Avionics-List Archive Browser

Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-ad
May 14, 2000 - March 07, 2001

________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 14, 2000
From: Warren Gretz <warrengretz(at)gretzaero.com>
list-aviation , list-avionics , list-ez , list-glasair , list-homebuilt , list-lancair , list-rocket , list-zenith
Subject: Gretz Aero Products
Hello listers, I have been told lately that a few builders have been trying to get in touch with me. Several months ago my e-mail address changed when I got my website up. My current e-mail address is info(at)gretzaero.com My website address is www.gretzaero.com You should take a look at the products I make and sell for builders at this website. The most popular item is the heated pitot tube mounting bracket. I also sell heated pitot tubes at a great price. There are several other items there I am sure you will be interested in also. Please contact me by e-mail, or the phone if you have questions. Warren Gretz Gretz Aero 303-770-3811 evenings and weekends or leave a message on the recorder ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)accessus.net>
Subject: Re: Electronic Parts...
Date: May 14, 2000
Digikey? Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact! (Click here to visit our Club site at http://www.bellanca-championclub.com) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Nafsinger" <nicknaf(at)prodigy.net> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 5:39 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Electronic Parts... > > I am trying to by a small quantity (4) of P-Mosfets, however I'm having a > bitch of a time finding a distributor. I was just wondering if any of you > have any leads? Very much appreciated! > > Nick Nafsinger > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Nick Nafsinger" <nicknaf(at)prodigy.net>
Subject: Electronic Parts...
Date: May 14, 2000
Ok guys... sorry this has taken so long. I did use Digikey, the service was wonderful. Thanks to all of you that helped me out, just goes to show you that some of the best people are in the aviation world! And for those of you that asked what it was for... I was rebuilding my Amp for my car stereo. A pilot w/ a loud stereo, not a good combo, but we all have our faults... Thanks much, Nick -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Cy Galley Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 1:46 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Electronic Parts... Digikey? Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact! (Click here to visit our Club site at http://www.bellanca-championclub.com) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Nafsinger" <nicknaf(at)prodigy.net> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 5:39 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Electronic Parts... > > I am trying to by a small quantity (4) of P-Mosfets, however I'm having a > bitch of a time finding a distributor. I was just wondering if any of you > have any leads? Very much appreciated! > > Nick Nafsinger > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Glass cockpit displays
Date: May 30, 2000
Here is a link to a huge >1 MB jpeg showing the cockpit of the space shuttle. It's inspiring. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-101/hires/s99_01418.jpg It looks like they are using CRTs. I am wondering if any inexpensive flat panel displays can match the high luminosity of the venerable CRT? Probably not. A few years ago, in the sharper image catalog (or some-such) they were selling a pair of TV glasses that would display a television image yet allow you to see your surroundings simultaneously. I never got to see a pair of them, but if they work well, something like this could provide a very light, cheap, simple heads up display, with the advantage of being able to see flight data no matter which way your head was facing. Imagine the shock of an uninitiated looking at your virtually blank instrument panel. "Uh... here, put these on." "Ohh, wow, cool!" Marlin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Glass cockpit displays
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Marlin Mixon wrote: > > Here is a link to a huge >1 MB jpeg showing the cockpit of the space > shuttle. It's inspiring. > > http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-101/hires/s99_01418.jpg > > It looks like they are using CRTs. I am wondering if any inexpensive flat > panel displays can match the high luminosity of the venerable CRT? Probably > not. Avionics magazine had a very interesting article on how they are adapting the new AMLCD glass cockpit from the 767 (I think, it may have been 777) to as a retrofit for the Space Shuttle. They talked about how the LCDs had to get a plastic overcoating to prevent floating glass in the case of breakage during zero-G operations. They also talked about rad-hardening the chips. > A few years ago, in the sharper image catalog (or some-such) they were > selling a pair of TV glasses that would display a television image yet allow > you to see your surroundings simultaneously. I never got to see a pair of > them, but if they work well, something like this could provide a very light, > cheap, simple heads up display, with the advantage of being able to see > flight data no matter which way your head was facing. Imagine the shock of > an uninitiated looking at your virtually blank instrument panel. "Uh... > here, put these on." "Ohh, wow, cool!" There are a number of sources for head-mounted displays. The problem is still bright sunlight washing out the display especially when using transmissive optics. If you are interested in a professional source for head-mounted displays, check out the following URL: http://wearables.www.media.mit.edu/projects/wearables/display.html This is from the world of wearable computing but it is a really good start. Micro Optical is my first choice for this stuff. BTW, there have been studies into reaction time to information that is anchored in space and that which is not. Turns out you respond more quickly to information anchored in space (your instrument panel) than you do to nonanchored display (head-mounted). One solution is to make the display shift as your head moves. This gives you two advantages: 1. the display appears to be anchored inside the cockpit; 2. you can pan the diplay by moving your head thus increasing the apparent effective display size. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <pma(at)obtero.net>
Subject: Balum's
Date: Jun 01, 2000
Hi all, I am about to make some simple dipole antenna's for my composite homebuilt. Can anyone tell me where I can purchase balum's from. I have searched through the Mouser catalogue but I can't seem to find them there. Digikey had some 50:200 ohms units, but I think I am looking for 50:300 ohms. Also, I noticed that the insertion loss was 3 db. This seems to be a lot, is that a typical value ? Thanks, Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: bcbraem(at)home.com.with.ESMTP (InterMail vM.4.01.02.00 201-229-116)
Date: Jun 02, 2000
Subject: Re: Balum's
Paul McAllister wrote: > > > Hi all, > > I am about to make some simple dipole antenna's for my composite homebuilt. > Can anyone tell me where I can purchase balum's from. I have searched > through the Mouser catalogue but I can't seem to find them there. Digikey > had some 50:200 ohms units, but I think I am looking for 50:300 ohms. > > Also, I noticed that the insertion loss was 3 db. This seems to be a lot, > is that a typical value ? > > Thanks, Paul > > Paul-- A 3 dB loss means a power loss of 50%: a 5 watt transmitter only getting 2.5 watts to the antenna. Check http://www.pavionics.com They have a lot of info on these topics plus a handy catalogue to order from. Boyd. N600SS ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Balum's
> >Hi all, > >I am about to make some simple dipole antenna's for my composite homebuilt. >Can anyone tell me where I can purchase balum's from. I have searched >through the Mouser catalogue but I can't seem to find them there. Digikey >had some 50:200 ohms units, but I think I am looking for 50:300 ohms. > >Also, I noticed that the insertion loss was 3 db. This seems to be a lot, >is that a typical value ? > >Thanks, Paul Just hook the coax to the center of the dipole and leave out the torroids, baluns, etc. The difference in performance is difficult to measure with good test equipment, you won't perceive any difference in the performance of a VOR receiver. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= < Independence Kansas: the > < Jurassic Park of aviation. > < Your source for brand new > < 40 year old airplanes. > ================================= http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 03, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Balum's
> > > I am about to make some simple dipole antenna's for my composite homebuilt. > > Can anyone tell me where I can purchase balum's from. I have searched > > through the Mouser catalogue but I can't seem to find them there. Digikey > > had some 50:200 ohms units, but I think I am looking for 50:300 ohms. > > > > Also, I noticed that the insertion loss was 3 db. This seems to be a lot, > > is that a typical value ? > > A 3 dB loss means a power loss of 50%: a 5 watt transmitter only > getting 2.5 watts to the antenna. > Check http://www.pavionics.com > They have a lot of info on these topics plus a handy catalogue to order from. First item, baluns (BALanced/UNbalanced) work in ratios. The most common ones are 1:1 and 4:1. Therefore, a 1:1 would be 50ohm/50ohm. The 4:1 units are usually designed to match 300ohm/75ohm. This just happens to conveniently match 300ohm twinlead to 75 ohm coax for your TV set. The commercial versions of latter type of balun are usually designed for receiving and shouldn't be used to transmit. You could probably make one that is 50ohm/300ohm but I doubt that you could find one commercially. As for loss, 3db does indeed equate to a loss of 50% of your power but that isn't a big problem, ususally. 3db is a much better measurement of what the receiver sees than is power radiated. If your signal is so weak that 3db is going to make the difference, you have other problems to deal with. If you are making dipole antennas, they need a 1:1 balun. Event tho' a dipole presents a 75ohm impedence at resonance, 50 ohm coax is close enough. The small mismatch is insignificant. If you fold the dipole so that it is V shaped (like a catwhisker nav antenna) it becomes a 50 ohm impedence. One of the best places to find info on antennas, feedlines, and baluns is in the radio amateur's antenna handbook from the ARRL. Check out http://www.arrl.org. They have an on-line bookstore from which you can order the antenna handbook. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <pma(at)obtero.net>
Subject: More balun questions
Date: Jun 03, 2000
Hi all. The problem that I am trying to solve is that I want an antenna for my VOR, Glide slope and marker beacon in my composite home built. In order to educate myself a little more I consulted the ARRL hand book. I have three questions: My understanding is that the balun is needed to match impedances to prevent reflected energy passing up the coaxial braid. If the antenna is for receiving only is a balun even required ? Are ferrite beads on the outside of the coaxial cable effective in doing this ? The second is, since the 3 frequencies are almost multiples of each other, can I construct or purchase a splitter that will allow me to connect all 3 to the one antenna ? Thanks, Paul McAllister ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 03, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: More balun questions
On Sat, 3 Jun 2000, Paul McAllister wrote: > > My understanding is that the balun is needed to match impedances to prevent > reflected energy passing up the coaxial braid. If the antenna is for > receiving only is a balun even required ? The advantage of the balun is that it isolates the coax braid so that it isn't part of the antenna. This preserves the antenna's radiation pattern and tends to prevent "dead spots" in some directions. It will also help to reduce scalloping (needle wavering). If I were doing it, I would put in a balun. You are trying to make the antenna work on two frequencies, the VOR/LOC frequencies and the GS frequencies. A coax balun might not work at both freqs so I would get a good broadband balun. > Are ferrite beads on the outside of the coaxial cable effective in doing > this ? They will help, as will coiling the coax. It still won't work as well as a good broadband 1:1 balun. > The second is, since the 3 frequencies are almost multiples of each other, > can I construct or purchase a splitter that will allow me to connect all 3 > to the one antenna ? It is common to use the same antenna to feed both the VOR/LOC and GS receivers because of the frequency relationship (GS freqs being about 3 times that of the VOR/LOC frequencies. A dipole antenna will resonate and present approximately a 50-75 ohm impedence on both frequencies. Unfortunately, there is no convenient relationship with the MB frequency (75 MHz). You might make something work after a fashion but you are likely to run into trouble picking up strong FM broadcast signals. IMHO you are better off with a separate antenna for MB. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2000
From: Warren Gretz <warrengretz(at)gretzaero.com>
RV List , list-glasair , list-lancair , list-rocket , list-rv8
Subject: Gretz Aero Products website up again
Greeting to the list, I was having some problems with my online order form, but I am glad to report it is back up and running. If you check out my website at the address of: http://www.gretzaero.com and you wish to place an online order it will now be working correctly. By the way, I have a new shippment of HEATED PITOT TUBES, and my MOUNTING BRACKET KITS ready for shippment as always. Warren Gretz Gretz Aero ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2000
From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Schematics for EDO-AIRE RT-553
Anybody know where I can get hold of schematics for an old EDO-AIRE RT-553 Nav-Comm radio? Finn ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Jun 15, 2000
Subject: Skymap IIIC GPS - RS232 Interface to the Notepad...
Hi Listers, For those of you that have had the pleasure of flying with the King (formally Skyforce) Skymap IIIC, you may or may not have noticed there is a nifty "Notepad" feature that allows you to upload roughly 4400 ASCII characters to the IIIC and then page through them. This is handy for something like an "online" check list or directions to the nearest airport with a hamburger joint. In any case, apparently there is a piece of software called Flight Manager Version 3.00 the you can buy for $229 (gulp) that will allow you to upload whatever text you may want to this special Notepad on the IIIC. Realizing that uploading ASCII text to this baby is a pretty trivial task and being a fair programmer, it hit me that I should spend a few hours away from building my plane and come up with a piece of software that might do the same. So here's my question. Does anyone have the technical spec. on how to communicate with the IIIC over the RS232 to manipulate the Notepad data space? There doesn't appear to be a "special" I/O menu for enabling this type of connectivity. I connected up a terminal to the IIIC and banged on it with few typical things, but nothing seemed obvious. Has anyone reverse engineered the Flight Manager code to see what it sends and receives on the RS232 port? Has anyone even used this Flight Manager software? Surfing around on the Bendix/King website, I was really disappointed in the documentation available on the IIIC there. Very pathetic, actually. I couldn't locate any information on the Flight Manager software, nor could I even find any data on available accessories for the IIIC. I did note that I can order a IIIC online direct from Bendix/King and pay full List price. What a deal. I wish they had bagged the online ordering development and focused on something useful - like some documentation... Sheeze. It appears that the old Skyforce website from the UK has been completely decommissioned - at least *their* site used to have a bit of useful information. Anyway, thanks for any information you might have on the aforementioned requirement. Best regards, Matt Dralle RV-4 Builder -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds discuss events, Small minds discuss people... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com>
"Matronics Avionics-List"
Subject: Airventure Anyone???
Date: Jun 27, 2000
Hey, it's just four weeks away now... anyone hearing out to Oshkosh this year? Anyone want to make plans on meeting? FWIW, I will be there the entire week, camping at Camp Scholler. Steve http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/glass_cockpit http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/stolch801 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Airventure Anyone???
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Steven J. Devine wrote: > > Hey, it's just four weeks away now... anyone hearing out to Oshkosh this year? Anyone want to make plans on meeting? > > FWIW, I will be there the entire week, camping at Camp Scholler. I will be there too. I am renting a house since I will have most of my family and several friends along. I will have airplanes (4 pilots in the family) parked in warbird (me and the CJ6), classic (my son with the 1949 Clipper), and contemporary (my father with 1960 Comanche) parking. I expect to be there the first week and the weekend, posibly leaving on monday. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com>
Subject: Re: Airventure Anyone???
Date: Jun 27, 2000
Any of the glass-cockpit wannabe's want to hook up? It would be interesting to meet some of the folks I've been talking to off and on... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian(at)lloyd.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 2:24 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Airventure Anyone??? > > On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Steven J. Devine wrote: > > > > > Hey, it's just four weeks away now... anyone hearing out to Oshkosh this year? > > Anyone want to make plans on meeting? > > > > FWIW, I will be there the entire week, camping at Camp Scholler. > > I will be there too. I am renting a house since I will have most of my > family and several friends along. I will have airplanes (4 pilots in the > family) parked in warbird (me and the CJ6), classic (my son with the 1949 > Clipper), and contemporary (my father with 1960 Comanche) parking. I > expect to be there the first week and the weekend, posibly leaving on > monday. > > Brian Lloyd > brian(at)lloyd.com > +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2000
From: Kirk Huizenga <kirkh@unique-software.com>
Subject: Narco Mark 12 Wiring Question
I just acquired an Narco Mark 12 Nav/Com radio and would like to make a base station at home with it (listening only). Unfortunately, I don't have anything besides the radio so I'm trying to figure out which connectors on the back are the 12V input, the ground, and the outputs for hooking up a speaker. If anyone knows or has a wiring diagram for the connection in back, I'd love to hear from you. There is a group of 16 male connectors in a circle and a seperate bank of 18 male connectors in rows of 5 and 4. Thanks Kirk ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Narco Mark 12 Wiring Question
At 01:33 PM 6/27/2000, you wrote: > >I just acquired an Narco Mark 12 Nav/Com radio and would like to make >a base station at home with it (listening only). Unfortunately, I >don't have anything besides the radio so I'm trying to figure out >which connectors on the back are the 12V input, the ground, and the >outputs for hooking up a speaker. Ever since Narco had a winner with the Mk-12 and Mk-12A they have called their nav/com "Mk-12" (with the exception of the Mk-16 which appears to have been a loser in the marketplace). The trick is to know which one you have. The original Mk-12 and Mk-12a were hybrid vacuum tube/transistor rigs and, as such, need high voltage for the plate supply (B+). For that reason the radio without its companion power supply is pretty useless. Given that no one really wants the Mk-12 and Mk-12a these days, you should be able to pick up a power supply or even a whole radio for a song (if you sing well). Brian Lloyd Lucent Technologies brian(at)lloyd.com 3461 Robin Lane, Suite 1 http://www.livingston.com Cameron Park, CA 95682 +1.530.676.6513 - voice +1.530.676.3442 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gregory Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: Airventure Anyone???
Date: Jun 27, 2000
I'm in. I'll probably be there all week. I'm not sure of my schedule or transport as yet (may sell my Citabria this week) but will likely be camping in North 40 or Scholler. If we can't agree to prearranged time/place(s), how about cell phone or text page contacts for broadcast messages? Regards, Greg Young RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) wiring & systems -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steven J. Devine Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 2:34 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Airventure Anyone??? Any of the glass-cockpit wannabe's want to hook up? It would be interesting to meet some of the folks I've been talking to off and on... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian(at)lloyd.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 2:24 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Airventure Anyone??? > > On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Steven J. Devine wrote: > > > > > Hey, it's just four weeks away now... anyone hearing out to Oshkosh this year? > > Anyone want to make plans on meeting? > > > > FWIW, I will be there the entire week, camping at Camp Scholler. > > I will be there too. I am renting a house since I will have most of my > family and several friends along. I will have airplanes (4 pilots in the > family) parked in warbird (me and the CJ6), classic (my son with the 1949 > Clipper), and contemporary (my father with 1960 Comanche) parking. I > expect to be there the first week and the weekend, posibly leaving on > monday. > > Brian Lloyd > brian(at)lloyd.com > +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Airventure Anyone???
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Gregory Young wrote: > > I'm in. I'll probably be there all week. I'm not sure of my schedule or > transport as yet (may sell my Citabria this week) but will likely be camping > in North 40 or Scholler. If we can't agree to prearranged time/place(s), how > about cell phone or text page contacts for broadcast messages? > > Regards, > Greg Young > RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) wiring & systems Well, I see you have a call sign. I suppose you might have a 2M handheld also. We use 2M to stay in touch while there. We could also use freq/PL pairs on FMRS radios. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2000
From: Kirk Huizenga <kirkh@unique-software.com>
Subject: Re: Narco Mark 12 Wiring Question
I think this is the original - It is filled with vacuum tubes and transistors. There is a tag on the back that says 12V, so I assuming that is the power need. I can sing pretty well :) anyone out there with a power supply? Here are some pictures of the unit if you want to check them out. http://jove.prohosting.com/~kirkh/mark12bot http://jove.prohosting.com/~kirkh/mark12back http://jove.prohosting.com/~kirkh/mark12pins http://jove.prohosting.com/~kirkh/mark12front > >Ever since Narco had a winner with the Mk-12 and Mk-12A they have called >their nav/com "Mk-12" (with the exception of the Mk-16 which appears to >have been a loser in the marketplace). The trick is to know which one you >have. > >The original Mk-12 and Mk-12a were hybrid vacuum tube/transistor rigs and, >as such, need high voltage for the plate supply (B+). For that reason the >radio without its companion power supply is pretty useless. > >Given that no one really wants the Mk-12 and Mk-12a these days, you should >be able to pick up a power supply or even a whole radio for a song (if you >sing well). > > >Brian Lloyd Lucent Technologies >brian(at)lloyd.com 3461 Robin Lane, Suite 1 >http://www.livingston.com Cameron Park, CA 95682 >+1.530.676.6513 - voice +1.530.676.3442 - fax > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Narco Mark 12 Wiring Question
At 07:47 PM 6/27/2000, you wrote: > >I think this is the original - It is filled with vacuum tubes and >transistors. There is a tag on the back that says 12V, so I assuming >that is the power need. That is how the vacuum tube filament string is wired. You still need an external HV power supply. >I can sing pretty well :) anyone out there with a power supply? I will poke around and see what I can find. I might be able to find the whole kit and kaboodle. BTW, a Radio Shack scanner makes a dandy air band receiver AND it will scan all your local freqs. OF course you would never consider using it to transmit because that would be against the FCC rules. >Here are some pictures of the unit if you want to check them out. Yup, that is a gen-u-wine original Narco Mk-12. You need the external power supply. Brian Lloyd Lucent Technologies brian(at)lloyd.com 3461 Robin Lane, Suite 1 http://www.livingston.com Cameron Park, CA 95682 +1.530.676.6513 - voice +1.530.676.3442 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MRSMIRL47(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 28, 2000
Subject: Stormscope installation
I have purchased a used WX8 stormscope. It was made by 3m. Does anyone possably have installation instructions and or wiring diagram for this unit. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Gene Smirl N4211B ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2000
From: Joe Garner <jgarner(at)netwiz.net>
Subject: Re: Stormscope installation
Call BFGoodrich (www.bfgavionics.com) and ask for a manual. They send me an instal manual and operation manual no charge! YMMV, Joe MRSMIRL47(at)aol.com wrote: > > > I have purchased a used WX8 stormscope. It was made by 3m. Does anyone > possably have installation instructions and or wiring diagram for this unit. > Any help would be appreciated. > > Thanks > Gene Smirl N4211B -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Joe Garner IASEL-N35 Bonanza@OAK jgarner(at)elelink.org \ / jgarner(at)netwiz.net .____________(o)_____________. kc6utr@w6pw www.elelink.org -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gregory Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: Airventure Anyone???
Date: Jun 28, 2000
Nope, not a ham, The N6GY is for the RV. I'm close enough that I took it off reserved status and got it assigned. I'll probably launch with my EIS4000 instead of the glass panel, but I want to fly this year. Regards, Greg Young RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) wiring & systems -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 5:51 PM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Airventure Anyone??? On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Gregory Young wrote: > > I'm in. I'll probably be there all week. I'm not sure of my schedule or > transport as yet (may sell my Citabria this week) but will likely be camping > in North 40 or Scholler. If we can't agree to prearranged time/place(s), how > about cell phone or text page contacts for broadcast messages? > > Regards, > Greg Young > RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) wiring & systems Well, I see you have a call sign. I suppose you might have a 2M handheld also. We use 2M to stay in touch while there. We could also use freq/PL pairs on FMRS radios. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gregory Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: Sunlight Readable Displays
Date: Jun 28, 2000
I'm working on the panel for my RV and debating whether to cut the opening for the displays now so I won't have to tear out the panel later when I get the glass panels developed. To cut the openings means I pretty much have to pick the panel or at least the size/style/family I'm going to use and also design the bezel/mounting method. I've sized the panel (I hope) to hold two 10.1" displays w/ bezel, i.e. two 8hx11.5w" unobstructed areas. Soooo...it's decision ($$$) time. I've given up the idea of HR-TFT and figure to go with traditional backlit types. I'm looking for a minimum 10", SVGA, 700 nit panel. I know they're not cheap and I haven't seen much price movement in the past year. Anyone see anything that's going to change that within the next year? I'm somewhat electron challenged, so how hard is it to do your own integration of LCD, inverter, backlight, controller, etc.? Any good source of info? There are packaged displays for $2k+ but it seems I could build it a lot cheaper. I'm just leery of smoking a $1000 LCD panel. So many questions... Any specific recommendations or general comments are welcome. Regards, Greg Young RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) wiring & systems ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sunlight Readable Displays
Date: Jun 28, 2000
From: "D.F.S." <dfs(at)xmission.com>
> > > I'm working on the panel for my RV and debating whether to cut the opening > for the displays now so I won't have to tear out the panel later when I get > the glass panels developed. To cut the openings means I pretty much have to > pick the panel or at least the size/style/family I'm going to use and also > design the bezel/mounting method. I've sized the panel (I hope) to hold two > 10.1" displays w/ bezel, i.e. two 8hx11.5w" unobstructed areas. > > Soooo...it's decision ($$$) time. I've given up the idea of HR-TFT and > figure to go with traditional backlit types. I'm looking for a minimum 10", > SVGA, 700 nit panel. I know they're not cheap and I haven't seen much price > movement in the past year. Anyone see anything that's going to change that > within the next year? I'm somewhat electron challenged, so how hard is it > to do your own integration of LCD, inverter, backlight, controller, etc.? > Any good source of info? There are packaged displays for $2k+ but it seems > I could build it a lot cheaper. I'm just leery of smoking a $1000 LCD panel. > So many questions... Here are a few more... > Any specific recommendations or general comments are welcome. As to the "Openings" I would lean toward the modular approach. I would probably design a system where there is a large hole, probably square or rectangular which would allow you to install a smaller plate machined to fit the hole which is in turn has the bezel and holes cut in it. This allows doing the detailed work on the smaller plate with it removed from the plane where you can get to it easily. Put connectors on anything mounted it it so you can easily pull them out as a whole. As to the displays... I have had real trouble having anything REALLY being "Daylight Readable" that was not either a CRT or LED based. This includes TFT based laptops. To some extent you can shield them from the sun on the top, but the next real problem for me was reflections off things in the cockpit, like my shirt. LCD, TFT, "Active Matrix"... whatever displays don't run off the same signals VGA CRT based "Monitors" use. SOME have a microprocessor inside them that digitizes the inputs from a VGA card, builds an image in memory of the display and then drives the "LCD" from that image. This is how many of the new desktop flat panels displays work. They are probably too big though. Another common approach used on Laptops and some cards is to use a controller designed to drive "LCD" type displays directly. It is fairly easy to get some of the latter types as a combination of card and bare "LCD" display for under $500.00 I have or at least HAD one source with a gray scale backlit LCD display and controller for $99.00. My issues with sunlight readability still apply though. Another approach you could take is an actual CRT display. One issue is the "Depth" they require. Since you are mounting them IN rather than ON the panel, that should be little problem though. You should be able to pick up a color display for under a hundred fifty or so bucks if you shop around. Another thing to consider is what you are going to do with the display. If the computer as an IBM type PC running windows 95, you have a whole other set of issues than if it is a PC running Linux and that is a world apart from your options if you are building you "Computer" from scratch, and I mean with Firmware and soldering irons, not buying PC motherboards. I have no URLs, but a quick web search will turn them up... Check Timeline Inc. they are a surplus place for LCDs and CRTs Look for "EIO" for LCD displays. That on IS www.eio.com unless I'm mistaken. Marc ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2000
From: Kirk Huizenga <kirkh@unique-software.com>
Subject: Re: Narco Mark 12 Wiring Question
> > BTW, a Radio Shack scanner makes a dandy air band >receiver AND it will scan all your local freqs. Yeah, but what fun would that be? :) Kirk > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Airventure Anyone???
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Gregory Young wrote: > > Nope, not a ham, The N6GY is for the RV. Duh. I should have figured that out. It is amazing how our minds sometimes jump to a conclusion and then don't let go. > I'm close enough that I took it off reserved status and got it > assigned. I'll probably launch with my EIS4000 instead of the glass > panel, but I want to fly this year. Flying sure beats not flying. I can even live with steam gauges if it means flying. > Regards, > Greg Young > RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) wiring & systems Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com>
Subject: Re: Airventure Anyone???
Date: Jun 28, 2000
> > On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Gregory Young wrote: > > Nope, not a ham, The N6GY is for the RV. > > Duh. I should have figured that out. It is amazing how our minds > sometimes jump to a conclusion and then don't let go. If it's any consolation, I intend to have a 2M/440 rig with me, beg borrow or steal... I'm looking into buying a Yaesu VX-5R, if I can get my hands on it within a couple of weeks (so I have a chance to get used to the thing before Osh)... (ignorance showing) On a related note, what frequency does one use... so we all select/agree upon a frequency to meet on? Or just scan the band looking for folks (seems like a rather poor way to handle it).... N1YZJ (ham tech lic., not tail number...) Steve steve@tzogon.com HAM Tech lic: N1YZJ http://www.tzogon.com http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/glass_cockpit http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/stolch801 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Narco Mark 12 Wiring Question
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Kirk Huizenga wrote: > > > > > BTW, a Radio Shack scanner makes a dandy air band > >receiver AND it will scan all your local freqs. > > > Yeah, but what fun would that be? :) Oh, I agree. When I was in high school (1970) I installed a very old aircraft transceiver (vacuum tube, continuous tune receive, xtal controlled xmit) in my pickup truck so I could listen to what was going on at the airports where I hung out. It had something like 10 transmit freqs, two of which covered ground control (121.7 and 121.9). It worked like a champ when I drove to all the airports in southern California. I know exactly what you mean by fun. Heck, when I applied for my first job, installing 2-way mobile FM radios in fleet vehicles, I just showed them my installation and got the job on the spot. Sometimes fun can have carry over. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Stormscope installation
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 MRSMIRL47(at)aol.com wrote: > > I have purchased a used WX8 stormscope. It was made by 3m. Does anyone > possably have installation instructions and or wiring diagram for this unit. > Any help would be appreciated. Most any radio shop should. I would contact 3M directly. You have both the head and the antenna, right? As I recall, the WX-8 has all the intelligence in the display head whereas the WX-10 and the others have a separate box for the intelligence. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Airventure Anyone???
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Steven J. Devine wrote: > (ignorance showing) On a related note, what frequency does one use... > so we all select/agree upon a frequency to meet on? Or just scan the > band looking for folks (seems like a rather poor way to handle it).... No, we usually agree on a freq ahead of time. I forget what freq we used last year. (hey Dave!) I think we used something like 147.41. We also set aside a 6M and a 70cm freq but found they weren't necessary. Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Sunlight Readable Displays
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, D.F.S. wrote: > As to the "Openings" I would lean toward the modular approach. > > I would probably design a system where there is a large hole, probably > square or rectangular which would allow you to install a smaller plate > machined to fit the hole which is in turn has the bezel and holes cut in it. And I would shoot for a standard aircraft instrument size like 3ATI, 4ATI, or 5ATI. > This allows doing the detailed work on the smaller plate with it removed > from the plane where you can get to it easily. This is a very reasonable approach. > Put connectors on anything mounted it it so you can easily pull them out > as a whole. > > > As to the displays... > > I have had real trouble having anything REALLY being "Daylight Readable" > that was not either a CRT or LED based. > > This includes TFT based laptops. The avionics industry has adopted AMLCDs in a big way. Virtually all new "glass cockpits" use AMLCDs instead of CRTs. That means that sunlight readable AMLCDs are available. Looking through my Avionics Magazine buyer's guide I come up with the following: http://www.interfacedisplays.com http://www.holtic.com > To some extent you can shield them from the sun on the top, but the > next real problem for me was reflections off things in the cockpit, > like my shirt. There are antireflection coatings to deal with that problem. OCLI comes to mind if they are still in business. > LCD, TFT, "Active Matrix"... whatever displays don't run off the > same signals VGA CRT based "Monitors" use. > SOME have a microprocessor inside them that digitizes the inputs > from a VGA card, builds an image in memory of the display and then > drives the "LCD" from that image. You really want to drive AMLCDs directly and not through a VGA (analog) interface if possible. > This is how many of the new desktop flat panels displays work. > They are probably too big though. And horribly inefficient. > Another common approach used on Laptops and some cards is to use > a controller designed to drive "LCD" type displays directly. That is the right answer. > It is fairly easy to get some of the latter types as a combination > of card and bare "LCD" display for under $500.00 > I have or at least HAD one source with a gray scale backlit LCD display > and controller for $99.00. Gray scale displays often work well under ambient light as well as their own backlight. That makes them good for high ambient light environments without breaking the bank. Color is a luxury if you are trying to save a few bux. > My issues with sunlight readability still apply though. Just spend the money for the right display. > Another approach you could take is an actual CRT display. > One issue is the "Depth" they require. Check out the Argus 3000/5000/7000 moving map units. They use CRTs. They have them in a 3ATI form factor. > Since you are mounting them IN rather than ON the panel, that > should be little problem though. I wouldn't bet on that. > You should be able to pick up a color display for under a hundred > fifty or so bucks if you shop around. Raster scan color CRTs aren't bright enough. That is why the older "glass cockpit" displays were vector displays. They could rewrite the vectors fast enough and often enough to get the brightness up there. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2000
From: Joe Garner <jgarner(at)netwiz.net>
Subject: Re: Sunlight Readable Displays
Check Earth Computers at www.flat-panel.com, they sell a bunch of differnet displays. Joe Gregory Young wrote: > > > I'm working on the panel for my RV and debating whether to cut the opening > for the displays now so I won't have to tear out the panel later when I get > the glass panels developed. To cut the openings means I pretty much have to > pick the panel or at least the size/style/family I'm going to use and also > design the bezel/mounting method. I've sized the panel (I hope) to hold two > 10.1" displays w/ bezel, i.e. two 8hx11.5w" unobstructed areas. > > Soooo...it's decision ($$$) time. I've given up the idea of HR-TFT and > figure to go with traditional backlit types. I'm looking for a minimum 10", > SVGA, 700 nit panel. I know they're not cheap and I haven't seen much price > movement in the past year. Anyone see anything that's going to change that > within the next year? I'm somewhat electron challenged, so how hard is it > to do your own integration of LCD, inverter, backlight, controller, etc.? > Any good source of info? There are packaged displays for $2k+ but it seems > I could build it a lot cheaper. I'm just leery of smoking a $1000 LCD panel. > So many questions... > > Any specific recommendations or general comments are welcome. > > Regards, > Greg Young > RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) wiring & systems > -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Joe Garner IASEL-N35 Bonanza@OAK jgarner(at)elelink.org \ / jgarner(at)netwiz.net .____________(o)_____________. kc6utr@w6pw www.elelink.org -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2000
From: Joe Garner <jgarner(at)netwiz.net>
Subject: NAV-IDer' pinout?
I got one of these at a swap, its a 4 character display that decodes the ident of nav transmitters. Label says : MFG Instruments Renton Wa. Nav IDer model 100 serial number 01-01-0012 (guess they didnt make many :) Its got a 5 position sw on the front with the display, off-nav1-nav2-adf-dme, and a D9 plug on the back. Anyone have any info on this? TIA, Joe -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Joe Garner IASEL-N35 Bonanza@OAK jgarner(at)elelink.org \ / jgarner(at)netwiz.net .____________(o)_____________. kc6utr@w6pw www.elelink.org -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2000
From: Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net>
Subject: Hanger Radio
I have been looking for one of the no longer legal (for transmit) air craft radios to listen in my hanger. I called all the local avionics shops but no luck. Any body have any ideas? Chuck Deiterich ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Hanger Radio
> >I have been looking for one of the no longer legal (for transmit) air >craft radios to listen in my hanger. I called all the local avionics >shops but no luck. Any body have any ideas? >Chuck Deiterich Radio Shack has some pretty nifty hand-helds and desk-top receivers that cover "air band" . . . these will be modern, synthesized set-it-and-forget-it style radios that will consume a tiny fraction of the power needed to run a panel mounted aircraft radio in the shop. I've had several radios that I've converted from aircraft to benchtop use. After I built a power supply and packaged the thing in a box, I STILL had a radio that only a high-dollar avionics shop knew how to fix . . . the cost of one repair exceeded the cost of a new radio from R-S. Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( Knowing about a thing is different than ) ( understanding it. One can know a lot ) ( and still understand nothing. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Ring Laser Gyros
Date: Jun 29, 2000
Has anybody on this list had a chance to work/fly with ring laser gyros? I understand that they are common now in newer top-end airplanes. I did an online patent search at IBM and see now that the newer designs, using fiber-optics can be made completely solid state--no mechanical joggers. In fact, I don't see any reason why you couldn't embed one completely in a chip The way they work is they shoot a laser through a fiber-optic strand that's fairly long--say 100 meters--but coiled in one direction. Now, if you imagine this coil rolling accross your desk, you would see that since light speed is constant (within the fiber-optic medium) the light would reach the end of the coil more quickly or less quickly depending on which way its rolling. They use light interference trickery to figure out the rate of roll. Currently ring lasers don't match the very best mechanical gyros, but they perform better than most. My guess is that ring laser gyros will steadily decrease in price and eventually be available to GA. They will probably become less expensive than mech. gyros as well. I will miss the sound of gyros winding down after shut-down though. Marlin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2000
From: Kirk Huizenga <kirkh@unique-software.com>
Subject: Re: Narco Mark 12 Wiring Question
Brian, How much power are you talking about to power the Narco radio? I got a suggeston from someone to try a power supply from a computer. It puts out 12V at about 2.5-5 amps depending on the computer it comes from. Kirk ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Narco Mark 12 Wiring Question
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Kirk Huizenga wrote: > > Brian, > > How much power are you talking about to power the Narco radio? I got > a suggeston from someone to try a power supply from a computer. It > puts out 12V at about 2.5-5 amps depending on the computer it comes > from. No, a computer power supply won't work. The plate supply (B+) for the vacuum tubes will be on the order of 250-350VDC at probably 50ma or so. The filaments will pull a couple of amps at 12VDC. As I recall, the radio would pull about 10A total from 12V during transmit. You really do need to find the proper power supply for the radio if you want to make it work. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MMMARKMM(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 29, 2000
Subject: Re: Hanger Radio
Hi, I just bought a yaesu Aviator Pro II. I purchased it from Marv Golden Sales for $284.00 and you can hook up a 9v. plug in power supply and it works great in the hangar. You can also scan all local freq's. I had an old mark 12 hooked up to a 12volt radio shack power supply that cost 49.00. I had to put an aircraft antenna on the hangar roof to transmit and with all the aggravation the hand held is a great option. good luck Mark ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <pma(at)obtero.net>
Subject: Re: Hanger Radio
Date: Jun 29, 2000
Hi Chuck, I have a Genve 200 that we pulled out of our C150. I could ask my partners if they want to sell it. The asking price would be pretty low. Let me know. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 2:50 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Hanger Radio > > I have been looking for one of the no longer legal (for transmit) air > craft radios to listen in my hanger. I called all the local avionics > shops but no luck. Any body have any ideas? > Chuck Deiterich > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2000
From: dab(at)froghouse.org
Subject: Re: Airventure Anyone???
On 28 Jun, Brian Lloyd wrote: > No, we usually agree on a freq ahead of time. I forget what freq we > used last year. (hey Dave!) I think we used something like 147.41. > We also set aside a 6M and a 70cm freq but found they weren't > necessary. I think we used 147.495 last year. That's what I have set as the 2m calling frequency in my HT anyway and I haven't used it much since then. By the way, I expect I'll be at Ohskosh too. -Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Narco Mark 12 Wiring Question
I put some feelers out. I may be able to dredge up a Mk-12 power supply and wiring diagram. I will try to find a wiring harness too. I will let you know if I am successful. Brian Lloyd Lucent Technologies brian(at)lloyd.com 3461 Robin Lane, Suite 1 http://www.livingston.com Cameron Park, CA 95682 +1.530.676.6513 - voice +1.530.676.3442 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 30, 2000
From: Kirk Huizenga <kirkh@unique-software.com>
Subject: Re: Narco Mark 12 Wiring Question
Thanks Brian Kirk ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)accessus.net>
Subject: Re: Hanger Radio
Date: Jul 01, 2000
Nice thing about the Genave 200 is that it is still legal. It just doesn't have many frequencies. I have a 200 A and I say unable for clearance delivery and the Southern approach at my airport. Since I have the Northern freq. the tower just patches it to there. Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact! (Click here to visit our Club site at http://www.bellanca-championclub.com) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul McAllister" <pma(at)obtero.net> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 11:40 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Hanger Radio > > Hi Chuck, > > I have a Genve 200 that we pulled out of our C150. I could ask my partners > if they want to sell it. The asking price would be pretty low. Let me > know. > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net> > To: avionics-list > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 2:50 PM > Subject: Avionics-List: Hanger Radio > > > > > > I have been looking for one of the no longer legal (for transmit) air > > craft radios to listen in my hanger. I called all the local avionics > > shops but no luck. Any body have any ideas? > > Chuck Deiterich > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 01, 2000
From: Robert Triplett <tailwind(at)chibardun.net>
Subject: Re: harness
I think you should go to the portable radio also. But if I can find it some place in a junk box I have a power supply and a harness for a Narco Mark 12. If you are serious I will dig through the boxes and look for it. If I can find it you can have it for the price of shipping it. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 02, 2000
From: "M T Barksdale" <skyranger(at)hartcom.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 07/01/00
Hey Gang; Anyone know any secrets about a Terra 640 transmit. Frequency seems to drift for xmit. Had it into the shop [Gulf Coast @LAL] twice now. Pronounced OK. there. Regards, Mac Mac Barksdale, DVM 4270 Aloma Ave Suite 124-33A Winter Park, Fl 32792 skyranger(at)hartcom.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: AHRS Anyone?
Date: Jul 03, 2000
This link describes new microgyroscope-on-a-chip technology developed by JPL for satellites. Hughes is licensing it and is planning to develop volume production for the chip, but doesn't say when it would be generally available. http://www.spacedaily.com/spacecast/news/future-99g.html Marlin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com>
Subject: Re: Airventure communications, meeting
Date: Jul 10, 2000
> > On 28 Jun, Brian Lloyd wrote: > > > No, we usually agree on a freq ahead of time. I forget what freq we > > used last year. (hey Dave!) I think we used something like 147.41. > > We also set aside a 6M and a 70cm freq but found they weren't > > necessary. > > I think we used 147.495 last year. That's what I have set as the 2m > calling frequency in my HT anyway and I haven't used it much since > then. > > By the way, I expect I'll be at Ohskosh too. > > -Dave OK... lets plan on using 147.495 for the Avionics group folks to meet. I've already met Dave off list, I'd like to hook up with some of the other people who I've met online for the glass cockpit project... IU may be monitoring other frequencies as well to coordinate meetings with other folks... Steve Devine, N1YZJ Of course, everybody does not have HAM gear... any other suggestions on how we can all hook up? I will be there all week, staying at Camp Scholler... Steve Steven J. Devine, President, Consultant, TZOGON Enterprises Incorporated steve@tzogon.com HAM Tech lic: N1YZJ http://www.tzogon.com http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/glass_cockpit http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/stolch801 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 10, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Airventure communications, meeting
At 04:33 AM 7/10/2000, you wrote: >OK... lets plan on using 147.495 for the Avionics group folks to meet. OK. >I've already met Dave off list, I'd like to hook up with some of the other >people who I've met online for the glass cockpit project... IU may be >monitoring other frequencies as well to coordinate meetings with other >folks... Steve Devine, N1YZJ > >Of course, everybody does not have HAM gear... any other suggestions on >how we can all hook up? I will be there all week, staying at Camp Scholler... I will have a warbird in the warbird area. Given that it is pretty much unique, it shouldn't be hard for people to find if they want to meet there. I will probably be sitting there answering the same question, i.e. "What is it," over and over anyway. If you want to know what it looks like, see http://www.matronics.com/yak18/. It should be with the other Yaks and Nanchangs. Brian Lloyd Lucent Technologies brian(at)lloyd.com 3461 Robin Lane, Suite 1 http://www.livingston.com Cameron Park, CA 95682 +1.530.676.6513 - voice +1.530.676.3442 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 11, 2000
From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com>
Subject: Some soaring avionics ideas
We're looking at using 1-Wire for a handful of sensors which connect back to a Handspring either via the serial port and 2480 or a plug-in on the expansion slot. The first sensor is a vario, other sensors would be temperature and humidity, possibly also solar intensity. Combine this with a GPS, logging capability and now you have your position and altitude, and wind up with a 3-D plot of the atmosphere and can calculate expected soaring conditions as well as the actual ones you are experiencing. Overlay this on a map and it could build a database of conditions to help with forecasting. There are a couple of GPS modules coming which will plug into the Palm, I have one on order from www.nexian.com, geodiscovery.com is another. These both use up the Visor SpringBoard slot, but a DS2480 on the Visor cradle connector could tie into a 1-Wire net of sensors. I also use GPSPilot now on the Palm which is ready to accept GPS data and maps for Palm-based moving map or course display. Of course if your GPS already has these, what's the point? You could use a GPS on the serial port and then the SpringBoard for 1-Wire, but then you need an (expensive) external GPS. The idea of the GPS in the Visor, all in one low cost unit, is attractive. Ultimately you probably want to support it both ways, and GPS data is standard, more or less, and not fast. www.cambridgeaero.com has some non-PalmOS software and varios but they are expensive and proprietary. I'd like to see an open bus like 1-Wire which could be expanded at will. Gliders run off of batteries so power use matters. CAN is too fast and power hungry for this, and the data doesn't change that quickly. Reading a sensor a couple of times a second is probably pleny good. Mechanical varios have lags of at least a second, and 2-3 seconds is typical. So 1-Wire seems like a natural solution. We need to be able to sense a variety of analog signals, so this implies either the DS2450 or DS2438. Or tricks ala PointSix. Anyway that's what we're thinking. At this point I'm in the R&D stage but may try to have some prototype Vario going early next month. Any feedback or interest is appreciated. - Bruce Pretty nice socket boards & accessories for TINI Java /\/\/\/ Systronix /\/\/\/ Complete Systems for Rapid Embedded Control Development tel:801.534.1017 fax:-1019 http://www.systronix.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Some soaring avionics ideas
Date: Jul 12, 2000
>From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com> > >We're looking at using 1-Wire for a handful of sensors which connect back >to a Handspring either via the serial port and 2480 or a plug-in on the >expansion slot. > >The first sensor is a vario, other sensors would be temperature and >humidity, possibly also solar intensity. > Yes, I really like the TINI board. Got one meself. The only challenge I forsee (which I hope to be tackling soon) is adding the ADCs as the DS cpu has no ADC capabilities. Actually, I think it will be fun. >Gliders run off of batteries so power use matters. CAN is too fast and >power hungry for this, and the data doesn't change that quickly. Reading a >sensor a couple of times a second is probably pleny good. Mechanical varios >have lags of at least a second, and 2-3 seconds is typical. So 1-Wire seems >like a natural solution. > I'm not sure about the power-hungry part, but I agree with you that CAN would be superfluous in your case, especially since you are using a Palm/Visor for a display device. Unless your Palm had a CAN interface, it just doesn't make sense. What do you think about the display on your Visor for various light levels? Obviously in a glider, a low light level display for night wouldn't be needed... Marlin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 12, 2000
From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com>
Subject: Re: Some soaring avionics ideas
At 20:39 7/12/2000 GMT, you wrote: > >Yes, I really like the TINI board. Got one meself. The only challenge I >forsee (which I hope to be tackling soon) is adding the ADCs as the DS cpu >has no ADC capabilities. Actually, I think it will be fun. Our STEP1+ has a 4-channel ADC on it. There's one at 166.70.144.45 with channel 4 monitoring Vcc. >What do you think about the display on your Visor for various light levels? >Obviously in a glider, a low light level display for night wouldn't be >needed... It's fine so far. I've used it in the glider with the eyemodule camera, no problem. I like the Visor screen even better than the new Palm IIIx screen. Bruce Pretty nice socket boards & accessories for TINI Java /\/\/\/ Systronix /\/\/\/ Complete Systems for Rapid Embedded Control Development tel:801.534.1017 fax:-1019 http://www.systronix.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Joe Hovel" <joe.hovel(at)med.monash.edu.au>
Subject: New Instruments - useful for experimentals?
Date: Jul 14, 2000
Just received a press release from the Australian Distributor of the South African made Skydat GX1 instruments. Check it out at: http://www.mcp.com.au/xair/lcd.htm or at the South African site at: http://users.iafrica.com/a/am/amptro/ These look promising! The Australian price of AUS$2300 translates (loosely) into about US$ 1500 In combination with the nav instruments proposed by this group, it might be a great combination? Joe Hovel ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HornetBall(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 14, 2000
Subject: Re: New Instruments - useful for experimentals?
In a message dated 7/14/00 1:39:41 AM Central Daylight Time, joe.hovel(at)med.monash.edu.au writes: << http://www.mcp.com.au/xair/lcd.htm >> BTW, the latest version of the EIS from Grand Rapids Technologies does everything this unit does for about 1/3d the price and provides RS-232 output of all parameters for you to play with to boot. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Vergoossen" <peter.vergoossen(at)hetnet.nl>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: New Instruments - useful for
experimentals?
Date: Jul 15, 2000
Look at http://www.brauniger.com/ for Alpha MFD !!! Peter Vergoossen > > From: HornetBall(at)aol.com > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: New Instruments - useful for experimentals? > > > In a message dated 7/14/00 1:39:41 AM Central Daylight Time, > joe.hovel(at)med.monash.edu.au writes: > > << http://www.mcp.com.au/xair/lcd.htm >> > BTW, the latest version of the EIS from Grand Rapids Technologies does > everything this unit does for about 1/3d the price and provides RS-232 > output of all parameters for you to play with to boot. > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com>
Subject: RE: Avionics-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 07/15/00
Date: Jul 16, 2000
Cool. I didn't see a price. Any idea? Will they be at OSH? Larry Bowen RV-8 fuse Email: Larry(at)BowenAero.com Web: http://BowenAero.com > -----Original Message----- > From: "Peter Vergoossen" <peter.vergoossen(at)hetnet.nl> > Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Avionics-List Digest: New Instruments > - useful for experimentals? > > > > Look at http://www.brauniger.com/ for Alpha MFD !!! > > Peter Vergoossen ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 17, 2000
From: "M T Barksdale" <skyranger(at)hartcom.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 07/02/00
Any hints for keeping a Terra 960 TXN transmitter aligned ? ? >? Mac Barksdale, DVM 4270 Aloma Ave Suite 124-33A Winter Park, Fl 32792 skyranger(at)hartcom.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 17, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 07/02/00
At 08:22 PM 7/17/2000, you wrote: > >Any hints for keeping a Terra 960 TXN transmitter aligned ? ? >? I don't know what a Terra 960 TXN is but I know that Trimble is still doing repair work on Terra radios. A friend just had his TX-760 back for repair a couple of weeks ago. Brian Lloyd Lucent Technologies brian(at)lloyd.com 3461 Robin Lane, Suite 1 http://www.livingston.com Cameron Park, CA 95682 +1.530.676.6513 - voice +1.530.676.3442 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Vergoossen" <peter.vergoossen(at)hetnet.nl>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 07/16/00
Date: Jul 19, 2000
Hi ALL, Hi Larry, The price is near 2000 Dm (~$900) without tax en sensors. (The Alpha-MFD support the sensors of Rotax / VDO oil-pressure and temp.) The fuel-flow sensor is not included , (about 180 Dm) OSH ?? I don't know!! You can mail them on "info(at)brauniger.com". Peter Vergoossen peter.vergoossen(at)hetnet.nl > > Cool. I didn't see a price. Any idea? Will they be at OSH? > > Larry Bowen > RV-8 fuse > Email: Larry(at)BowenAero.com > Web: http://BowenAero.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randall Henderson" <randallh(at)home.com>
Subject: Room at OSH available
Date: Jul 23, 2000
Well, my on-again off-again plans for OSH are off again, at least for most of it, so the room I had reserved will be available. This is a room with a queen bed in a nice house with central air. The hostess, Sharon Hawkins, provides continental breakfast. She works the EAA too so it should be possible to catch a ride with her to and from the show when she goes. The house is close to a bus line so you can get to/from that way too. Its available for the whole show. If interested, contact Sharon Hawkins, 920-232-8554. Please email me if you get the room so I can get my deposit back. Randall Henderson randall(at)edt.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randall Henderson" <randallh(at)home.com>
Subject: Room at OSH taken
Date: Jul 23, 2000
Looks like the room I posted at OSH (Sharon Hawkins') has been taken (Charlie, be sure to let me and/or the list know if anything changes.) I will in fact be going but not until Friday or Saturday, and I'll just camp. Look forward to seeing y'all! Randall Henderson, RV-6 N6R (~100 hrs) Portland, OR http://www.edt.com/homewing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Jul 30, 2000
Subject: New Windows Utility For SkyMap II/IIIC...
Listers, For those of you that have had the pleasure of flying with one of the new Skyforce/King Skymap II or IIICs, I've been working on a Windows application that you might be interested in. Its call SkyComm and allows you to connect up your Windows 95/98/NT/2000 PC or laptop to the RS232 serial port on the Skymap and manage a number of its internal datasets. Some of SkyComm's features include Screen Shot Capture, Upload/Download of up to 4000 characters to the Skymap's internal Notepad for something like an online checklists etc., Upload/Download of Waypoint and Route data, and Download of the Skymap's Logger database. There's even a built in wiring diagram for the requisite RS232 cable! I have just finished Version 1.0 and am considering this Beta 1. I have setup a rather extensive web site for information on the application and for its download. If you have a SkyMap, you're going to want this program! Best of all, its FREE! Well, I do ask that those that like it make a voluntary List contribution... :-) The URL for the site is listed below and can also now be found off the main Matronics web site as well as the specific List web pages. Please download the program and let me know what you think! Comments should be directed to support(at)matronics.com SkyComm Web Site ---------------- http://www.matronics.com/skycomm/ Best regards, Matt Dralle Email List Admin. -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds discuss events, Small minds discuss people... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 31, 2000
From: Warren Gretz <warrengretz(at)gretzaero.com>
list-aerobatic , list-aviation , list-avionics , list-beech , list-cessna , list-ez , list-glasair , list-lancair , list-rocket , list-tailwind , list-zenith
Subject: Gretz Aero products web site
Greetings Listers, I have a web site you may be interested in looking at. All of my products are listed there with photos and prices. The address is http://www.gretzaero.com I hope you like what I offer. Warren Gretz Gretz Aero ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B. Riesen" <briesenjr(at)prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 08/04/00
Date: Aug 05, 2000
please remove my name and e-mail address from your mailing list. Thank you... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B. Riesen" <briesenjr(at)prodigy.net>
"Avionics-List Digest List"
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 08/04/00
Date: Aug 05, 2000
please remove my name and e-mail address from your mailing list. Thank you... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2000
From: Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net>
Subject: Pin connections
I have a Genave Alpha/200 Nav Com. It has a round 12 pin connector with an alignment post in the center (like the old octal base vacuum tubes). Does anyone know what the pin connections are, or even by the wire colors? The power leads are pin 1 = red, pin 12 = black. The remaining 10 pins all have wires of various colors. Thanks, Chuck D. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)accessus.net>
Subject: Re: Pin connections
Date: Aug 11, 2000
Just happen to have the wiring schematic diagram for my Alpha 200 A 1 - 13.75 input 2 - Aux Audio 3 - Aux Audio 4 - Ry Key Line 5 - Mic Audio 6 - (Omni Dimmer) 7 - To M201 A/P out- 8 - To M201 A/P out+ 9 - Speaker 10 - (panel dimmer) 11 - Headphones 12 - Grd These are the Abbreviations used on the diagram. Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact! (Click here to visit our Club site at http://www.bellanca-championclub.com) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Deiterich" <cfd(at)tstar.net> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 7:07 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Pin connections > > I have a Genave Alpha/200 Nav Com. It has a round 12 pin connector with > an alignment post in the center (like the old octal base vacuum tubes). > Does anyone know what the pin connections are, or even by the wire > colors? The power leads are pin 1 = red, pin 12 = black. The remaining > 10 pins all have wires of various colors. > Thanks, > Chuck D. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 12, 2000
From: Warren Gretz <warrengretz(at)gretzaero.com>
list-aviation , list-avionics , list-ez , list-glasair , list-lancair , list-rocket
Subject: Heated pitot tubes
Hello builders, I currently have a large stock of Heated Pitot Tubes in the popular PH502-12 CR (formaly AN5812) and the AN5814 which has a heated static source built in to it. Both of these pitot tubes are 12 volt. I also have heated pitot tube mounting bracket kits for the above pitot tubes. There are other items that may be of interest to you for your project. To see the above mentioned pitot tubes and mouting brackets and all the rest of my products, look at my website at http://www.gretzaero.com You may contact me by phone in the evenings and on weekends. You may also send me your order by way of my website. Warren Gretz Gretz Aero 303-770-3811 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 12, 2000
From: Quilters Confectionery <qltconf(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Circuit for Mike Amp
I have a good dynamic noise canceling mike (M-87/AIC by Electro-voice) I would like to use with my experimental. Does anyone have a circuit for simple preamp for a Dynamic Mike. The Microair 760 that I am putting in has one shown as an option but I had really rather build one. I have been a ham since 1947 and have a really big junk box so getting stuff is no problem. Fly Safely, Larry :-) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vendor48(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 13, 2000
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 08/12/00
In a message dated 13-Aug-00 1:54:57 AM US Eastern Standard Time, avionics-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes: << One is the com antenna the other is for the Nav (VOR). I have plugged them in wrong and every thing still worked. >> If they are not marked, better plug in a dummy load into one, and a com antenna into the other, before you key up. That way both have the correct loading. JR ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 24, 2000
From: larry laporte <llapo(at)dmv.com>
Subject: (no subject)
please un-subscribe to all mail list thank you ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Foelker David J LtCol 50FTS/ADO <david.foelker(at)columbus.af.mil>
Subject: RE: Czech-List: Unsubscribe
Date: Aug 24, 2000
Please unsubscribe me from Czech-List. V/R, David Foelker ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 24, 2000
From: larry laporte <llapo(at)dmv.com>
Subject: RV4-List: (no subject)
--> RV4-List message posted by: larry laporte please un-subscribe to all mail list thank you ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Foelker David J LtCol 50FTS/ADO <david.foelker(at)columbus.af.mil>
Subject: RV-List: RE: Czech-List: Unsubscribe
Date: Aug 24, 2000
--> RV-List message posted by: Foelker David J LtCol 50FTS/ADO Please unsubscribe me from Czech-List. V/R, David Foelker ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Foelker David J LtCol 50FTS/ADO <david.foelker(at)columbus.af.mil>
Subject: RV4-List: RE: Czech-List: Unsubscribe
Date: Aug 24, 2000
--> RV4-List message posted by: Foelker David J LtCol 50FTS/ADO Please unsubscribe me from Czech-List. V/R, David Foelker ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 24, 2000
From: larry laporte <llapo(at)dmv.com>
Subject: RV-List: (no subject)
--> RV-List message posted by: larry laporte please un-subscribe to all mail list thank you ________________________________________________________________________________
From: PSMarket(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 24, 2000
Subject: PSMarket: Unsubscribe
Please unsubscribe PSMarket(at)aol.com Thank you ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2000
From: Robert Fish <roblfish(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Matronics Network Connection Stable...
Cancel subscription, thank you Matt Dralle wrote: > > Dear Listers, > > There was a problem with the Internet connection to Matronics for about > 24 hours. This was observed as slow connection response to the Web > server and problems accessing pages like the Archives and Search Engine, > and delays in receiving List messages. > > A problem was identified with the firewall and it has been addressed. > > Best regards, > > Matt Dralle > Email List Admin. > > -- > > Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 > 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email > http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft > > Great minds discuss ideas, > Average minds discuss events, > Small minds discuss people... > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2000
From: David Aronson <aronsond(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Aviation Swap Meet California
Lister: Just thought I would let you know that an Aviation Swap Meet is scheduled for Sunday Morning, Sept 10, 2000. Location: Nut Tree Airport, California. Look at www.Solanopilots.com for more information. Dave Aronson RV4 firwall forward Yeaaaa! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2000
From: David Aronson <aronsond(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Aviation Swap Meet
Listers: I wanted to let all the lists know that there is an AVIATION SWAP MEET on Sunday, September 10, 2000 at 6:00am at the NUT TREE airport in NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (Vacaville). Go to htttp://www.solanopilots.com for more information. David Aronson RV4 Firewall forward at last!!!! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2000
From: "Masters, Donald" <donald.masters(at)lmco.com>
Subject: To: "'avionics-list-digest(at)matronics.com'"
un-subscribe ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Sep 01, 2000
Subject: Test, ignore.
This is a test, please ignore. Matt -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds discuss events, Small minds discuss people... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 02, 2000
From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Electric Gyros
I'd like to go with an all electric panel, ala Bob Nuckolls, in my RV-8 but the gyro prices are outragious and getting worse. What are the alternatives to the electric RC Allen attitude and heading gyros, or are they the cheapest? Isn't someone making solid state gyros? I'm sure they are beyond my prices range, but I love the idea. ===== Larry Bowen Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 02, 2000
From: Joe Garner <jgarner(at)netwiz.net>
Subject: Re: Electric Gyros
At OSH I saw some prototype sigma-tek gyros, solid state gyro DG and AH... They where looking at 5-8k$ each when in production... Also crossbow (www.xbow.com) was there showing off their ss gyros. The displays on the units where crisp and bright and seemed to react very fast. Unfortunately they didnt have a production date... Joe Larry Bowen wrote: > > > I'd like to go with an all electric panel, ala Bob Nuckolls, in my RV-8 but the > gyro prices are outragious and getting worse. What are the alternatives to the > electric RC Allen attitude and heading gyros, or are they the cheapest? > > Isn't someone making solid state gyros? I'm sure they are beyond my prices > range, but I love the idea. > > ===== > Larry Bowen > Larry(at)BowenAero.com > http://BowenAero.com > -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Joe Garner IASEL-N35 Bonanza@OAK jgarner(at)elelink.org \ / jgarner(at)netwiz.net .____________(o)_____________. kc6utr@w6pw www.elelink.org -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Deffner" <deffner(at)glade.net>
Subject: Re: Electric Gyros
Date: Sep 03, 2000
Maybe this will brighten your day. I spoke with Joel Westbrook at Century Inst. in Osh. He has a Wultrad electric AH and DG for $1,150 each, new. Anybody know anything about these units? Talk to him at centuryi(at)southwind.net or 800-733-0116. David Deffner F1 Rocket ----- Original Message ----- From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 10:50 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Electric Gyros > > I'd like to go with an all electric panel, ala Bob Nuckolls, in my RV-8 but the > gyro prices are outragious and getting worse. What are the alternatives to the > electric RC Allen attitude and heading gyros, or are they the cheapest? > > Isn't someone making solid state gyros? I'm sure they are beyond my prices > range, but I love the idea. > > ===== > Larry Bowen > Larry(at)BowenAero.com > http://BowenAero.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gregory Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: Electric Gyros
Date: Sep 03, 2000
There's been a lot of discussion on the RV-List lately about Wultrad. Have not followed it closely but they appear prone to infant mortality and may not have any warranty... at all! Check the RV-List archive for Wultrad, Chinese or gyro over the last 2 months for the discussion. Regards, Greg Young RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) wiring & systems -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of David Deffner Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 12:32 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Electric Gyros Maybe this will brighten your day. I spoke with Joel Westbrook at Century Inst. in Osh. He has a Wultrad electric AH and DG for $1,150 each, new. Anybody know anything about these units? Talk to him at centuryi(at)southwind.net or 800-733-0116. David Deffner F1 Rocket ----- Original Message ----- From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 10:50 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Electric Gyros > > I'd like to go with an all electric panel, ala Bob Nuckolls, in my RV-8 but the > gyro prices are outragious and getting worse. What are the alternatives to the > electric RC Allen attitude and heading gyros, or are they the cheapest? > > Isn't someone making solid state gyros? I'm sure they are beyond my prices > range, but I love the idea. > > ===== > Larry Bowen > Larry(at)BowenAero.com > http://BowenAero.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Electric Gyros
Date: Sep 03, 2000
"Marlin Mixon" >From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com> >I'd like to go with an all electric panel, ala Bob Nuckolls, in my RV-8 but >the >gyro prices are outragious and getting worse. What are the alternatives to >the >electric RC Allen attitude and heading gyros, or are they the cheapest? > >Isn't someone making solid state gyros? I'm sure they are beyond my prices >range, but I love the idea. Yes, solid state gyros would be the best: Lighter in weight, ulitmately cheaper once production levels have been achieved. These microgyros are coming about not because of aviation, but because the automotive manufacturers want to be able to develop automotive saftey equipment installed in vehicles to detect when a vehicle is sliding--I guess so that some sort of drive-by-wire system can be developed. There are two current "solid state" technologies that are competing. The first are the MEMS (Micro Electro Mechanical Systems) designs which are closest to market. Many of these microgyros are currently available. These are produced on Silicon wafers and employ vibrating masses and miniature detectors. When the vibrating mass is twisted out of phase by rotational motion, this is detected and appropriate signals are sent. The more accurate of these gyros--those probably suitable for aviation--cost a couple thousand each. The cheaper versions of these sensors, however, are less expensive, but they drift about 1 degree per minute. The second of these technologies is called a ring laser gyro. These are employed in the most expensive avionics systems in aircraft and are very expensive. The idea is simple though. You shoot a laser beam in a circle of fiber or through a series of mirrors that reflect the light around in a closed loop. Actually, you shoot two lasers in opposite directions so that you can measure the interference between the two beams as you rotate the ring like it was a wheel--the distance traveled is altered due to the constant speed of light. This system is the best, I think, because there are no moving parts and they have achieved amazingly small levels of detectability--they can detect the rotation of the earth, for example. Although the Ring Laser Gyros are large and heavy, R.M. Bosch of Germany has announced that they are developing a ring laser gyro on a chip for automotive use. So the day will soon come that you can go to the auto parts store and buy yourself three ring laser gyros for less than a couple hundred bucks--heck buy six for redundancy--and set yourself up with a real nice AHRS. Marlin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 03, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Electric Gyros
On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Larry Bowen wrote: > > I'd like to go with an all electric panel, ala Bob Nuckolls, in my RV-8 but the > gyro prices are outragious and getting worse. What are the alternatives to the > electric RC Allen attitude and heading gyros, or are they the cheapest? Wultrad is making cheaper ones and others have talked about them. I spent some time talking with the Wultrad rep at OSH. They are made in the People's Republic of China. They are the source of gyros for the Chinese air force and make the gyros in my CJ6. As far as I was able to determine, repair service will be limited. I would be very surprised if you could get them overhauled in the US and the rep said that they weren't in the biz of providing maintenance or overhauls (I was trying to get the gyros in my CJ6 overhauled). > Isn't someone making solid state gyros? I'm sure they are beyond my prices > range, but I love the idea. The best thing I have seen so far is the AHRS from Crossbow. It is not ready for prime time since it really doesn't meet the specs for vibration (it won't handle 5G of vibration which is the spec for most aviation AHRS packs). Even so, it provides pitch, roll, and yaw. The yaw axis is slaved to an integral three axis flux gate. The only other problem with the Crossbow unit is that it has a proprietary message format and RS-232 output. It would be nice if it was RS-449 or CAN+CAN aerospace. Even so, it should be a SMOP to make a little converter board. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "roninc" <roninc(at)onramp.net>
Subject: Re: Electric Gyros
Date: Sep 04, 2000
I am doing the same thing and wondering the same thing. So far as electric goes, it would appear that RC Allen is indeed the only game in town. There are others but they are much higher. The "solid state" gyro's will eventually take over, but at the moment the companies making them seem focused on very low volume / high margin sales. Thus a device which costs substantially less to manufacture, sells for more then the the old mechanical units. This will certainly change when somebody who can right a big enough check steps up to the plate - until then I think it's RC Allen. Ronin Colman RV-8 -----Original Message----- From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com> Date: Saturday, September 02, 2000 10:59 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Electric Gyros > >I'd like to go with an all electric panel, ala Bob Nuckolls, in my RV-8 but the >gyro prices are outragious and getting worse. What are the alternatives to the >electric RC Allen attitude and heading gyros, or are they the cheapest? > >Isn't someone making solid state gyros? I'm sure they are beyond my prices >range, but I love the idea. > >===== >Larry Bowen >Larry(at)BowenAero.com >http://BowenAero.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <pma(at)obtero.net>
Subject: Bendix Starting vibrators
Date: Sep 04, 2000
Hi all, I'd appreciate it if someone could educate the uneducated. I have been called upon by a fellow in our EAA chapter to help. He fitting his engine up to an RV6 and the starting vibrator he has is 24 volts. He asked me if I could modify it to work on 12 volts. For a while I couldn't really figure out what it does, but as near as I can tell it provides a pulsed voltage source for the magnetos while starting. I assume that while the engine is cranking the magnetos do not have enough rotational velocity to generate a large enough spark voltage. If my guess is right then this vibrator is fed into a primary winding in the magneto via the points. Could someone tell me if my guess if right, and what I would need to do to make it work on 12 volts. I assume that I would need to count the number of turns, measure its resistance and calculate the number of turns to get a similar magnetic saturation. Any help would be appreciated. Just as an after thought, if it does work the way I think, would it be easier to replicate its functionality using a 555 oscillator driving a power FET ? Thanks, Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 04, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Bendix Starting vibrators
At 01:41 PM 9/4/2000, you wrote: >Could someone tell me if my guess if right, and what I would need to do to >make it work on 12 volts. I assume that I would need to count the number of >turns, measure its resistance and calculate the number of turns to get a >similar magnetic saturation. Any help would be appreciated. The easy solution is to get a 12V vibrator and not worry about it. You might even be able to swap straight across at an aviation junkyard. That strikes me as being the more sensible solution. Even so, your suggestion should work. Have you considered the "SlickStart" vibrator replacement from Unison? >Just as an after thought, if it does work the way I think, would it be >easier to replicate its functionality using a 555 oscillator driving a power >FET ? I can't see why it wouldn't work. The flyback (back EMF) voltage on the primary when the MOSFET is turned off will be pretty high (on the order of 300V) so be sure to get a MOSFET that can handle that kind of voltage. But given that this is your buddy's butt we are talking about, why not just go with the tried-and-true? Brian Lloyd Lucent Technologies brian(at)lloyd.com 3461 Robin Lane, Suite 1 http://www.livingston.com Cameron Park, CA 95682 +1.530.676.6513 - voice +1.530.676.3442 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Deffner" <deffner(at)glade.net>
"Rod Kirkendall" , "Barbara Meier" , "Boily" , "Ralph D Nesmit" , "Greg Cody"
Subject: Fw:
Date: Sep 05, 2000
----- Original Message ----- From: JOYCE CAREL <JOYCECAREL(at)email.msn.com> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 10:28 AM Subject: Fw: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan & LaJuana Cooper" <coop1(at)door.net> > To: "Joyce Carel" ; "Ima Ruth Ray" > ; "Betty Fergerson" ; "Bernice Tarrer" > > Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 9:21 AM > Subject: FW: > > > > TEXAS RULES > > > > RULE 1: Don't order a steak at a Waffle House. They serve breakfast 24 > > hours a day. Let them cook something they know. > > RULE 2: Don't laugh at folk's names. Merleen, Bodie, Luther Ray, Tammy, > > Mari > > Beth, Marva, Edna, Earl, Ouida and Inez have been known to whip a man's > > ass > > for less than that. > > RULE 3: Don't order a bottle of pop or a can of soda; this can lead to a > > > > beating. Down here it's called Coke, even if you want a Pepsi, Sprite, > > or > > Dr. Pepper. Got it? > > RULE 4: Texas women don't fancy the smart mouth Yankees. Just remember, > > they > > all have Big brothers and Bigger daddies. > > RULE 5: Don't show allegiances to any other school's football team but > > the > > Red Raiders, Aggies, or Longhorns. All the others are a bunch of candy > > asses > > who play Wyoming every week. > > RULE 6: Don't call us a bunch of hillbillies. Most of us are better > > educated > > than you and a whole lot nicer to boot. We just talk that way to piss > > you > > off. > > RULE 7: Yea, we know it's hot; just quit whining, > > RULE 8: No, the state symbol of TEXAS is not the orange and white > > highway > > barrel. This road construction is ticking us off too. > > RULE 9: Don't go to the Cracker Barrel and order toast. If you do this, > > everyone will know you're from Nebraska. Just eat the biscuits like GOD > > meant for you to do. And do not order poached eggs. No one from the > > Texas > > eats eggs poached. > > RULE 10: Don't try to talk with a Texas accent if you don't have one or > > use > > regional idioms you can't possibly understand. Nothing makes us madder, > > and > > you CAN'T fool us into thinking you're really a Texan! > > RULE 11: Don't be telling everybody how much better it was back home. > > We're > > not going to change to make you happy. So if you don't like it here, > > Delta > > is ready when you are! > > RULE 12: Our food isn't overcooked; yours is undercooked. > > RULE 13: Down here, "Kiss my ass" is a perfectly acceptable way to close > > an > > argument. You can't get more closure than that. > > RULE 14: Flirting is a Texas tradition. It doesn't mean you're going > > home > > with someone later. It doesn't mean the person flirting with you is even > > > > interested. It's all just practice. > > Rule 15: Take your hat off when you say the words "Tom Landry." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JetPi9949(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 06, 2000
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 08/24/00
please unsubscribe me from avionics list ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <pma(at)obtero.net>
Subject: Re: Bendix Starting vibrators
Date: Sep 07, 2000
Hi Brian, Thanks for your note. Can I assume that from your note that my guess at its functionality is correct ? I certainly agree with you that the simple & correct solution is to get the right vibrator. Unfortunately this guy is on a super shoe string budget and he asked me to help out. Assuming that I am going to go with the option of rewinding it, are you up enough with magnetic flux density calculations to give me a clue ?. I guess what I am trying to do is to saturate the core the same amount with 12 volts. Is this as simple as getting the same amount of "amp/turns" ?. If so would this mean the same amount of turns but with wire capable of carrying double the current density ? Thanks, Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 5:23 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Bendix Starting vibrators > At 01:41 PM 9/4/2000, you wrote: > >Could someone tell me if my guess if right, and what I would need to do to > >make it work on 12 volts. I assume that I would need to count the number of > >turns, measure its resistance and calculate the number of turns to get a > >similar magnetic saturation. Any help would be appreciated. > > The easy solution is to get a 12V vibrator and not worry about it. You > might even be able to swap straight across at an aviation junkyard. That > strikes me as being the more sensible solution. Even so, your suggestion > should work. Have you considered the "SlickStart" vibrator replacement > from Unison? > > > >Just as an after thought, if it does work the way I think, would it be > >easier to replicate its functionality using a 555 oscillator driving a power > >FET ? > > I can't see why it wouldn't work. The flyback (back EMF) voltage on the > primary when the MOSFET is turned off will be pretty high (on the order of > 300V) so be sure to get a MOSFET that can handle that kind of voltage. > > But given that this is your buddy's butt we are talking about, why not just > go with the tried-and-true? > > > Brian Lloyd Lucent Technologies > brian(at)lloyd.com 3461 Robin Lane, Suite 1 > http://www.livingston.com Cameron Park, CA 95682 > +1.530.676.6513 - voice +1.530.676.3442 - fax > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 07, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Bendix Starting vibrators
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Paul McAllister wrote: > > Thanks for your note. Can I assume that from your note that my guess at its > functionality is correct ? That is my understanding of how it works. There is a second set of points, the "retard breaker", that come into play when the starting circuit is engaged. > I certainly agree with you that the simple & correct solution is to > get the right vibrator. Unfortunately this guy is on a super shoe > string budget and he asked me to help out. That is why I suggested an aviation junkyard. We have one in Sacramento, Kenny Faith, that is pretty useful. I got a superhet 3-lite marker beacon receiver there for only $75. I bet he could find a 12V vibrator for not too much money. > Assuming that I am going to go with the option of rewinding it, are you up > enough with magnetic flux density calculations to give me a clue ?. Turns X current. Hook up 24V and see how much current it pulls. Unwind the coil and count the turns. Put in a larger gauge of wire so you don't hvae as much I*R loss and wind with half as many turns. It should work. > I guess > what I am trying to do is to saturate the core the same amount with 12 > volts. Is this as simple as getting the same amount of "amp/turns" ?. If > so would this mean the same amount of turns but with wire capable of > carrying double the current density ? Right. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYBOYRV4(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 12, 2000
Subject: Compass position in panel
The compass on my rv-4 is in a position that makes it very unaccurate. the other instuments have an effect on it that I can't overcome with the adjusting screw. It is now installed in the center of the panel at the top. Does anyone have a solution to my problem? I don't like having to rely on the DG to go cross country as I have no backup if it gets disoriented. Where do most RV -4 owners place it ? Any help will be welcome. Thanks Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <pma(at)obtero.net>
Subject: Standard Instrument Hole
Date: Sep 17, 2000
Hi all, Could some one help me with some standard dimensions. A standard 2.25" (57 mm) circular faced instrument usually has a square case behind. Would anyone know the specification for the case size ? I have measured the only one I have it its 64 mm. Thanks, Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 2000
From: Warren Gretz <warrengretz(at)gretzaero.com>
list-aerobatic , list-avionics , list-ez , list-glasair , list-lancair , list-rocket
Subject: Pitot tube SPECIAL price
Warren Gretz Hello to the list, I have just received a price increase from the manufacture of the AN5814 heated pitot tube. This is the heated pitot tube with the static source in the pitot tube. I have a good supply of this pitot tube that I will sell at the old (before price increase) price. The old price is $199, this includes shipping in the US. After my current supply is gone, I must increase my price to $206 which will also include shipping in the US. This will be on a first come first serve basis. Check out my website for descriptions of this product and also my heated pitot tube mounting bracket kits. You can purchase using your VISA or MASTER CARD using my online order form, or call me in the evenings or on weekends. My website address is: http://www.gretzaero.com Warren Gretz Gretz Aero 303-770-3811 evenings and weekends (you may also leave a message other times) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: c.moen(at)mindspring.com
Date: Oct 02, 2000
Avionics-List Digest Server
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 09/29/00
Reality check, It seems we are getting closer all the time to a GPS based navigation system as our primary nav. in the US. With the relabeling of the approaches as RNAV and such. Question for Comment: Is it practical/legal, with a limited experimental panel, to have and enroute/approach GPS as your only nav for light IFR? .IE. no VOR/ILS in the panel at all... Comments... avionics-list(at)matronics.com,Avionics-List Digest Server wrote: ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Majors" <mmajors(at)ieee.org>
Subject: Re: ionics-List:
Date: Oct 02, 2000
> Reality check, > > It seems we are getting closer all the time to a GPS based navigation system as our primary nav. in the US. With the relabeling of the approaches as RNAV and such. > > Question for Comment: > > Is it practical/legal, with a limited experimental panel, to have and enroute/approach GPS as your only nav for light IFR? .IE. no VOR/ILS in the panel at all... > > Comments... > Yes, we're getting closer all the time. No it's not yet time to use GPS as sole source navigation. You can't use it for precision approach because without WAAS it still doesn't have the 7.6 meter accuracy. It's rare but still possible to get poor sat geometry sometimes, have a satellite(s) out of service, or be near a GPS testing site. In situations like this, you may not be able to use approach mode on your GPS, or at least not rely on it. You say light IFR, but light IFR can turn to not as light IFR sometimes and then you'll want that ILS capability. Again unlikely, but what if the GPS receiver itself fails, like the display goes out ? Now practically ? Use that GPS for 99.9% of your navigation including your light IFR and approaches, but keep a VOR/ILS in the plane. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 02, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: ionics-List:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Michael Majors wrote: > Now practically ? Use that GPS for 99.9% of your navigation including your > light IFR and approaches, but keep a VOR/ILS in the plane. You are 100% right non the money. I just flew into Oakland this morning in my 1949 Piper Clipper (precursor to the Pacer and Tri-Pacer). It is equipped with an Apollo SL-60 GPS/comm, a Terra TN200 nav + TriNav display, a Terra TR-250 transponder, and a 3-lite marker beacon receiver we got for $50 from an airplane junkyard. I used the GPS to nav to the IAF and then flew the ILS to the runway. This is real IFR with bare minimum equipment that I would have killed for when I learned to fly IFR 25 years ago. Oh, and my radio stack is just over 3x" high. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com
Subject: KCS-55 standards
Date: Oct 11, 2000
Hi all, I am working on a little project to convert GPS track to the synchro signal that would be put out by a gyro or the stepper motor signal put out by the KCS-55. Can anyone tell me what the specs are for either of these signals? My strikefinder manual says: "... can be slaved directlly to an HSI or compass system with a standard stepper or synchro-output. Standard is good. What is the standard, or where can I find it described? tia, g. PS - if you are interested, the project is to generate a signal for the strikefinder that will turn the display when the plane turns. It would be better to use heading instead of track for this, but this is really just a little experiment. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "roninc" <roninc(at)onramp.net>
Subject: Re: KCS-55 standards
Date: Oct 11, 2000
I've been poking around on a different project but did spot a short list of the outputs of the different HSI's. Sorry I can't me more specific, but I believe it was on the www.s-tec.com web page. Look for an HSI tech paper. But I don't believe there is a "stepper motor" signal coming out of a 55. There would be the DG info coming in from the remote mounted gyro, that would be I guess what you want to clone. But I think that is an AC signal - again, from memory. Won't strike finder just tell you what they want? That would be easiest. -----Original Message----- From: Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com <Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com> Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:38 PM Subject: Avionics-List: KCS-55 standards > > >Hi all, > >I am working on a little project to convert GPS track to the >synchro signal that would be put out by a gyro or the >stepper motor signal put out by the KCS-55. > >Can anyone tell me what the specs are for either of >these signals? My strikefinder manual says: > >"... can be slaved directlly to an HSI or compass system with a standard >stepper or >synchro-output. > >Standard is good. What is the standard, or where can I find it described? > >tia, >g. > >PS - if you are interested, the project is to generate a signal for the >strikefinder that will turn the display when the plane turns. It would >be better to use heading instead of track for this, but this is really just >a little experiment. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 12, 2000
From: Robert Simpson <siaero(at)siaero.com.au>
Subject: Re: KCS-55 standards
Glen, i dont quite understand what you are trying to do with your project. I f you are trying to drive the strikefinder, it will accept KCS55 signals directly(stepper motor signals),,,or signals from a remote gyro( AC synchro)... I can only assume that you are attempting to get the heading stab system working on the strike finder. This can be achieved via the methods described in the SF2000 install manual, or via the installation of a heading stab system,aso described in the manual. I have not seen any conversion systems that would give you heading data from a GPS easily. This of course depends upon your type of GPS though. Some do produce heading and /or course data on a 429 data bus,,,,but the convertors would be more than the Heading system would cost you. Good luck,,,and if you need any data,,email me,,would be happy to help with what i can. Regards Rob Simpson Simspon Aeroelectrics P/L Melbourne Australia Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am working on a little project to convert GPS track to the > synchro signal that would be put out by a gyro or the > stepper motor signal put out by the KCS-55. > > Can anyone tell me what the specs are for either of > these signals? My strikefinder manual says: > > "... can be slaved directlly to an HSI or compass system with a standard > stepper or > synchro-output. > > Standard is good. What is the standard, or where can I find it described? > > tia, > g. > > PS - if you are interested, the project is to generate a signal for the > strikefinder that will turn the display when the plane turns. It would > be better to use heading instead of track for this, but this is really just > a little experiment. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: KCS-55 standards
At 06:08 PM 10/11/2000, you wrote: > >Glen, >i dont quite understand what you are trying to do with your project. He has a GPS but he doesn't have a gyro heading source. He wants to take the character stream output from his GPS and synthesize either the stepper motor signal or the three-phase AC synchro signal so that he can feed track info into his Strikefinder. If I were to try to do this, I would probably try to synthesize the stepper motor signal which is basically a digital signal already. You can do it with just 4 bits if I recall properly. Trying to synthesize the synchro signal is much more challenging. You know, the TINI from Dallas Semiconductor might be a good platform to generate this. It has a serial port that can accept the input from your GPS, parse out the heading info, and then generate the stepper motor steps. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com
Subject: Re: KCS-55 standards
Date: Oct 12, 2000
Thanks to all who replied to my request. There was some confusion about what I am doing. Here is a more clear explanation, provided by Brian Lloyd: "He has a GPS but he doesn't have a gyro heading source. He wants to take the character stream output from his GPS and synthesize either the stepper motor signal or the three-phase AC synchro signal so that he can feed track info into his Strikefinder." The consensus is that the stepper motor signal is easier to synthesize. Does anyone have the specs for that signal? That is what I need. The strikefinder folks don't recommend this approach because it gives track rather than heading. I agree with them, but I am going to do it anyway...this is a hobby project.- Some folks think this is a huge job. It isn't, for someone with experience in programming embedded systems and with compiler experience (for parsing the GPS data). For me, the biggest challenge is finding a clear description of the stepper motor signal, which is an input to the HSI of the KCS-55 system. I did look around on the S-TEC web site and on the King radio site, but no joy. g. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 12, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: KCS-55 standards
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com wrote: > The strikefinder folks don't recommend this approach because it gives > track rather than heading. I agree with them, but I am going to do it > anyway...this is a hobby project.- Actually, track data is much more useful than heading data. The stuff along your track is the stuff you are actually going to run into. If you have really wicked winds, your wind correction angle may be 15 degrees. Maybe your nose is pointing at a clear spot but your *track* is taking you right into a L5 thunderstorm. Now, which information do you want on your screen, track or heading? I don't know about you but I want to know where I am *going* not where I am *pointing*. So why do airplanes use heading rather than track data? Because historically only heading signals have been available in the cockpit. Gyros provide heading. So if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Now we have a source for actual track data and it makes a lot of sense to use it. > Some folks think this is a huge job. It isn't, for someone with > experience in programming embedded systems and with compiler > experience (for parsing the GPS data). For me, the biggest challenge > is finding a clear description of the stepper motor signal, which is > an input to the HSI of the KCS-55 system. I did look around on the > S-TEC web site and on the King radio site, but no joy. Right now I am kicking myself because I can't find an article in EAA Sport Aviation magazine (within the last couple of months) on a fully digital autopilot for experimental aircraft being built by the guy who originally designed the Century series of autopilots. He uses the GPS track info and stabilizes it with a rate gyro. One of the outputs drives a compass card instrument that looks exactly like a heading indicator. I betcha he is using a stepper motor in that. I talked with this gentleman on the phone and am seriously considering getting one of his autopilots for a warbird I am restoring but now I can't find the information (argggh). If someone has a pointer, I would *really* appreciate it. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 13, 2000
From: Chris Good <chrisjgood(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: KCS-55 standards
>Right now I am kicking myself because I can't find an article in EAA Sport >Aviation magazine (within the last couple of months) on a fully digital >autopilot for experimental aircraft being built by the guy who originally >designed the Century series of autopilots. He uses the GPS track info and >stabilizes it with a rate gyro. One of the outputs drives a compass card >instrument that looks exactly like a heading indicator. I betcha he is >using a stepper motor in that. > >I talked with this gentleman on the phone and am seriously considering >getting one of his autopilots for a warbird I am restoring but now I can't >find the information (argggh). If someone has a pointer, I would *really* >appreciate it. > >Brian Lloyd >brian(at)lloyd.com >+1.530.676.6513 Brian, I think this is the URL you need: http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ Regards, Chris Good, http://www.slinger.net/rv-6a/ West Bend, WI RV6A-QB N86CG, flying! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Flyink" <flyink(at)efortress.com>
Subject: Re: SBC w/LCD
Date: Oct 14, 2000
I'd like to get a Single Board Computer (386 or 486) with an analog I/O PCM board and a 10" color LCD display and hook up all temp and pressure sensors, tach, fuel flow and probably the VSI, airspeed and altitude too. Some SBC's have audio built-in or you can get cheap add-on audio PCM cards for voice warning. I realize it's not going to be cheap (maybe $1000 - $1500) but I was going to get either the RMI or GRI EIS engine monitor systems and I really don't like the displays. I've already built a very similar system so I understand what's involved. Has anyone else done this or is anyone interested in making one? I'd rather learn from somebody's experience and/or share the effort. Thanks, Gary K. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 14, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: KCS-55 standards
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Chris Good wrote: > >instrument that looks exactly like a heading indicator. I betcha he is > >using a stepper motor in that. > > > >I talked with this gentleman on the phone and am seriously considering > >getting one of his autopilots for a warbird I am restoring but now I can't > >find the information (argggh). If someone has a pointer, I would *really* > >appreciate it. > > I think this is the URL you need: > > http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ Tha's it. Thank you. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 14, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: SBC w/LCD
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Flyink wrote: > I'd like to get a Single Board Computer (386 or 486) with an analog I/O PCM > board and a 10" color LCD display and hook up all temp and pressure sensors, > tach, fuel flow and probably the VSI, airspeed and altitude too. Some SBC's > have audio built-in or you can get cheap add-on audio PCM cards for voice > warning. I realize it's not going to be cheap (maybe $1000 - $1500) but I > was going to get either the RMI or GRI EIS engine monitor systems and I > really don't like the displays. I've already built a very similar system so > I understand what's involved. Has anyone else done this or is anyone > interested in making one? I'd rather learn from somebody's experience > and/or share the effort. What you are asking for is already a product. It is the AV-10 from Audio Flight Avionics. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <pma(at)obtero.net>
Subject: Re: SBC w/LCD
Date: Oct 14, 2000
Hi Brian, I did hear that the AV10 company ceased production ealier this year. I am not sure if they are back in business or not. Paul > > What you are asking for is already a product. It is the AV-10 from Audio > Flight Avionics. > > Brian Lloyd ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 14, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: SBC w/LCD
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Paul McAllister wrote: > > Hi Brian, > > I did hear that the AV10 company ceased production ealier this year. I am > not sure if they are back in business or not. The two partners had a falling out and the one who had been handling sales and customer relations has quit doing anything. The guy who actually designed and builds the units is still doing so. I am having him put one together for me now. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 15, 2000
From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 10/14/00
Avionics-List Digest Server > The two partners had a falling out and the one who had been handling sales > and customer relations has quit doing anything. The guy who actually > designed and builds the units is still doing so. I am having him put one > together for me now. > > Brian Lloyd > brian(at)lloyd.com > +1.530.676.6513 > RE: AV-10 Let us know how it goes. I seriously considered one of these, but still feel uncomfortable about what has happened previously. Weren't several people stiffed for a lot of money? The front runner for me right now is the Allegro: http://www.allegroavionics.com/index.html. I would like to see a product like Gary K. suggests. Reminds me of these guys: http://www.brauniger.de/brauniger/alpha/ . Has anyone seen one of these first-hand? ===== Larry Bowen Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 15, 2000
From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 10/14/00
Avionics-List Digest Server > The two partners had a falling out and the one who had been handling sales > and customer relations has quit doing anything. The guy who actually > designed and builds the units is still doing so. I am having him put one > together for me now. > > Brian Lloyd > brian(at)lloyd.com > +1.530.676.6513 > RE: AV-10 Let us know how it goes. I seriously considered one of these, but still feel uncomfortable about what has happened previously. Weren't several people stiffed for a lot of money? The front runner for me right now is the Allegro: http://www.allegroavionics.com/index.html. I would like to see a product like Gary K. suggests. Reminds me of these guys: http://www.brauniger.de/brauniger/alpha/ . Has anyone seen one of these first-hand? ===== Larry Bowen Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "tdale4" <tdale4(at)email.msn.com>
Subject: glass cockpit???
Date: Oct 15, 2000
I've been watching this group for a while now and was wondering if anyone is still working on a flight management system. If so I would like to help in any way possible as I too would like to implement such a system in a RV6A that I will start building in Janurary. My experence in programming is limited but I make up for that with determination. Anything I can do to help just let me know. Tim Dale ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Guenther" <guenther(at)loeff.de>
Subject: Re: glass cockpit???
Date: Oct 16, 2000
Hi, Tim I have stared one www.loeff.de, but then started a homebuild at the same time. Looks as if of both jobs cannot be done properly, so I postponed the glass cockpit loef > I've been watching this group for a while now and was wondering if anyone is > still working on a flight management system. If so I would like to help in > any way possible as I too would like to implement such a system in a RV6A > that I will start building in Janurary. My experence in programming is > limited but I make up for that with determination. Anything I can do to help > just let me know. > > Tim Dale ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 16, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Audio Flight Avionics
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, Larry Bowen wrote: > > The two partners had a falling out and the one who had been handling sales > > and customer relations has quit doing anything. The guy who actually > > designed and builds the units is still doing so. I am having him put one > > together for me now. > > > RE: AV-10 > > Let us know how it goes. I seriously considered one of these, but > still feel uncomfortable about what has happened previously. Weren't > several people stiffed for a lot of money? I get my info second hand from Peter Rummell who is the designer of AFA's stuff. He claims that he has filled all the back orders and refunded money to anyone who has requested a refund. I know of others who have received product recently. It appears that AFA is actually still alive. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.6513 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Flyink" <flyink(at)efortress.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 10/14/00
Date: Oct 16, 2000
Thanks Larry for the two references, I've never seen either one. I'm still sticking with my plan though, I'm looking at a DOS graphics package for the SBC (no way am I flying with Windows). Gary K. >Let us know how it goes. I seriously considered one of these, but still feel >uncomfortable about what has happened previously. Weren't several people >stiffed for a lot of money? The front runner for me right now is the Allegro: >http://www.allegroavionics.com/index.html. > >I would like to see a product like Gary K. suggests. Reminds me of these guys: >http://www.brauniger.de/brauniger/alpha/ . Has anyone seen one of these first-hand? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 17, 2000
From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 10/16/00
Avionics-List Digest Server > > > The two partners had a falling out and the one who had been handling > sales > > > and customer relations has quit doing anything. The guy who actually > > > designed and builds the units is still doing so. I am having him put one > > > together for me now. > > > > > RE: AV-10 > > > > Let us know how it goes. I seriously considered one of these, but > > still feel uncomfortable about what has happened previously. Weren't > > several people stiffed for a lot of money? > > I get my info second hand from Peter Rummell who is the designer of AFA's > stuff. He claims that he has filled all the back orders and refunded > money to anyone who has requested a refund. I know of others who have > received product recently. It appears that AFA is actually still alive. > > > Brian Lloyd > brian(at)lloyd.com > +1.530.676.6513 Glad to hear it. They need to get their web site back on-line too. ===== Larry Bowen Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 17, 2000
From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 10/16/00
Avionics-List Digest Server > > > The two partners had a falling out and the one who had been handling > sales > > > and customer relations has quit doing anything. The guy who actually > > > designed and builds the units is still doing so. I am having him put one > > > together for me now. > > > > > RE: AV-10 > > > > Let us know how it goes. I seriously considered one of these, but > > still feel uncomfortable about what has happened previously. Weren't > > several people stiffed for a lot of money? > > I get my info second hand from Peter Rummell who is the designer of AFA's > stuff. He claims that he has filled all the back orders and refunded > money to anyone who has requested a refund. I know of others who have > received product recently. It appears that AFA is actually still alive. > > > Brian Lloyd > brian(at)lloyd.com > +1.530.676.6513 Glad to hear it. They need to get their web site back on-line too. ===== Larry Bowen Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com
Subject: KCS-55 stepper motor specs
Date: Oct 23, 2000
Hi again, I know someone out there can help me - don't be shy! I still need to know the specs for the heading signal that goes to the KCS-55 indicator. It is, I think, some sort of standard, but I've not been able to find out anything except that there are 3 or 4 wires that drive a stepper motor. I need to synthesize the signal to drive my strikefinder. So, if you have an old manual lying around, please email me for my fax number, or just type up the description - I don't expect that it would be more than a paragraph (I hope). tia, g. PS - the strikefinder will also accept a "standard" resolver signal, which the experts tell me is more difficult to synthesize, but I'll do it if that is all I can find (I have not found that spec, either). ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2000
From: Ira Rampil <rampil(at)anesthes.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 10/30/00
Greetings All, I am currently considering building a glass a/c, a Europa XS, and would like to use it for light IFR travel. I know I can legally certify it as IFR capable per FARs and I know to avoid electrically active areas by a wide berth. The question is: What can be done to reduce electrostatic charge accumulation and degradation of NAV/COM systems while in clouds. I dont think I want to kill the laminar flow by laying copper mesh on the wings ;-) Thanks, Ira Rampil ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2000
From: Warren Gretz <warrengretz(at)gretzaero.com>
list-avionics , list-ez , list-glasair , list-lancair , list-rocket , list-rv8
Subject: Heated pitot tube good price
Hello listers, I sent out a post not long ago saying I will continue to sell the AN5814 heated pitot tube at the old price of $199 until all of my current stock is gone, then my price must go up due to increased price from the manufacture. I still have a few. First come first serve. They will go fast now. I also sell the mounting bracket kits for mounting this and the PH502-12CR heated pitot tube. Of course I sell this pitot also. To see these products and others I offer look at my website. The address is: http://www.gretzaero.com I hope to hear from you soon. Warren Gretz Gretz Aero ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hook57(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 01, 2000
Subject: Re: Heated pitot tube good price
at 40.00 bucks more than whats available at ACS I'm surprised you only have a few left ! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Nov 01, 2000
Subject: A Season of Giving - Please Support Your List!
Dear Listers, As my good friend Al Mojzisik from the RV-List forum has pointed out in his humorous style this morning, its time for the Annual List Fund Raiser! For those that are new to the Lists since last year, I'd like to just mention what its all about. I have always run the List services here completely free of charge to the members. This includes the Email Lists, Archive Search Engine, as well as some of the other goodies found on the servers. My policy has always been that I will never charge a 'fee' to sign up for any of the email Lists and I have also turned down a number potentially lucrative of 'commercial' offers to provide advertising space either on the various web pages or on in each of the outgoing emails. I have always graciously declined these offers, however, because I have felt that the friendly, homey feeling of the commercial-free site was very appealing. I have also felt that offering the services here for free is the best way to stimulate the greatest membership, and in my opinion, this is the most important element in the success of a forum such as this. So, once again, I will restate my commitment to always keeping all of the services here on the Matronics servers free to everyone. That being said, I must also say that running this system is far from free for me, however. I am continually trying to provide the best, most reliable service possible and have continued to upgrade the systems as necessary to maintain or improve the level of service I provide. Quite aside from the "real costs" involved in the maintenance of a service like this, however, is the time commitment necessary to keep everything running and time required to produce new and improved software enhancements to make the whole experience more enjoyable for everyone. On the average I spend 10 to 20 hours a week handling subscription requests and related problems, maintaining the existing computer code base, and developing new utilities for the List community. The whole List site (web server and email server) continue to run across the 768kb/sec DSL-based Internet connection. Connections to the servers have generally been pretty reliable and performance has been good. Up time for the connection has approached the 99% mark. If you regularly enjoy the services provided here, I would ask that you make a Contribution in any amount in which you are comfortable. Your Contribution will be used to directly support the continued operation and improvement of all these services, and as always, I will turn your Contributions back into more upgrades and improvements. It is truly an investment in the future of these Lists. To make a SSL Secure Web Contribution using your Visa or MasterCard, please go to the following URL and follow the simple instructions: http://www.matronics.com/contribution.html To make a Contribution by check, please send US Mail to: c/o Matt Dralle Matronics PO Box 347 Livermore, CA 94551 As I have done in the past, I will post a "Contributors List" at the end of the Fund Raiser, personally acknowledging each and everyone that has generously made a Contribution this year! Finally, I just want to say *Thank You* to everyone that has supported me and my operation here this year. Your support and encouragement means a great deal to me and I feel like I have friends literally from all around the world! Sincerely, Matt Dralle Your Email List Administrator dralle(at)matronics.com ============================================================================ >-------------- >--> RV-List message posted by: Al Mojzisik > >Well folks, > >I hate to spring this on you without much advance warning and all but it's >November already. For you newer List members you may not know but this is >the time of year we all give "thanks" for all that Matte Dralle has done >for us with this RV-List. the customary way of saying "thanks" is with a >voluntary donation of cash through Matte's own simple and safe contribution >hot-line at: > > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > >It's really rather painless and actually gives you a good warm and fuzzy >feeling inside after you have made your contribution. Now last year I >relied heavily on guilt to get some of you harder nuts to crack to ante >up. This year I hope that in keeping with the election year theme I can >learn something from the experts........"It's for the children." > >Yes your contribution will help children everywhere learn about the high >moral values that are inherent in the RV family of aircraft. As our young >charges surf the Internet for information on various things that we don't >want them to know about, they may stumble across the Matronics Website and >become aware of the RV-List and other interesting forums that Matte >provides. This in turn may change there lives as they see what can be >achieved through hard work and perseverance. They will learn how the polite >exchange of idea's between consenting adults can result in the birth of one >(or more) of the finest aircraft in existence today. They can become aware >of a whole world out there that had previously been unknown or out of reach >to them. So in the interest of our children, send your contribution to >Matte to help the RV-List live long and prosper.............Darn, got my >tongue caught in my cheek there for a moment. > >Once again, you can make your contribution through credit card at: > > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > c/o Matt Dralle > Matronics > P.O. Box 347 > Livermore, CA. 94551 > >I would like to pledge at this time that I will not place any negative >advertising in the hope of raising funds for RV-List support. (Unless you >folks hold out too long, then look out!) Let's have a real clean campaign >this November and get out the contributions! AL >-------------- -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds discuss events, Small minds discuss people... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2000
From: Warren Gretz <warrengretz(at)gretzaero.com>
Subject: Re: Heated pitot tube good price
Sir, your are incorrect in your price you say ACS has on the AN5814 heated pitot tube! ACS most current price for the AN5814 pitot tube is $207.95 and you also pay shipping on top of that! My price has been $199 INCLUDING SHIPPING for some time. I can still sell what I have at that price then I must increase my price $7, but I will still pay the shipping. Please get your facts correct before you make a post to the world. Warren Gretz Gretz Aero Hook57(at)aol.com wrote: > > at 40.00 bucks more than whats available at ACS I'm surprised you only have a > few left ! > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hook57(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 02, 2000
Subject: Re: Heated pitot tube good price
Ooooops, not exactly apples and apples, but there are heated pitots available at less at various sources, search the links. Mine was 37.75 less....including shipping. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2000
From: AP-IA Bookstore <winterland(at)rkymtnhi.com>
Subject: 10% for Matronics
AP-IA Bookstore and eCharts is happy to do again, what we did successfully last year. That is to donate a portion of our sales for the month of November to the maintenance of the Avionics list. 10% FOR MATRONICS Starting now, 10% of any purchase from either AP-IA Bookstore or eCharts will be put aside as a donation to the Avionics list, as our thanks for this excellent resource for all pilots and technicians. We will run this special throughout November with a check for the total amount presented to Matt on December 1st 2000. To designate your share, please write the words "10% for Matronics" in the Special Instructions box on the on-line order form. Or, if you order something by phone, just tell me when you call. Thank you Matt for this excellent service. Andy Gold AP-IA Bookstore http://AP-IAbooks.com eCharts http://eCharts.cc ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Nov 03, 2000
Subject: List Fund Raiser Continues...
Hello Listers! This is just a reminder that the Annual List Fund Raiser is currently underway. Won't you make a Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade of this valuable resource? Your Contribution can be made via a Secure SSL Internet Transaction with your Visa or MasterCard at the URL shown below or you may send it via US Mail to the address also listed below. http://www.matronics.com/contribution or c/o Matt Dralle Matronics P.O. Box 347 Livermore, CA 94551 Thank you for your support! Your generosity directly makes this List possible. Matt Dralle Email List Admin. -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds discuss events, Small minds discuss people... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Nov 07, 2000
Subject: 2000 List Fund Raiser Underway...
Hi Listers, Just a quick reminder that the 2000 Email List Fund Raiser is underway and participation so far as been good. If you haven't made your contribution yet, won't you take a moment and make one today? The continued operation and improvement of these services are directly enabled by the generous contributions of its members. You may make a contribution with either your Visa or Mastercard using the Matronics SSL Secure website at: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or with a personal check to: c/o Matt Dralle Matronics PO Box 347 Livermore, CA 94551 Thank you to all those that have already made a contribution! Best regards, Matt Dralle Email List Admin. -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds discuss events, Small minds discuss people... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Nov 07, 2000
Subject: Homebuilt-List: 2000 List Fund Raiser Underway...
--> Homebuilt-List message posted by: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) Hi Listers, Just a quick reminder that the 2000 Email List Fund Raiser is underway and participation so far as been good. If you haven't made your contribution yet, won't you take a moment and make one today? The continued operation and improvement of these services are directly enabled by the generous contributions of its members. You may make a contribution with either your Visa or Mastercard using the Matronics SSL Secure website at: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or with a personal check to: c/o Matt Dralle Matronics PO Box 347 Livermore, CA 94551 Thank you to all those that have already made a contribution! Best regards, Matt Dralle Email List Admin. -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds discuss events, Small minds discuss people... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Nov 07, 2000
Subject: Zenith-List: 2000 List Fund Raiser Underway...
--> Zenith-List message posted by: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) Hi Listers, Just a quick reminder that the 2000 Email List Fund Raiser is underway and participation so far as been good. If you haven't made your contribution yet, won't you take a moment and make one today? The continued operation and improvement of these services are directly enabled by the generous contributions of its members. You may make a contribution with either your Visa or Mastercard using the Matronics SSL Secure website at: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or with a personal check to: c/o Matt Dralle Matronics PO Box 347 Livermore, CA 94551 Thank you to all those that have already made a contribution! Best regards, Matt Dralle Email List Admin. -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds discuss events, Small minds discuss people... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Nov 08, 2000
Subject: Huge Apology for "List Malfunction"...
Dear Listers, I am so embarrassed by the List-gone-crazy tonight! I'm not sure exactly went wrong. I'm suspecting that someone with an email account at msm.com may have been reposting my message from this morning over and over again maliciously spamming the system, but I can't really prove that. In any case, I am hugely embarrassed and sorry for the ton of messages that went out tonight regarding the 2000 Fund Raiser. Something went wrong on the system or somebody did me wrong; in either case I apologize for the huge dump of messages. My sincerest apologies... Matt Dralle Email List Admin. -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds discuss events, Small minds discuss people... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Ingram" <jimingerman1(at)home.com>
Subject: Fw: Avionic Question
Date: Nov 10, 2000
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Ingram" <jimingerman1(at)home.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 1:33 PM Subject: Avionic Question > I have a TKM MX12 Nav/Com (AKA Michel MX12). This was a slide in replacement > for the Narco Mark 12 in my Cherokee 140. I am upgrading the 140's radios > and am keeping the TKM MX12 to install in my 801. > > Problem, the VOR is 180 off, that is, when flying a radial TO the VOR the > TO/ FROM flag is indicating FROM. The localizer and glideslope work > correctly, so I and the local CFII think it may simply be a pin, dip switch > or wire reversed. The local ATP agrees, but says Michel does not publish > their schematics or repair manuals. I have not yet been able to get a > positive response from an avionics shop yet and was wondering if anyone on > the list could help me with this problem. Thanking in advance. > > Jim Ingram > Yamhill, Oregon > CH801 mazda 13B > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2000
From: "Gary Kozinski" <Kozinski(at)symbol.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: Avionic Question - TKM
Call the folks at TKM ...aka Michael Avionics. TKM 14811 North 73rd St. Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480-991-5351 I have 2 MX-300's in service for many years now in my 172. I've called TKM with great cooperation. I've shipped a radio back to them with 1-2 week turn-around at minimal cost. They have an $80 or so flat rate to look at and determine the problem. Their parts are resonally priced too. You can even talk to the owner, Mr. Bill Michael, if you ask. Good luck! Gary >>> jimingerman1(at)home.com 11/10/00 02:38PM >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Ingram" <jimingerman1(at)home.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 1:33 PM Subject: Avionic Question > I have a TKM MX12 Nav/Com (AKA Michel MX12). This was a slide in replacement > for the Narco Mark 12 in my Cherokee 140. I am upgrading the 140's radios > and am keeping the TKM MX12 to install in my 801. > > Problem, the VOR is 180 off, that is, when flying a radial TO the VOR the > TO/ FROM flag is indicating FROM. The localizer and glideslope work > correctly, so I and the local CFII think it may simply be a pin, dip switch > or wire reversed. The local ATP agrees, but says Michel does not publish > their schematics or repair manuals. I have not yet been able to get a > positive response from an avionics shop yet and was wondering if anyone on > the list could help me with this problem. Thanking in advance. > > Jim Ingram > Yamhill, Oregon > CH801 mazda 13B > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Navigating through fog with FOG
Date: Nov 11, 2000
Is it feasible to make solid state gyros, ring laser, fiber optic gyros, etc at home? I'm currently doing a feasibility study and the more I look at it the more I'm saying "Gosh, why not." On IBM's patent website, there is a reasonably clear description of how to make a Fiber Optic Gyro: http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05430544__ It consists of a small watt laser (ELED), a length of fiber optic cable arranged in a coiled loop, 5 photodiodes, electrical power supply, peltier element, thermo-sensor for temperature calibrating and a microcontroller. Easily less than $130 per gyro axis. If you wanted to make an Attitude and Heading Reference System, though, you'd have to come up with a way to auto-calibrate the pitch and roll axis gyros while on the ground and when in straight and level flight. Marlin Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2000
From: dab(at)froghouse.org
Subject: Re: Navigating through fog with FOG
On 11 Nov, Marlin Mixon wrote: > Is it feasible to make solid state gyros, ring laser, fiber optic > gyros, etc at home? I'm currently doing a feasibility study and the > more I look at it the more I'm saying "Gosh, why not." I've wondered too but was never quite sure how to build the interferometer. The little bit of math I did suggested that my first thought would result in something significantly larger than I really wanted. > On IBM's patent website, there is a reasonably clear description of how to > make a Fiber Optic Gyro: > http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05430544__ Neat. > It consists of a small watt laser (ELED), a length of fiber optic > cable arranged in a coiled loop, 5 photodiodes, electrical power > supply, peltier element, thermo-sensor for temperature calibrating > and a microcontroller. Easily less than $130 per gyro axis. Building the 4x4 coupler sounds a bit tricky. > If you wanted to make an Attitude and Heading Reference System, > though, you'd have to come up with a way to auto-calibrate the pitch > and roll axis gyros while on the ground and when in straight and > level flight. The easy way out is to just sync against inclinometers. So long as you're not in accelerated flight for too long, it works fine as evidenced by the fact that this is basically how your vacuum powered attitude indicator works. If you want to get more sophisticated, combine rate of turn from the your ground track taken from GPS with your inclinometer to estimate your bank angle and sync against that. Doesn't help for pitch but lengthy turns wouldn't throw it off so much. -Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2000
From: dab(at)froghouse.org
Subject: Re: Navigating through fog with FOG
On 11 Nov, To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com wrote: > If you want to get more sophisticated, combine rate of turn from the > your ground track taken from GPS with your inclinometer to estimate > your bank angle and sync against that. Doesn't help for pitch but > lengthy turns wouldn't throw it off so much. Okay, I'm replying to my own reply but I thought of some more things while trying to get to sleep last night. Basically, to compensate the simple inclinometer for centrifugal force in a turn you want to know the plane's bank angle which you can get from rate of turn, airspeed, and local down. Local down is what the inclinometer is for (or accelerometers if you have them instead). For rate of turn there are several options. You can have a separate rate of turn gyro, pull it from your three, orthogonal attitude FOGs (for which you have to know your attitude so that might be circular and have unfortunate failure modes), approximate it from a magnetic compass, or estimate it from GPS ground track. Airspeed would be from a pitot and static pressure sensors and temperature or estimated from GPS ground track. A full system would have most or all of these inputs and could estimate the bank by several means and compare them to detect sensor failure. -Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Navigating through fog with FOG
At 07:05 AM 11/11/2000, you wrote: > >On 11 Nov, To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com wrote: > > > If you want to get more sophisticated, combine rate of turn from the > > your ground track taken from GPS with your inclinometer to estimate > > your bank angle and sync against that. Doesn't help for pitch but > > lengthy turns wouldn't throw it off so much. > >Okay, I'm replying to my own reply but I thought of some more things >while trying to get to sleep last night. Basically, to compensate the >simple inclinometer for centrifugal force in a turn you want to know >the plane's bank angle which you can get from rate of turn, airspeed, >and local down. > >Local down is what the inclinometer is for (or accelerometers if you >have them instead). Use accelerometers. Vector sum the acceleration from all three axes and if the magnitude sums to 1G, you are in unaccelerated flight. The vector direction is down. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Navigating through fog with FOG
Date: Nov 11, 2000
>From: dab(at)froghouse.org > > >On 11 Nov, To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com wrote: > > > If you want to get more sophisticated, combine rate of turn from the > > your ground track taken from GPS with your inclinometer to estimate > > your bank angle and sync against that. Doesn't help for pitch but > > lengthy turns wouldn't throw it off so much. > >Okay, I'm replying to my own reply but I thought of some more things >while trying to get to sleep last night. Basically, to compensate the >simple inclinometer for centrifugal force in a turn you want to know >the plane's bank angle which you can get from rate of turn, airspeed, >and local down. > >Local down is what the inclinometer is for (or accelerometers if you >have them instead). > >For rate of turn there are several options. You can have a separate >rate of turn gyro, pull it from your three, orthogonal attitude FOGs >(for which you have to know your attitude so that might be circular >and have unfortunate failure modes), approximate it from a magnetic >compass, or estimate it from GPS ground track. > >Airspeed would be from a pitot and static pressure sensors and >temperature or estimated from GPS ground track. > >A full system would have most or all of these inputs and could >estimate the bank by several means and compare them to detect sensor >failure. > To me it sounds simpler to use a three axis accelerometer. When the pitch and roll both = 0 and vertical = 9.8 m/s2, you know you are in unaccelerated straight and level flight (USLF). The response time of MEMS accelerometers is very fast, so even a brief instant of USLF should be enough to reset your reference. The other advantage is that the FOG becomes a stand alone unit, not relying on other external sensors. Though it does lack redundancy and the ability to reset during long turns. With sensitive accelerometer information though, it gives you enough information for INS. You would need not worry any longer about losing GPS signal while flying through those blimp hangars :) Marlin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2000
From: dab(at)froghouse.org
Subject: Re: Navigating through fog with FOG
On 11 Nov, Brian Lloyd wrote: > Use accelerometers. Vector sum the acceleration from all three axes > and if the magnitude sums to 1G, you are in unaccelerated flight. > The vector direction is down. I'm sure I've been in a plane with you where we met the condition of 1g straight "down" through the seat but we were far from level attitude. In fact we were probably upside down. -Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Covington" <jc(at)relian.com>
Subject: Re: Navigating through fog with FOG
Date: Nov 11, 2000
If the acceleration measured along any axis is anything but zero, you are accelerating by definition. If the acceleration measured along each of the 3 axes is zero, you are in unaccelerated flight - although not necessarily straight & level. I don't think an accelerometer can be used in place of a gyro for pitch, roll or yaw information. ----- Original Message ----- From: <dab(at)froghouse.org> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 4:26 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Navigating through fog with FOG > > On 11 Nov, Brian Lloyd wrote: > > > Use accelerometers. Vector sum the acceleration from all three axes > > and if the magnitude sums to 1G, you are in unaccelerated flight. > > The vector direction is down. > > I'm sure I've been in a plane with you where we met the condition of > 1g straight "down" through the seat but we were far from level > attitude. In fact we were probably upside down. > > -Dave > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2000
From: dab(at)froghouse.org
Subject: Re: Navigating through fog with FOG
On 11 Nov, Marlin Mixon wrote: > To me it sounds simpler to use a three axis accelerometer. When the > pitch and roll both = 0 and vertical = 9.8 m/s2, you know you are in > unaccelerated straight and level flight (USLF). I'd use a three axis accelerometer too. You've added one more condition than Brian but it doesn't help. You can't base your attitude correction algorithm on knowing your attitude. If you knew when your pitch and roll were zero, you'd have the problem solved already. > The response time of MEMS accelerometers is very fast, so even a > brief instant of USLF should be enough to reset your reference. The > other advantage is that the FOG becomes a stand alone unit, not > relying on other external sensors. Though it does lack redundancy > and the ability to reset during long turns. I think simplicity is a fine idea and if you want as simple as possible I'd just emulate what your mechanical AI does and slowly correct towards local "down". So it drifts off on long turns, obviously that's good enough for IFR flying. For a very small increase in complexity you could notice from the FOGs if you are turning (rate of turn greater than some value averaged over a few seconds) and disable erection while turning. A little more complexity, but still not adding any more hardware, is to notice the rate of turn and approximate a bank angle correction to add to the accelerometers before doing the erection function. This would be assuming some airspeed that's reasonable for your plane. If you have a little more hardware, either an airspeed sensor or approximate it with ground speed from GPS, then you add that in and get a better estimate of your bank angle correction. What I'm trying to point out here is that while the end result seems like a lot, you can start quite simply and have something that's good enough for IFR. We're flying behind the mechanical equivalent now. Each step from there gets you more accuracy and possibly more redundancy and you can add them later. > With sensitive accelerometer information though, it gives you enough > information for INS. You would need not worry any longer about > losing GPS signal while flying through those blimp hangars :) Personally, I'd take all of the steps above and a few more before going to the INS but I like that idea too. Sharpen your Kalman filtering claws on one dimensional stuff like roll attitude before jumping into 3-D stuff like INS. So do you have any idea where to buy or how to make those 4x4 couplers? And just what is an ELED anyway? -Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Navigating through fog with FOG
At 01:26 PM 11/11/2000, you wrote: > >On 11 Nov, Brian Lloyd wrote: > > > Use accelerometers. Vector sum the acceleration from all three axes > > and if the magnitude sums to 1G, you are in unaccelerated flight. > > The vector direction is down. > >I'm sure I've been in a plane with you where we met the condition of >1g straight "down" through the seat but we were far from level >attitude. In fact we were probably upside down. That is where the direction of the acceleration vector is important. Fortunately, the only way you can sustain that for any length of time is if the airplane really is straight and level. This does point out the need to average the whole thing out to make sure you don't give too much weight to a single sample. And besides, 1G with the vector straight down is a very transient thing with my flying. : ) Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Navigating through fog with FOG
At 01:49 PM 11/11/2000, you wrote: > >If the acceleration measured along any axis is anything but zero, you are >accelerating by definition. Well, we do live in a 1G field with the vector pointing at the center of the earth. Sitting on the ground the X and Y axes accelerometers should show zero while the Z axis should show 1G. If you then rotate your inertial reference platform to any orientation, the magnitude of the vector sum of the accelerations measured along the X, Y, and Z axes will remain 1G. The orientation of the acceleration vector will point to "down". >If the acceleration measured along each of the 3 axes is zero, you are in >unaccelerated flight - although not necessarily straight & level. That just means that you are in free-fall or in orbit given a reference platform in an airplane. >I don't think an accelerometer can be used in place of a gyro for pitch, >roll or yaw information. No, they can't. That is why your inertial reference platform has three accelerometers and three gyros. The gyros can be rate gyros and you can integrate the rate to get position but you must have some way of determining the initial position of your reference platform. The accelerometers can do that for you as I have indicated above. Crossbow now has an AHRS box (Attitude Heading Reference System). It also incorporates a three-axis flux gate to determine magnetic heading. The accelerometers determine "down" and calibrate the gyros. You just read pitch, roll, and heading (yaw) out of it. This looks like a winner to me. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Covington" <jc(at)relian.com>
Subject: Re: Navigating through fog with FOG
Date: Nov 11, 2000
OK, this is important. If you are in free fall, you ARE accelerating. Down. Your velocity (relative to the earth) gets faster and faster. If you are in straight and level flight, you are NOT accelerating. Your velocity (in any axis relative to the earth) is not changing. Your vertical accelerometer should NOT read 1G when you are in straight & level (or standing still.) It, like the accelerometers of the other two axes, will read zero. If it reads 1G, it's broken or not properly calibrated. Accelerometers in orbit read ~1G towards the center of the earth, not zero G. Integrating the outputs from gyros over time will tell you what your attitude is relative to your original attitude, not your position. > > At 01:49 PM 11/11/2000, you wrote: > > > >If the acceleration measured along any axis is anything but zero, you are > >accelerating by definition. > > Well, we do live in a 1G field with the vector pointing at the center of > the earth. Sitting on the ground the X and Y axes accelerometers should > show zero while the Z axis should show 1G. If you then rotate your > inertial reference platform to any orientation, the magnitude of the vector > sum of the accelerations measured along the X, Y, and Z axes will remain > 1G. The orientation of the acceleration vector will point to "down". > > >If the acceleration measured along each of the 3 axes is zero, you are in > >unaccelerated flight - although not necessarily straight & level. > > That just means that you are in free-fall or in orbit given a reference > platform in an airplane. > > >I don't think an accelerometer can be used in place of a gyro for pitch, > >roll or yaw information. > > No, they can't. That is why your inertial reference platform has three > accelerometers and three gyros. The gyros can be rate gyros and you can > integrate the rate to get position but you must have some way of > determining the initial position of your reference platform. The > accelerometers can do that for you as I have indicated above. > > Crossbow now has an AHRS box (Attitude Heading Reference System). It also > incorporates a three-axis flux gate to determine magnetic heading. The > accelerometers determine "down" and calibrate the gyros. You just read > pitch, roll, and heading (yaw) out of it. This looks like a winner to me. > > > Brian Lloyd > brian(at)lloyd.com > +1.530.676.1113 - voice > +1.360.838.9669 - fax > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Navigating through fog with FOG
At 03:08 PM 11/11/2000, you wrote: > >OK, this is important. I agree. >If you are in free fall, you ARE accelerating. Down. Your velocity (relative >to the earth) gets faster and faster. Well, it does depend on your original velocity. You could be in a stable orbit sufficiently far from the other body (earth) that we can ignore tidal effects. In that case it will be virtually impossible for your accelerometers to detect any acceleration. (A fun short story on this subject is "There is a Tide" by Larry Niven. Sometimes what you forget CAN kill you. : ) >If you are in straight and level flight, you are NOT accelerating. Your >velocity (in any axis relative to the earth) is not changing. For all practical purposes that is true. We can probably more or less ignore the fact that we are traveling over an oblate spheroid that approximates a sphere and that your track is really a curve and that your gravitational vector is changing. The short term effect is that we appear to be traveling over a plane (in a plane : ) and that the 1G gravitational vector is normal to the plane. Don't forget that the wings are applying a force to the airframe equal to the weight of the airplane but in an opposite direction. >Your vertical accelerometer should NOT read 1G when you are in straight & >level (or standing still.) It, like the accelerometers of the other two >axes, will read zero. If it reads 1G, it's broken or not properly >calibrated. > >Accelerometers in orbit read ~1G towards the center of the earth, not zero >G. I humbly beg your pardon but I believe you are mistaken. If the force(s) being applied to the accelerometer act on all components of the accelerometer equally and no other force is applied, the accelerometer will read zero. This will happen if the accelerometer is in free-fall in a gravitational field or if there is no gravitational field at all. When your accelerometer is sitting on a table, the table is applying an upward force on the body of the accelerometer equal to its weight. The result is that the accelerometer thinks that it is accelerating at 1G upward. If you don't believe me, walk out to your airplane and see what the accelerometer reads when it is just sitting there on the ground. In my airplane, it reads 1G. Other accelerometers I have played with exhibit the same characteristic. >Integrating the outputs from gyros over time will tell you what your >attitude is relative to your original attitude, not your position. Thank you for catching that. I was not being clear in my previous message. You are correct that if you integrate rate you get position relative to your original position but you are forgetting that there is a constant factor introduced when you integrate a polynomial. That constant factor, if you know it, allows you to determine your original absolute position. We derive that constant from our accelerometers and from knowing the environment in which we operate, i.e. near the surface of the Earth. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Navigating through fog with FOG
Date: Nov 13, 2000
>From: dab(at)froghouse.org >So do you have any idea where to buy or how to make those 4x4 >couplers? And just what is an ELED anyway? > Yep, sorta. Joe Gwinn, in sci.optics was nice enough to reply to some of my questions I posted there: "However, this is a standard component, purchasable from multiple sources. It's quite difficult to make them reliably without special equipment, too difficult to be practical to make just one or two. Cheaper to just buy it. They are called four-port splitters, or four-port directional couplers, and come in various power-splitting ratios. Two ports are the ends of one fiber, two ports are the ends of the other fiber, and the closer the cores come to touching, the greater the power transfer from one fiber to the other. Look in optics trade rags like Photonics Spectra for the ads." In doing some preliminary calculations, I don't thing the photodiodes need to be too special--in fact, I don't think they need to measure super rapid numbers of "throbs of light" per second. Also the ELED are Edge Light Emitting Diodes. I figure I'll use a laser diode from a dead CDROM drive, so long as the wavelength is known and reliably constant. It's surprising that it's not even a requirment that you use laser light, though it's prefered due to its higher intensity. As a side note, the Frenchman Sagnac (sort of like cognac) first built this type of rotational detector in 1913 and verified it by measuring the rotation of the earth. It wasn't a device, per se, but an experiment. It used lightbeams that traveled many miles through air. So another name for RLGs and FOGs is a Sagnac Interferometer. When you do a Google search, "Sagnac Interferometer" keywords tend to yield the most useful results in terms of equations and help in general understanding. Marlin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Covington" <jc(at)relian.com>
Subject: Re: Navigating through fog with FOG
Date: Nov 12, 2000
OK, I'm definitely confused. I hope someone on this list can help me out. I'm pretty sure I know the definition of acceleration - but I don't think I know what accelerometers actually measure. In straight and level flight, or at rest. your acceleration is zero G, right? Your velocity isn't changing, therefore you're not accelerating. Yet an accelerometer can 'figure out' which way is down. In orbit, you're constantly accelerating towards the earth at about 1G, yet an accelerometer can't measure anything - why not? What is an accelerometer really measuring? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian(at)lloyd.com> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 6:36 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Navigating through fog with FOG > > At 03:08 PM 11/11/2000, you wrote: > > > >OK, this is important. > > I agree. > > >If you are in free fall, you ARE accelerating. Down. Your velocity (relative > >to the earth) gets faster and faster. > > Well, it does depend on your original velocity. You could be in a stable > orbit sufficiently far from the other body (earth) that we can ignore tidal > effects. In that case it will be virtually impossible for your > accelerometers to detect any acceleration. (A fun short story on this > subject is "There is a Tide" by Larry Niven. Sometimes what you forget CAN > kill you. : ) > > >If you are in straight and level flight, you are NOT accelerating. Your > >velocity (in any axis relative to the earth) is not changing. > > For all practical purposes that is true. We can probably more or less > ignore the fact that we are traveling over an oblate spheroid that > approximates a sphere and that your track is really a curve and that your > gravitational vector is changing. The short term effect is that we appear > to be traveling over a plane (in a plane : ) and that the 1G gravitational > vector is normal to the plane. Don't forget that the wings are applying a > force to the airframe equal to the weight of the airplane but in an > opposite direction. > > >Your vertical accelerometer should NOT read 1G when you are in straight & > >level (or standing still.) It, like the accelerometers of the other two > >axes, will read zero. If it reads 1G, it's broken or not properly > >calibrated. > > > >Accelerometers in orbit read ~1G towards the center of the earth, not zero > >G. > > I humbly beg your pardon but I believe you are mistaken. If the force(s) > being applied to the accelerometer act on all components of the > accelerometer equally and no other force is applied, the accelerometer will > read zero. This will happen if the accelerometer is in free-fall in a > gravitational field or if there is no gravitational field at all. > > When your accelerometer is sitting on a table, the table is applying an > upward force on the body of the accelerometer equal to its weight. The > result is that the accelerometer thinks that it is accelerating at 1G > upward. If you don't believe me, walk out to your airplane and see what > the accelerometer reads when it is just sitting there on the ground. In my > airplane, it reads 1G. Other accelerometers I have played with exhibit the > same characteristic. > > >Integrating the outputs from gyros over time will tell you what your > >attitude is relative to your original attitude, not your position. > > Thank you for catching that. I was not being clear in my previous > message. You are correct that if you integrate rate you get position > relative to your original position but you are forgetting that there is a > constant factor introduced when you integrate a polynomial. That constant > factor, if you know it, allows you to determine your original absolute > position. We derive that constant from our accelerometers and from knowing > the environment in which we operate, i.e. near the surface of the Earth. > > > Brian Lloyd > brian(at)lloyd.com > +1.530.676.1113 - voice > +1.360.838.9669 - fax > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2000
From: dab(at)froghouse.org
Subject: Re: Navigating through fog with FOG
On 12 Nov, Jim Covington wrote: > OK, I'm definitely confused. I hope someone on this list can help me > out. I'm pretty sure I know the definition of acceleration - but I > don't think I know what accelerometers actually measure. > > In straight and level flight, or at rest. your acceleration is zero > G, right? Your velocity isn't changing, therefore you're not > accelerating. Yet an accelerometer can 'figure out' which way is > down. > > In orbit, you're constantly accelerating towards the earth at about > 1G, yet an accelerometer can't measure anything - why not? > > What is an accelerometer really measuring? An accelerometer measures the force on a known mass. Think of it as simply a weight on a spring. Thus we don't measure acceleration directly, but rather we measure its affect on mass. Gravity supplies such an effect as does acceleration. Einstein postulated that the two are indistinguishable (actually he postulated that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal). There's no way of separating the two sources of force so we have to treat them together. Since forces are vectors in 3-space, we need three accelerometers to measure the acceleration in all three dimensions and calculate the proper 3 dimensional vector. So, if you're in straight and level flight (or simply tied down on the ramp), you feel a force `down'. It might be better to think of it actually as feeling a force up. The seat of the plane is pushing you up, otherwise you'd be falling. An accelerometer is calibrated so this force is measured as 1G. Any acceleration now adds an apparent force which needs to be vector added to the gravity field to calculate the what the accelerometer will show. Or, working the other way, you take the information from the accelerometer and subtract the gravity force to figure out which way you're actually accelerating. If you're in free fall (either in orbit or sub orbital like the Vomit Comet) then, by definition of free fall, you feel no force, the accelerometers all read 0. But, as you point out, you are accelerating; what's the deal? What's happening is that gravity is effecting both the accelerometer and the calibrated mass inside it at exactly the same amount. They accelerate together so it measures 0. What this means is there's nothing we know that can, by just looking inside itself like an inertial guidance system does, figure out if you're in a gravity field and being pulled aside. You have to look outside and notice that you seem to be moving in a direction that the accelerometers say you're not and, from that, deduce that there must be a gravity field about. For aircraft navigation, we just assume 1G towards the center of the Earth and call it good though I expect that really sophisticated units take varying gravity fields of the Earth into account like we take the varying magnetic deviation into account. -Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Nov 13, 2000
Subject: New List MIME/HTML/Enclosure Filter Implemented...
Dear Listers, With the pervasiveness of email applications using HTML (web formatting) and MIME encoding such as AOL 6.0, Netscape, Eudora and others it was clear that I needed to come up with an improved method for limiting how messages posted to the various Lists was handled. As of today, November 13 2000 you should be able to configure your email program any way you like - with or without special formatting - and your message will still be accepted my the Matronics system. Also, if you include any sort of enclosure data, your message will also still be accepted instead of bounced back. But wait, it gets even better! Everything except for the plain text will be automatically stripped from the incoming post including any HTML, MIME, and/or enclosure data prior to redistribution. This should serve to both ease the configuration burden on the many users, and to increase the readability of both the posted messages and the archives. I had a few 'bugs' with the filter on Sunday and Monday morning, so if you received a few messages that seemed "odd", than this was probably why. Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Admin. -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds discuss events, Small minds discuss people... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2000
From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Uploading to Magellan GPS-315A
Has anyone on this list gained deeper insight in how to upload to the 315A? I have the DataSend CD. I'm looking for an option to delete specific POIs (for example, I might want some of the Private airports, but not all of them - no use to have helo ports, etc.). I'd also like to be able to program in class B airspace, MOAs, etc., at least as a series of dots forming the circles or airspace outlines. Finn Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2000
From: Jim Ivey <jim(at)jimivey.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: New List MIME/HTML/Enclosure Filter Implemented...
Everything you need to know can be found at the following url: http://www.matronics.com/contribution/ I just used the secure credit-card option. There is also a snail-mail address for you old-fashioned types (i.e. back in the good old days when folks wouldn't abscond with your credit card info) ;) Jim Ivey N46YK Matt Dralle wrote: > --> Yak-List message posted by: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) > > Dear Listers, > > With the pervasiveness of email applications using HTML (web formatting) > and MIME encoding such as AOL 6.0, Netscape, Eudora and others it was > clear that I needed to come up with an improved method for limiting how > messages posted to the various Lists was handled. > > As of today, November 13 2000 you should be able to configure your email > program any way you like - with or without special formatting - and your > message will still be accepted my the Matronics system. Also, if you > include any sort of enclosure data, your message will also still be > accepted instead of bounced back. > > But wait, it gets even better! Everything except for the plain text > will be automatically stripped from the incoming post including any > HTML, MIME, and/or enclosure data prior to redistribution. This should > serve to both ease the configuration burden on the many users, and to > increase the readability of both the posted messages and the archives. > > I had a few 'bugs' with the filter on Sunday and Monday morning, so if > you received a few messages that seemed "odd", than this was probably > why. > > Best regards, > > Matt Dralle > Matronics Email List Admin. > > -- > > Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 > 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email > http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft > > Great minds discuss ideas, > Average minds discuss events, > Small minds discuss people... > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2000
From: Robert Triplett <tailwind(at)chibardun.net>
Subject: wiring harness
I have purchased a KX 170 B and would like to build the wiring harness. Does any one have the pin out information for the tray connector. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2000
From: "M T Barksdale" <skyranger(at)hartcom.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 11/14/00
Need help getting a Terra TXN960 repaired. Xmit section has intermittent failure. Regards, ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 11/14/00
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, M T Barksdale wrote: > > > Need help getting a Terra TXN960 repaired. Xmit section has intermittent > failure. Terra/Trimble still provides repair service. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce McElhoe" <brucem(at)theworks.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 11/14/00
Date: Nov 15, 2000
Hi, I understand Gulf Coast Avionics bought up a lot of Terra parts and are offering repair service. Bruce McElhoe Long-EZ N64MC Reedley, California > > > Need help getting a Terra TXN960 repaired. Xmit section has intermittent > failure. > > Regards, > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ken Broste" <spiritmoves(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: What Listers Are Saying...
Date: Nov 20, 2000
Matt, I think what you're doing is great for those of us flying and building Kolb aircraft. You're probably saving Kolb a full time employee in tech support just by providing the communication between builders. I know I have had a half dozen questions answered here on the list and saved Kolb support a few phone calls. You should forward this letter to Kolb, maybe they'd ante up, too. It would be great PR for the TN Kolb a/c. Thanks a bunch, Matt! Ken Broste Building a Firestar Tucson, AZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 10:33 AM Subject: Kolb-List: What Listers Are Saying... > --> Kolb-List message posted by: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) > > > Dear Listers, > > During this year's List Fund Raiser I have been receiving a number of > very nice comments from members regarding what the Lists mean to them. > I'm sure most everyone can echo one or more of the thoughts expressed > below. Won't you take a moment to make a Contribution to support the > continued operation and improvment of your Lists? > > A special 'thank you' to everyone that has made a contribution so far > and for all of the wonderful and supportive comments I've received! > > > To make a contribution with a credit card over an SSL Secure Web Site, > please go to the following URL: > > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > or, to make a contribution with a person check, please mail it to: > > Matronics > c/o Matt Dralle > PO Box 347 > Livermore, CA 94551 > > > Thank you!! > > Matt Dralle > Email List Admin. > > > ===================== Comments From List Members ======================== > > > * You helped make this dream a reality... -Terry C. > > * Thanks for a wonderful resource! -Rick J. > > * Thanks for providing a quality product. -Bill C. > > * Have found [the List] invaluable for education while building... -Rick H. > > > * I learn so much from the List! -Robert R. > > * [The List] is better than any aviation magazines I subscribe o. -Roger H. > > * I enjoy the pages and find them very helpful. -Noel G. > > * The "List" is a great place to both receive and exten help and ideas for > building and making flying safer. -Jack B. > > > * The discussions are very helpful. -James B. > > * ...I believe this List will be a better value than the ewsletter. -Roger T. > > * [The List] has helped me with the construction of my RV-9. -Marty S. > > * VERY good reading. Excellent entertainment value. -Jerry I. > > > * [The List] has saved me many hour on wild goose chases. -Billy W. > > * Thanks for keeping my passion for flying as piqued as ever. -Terry W. > > * Keep up the nice work. -Daniel H. > > * Thanks for all the effort on behalf of Sport Aviation! -Elbie M. > > > * ...Great information source! -Richard W. > > * ...Thanks for your help and patience with a very difficult ask. -Louis W. > > * [The List] has been a great asset. -Edward C. > > * Just started and already received some valuable tips. -Scott S. > > > * Thanks for the List to let up share our passion. -Brian A. > > * ...This List is good stuff. -Russ D. > > * ...The single most helpful resource I've come across in uilding. -Craig P. > > * ...Enjoy [the List] a lot. -John H. > > > * The List is a most important tool to help building. -Brad R. > > * ...Really found the List to be great! -Geoff T. > > * Excellent contribution to the aviation community. -Larry B. > > * Great source of information... -William G. > > > * The Lists ... make building a real hoot! -Jeff O. > > * The List has been invaluable. -Matt P. > > * Thanks for letting me use the site. It's great! -Larry M. > > * ...This List has been very helpful. -Larry H. > > > * Greatest support ever for the builders and I have met many riends. -Fred H. > > * ...I love this List and have met many new friends... -Tom E. > > * Love both the List and the Search Engine. -Roy G. > > > ===================== Comments From List Members ======================== > > > -- > > > Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 > 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email > http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft > > Great minds discuss ideas, > Average minds discuss events, > Small minds discuss people... > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 04, 2000
From: Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz>
Subject: A Bright New Page in Portable Displays
Hi All, Does this mean that one of the Holy Grails of homebuilt glass cockpits is in sight? I ran across an article whose title I stole for my Subject line in IEEE Spectruum Oct 2000, pg 40... In summary, there's some new display technologies coming out. Most interesting is by Kent Displays Inc... a cholesteric colour LCD. According to the article, they're about to ship. Also mentioned were Xerox PARC's Gyricon & E Ink (Electrophoretic) -- both monochrome. All are reflective -- the brighter the incident light, the better. Here's a comparitive table: Paper Paper Reflective Cholesteric Gyricon Electrophoretic Laser Newsprint TN LCD LCD Contrast 20:1 7-10:1 < 5:1 20-30:1 10:1 10-30:1 Reflectivity 80% 50% < 5% 40% 20% 40% View Angle All All Narrow All All All Reflection Type is Lambertian (fairly random) for Paper, Gyricon, Electrophoretic, Near Lambertian for Cholesteric LCD, Highly Specular for TN LCD. What all this means is that Cholesteric LCD is almost as good as paper to read! In addition, cholesteric LCD is bistable -- the image will stay on the screen for up to a year without any power input (not terribly useful to us, admittedly). One downside is that cholesteric LCD has a dynamic response time of 30-100ms, whereas about 20ms is needed for video. However, (a) we're not looking to play video anyway, and (b) because it's stable, less pixels will probably need to be updated anyway. Another downside is that the screen size is 160mm diagonal (about 6"). Again, not necessarily a limitation for us. Best resolution is about 3 times better than conventional LCD because the three colours are stacked on top of each other instead of side-by-side. And the bottom line looks good too -- the article mentioned a price of US$300 in quantity. For comparison, it said current laptop LCDs cost about US$500. For those who want something different but monochrome... both the Gyricon and Electrophoretic will (in a year or more) come in large flexible sheets at a cost of "pennies per square foot". How about an entire "smart panel"? Unfortunately, both are black/white, not transparent, otherwise they could be used for a HUD. Frank. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 04, 2000
From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Re: A Bright New Page in Portable Displays
What kind of display does the Compaq iPAQ H3650 use and who makes it? Finn Frank and Dorothy wrote: > > Hi All, > > Does this mean that one of the Holy Grails of homebuilt glass cockpits > is in sight? > > I ran across an article whose title I stole for my Subject line in IEEE > Spectruum Oct 2000, pg 40... In summary, there's some new display > technologies coming out. Most interesting is by Kent Displays Inc... a > cholesteric colour LCD. According to the article, they're about to ship. > Also mentioned were Xerox PARC's Gyricon & E Ink (Electrophoretic) -- > both monochrome. All are reflective -- the brighter the incident light, > the better. > > Here's a comparitive table: > > Paper Paper Reflective Cholesteric Gyricon Electrophoretic > Laser Newsprint TN LCD LCD > > Contrast 20:1 7-10:1 < 5:1 20-30:1 10:1 10-30:1 > Reflectivity 80% 50% < 5% 40% 20% 40% > View Angle All All Narrow All All All > > Reflection Type is Lambertian (fairly random) for Paper, Gyricon, > Electrophoretic, Near Lambertian for Cholesteric LCD, Highly Specular > for TN LCD. > > What all this means is that Cholesteric LCD is almost as good as paper > to read! > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2000
From: Bill VonDane <bvondane(at)cso.atmel.com>
Subject: For Sale
I am posting this for a friend... Please contact him directly... King 170B with the MAC 1700 upgrade witch adds digital tuning, Flip flop on nav and comm. extensive freq memory, synthesized voice freq readout and synthetic voice approach countdown timer. And many flight planning features. A great IFR nav / comm for a great price for a radio that has never been used since OH. Will sell for 1/2 price. $1500.00. including tray, manual and Jack... Burrall Sanders - yankeeair(at)earthlink.net http://vondane.tripod.com/forsale/mac1700.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <pma(at)obtero.net>
Subject: Bob Archers Email address.
Date: Dec 05, 2000
Hi All, Would anyone happen to have Bob's most current email address ? Bobsantennas(at)compuserve.com Seems to get rejected. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vendor48(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 06, 2000
Subject: remove my name
Please remove my name from the avionics list ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Matthew Mucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net>
Subject: remove my name
Date: Dec 06, 2000
You subscribed yourself to the list. Only you can unsubscribe yourself. No one else on the list can do it. Click on the subscription link below and unsubscribe. -Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of > Vendor48(at)aol.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 4:00 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: remove my name > > > Please remove my name from the avionics list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 07, 2000
From: Quilters Confectionery <qltconf(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: KLN 88 Loran Data Base and Manual
I need an update to the database Cartridge and "Abbreviated Operator's Manual" for my Bendix/King KLN 88 Loran unit. The newer the better for the database. Many Thanks, Larry owner of N22027. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 07, 2000
Subject: Re: Bob Archers Email Address
Hi All, Bob Archer is Sprotcraft Antenna's. Bob Archers Email address is Bobsantennas(at)earthlink.net If you just have to get an answer about something right away, Bob's home phone number is (310) 316-8796. (Please use discretely.) Jim Ayers Less Drag Products - A Sportcraft Antenna Distributor ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 09, 2000
From: "Dany A. Pennington" <DanyPennington(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 12/08/00
Please un-subscribe me from this list ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Green" <jegreen(at)cdc.net>
Subject: Intercom circuit
Date: Dec 16, 2000
Does anyone know of an intercom schematic available on the public domain? I would like to build myself an intercom that I can experiment with, try to add features to, and even sell to friends if it works out well and proves useful. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <pma(at)obtero.net>
Subject: Re: Intercom circuit
Date: Dec 16, 2000
Hi Jeff, Jim Weir has described several circuits in the Kit Planes magazine so I would assume that would be considered public domain. I think you can find the circuit descriptions on his WEB page at http://www.rst-engr.com/ He also sells a full audio panel kit with maker beacon which is reportedly a very nice unit. Regards, Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Green <jegreen(at)cdc.net> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 2:43 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Intercom circuit > > Does anyone know of an intercom schematic available on the public domain? I > would like to build myself an intercom that I can experiment with, try to > add features to, and even sell to friends if it works out well and proves > useful. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Matthew Mucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net>
Subject: Intercom circuit
Date: Dec 17, 2000
Published in Kitplanes Magazine is HARDLY public domain. Everything published in the magazine is quite copyrighted and the rights are owned by the magazine. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul > McAllister > Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 3:37 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Intercom circuit > > > Hi Jeff, > > Jim Weir has described several circuits in the Kit Planes magazine so I > would assume that would be considered public domain. I think you can find > the circuit descriptions on his WEB page at http://www.rst-engr.com/ > > He also sells a full audio panel kit with maker beacon which is > reportedly a > very nice unit. > > Regards, Paul > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jeff Green <jegreen(at)cdc.net> > To: > Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 2:43 AM > Subject: Avionics-List: Intercom circuit > > > > > > Does anyone know of an intercom schematic available on the > public domain? > I > > would like to build myself an intercom that I can experiment > with, try to > > add features to, and even sell to friends if it works out well > and proves > > useful. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Green" <jegreen(at)cdc.net>
Subject: RE: Intercom circuit
Date: Dec 17, 2000
I found out that Jim Weir writes a monthly column for Kitplanes magazine. Past articles can be downloaded from his website at http://www.rst-engr.com/kitplanes/. Unfortunately, none of the articles deal with intercoms. So I'm still looking! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Covington" <jc(at)relian.com>
Subject: RE: Intercom circuit
Date: Dec 17, 2000
He does have an article on intercoms, from a different page. Index: http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/magazine/index.html Article: http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/magazine/pp-78jul.zip Re: public domain and use of his ideas Here's the copyright notice from his web page: ============================================= Jim Weir reserves all of his rights to his original work per his agreements with the various magazines, and under any applicable copyright laws. You may freely mechanically reproduce or electronically store or reproduce any article you download from this Web site for personal use, and you can even give a copy to a friend. What you may not do is publish or present this material as your own work or sell this material in whole or in part. You also may not sell or give away, in whole or in part, this material as part of any other product, including but not limited to antennas or other electronic or aircraft products, without written permission. ============================================= -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeff Green Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 12:57 PM Subject: Avionics-List: RE: Intercom circuit I found out that Jim Weir writes a monthly column for Kitplanes magazine. Past articles can be downloaded from his website at http://www.rst-engr.com/kitplanes/. Unfortunately, none of the articles deal with intercoms. So I'm still looking! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 18, 2000
From: Bill VonDane <bvondane(at)cso.atmel.com>
Subject: Another Radio for Sale
Engines-List , "Rv8list@Egroups" , Rv-List I am posting this for a friend... Please contact him directly... King 170B with the MAC 1700 upgrade witch adds digital tuning, Flip flop on nav and comm. extensive freq memory, synthesized voice freq readout and synthetic voice approach countdown timer. And many flight planning features. A great IFR nav / comm for a great price for a radio that has never been used since OH. Will sell for $1800.00. including tray, manual and Jack... Burrall Sanders - yankeeair(at)earthlink.net http://vondane.tripod.com/forsale/mac1700.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mitch Williams" <mitchw(at)tanet.net>
Subject: Intercom: Jim Weir
Date: Dec 18, 2000
Jim frequents the newsgroups at rec.aviation.homebuilt, rec.aviation.owning. He sell the RST intercom complete with circuit drawings. I have one in my c172 and it works good. mitch C172 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 18, 2000
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Intercom: Jim Weir
At 07:11 AM 12/18/2000, you wrote: > >Jim frequents the newsgroups at rec.aviation.homebuilt, rec.aviation.owning. >He sell the RST intercom complete with circuit drawings. I have one in my >c172 and it works good. Jim used to frequent this list too. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <pma(at)obtero.net>
Subject: Transcal Encoders
Date: Dec 28, 2000
Hi All, I need to buy a transponder encoder for my homebuilt Europa. I have a GX60 which needs a serial data stream from the encoder. I believe that Transcal sell such a device. Can anyone tell me the best place to mail order it from. Is there any other products that I should be considering ? Thanks, Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B. Keith Peshak" <keith.peshak(at)gtwn.net>
Subject: Transcal Encoders
Date: Dec 28, 2000
Not familiar with the GX-60, but I question the problem definition. Transponders all have a standard "parallel" negative logic TTL level input for the Mode C code, and there is a standard pinout 15 pin "D" connector for this "bus". GPS units should be using "all in the sky", or you need to update your GPS unit. Early Trimble IFR GPS units only had three correlators in the "VLSI", and it takes four pseudoranges to get a position, so they used a serial input pressure encoder and pretended that the earth is a perfect sphere (not such a good idea). "All in the sky", usually, means a 12 correlator chip, so up to 12 satellites can be used to find a position. With 4 satellites a position is known but there is no integrity. With 5, an error can be identified. With 6, an error can be eliminated. With 7, two errors can be eliminated. Etc - with 12, 7 errors can be eliminated. This is NOT raim (receiver autonomous integrity monitoring) which doesn't work with SA turned off (so you can't trust your FAA certified IFR GPS to tell you when you can't use it anymore). All in the sky is a good idea, because over one half of the GPS constellation (15 satellites) is "single string" (absolutely no reliability or backup to detect or correct errors in pseudorange). Bottom line - can't trust FAA certified GPS, better to be using $100 K-Mart for life critical applications. http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/index.htm for GPS and satnav and collision avoidance technology updates. ---------- From: Paul McAllister[SMTP:pma(at)obtero.net] Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 5:14 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Transcal Encoders Hi All, I need to buy a transponder encoder for my homebuilt Europa. I have a GX60 which needs a serial data stream from the encoder. I believe that Transcal sell such a device. Can anyone tell me the best place to mail order it from. Is there any other products that I should be considering ? Thanks, Paul = = = = eJ8+IgITAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AEQBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAFUAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABhdmlvbmljcy1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20AU01UUABhdmlvbmljcy1saXN0QG1h dHJvbmljcy5jb20AAAAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABwAAABhdmlvbmljcy1s aXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20AAwAVDAEAAAADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAHgAAACdhdmlvbmljcy1s aXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20nAAAAAgELMAEAAAAhAAAAU01UUDpBVklPTklDUy1MSVNUQE1BVFJP TklDUy5DT00AAAAAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAAAPWQgEIgAcAGAAAAElQ TS5NaWNyb3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQSAAQAlAAAAUkU6IEF2aW9uaWNzLUxpc3Q6IFRyYW5z Y2FsIEVuY29kZXJzANsMAQWAAwAOAAAA0AcMABwADQAEADEABABFAQEggAMADgAAANAHDAAcAAwA LwAkAAQAYgEBCYABACEAAAA0RjlCQjc1N0JDRENENDExQjUxQzNDNzEwNUMxMDAwMAAiBwEDkAYA QAkAABIAAAALACMAAQAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQDAoNsMAXHAAR4AcAAB AAAAJQAAAFJFOiBBdmlvbmljcy1MaXN0OiBUcmFuc2NhbCBFbmNvZGVycwAAAAACAXEAAQAAABYA AAABwHEBDNNXt5tQ3LwR1LUcPHEFwQAAAAAeAB4MAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAFgAA AGtlaXRoLnBlc2hha0BndHduLm5ldAAAAAMABhB12OFYAwAHEHwJAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABOT1RG QU1JTElBUldJVEhUSEVHWC02MCxCVVRJUVVFU1RJT05USEVQUk9CTEVNREVGSU5JVElPTlRSQU5T UE9OREVSU0FMTEhBVkVBU1RBTkRBUkQiUEFSQUxMRUwiTkVHQVRJAAAAAAIBCRABAAAAsgcAAK4H AADzDgAATFpGdTN7Z5T/AAoBDwIVAqgF6wKDAFAC8gkCAGNoCsBzZXQyNwYABsMCgzIDxQIAcHJC cRHic3RlbQKDM3cC5AcTAoB9CoAIzwnZO/EWDzI1NQKACoENsQtg4G5nMTAzFFALChRRLQvyYwBA B7BvBUBmYR5tAxAHMAXAA/B0aCABG+BlIEdYLTYwECwgYnUFQEkgcbsKUBPAaQIgHAMTUG8CYL0T 4CANsQuAG9AdcS4KhekKhVRyAHFwAiAEgQQglwdAAyARgHYcMGEgE8BlAHBkCxEgIgqxINFlgGwi IG5lZ2EdYCMhMRWgZ2ljH/BUTN0jQGUhMAMgC4BwHNECEIsFwBwSTQRxIEMgBaD/DbAcoCGhHAIW ECRAILEheM5wC4AIYAVAMTUnciIAlkQioAWgbiLAY3QFsUsktCahIhzAcyIfHUeaUAXwdR6xBCBz aAhgumwh8GIcMCnwC4BnIgCHINIoMRwSc2t5IhygvQWxeQhgIrEJgBwAbytAHnAhwBPQLfIq+C4g IPJFCsBseR/xB3AeIRzw/EZSKwkCIDBhEYAmIgnRfSWRchYQC2ApAQQgLQUi8FZMU0ktoSYCG9Ac AFxhaweRAhAvUXARsHX+ZAWwGQEHkS6RNkAFQCFg7yBQAJAdYhygcy6gHBEwcP8p8C5hIWEGcQdA JEUTUAeQ/nMIcBwwCfAlogXAJgI5cd8T0CBxJiIi8BwDZQrAG+G1JqNwBJBmKOEhcHAmUzYoJ6A9 AXURcCFRZ28nBHAkQA2wYSkwASJB6yzeKfB1INF5HKAHgAYivSFgMRHgMuglkCmQcDeT9y7ALoJB UXMu8SDgG9AHkf5jA5EsIy5kHpE4YjcWMAG6VxvSNENKNvgmkmsnoP53RCEc0SZHJ6AkQRPQCcD1 G9B5ReY1JeI58DMAQgJfRBQ+oQIwBpAIkGRF5jZvSp858BtwG1BuLvFMRzd5HKB0dy6gSuND504L Rbp0I5AtG7RBUBygN0+PDU4pVCmSJqFOT1QgzyAQB3A9gBYQY2UjETph/xzQAiADcAhgM4JJlUDA AiD3G9AFsCxxKRuwKZA+ATXwmQeQbicFQE9gcmsbtLxTQRwACHAiwCHwbw3Qnz2AN7EuAkQBWHF0 cinw8wVALzNGQVlQVUAAIEwD/zEHLpFDci3zV8AJ8FpZODHvNMIAcAbABbBlPuI/PCaU3z5XHKEF kFWwXtFvVXICIPscMBGAbFoAWeAcBCshKKHvE8Eg4CLxHYEoJ/FDWFegvymiLGIw4RPAV2IioCgB oH83sApAQ3EwcElBMxEHMGLXG2FW0QWxYgDQa0LEDbD/E9A88UICMvI88VJVKDE1uf0+4kIbACkA HlAbcGKxUYD/WqpbvCsRYbICQDpRLpEsJ4IkGTAwIEstTTwBfySjG3A80CWQScEjgDjhYa5wC1Bx sR1icx8daAJAIHA6Ly93dCAuZ8dPUB8AIsB0L341IBvRLi48oCuwNRAvRQFleP4uc7AeUCSyKxIm AkNRTlB+diXzFYEbcACQHYEhIG//PqAAcFVAXTERcCegI1E4EZ8u03KwH4YKixtwMThwQMECAGkt MTQ0DfAM0HN8QwtZMTYKoANgaZMtX35nCod9GwwwfeZGA2E6Z39ufeYMgiBQVbAPsWMHPzEEAG8h W1NNVFC0OnAAwEAeEG8hb3Si/l1/D4AdBmACMIFPgltUAO0IcHMhwEChRFUxBtA6UZwyOBygAdBw QTU6fEDNFLBNhW+AHVRvh6+CW6chIB1xI4BzLYOyQADAa1sAj+MuBaBti7+GfnVcYmoo4Y3fgltB j8ZMr4PBk9AgA3HCRToUc3pv3XtzMxyAGc196D6VrEDBvQQQYTZANwJOcRyweZPQViKDLSKgPIR8 Ph8sSPppX9IsHywdAC5GHMAwcN8hYFsAICc59ySybTIhA3CuZRzAAxAFQEUIcG8KsP8wAR0AIRUc UByACoVXxC5C/yazOLQu4SFiFhAbQBsgA2H/O6Q6FKUDLCAbcCQBO1SWpv8KhRGwIOE95Q2wj8BV QDAB/kMDkV8xYqJdQweAHAMsIP9bMQtRePIuoADAAxEFsDpC/xvQCoUDUqUCNmEmU18xLcD7JkId 4mQ98CuBO2MdACu4Z2PiPqFXYiA/Hy0RgG48a3McoIMTHywKhV8t/j23r7i/uc+6VrcYU/EcMP+a /CahIEI3sBYRnLEF0JCm4yX1A2B1Z2i7aRwSNkD/IsC/MQQgCFACMAUQHMFygv9jIpuFimJyt7eP xF/Fb7q/27vDm4NSMyIuYVekMAYAf0Oyu2m+KJPQyqJzuZCbL6vJSpuDUzygY0wBY5PQ/8r/zAaP u8lKk2EE9B1xypH/zj/MBjmw0XMsINCbO/E+AX+XMCNwIsDOH9M51TPJSkT/SDEVoDJQypTWD884 1VEjEX/JO8EL1f/L6CihwTfJSk//scOWQsqD3X/MBhPgr0GDsn/JOeQ/5U/mX8a/u/AGYGPtOcJP MgBsok+vkixyGvB/B+CVsK9BAaAw4TuBvjch/clKUK6zLzOvhDHxbKJ29PkhMTUlUXDJSu994X/M Bv+vg+Ov82/0f/WPu1b2v/fPL5iPmZ8fhhUxAPwgAAADABAQAAAAAAMAERAAAAAAQAAHMIBjJ6X+ cMABQAAIMIBjJ6X+cMABHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAAUkU6IAAAAACRIw== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: Transcal Encoders
Date: Dec 28, 2000
Paul, You didn't mention what transponder you're using, but if you have not purchased yet you might consider one that takes gray code input with serial in/out. I'm using an UPSAT SL70 with gray code input from an ACK encoder and serial output to a GX65. I'm also using the serial connection between the GX65 and SL30 nav/comm. I haven't flown it yet but it's all installed and works/interacts as advertised. Regards, Greg Young RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) wiring & systems Hi All, I need to buy a transponder encoder for my homebuilt Europa. I have a GX60 which needs a serial data stream from the encoder. I believe that Transcal sell such a device. Can anyone tell me the best place to mail order it from. Is there any other products that I should be considering ? Thanks, Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <pma(at)obtero.net>
Subject: Re: Transcal Encoders
Date: Dec 28, 2000
Greg, Thanks for the tip. I haven't purchased a transponder yet, and yes the UPS unit is nice. I am leaning toward and Australian built unit at the moment that fits in a standard 2.25" instrument hole. The reason is that panel space in the Europa is tight. The only thing holding me back is that the Aussie unit is still not certified in this country yet. Cheers, Paul PS If you are into home builts my construction log is on the WEB at http://pma.obtero.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Young <gyoung@cs-sol.com> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 8:26 PM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Transcal Encoders > > Paul, > > You didn't mention what transponder you're using, but if you have not > purchased yet you might consider one that takes gray code input with serial > in/out. I'm using an UPSAT SL70 with gray code input from an ACK encoder and > serial output to a GX65. I'm also using the serial connection between the > GX65 and SL30 nav/comm. I haven't flown it yet but it's all installed and > works/interacts as advertised. > > Regards, > Greg Young > RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) wiring & systems > > > Hi All, > > I need to buy a transponder encoder for my homebuilt Europa. I have a GX60 > which needs a serial data stream from the encoder. I believe that Transcal > sell such a device. Can anyone tell me the best place to mail order it > from. Is there any other products that I should be considering ? > > Thanks, Paul > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Glauser <david.glauser(at)xpsystems.com>
Subject: Transcal Encoders
Date: Jan 02, 2001
A transponder does not have to be "certified" to be installed in an experimental aircraft. It must "meet the requirements" of a TSO (can't remember the number at the moment). In other words, performance specs are given, and the unit must meet them, but it is not necessary to have the FAA say it does. Check MicroAir's site for specs, and I'm sure the EAA can help ypu find the reg. Regards, David > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul McAllister [mailto:pma(at)obtero.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 12:59 > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Transcal Encoders > > > > > Greg, > > Thanks for the tip. I haven't purchased a transponder yet, > and yes the UPS > unit is nice. I am leaning toward and Australian built unit > at the moment > that fits in a standard 2.25" instrument hole. The reason is > that panel > space in the Europa is tight. The only thing holding me back > is that the > Aussie unit is still not certified in this country yet. > > Cheers, Paul > > PS If you are into home builts my construction log is on the WEB at > http://pma.obtero.net > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <pma(at)obtero.net>
Subject: Re: Transcal Encoders
Date: Jan 02, 2001
Dave, Thanks for the tip. One thing that is appealing about the UPS SL70 unit is that it will accept a normal gray code encoder input and make available as an output a serial data stream for my GX60. The price differential between the SL70 + cheap encoder Vs. Microair + Transcal encoder is not very high, so it boils down to panel space in the end. Cheers, Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: David Glauser <david.glauser(at)xpsystems.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 11:24 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Transcal Encoders > > A transponder does not have to be "certified" to be installed in an > experimental aircraft. It must "meet the requirements" of a TSO (can't > remember the number at the moment). In other words, performance specs are > given, and the unit must meet them, but it is not necessary to have the FAA > say it does. Check MicroAir's site for specs, and I'm sure the EAA can help > ypu find the reg. > > Regards, > David > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul McAllister [mailto:pma(at)obtero.net] > > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 12:59 > > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Transcal Encoders > > > > > > > > > > Greg, > > > > Thanks for the tip. I haven't purchased a transponder yet, > > and yes the UPS > > unit is nice. I am leaning toward and Australian built unit > > at the moment > > that fits in a standard 2.25" instrument hole. The reason is > > that panel > > space in the Europa is tight. The only thing holding me back > > is that the > > Aussie unit is still not certified in this country yet. > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > PS If you are into home builts my construction log is on the WEB at > > http://pma.obtero.net > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 03, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Transcal Encoders
At 03:03 AM 1/2/2001, you wrote: > >Dave, > >Thanks for the tip. One thing that is appealing about the UPS SL70 unit is >that it will accept a normal gray code encoder input and make available as >an output a serial data stream for my GX60. Plus it matches the rest of the UPS/IIMorrow gear. This is very important to a good looking panel. Having multiple vendors of equipment in your panel just looks ... cheesy. : ) >The price differential between the SL70 + cheap encoder Vs. Microair + >Transcal encoder is not very high, so it boils down to panel space in the >end. I ended up with an all-UPS panel (SL-15, SL-30, SL-60, SL-70) for an airplane I am rebuilding. I like the fact that everything works together as a system and has a consistent user interface too. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 03, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Transcal Encoders
At 09:24 AM 1/2/2001, you wrote: > > >A transponder does not have to be "certified" to be installed in an >experimental aircraft. It must "meet the requirements" of a TSO (can't >remember the number at the moment). In other words, performance specs are >given, and the unit must meet them, but it is not necessary to have the FAA >say it does. Actually equipment does not need to meet TSO. TSO represents some level of capability greater (in some area) than that required to do the job and is "icing on the cake" so to speak. (Caveat: I believe that GPS receivers *are* required to meet TSO to be certified for IFR operation but I also believe that the GPS receiver is the only device for which this is true.) Sometimes TSO doesn't even address issues which are important to a particular piece of equipment's operation. TSO has largely become marketing hype that really doesn't help you decide which box is better. For example, King makes the KN-62 and KN-64 DMEs. The KN-62 meets TSO because it has a 100+W transmitter and the KN-64 does not. Both work just fine and are acceptable for installation in GA aircraft but the KN-62 will lock up at a greater distance than the KN-64 and may be used up in the flight levels. Even so, the KN-64 works just fine for almost everything you want to do. (I am doing this from memory -- old memory -- and may have the model numbers reversed or even flat-out wrong.) Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B. Keith Peshak" <keith.peshak(at)gtwn.net>
Subject: Transcal Encoders
Date: Jan 03, 2001
Ouch, that hurts. Ooh, ouch. Both wrong! http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/taillight.htm if you want the whole technical story. http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/index.htm if you want the whole history. All transponders must meet the TSO, no exceptions. Problem is, there are two C74c TSOs, they are mutually exclusive of eachother, neither is right. A real standards organization changes the number when they go "oops" and change the requirements. FAA didn't. There is a report, from the FAA, where the FAA went out and measured (they don't do this, but one got loose with real test equipment). Result: 96% don't work right - their report. This is where the hype starts. Most manufacturers openly violate the latest published TSO, so the box works. Terra made one that met the TSO. No more Terra. Trimble bought what was left. No more Trimble. The original Narco AT-150 complied. Had to go get them all back (nobody knows if they did) Q415 got added to make it non-comply (so it works). King AD (which doesn't touch the circuit responsible for the non-work problem). That was the P4 problem - the FAA caused the mess by adding a pulse to the transponder interrogation without looking to see what it would do (typical of the idiots). The P0 problem is, there isn't any equipment out there to adjust it for the alternate mode A and the alternate mode C. So, what you pay for in a biennial is so much guess work. TKM just came out with the first test equipment with a P0 capability in the interrogation, but they called it P4 (which it aint). Should muddy the water and increase your cost of biennial as time goes on. There is a report on the web site. Big F-----G mess. What you buy may or may not work right, certainly WILL violate the TSO (or it wouldn't work at all - ring around problem). Anyway, the feds could care less, they don't want to see you (would clog up their equipment). FAA ATC controller also has a good site on "stealth transponders", and wrote a reviewed paper entitled "Real Targets, Unreal Displays" referring to why he almost caused a mid-air (one plane didn't show on his screen, they missed by pure chance). His bosses demoted him, he doesn't work "center" anymore. Mike Busch has a good attitude over on AvWeb - light blinks, must be working. AEA stepped in with a technical analysis of the Talotta paper (I haven't stopped laughing yet, idiot that wrote that is just throwing out big words, doesn't even know what they mean). It be a mess. You all be careful out there! >A transponder does not have to be "certified" to be installed in an >experimental aircraft. It must "meet the requirements" of a TSO (can't >remember the number at the moment). In other words, performance specs are >given, and the unit must meet them, but it is not necessary to have the FAA >say it does. Actually equipment does not need to meet TSO. TSO represents some level of capability greater (in some area) than that required to do the job and is "icing on the cake" so to speak. (Caveat: I believe that GPS receivers *are* required to meet TSO to be certified for IFR operation but I also believe that the GPS receiver is the only device for which this is true.) eJ8+IhwFAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AEQBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAFUAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABhdmlvbmljcy1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20AU01UUABhdmlvbmljcy1saXN0QG1h dHJvbmljcy5jb20AAAAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABwAAABhdmlvbmljcy1s aXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20AAwAVDAEAAAADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAHgAAACdhdmlvbmljcy1s aXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20nAAAAAgELMAEAAAAhAAAAU01UUDpBVklPTklDUy1MSVNUQE1BVFJP TklDUy5DT00AAAAAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAAAPWQgEIgAcAGAAAAElQ TS5NaWNyb3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQSAAQAlAAAAUkU6IEF2aW9uaWNzLUxpc3Q6IFRyYW5z Y2FsIEVuY29kZXJzANsMAQWAAwAOAAAA0QcBAAMAFwAJADYAAwA1AQEggAMADgAAANEHAQADABYA MQAmAAMATAEBCYABACEAAABFNDNENzE3MENBRTFENDExQjUxQzNDNzEwNUMxMDAwMAD1BgEDkAYA gAoAABIAAAALACMAAQAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQDg0MKSDHbAAR4AcAAB AAAAJQAAAFJFOiBBdmlvbmljcy1MaXN0OiBUcmFuc2NhbCBFbmNvZGVycwAAAAACAXEAAQAAABYA AAABwHYMksJwcT3l4coR1LUcPHEFwQAAAAAeAB4MAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAFgAA AGtlaXRoLnBlc2hha0BndHduLm5ldAAAAAMABhAKRETXAwAHEO4JAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABPVUNI LFRIQVRIVVJUU09PSCxPVUNIQk9USFdST05HSFRUUDovL1dXV0dUV05ORVQvS0VJVEhQRVNIQUsv VEFJTExJR0hUSFRNSUZZT1VXQU5UVEhFV0hPTEVURUNITklDQUxTAAAAAAIBCRABAAAA8ggAAO4I AABbDgAATFpGdVPzAXf/AAoBDwIVAqgF6wKDAFAC8gkCAGNoCsBzZXQyNwYABsMCgzIDxQIAcHJC cRHic3RlbQKDM3cC5AcTAoB9CoAIzwnZO/EWDzI1NQKACoENsQtg4G5nMTAzFFALChRRRQvyYwBA IE91EXAsLCB0EYAFQGgIcHRz9C4gGuBvGyEIYBFwG/FkQm8bUCB3A2AZECELCoUKhWgCQHA6Ly8C dx7gLmd0d24ugm4RwC9+a2VpG1DMLnAHkBGAay8BkAMQKGxpZx5wLh5wbSD5BpAgeQhgHSAAcAVA G1D6ZR0gaAbwIlAT0BFwAwDaYwdAIBPABbB5G/Eef7cfjwuADbB4IS8iOGgEAFsjgx2cQSDAG0By AHFw5wIgBIEEIG11E8AqcAngESIUVFNPGzBubyBpJkBjZQUwaQIgG+JQ7wNgAmAT4CagcxsyBJAi UAsKwCKxdyvAQzc0Y5srUi1EeS3DKoB0dQdAXmwvMCvhCkAAkHYiUG/9JsBlANAigC1yK5Ef0gSQ 3S0hIAUQIPIcAEEyQDDwuyNSAHBkCxEEIAWwZwBw7Gl6G3AsQSARcRkQB5H5IjJudQbQMfEicAnw LvQCZyvAIm9vcHMiHy3AJiA0pSIjFhBxdWlPFhAHgAIwG+JGQTLQZLBpZG4nIRAdnFQtg/0yIWEy 4SoAACAbMANSIiP/OQEbMDXhLeI8JB0gOJEcYWcFQDciB4BhcwhwCYAg+igvA2QCIDmAPzEbQS0y fmI94QIgIlA2gAVAFaBvfxGwHSAf4TLkE9AqoTgicBU4gikb8VIHkHVsdGA6IDk2JT81LiBy8msy RCAtIiI4UDs1G/HPOpAyITIhPKhoeSAgMzKdG8RNQRAqsQBwdWYA0L8vsBYQKlE20AnwL/F2LECf C2AT0CIjScIqoXB1AmDvBAAiQDdAK2NzP7IiUAbg9nhEIxviVASQKcBIMQ2w30BjG1MHgCsHG/FO K8AEYH8toUzjRcIFEAbQIqEG4HX/RKIicBtxIeAEICKgAYBO2r9QFEXDMKEyUQuAI0FOCsCDBaAU sFQtMTUwNKDXA3ALUAiQZBvxSE1QG0D/K8A2gTTwIhMmkC/RQCAA0K1EYCgrsAbgZC8wayuwHndG ISbAPvQ5UCkgUf40VHBAo01QDbBVgwDAH8BnJqAFQCuwbi1Usy8wKK9LsVpBTGNC0ksLgGcUsP5E PtAicCMgHRA/QAeQP2LXI4AbASIjYzhQYzhABUD/FhAp8gCQUEICEAXANTNagX9EMxNQLNNC0jqQ URUiMlD+NGB2RNQ48yMwKpBZkiJB+weBBCBiLzFZcFwyOyBKwP5sQSFVoSIyKbkmoAIwTPG+bzQA NGNBUj3SQPFrXDL/VaERsCJSG3FbY0NAN0A/of8+4EcgIyMwwSIyOVAsQBvQ/0LQOb8soFSQYjYt OAQAP2J/AHAwAUJWPcMtdFWhTVBq/yqSWkFfdgdAZsFToEnhBGIvMsE3InDvIlBDG/FTb/88ghtx JuIKsC8wX3ILgDsR+mIIkG4DACNBMiFLsSqAPVzhZwpQBBFEMkXCS01+IHAjIzAHgD3DQVMiMmb/ OFAqoUH8QUQ7IGyhIzAKsP91gCDQahB1ImrDZrpAFC8D/yMxIqA3QFpBYgFcpVpBC3H9QsNTZ7Fp oSqAWXAvMCIz/0nRBcA3IguABQA+YSJQJuH/BcAFoCqhMMF1h2GSB3E2cT8HkQIgUuQ6zEBhIiRl Ym8jYB/gUtAdnEIg4DjwLe2H0kdj8xvxV3Q2QDAvMP8AwC8wBbGJgiuwRBobMCwAhwAgC3Ev8VdJ TExJi/8rYT7QdQJpVUP3G3FWkkTgtwUQZMIDYHU3MWCJQW5g/SHgeS1TO7AJgAQgBaBpkv8jMC2h IqAEEC7lQ9Uh82iUnybiXKCRlBWgXFB1cET190JLOQJUQENUoQIwA2B98f+BEWUwK8ARgDsCNoAE cIZDvYWSIhPBcSFd0SnJIhsw/zciHTFJ4TsiSZAH0D6xCrDfICCVcQIwH+B+AiJDECNBTlQKwFYB LUFVbjLzRP8EAAtRE7A3ABYQkTBNAGhF/yJwLzBygwRgd/Njc00hOVD+LQtwBcCNIECBC1FAgTlE /yNgIoAH4DSBRgIE8QnhLuX/oRAEED6xZFFKwC2hNLIsAP1C0kgyIQbgpGEEIA2wBGD3E9A3QCgQ bRswIkFdFkQzfiIsAGayNwIGwE9BKI1N+mlaEUIqkFzhl+kbcJxhH4BAMKEwkAXANIFBdlffhiFE 4CDTQCAg0G5MkBsw3yqDNaBEI1wxMqJFMtATwf5wICCBUnqGItgAcAdAE7B/MiFqlZ0wFaACQGTx m/Mo/kmX0TCQonMjgK+jC2BQof1cMnkRwBswawMbRJrUG1P/MiFwIxtQA2AD8FxBPdJ1gP9cUEQx M7AbMF0Wm2A2AVei11Dko/Qw8G5rbkmuQ00hvYhUWSbxVpNeES3RZkNAz28oHY0K9CDQMzYN8Bnc 92CBItEFQD4y0GXqXRKKI/+zQlWSrmGoUQAgBpBVATcAX8MUC4AzQX30dUFuCoU+/yZAnAEHcQIw gzJeQSnAUaL7u4EqgyIq1zgaNwAwwTsg/4zjIzA5ccWGOGI1kzU5ucT7TyFClUkDoDEzuAacAV9x 7wOBLAAjYCAgYzsBFhDFhv9TgLNhmnQiMo+AWkEqi6ch/0AyWkEyIYoyJPAsAAQQCsD/gHGXwsLi PCTFhtNge8E/gv8HkCiOSKEv1G6nwjck8FmV/yriTqSM4jtBXrE4kkuheEF/IqAwkGpzCoV7OQnB gOMo93Ux2qMt0WFYsBtRNhIbce84FVWDP6MiUGos0IEkBCD9CoUiIyC3U3v0IzAfwDcAn0uyaJEg ICBgG/EoQ7NRfxtwQ3CzIDWgVPHUAxtxR35QBfAWECwAMIEqUQqFKn0t0Sreq9kGwwXDh19jSfxG UkkSKcA0Y0AysyCXk/8KhePbIjLkqjISIjICIC/xfw2wSZDOsV9yXLQ/0uyzcvkKUC4pvk+/XwvT HfYVMQIA8qAAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAABAAAcw4M1lvgl2wAFAAAgw4M1lvgl2wAEeAD0AAQAA AAUAAABSRTogAAAAAFeG ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 04, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Transcal Encoders
At 09:09 PM 1/3/2001, you wrote: > >Ouch, that hurts. Ooh, ouch. Both wrong! You forgot to include the context (I only get about 200 messages per day) but I am guessing that you are saying that my comment about boxes not being required to meet TSO is wrong. (Oh, I see you put the context at the end of the message.) I do know that not all boxes installed in certified aircraft in the USA are required to meet all relevant TSOs but I can't debate you WRT transponders specifically. I accept your comments on this. >http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/taillight.htm if you want the whole >technical story. http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/index.htm if you >want the whole history. > >All transponders must meet the TSO, no exceptions. Problem is, there >are two C74c TSOs, they are mutually exclusive of eachother, neither is >right. A real standards organization changes the number when they go >"oops" and change the requirements. FAA didn't. > >There is a report, from the FAA, where the FAA went out and measured >(they don't do this, but one got loose with real test equipment). >Result: 96% don't work right - their report. This is where the hype >starts. Most manufacturers openly violate the latest published TSO, so >the box works. Not so my Garmin transponder which seems to be invisible to a substantial subset of RADARs used by approach controls (TRACONs) in spite of testing 100% correctly on the ground using the test equipment that is generally available. >Terra made one that met the TSO. No more Terra. >Trimble bought what was left. No more Trimble. I don't think that was the fault of their transponder. I think some bad business decisions had an effect as well, both on the part of Terra AND Trimble. As I recall, it had a problem with the mode-S interrogations. Be that as it may, my Terra transponders (I have installed them in two airplanes to date) have always successfully replied and shown up on the various RADARs to which they have been subjected. I wish I could say that for the Garmin. >The original Narco >AT-150 complied. Had to go get them all back (nobody knows if they did) >Q415 got added to make it non-comply (so it works). King AD (which >doesn't touch the circuit responsible for the non-work problem). That >was the P4 problem - the FAA caused the mess by adding a pulse to the >transponder interrogation without looking to see what it would do >(typical of the idiots). They probably had help. It usually takes a committee to really screw things up. Given that very few people in the FAA actually understand anything about airplanes, let alone avionics, I feel certain they had "professional" help. >The P0 problem is, there isn't any equipment out there to adjust it for >the alternate mode A and the alternate mode C. So, what you pay for in >a biennial is so much guess work. "... Well, it is on frequency, they are the right amplitude, and we can see the pulses. It must be OK." : ) >TKM just came out with the first test >equipment with a P0 capability in the interrogation, but they called it >P4 (which it aint). Should muddy the water and increase your cost of >biennial as time goes on. There is a report on the web site. > >Big F-----G mess. What you buy may or may not work right, certainly >WILL violate the TSO (or it wouldn't work at all - ring around problem). > Anyway, the feds could care less, they don't want to see you (would >clog up their equipment). FAA ATC controller also has a good site on >"stealth transponders", and wrote a reviewed paper entitled "Real >Targets, Unreal Displays" referring to why he almost caused a mid-air >(one plane didn't show on his screen, they missed by pure chance). His >bosses demoted him, he doesn't work "center" anymore. Sounds like my "stealth" Garmin transponder. Stockton approach regularly complains and even sent me a "pink slip" even tho' Sacramento approach and Bay approach could see it just fine. It cost me $100 and the time to write a nasty note to the FSDO get my airplane ungrounded. >Mike Busch has a good attitude over on AvWeb - light blinks, must be >working. Sadly ... >AEA stepped in with a technical analysis of the Talotta paper >(I haven't stopped laughing yet, idiot that wrote that is just throwing >out big words, doesn't even know what they mean). > >It be a mess. You all be careful out there! The bottom line is actually very simple. You turn on the transponder and ask for flight following. If the facility can see you, your transponder and their RADAR are working as a system. If they can't see you, the system isn't working regardless of whether the individual components "test" properly. This is an easy test and only takes a few tens of seconds consisting of a couple of radio calls. Everything else is window dressing. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B. Keith Peshak" <keith.peshak(at)gtwn.net>
Subject: Transcal Encoders
Date: Jan 04, 2001
One at a time: I do know that not all boxes installed in certified aircraft in the USA are required to meet all relevant TSOs but I can't debate you WRT transponders specifically. I accept your comments on this. You are right on things like radios, at least, used to be. There were more stringent requirements for things like power and frequency tolerance that GA used to not need to meet. Then things got tightened up, as concerns frequency, and many are illegal to use. The whole idea of non-conformance seems to be up in the air, as it is with the "standards organization" of the FAA. Central can't decide, different regions have different opinions, what is legal depends on where you come down and who you run into. That, I consider to be a problem. I would like to see uniform regulations enforced uniformly. I have only been a pilot for 21 years, never saw it happen yet. Not so my Garmin transponder which seems to be invisible to a substantial subset of RADARs used by approach controls (TRACONs) in spite of testing 100% correctly on the ground using the test equipment that is generally available. I don't want to get into a lawsuit about who is or who is not what. However, as an engineer, I am allowed a technical opinion. The Terra/Trimble design was extremely cheap. The frequency determining element was a PC board trace, emulating a tuned transmission line. Never came anywhere close to +/- 0.003 %, but neither did the "cavities", which were also tuned transmission line sections, just of much higher Q. So, King/Cessna/Narco were always within "close enough" but Terra/Trimble depended on temperature, humidity, ... One of those ... was VSWR. If you have any dirt or oil on your transponder antenna, that shifts the characteristic impedance. Without a buffer amp, and with a low Q transmitter power switched oscillator, that results in pulling of the frequency, quite substantially. So, that is one issue. Now, I have been told, I do not have personal knowledge, that the Garmin transmitter is a knock-off of Terra/Trimble. I don't take them in. I don't think that was the fault of their transponder. I think some bad business decisions had an effect as well, both on the part of Terra AND Trimble. As I recall, it had a problem with the mode-S interrogations. That is what the P4 is, an addition from a mode S interrogator, which the TSO says should cause suppression, which Terra did suppress for, which is the wrong thing to do for ATC equipment to operate (new mode S radar and TCAS don't see you). that as it may, my Terra transponders (I have installed them in two airplanes to date) have always successfully replied and shown up on the various RADARs to which they have been subjected. I wish I could say that for the Garmin. That's good, but I bet we can come up with some points in the temp RH where it won't, if you want to pull it out and put it in a big BlueM. I was asked to consult on the problem by the designer, and I still have the circuitry and manuals he sent to me, which I did that with (circuitry, not the manuals). I refused the assignment - didn't need what I considered might be a liability from the association. Later, we were both consultants to Trimble. They probably had help. It usually takes a committee to really screw things up. Given that very few people in the FAA actually understand anything about airplanes, let alone avionics, I feel certain they had "professional" help. You are right, that was, and still is the case. I get a kick out of the FAA, they really get an "A" for "incompetence". Let's take C74c early, and C74c late. These are about a month apart. If I do my certification to "a" on early, "b" on late, "c" and "d" on early, then I am 100% C74c compliant. If I do my certification to "a" on late, "b" on early, "c" and "d" on late, then I am 100% C74c not compliant. If I do my certification entirely on early, then I am C74c not compliant. If I do my certification entirely on late, then I am C74c not compliant. I didn't change anything. My system "works" "everywhere" on "anything" (no other transponder can say that). Wasn't that fun? Only in the FAA do you see such, but here is the punch line. No FAA can find any problem with that! No kidding. We brought it to McSweeny, his letter is posted on the web site! "... Well, it is on frequency, they are the right amplitude, and we can see the pulses. It must be OK." : ) Well, the problem is the "radar", which is a computer, is programmed to ignore it. Ergo, you aint there. :-( Here is a hoot for you: The early RT-359A had an RCA cavity. Slow rise time on the pulse, slow fall time on the pulse. A 0.45 microsecond pulse is about 600 at the base, 200 at the top, 350 at the -3db point. They, finally, gave up on those, but there are still many out there flying around. Shops certify them in the biennial because, you guessed it, on frequency, they are the right amplitude, and we can see the pulses. But that isn't the issue. One issue is, most transponders have a decode that says "any two pulses 2 microseconds apart, kill the transmitter for a long time". Can't do that, won't work with the new radars and TCAS (doesn't show). The other issue is, what if there is a P0 pulse. There is circuitry in the transponder to correct for that, but no avionics shop has equipment to adjust the secondary detectors. There, but no way to adjust it to work right! Only the FAA! Sounds like my "stealth" Garmin transponder. Stockton approach regularly complains and even sent me a "pink slip" even tho' Sacramento approach and Bay approach could see it just fine. It cost me $100 and the time to write a nasty note to the FSDO get my airplane ungrounded. Get ahold of Tom Lusch, send the particulars. He believes that the only way to knock off McSweeny is to document each and every case. It's only anecdotal (I am taking the formal analytical proof path), but if you get enough together, it might work. So, I support him in this effort. The bottom line is actually very simple. You turn on the transponder and ask for flight following. If the facility can see you, your transponder and their RADAR are working as a system. If they can't see you, the system isn't working regardless of whether the individual components "test" properly. This is an easy test and only takes a few tens of seconds consisting of a couple of radio calls. Everything else is window dressing. Sounds good, but there is a big logical hole in the argument. See, the returns are so poor on ATCRBS that the "radar" started using the "coast mode" algorithm about two decades ago. If it ever sees you (one real return), it remembers. If it ever sees you again (one real return), it assigns a velocity vector - delta D/delta T. Now, that one return might have been meant for someone else (you jump, you). So there is a smoothing on top of that (like GPS does). Try this - they saw you but saw you where. You have to stand still for this. If you can run the test, you will notice that every radar has you in a different location, even without the coast mode induced problems. Find a radar controller and ask him what "track jump" is. That ought to really wake you up (waddayamean Ijustpopedtwentymiles). Well, OK, mostly it is only about 5 to 10. But, if you are on approach, with 3 mile spacing, that can be a hoot! Wish it were that simple. So, where are you? Well, you have to know how much of your track is in coast mode, as a percentage. Trouble is, that doesn't show up on the radar screen. The ATC fellow doesn't get the "C" in the lower right hand portion of your data block until you have been in coast mode for so long that the "radar" is "throwing up its hands". When he sees it, it's beyond chrisis time. It's a hoot, aint it? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 04, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Transcal Encoders
At 06:31 PM 1/4/2001, B. Keith Peshak wrote: > >One at a time: > >>I do know that not all boxes installed in certified >>aircraft in the USA are required to meet all relevant TSOs but I can't >>debate you WRT transponders specifically. I accept your comments on this. > >You are right on things like radios, at least, used to be. There were >more stringent requirements for things like power and frequency tolerance >that GA used to not need to meet. Then things got tightened up, as >concerns frequency, and many are illegal to use. That is certainly true for comm radios. I am not sure that is true for all other pieces of equipment. I am fairly certain of my KN-62 TSO vs. KN-64 non-TSO example. >The whole idea of non-conformance seems to be up in the air, as it is with >the "standards organization" of the FAA. Central can't decide, different >regions have different opinions, what is legal depends on where you come >down and who you run into. I hear you on that. I have had to fight that battle with various FSDOs more than once. >That, I consider to be a problem. I would like to see uniform regulations >enforced uniformly. I have only been a pilot for 21 years, never saw it >happen yet. I have been a pilot for 32 years and it hasn't happened in my tenure either. OTOH, some flexibility makes more sense to me than uniform rigid adherence to stupidity. I like the idea that, if I look hard enough, I might actually find a not-stupid who will do the right thing, uniformity be damned. >>Not so my Garmin transponder which seems to be invisible to a substantial >>subset of RADARs used by approach controls (TRACONs) in spite of testing >>100% correctly on the ground using the test equipment that is generally >>available. > >I don't want to get into a lawsuit about who is or who is not >what. However, as an engineer, I am allowed a technical opinion. The >Terra/Trimble design was extremely cheap. The frequency determining >element was a PC board trace, emulating a tuned transmission line. Never >came anywhere close to +/- 0.003 %, but neither did the "cavities", which >were also tuned transmission line sections, just of much higher Q. Huh? I thought that the solid-state transponders used a crystal reference that was multiplied up to 1090 MHz. Microstripline stuff is fine for coupling and impedance matching but it sucks for frequency determination. I find it hard to believe that someone would do engineering of such poor quality, especially when a crystal oscillator with a couple of multiplier stages is so cheap. The older transponders used lighthouse tubes in cavities and getting the cavity to frequency-lock to an external reference *was* an expensive proposition so they were allowed to free-run. So who does build a decent transponder? I just bought a UPSAT SL-70. It seems to be pretty well built but I don't have the schematics. >So, King/Cessna/Narco were always within "close enough" but Terra/Trimble >depended on temperature, humidity, ... One of those ... was VSWR. If you >have any dirt or oil on your transponder antenna, that shifts the >characteristic impedance. Without a buffer amp, and with a low Q >transmitter power switched oscillator, that results in pulling of the >frequency, quite substantially. So, that is one issue. Now, I have been >told, I do not have personal knowledge, that the Garmin transmitter is a >knock-off of Terra/Trimble. I don't take them in. I have never had one iota of trouble with my Trimble TRT-250 being off freq but it was the one that had the problem with the P4 pulse (mode-S interrogation). Frequency stability was not a problem. It also isn't the problem with the Garmin. Every time it has been checked it has been on freq even tho' Stockton TRACON can't see it while both Sacramento and Bay can ... in the same flight. It seems to be a function of an older type of RADAR that they are planning to but haven't gotten around to retiring. >>I don't think that was the fault of their transponder. I think some bad >>business decisions had an effect as well, both on the part of Terra AND >>Trimble. As I recall, it had a problem with the mode-S interrogations. > >That is what the P4 is, an addition from a mode S interrogator, which the >TSO says should cause suppression, which Terra did suppress for, which is >the wrong thing to do for ATC equipment to operate (new mode S radar and >TCAS don't see you). That is what you get when you slavishly adhere to the specs. : ) >>that as it may, my Terra transponders (I have installed them in two >>airplanes to date) have always successfully replied and shown up on the >>various RADARs to which they have been subjected. I wish I could say that >>for the Garmin. > >That's good, but I bet we can come up with some points in the temp RH >where it won't, if you want to pull it out and put it in a big BlueM. I >was asked to consult on the problem by the designer, and I still have the >circuitry and manuals he sent to me, which I did that with (circuitry, not >the manuals). I refused the assignment - didn't need what I considered >might be a liability from the association. Later, we were both >consultants to Trimble. Interesting. Amazing that such poor design gets used in something upon which we are so dependent. >>"... Well, it is on frequency, they are the right amplitude, and we can see >>the pulses. It must be OK." : ) > >Well, the problem is the "radar", which is a computer, is programmed to >ignore it. Ergo, you aint there. :-( Reminds me of the name of a Firesign Theatre album, "How Can You Be In Two Places At Once When You're Not Anywhere At All." >Here is a hoot for you: The early RT-359A had an RCA cavity. Slow rise >time on the pulse, slow fall time on the pulse. A 0.45 microsecond pulse >is about 600 at the base, 200 at the top, 350 at the -3db point. They, >finally, gave up on those, but there are still many out there flying >around. Shops certify them in the biennial because, you guessed it, on >frequency, they are the right amplitude, and we can see the pulses. What more do you want? >But that isn't the issue. One issue is, most transponders have a decode >that says "any two pulses 2 microseconds apart, kill the transmitter for a >long time". And long time is ... >Can't do that, won't work with the new radars and TCAS (doesn't >show). The other issue is, what if there is a P0 pulse. There is >circuitry in the transponder to correct for that, but no avionics shop has >equipment to adjust the secondary detectors. There, but no way to adjust >it to work right! Only the FAA! As I said, they had help. >>Sounds like my "stealth" Garmin transponder. Stockton approach regularly >>complains and even sent me a "pink slip" even tho' Sacramento approach and >>Bay approach could see it just fine. It cost me $100 and the time to write >>a nasty note to the FSDO get my airplane ungrounded. > >Get ahold of Tom Lusch, send the particulars. He believes that the only >way to knock off McSweeny is to document each and every case. It's only >anecdotal (I am taking the formal analytical proof path), but if you get >enough together, it might work. So, I support him in this effort. OK. >>The bottom line is actually very simple. You turn on the transponder and >>ask for flight following. If the facility can see you, your transponder >>and their RADAR are working as a system. If they can't see you, the system >>isn't working regardless of whether the individual components "test" >>properly. This is an easy test and only takes a few tens of seconds >>consisting of a couple of radio calls. Everything else is window dressing. > >Sounds good, but there is a big logical hole in the argument. See, the >returns are so poor on ATCRBS that the "radar" started using the "coast >mode" algorithm about two decades ago. If it ever sees you (one real >return), it remembers. If it ever sees you again (one real return), it >assigns a velocity vector - delta D/delta T. Now, that one return might >have been meant for someone else (you jump, you). So there is a smoothing >on top of that (like GPS does). Try this - they saw you but saw you >where. You have to stand still for this. If you can run the test, you >will notice that every radar has you in a different location, even without >the coast mode induced problems. Huh? You lost me. Where did we come up with multiple RADARs? Are you suggesting that I fly on the border between two facilities and get them to turn off coast mode so they can see track jump and also notice that I am not where they think I am? >Find a radar controller and ask him what "track jump" is. That ought to >really wake you up (waddayamean Ijustpopedtwentymiles). Well, OK, mostly >it is only about 5 to 10. But, if you are on approach, with 3 mile >spacing, that can be a hoot! I am aware of "coast mode". I know that is how Stockton tracks my Garmin transponder. >Wish it were that simple. > >So, where are you? Well, you have to know how much of your track is in >coast mode, as a percentage. Trouble is, that doesn't show up on the >radar screen. The ATC fellow doesn't get the "C" in the lower right hand >portion of your data block until you have been in coast mode for so long >that the "radar" is "throwing up its hands". When he sees it, it's beyond >chrisis time. > >It's a hoot, aint it? Sure is. Fortunately it is a big sky and there are other factors to keep you separated under IFR. No wonder they like altitude separation better than lateral separation. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B. Keith Peshak" <keith.peshak(at)gtwn.net>
Subject: You aint been here
Date: Jan 05, 2001
You got to Doc's new twin yet? Spent the last three days No, you haven't. Whadaya think I been doin You aint been working on that airplane, it aint been here! So, this is an unidentified flying No, it's an airplane, it just aint never been in here. Come here, look at those seven transponder antennas. I been wonderin bout that. I figured one for the transponder, and one for the DME, but I can't explain the other five. You looked at the paperwork? One transponder, one DME, and there aint no more. So, what is it you wanted me to be looking at? Noooooo. Trust me, they aint there, and you aint saw them. So we needs to file 337s on those other 5, or you want me to pull them? Noooo. They aint there. Look at this. Damn, that shower of sparks could start a fire on this old carpet! Now, look at the master and the avionics master. They be off. That tell you yet this airplane never been here? Now, call up Doc and tell him to come and get it. I aint done yet. Whaddaya want me to tell him? His airplane has syphilis, and we would appreciate it if he would get it outta here before it infects the others or the repair station certificate. I can't say that. And we can't let it go without filing 337s on all these damn antennas. And we aint gonna do that. Then we gots to tear this shit out. And we aint gonna do that. And how about that hot wire around the master with the insulation chaffed off? And we aint gonna do that. That is blatantly unsafe! That isn't aircraft wire, looks like Radio Shack. That wiring is illegal. We saw it. Noooo, we didn't, it aint been here. Here, listen on (deleted) Mhz. You decode that data? I got a dog that could decode that data! Pull the battery cable. It went away. Now you know why Doc been having battery problems. You should have picked up on that three new batteries in six months. On that airplane that aint been here? So we pull that shit? Noooo. So what kind of policy do we have on this kind of crap? Pull the clock fuse and put an amp meter on the battery when it comes in. If there is any draw with the master off, we are a little too booked up to take it. After that, turn on the master and check that frequency. If it aint quiet, we be booked up and can't take it for at least a year. If he ever comes back, same deal. So, do they ever come back and take that shit out? Don't wanna know. Besides, it would leave holes. Most too stupid to count antennas, don't even know what each does. They be bright enough to notice holes! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 05, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: You aint been here
At 02:12 PM 1/5/2001, you wrote: > >You got to Doc's new twin yet? > Spent the last three days >No, you haven't. > Whadaya think I been doin >You aint been working on that airplane, it aint been here! > So, this is an unidentified flying >No, it's an airplane, it just aint never been in here. Come here, look at >those seven transponder antennas. > I been wonderin bout that. I figured one for the transponder, > and one for the DME, but I can't explain the other five. You looked at > the paperwork? >One transponder, one DME, and there aint no more. > So, what is it you wanted me to be looking at? >Noooooo. Trust me, they aint there, and you aint saw them. Ahhh, yes. Our DEA/FBI/BATF friends at work to make the world safer for democracy. This is yet another reason to do a good pre-flight. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B. Keith Peshak" <keith.peshak(at)gtwn.net>
Subject: Transcal Encoders
Date: Jan 05, 2001
Transponders are a complicated issue to most, completely un-understood by the FAA, but are really fantastically simple digital devices. All of the problems and shortcomings of ATCRBS architecture have been created by the FAA, since about 1973, as they changed further and further away from IFF (C74b and prior). You have to count both C74c (and there should not be two C74c, particularly when they are mutually exclusive). The entire set of technical issues are covered on http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/taillight.htm or somewhere around http://home.columbus.rr.com/lusch/talotta.html (doesn't make sense to duplicate, though there is cross-reference on both sides [spelled "scientific independent verification"]). This takes some study. Most people don't survive the attempt, so don't feel bad if you get lost. But don't get discouraged. If you abandon the attempt, don't criticize when you lose your life. These are intended for the more technical audience (the vast majority of whom have no idea what an airplane is or what is done in them in the front office). It's hard to glue together these two factions - knowledge of aerology, and knowledge of where the electricity went. I once accused an FAA avionics certification engineer of not knowing the difference between voltage and current. "Juice is juice, except when it gets out of the wire, and that is when current turns into voltage, and that is lightning, and that is dangerous. You can have current, but you aren't allowed voltage in an airplane." He was dead serious. He was the most technically proficient in the region engineering office. So, I tried a stint at education. The University of Texas let me teach students in Aerospace Engineering (top school in the subject). Also faculty at Embry Riddle. Those were successful - students were taken through projects and standards and test results with real stuff. More recently tried that on AvWeb. Terrible failure - might not be any intelligent life there, might be pure apathy there. I was really shocked when the head guy said "light blinks, must work". If you don't care, you deserve what you get. It is going to be called ADS-B, and you will be very sorry. You will be very broke. You will not be allowed to partake, even if you can afford it. Don't complain to me. The fellow I have been conversing with seems to have it mostly right. Just a few points of disagreement. And I was flattered how quickly we got down to the good stuff, still in alignment. Restores my faith. I guess where I am going is the disagreement. Standards, you gotta have em. I recently helped a fantastic group of people solve a real hard and real serious problem. It is stopping the economy, because we can't make chips that work anymore (yields are so low that you can't make money). If you haven't noticed, the economy is spiraling down, and IC technology is the source of everything that works. They allowed me to write about it in the lead technical publication: http://www.isdmag.com/editorial/2000/standards0012.html Point is, they all have to be the same, so they all work the same. If everybody does something different, they won't play together. Down side is, stifles innovation. I don't have the answer to when you go in and break what was (we just did that in the example I quoted) in order to fix it. Guess that has to be done from time to time. Point is, ATCRBS wasn't broke, until the idiot feds started screwing it up. First they ran off people like Tom Amlie, PhD in EE, knew how that shit worked. Replaced them with army types. Whole damn place turned green. They don't have fixed wing aircraft in green in any quantity. They don't know what they are doing. They should be kept away from airplanes. Time to do the same thing with the whole FAA - sunset. http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/FAA-C74c.html The deal is not about collision avoidance. Feds don't care whether you crash or not, so long as it isn't with an "important" airplane. It's about staff. ADS-B needs big government to be built for big ground ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B. Keith Peshak" <keith.peshak(at)gtwn.net>
Subject: NAS capacity
Date: Jan 06, 2001
What is ADS-B? It's hard to say - it keeps changing. That's because everything they try doesn't work. There is the "Alaska Demonstration" called "Capstone", but it keeps changing its name. They say "See, here, we aren't going to do this, we are going to do something else; we don't know yet what we are going to do, but this here proves whatever that is will work". No, it doesn't. But they do really think that we are that stupid (it would appear that Mike Busch is). Let's look at NAS capacity. Now, I could start with communications theory 101 and throw out a mess of equations, but that would lose everybody at the FAA. So, let's do this simple. Let's just look at a few dimensions of the problem. ATCRBS has the dials. There are four of them, and they each have 8 digits. If no two airplanes can have the same code, and none are reserved, that is a 4096 aircraft capacity in a range where a long range center radar would operate. Call it 200 miles radius. There is one measure. Let's look at the latest (it keeps changing) Capstone proposal (nobody has accepted this, the manufacturer is still trying to bail himself out of his current mess with this mess): http://www.alaska.faa.gov/capstone/docs/mopps.pdf 1.2.1.2 There are 3200 MSOs. Well, there you have it, from 4096 down to 3200. Less capacity. Well, OK, not true. Ether net taught us that random selection is only good to 50% of theoretical max capacity. 4096 down to 1600. And you can't sustain max capacity. With AIS-P we have 15,625 MSOs. That ought to be about a 4.8828 times max capacity. How about just above that. 5.5 millisecond message every one second. Everybody get a 181 airplane max capacity? Well, you are wrong (you forgot the 50% thingy). 90 is the right number, and it is not sustainable. Contrast that to the 64 microsecond message used by AIS-P (7,812 airplanes max capacity in the same area). That ought to be about a 85.9375 times max capacity. 2.2.3 492 bit message. AIS-P uses the internationally accepted standard 64 bit message, and we only need one. 7.6875 times the max capacity limit of ADS-B is AIS-P. Now, these all kinds of stuff combine, so this is where it starts to get complicated, and those communications theory equations start to come out. Long story short, AIS-P comes in at about, give or take, two orders of magnitude the max capacity of ADS-B on a sustainable basis. The max capacity of ADS-B on a sustainable basis is less than that of ATCRBS. We are doing this because ATCRBS max capacity isn't enough. Shouldn't that be enough to stop ABS-B? And no need for all that ground equipment (which means AIS-P works everywhere, when ADS-B can't work without ground equipment nearby in range). Try that over the oceans or poles, or even in Missouri. And no need for all of those personnel (which means AIS-P works without the considerable user fees you will be charged so that ADS-B users have something to use). And at about $500 per airplane (which means you don't have to buy the $330,000 ADS-B airplane equipment). You get it for free, if we ever get the feds to certify the transponder we made (which also fixes all of the ATCRBS problems, thereby eliminating pressure for a reduced capacity ADS-B). Are we there yet? Why is this taking so long? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B. Keith Peshak" <keith.peshak(at)gtwn.net>
Subject: The rest of that
Date: Jan 06, 2001
The deal is not about collision avoidance. Feds don't care whether you crash or not, so long as it isn't with an "important" airplane. It's about staff. ADS-B needs big government to be built for big ground equipment installation everywhere, AIS-P doesn't. Who cares AIS-P works, ADS-B doesn't - lie, you won't catch it in time. ADS-B needs big government to be built for operational infrastructure, AIS-P doesn't. Who cares AIS-P works, ADS-B doesn't - lie. I was surprised that ATCA published me, I was flabbergasted when I found out I was lead paper: http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/ATApaper.htm So, we had a transponder maker work with us to introduce the production model. That was about three years ago. Delayed a year because of all the garbage about "don't want cavity, want solid state". OK, it will have a fixed frequency synthesizer, which will maintain 0.003% (only thing on the market). And it will have a buffer, so that antenna goo won't pull it or kill it. That was one hell of a big fight, because you guys don't buy if it's $5 higher price than the junk without the buffer and without the synthesizer. Then we got into needs to have a better receiver than the old design because can't get FH-1100 diodes anymore (there is nothing else). Another year for a really good receiver. Then another year to do the whole thing in surface mount. You wanted small (I can't even see that shit to work on it; sneeze and 141,000 resistors fly all over the place out of the 1" diameter tin and hide permanently in the carpet). Are we done yet? I am not allowed to tell you who, until it is announced. No adjustments in there - always in tune. And it shows on the radars - all of them. Don't ask me how I know that. FTFAA principle of avionics certification. I think the only thing holding it up is the feds (like Q415 was added to the AT-150 to make sure it violates the present FAA C74c (goes back to C74b or the early C74c) so the thing works). I aint gonna say what else is in there for free if you turn it on, nor tell you how to turn it on. I have done what I can, it's now up to you. You understand the problem, deal with it. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Transcal Encoders
At 07:07 PM 1/5/2001, you wrote: >The fellow I have been conversing with seems to have it mostly >right. Just a few points of disagreement. And I was flattered how >quickly we got down to the good stuff, still in alignment. Restores my faith. Thank you. I do consider myself to be a not-stupid, technically speaking. : ) >I guess where I am going is the disagreement. Standards, you gotta have em. No argument there. It also helps to make sure that they are written in such a way that the average engineer can read the doc and then implement something that is interoperable. That is the true test of a technical standard document. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: The rest of that
At 10:43 PM 1/5/2001, you wrote: >So, we had a transponder maker work with us to introduce the production >model. That was about three years ago. Delayed a year because of all the >garbage about "don't want cavity, want solid state". Why not? 1090 MHz is practically DC these days. Power devices that work at 1 Gig are readily available, especially at the power levels that transponders work at. >OK, it will have a fixed frequency synthesizer, which will maintain 0.003% >(only thing on the market). You don't need a synthesizer, just a TCXO followed by a bunch of multipliers. >And it will have a buffer, so that antenna goo won't pull it or kill it. Your PA is the buffer. Your oscillator is the TCXO. It is going to be a whole bunch of multipliers away from the PA and its buffer/driver. Your freq stability is going to have nothing to do with what happens to the feed line or the antenna. >That was one hell of a big fight, because you guys don't buy if it's $5 >higher price than the junk without the buffer and without the synthesizer. Yeah, well, who set our expectations? I am a ham who builds things. I am smart enough to know that power oscillators went out with Flappers and Prohibition. I can't imagine a radio-based product that has no frequency determining element besides the output stage. In any case, I would pay extra for a transponder that was reliable and works all the time. >Then we got into needs to have a better receiver than the old design >because can't get FH-1100 diodes anymore (there is nothing else). Diodes? Where? We talking about receiver muting or something in the mixer? Low noise front end devices with high third-order intercept points are fairly cheap as are MMIC gain blocks. Hot-carrier balanced mixers are cheap too. I can't imagine that a single-freq receiver at 1GHz would cost more than about $30 in parts and that is if I don't get any cost benefit from ASICs. Can I use the same frequency reference for both the RX and TX? That will help keep the cost down. >Another year for a really good receiver. Uh, we are building a wide, fast, frequency-agile digital receiver for 5.7 GHz at work. We expect it to be done in a month, not a year. We expect that the whole system, which will be an order of magnitude more complex than an aircraft transponder, to sell for about 1/4 the price of a cheap transponder. What is the problem? >Then another year to do the whole thing in surface mount. Everybody uses SM today. We *start* with SM in mind. No one does thru-hole anymore. It just isn't as reliable. >You wanted small (I can't even see that shit to work on it; sneeze and >141,000 resistors fly all over the place out of the 1" diameter tin and >hide permanently in the carpet). Are we done yet? I am not allowed to >tell you who, until it is announced. No adjustments in there - always in >tune. Yeah, so? I expect that with any product today. Anything else is archaic. >And it shows on the radars - all of them. Don't ask me how I know that. You put it in a plane and you tried it. I would too. You think that the FAA and the FCC are going to cooperate to catch your evildoing? >FTFAA principle of avionics certification. I think the only thing holding >it up is the feds (like Q415 was added to the AT-150 to make sure it >violates the present FAA C74c (goes back to C74b or the early C74c) so the >thing works). I aint gonna say what else is in there for free if you turn >it on, nor tell you how to turn it on. I have done what I can, it's now >up to you. Well, you keep beating this drum. OK, the FAA isn't so hot. Just do good engineering. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B. Keith Peshak" <keith.peshak(at)gtwn.net>
Subject: The rest of that
Date: Jan 06, 2001
Oh, yes, true, but... See, the thing with the FAA is, nobody in there knows anything about electricity. To understand the organism, you have to understand it's rules. Rule one: Single digit IQ. Possibly single digit number of working neurons. Possibly a base two digit. Rule two: If you ever do anything wrong, you are responsible. You can even be sued, now. Rule three: If you ever do anything wrong, you lose your retirement and your job. Which means you can't push people around anymore just for the fun of it. Rule four: There is no measure of productivity - no penalty for never doing anything your whole entire career, so long as you show up. Now, how exactly, given the intelligence level, can it totally avoid making any mistakes? Why not? 1090 MHz is practically DC these days. Power devices that work at 1 Gig are readily available, especially at the power levels that transponders work at. I wish you were right, as far as me. When I got the Bachelors, under guys like Jim Beyer and J.B.Miller, I knew smith charts, S parameters, waveline transformers, ... When I got drafted into the army/navy, I took basic in the Army, AIT in the Army in radar school, blew the doors off their exam, got ordered to take a navy radar exam, blew the doors off that (finished [nobody had ever done that], got 100%, turned in an extra paper on "I put down what you wanted for #189 but there is no correct answer and this is how you really do it and this is the real correct answer"). There was a naval intelligence investigation. I got assigned to set up and teach the Great Lakes ETR school. Never could get the knack of how to salute, everybody said I always got it wrong. That was then. I can't do any of that stuff anymore. I think the laws of physics changed while I been doing IC stuff for 30 years. You don't need a synthesizer, just a TCXO followed by a bunch of multipliers. I need a 1090 MHz receiver at about -90 dbm MTL with a fast attack AGC. You busy? Your PA is the buffer. Your oscillator is the TCXO. It is going to be a whole bunch of multipliers away from the PA and its buffer/driver. Your freq stability is going to have nothing to do with what happens to the feed line or the antenna. Well, see, that's what I tried to tell you. The FAA won't do anything new. It gotta be 30 years old technology, or it can't go in an airplane. Hasn't proved itself. Now, unplug your brain (pretend you are an FAA avionics certification engineer). There used to be cavities. Don't know what they are, can't spell "Q", one stage power switched oscillator, output goes right to the antenna. No more cavities, cavity bad word. How about, a tube is a transistor, replace it with a transistor. What was a cavity? A tuned transmission line (it aint a cavity). Well, put a lan on a PCB. That ought to do it. No new fangled, unproven, whadda need extra transistors for, more to go wrong, must be more unreliable. Yes, I know, I couldn't believe it either, until I finally figured out that they are all that way. I am a ham who builds things. I am smart enough to know that power oscillators went out with Flappers and Prohibition. I can't imagine a radio-based product that has no frequency determining element besides the output stage. And, remember, this is a safety of life device, and the only device for collision avoidance. Could you put in for Administrator under Bush? I could work with you. Diodes? Where? We talking about receiver muting or something in the mixer? Low noise front end devices with high third-order intercept points are fairly cheap as are MMIC gain blocks. Hot-carrier balanced mixers are cheap too. I can't imagine that a single-freq receiver at 1GHz would cost more than about $30 in parts and that is if I don't get any cost benefit from ASICs. Can I use the same frequency reference for both the RX and TX? That will help keep the cost down. The transponder receiver consists of a comb filter, usually four or five rods, end capacitance tuned to 1030 MHz. There is a local oscillator, which feeds a something like triple frequency parallel tuned circuit. That feeds a tripler diode. There is no tuned circuit. That is the injection point for the 1030 MHz, with a Fairchild FH-1100 hot carrier diode. The output has an IF tuned circuit. It's a single ended mixer, with a very low noise, very low cutin voltage, with no bias, first detector. When the world ran out of FH-1100s, a substitute needed to be found. Now we get into proprietary, but I can tell you the result: MTL went from, typically, -83 dbm to, typically, -68 dbm. Consequently, "radar" range dropped significantly. That be what is out there in damn near everything. Uh, we are building a wide, fast, frequency-agile digital receiver for 5.7 GHz at work. We expect it to be done in a month, not a year. We expect that the whole system, which will be an order of magnitude more complex than an aircraft transponder, to sell for about 1/4 the price of a cheap transponder. What is the problem? You're hired. We're not paying you anything. You want me to send the spec for the taillight receiver? I want to get this down from ~$3000 to ~100 so we can have an illegal plastic box sit on the dash of the aircraft, plug into a cigarette lighter plug, and feed the digital data to a laptop or yoketop PC platform for the picture. All you need to do is get the 1090 MHz AM pulses to my schmitt trigger, TTL mid level threshold, clamp it at 5 volts, fast attack AGC (one target 50 miles away at 200 watts, one right next to you). I have a front end schmitt (for funny rise/fall or slow edge removal) feed the ASIC that does all of the data recovery, data checking, error control and recovery, output sentence construction, and output modem. The PC looks at serial sentences, one per target, that say latitude, longitude, altitude in pressure gray code, direction and speed. You put it in a plane and you tried it. I would too. You think that the FAA and the FCC are going to cooperate to catch your evildoing? Yes. eJ8+IhgEAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AEQBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAFUAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABhdmlvbmljcy1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20AU01UUABhdmlvbmljcy1saXN0QG1h dHJvbmljcy5jb20AAAAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABwAAABhdmlvbmljcy1s aXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20AAwAVDAEAAAADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAHgAAACdhdmlvbmljcy1s aXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20nAAAAAgELMAEAAAAhAAAAU01UUDpBVklPTklDUy1MSVNUQE1BVFJP TklDUy5DT00AAAAAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAAAPWQgEIgAcAGAAAAElQ TS5NaWNyb3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQSAAQAkAAAAUkU6IEF2aW9uaWNzLUxpc3Q6IFRoZSBy ZXN0IG9mIHRoYXQAFQwBBYADAA4AAADRBwEABgAWAAYAKQAGACoBASCAAwAOAAAA0QcBAAYAFQAa AAEABgAVAQEJgAEAIQAAAEM0MjFEM0QwMTlFNEQ0MTFCNTFDM0M3MTA1QzEwMDAwAOQGAQOQBgAw EQAAEgAAAAsAIwABAAAAAwAmAAAAAAALACkAAAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5AAAAuj1feMABHgBwAAEA AAAkAAAAUkU6IEF2aW9uaWNzLUxpc3Q6IFRoZSByZXN0IG9mIHRoYXQAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAcB4 Xz2w0NMhxeQZEdS1HDxxBcEAAAAAHgAeDAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAB8MAQAAABYAAABrZWl0 aC5wZXNoYWtAZ3R3bi5uZXQAAAADAAYQOYreUgMABxC2EgAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAAT0gsWUVTLFRS VUUsQlVUU0VFLFRIRVRISU5HV0lUSFRIRUZBQUlTLE5PQk9EWUlOVEhFUkVLTk9XU0FOWVRISU5H QUJPVVRFTEVDVFJJQ0lUWVRPVU5ERVJTVEFORFRIRU9SRwAAAAACAQkQAQAAAKYPAACiDwAAJRwA AExaRnWJP0f8/wAKAQ8CFQKoBesCgwBQAvIJAgBjaArAc2V0MjcGAAbDAoMyA8UCAHByQnER4nN0 ZW0CgzN3AuQHEwKAfQqACM8J2TvxFg8yNTUCgAqBDbELYOBuZzEwMxRQCwoUUQUL8mMAQCBPaCwg ZnkHkBsQdHIKUBsQYvh1dC4cEAqFCoUGYBuxmHRoZR1hC4BnIAPwwx1wHWNGQUEgBAAbEORubwbg ZHke0AOgHXFpFhAgax8gdwQgAHB5zx20AaAIYAVAZWwFkBuABGljHiB5LiAgVHBvIHVuBIETwABw ZNsdYwWwZwBwBABtGxEIYLogEYB2HZEiax4gJwQgaxuQIYBzHD1SJeEjYG40ZToiMFMd0ScxZGki Zx4gIElRIiFQbz0EEGkCYB9wAJAn6W51twbQBJAjYGYeAAWwax3SXydwCHACICYQKMlhG9Bh/xGw G3Aq4CgkJi8nMS0BJ5G2SSrAJBJlJHAFwGQiYPUgh3crkWcj9ArAHZAWEKxzcCuhKSFlIiFZJCF+ YwORL6EDoCpwKWAKUGTtHwJ3LZ8uomgJ0S8PMB8/JBIVoCzRJBEFwBYQdGm/FhAHgAIwIHEjEDhT ah8w7SIhVx3AEXAgB4AGIiQSRTLBJwVAcHVzHkBw/GVvC1AdkArACGAjASCB+wRgH/FqO7AFQAIQ BcAdcv5mIoAqoi1/JxMCEAhwJ5H+VB/TBAAfETqSM4Af8SqxSxNQBHB1IaBpdiHxIPYtQOI78G4H QEJxPaIncM82VCDTIJY4U3doBvAdkK85ETjRMrEJ0XIbEHMiYL8VoCDiOuQ7wCBAInBwHD1OTiBA GxBHomV4ANB0fylAGxAoUDMSHXILgBPQbHZsKEAJ8GMdkCGAJHBsfxsQMsIoYSSgAZBK8Cxxdv9E ICMQAMArEyCBOpAEAAGQOmsHkD8cTAr0SwAzNv8N8BncQdET0CGgHKY6QB9wmR8gdD8iMBkwOTAF 0HxIekCyE1BJoSHQTJNEZkMdYizRZGETsCizd982YjZAIdAHkR1wYQVAKuK3HKZWERrQRyhAMVVh KDD/TLMLcAtgMiEbEDGxBZAHMf8sYkxBHYEx0FUyS4NV1QqF/xuAAHEx0SKiVjRWEBw2GX/7GoVd BUkeATvBJBJVMTGB2ShAaHQbEEchZlbSBCBvB4A6EzMhX2BnTHAdY0K/ANAdgBWhG1Eig0oAdROw ZTfwaU5AIEoHcGKgZQcbMFbhIwFKLkIuTf8DECGARnFfYCAgB9Ej0B4i3RFydBtRBfBdMWEHgBPQ /WMidyRhSwAncFukPaEHgPdjIhwRYatkU2ABgAmASqJHImAdcgrAbXkvQxB290nhX2AkoG9WcCyx IdAfhccUsWvQGxBBSVRtKh+C/1NgVKAFwATwRWAG8BvBIYD/B+AdcjaQYxEqoSrAHXE40P9JciPh YjIFsASBavFrQk4xfyyBbAJvJXGkcB9xIlYRKO5mC4BfkWrxWx8lEYAjEDc2RWiSVgFdceQZMDAl /xthCHAncGsCIHFJcVuxZ2H3O/AqkQOgIl9gO6BqgSBAfwOgRVBWEV/TAHBq4j2iI/gxODkb0h+1 QMQFoRYQ/1FRAHFVMiL0QMFAwUeiJBL/V9FMojaRKGF/Ch1ygEJ+DfwiKSIiH9NoMCBhc1KCMb9K uwuAJHATwChAVhBpAiDvIiFiFCzAAJBneTIkoRGx30fRfvQ6sDpxHXJHV9EFQMJMTjIgRVRSb4Ui If8HwDZSBaAl4CMQSyBZxCAg/wDQVnAqsUeih3IHQBvwWNL9NlF5H0OMwE0RX2AHQGgw/2PhYjIo YTCzg2NWEkchHXG/hkQ7RDaUKqJV8xPAdXER/zzVhlMdslZwHXILYCBRQaL/UgBs8QQgEXEZEGrx RVADEN8dkF9gKnAzIUQUSVQgkiT9PaIzUsAbMBGRXPxPz1DffxymMoJ3oTtxJ3Bq8SyQc+Z5AjBU UWl6RmI9UyyQ8FRDWE89kUrwVSEjEN5iLHMigDpxKrFtJeA4wP8LUAiRl91d317onAVSl35BL3Fg NlJWESEULVKxZGLxZIBNVEweBCyQYQCdYuMCQIviQUdDMlUb4Jxw3052mG+Zf5r4BcBQHsIdY/8b 4A3QBJAyVCqRBPBlkVYQ/wWxgaWdsoZSjuGOoh3SJKH/M1EskKA1RVSe71xCk/BUsH89kANhHWOr ASVEBCCrpC+faqCj8qwGoDUDUGVxkhH/AaADEEJirkokU1IxHcMkoe82kR4Te4MRgHBC8VXRa1S/ q9Bq8aA1aHM9tXwibkMQ/6AvoT9RpErhRoEdNFYQJaH/e4NsYQiBcqRK4SQCg2Qek/8q4JD4HbRm Ma3kYjEBkDNCb5dmI2CLEVExaB8gFaBnf0nhrQIFQDtEYjB5ZQtwcvcLUSdwIiFILMA7YwNgJHB7 sqMhcGaKUkkCIoALUHXtROViU2AfkSgTUGfBOWT/MVMDkR6iJGCGIZSjBJA4wL92ADLAhhJFoShQ nAFyg1h/O7BylDNRMsBCUQiQK8JE/5uzICJ7dB1xLHEWEEvTO3HjWRG/0SJRIsSRaJEi0fdLIFoV A+F0YtEjEKyIxJH/G/B68mIwB5FgY7i2urbIAv86kD0SzlZL0kJTLLCVQXJB/8aCR7EhE2CxePEz UUDB2SH/W8JOAdPCFhALUYVSViGlpP/Z6DoTj9UskNdUUmEewHkAv4czW8JN8QCQepFocyiA4v9K sd0Xg1K9lHryLJAY8XqC+SyQUENlYI+VCGDU5YCzf9YEZjJhACfiM7HIcccybv9oEXcRVKCb9HnU 2ehg4dPC/z0DJKHFcTC1n3A9cTNRPQPfIoAWEEsAWKIcPVkbQmYC/0kCkLGK8jtiKnCf0SRxKGH/ cWAfwmNCOMADIF9gdgFMk/92AGPAcoIhMlXz0AaOQQMg/1X0VLCX76i/UQ2OMWSALJDfEYBkgEVR G9EDEGRV0h3R/yvC9EO7NSPQZvFFoeLCJJL/z2NV81okrIhcYTkSITIeE75GC2C4YbFCIwG7NVAD YP8dwLVAhhc7RAdw0hBogiyQ+28xhiAtLLIjEEHVVeQRgP9A07TCClBLQB9wuzUNsGfR/03wAwAd 4SFxOQMqcDIADbC/gbTUBdHzuy+8P0gzQSKQ/9qCYXAqYh1Sf2ScUWrAEcC/kYNLALkwVWVgsSMG boCC/1WDPZMVgUsA3tNM49oAS1B9IiFDivMkEnryyWE9okG+ZAEyE8BTYKzyY2RCO7H/UmHr9VY0 HhPAAgO38o+aSfvxvxEvRIYgAmFSYWHBF0D/FSIdkfBwTWSkg6O3n3A4wP8d4a0BRqBnsR3DbTUD tU3w9nj64FJhTEexHyDesD4B/+hh9zIjEFV2HhMdwPeSHcCtBFAtckNKo3JLUHD4cv9Ksd0AVpYf 8eRAcXApQWLR53pARxIxYk1NlpEjkMlhnViwb6aQK8LYcHQtRiH/vzHJEfBwC4JNIRmiH9QDtb8f ZGyB/I931JxCJ9MttMP5o7oxR1LxKuCLAn4QPXHvGSbns5TxFnUkwyHJYQPh/7LRfwRWEX9iNeBf YJuki0J/TbIoMwaw30B2AFFnscNB9lOWkFTSQ8XRX2DNoYij/wegYXD/yTVwq9FLM3yCpICT+mGI slJY+xpUWFJh/4+0ZZEcEAGgh/BOQNqwiKP/KDN7MgOvBL8ylMBxW7mjqN9+ENoTlBPdIbHgYu5B QzD/7ZNBUO6ErEO0oUoh1LD+sP9jMcniU7A1gFlAtSBLQt31/7eAUpDDIVLhg2fZkyDhgjH/00qV YbBRuTIHYxgnZBO/If82IC/aZ3JlofCR3gNZQB1w//VA45KPs0EWQoR3gRTSPrrvfeFELysVSnRq mkHMQh3T33xziLI+NmgRpaRGxgFm0OP1UcCQSC0xeKF/scTy3yHERnnT9v9iLtJGR6+uEP++gSXm GwIihkt3jVI/gRo1/3jgUtdEsBeRUsDDsNICS3X/feG1QP5AeOB2AFxQaoHJwf+qENxB6kxhw4iy XIGLEVvB/+9DCBFMpWMxnFHZUIXB2UD/ydCb883HO3F/EMf0YAGLM/9rI5oBmgDXALUgjXB0UdRB 35Czv6eBxTsAVOA6FbClU+cB4rHCeOF5cMwBgHF44DgtODOlA2yAYQw2OK+lAgvD2hD/83RhkiJz s/4iWOLSIWqgXYB6UH8ghwL/y+NkYuo9j7OvAXuDrTHvVP99c5YRccDh0N9Ac+KNUvWj5/E/Ez+a DVVo5VFzISkR//UzFkO3kQ5AVhGmEVYR/+b+Lf1RQsH98P1gFgGjqHyC+DUuN5p2J5KP0g+B4JP/ ecF6UKoR34Gu1HejeXLWUf+ckXjgtsGesZeSc9s1Ve+W/6+1nHCFwAaQQJYzg68C4aH/HOOfQtIQ AVDZQA5A1lWx4K1CsXh3qcW2Y2TQZu/BPzgIYnGHgr/RlyIWhDEv/jSIo12RPXE51B9zd7Y4CO/c Zq01mgHqAW2nrDYvmun+JykRHIG5UOCThsJ2QoRg/nkWQsojwYWm9bGAAfEvwfd+8wkl0QFjSme1 IKyx1NP/JsYOw4nD5/IsQQcDNQKxtO5+KfFM8T4BfkziGBBcku9ekrZzxdGssWUggH9QhQH/WpGL MKSAfICUkOKhWDRk8P8OoAgCunN9peEByKJdE90h/2Yw0FGmYOfQjBP4wciSCPT/uTOSs3E1ZPDC wZTD+qGs8H8foK0BDFBCUJiy4hCRcnR/cjH2YEp2YUHZQDCQ4JFBf1715ePjJa5RjdNK0qNFQdpN 4RFsGoC4o20AUKyQbmhR8KZgvxJnZXAG0VT/pWFR8D3g5IDHUPCSX6Gv0b0GMWPa0HxAxNInUTVU s79WAqYc32DRsl3RLDI1SyD/UfDkgLFVJ1EFMEsgsYCVcP/rQdGy1MTfQOZArsIMUeCCr+twkIQa qZ72KHIyZt4A9yyBs4AagC/kQL/RF+JUIt+5UGVxBmHHQPBwKZbILkL/JYTjUKUCqsKTVJfjJsHH Qf9d8pfjH2EhACYRPIEhwApj/wHw6GB/UPsirtgC5gHhMOP/OUK/IP7RyzEI9NQF1mAOQP9josBi maFUIJkw3QGyctTA/z/BspamNfrRpCW+JAeRVAH/zCF7gmJwVCDMkbkk8HC5BO8qI1+hOwApEWdk 0CySb4L//fAmwcwz+yLRAYcxaw9sH/8RzImCDJMMs0vgxjOxM18j/yHRx3IkYyfUJDSJgvWiD6DP eCeENcrTCSVGQyBgymL/6CAWQj4BKDBlwPrgJ1Dn0//MEXnBDFFqMkxhxtKEL4U/X+rW6j2978qW BZZ9yXAAAc9AAAADABAQAAAAAAMAERABAAAAQAAHMCBQ+Y5ZeMABQAAIMCBQ+Y5ZeMABHgA9AAEA AAAFAAAAUkU6IAAAAADG6A== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B. Keith Peshak" <keith.peshak(at)gtwn.net>
Subject: Flying is too dangerous - a complete solution
Date: Jan 07, 2001
Here are some thoughts about aircraft collision avoidance (you aren't going to fly are you?): The ADS-B Capstone web site states it has equipped 74 airplanes to operate in Alaska, within about 20 miles radius around this one VOR, where they have shut down and borrowed the TACAN frequency (DME gone). The last time I talked to an ADS-B project engineer was Oshkosh when they had the DC-8, or whatever it was, and they were letting the public sit in the cockpit and look at the equipment. The guy who claimed he was responsible for the bill of materials told me that these units are $330,000 each. So, the expenditure for the whole airborne existing system has been on or about $24,420,000.00 The FAA claims that there are 220,000 airplanes that are capable of flight in this country. We all agree the number is much lower in reality, but let's use it. At $500 per airplane, which allows a good profit inside that number for the avionics install shop, we could equip every aircraft there is for $110,000,000.00 So, we have already spent, for an experiment, 22.2% (probably more like 40.7%) of the entire implementation cost of a demonstrated working system, AIS-P, nationwide, for just an Alaska experiment. What did we find out from that ADS-B experiment, combined with what we found out about AIS-P? One thing was, the ADS-B idea needs to find a new "data link". What does that mean? Well, ADS-B won't work without a station on the ground close by, and what they are doing isn't working well enough. How much does that ground station cost, anybody know? How much would it cost to pepper the continental US with these stations, every how far apart; anybody know? And they have to change what they are doing, they know; so, what are they going to do, anybody know? And the FAA is screaming that they are short of frequencies, and the airlines would scream if you abruptly shut off the highways in the sky with nothing to replace it with, so, what frequency are they going to use, anybody know? We know AIS-P works, and it does not use any government signals from special stations for aircraft collision avoidance. That means it not only works, as it is, by itself, but it works just everywhere, and it works right now. http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/taillight.htm The solution to the worst air traffic delays ever experienced coincident with the lowest level of air safety ever experienced, without the FAA expanding restricted airspace, and without the FAA lowering vertical separation (what was a pull your license safety infraction, will now be standard operational procedure); by allowing the guy in the front office of the airplane to know about all of the other airplanes around him, what Jane calls filling in all the radar voids, without talking to an FAA guy over a radio responsible for collision avoidance for hundreds of other airplanes, that his equipment can't see or accurately locate (target position is radar site dependent, some stuff just doesn't show). By the way, we are nice engineers, so this AIS-P transponder fix also repairs all of the FAA listed problems that they have with ATCRBS ("radar"), for free. Think of it, for the very first time, a redundant, double independent, collision avoidance system (the opposite of "sole use" and "one jackscrew" - if one breaks [FAA radar is always failing because of new software, wire cuts, power went out], you still have the other). Got the picture? Why is the FAA Administrator, who promised immediate certification in August 1999, done absolutely nothing, anybody know? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Flying is too dangerous - a complete
solution At 09:01 AM 1/7/2001, you wrote: > >Here are some thoughts about aircraft collision avoidance (you aren't >going to fly are you?): I fly "in the system" all the time. I fly both VFR and IFR. >The ADS-B Capstone web site states it has equipped 74 airplanes to operate >in Alaska, within about 20 miles radius around this one VOR, where they >have shut down and borrowed the TACAN frequency (DME gone). The last time >I talked to an ADS-B project engineer was Oshkosh when they had the DC-8, >or whatever it was, and they were letting the public sit in the cockpit >and look at the equipment. The guy who claimed he was responsible for the >bill of materials told me that these units are $330,000 each. So, the >expenditure for the whole airborne existing system has been on or about >$24,420,000.00 We are also talking about prototype hardware for transport category aircraft. Of course the one-off hardware is expensive. It is also a government project which also adds to the price. It in no-way represents real costs to real GA uses down the road. >The FAA claims that there are 220,000 airplanes that are capable of flight >in this country. We all agree the number is much lower in reality, but >let's use it. At $500 per airplane, which allows a good profit inside >that number for the avionics install shop, we could equip every aircraft >there is for $110,000,000.00 So, we have already spent, for an >experiment, 22.2% (probably more like 40.7%) of the entire implementation >cost of a demonstrated working system, AIS-P, nationwide, for just an >Alaska experiment. > >What did we find out from that ADS-B experiment, combined with what we >found out about AIS-P? > >One thing was, the ADS-B idea needs to find a new "data link". What does >that mean? It means they want a data link that is independent of anything else. I certainly don't see a problem with that and it even makes some sense. You just need a digital broadcast transmitter and a receiver. You can use Aloha or CSMA for your access method if you have enough bandwidth to burn. They FAA won't want to do that because it is not sufficiently deterministic for their tastes would be my guess. So you will have to come up with a TDMA slot-assignment scheme and use GPS for synchronization since it has to be there anyway (BTW, this is the kind of stuff I am working on and we are getting 50 Megabits per second with dirt-cheap hardware). >Well, ADS-B won't work without a station on the ground close by, Bulls---. ADS-B or any system like it will work aircraft-to-aircraft using any broadcast data link you care to supply so long as all aircraft use the same data link. You only need hardware on the ground if you want to have someone on the ground participate, maybe someone like ATC. >and what they are doing isn't working well enough. How much does that >ground station cost, anybody know? It shouldn't cost more than the cost of the airborne transceiver ($500 by your reconning) and the cost of a home computer (preferably running something reliable instead of Microsoft Windows). >How much would it cost to pepper the continental US with these stations, >every how far apart; anybody know? Sure. People do radio coverage calculations all the time. In fact, I would bet that the VOR network probably gives you a pretty good idea. >And they have to change what they are doing, they know; so, what are they >going to do, anybody know? No, but we can bet it won't be pretty. >And the FAA is screaming that they are short of frequencies, and the >airlines would scream if you abruptly shut off the highways in the sky >with nothing to replace it with, so, what frequency are they going to use, >anybody know? There is a heck of a lot of spectrum available. Their idea to "steal" a DME freq is a good one but not really universal if the DMEs are still going to work. I would say piggyback it on your transponder signal if it could be done without breaking the existing system but I won't hold my breath for that one. Also the FCC has reserved a whole bunch of spectrum for RADAR and radio navigation that isn't really being used so that could be used and that doesn't impact the current spectrum allocation for voice and nav. >We know AIS-P works, and it does not use any government signals from >special stations for aircraft collision avoidance. That means it not only >works, as it is, by itself, but it works just everywhere, and it works >right now. But what is the chance that AIS-P will be adopted? Zero? Very near zero? You keep forgetting the political factor and it is probably more powerful than the technical factor. Once the FAA comes out against something or for something else, you have to allow them to save face. You have to figure out how to craft the new system so that on the surface it looks enough like the crap they were pushing while building something real underneath. >http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/taillight.htm The solution to the worst >air traffic delays ever experienced coincident with the lowest level of >air safety ever experienced, without the FAA expanding restricted >airspace, and without the FAA lowering vertical separation (what was a >pull your license safety infraction, will now be standard operational >procedure); by allowing the guy in the front office of the airplane to >know about all of the other airplanes around him, what Jane calls filling >in all the radar voids, without talking to an FAA guy over a radio >responsible for collision avoidance for hundreds of other airplanes, that >his equipment can't see or accurately locate (target position is radar >site dependent, some stuff just doesn't show). By the way, we are nice >engineers, so this AIS-P transponder fix also repairs all of the FAA >listed problems that they have with ATCRBS ("radar"), for free. Think of >it, for the very first time, a redundant, double independent, c! >ollision avoidance system (the opposite of "sole use" and "one jackscrew" >- if one breaks [FAA radar is always failing because of new software, wire >cuts, power went out], you still have the other). > >Got the picture? Why is the FAA Administrator, who promised immediate >certification in August 1999, done absolutely nothing, anybody know? My first version of this paragraph wasn't too complementary. Suffice it to say that you need both the political and the technical solution. Technical alone won't do it. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: The rest of that
At 08:06 PM 1/6/2001, you wrote: > >Oh, yes, true, but... There is always a but. >See, the thing with the FAA is, nobody in there knows anything about >electricity. To understand the organism, you have to understand it's >rules. > >Rule one: Single digit IQ. Possibly single digit number of working >neurons. Possibly a base two digit. > >Rule two: If you ever do anything wrong, you are responsible. You can >even be sued, now. > >Rule three: If you ever do anything wrong, you lose your retirement and >your job. Which means you can't push people around anymore just for the >fun of it. > >Rule four: There is no measure of productivity - no penalty for never >doing anything your whole entire career, so long as you show up. > >Now, how exactly, given the intelligence level, can it totally avoid >making any mistakes? Well, we can beat up on the FAA all we want but there are two observations: 1. there are still some people who think left in the FAA; not many, but some; 2. you ain't ever going to get people to agree with you if you keep calling them stupid. Yes, it is easier and safer to say "no" than to try something new. But there are some out there making it work with the FAA. >>Why not? 1090 MHz is practically DC these days. Power devices that >>work >>at 1 Gig are readily available, especially at the power levels that >>transponders work at. > >I wish you were right, as far as me. When I got the Bachelors, under >guys like Jim Beyer and J.B.Miller, I knew smith charts, S parameters, >waveline transformers, ... When I got drafted into the army/navy, I >took basic in the Army, AIT in the Army in radar school, blew the doors >off their exam, got ordered to take a navy radar exam, blew the doors >off that (finished [nobody had ever done that], got 100%, turned in an >extra paper on "I put down what you wanted for #189 but there is no >correct answer and this is how you really do it and this is the real >correct answer"). There was a naval intelligence investigation. I got >assigned to set up and teach the Great Lakes ETR school. Never could >get the knack of how to salute, everybody said I always got it wrong. >That was then. I can't do any of that stuff anymore. I think the laws >of physics changed while I been doing IC stuff for 30 years. Well, radio is back in vogue again. The schools haven't been turning out too many RF guys for about 20 years but it is on the upswing now that digital is really fast and everything looks like a transmission line. >>You don't need a synthesizer, just a TCXO followed by a bunch of >>multipliers. > >I need a 1090 MHz receiver at about -90 dbm MTL with a fast attack AGC. >You busy? Well, I was talking about the transmitter and/or the LO chain, but OK. >>Your PA is the buffer. Your oscillator is the TCXO. It is going to be >>a whole bunch of multipliers away from the PA and its buffer/driver. Your >>freq stability is going to have nothing to do with what happens to the >>feed line or the antenna. > >Well, see, that's what I tried to tell you. The FAA won't do anything >new. It gotta be 30 years old technology, or it can't go in an >airplane. Hasn't proved itself. Oh, bulls---. I am not talking new technology. I am talking technology from back in the 50's with the exception of generating 100W pulses with solid state devices. Heck, we could freq lock the lighthouse tube cavities if we wanted to go to the trouble (expense). Generating 100W pulses with transistors attached to microstripline matching sections just isn't that hard. I can't imagine it is more expensive than lighthouse tubes, their B+ supply, and a cavity these days. >Now, unplug your brain (pretend you >are an FAA avionics certification engineer). There used to be cavities. > Don't know what they are, can't spell "Q", one stage power switched >oscillator, output goes right to the antenna. No more cavities, cavity >bad word. How about, a tube is a transistor, replace it with a >transistor. What was a cavity? A tuned transmission line (it aint a >cavity). Well, put a lan on a PCB. That ought to do it. No new >fangled, unproven, whadda need extra transistors for, more to go wrong, >must be more unreliable. I don't buy it. >Yes, I know, I couldn't believe it either, until I finally figured out >that they are all that way. Some, yes. All, no. >>I am a ham who builds things. I am >>smart enough to know that power oscillators went out with Flappers and >>Prohibition. I can't imagine a radio-based product that has no >>frequency determining element besides the output stage. > >And, remember, this is a safety of life device, and the only device for >collision avoidance. Could you put in for Administrator under Bush? I >could work with you. My father was considered for Administrator under his father's administration but I am not close enough or active enough politically to pull that off. It would be fun tho'. >>Diodes? Where? We talking about receiver muting or something in the >>mixer? Low noise front end devices with high third-order intercept >>points are fairly cheap as are MMIC gain blocks. Hot-carrier balanced mixers >>are cheap too. I can't imagine that a single-freq receiver at 1GHz would >>cost more than about $30 in parts and that is if I don't get any cost benefit >>from ASICs. Can I use the same frequency reference for both the RX and >>TX? That will help keep the cost down. > >The transponder receiver consists of a comb filter, usually four or five >rods, end capacitance tuned to 1030 MHz. Well, I think of something else as a comb filter. A SAW filter has the characteristic passband of a comb filter. Be that as it may, you have a good preselector on the front end. >There is a local oscillator, >which feeds a something like triple frequency parallel tuned circuit. >That feeds a tripler diode. There is no tuned circuit. That is the >injection point for the 1030 MHz, with a Fairchild FH-1100 hot carrier >diode. I guess that with the tight preselector they weren't worried about images. Sounds cheap to me. But now it is easy to generate the kind of LO power needed to drive a diode ring DBM. Better dynamic range and resistance to overload. Better noise figure too. You should be able to do a receiver with 90 db of dynamic range without too much trouble. >The output has an IF tuned circuit. It's a single ended mixer, >with a very low noise, very low cutin voltage, with no bias, first >detector. > >When the world ran out of FH-1100s, a substitute needed to be found. Yeah, a better receiver design that didn't use a single diode as a mixer. I remember single-diode mixers in the 1962 ARRL handbook. I guess that low-cost and simple diode mixers were still in the 1970 handbook but they started talking about hot-carrier diode DBMs about then too. >Now we get into proprietary, but I can tell you the result: MTL went >from, typically, -83 dbm to, typically, -68 dbm. Consequently, "radar" >range dropped significantly. > >That be what is out there in damn near everything. That doesn't mean it should stay that way. >>Uh, we are building a wide, fast, frequency-agile digital receiver for >>5.7 GHz at work. We expect it to be done in a month, not a year. We expect >>that the whole system, which will be an order of magnitude more complex >>than an aircraft transponder, to sell for about 1/4 the price of a cheap >>transponder. What is the problem? > >You're hired. Thanks, but I am not the RF guy. I am just the network guru. >We're not paying you anything. You can catch more flies with money. >You want me to send the spec for the taillight receiver? It might be interesting. >I want to get this down from ~$3000 to >~100 so we can have an illegal plastic box sit on the dash of the >aircraft, plug into a cigarette lighter plug, and feed the digital data >to a laptop or yoketop PC platform for the picture. All you need to do >is get the 1090 MHz AM pulses to my schmitt trigger, TTL mid level >threshold, clamp it at 5 volts, fast attack AGC (one target 50 miles >away at 200 watts, one right next to you). I have a front end schmitt >(for funny rise/fall or slow edge removal) feed the ASIC that does all >of the data recovery, data checking, error control and recovery, output >sentence construction, and output modem. The PC looks at serial >sentences, one per target, that say latitude, longitude, altitude in >pressure gray code, direction and speed. I will work on it in my spare time. >You put it in a plane and you tried it. I would too. You think that >the FAA and the FCC are going to cooperate to catch your evildoing? > >Yes. You might be right. I suspect you have annoyed them powerfully, enough that they just might try to get you. Telling people how stupid they are really, really pisses them off. Being right doesn't help. >eJ8+IhgEAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG >AEQBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAFUAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd >AQ9UAgAAAABhdmlvbmljcy1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20AU01UUABhdmlvbmljcy1saXN0QG1h >dHJvbmljcy5jb20AAAAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABwAAABhdmlvbmljcy1s I don't want to do the analysis on this. My PGP key is available from the servers if you want to send me something encrypted. If it was just an envelope for something else, my software didn't recognize it. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B. Keith Peshak" <keith.peshak(at)gtwn.net>
Subject: Flying is too dangerous - a complete solution
Date: Jan 08, 2001
Ouch, what? We are also talking about prototype hardware for transport category aircraft. Of course the one-off hardware is expensive. It is also a government project which also adds to the price. It in no-way represents real costs to real GA uses down the road. Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear. Bill of materials is not a final price, it is what has to be bought to make it, including labor in this case, as I best understand what I was told. There is a price volume relationship, as you allude to. They were figuring that once the FAA orders every airplane to have it or discontinue flying, the price would drop to about $12,000 for a real low end GA cut down version without things that a "data link" was being advertised to provide, like weather pictures and internet and digital radio, .... It means they want a data link that is independent of anything else. I certainly don't see a problem with that and it even makes some sense. You just need a digital broadcast transmitter and a receiver. You can use Aloha or CSMA for your access method if you have enough bandwidth to burn. They FAA won't want to do that because it is not sufficiently deterministic for their tastes would be my guess. So you will have to come up with a TDMA slot-assignment scheme and use GPS for synchronization since it has to be there anyway (BTW, this is the kind of stuff I am working on and we are getting 50 Megabits per second with dirt-cheap hardware). Two things there that you missed. The problem with a new frequency is that they need approval from the World Radio Conference. That is hard to get, witness the difficulty faced by Galileo, where that GNSS capability far surpasses Glonass, which itself far surpasses GPS even with SA off (which, by the way, killed RAIM - no more integrity). Galileo won, got what they needed, GPS lost, didn't get all they needed, ADS-B was a no show, didn't get anything. All of that was settled last June. You need to keep up. And the ADS-B proposed mops, by the way, is CSMA and is slotted aloha, obviously. It doesn't contain the collision enforcement and backoff algorithm that made Aloha into Ether Net, which means it is collapsible. That's right, breaks down to nobody gets through. Not, in my opinion, a good mops. Deterministic it isn't, which is why there proposed mops won't make it through any review on which a degreed engineer sits. We've known all of this stuff since the first satellites went up. ADS-B or any system like it will work aircraft-to-aircraft using any broadcast data link you care to supply so long as all aircraft use the same data link. You only need hardware on the ground if you want to have someone on the ground participate, maybe someone like ATC. Covered that. WRC. The part of my last that you, obviously, missed is the talker that talks more bits to cover the necessary information has less capacity. All else being equal, because all else can be made equal (power, sensitivity, bandwidth), the option that uses less time per message can support more messages. That is where AIS-P always wins, no matter what ADS-B does, until ADS-B becomes AIS-P (and we win that way). That is why the web site (http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/taillight.htm) tells everybody how to build it. Now that you know how to build it, all you have to do to get the price down where we have it is to design the chips. Since that will cost about a $1M per try, and chips are running about three trys before they yield to timing, we provide that for you, at dirt cheap thanks to the great contributions from Actel. It shouldn't cost more than the cost of the airborne transceiver ($500 by your reconning) and the cost of a home computer (preferably running something reliable instead of Microsoft Windows). $30 dollars, by your reckoning. Get busy at that 1090 MHz receiver design you promised to do. There is a heck of a lot of spectrum available. No, third time, no frequency available anywhere. Ask Jane (she calls me Keith). All the Oshkosh confrontations are available on tape and over the internet. I would say piggyback it on your transponder signal if it could be done without breaking the existing system but I won't hold my breath for that one. Now we are down to the level of AvWeb - you haven't done your homework, you are spouting gibberish, you are wasting my time. We did it, it works, it's proven, it's demonstrated, there is no question remaining, read the web site. But what is the chance that AIS-P will be adopted? Zero? Very near zero? You keep forgetting the political factor and it is probably more powerful than the technical factor. Once the FAA comes out against something or for something else, you have to allow them to save face. You have to figure out how to craft the new system so that on the surface it looks enough like the crap they were pushing while building something real underneath. There you go, that is the problem, properly identified. And that is the only remaining problem. FAA no longer serves the benefit of society. FAA costs lives and wastes money and generally screws up everything that they touch. Unfortunately, the only people that know that are the people in aviation that have actually had close in contact with the monster on a repeated basis. Anybody and everybody with any kind of certificate lives in fear of these idiots. They don't know anything, they can't test anything and get it right (except for Talotta), they have no common sense (single jackscrew to move the elevator). Now we know the problem, the whole problem, and the complete boundary of the problem. Time to deal with it. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B. Keith Peshak" <keith.peshak(at)gtwn.net>
Subject: I don't have time for this
Date: Jan 08, 2001
Thanks, but I am not the RF guy. I am just the network guru. Thanks, figured that out. Statements like: I guess that with the tight preselector they weren't worried about images. Sounds cheap to me. But now it is easy to generate the kind of LO power needed to drive a diode ring DBM. Better dynamic range and resistance to overload. Better noise figure too. You should be able to do a receiver with 90 db of dynamic range without too much trouble. You, obviously, have no knowledge nor experience in this area. You have the words, but you don't have the do, and just gave away that you haven't a clue. Nice BS job though, you kept me going longer than the average internet "expert" wag who has never actually built anything. 1. there are still some people who think left in the FAA; not many, but some; And that error shows a complete lack of significant experience working with the FAA. It is common practice to "shop" for an ACO or EMDO engineer in the Fucked-up Ass-hole Association to certify an avionics box. There are no people in there with any level of knowledge of electricity at all. Even the very best and brightest they got, in this case Nick Talotta at the tech center (went out and tried to measure, got the requirements and procedure and equipment correct, took good reproducible data) backed off against a wild ass stupid attack from a three letter group (so I defended him - http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/AEA.htm). First time for everything. Got to go now. Hope you understand I don't have time to train a BSer. You claimed it was easy, you claimed you were a ham that builds things, go design that receiver. I'll help when you get started. Being a ham, I don't even demand, now, reproducibility from you; just build one that meets what you claim is possible and send it over here. We'll measure and return a report card. It's worth the effort, who knows, without knowledge that you can't do that, maybe you will come up with an idea. That's usually the way new technology gets started. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Flying is too dangerous - a complete
solution At 11:35 PM 1/7/2001, B. Keith Peshak wrote: >allude to. They were figuring that once the FAA orders every airplane to >have it or discontinue flying, the price would drop to about $12,000 for a >real low end GA cut down version without things that a "data link" was >being advertised to provide, like weather pictures and internet and >digital radio, .... I don't buy that price, even in smaller quantities. Maybe the very first units but not after that. Your basic GPS/comm has everything you need in one package. OK, they are going to go with a different data link but that isn't rocket science. >Two things there that you missed. The problem with a new frequency is >that they need approval from the World Radio Conference. Maybe. There is already spectrum allocated for aerial navigation and RADAR that isn't used. >That is hard to get, witness the difficulty faced by Galileo, where that >GNSS capability far surpasses Glonass, which itself far surpasses GPS even >with SA off (which, by the way, killed RAIM - no more integrity). Galileo >won, got what they needed, GPS lost, didn't get all they needed, ADS-B was >a no show, didn't get anything. All of that was settled last June. You >need to keep up. To date, I haven't tried to keep up. >And the ADS-B proposed mops, by the way, is CSMA and is slotted aloha, >obviously. It doesn't contain the collision enforcement and backoff >algorithm that made Aloha into Ether Net, which means it is collapsible. You can't do collision detection in the RF domain (too much signal strength differential). You can do collision avoidance which does work well over the air. >That's right, breaks down to nobody gets through. Not, in my opinion, a >good mops. Deterministic it isn't, which is why there proposed mops won't >make it through any review on which a degreed engineer sits. We've known >all of this stuff since the first satellites went up. No, no, no, no, NO! Now you ARE in one of my areas of expertise (link layer protocols running over the air). You don't need a deterministic MAC layer. This is one of the arguments that have surfaced over and over again. Ethernet is not deterministic but it has finally made it into the cockpits of heavy iron (actually they are using ethernet switches which add queuing at the switch but that is all). There is nothing wrong with Aloha or slotted Aloha. You just have to keep offered traffic below the threshold that leads to congestive collapse (it is twice as high for slotted Aloha). CSMA improves things over slotted Aloha and if you adopt p-persistence, you can dial 'p' to move throughput up to something very close to channel capacity (I have operated packet radio links at over 70% of channel capacity using p-persistent CSMA). Throw in collision avoidance for big packets and you get very efficient spectrum usage that is resistant to congestive collapse. Sure it is a problem with satellites because they have such a large receiver footprint with tons of hidden terminals but that is not what we have with the airborne radios. Hidden terminals are much less of a problem for airplanes because they are supposed to hear each other, being in general proximity. Those you can't hear are far enough away that they disappear due to capture effect. >>ADS-B or any system like it will work aircraft-to-aircraft using >>any broadcast data link you care to supply so long as all aircraft use the >>same data link. You only need hardware on the ground if you want to have >>someone on the ground participate, maybe someone like ATC. > >Covered that. WRC. The part of my last that you, obviously, missed is the >talker that talks more bits to cover the necessary information has less >capacity. All else being equal, because all else can be made equal >(power, sensitivity, bandwidth), the option that uses less time per >message can support more messages. That is where AIS-P always wins, no >matter what ADS-B does, until ADS-B becomes AIS-P (and we win that way). Not completely but close enough. You have more problem with contention for the channel when you have more messages flying around so your capacity will go up with fewer, larger messages. It turns out that you lose a lot of capacity in overhead, preambles, etc. You also have to consider frequency re-use since you are mostly interested in those you can hear nearby, not those farther away. [Packet] collisions are not a problem if the far-away packet isn't interesting anyway. >That is why the web site (http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/taillight.htm) >tells everybody how to build it. Now that you know how to build it, all >you have to do to get the price down where we have it is to design the >chips. Since that will cost about a $1M per try, and chips are running >about three trys before they yield to timing, we provide that for you, at >dirt cheap thanks to the great contributions from Actel. > >>It shouldn't cost more than the cost of the airborne transceiver ($500 by >>your reconning) and the cost of a home computer (preferably running >>something reliable instead of Microsoft Windows). > >$30 dollars, by your reckoning. Get busy at that 1090 MHz receiver design >you promised to do. And be sure you hold your breath while you wait for me to do it. >>I would say piggyback it on your transponder signal if it could >>be done without breaking the existing system but I won't hold my breath for >>that one. > >Now we are down to the level of AvWeb - you haven't done your homework, >you are spouting gibberish, you are wasting my time. We did it, it works, >it's proven, it's demonstrated, there is no question remaining, read the >web site. No, I am not spouting gibberish. That is something I do only in my sleep. You are right in that I don't know AIS-P. Even so, I am a not-stupid capable of understanding. >>But what is the chance that AIS-P will be adopted? Zero? Very near >>zero? You keep forgetting the political factor and it is probably more >>powerful than the technical factor. Once the FAA comes out against >>something or for something else, you have to allow them to save face. You >>have to figure out how to craft the new system so that on the surface it >>looks enough like the crap they were pushing while building something real >>underneath. > >There you go, that is the problem, properly identified. And that is the >only remaining problem. FAA no longer serves the benefit of society. FAA >costs lives and wastes money and generally screws up everything that they >touch. Saying that won't get AIS-P fielded. It just riles up the critter and shuts down the higher centers of understanding. > Unfortunately, the only people that know that are the people in aviation > that have actually had close in contact with the monster on a repeated > basis. Anybody and everybody with any kind of certificate lives in fear > of these idiots. That is for sure. >They don't know anything, they can't test anything and get it right >(except for Talotta), they have no common sense (single jackscrew to move >the elevator). My PA-16 only has a single jack-screw to move the elevator. I am not too worried. >Now we know the problem, the whole problem, and the complete boundary of >the problem. Time to deal with it. Pissing in the general direction of the FAA will not yield the desired results either. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: I don't have time for this
At 07:47 AM 1/8/2001, you wrote: > >Thanks, but I am not the RF guy. I am just the network guru. > >Thanks, figured that out. Statements like: I guess that with the tight >preselector they weren't worried about >images. Sounds cheap to me. But now it is easy to generate the kind of LO >power needed to drive a diode ring DBM. Better dynamic range and >resistance to overload. Better noise figure too. You should be able to do >a receiver with 90 db of dynamic range without too much trouble. > >You, obviously, have no knowledge nor experience in this area. You have >the words, but you don't have the do, and just gave away that you haven't >a clue. I beg your pardon? The point I was making was that the bulk of my experience was on the protocol side. I have designed and built radios for fun, not for a living. If you want to talk data link capacity, you are in my arena. The point is, I am conversant on the whole problem, not just a piece of it. >Nice BS job though, you kept me going longer than the average internet >"expert" wag who has never actually built anything. Suit yourself. >1. there are still some people who think left in the FAA; not many, but some; > >And that error shows a complete lack of significant experience working >with the FAA. Oh, I have dealt with the FAA in the field. So far I have managed to get done what I wanted to ... but that was by picking and choosing out in the various FSDOs. You are right in that I haven't done it for electronics. >It is common practice to "shop" for an ACO or EMDO engineer in the >Fucked-up Ass-hole Association to certify an avionics box. There are no >people in there with any level of knowledge of electricity at all. Even >the very best and brightest they got, in this case Nick Talotta at the >tech center (went out and tried to measure, got the requirements and >procedure and equipment correct, took good reproducible data) backed off >against a wild ass stupid attack from a three letter group (so I defended >him - http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/AEA.htm). First time for everything. > >Got to go now. Hope you understand I don't have time to train a >BSer. You claimed it was easy, you claimed you were a ham that builds >things, go design that receiver. I'll help when you get started. Being a >ham, I don't even demand, now, reproducibility from you; just build one >that meets what you claim is possible and send it over here. We'll >measure and return a report card. It's worth the effort, who knows, >without knowledge that you can't do that, maybe you will come up with an >idea. That's usually the way new technology gets started. Thanks. And good luck by the way. I am sure that the FAA will adopt AIS-P just about any time now. You aren't likely to need my help or the help of anyone else I know. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "James Norman, M.D." <jnorman(at)yourdoctor.com>
Subject: I don't have time for this
Date: Jan 08, 2001
Yes, Gentlemen... Lets take this to a private thread. The rest of us are getting tired. -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 5:50 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: I don't have time for this At 07:47 AM 1/8/2001, you wrote: > >Thanks, but I am not the RF guy. I am just the network guru. > >Thanks, figured that out. Statements like: I guess that with the tight >preselector they weren't worried about >images. Sounds cheap to me. But now it is easy to generate the kind of LO >power needed to drive a diode ring DBM. Better dynamic range and >resistance to overload. Better noise figure too. You should be able to do >a receiver with 90 db of dynamic range without too much trouble. > >You, obviously, have no knowledge nor experience in this area. You have >the words, but you don't have the do, and just gave away that you haven't >a clue. I beg your pardon? The point I was making was that the bulk of my experience was on the protocol side. I have designed and built radios for fun, not for a living. If you want to talk data link capacity, you are in my arena. The point is, I am conversant on the whole problem, not just a piece of it. >Nice BS job though, you kept me going longer than the average internet >"expert" wag who has never actually built anything. Suit yourself. >1. there are still some people who think left in the FAA; not many, but some; > >And that error shows a complete lack of significant experience working >with the FAA. Oh, I have dealt with the FAA in the field. So far I have managed to get done what I wanted to ... but that was by picking and choosing out in the various FSDOs. You are right in that I haven't done it for electronics. >It is common practice to "shop" for an ACO or EMDO engineer in the >Fucked-up Ass-hole Association to certify an avionics box. There are no >people in there with any level of knowledge of electricity at all. Even >the very best and brightest they got, in this case Nick Talotta at the >tech center (went out and tried to measure, got the requirements and >procedure and equipment correct, took good reproducible data) backed off >against a wild ass stupid attack from a three letter group (so I defended >him - http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/AEA.htm). First time for everything. > >Got to go now. Hope you understand I don't have time to train a >BSer. You claimed it was easy, you claimed you were a ham that builds >things, go design that receiver. I'll help when you get started. Being a >ham, I don't even demand, now, reproducibility from you; just build one >that meets what you claim is possible and send it over here. We'll >measure and return a report card. It's worth the effort, who knows, >without knowledge that you can't do that, maybe you will come up with an >idea. That's usually the way new technology gets started. Thanks. And good luck by the way. I am sure that the FAA will adopt AIS-P just about any time now. You aren't likely to need my help or the help of anyone else I know. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Flying is too dangerous - a complete
solution At 02:57 PM 1/8/2001, you wrote: > >Hey guys, maybe it's time for the two of you to take this thread private? I think it is over now. : ) Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Green" <jegreen(at)cdc.net>
Subject: I don't have time for this
Date: Jan 08, 2001
Brian, keep the good info coming! We can tolerate less professional (less informed?) contributers like B. Keith Peshak when the bulk of what we get on this list is useful and well-written information. Jeff Green ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: I don't have time for this
At 05:11 PM 1/8/2001, you wrote: > >Brian, keep the good info coming! We can tolerate less professional (less >informed?) contributers like B. Keith Peshak when the bulk of what we get on >this list is useful and well-written information. Thank you. I do apologize if I have offended anyone but I found the discussion interesting and educational for me. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Aucountry(at)Aol.com
Date: Jan 09, 2001
Subject: Re: I don't have time for this
In a message dated 1/8/01 10:27:30 PM, brian(at)lloyd.com writes: << Brian Lloyd >> Brian, did you go to Harris Ranch for New Years '99? Your name sounds familiar. I was there, I think we sat at the same table. I think you had a Piper Pacer... Gary Vogt ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B. Keith Peshak" <keith.peshak(at)gtwn.net>
Subject: I don't have time for this
Date: Jan 09, 2001
Tell you what, Brian, if you can ever build what you said was simple and cheap and easy, that 1090 MHz receiver with a -90 dbm sensitivity and a 90 db dynamic range, send over, we'll test it. If there is any way to make a manufacturable little plastic taillight receiver out of it, then we'll do it. I doubt you can do it. If you have any "good info" then put it to use. However, I suspect that you know that what you are claiming, though theoretically possible, is not practically doable. Noise floor, the need to be above zero Calvin, etc. The people on this forum don't know that stuff, so you have taken them in. Big victory - another internet nothing. If you had any brains at all, you could figure this one out: ADS-B mops says 5.5 millisecond message, says recirculation rate is every second (average rep rate). Everybody get only 181 message slots? Take the reciprocal. As a network guy, you claim, you should know that even if slotted protocols were 100% arbitable (they aren't), that's only 181 airplanes total max capacity. And what happened to weather pictures, digital radio, internet, everything else ADS-B said they would put it the cockpit (gone, aint it, and only 180 airplanes within 200 nautical miles for a collision avoidance max density). Look at it this way, you got Jeff eating out of your hand, but you can't build anything, and you can't even figure this simple stuff out. We're back to twit com level, and I don't have time to teach basics so basic. As for us, we solved the problem - the only collision avoidance system on the earth that works, works everywhere, is affordable, needs no new ground equipment (and you know the user fees that go to pay for that). Call me when you get even close to what we do now, and can demonstrate it, like we have. ADS-B is not even allowed to fly in the lower 48, and there is a good reason. Meanwhile, if you work on the receiver, I would like to get the cost down from the present $3,000 to that $30 you promised, and I'll help you; though I know you will never produce on your promise. The rest of this shit I don't have time for. ---------- From: Brian Lloyd[SMTP:brian(at)lloyd.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 12:26 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: I don't have time for this At 05:11 PM 1/8/2001, you wrote: > >Brian, keep the good info coming! We can tolerate less professional (less >informed?) contributers like B. Keith Peshak when the bulk of what we get on >this list is useful and well-written information. Thank you. I do apologize if I have offended anyone but I found the discussion interesting and educational for me. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax = = = = eJ8+IgYMAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AEQBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAFUAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABhdmlvbmljcy1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20AU01UUABhdmlvbmljcy1saXN0QG1h dHJvbmljcy5jb20AAAAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABwAAABhdmlvbmljcy1s aXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20AAwAVDAEAAAADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAHgAAACdhdmlvbmljcy1s aXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20nAAAAAgELMAEAAAAhAAAAU01UUDpBVklPTklDUy1MSVNUQE1BVFJP TklDUy5DT00AAAAAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAAAPWQgEIgAcAGAAAAElQ TS5NaWNyb3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQSAAQAuAAAAUkU6IEF2aW9uaWNzLUxpc3Q6IEkgZG9u J3QgaGF2ZSB0aW1lIGZvciB0aGlzAGcPAQWAAwAOAAAA0QcBAAkABgATADEAAgAuAQEggAMADgAA ANEHAQAJAAYAAgA7AAIAJwEBCYABACEAAABBNDlDQjdCNEY0RTVENDExQjUxQzNDNzEwNUMxMDAw MAAQBwEDkAYAkAsAABIAAAALACMAAQAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQAgMBJ2 NnrAAR4AcAABAAAALgAAAFJFOiBBdmlvbmljcy1MaXN0OiBJIGRvbid0IGhhdmUgdGltZSBmb3Ig dGhpcwAAAAIBcQABAAAAFgAAAAHAejZ2ErS3nKXl9BHUtRw8cQXBAAAAAB4AHgwBAAAABQAAAFNN VFAAAAAAHgAfDAEAAAAWAAAAa2VpdGgucGVzaGFrQGd0d24ubmV0AAAAAwAGEJL5vVcDAAcQ+AsA AB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAFRFTExZT1VXSEFULEJSSUFOLElGWU9VQ0FORVZFUkJVSUxEV0hBVFlPVVNB SURXQVNTSU1QTEVBTkRDSEVBUEFOREVBU1ksVEhBVDEwOTBNSFpSRUNFSVZFUldJVEhBLTkwREIA AAAAAgEJEAEAAAD5CQAA9QkAALASAABMWkZ1cvcf0v8ACgEPAhUCqAXrAoMAUALyCQIAY2gKwHNl dDI3BgAGwwKDMgPFAgBwckJxEeJzdGVtAoMzdwLkBxMCgH0KgAjPCdk78RYPMjU1AoAKgQ2xC2Dg bmcxMDMUUAsKFFGFC/JjAEAgVGVsAyASeQhgIHcRgHQsILpCByFuG8AGkBszYwORRGV2BJAgYnUD EGTbG3MbM3MLcB2RYQQgAJBybQtQZSAAcB2QEXBlTGFwHzMfoHN5G8B0Ex3CGTA5MAXQSHog8RYQ Y2VpHRID8CCAHzDEIC0g8WRibR4wCfDtAJB0IaAiAHkfMyJAInOBIpB5bmFtaWMhUN0ZAWUbwCLh HZBvHREbwHh3ZScbERPQE8AcQHTwLiAgSRxgIIAEkB8gHwQAHzEjgB6QI4B0byCNAMBrHyEoYW51 ZgDQrnQIcAGgHxFsIgB0HxE/C1ETwCSxAZADECnQZ2jvBUAhZwhgBUBvHGAiACBiOwnwJfVkKFAm tC1BdWL/HeQcwi1UCoUKhScBG0IRgNsdECezIhnNE1BvE9ApQNggZ28EcBxAbgIQGc91GtAiLJRw LAEiACgydXMRsCbRSG8mACWzLdBznTVgcDJSIIMbQmtuNdD/MS8yNArhM08ggx23CsAfIP5jC2Ek oBkQIGIIYCsgJyIvBbARwCSwB0BsI4Bwb/0EEGkpkRwxBCA3kAVAE1CfKTE9FS1QKYIm0U5vBAD/ HyAY4DKgJdEnMT5ACeAdkN0oQWIfIQbgMKF6BJAoUF5DB0AjUBwhEcBjJtFU+0DBNqBvHwICICBx J5ECEMxydSLALVBuJwVAN4L3IHQTwCkQZiUxKFAwRwGQXyiQQ/IT4DLRJtFCKxAg7yNQKUAFsCOA LR8xMjAnQf8y0RPQBKARwD5CRCAZECbU9zBEI8En0WIk4AuAJ6EFQN89MRvAHIMIYB2BZisQCHBf RtFEIgIgQ8EsADovPEHwRFMtQihgQ5AesSgQ8QQgNS41KGAq4hGwBaA/H1EHgR5AJRNP4iFhaXL2 Y0zAG6BpQ+Ek4BPQJ4L3HQIjgFC1KDCRJOAlECFR6x/AUuIpJtFFU3IG4CRgzzKASbECID1RMTga 0FEl4x4wFaB0cz9DESiCQLJvUgIyET0hJtFBJ6FA4XTqdwWwazKAdSBRHIM7ov1MRHM8QR2BRSgd AQOgHFH/V3IT0B2QMhJY4AbwBCAmANMnYRkwMCU7QWIiACmDXignMSOBFhBE4SkgZCf3TaJWhQtw cgtRQPAEIChA9wGQAyAAwHgcsQqwUiAjcO9ZIh9RHbMRgHA2oEDwQSO3JgAboEkScEhBTTFzG8C+ ZCsQXuEDICTgZaBvHDH/SWVCsVNySgMc8F3gHyBPJH8eQ19jWdBMwjTGQMEFoGP2a2UABUAoMpBA 8BvAC3H/JpJrESVyVnQhAGFIIfILgP4gAdAhACSALAA9ElBSB5F/RGEiMRWBUJFSojCQP/Bk3wBw IYBiMw2wIwJ5VUAvPP5MMqBaAB3RadMnkSgBTET7MpAFQEoNwSARIzBnsSv1/xtBBcARgB9QG8Ad UC43RPH/HVQnwUoDa6R2GFxzTQoe1bdFwyviJtFXJhAnYWIA0P9aAChBWcA1AQWgIsAfEB0Q/0wx H0It0kTiRqQHcXtzH6D3EXB7IQCQYx6xQVF+si8t/1lRbtI1YCXiRiFCcEESQ0L/A2ApkSLASLBA slZjbz9wQf8gQBPCQ9QfIB+gACA8gjqSf1nhgQKGIlNUG4AnUT4DYf8N0AWwcBA900DyPjJA4Qfg 1wnACGAf8nEdYHAHgGtRv1Qwd8VFJR8gNWEFwGYJ4P9hwR3CMpAoMgqwI4Bu0iCC/1VCQlFiIR8g hzEDoHNzSbH/XHM7kD2QffMds4ExLVE3kf9rpC6TE+ACIBPAUuQbsSnQ/yiRgTEwglkiTzM+JVxz PTH/NdFBIxjgI4BtcUCylMIFwPw0OGukJzgyhBYQHqACIPUm0U0foG4bgG6BHDdZ0/+E9SFmNjJp NJKTKEFWImoE+yaBLVB3eMEDYYHFB5CKMvgkMyxecCEAe4Idwp4g/yEAG0IyESSgEbB1oXyzJiLt H5BsH8AbQTs8Ji3QRSOfG0Mq4UDhHRIyEWR1cEH/Q+F1I5+VQwVlUSwTeVREIP8FQHz/RFIvLQr0 KdBsUQLR4GktMTQ0DfAM0Klz6QtZMTYyBy2rlwqHqkvrDDAyFkYDYTqsnjIWDIIHG9RyEBWgeWRb U03YVFA6S3AcAUCUsbDg+i58AV2sP61NBmACMK5/ta+LVApQc3AQIFFKKPE/CsAjgCDgG8BtoRrQ MTJoOjI2FLBNsm+tTVS+b7Svr4swkFKhftEtUJH8dEAAwJHwvNOyErivs36dLhBqMlG6z6+LUkXA wPpBvLZMvUHAwKY/jRUEAHOnn6ijMzaqFzGtq5A+z8LcVuc9gV0yYnnAwLBZNCA8sW0+Tk0FQDA1 JDoxGtBQTSDALzi2L7fSTER3MiJONj7If2vJj8qRInPzRwnSNFA848CACcNAY2RC8EmhzIb/1Bcb 5SiQVNFAsjKXe/I74f4hesEcsyhAHxBS426RBCDfMhGL4D2hAiBiESjYQs92xTLicgeAZD8pTJEC MF8FEHXRBJAEIJKTQibQS/shkCIRUAeQEYBaAI5jQLL9HVBsmcEcYJAWViTPdkQT970yJ4I1YWZM wB8zJgAbEP4tzxAp4VyS2kNSgy8tQzD/AHBaABtBLaUfMD2AFaBlwP9CABxCLdAwgywwi+AfUEER /yfBTcJ10i3QAhCJkkCyCoX/ZaAE8DVgb4NJUyZxZ6If4/+jYVKDYhFu0geALy0KhbBZZwqFsW0K hSsxUDCfIC6QNjc2Ls3QMTNIoQ9v4SGA7mjG0S44MzhgLjk2NjlIoSkgeOPrDwqyXy0983/0j/Wf //Ym8uhDI9A8eXI9gACAPNH/ymIF0L2WlpWJcSsg9znV4/9kAYlxBCAIUNsFUqFNoRxg/9DFBtDb cS8m818ALwE/9o/795PQw1IbAFLxHZB60CRA/lMiAAeQ9zn5+MDABnIrMEB0cDovL3cHMC7tvYsv BRrQw1M2oeUQJLD/wMAGzwfWvKsFGsBR6EDhUP5wUpIGYQoPB9Y2cA1DQXD3DGuFYX5xRRkQM2DP UA4P9w8YEQMFGkSc0Y+QSwAGZP8R3wsIESEhoQUL/NsRzwe499rnUqEFGk9JA8NyBlMZT/8H1v5A KtMc0f6/IH8hjyKf7/cqtGBSUCdhT1ZwEZEcQP+IEEmAZ6I/4IlAwuAq0V8D657h+gchBRpQWsBw QXUjv4gBK8Ik9OmS0UAwoTVekP+sJgWDK00dTwfWKQMffy8//zBPMV/3JjKPM5/GT8df62YKfb5Q ADfwAAAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAEAABzDAkDYcNHrAAUAACDDAkDYcNHrAAR4APQABAAAABQAA AFJFOiAAAAAA1gU ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2001
From: John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: I don't have time for this
"B. Keith Peshak" wrote: > -The rest of this shit I don't have time for. Then spare the rest of us from yours. John Schroeder ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MitchDCGS(at)Aol.com
Date: Jan 09, 2001
Subject: Re: I don't have time for this
Why is it that this bulletin boards is unable to have intelligent exchange of information and new ideas without resorting to the ridiculous bashing of individuals who wish to contribute? Granted, some people are more experienced in certain areas than others, but everyone has to start somewhere. Certainly everyone has the right to contribute!!! I believe that all technological advances today began as "ridiculous visions" from people with the insight to actually think beyond the limits of known technology of their time. Personally, I wish that those of you who want to continually bash others would just get off the bulletin board. You may be intelligent in your field of expertise, but you make it impossible for anyone to trust you or your information when it becomes obvious to the world that you are simply a cruel, brutal, heartless person capable of God only knows what!!!!! I would certainly never take advise or technical information from such an individual. Please spare those of us who are open to hearing any new ideas regardless of how far fetched they may currently seem. Please spare us all by leaving this bulletin board. Don ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil>
Subject: ionics-List:Do have time for this
Date: Jan 09, 2001
This has been the best read I've had in a while. Good discussion. Too bad it had to end badly. Grownups should be able to argue, disagree and still be cival. John -----Original Message----- From: John Schroeder [mailto:jschroeder(at)perigee.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:11 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: I don't have time for this "B. Keith Peshak" wrote: > -The rest of this shit I don't have time for. Then spare the rest of us from yours. John Schroeder ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "James Norman, M.D." <jnorman(at)yourdoctor.com>
Subject: ionics-List:Do have time for this
Date: Jan 09, 2001
Matt, I've had enough. Please remove me from the list. -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 11:38 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List:Do have time for this This has been the best read I've had in a while. Good discussion. Too bad it had to end badly. Grownups should be able to argue, disagree and still be cival. John -----Original Message----- From: John Schroeder [mailto:jschroeder(at)perigee.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:11 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: I don't have time for this "B. Keith Peshak" wrote: > -The rest of this shit I don't have time for. Then spare the rest of us from yours. John Schroeder ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hook57(at)Aol.com
Date: Jan 09, 2001
Subject: Re: ionics-List:Do have time for this
Yeah, Me too. Wasn't the jist of this to be informational and not someones crap tolerance. Remove me too please. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: I don't have time for this
At 11:31 PM 1/8/2001, you wrote: > > >In a message dated 1/8/01 10:27:30 PM, brian(at)lloyd.com writes: > ><< Brian Lloyd >> > >Brian, did you go to Harris Ranch for New Years '99? Your name sounds >familiar. I was there, I think we sat at the same table. I think you had a >Piper Pacer... Yes, that was me. I was flying a PA-16 Clipper. The Clipper has full-span ailerons (no flaps) and an O-235-C1 for power (108hp). It is a fun little airplane. Since it has a fuel tank between the panel and the firewall it was a challenge to shoehorn a full IFR panel in there. I only had about 3.5" vertically between the top of the fuel tank and the bottom of the glare shield for my radio stack so picking radios was a real challenge. How are things going for you? Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: I don't have time for this
At 04:19 AM 1/9/2001, you wrote: > >Tell you what, Brian, if you can ever build what you said was simple and >cheap and easy, that 1090 MHz receiver with a -90 dbm sensitivity and a >90 db dynamic range, send over, we'll test it. If there is any way to >make a manufacturable little plastic taillight receiver out of it, then >we'll do it. I doubt you can do it. I doubt I can do it either, at least not in a reasonable period of time. It has been decades since I have sat down and done a receiver from scratch. I was using diode and bipolar mixers back then too. But the proliferation of radio-based devices in the 500 JHz to 2.5 GHz spectrum has created a real cornucopia of useful building blocks to allow this to be done much more easily than it was 20 years ago. >If you have any "good info" then put it to use. However, I suspect that >you know that what you are claiming, though theoretically possible, is >not practically doable. Noise floor, the need to be above zero Calvin, Kelvin. Calvin was a theologian. >etc. The people on this forum don't know that stuff, so you have taken >them in. Actually, there are a number of knowledgeable people I have met on this list. You do them a disservice. >Big victory - another internet nothing. If you had any brains >at all, you could figure this one out: Oh, thank you; you are far too kind. >ADS-B mops says 5.5 millisecond message, says recirculation rate is >every second (average rep rate). Everybody get only 181 message slots? >Take the reciprocal. As a network guy, you claim, you should know that >even if slotted protocols were 100% arbitable (they aren't), that's only >181 airplanes total max capacity. You neglect capture or required carrier-to-interference ratio. You only really need to hear the guys near you and the those farther away are less interesting. They disappear in the noise. This works for me, the pilot, but it doesn't work for the ATC weenies on the ground. Actually, scattering a lot of receivers around on the ground gets them the same capture/override effect. You can do some interesting things with transmitter power management too. The result is a cellular-like system that will allow frequency reuse and concomitant increase in system capacity. How do you think we get all those cell phones on the air? >And what happened to weather >pictures, digital radio, internet, everything else ADS-B said they would >put it the cockpit (gone, aint it, and only 180 airplanes within 200 >nautical miles for a collision avoidance max density). First, you don't have to stick with the 5.5 ms slot time. These specs can be changed if necessary. (I know, we won't take FAA rigidity into account here.) Second, you can adopt a modulation scheme that crams a lot more data into that slot. Without going into overhead, the stuff we are working with here can cram about 250,000 bits into 5.5 ms. That is about 31KB of data. That is easily a compressed radar image in a single slot. It is certainly overkill for the position/velocity message needed for collision avoidance. If it were me I would adopt a slot reservation system, reduce slot size, and increase data rate to increase the capacity. I would also adopt transmit power management to reduce power and cell size in congested areas too. The key point is that an RF data link that does what we want to do *is* doable. >Look at it this way, you got Jeff eating out of your hand, but you can't >build anything, and you can't even figure this simple stuff out. We're >back to twit com level, and I don't have time to teach basics so basic. Well we all could stand to learn something, can't we. I suspect that you could stand to work on how to win friends and influence people. I thought we were going to have an interesting technical conversation with a free flow of information. I *know* I have things I can learn. I *know* I am not as stupid as you make me out to be. (Why do you feel you need to do that?) I also know that I have done some stellar science and engineering work in my life, certainly enough so that I am satisfied that my presence here on this earth has been a net gain for resources consumed. I hope you feel you can say the same about yourself. >As for us, we solved the problem - the only collision avoidance system >on the earth that works, works everywhere, is affordable, needs no new >ground equipment (and you know the user fees that go to pay for that). >Call me when you get even close to what we do now, and can demonstrate >it, like we have. And call me when your system is adopted. I will buy the first production hardware for it. It doesn't matter how good your engineering is if you manage to piss off the people who get to rule on whether it gets used. It seems to me that you might just be your own worst enemy. Too bad. Your system sounds like it is interesting and has some real potential. >ADS-B is not even allowed to fly in the lower 48, and >there is a good reason. Meanwhile, if you work on the receiver, I would >like to get the cost down from the present $3,000 to that $30 you >promised, and I'll help you; though I know you will never produce on >your promise. The rest of this shit I don't have time for. Well, I am sorry you feel that I wasted your time. Seems to me you chose to participate in this discussion and therefore you have some culpability. In spite of all this I hope to meet you someday. You sound like an interesting guy. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Joseph Bienkowski" <n2928l(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Life, the Universe and Everything Else!
Date: Jan 09, 2001
Brian, Sooo the "truth" comes out! You have full span ailerons to "clutter up" the trailing edge of your fine fabric wings. :-) I am pleased that you admit, at least I think this is what you did, that I could "probably" do a landing with extreme cross winds, on a hard surface, that you would NOT be able to do in the Clipper! I've come up against far too many tail wheel flyers who always fly off sod that try to tell me that their PA20 is "more" capable" in cross wind landings. I don't like bs whereever it comes from. I do agree with you about the hard surface vs sod differences. I also agree with you on the prop ground clearance issues. I also agree with you about the greater "awareness" and attention to detail in your tail wheel landings. We had an accident at KFZI, Fostoria, OH a few years ago. Seems a young student, post solo, was doing bumps and grinds in a rented 172. Did the landing, was rolling out and suddenly drove directly off the runway into a ditch. I've always concluded that some sort of stinging insect, or "something" did a short momentary distraction that caused one badly bent 172. Do you have any PA22 time? I've always been worried about doing the tricycle roll over to the left front or the right front in a turn. Maybe this has helped me be more careful on the landing roll. still I continue to hate that interval after the rudder and ailerons have ceased to provide "sufficient" directional control but the ship is still too light on the tires to do a proper job "driving". Where is your home? If you ever get near east central Indiana, PLEASE stop at either K7I2 or KMIE and give me a call. (765) 286-4483 and let us share a dinner or at least a cup of coffee! Best, Joseph Bienkowski, Muncie, IN ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian(at)lloyd.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 12:49 PM Subject: Re: RE: Avionics-List: I don't have time for this > > At 11:31 PM 1/8/2001, you wrote: > > > > > >In a message dated 1/8/01 10:27:30 PM, brian(at)lloyd.com writes: > > > ><< Brian Lloyd >> > > > >Brian, did you go to Harris Ranch for New Years '99? Your name sounds > >familiar. I was there, I think we sat at the same table. I think you had a > >Piper Pacer... > > Yes, that was me. I was flying a PA-16 Clipper. The Clipper has full-span > ailerons (no flaps) and an O-235-C1 for power (108hp). It is a fun little > airplane. > > Since it has a fuel tank between the panel and the firewall it was a > challenge to shoehorn a full IFR panel in there. I only had about 3.5" > vertically between the top of the fuel tank and the bottom of the glare > shield for my radio stack so picking radios was a real challenge. > > How are things going for you? > > > Brian Lloyd > brian(at)lloyd.com > +1.530.676.1113 - voice > +1.360.838.9669 - fax > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Removing yourself (was: Do have time for this)
At 09:49 AM 1/9/2001, you wrote: > >Yeah, Me too. Wasn't the jist of this to be informational and not someones >crap tolerance. Remove me too please. Mailing lists are interesting and useful places. Sometimes you see things you don't want to see but you just press the delete key and move on. This thread between me and Keith will probably end right about here and the rest of the list will go back to discussing various things like glass cockpits, does anyone have the wiring diagram for a KX-175, does anyone have an idea why I am having trouble with my transponder, etc. Sure you can leave but you will leave a widely varied group of people who like airplanes and happen to have an affinity for the electrical boxes in the panel. The choice is yours. BTW, to remove yourself from the list you need to go back to Matt's web site and remove yourself there. See http://www.matronics.com/avionics-list. From there you can select the subscription form to unsubscribe from the list. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2001
From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 01/09/01
> From: "B. Keith Peshak" <keith.peshak(at)gtwn.net> > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: I don't have time for this > > > [snip] > not practically doable. Noise floor, the need to be above zero Calvin, > etc. The people on this forum don't know that stuff, so you have taken > them in. [snip] I don't recall meeting you. How were you made aware of my qualifications? Impressed, Hobbs (of 'Calvin' and Hobbs fame) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: When WAAS?
At 09:13 AM 1/16/2001, you wrote: > >Does the FAA have a better estimate than "Real Soon Now?" A better question might be, "does the FAA have any idea as to whether it will ever work?" Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Jan 21, 2001
Subject: Matronics Web Server Upgrade...
B Dear Listers, I will be upgrading the Matronics Web Server this afternoon (1/21/01) and will be taking it offline for a number of hours. I hope to have it back online by this evening sometime, depending on how well the upgrade goes. Best regards, Matt Dralle Email List Admin. -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds discuss events, Small minds discuss people... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: kenwil <kenwil(at)botsnet.bw>
Subject: unsubscirbe
Date: - - - , 20-
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Milton J." <ateam(at)foothill.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 01/24/01
Date: Jan 25, 2001
What does it TAKE to get off this list? ----- Original Message ----- From: Avionics-List Digest Server <avionics-list-digest(at)matronics.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:54 PM Subject: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 01/24/01 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2001
From: Quilters Confectionery <qltconf(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: KLN 88 Loran Data Base and Manual
-I need an update to the database Cartridge and "Abbreviated Operator's Manual" for my Bendix/King KLN 88 Loran unit. The newer the better for the database. Any one have one that they would be willing to sell or any ideas where I could get one other than paying the $160 to King for a new database. -Also need an operations manual for a Narco AT-50A Transponder. Not even NARCO has one. Many Thanks, Larry owner of N22027. PS Is there a better place to list these needs? Should I consider updating the AT-50A. It works perfect. http://home.earthlink.net/~qltconf/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rick Fogerson" <rick1395(at)home.com>
Subject: Peltor Headphones for sale
Date: Feb 08, 2001
--I no longer fly but I have a set of Peltor headphones that I purchased from Vans. They are great headphones with only 100 hours on them. I will sell them for $170 and contribute 10% of that to the RV list for the benefit of listing them. Contact me at rick1395(at)home.com or Rick at 208-853-0436. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 11, 2001
From: Elbie(at)Aol.com (by way of Matt Dralle 925-606-1001 <dralle(at)matronics.com>)
Subject: Announcement
2/9/2001 Fellow Pilots and Builders: EM aviation is pleased to announce that the RiteAngle III Angle of Attack system is in production. I know this has been a long, long wait for some of you, however I will not sell a system that is not up to my standards. The long delay was partially caused by the total new design required after the RiteAngle 2000 system was terminated. The remainder of the delay was insuring the system met all our requirements such as both hot and cold environment testing. The first production group of systems off the line are being again extensively tested for approximately 2 weeks before we deliver any systems to insure there are no "bugs" appearing. When all production testing is accomplished I will ship according to who has sent in the order form via fax or US mail. (Again, DO NOT send your credit card number via e-mail! I DO NOT have a secure e-mail line.) If you want a spot in line for early delivery you can request this via e-mail, and mail your check or CC number. At present time I estimate 4- 10 weeks before your delivery, depending on when I receive your payment. To those of you who have been in correspondence with me for the last year, thanks for your belief in EM aviation's product, and soon you will have a product in your hands. I honor my correspondence of the quoted price. Current price $295 + mount & options see web site for information. www.riteangle.com Elbie Mendenhall President EM Aviation, LLC P NE Prairie Rd Brush Prairie WA 98606 360-260-0772 www.riteangle.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <pma(at)obtero.net>
Subject: Marker beacon antenna
Date: Feb 13, 2001
Hi All, I am seeking a bit of advice regarding fitting a MB antenna to my composite built Europa. The problem I have is that I am beginning to run out of "fuselage real estate" and I can't find room for a folded dipole 34.3" long. I was wondering if a single whip antenna made from copper foil 34.3" would do the trick ? I don't think I really need much of a reception range, because the aircraft is usually only 2 or 3 thousand feet away from the transmitter when reception really counts. I'd appreciate anyone's opinion and or advice on this. Thanks, Paul McAllister Builder 363 - http://pma.obtero.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ronnie Brown" <rolandbrown(at)sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: Marker beacon antenna
Date: Feb 14, 2001
I would question why? Why install a marker beacon? If you are going to fly IFR, and you don't have an IFR GPS, then go for it. Otherwise, I would say you are wasting your time and money installing a marker. Ronnie ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Marker beacon antenna
From: Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com
Date: Feb 14, 2001
02/14/2001 06:58:23 AM > I am seeking a bit of advice regarding fitting a MB antenna to my composite built Europa. The problem I have is that I am beginning to run out of "fuselage real estate" and I can't find room for a folded dipole 34.3" long. A marker beacon antenna does not need to be a half wavelength long because the signal is very strong. You can purchase one a few inches long from one of the avonics dealers. Maybe someone might have suggestions on how to build one? cheers, g. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)Aol.com
Date: Feb 14, 2001
Subject: Re: Marker beacon antenna
In a message dated 02/13/2001 5:24:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, pma(at)obtero.net writes: > Hi All, > > I am seeking a bit of advice regarding fitting a MB antenna to my composite > built Europa. The problem I have is that I am beginning to run out of > "fuselage real estate" and I can't find room for a folded dipole 34.3" long. > > I was wondering if a single whip antenna made from copper foil 34.3" would > do the trick ? I don't think I really need much of a reception range, > because the aircraft is usually only 2 or 3 thousand feet away from the > transmitter when reception really counts. I'd appreciate anyone's opinion > and or advice on this. > > > Thanks, > > Paul McAllister > Builder 363 - http://pma.obtero.net > Hi All, I just talked with Bob Archer about this. Bob's "build your Marker Beacon antenna" is a 40" long conductor connected to the center lead of the coax. Bob recommends leaving the coax shield open at the antenna end. (This reduces the effectiveness of the antenna. who wants to receiver the outer marker signal 2 miles early?) On a metal plane, Bob recommends mounting the conductor at the back of the wingtip 3" outboard from the wing skin. (Any open area in a composite wing should work as well.) Jim Ayers RV-3 N47RV ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gardner, Douglas (GA01)" <douglas.gardner(at)honeywell.com>
Subject: Avionics covers
Date: Feb 15, 2001
Anyone know of a plastic type cover for my King KLX135, and KT76A that would slip over the radios for a protective device ?? thanks, Doug Gardner Van's RV-8A Engine Installation Palm Harbor Florida ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Feb 23, 2001
Subject: 12v Dry Cells...
Hi Listers, This might have been discussed already, but a friend of mine passed the URL below on to me today and it seemed like something that might be handy for saving a few lbs in a plane. Anyone tried these drycells in an aircraft enviroment? Best regards, Matt Dralle -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds discuss events, Small minds discuss people... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2001
From: deltab(at)erols.com
Subject: Re: 12v Dry Cells...
WHich URL would that be?? BErnie C. Matt Dralle wrote: > > > Hi Listers, > > This might have been discussed already, but a friend of mine passed the > URL below on to me today and it seemed like something that might be > handy for saving a few lbs in a plane. Anyone tried these drycells in > an aircraft enviroment? > > Best regards, > > Matt Dralle > > -- > > Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 > 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email > http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft > > Great minds discuss ideas, > Average minds discuss events, > Small minds discuss people... > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: fuel probe wire
From: Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com
Date: Feb 26, 2001
02/26/2001 11:00:47 AM As part of the installation of leading edge wing tanks on my 601HD, I need to run an insulated wire from the capacitive fuel level probe on the inside of the tank to the outside. Is there a standard, normal way to do this? I thought a plastic shoulder washer might work, but I've not been able to find one yet. The tank walls are, of course, very thin. ideas appreciated... g. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Feb 27, 2001
"12v Dry Cells..." (Feb 23, 4:38pm) avionics-list(at)matronics.com, aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: 12v Dry Cells...
Hum, a couple of people pointed out that I was asleep when I posted

May 14, 2000 - March 07, 2001

Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-ad