard time finding the comic book or other type simple guide to
making TNC connections.
Is there such a creature at aeroelectic?
I found the one for bnc
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
is the tnc similar?
I ask since my Garmin 430 was converted to the new Garmin 430W and that GPS
antenna has a tnc connector.
Thanks in advance.
Jeff.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
You might think wiring up an electronic mag might be simple :-(
Replacing the S700-2-10 with a S700-2-1 as I indicated in my previous
post isn't the correct solution. It does allow removing external
power to test the internal alternator, but in normal use, it removes
external power before grounding the P-Lead, which is clearly stated by
E-Mag as not the way to shut down the engine :-(
At one point I had the design such that I used only three switches to
control power/ground to the mags, allowing testing and with a position
to engage the starter.
However, it used three expensive switches and I have encountered
poorer reliability with spring return types. The main problem really,
is that the power to both mags was routed through one single switch.
Since it is not being moved in flight, it is unlikely to fail, but ..
My current plan is to use four of the simplest single-pole on-off
switches, two for power and two for p-lead grounding, plus a push
button for start. So that is a total of five switches, but much
simpler and cheaper components and the plane will still fly if any one
of them fails.
I like the simple flow of operating the switches. However, I am not
completely comfortable without a keyswitch, which would be difficult
to include in this design. I do not like keyswitches, but there is a
clear delineation between someone being (or not) permitted to start
the aircraft if they are in possession of the key. To prevent
starting, the key would need to disconnect mag power to avoid hand
propping. The secret switch under the dash, used for auto anti-theft
is a safety of flight issue. Anyone have any good ideas how to handle
this ?
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb questions (AM radio) |
>From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
>Re: AeroElectric-List: Dumb questions
>personal (habit) of listening to broadcast
> radio on the ADF.
>Bob Dingley
Bob, I assume you are an AM radio junkie?
My suggestion/opinion DO NOT buy a big heavy car
radio/CD player and mount it in the panel. Why? Its
heavy and not needed to listen to radio.
My suggestion is MOST all intercoms have an audio
input with a little phone jack. You can connect a little
portable AM/FM battery powered radio or iPod / MP3
player or any audio source you desire to it. The antenna
can just be the internal antenna or small whip, no need to
install antennas and run coax and add drag/weight. The
antenna in cockpit can pick up plenty of signal through plexi.
I use a little high quality portable AM/FM radio. It has
digital tuning and scanning. The wire from the radio to
the head phone acts as the antenna. I just used a little
phone to phone jumper cable, plugging it into the intercom,
and had radio. It worked very well. I like listening to some
radio shows or sports on a cross country. No need to
take up the panel with a big automotive unit. Keep it
light and keep it simple. Plan on a good intercom and
good head sets. The nice thing is when the COM radio
kicks in the intercom cuts the entertainment audio out.
When the COM is quite, the entertainment fades back in.
Go to Radio Shack and search "AM/FM Pocket Radio".
There are 23 models to pick from $10-$30. Check out
the Grundig Mini 300 AM/FM/SW Pocket Radio, its
pretty cool and has a rubber duckie antenna and SW
radio, for $30.
The DOWN side with radio, as you know, you out fly
the station. Of course super powerful AM radio stations
at night, with "skip" can be listened to for a long time
time, if you are flying towards them. "The Captains
Guide", has list of high powered AM radio stations around
the county. I can't stand AM radio for the most part. Now
[Pod cast are almost anything and often entertainment
programs, like radio shows. You download them from the
web, often for free. For example I download a NPR program
or two on my iPod.]
ADF is dead, heavy, bulky and on deaths door with
GPS.
George ATP/CFI (RV7 still pounding)
PS: per other suggestions XM radio is the bomb but
cost monthly subscription. However if you have a
protable XM radio unit, it can plug into the same
intercom audio/aux input the protable AM/FM
radio does.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb questions |
>Bob, I'm no expert, but I did learn this from one. Some automotive audio
>systems use completely separate grounds for each channel. For that you'd
>have to rewire your headphones and run three jacks instead of two. This
>info may be old, it was a few years ago and things move on, but it never
>hurts to ask the sales guy or look at the wiring layout of any system
>you're thinking of buying.
>
>Rick
>
>On Jan 27, 2008 2:49 PM, <MaxNr(at)aol.com> wrote:
>>I have been sitting in the back row on this list, hoping to learn
>>something. I was born without any electronic genes. I am building an all
>>metal light sport plane.(Zenith) Right or wrong, I developed the habit
>>(over five decades of personal, military and commercial flying) of
>>listening to broadcast radio on the ADF. I'm thinking that I need to
>>install an of the shelf automobile radio in my project. No second hand
>>Ebay ADF's. My two questions are: Will I fry the radio if I use only a
>>headset and no speakers? About the antenna. I know that I should mount it
>>vertically, but it must withstand airspeed excursions to Vne
>>(156kts/180mph) without going L shaped. I've come up with somehow jamming
>>it inside the canopy, or insulating it and mounting against the landing
>>gear, or inside some kind of tubular mast on the belly. I did come across
>>a NOS Volkswagen telescoping antenna in my shop. It would be great if
>>that Lyc carburetor turns up again the same way. Somebody stop me if I'm
>>on the wrong track. This isn't the most pressing problem out there, but
>>all suggestions are appreciated.
What Rick is referring to is the differential balanced PAIR
of wires that goes to each speaker. This is a technique that
allows TWO amplifiers to drive both wires of a speaker out
of phase with each other. This effectively doubles the potential
peak-to-peak voltage to drive each speaker . . . 4x the watts
without having to resort to power supply boosters or very low
impedance speakers. It also eliminated the need for an output
coupling capacitor . . . a fat passive rascal that was a
necessary inconvenience. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/LM4752.pdf
Here's a "single ended" stereo amplifier. Note the
1000 uF capacitors in series with the speakers. Note
also that the speakers are grounded on one side. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/LM4950.pdf
Here we see two amplifiers wired to each side of the
speaker. No 1000 uF capacitor needed.
Most car radios use a similar scheme with one pair
of dif-amps for the front speakers and another pair
for the rear speakers, a total of eight, ungrounded
wires.
There are perhaps a half-dozen ways to adapt the
speaker outputs of a radio to the headphone inputs
of the intercom. However, many automotive radios have
line output features for taking stereo audio to external
amplifiers. These are already in the ballpark for
connection directly to the stereo inputs of an intercom
system. They're already single-ended and shielded against
case ground for the radio. I'll suggest you seek a radio
with the AUX OUTPUT feature and start from there. If this
proves unsatisfactory, I can show you how to craft an
interface network to go between your radio's speaker
outputs and the stereo inputs of your intercom.
The antenna is another deal entirely. Vertically
polarized, medium wave signals run along the
ground and work really fine with short antennas on
ground based vehicles. Once you leave the ground,
performance for a short whip antenna degrades.
The antenna input to an automotive AM receiver is
a unique beast. It's a very high impedance port
that is performance degraded by CAPACITY. If you
cut the feedline open on a car radio antenna, you
may find that the center conductor is a very small
single strand of wire supported down the center of
the coaxial cable by a hollow plastic tube. This
high-impedance coax was supplied to us in large spools
at Cessna way back when . . . it was necessary for
the purpose of extending the sense antenna feeder from
radio on the panel to a feed-through insulator on
the cabin roof.
I suspect that this input philosophy is still used.
Off-the-shelf car antennas come with a run of this
specialized "coax" that is already terminated to mate
with jacks on radio and base of antenna.
The 'ideal' AM receiver antenna for airborne applications
would be the "ferrite loopstick" described in the
'Connection's section on antennas. This is an H-field
antenna that is not unlike that which your ADF uses
to find bearing of an incoming signal. Unfortunately,
the loopstick IS directional. Unless you can rotate the
antenna, you would need 2 or three of the things along
with an ability to switch between them as well as tune
them to the station's frequency for best reception.
This calls for some experimentation. Ideally, your
radio's antenna input would be characterized for
performance with a longer piece of coax (higher
capacity) and a relatively long wire antenna not
unlike that used for sense antennas of the earliest
ADFs. In this respect, the ADF receivers and AM radio
receivers have a great deal in common with respect
to crafting a high performance antenna with an
exceedingly small size compared to the wavelength
of energy being tapped.
Crafting a "high speed" whip antenna has it's
challenges. My first thought is that actual orientation
of the antenna would have little effect on performance.
I think I'd experiment with a "trailing wire" . . .
a 5' of wire that attaches to a suitable fitting
just before you taxi out. Or, consider crafting a
j-bend antenna, not unlike that used for marker
beacons. Use the standard AM radio antenna that's
a solid rod. Heat it with a torch so that you can
put a 90-degree bend in it about 6" from the base.
Then allow it to fair rearward and support the tip
on an insulated mast of some variety.
Check with the automotive radio/audio shops for
an antenna with longer than usual coax cable.
This might be for a truck, van or RV. The antenna
can't be a telescoping variety . . . solid stainless
rod is called for. But then, depending on your
particular installation, perhaps a standard automotive
antenna for a sedan will have enough coax. See what
it takes to install it on the belly modified and
supported as described above.
Let us know how it works out!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z13-8 N P-Mags |
>
>You might think wiring up an electronic mag might be simple :-(
>
>Replacing the S700-2-10 with a S700-2-1 as I indicated in my previous
>post isn't the correct solution. . . .
>My current plan is to use four of the simplest single-pole on-off
>switches, two for power and two for p-lead grounding, plus a push
>button for start. So that is a total of five switches, but much
>simpler and cheaper components and the plane will still fly if any one
>of them fails.
Hmmmm . . . I take it that you have not read my response
to your original posting on this topic. Stand the circuit
as-published against the design goals stated and see if your
concerns are not already addressed by the proposed two-switch
configuration.
>I like the simple flow of operating the switches. However, I am not
>completely comfortable without a keyswitch, which would be difficult
>to include in this design. I do not like keyswitches, but there is a
>clear delineation between someone being (or not) permitted to start
>the aircraft if they are in possession of the key. To prevent
>starting, the key would need to disconnect mag power to avoid hand
>propping. The secret switch under the dash, used for auto anti-theft
>is a safety of flight issue. Anyone have any good ideas how to handle
>this ?
What are the risks? How many folks of dishonorable behavior
know how to fly YOUR airplane? Hundreds of airplanes are
subjected to evil intent every year. Radios and instruments
are stolen, airframes vandalized but exceedingly few airplanes
are removed from their parking places. The most effective
theft deterrents are the simplest. Folks who want whole airplanes
are generally professional drug runners and the hauling ability
of an SE lightplane is simply not in conformance with their
business model. One of my favorite deterrents is used by several
folks at ICT. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/AC_Theft_Protection.jpg
THIS airplane would haul a LOT of pot . . .
The whole idea of a "secret switch" doesn't consider the
mind-set of folks who prey upon others. If he/she goes
to work on your airplane only to find that the "puzzle"
is beyond their ability solve, they're more likely to
take out their frustration with a hammer to your panel
or a knife to your upholstery or canopy.
Thieves are a lazy lot, else they would make their living
by exploiting their own productiveness as opposed
to exploiting the products of others. Hence a hardened
steel chain and lock is very likely to send your antagonist
off to "greener" pastures. If you make the solution to
the puzzle quite clear from the get-go, they're more likely
to go in search of easier prey.
I had a hangar renter at 1K1 ask me NOT to lock his
airplane. He had to do thousands of dollars of work
to repair damage to doors over the years and thieves
got his radios anyhow. He correctly deduced that it
was a whole lot less expensive to leave the doors
unlocked and just have to replace radios. Interestingly
enough, after his airplane was moved to our Podunk
International Airport (See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/1K1_Spring_1989.jpg
he was not victim of any more attacks against his
airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TNC connections |
>
>Okay,
>
>I am having a hard time finding the comic book or other type simple guide to
>making TNC connections.
>
>Is there such a creature at aeroelectic?
>
>I found the one for bnc
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
>
>is the tnc similar?
>
>I ask since my Garmin 430 was converted to the new Garmin 430W and that GPS
>antenna has a tnc connector.
The TNC connectors I have are installed EXACTLY
the same way with the same tools.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternator Problems |
| From: | "algrajek" <algrajek(at)MSN.COM> |
I have a B&C 60 Amp alternator and a B&C Voltage regulator. Lately on 3 occasions,
while out flying, after about 20 minutes, my alternator stops putting out(
Amps go to zero, and volts start dropping). Upon landing and charging battery(to
Make it home). All works well. Also notice that the volts, while cruising,
while the alternator is on line, vary from 13.5to 14.9 . I have checked all the
wiring and it SEEMS fine. Do I have a voltage regulator problem???
Thanks
Al Grajek
RV8
859-361-9460
algrajek(at)msn.com
--------
just rv8in
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160846#160846
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry L. Tompkins, P.E." <tompkinsl(at)integra.net> |
| Subject: | Soliciting knowledgable comments about Eagle EMS |
Have any listers looked at this system? I saw it at EAA NW/Arlington
2007. I bent the ears of both the Precision Airmotive guys and Bart
LaLonde at Aerosport about it. Among its appeals are excellent mixture
distribution, easy starting, no return lines, self-purging for easier
hot starts and seemingly a lot of redundancy designed into the system.
Coming from an automotive engineering background, adjusting my R&D
expectations to the reality of miniscule (by comparison) aviation sales
volume has proven difficult at times for me. There just isn't enough
sales volume to amortize a great deal of testing. Furthermore, I am
probably a little more of a flyer than a builder, but there is nothing
like an RV-7 and modern avionics available unless one builds it oneself.
Although I generally am uncomfortable with the idea of being a Beta
tester, the Eagle EMS has definite appeal. The system appears to be the
first common rail/timed fuel injection developed for aircraft engine
use. Common rail/pulse width fuel injection has been the auto industry
preferred choice for at least 15 years.
Precision Airmotive has had units flying in two different test beds for
about 5 years, supposedly without issues. If one wishes to equip a
Lycoming (clone) engine with an Eagle EMS the engine must be purchased
from one of only three experimental engine suppliers, Aerosport, G&N or
Penn Yann. All of these suppliers have stellar reputations. Their
selection will provide some assurance of "proper installation."
Perhaps this will avoid the "great debate" over whether any problems
exposed are installation related, as we have seen with BMA.
At any rate, if you are familiar with this system and have comments I
would appreciate it if you would share them, especially if they are
"failure mode analysis' type comments.
Thanks,
Larry Tompkins
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Firewall penetration |
| From: | "rvtach" <rvtach(at)msn.com> |
Hi-
Working on making firewall penetrations and making them fireproof. I'm using steel
eyeballs for engine control cables and a stainless heater valve. I'm expecting
to have a single penetration for electrical wiring and for engine sensors
etc near the battery box.
I like Bob's modified grab handle method for a fireproof penetration but it's larger and bulkier than I need. And it's probably not a good use of my $time$ to try to come up with a less expensive alternative to the SafeAir 1 stainless fire wall pass through system; it's only $50. But it's $50! I came across a plumbing fitting in the "swamp cooler" section of my local plumbing supply today and it just might be a $3.50 alternative. I have posted some photos at http://picasaweb.google.com/rvtach/FirewallPassthrough that show the hardware.
It comes threaded internally for 1/2" NPT. I removed the threads by running a 7/8"
drill through it. The whole thing fits snugly through a 1" hole and is secured
by a threaded nut which would need to be secured with some thread locker.
I would use firesleeve and hose clamps like Bob's grab handle or the SafeAir
1 product. There's just over 1/2" to clamp the sleeve to which is a little short
but should be adequate.
So, can any of you guys think of any problems with this method? Maybe I shouldn't
use brass hardware against the s/s firewall? Brass melts to easily? Anything?
Appreciate any help at all here.
--------
Jim McChesney
Tucson, AZ
RV-7A Finishing Kit
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160931#160931
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetration |
| From: | "RV10 4JF" <ETskypilot(at)aol.com> |
Hello,
Tony Bingelis wrote an article on making pass-thru fittings. They are similar to
those used on Cessnas except that they are one piece where as the Cessna fittings
are two piece. They are oval in shape, SS with fire retardant material surrounding
your pass-thru item. You make them out of stainless steel using sockets
or pipe as the forming die. They are attached to the firewall with 2 screws.
You drill a hole to fit your pass-thru item. You can make them as large or
small as you like. You just have to find the right die.
I will see if I can find the article and maybe I can post some pictures or a poorly
drawn facsimile.
BTW, in case of an engine fire, you want these fittings to provide some protection
so you really need something good.
JF
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160942#160942
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetration |
Be aware of possible impact on engine sensor data if sensor leads are too
close to high current (fat) wires.
Dale Ensing
----- Original Message -----
From: "rvtach" <rvtach(at)msn.com>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 6:42 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetration
>
> Hi-
>
> Working on making firewall penetrations and making them fireproof. I'm
> using steel eyeballs for engine control cables and a stainless heater
> valve. I'm expecting to have a single penetration for electrical wiring
> and for engine sensors etc near the battery box.
>
> I like Bob's modified grab handle method for a fireproof penetration but
> it's larger and bulkier than I need. And it's probably not a good use of
> my $time$ to try to come up with a less expensive alternative to the
> SafeAir 1 stainless fire wall pass through system; it's only $50. But it's
> $50! I came across a plumbing fitting in the "swamp cooler" section of my
> local plumbing supply today and it just might be a $3.50 alternative. I
> have posted some photos at
> http://picasaweb.google.com/rvtach/FirewallPassthrough that show the
> hardware.
>
> It comes threaded internally for 1/2" NPT. I removed the threads by
> running a 7/8" drill through it. The whole thing fits snugly through a 1"
> hole and is secured by a threaded nut which would need to be secured with
> some thread locker. I would use firesleeve and hose clamps like Bob's
> grab handle or the SafeAir 1 product. There's just over 1/2" to clamp the
> sleeve to which is a little short but should be adequate.
>
> So, can any of you guys think of any problems with this method? Maybe I
> shouldn't use brass hardware against the s/s firewall? Brass melts to
> easily? Anything? Appreciate any help at all here.
>
> --------
> Jim McChesney
> Tucson, AZ
> RV-7A Finishing Kit
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160931#160931
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Thumb screws for plastic hoods |
Having worked on PCs for the last 25 years I have learned to hate the little
screws that are used to fasten db connectors to the back of computers.
Fortunately, most cable manufacturers have gone to using thumb screws so a
screw driver is not required. Until GRT, Trutrak, and others!!
After two false starts I have finally found a supplier and the thumb screw
that will fit most all the plastic db hoods provided by GRT, Trutrak, and
others.
You may not care BUT IF YOU DO here is the link to the part. 50 of them
will cost you 12.50 plus frt. ($6.10) and tax ($1.07).
Allied Electronics, Inc. Stock No. is 810-0009. Link to page follows:
https://www.alliedelec.com/Search/ProductDetail.asp?SKU=810-0009&SEARCH=&MPN
=B71E014276&DESC=B71E014276&R=810%2D0009&sid=479D1B001E0BE17F
Allen Fulmer
RV7 Wiring/Plumbing
Eggenfellner Subaru E6T on firewall
N808AF reserved
Alexander City, AL
256-329-2001
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetration |
rvtach wrote:
>
> Hi-
>
> Working on making firewall penetrations and making them fireproof. I'm using
steel eyeballs for engine control cables and a stainless heater valve. I'm expecting
to have a single penetration for electrical wiring and for engine sensors
etc near the battery box.
>
> I like Bob's modified grab handle method for a fireproof penetration but it's larger and bulkier than I need. And it's probably not a good use of my $time$ to try to come up with a less expensive alternative to the SafeAir 1 stainless fire wall pass through system; it's only $50. But it's $50! I came across a plumbing fitting in the "swamp cooler" section of my local plumbing supply today and it just might be a $3.50 alternative. I have posted some photos at http://picasaweb.google.com/rvtach/FirewallPassthrough that show the hardware.
>
> It comes threaded internally for 1/2" NPT. I removed the threads by running a
7/8" drill through it. The whole thing fits snugly through a 1" hole and is secured
by a threaded nut which would need to be secured with some thread locker.
I would use firesleeve and hose clamps like Bob's grab handle or the SafeAir
1 product. There's just over 1/2" to clamp the sleeve to which is a little
short but should be adequate.
>
> So, can any of you guys think of any problems with this method? Maybe I shouldn't
use brass hardware against the s/s firewall? Brass melts to easily? Anything?
Appreciate any help at all here.
>
> --------
> Jim McChesney
> Tucson, AZ
> RV-7A Finishing Kit
Is it a brass fitting? If so, it will melt at a lower temp than
stainless, but so will the aluminum rivets & angles (and the copper wire
going through it will, too). You might be able to find the same fitting
in stainless from a food supply grade plumbing supplier.
You just have to weigh risk/benefit/expense.
My personal opinion is that there's much more risk from the heater
penetration, even with stainless parts, than with any penetration
carrying solid wires or steel cables. If you look at the air gap around
the flapper valve on the heater penetration, the total area of the gap
is effectively a gaping hole, compared to a wire penetration filled with
wire & fire suppressing caulk.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetration |
rvtach wrote:
> So, can any of you guys think of any problems with this method? Maybe I shouldn't
use brass hardware against the s/s firewall? Brass melts to easily? Anything?
Appreciate any help at all here.
>
A big contributor to the elbow fitting's effectiveness is the elbow.
The fire would have to turn a corner. You loose that with a straight
through fitting.
It should be fairly easy to find a stainless elbow that would do the
same thing. You might have to got up to $10 to get one though 8*)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Note 8 in App_ ZR11 M |
>
>Bob,
>Instead of running the test lead from the alternator, can one run the lead
>from terminal #4 of the LR3C-14?
Sure . . . you're looking for a voltage measurement
on that lead. The only advantage of moving out on the
lead is to include an ability to sense broken circuits
further downstream.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Problems |
>
>I have a B&C 60 Amp alternator and a B&C Voltage regulator. Lately on 3
>occasions, while out flying, after about 20 minutes, my alternator stops
>putting out( Amps go to zero, and volts start dropping). Upon landing and
>charging battery(to Make it home). All works well. Also notice that the
>volts, while cruising, while the alternator is on line, vary from 13.5to
>14.9 . I have checked all the wiring and it SEEMS fine. Do I have a
>voltage regulator problem???
Note 8 in Appendix Z describes a troubleshooting
technique that will help you isolate the problem to
wiring, alternator or regulator. You want to know
exactly where the problem is before you remove anything
from the airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetration |
It is not difficult to make a stainless guillotine valve right on the
firewall. A pull cable pulls a plate over the firewall hole to block it
and control the heat. In case things distort in a fire, I have it set to
pull closed. It is on the cabin side of the FW. Perhaps not as good a
solution for those who have to dump excess manifold heat but excellant
for water heat and for fire blocking.
Ken
snip
> My personal opinion is that there's much more risk from the heater
> penetration, even with stainless parts, than with any penetration
> carrying solid wires or steel cables. If you look at the air gap around
> the flapper valve on the heater penetration, the total area of the gap
> is effectively a gaping hole, compared to a wire penetration filled with
> wire & fire suppressing caulk.
>
> Charlie
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetration |
| From: | "RV10 4JF" <ETskypilot(at)aol.com> |
I found the article that I mentioned on the EAA builders site.
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/building/firewall/How%20to%20Make%20Firewall%20Grommet%20Shields.html#TopOfPage
Check this out and see if it will work for you.
JF
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161057#161057
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetration |
Hi Jim,
Clever idea. I presume it's brass so it's corrosion resistant even though
you drilled out the threads.
I saw a clever use of EMT tubing set screw connectors (ie steel electrical
conduit tubing). You can see a picture here (search for 'set-screw'):
http://www.alliedtube.com/electrical-raceways/conduit/emt-connectors-couplings.asp
The builder had notched out the set screw. Personally, I think I'd leave
the set screw hole (and toss the set screw) and make sure the inside of
coupling was free of any burrs, etc. The set screw hole is slightly
raised thus providing a little bit of a "barb" to keep any clamps and fire
sleeve from backing out.
The connectors are available in a variety of nominal sizes from 1/2",
3/4", 1", 1-1/4", 1-1/2", all the way up to 4". Any hardware store (at
least in the US) would have the smaller sizes.
I would also think about using some .032 sheet behind the locking nut
rather than have the nut gouge the firewall.
Regards,
/\/elson
Austin, TX
RV-7A - Canopy frame
~~ Lately my memory seems to be like a steel trap .... without any spring. ~~
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, rvtach wrote:
>
> Hi-
>
> Working on making firewall penetrations and making them fireproof. I'm using
steel eyeballs for engine control cables and a stainless heater valve. I'm expecting
to have a single penetration for electrical wiring and for engine sensors
etc near the battery box.
>
> I like Bob's modified grab handle method for a fireproof penetration but it's larger and bulkier than I need. And it's probably not a good use of my $time$ to try to come up with a less expensive alternative to the SafeAir 1 stainless fire wall pass through system; it's only $50. But it's $50! I came across a plumbing fitting in the "swamp cooler" section of my local plumbing supply today and it just might be a $3.50 alternative. I have posted some photos at http://picasaweb.google.com/rvtach/FirewallPassthrough that show the hardware.
>
> It comes threaded internally for 1/2" NPT. I removed the threads by running a
7/8" drill through it. The whole thing fits snugly through a 1" hole and is secured
by a threaded nut which would need to be secured with some thread locker.
I would use firesleeve and hose clamps like Bob's grab handle or the SafeAir
1 product. There's just over 1/2" to clamp the sleeve to which is a little
short but should be adequate.
>
> So, can any of you guys think of any problems with this method? Maybe I shouldn't
use brass hardware against the s/s firewall? Brass melts to easily? Anything?
Appreciate any help at all here.
>
> --------
> Jim McChesney
> Tucson, AZ
> RV-7A Finishing Kit
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
January 12, 2008 - January 29, 2008
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ho