Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-ae

March 07, 2001 - October 26, 2001



      this and forgot to include the URL.  Here's the URL for real this
      time...  ;-)
      
              http://www.performancedistributors.com/batteries.htm
      
      Best regards,
      
      Matt Dralle
      
      
      >--------------
      >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...
      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Craig Moen" <c.moen(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 03/06/01
Date: Mar 07, 2001
Anyone have any updates on Microair's Transponder? Craig ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chuck Deiterich" <cfd(at)tstar.net>
Subject: Fw: Avionics-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 03/07/01
Date: Mar 08, 2001
Craig, Here is a source of some info on the Microair Transponder. Chuck D. Chuck, Yes I do have quite a lot of information on the New Microair Avionics T2000 SF/SFL Transponder. I have a USER MANUAL and this morning have asked permission for this to be made available in electronic File so I am able to send it to genuine prospective customers. If and when this sanction is given I am willing to send it on with any other information that is individually requested but I will refrain in sending a general to all and sundry distribution out on the public groups Kindest regards Ashley Johnston Jabiru New Zealand > > Anyone have any updates on Microair's Transponder? > > > > Craig ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 12, 2001
From: Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org>
Subject: Airlink's Instrument panel
I contacted Airlink about their Zenith CH801 instrument panel deal - the "six-pack" of instruments described on their website at www.airlinktech.com This is also the panel that is in the ZAC demo CH801. I am thinking about buying this panel, but I wanted to talk with some users/installers first. I asked Airlink for references, but they said they didn't give out email addresses of their customers, which I can respect, but I still would like to talk to a satisfied customer. Has anyone on the list bought this panel or any of the instruments? I would like to hear about your experience. I would appreciate a reply off list. Gary Liming gary(at)liming.org 801 builder ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 12, 2001
From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com>
Subject: Re: Airlink's Instrument panel
> > >I contacted Airlink about their Zenith CH801 instrument panel deal - the >"six-pack" of instruments described on their website at >www.airlinktech.com This is also the panel that is in the ZAC demo >CH801. I am thinking about buying this panel, but I wanted to talk with >some users/installers first. I asked Airlink for references, but they said >they didn't give out email addresses of their customers, which I can >respect, but I still would like to talk to a satisfied customer. Hmmm, I'm suprised the manufacturer doesn't provide some forum for users to communicate. Maybe someone else has started one? Mfgrs who flat out don't want me to talk to any customer (I'm not saying that's the case here) make me a bit nervous... Bruce ----------------------------------------- WWW.SYSTRONIX.COM Fast 8051s, embedded Java and much more new! 8x1-Wire I/O board for 1-Wire nets +1-801-534-1017 Salt Lake City, USA ----------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 12, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Airlink's Instrument panel
At 10:04 AM 3/12/2001, you wrote: >Hmmm, I'm suprised the manufacturer doesn't provide some forum for users to >communicate. Maybe someone else has started one? Mfgrs who flat out don't >want me to talk to any customer (I'm not saying that's the case here) make >me a bit nervous... See http://www.matronics.com/zenith-list/ to subscribe to the Zenith builder's email list. It is right here. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 12, 2001
From: Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org>
Subject: Re: Airlink's Instrument panel
At 13:49 2001.03.12., you wrote: > >At 10:04 AM 3/12/2001, you wrote: > > >Hmmm, I'm suprised the manufacturer doesn't provide some forum for users to > >communicate. Maybe someone else has started one? Mfgrs who flat out don't > >want me to talk to any customer (I'm not saying that's the case here) make > >me a bit nervous... > >See http://www.matronics.com/zenith-list/ to subscribe to the Zenith >builder's email list. It is right here. I did post on the zenith list, and one of the members there suggested that I post on this one, like you just did. : ) Gary Liming 801 builder ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stephen Snell" <ssnell(at)amlinen.com>
Subject: RE:remove
Date: Mar 13, 2001
Please remove me from the list. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Matthew Mucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net>
Subject: RE:remove
Date: Mar 13, 2001
You subscribed yourself to the list, only you can unsubscribe yourself. What makes you think other list members can do it? Follow the "subscription" link that's at the bottom of every email sent to the list. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Stephen > Snell > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 9:17 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: RE:remove > > > Please remove me from the list. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2001
From: Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org>
Subject: Avionics master switch and bus
I am just now looking at power distribution, and I gather the idea for a separate bus and switch for the avionics is so that you can keep the switch off while you start the engine, and on after the engine is running and the alternator is providing power. Also, you want it on should the alternator fail. If that is so, wouldn't it make more sense to use a relay that cuts out the avionics when the starter switch is on, which would make sure that the avionics are protected while starting? Also, this eliminates the need for the avionics switch. If this makes sense, why does every Cessna I've ever seen have an avionics switch? Gary Liming ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2001
From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics master switch and bus
> > >I am just now looking at power distribution, and I gather the idea for a >separate bus and switch for the avionics is so that you can keep the switch >off while you start the engine, and on after the engine is running and the >alternator is providing power. Also, you want it on should the alternator >fail. > >If that is so, wouldn't it make more sense to use a relay that cuts out the >avionics when the starter switch is on, which would make sure that the >avionics are protected while starting? Also, this eliminates the need for >the avionics switch. > >If this makes sense, why does every Cessna I've ever seen have an avionics >switch? > >Gary Liming You want the avionics off until the engine is really running and the alternator and regulator have stabilized. A relay as you described would switch all the avionics on when the master was on, then off while you were cranking, then on and off if you stopped and restarted cranking, then on as soon as you let go of the key, even though the engine would not really be stable yet. This would power-cycle the avaioncis multiple times at each startup and give the avionics bus all kinds of power transients and surges which is what the avionics master is supposed to circumvent. Bruce ------- WWW.SYSTRONIX.COM ---------- Real embedded Java and much more High speed 8051 systems +1-801-534-1017 Salt Lake City, USA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil>
Subject: Avionics master switch and bus
Date: Mar 16, 2001
You need to get with electric Bob. See the AeroElectric forum and Bob Nuckolls web site. -----Original Message----- From: Gary Liming [mailto:gary(at)liming.org] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:45 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Avionics master switch and bus I am just now looking at power distribution, and I gather the idea for a separate bus and switch for the avionics is so that you can keep the switch off while you start the engine, and on after the engine is running and the alternator is providing power. Also, you want it on should the alternator fail. If that is so, wouldn't it make more sense to use a relay that cuts out the avionics when the starter switch is on, which would make sure that the avionics are protected while starting? Also, this eliminates the need for the avionics switch. If this makes sense, why does every Cessna I've ever seen have an avionics switch? Gary Liming ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil>
Subject: Avionics master switch and bus
Date: Mar 16, 2001
Gary, See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles.html -----Original Message----- From: Gary Liming [mailto:gary(at)liming.org] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:45 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Avionics master switch and bus I am just now looking at power distribution, and I gather the idea for a separate bus and switch for the avionics is so that you can keep the switch off while you start the engine, and on after the engine is running and the alternator is providing power. Also, you want it on should the alternator fail. If that is so, wouldn't it make more sense to use a relay that cuts out the avionics when the starter switch is on, which would make sure that the avionics are protected while starting? Also, this eliminates the need for the avionics switch. If this makes sense, why does every Cessna I've ever seen have an avionics switch? Gary Liming ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2001
From: "Gary Kozinski" <KOZINSKI(at)symbol.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics master switch and bus
Why add more complexity? I think you answered your own question. A switch is cheaper than a relay. Suggest consulting Bob Nichols at Aero Eelectric. Also, new electronics are protected from the spikes that olders systems produced. >>> gary(at)liming.org 03/16/01 02:45PM >>> I am just now looking at power distribution, and I gather the idea for a separate bus and switch for the avionics is so that you can keep the switch off while you start the engine, and on after the engine is running and the alternator is providing power. Also, you want it on should the alternator fail. If that is so, wouldn't it make more sense to use a relay that cuts out the avionics when the starter switch is on, which would make sure that the avionics are protected while starting? Also, this eliminates the need for the avionics switch. If this makes sense, why does every Cessna I've ever seen have an avionics switch? Gary Liming ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics master switch and bus
At 12:53 PM 3/16/2001, you wrote: > >Why add more complexity? I think you answered your own question. A >switch is cheaper than a relay. >Suggest consulting Bob Nichols at Aero Eelectric. Also, new electronics >are protected from the spikes that olders systems produced. A switch is a single point of failure. If the avionics master switch fails, you lose all your avionics. If you have a switch and a relay, you have two single points of failure. Add to that the master switch and master contactor as additional single points of failure and your electrical system isn't looking too robust. Yes, Bob Nuckols' book is good reading and well worth the price of admission. It covers how to build an electrical system for your aircraft that has no single points of failure. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Avionics master switch and bus
From: Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com
Date: Mar 19, 2001
03/19/2001 08:01:01 AM >I am just now looking at power distribution, and I gather the idea for a separate bus and switch for the avionics is so that you can keep the switch off while you start the engine ... I thought a lot about this when I redid my panel a year ago. I ended up with a switch for each electrical thingie, no avionics master switch. As a practical matter, I have found that this system is entirely satisfactory for me. There is a bit more flipping of switches than with an avionics master, but I usually need to let the engine warm up a bit anyway, so it does not make a trip any longer. I often shutdown without changing any switches; modern avionics can handle that with no problelm. I don't rely on the switches on the individual radios - they are just always on. I also don't have an emergency avionics bus as described in Bob Nuckolls' book. I think his system is good, but instead I have a dual electrical system, each is entirely independent from the other. As my gyros are all electric this gives me some peace of mind. Each radio, gyro, or whatever can be connected to either system. I usually have the AH connected to one and the TC to the other, for example, so that if one electrical system fails it does not shut down everything. cheers, g. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics master switch and bus
At 08:00 AM 3/19/2001, you wrote: > > > >I am just now looking at power distribution, and I gather the idea for a > >separate bus and switch for the avionics is so that you can keep the switch > >off while you start the engine ... If you actually look at an aircraft electrical system during start (assuming an electric starter), there really aren't any transients to speak of, just low voltage. There shouldn't be any problem with leaving radios connected the buss and turned on during start. >I thought a lot about this when I redid my panel a year ago. I ended up >with a switch for each electrical thingie, no avionics master switch. And most "thingies" (radios) have their own switches so you can dispense with an additional switch. "Thingies" that draw inconsequential amounts of power may be permanently connected to the buss (through a fuse, of course). >As a practical matter, I have found that this system is entirely satisfactory >for me. There is a bit more flipping of switches than with an avionics master, >but I usually need to let the engine warm up a bit anyway, so it does not >make a trip any longer. I often shutdown without changing any switches; modern >avionics can handle that with no problelm. At least they are supposed to. I have found some microprocessor-based things that really don't like low voltage situations (they fail to reset properly) but otherwise are unharmed. Power cycling the offending device clears the problem. >I don't rely on the switches on the individual radios - they are just >always on. This is not good. You should exercise your on-radio switches and volume controls. They clean themselves through the wiping action and if you want them to work reliably, you must regularly exercise them. Also consider that an extra switch is an extra failure point, extra panel space, extra wiring, i.e. lots of extra stuff that can go wrong. >I also don't have an emergency avionics bus as described in Bob Nuckolls' >book. >I think his system is good, but instead I have a dual electrical system, each >is entirely independent from the other. As my gyros are all electric this >gives me some peace of mind. Each radio, gyro, or whatever can be connected to >either system. I usually have the AH connected to one and the TC to the other, >for example, so that if one electrical system fails it does not shut down >everything. That is pretty much the same thing then but perhaps a bit more complex than it needs to be. I installed a dual-source electrical system in my Comanche back in 1985, long before I heard of Bob Nuckols, but I essentially treat the avionics buss as the essential buss and my TC lives on that buss. I still have air-powered gyros but they have their own standby source. Bob has some really good ideas which I have incorporated into other aircraft since then. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI" <jessevli(at)zeelandnet.nl>
Subject: Genave Alpha 720 question
Date: Mar 20, 2001
Hi list, Is there anyone familair with the Genave Alpha 720 VHF Comm transceiver. Any-one who has got pinning information on its connector? or any schematic diagrams ? Thanks in advance, Jesse ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 20, 2001
From: "J. Forster" <jfor(at)onemain.com>
Subject: Rockwell Control Box For Sale
For Sale: Control, Radio Set Type 514A-7 made by Collins Govt. Telecommunications Group FAA TSO C31c, C32c This is the control box for a programmable airborn, synthesized HF radio set with USB, LSB, AM, CW. Shipment to US ONLY. If interested, please email me at jfor(at)onemain.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Nellis" <mnellis(at)peoplepc.com>
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subject: Version 2.0 Experimental Panel Builder
Date: Mar 28, 2001
Version 2.0 of the Experimental Panel Builder is up and running. The response to Version 1.0 was almost overwhelming and we received many requests for additional panels and instruments. We've tried to accommodate as many as possible but if we've missed something please let us know by clicking on the "Request New Panels" or "Request New Instruments" link. After we published version 1.0 fellow RV List member, RV-8 Builder (soon to be RV-7 builder) and web master extraordinaire, Jared Boone (Portland, OR) offered us some suggestions on how we could make things work a little better. I had some discussions with Jared via email and even tossed back a brewski or two with him on a recent visit to Portland. Jared took time out of his busy work schedule (guess what he does for a living) and helped turn out the version of code that you see here. Truly remarkable and Bill and I owe him a lot of thanks. So what's new? First, you can now save your work. Yes, that's right. After creating a panel, all you have to do is log out or go to another web page. The next time you log in you're panel will still be right there were you left off. Neat. Space saving organization. Drop down menu's allow you to select the panel you're interested and the category of instruments your interested in working on. This saves space and makes creating panels easier. Duplicate items. Now you can drag as many items onto the panel as you like. Just keep dragging them up there. You want lots of circuit breaker and switches. Just keep dragging them up. If you don't like an instrument then just drag it off the panel and it goes away. Don't like any of your work and want to start over? Just hit the reset button. Because of all the code changes, the time it takes for the initial page to load has been greatly reduced because it doesn't have to load all the images at once. After the last version was published we received a ton or requests for additional panels and equipment. This is where Bill Vondane came to the rescue. Bill jumped into action and developed no less than 20, yes 20, new panels and added many more instruments. After Jared modified the code to make the new changes possible, Bill had to add all the new data, and modify things to get it published. Bill also created the user interface and "Tips" page to help makes things a little clearer. Bill and Jared have graciously donated LOTS of time and effort to bring this tool to it's present state. Remember, these guys both have planes to build and busy jobs and families to take care of. Enjoy the updated version and let us know what you think. Alas, there is a downside. For all those Microsoft haters out there, this new version is even LESS Netscape friendly than the pervious version. At this time, due to the methods used to create some of the features, ONLY Internet Explore 5.5 can be used to access the new features. Jared is working on making it compatible with earlier versions of Internet Explorer so until that time, the earlier version 1.0 is still available to use. We're talking about developing some techniques that will allow ALL browsers to work but that's still a ways off as time and energy permits. Check it out. http://sonexlinks.com/panelbuilder/ or link to it from my page http://bmnellis.com or Bills page http://vondane.com/rv8a Guess what? It's still free! What a country. Mike Nellis Stinson 108-2 N9666K RV-6 N699BM (reserved) Plainfield, IL (LOT) http://bmnellis.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ronnie Brown" <rolandbrown(at)sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: Version 2.0 Experimental Panel Builder
Date: Mar 28, 2001
Very NICE!!! I have just finished building my Velocity panel (I used Turbo CAD - lots harder and time consuming but ACCURATE). For those of you working on panel lay outs, consider putting your moving map - Garmin 430 or Apollo GX60/65 etc. right in the middle of the big Six flight instruments. Some of the FSDO's are seeing the light and like this lay out for an IFR panel. On my Velocity, I have a 430 over in the radio stack which with a center stick Velocity is going to make fiddling with the 430's knobs and buttons VERY interesting!!! After playing with Experimental Panel Builder, I'm awfully tempted to order a new blank Velocity panel! But, on the other hand, if I don't stop making "revisions", it ain't never gonna fly! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Dysinger" <larrykdysinger(at)hotmail.com>
AeroElectric-List(at)matronics.com, Aviation-List(at)matronics.com, Avionics-List(at)matronics.com, EZ-List(at)matronics.com, Glasair-List(at)matronics.com, Homebuilt-List(at)matronics.com, Kolb-List(at)matronics.com, Lancair-List(at)matronics.com, Pitts-List(at)matronics.com, Rocket-List(at)matronics.com, RVCanada-List(at)matronics.com, RVEurope-List(at)matronics.com, Sonerai-List(at)matronics.com, Tailwind-List(at)matronics.com, Zenith-List(at)matronics.com, BostonRVBuilders(at)yahoogroups.com, oregon-rvlist(at)yahoogroups.com, RV-6and6A(at)yahoogroups.com, SEFlaRVbuilders(at)yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [rv8list] Version 2.0 Experimental Panel Builder
Date: Mar 28, 2001
Mike, That is great work. And thanks for sharing it with your fellow listers. Larry RV-8QB - Fuselage From: "Mike Nellis" <mnellis(at)peoplepc.com> , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: [rv8list] Version 2.0 Experimental Panel Builder Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:00:08 -0600 Version 2.0 of the Experimental Panel Builder is up and running. The response to Version 1.0 was almost overwhelming and we received many requests for additional panels and instruments. We've tried to accommodate as many as possible but if we've missed something please let us know by clicking on the "Request New Panels" or "Request New Instruments" link. After we published version 1.0 fellow RV List member, RV-8 Builder (soon to be RV-7 builder) and web master extraordinaire, Jared Boone (Portland, OR) offered us some suggestions on how we could make things work a little better. I had some discussions with Jared via email and even tossed back a brewski or two with him on a recent visit to Portland. Jared took time out of his busy work schedule (guess what he does for a living) and helped turn out the version of code that you see here. Truly remarkable and Bill and I owe him a lot of thanks. So what's new? First, you can now save your work. Yes, that's right. After creating a panel, all you have to do is log out or go to another web page. The next time you log in you're panel will still be right there were you left off. Neat. Space saving organization. Drop down menu's allow you to select the panel you're interested and the category of instruments your interested in working on. This saves space and makes creating panels easier. Duplicate items. Now you can drag as many items onto the panel as you like. Just keep dragging them up there. You want lots of circuit breaker and switches. Just keep dragging them up. If you don't like an instrument then just drag it off the panel and it goes away. Don't like any of your work and want to start over? Just hit the reset button. Because of all the code changes, the time it takes for the initial page to load has been greatly reduced because it doesn't have to load all the images at once. After the last version was published we received a ton or requests for additional panels and equipment. This is where Bill Vondane came to the rescue. Bill jumped into action and developed no less than 20, yes 20, new panels and added many more instruments. After Jared modified the code to make the new changes possible, Bill had to add all the new data, and modify things to get it published. Bill also created the user interface and "Tips" page to help makes things a little clearer. Bill and Jared have graciously donated LOTS of time and effort to bring this tool to it's present state. Remember, these guys both have planes to build and busy jobs and families to take care of. Enjoy the updated version and let us know what you think. Alas, there is a downside. For all those Microsoft haters out there, this new version is even LESS Netscape friendly than the pervious version. At this time, due to the methods used to create some of the features, ONLY Internet Explore 5.5 can be used to access the new features. Jared is working on making it compatible with earlier versions of Internet Explorer so until that time, the earlier version 1.0 is still available to use. We're talking about developing some techniques that will allow ALL browsers to work but that's still a ways off as time and energy permits. Check it out. http://sonexlinks.com/panelbuilder/ or link to it from my page http://bmnellis.com or Bills page http://vondane.com/rv8a Guess what? It's still free! What a country. Mike Nellis Stinson 108-2 N9666K RV-6 N699BM (reserved) Plainfield, IL (LOT) http://bmnellis.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: capacitive fuel level sensors
From: Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com
Date: Mar 28, 2001
5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 03/28/2001 10:57:49 AM A few weeks ago someone suggested that the CAV414 (capacitance-to-voltage converter) I.C. from Analog Microelectronics could be used in a capacitive fuel gauge system. I ordered a few and built a circuit, and then analyzed how it works ("ready, fire, aim"). It turns out (as would be obvious to someone who analyzed the circuit before building) that the voltage output is not a linear function of capacitance. For a fuel gauge, this means that the gauge (with a linear milli-ammeter) will read about 1/2 when there is about 1/3 fuel in the tanks. The resolution at low fuel levels will be greater (which seems to me to be good), but there may be a subconscious tendency to think there is more fuel than there is when just glancing at the gauge and not thinking about it. Do you human engineering experts out there think a linear fuel gauge is better, or one that gives greater resolution when fuel is low? On a related matter, the system described by Jim Weir in Kitplanes has an oscillator that gives a frequency that is a linear function of the capacitance. However, an analysis of the published circuit indicates that the oscillation frequency should be about 1/10 of that reported in the article, and the "integrator" will work poorly or not at all. Has anyone built Jim's system? If so, how well does it work? I think that with a minor modification to the "integrator" (it needs to be a differentiator followed by a diode and an integrator) it should work just fine. My analysis may be faulty, of course...I have not built it. g. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "mmucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net>
Subject: capacitive fuel level sensors
Date: Mar 28, 2001
For a fuel gauge, this means that the gauge (with a linear milli-ammeter) will read about 1/2 when there is about 1/3 fuel in the tanks. The resolution at low fuel levels will be greater (which seems to me to be good), but there may be a subconscious tendency to think there is more fuel than there is when just glancing at the gauge and not thinking about it. Do you human engineering experts out there think a linear fuel gauge is better, or one that gives greater resolution when fuel is low? I'm not a human engineering expert, but after many hours of observation, I have concluded that the fuel gauge in my car has more resolution at the low end of the scale. I like it that way. Anything above half a tank of gas is "plenty," while the lower end of the scale tells me whether I need to stop for gas on my way to work, or if I can fill up after work. I think the same concept in an airplane would work well for me. -Matt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 28, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: capacitive fuel level sensors
At 10:57 AM 3/28/2001, Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com wrote: >For a fuel gauge, this means that the gauge (with a linear >milli-ammeter) will read about 1/2 when there is about >1/3 fuel in the tanks. The resolution at low fuel levels >will be greater (which seems to me to be good), but >there may be a subconscious tendency to think there > is more fuel than there is when just glancing at the gauge >and not thinking about it. > >Do you human engineering experts out there think a linear >fuel gauge is better, or one that gives greater resolution >when fuel is low? I don't care so long as the markings are accurate. If you want to correct for linearity, use a microprocessor and display fuel quantity directly in gallons or liters. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 28, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Version 2.0 Experimental Panel Builder
At 05:42 AM 3/28/2001, Ronnie Brown wrote: >For those of you working on panel lay outs, consider putting your moving >map - Garmin 430 or Apollo GX60/65 etc. right in the middle of the big Six >flight instruments. Some of the FSDO's are seeing the light and like this >lay out for an IFR panel. I did something like that in my RV-4. My layout was: fuel gps ASI AI Altimeter 2" needle/ball nav engine com CDI DG map 2" VSI xpdr >On my Velocity, I have a 430 over in the radio stack which with a center >stick Velocity is going to make fiddling with the 430's knobs and buttons >VERY interesting!!! IMHO radios and other switches should be opposite the side of your flying hand. If you have a yoke or a left side stick, your radios should be to the right of your "six-pack." If you have a normal stick, your radios should be to the left of your "six-pack". That puts them within reach of your free (non flying) hand without having to reach across your instruments. A cardboard mockup while pretending to fly high workload activities, e.g. IFR to minimums with turbulence and no one helping you, will give you an idea whether your panel layout will help or hinder you. You can probably do it with a flight sim program with the external radio selectors just to get an idea of what I am talking about. I am just starting to lay out the cockpit in my "new" CJ6 after discarding the woefully unergonomic Chinese instruments and panel layout. (You haven't lived until you have flown an ILS with an attitude gyro that is a raw vertical gyro, i.e. "backward" in the pitch axis.) This one will have an ergonomic layout for radios, switches, and instruments. Oh, and it will have a US (right side up) attitude gyro too. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RocketPilot2Be(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 28, 2001
Subject: Re: Rocket-List: Re: [rv8list] Version 2.0 Experimental
Panel Builder AeroElectric-List(at)matronics.com, Aviation-List(at)matronics.com, Avionics-List(at)matronics.com, EZ-List(at)matronics.com, Glasair-List(at)matronics.com, Homebuilt-List(at)matronics.com, Kolb-List(at)matronics.com, Lancair-List(at)matronics.com, Pitts-List(at)matronics.com, Rocket-List(at)matronics.com, RVCanada-List(at)matronics.com, RVEurope-List(at)matronics.com, Sonerai-List(at)matronics.com, Tailwind-List(at)matronics.com, Zenith-List(at)matronics.com, BostonRVBuilders(at)yahoogroups.com, oregon-rvlist(at)yahoogroups.com, RV-6and6A(at)yahoogroups.com, SEFlaRVbuilders(at)yahoogroups.com Mike, wonderful job. Thanks a lot !!! (Hey, listers, shouldn't we throw a dollar in the hat for Mike ??????) /Hans Altena Cary, North Carolina (919) 412 6221 Sitting on the fence with my $$$ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Matthew Mucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net>
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subject: Re: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Rocket-List: Re: [rv8list] Version
2.0 Experimental Panel Builder
Date: Mar 28, 2001
I'm so impressed, that if someone'll give me an address, I'll pitch in TWO dollars! -Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of > RocketPilot2Be(at)aol.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 7:35 PM > To: rocket-list(at)matronics.com; rv8list(at)yahoogroups.com; > rv-list(at)matronics.com; AeroElectric-List(at)matronics.com; > Aviation-List(at)matronics.com; Avionics-List(at)matronics.com; > EZ-List(at)matronics.com; Glasair-List(at)matronics.com; > Homebuilt-List(at)matronics.com; Kolb-List(at)matronics.com; > Lancair-List(at)matronics.com; Pitts-List(at)matronics.com; > Rocket-List(at)matronics.com; RVCanada-List(at)matronics.com; > RVEurope-List(at)matronics.com; Sonerai-List(at)matronics.com; > Tailwind-List(at)matronics.com; Zenith-List(at)matronics.com; > BostonRVBuilders(at)yahoogroups.com; oregon-rvlist(at)yahoogroups.com; > RV-6and6A(at)yahoogroups.com; SEFlaRVbuilders(at)yahoogroups.com > Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Rocket-List: Re: [rv8list] Version 2.0 > Experimental Panel Builder > > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: RocketPilot2Be(at)aol.com > > Mike, > wonderful job. Thanks a lot !!! > > (Hey, listers, shouldn't we throw a dollar in the hat for Mike ??????) > > /Hans Altena > Cary, North Carolina > (919) 412 6221 > Sitting on the fence with my $$$ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 29, 2001
From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 9 Msgs - 03/28/01
I was was a believer in this layout too. But then I started to second guess things. How hard will it be to push little buttons and turn little dials with my left hand, as I am right handed? I'm currently thinking it would be more efficent to have all buttons/knobs on the right side of my V-8 panel, and switch hands so I temporarily steady the stick with the left hand while I push buttons with my right. I also hope to make good use of all the buttons on the Infinity stick grip and put common functions on it. An artical I read by Randy Lervold about panel layouts is what caused me to rethink this whole thing. http://www.rv-8.com/2000-February.PDF What do you think? Larry Bowen, RV-8 fuse [snip] IMHO radios and other switches should be opposite the side of your flying hand. If you have a yoke or a left side stick, your radios should be to the right of your "six-pack." If you have a normal stick, your radios should be to the left of your "six-pack". That puts them within reach of your free (non flying) hand without having to reach across your instruments. [snip] Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 29, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 9 Msgs - 03/28/01
At 08:00 AM 3/29/2001, you wrote: > >I was was a believer in this layout too. But then I started to second guess >things. How hard will it be to push little buttons and turn little dials with >my left hand, as I am right handed? It is a piece of cake. The learning curve is measured in seconds, maybe minutes. It is a lot easier than having to loosen the straps and lean forward to reach across the panel. >I'm currently thinking it would be more >efficent to have all buttons/knobs on the right side of my V-8 panel, and >switch hands so I temporarily steady the stick with the left hand while I push >buttons with my right. Having lived with that I can attest that it is annoying to switch hands. I fly a lot of formation (I am FAST lead qualified and teach formation flying) and switching hands to switch frequencies or to turn things on/off is a pain. My RV-4 had all the switches on a horizontal subpanel on the right side and I would switch hands on the stick in order to throw switches. It worked OK but the airplane would always bobble when I switched hands. >I also hope to make good use of all the buttons on the >Infinity stick grip and put common functions on it. What are the common functions you would switch on the stick? I got one for my RV-4 but couldn't figure out how to do the things I really needed to do on it so I sold it again. Certainly putting pitch and roll trim there would be useful but having mechanical pitch trim over by the throttle quadrant worked almost as well. I considered putting boost pump and landing light on there too I manipulate them so infrequently that I felt that it really didn't warrant the extra complexity. As for radios, the thing I did most often was change frequencies and there wasn't a good way to do that from the stick. And if my hand was already up by the radio to change frequencies it was just as easy to press the frequency flip-flop there instead of putting that function on the stick. I never could figure out why people want a transponder ident button on their stick since that function is used so seldom. (I fly to work every day talking to ATC the whole way and they almost never ask me to "squawk ident.") I looked at other things to put there and about the only thing that I came up with was to change the range setting on my Argus moving map as I moved between sparsely populated enroute airspace and densely populated class-B airspace. But with the map located convenient to my hand even that wasn't an issue. >An artical I read by Randy Lervold about panel layouts is what caused me to >rethink this whole thing. http://www.rv-8.com/2000-February.PDF > >What do you think? I read it. I don't agree with his assessment on switching hands. I have flown several different aircraft with sticks and equipment in various places on the panel. I am also right-handed but changing frequencies and doing other things with my left hand turned out to be a no-brainer. No difficulty at all. But the bottom line is it is YOUR airplane and you should do what you want to do. I have created instrument panels of my own design on five different aircraft so I had to live with my decisions. It is that experience that leads me to the statements I made. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 30, 2001
From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 03/29/01
See comments below... > > At 08:00 AM 3/29/2001, you wrote: > > > >I was was a believer in this layout too. But then I started to second guess > >things. How hard will it be to push little buttons and turn little dials > with > >my left hand, as I am right handed? > > It is a piece of cake. The learning curve is measured in seconds, maybe > minutes. It is a lot easier than having to loosen the straps and lean > forward to reach across the panel. Glad to hear it. I'll have to do some testing as I collect the stuff going into the panel. The things I'm planning on that have me concerned are MicroAir's radio and transponder (the new models), and a GPS295. They all have smaller buttons. The 295 almost forces right hand operation as the buttons are on the right side of the unit. Using the left, you'd be reaching across the screen, blocking the menus, etc. I guess that is a benefit of the ambidextrous (sp?) GPS195. Oh well, I'm still glad I upgraded from the 195 to the 295. I love it. > > >I'm currently thinking it would be more > >efficent to have all buttons/knobs on the right side of my V-8 panel, and > >switch hands so I temporarily steady the stick with the left hand while I > push > >buttons with my right. > > Having lived with that I can attest that it is annoying to switch hands. I > fly a lot of formation (I am FAST lead qualified and teach formation > flying) and switching hands to switch frequencies or to turn things on/off > is a pain. My RV-4 had all the switches on a horizontal subpanel on the > right side and I would switch hands on the stick in order to throw > switches. It worked OK but the airplane would always bobble when I > switched hands. > > >I also hope to make good use of all the buttons on the > >Infinity stick grip and put common functions on it. > > What are the common functions you would switch on the stick? I got one for > my RV-4 but couldn't figure out how to do the things I really needed to do > on it so I sold it again. Certainly putting pitch and roll trim there > would be useful but having mechanical pitch trim over by the throttle > quadrant worked almost as well. I considered putting boost pump and > landing light on there too I manipulate them so infrequently that I felt > that it really didn't warrant the extra complexity. > To be honest, I haven't thought about it too hard yet. Off the top of my head: pitch and roll trims, PTT, radio flip-flop, AP engage/disengage, starter engage, rockets, guns, phasers ... I don't know how complex the above things will be. Ignorance is bliss. > As for radios, the thing I did most often was change frequencies and there > wasn't a good way to do that from the stick. And if my hand was already up > by the radio to change frequencies it was just as easy to press the > frequency flip-flop there instead of putting that function on the stick. > > I never could figure out why people want a transponder ident button on > their stick since that function is used so seldom. (I fly to work every day > talking to ATC the whole way and they almost never ask me to "squawk > ident.") I looked at other things to put there and about the only thing > that I came up with was to change the range setting on my Argus moving map > as I moved between sparsely populated enroute airspace and densely > populated class-B airspace. But with the map located convenient to my hand > even that wasn't an issue. > > >An artical I read by Randy Lervold about panel layouts is what caused me to > >rethink this whole thing. http://www.rv-8.com/2000-February.PDF > > > >What do you think? > > I read it. I don't agree with his assessment on switching hands. I have > flown several different aircraft with sticks and equipment in various > places on the panel. I am also right-handed but changing frequencies and > doing other things with my left hand turned out to be a no-brainer. No > difficulty at all. > > But the bottom line is it is YOUR airplane and you should do what you want > to do. I have created instrument panels of my own design on five different > aircraft so I had to live with my decisions. It is that experience that > leads me to the statements I made. > > > Brian Lloyd > brian(at)lloyd.com > +1.530.676.1113 - voice > +1.360.838.9669 - fax > Thanks for the input. ===== Larry Bowen Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HornetBall(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 30, 2001
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 03/29/01
In a message dated 3/30/01 9:34:20 AM Central Standard Time, lcbowen(at)yahoo.com writes: > > What are the common functions you would switch on the stick? I got one > for > > my RV-4 but couldn't figure out how to do the things I really needed to > do > > on it so I sold it again. Certainly putting pitch and roll trim there > > would be useful but having mechanical pitch trim over by the throttle > > quadrant worked almost as well. I considered putting boost pump and > > landing light on there too I manipulate them so infrequently that I felt > > that it really didn't warrant the extra complexity. > > > > To be honest, I haven't thought about it too hard yet. Off the top of my > head: > pitch and roll trims, PTT, radio flip-flop, AP engage/disengage, starter > Thought I would chime in on HOTAS. It's a wonderful thing. The 18 I used to fly had 17 switches on its throttles and stick. You literally played the piano while under 6-9 G's (Sparrow . . . Winder . . . Guns . . . no . . . Winder . . . no . . . Guns . . . AAARGHHH -- Chaff-Flares . . . target designate . . . dammit . . . DESIGNATE . . .). Take a two week layoff from flying, and you were in the hurt locker as you tried to relearn the keys. It's great for small planes too, but be judicious and think about what you put on the stick. Don't put things on the stick that are used infrequently or that are intolerant of accidental actuations. JD (of Infinity) loves to put all kinds of things on the stick. From your list, I see that you've been reading his material. Here's my take on what you proposed: 1. Pitch and roll trims -- definitely; 2. PTT -- definitely; 3. Radio flip-flop -- it's been my experience that every time I change radio frequencies, I have to put in the frequency at the radio and it is easier to then do the flip-flop at the radio. I wouldn't put radio flip-flop on the stick. 4. AP engage/disengage -- definitely, especially the disengage; 5. Starter -- absolutely not. Used (hopefully) once per flight and relatively serious consequences for accidental actuation. 6. Rockets, guns, phasers ... -- definitely : ) Here's a list of what I have on my Infinity stick grip (Velocity with Sierra Flight Systems EFIS installed -- no autopilot): 1. Speed Brake; 2. Two-axis trim; 3. Voice Warning mute (EFIS function); 4. PTT; 5. #2 MFD screen swap switch (EFIS function); That's it. I requested that JD not install one of the available switches. He can easily comply with such requests if you let him know up front. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 30, 2001
From: dab(at)froghouse.org
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 03/29/01
HornetBall(at)aol.com wrote: > 5. Starter -- absolutely not. Used (hopefully) once per flight and > relatively serious consequences for accidental actuation. This reminds me of something I was going to try once I get to the panel design stage. One sequence of switches is involved with starting and is, therefore, generally only used on the ground. I was thinking to group those somewhat out of the way and accessible with the stick hand. Other switches may be wanted in flight so they want to be available to the non-stick hand and more reachable. I was thinking of the starting switches being, in order: master, strobes, mags (2), starter, alternator, avionics master, essential equipment bus. Eight switches in a row is a lot but they're split in the middle by a push button (the starter) and they're operated in sequence only (usually) on start up and shtudown. -Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HornetBall(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 30, 2001
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 03/29/01
In a message dated 3/30/01 11:18:59 AM Central Standard Time, dab(at)froghouse.org writes: > This reminds me of something I was going to try once I get to the > panel design stage. One sequence of switches is involved with > starting and is, therefore, generally only used on the ground. I was > thinking to group those somewhat out of the way and accessible with > the stick hand. Other switches may be wanted in flight so they want > to be available to the non-stick hand and more reachable. > > Right idea but I suggest you refocus a little. The most important procedures to optimize are emergency procedures. Normal procedures come next. This effectively reverses your above groupings because, with emergency procedures taking priority, the powerplant controls go to the non-stick hand (since almost all of our emergencies are power-plant related). Also, who says switches have to be in a horizontal row? That's the worst possible thing to do, although it makes assembling Cessna's a little cheaper. Why adopt that? Show me a fighter plane with that arrangement? My groupings are as follows: Left Switch/Control Panel (Two Columns) Carb Heat EFIS Power Master Switch Ignition Magneto Starter Fuel Pump Trim CB Primer Comments: EFIS Power doesn't really belong here, just something that happened in the rush of installation. Trim CB is placed here to pull for runaway trim. Center Switch/Control Panel (at bottom of radio stack, horizontal): Rotary Rotary Pitot Heat/Cool Cabin Lighting Dimmer Heat Mixer Cable Fan Selector Comments: Aircraft has automatic lighting circuit with OFF/AUTO/LDG/ORRIDE Positions Use of different switch sizes and shapes makes horizontal placement more acceptable. For a picture of my panel go to the Sierra Flight Systems website (www.sierrafs.com). My panel is the uncluttered Velocity panel. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 30, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Panel layout, switches on stick
At 08:29 AM 3/30/2001, HornetBall(at)aol.com wrote: >Thought I would chime in on HOTAS. It's a wonderful thing. The 18 I used to >fly had 17 switches on its throttles and stick. You literally played the >piano while under 6-9 G's (Sparrow . . . Winder . . . Guns . . . no . . . >Winder . . . no . . . Guns . . . AAARGHHH -- Chaff-Flares . . . target >designate . . . dammit . . . DESIGNATE . . .). Take a two week layoff from >flying, and you were in the hurt locker as you tried to relearn the keys. That is my experience too. Unless you are really standardized, it makes it *very* difficult for someone else to fly your airplane. >It's great for small planes too, but be judicious and think about what you >put on the stick. Don't put things on the stick that are used infrequently >or that are intolerant of accidental actuations. JD (of Infinity) loves to >put all kinds of things on the stick. Things that really don't belong there too. > From your list, I see that you've been >reading his material. Here's my take on what you proposed: > >1. Pitch and roll trims -- definitely; >2. PTT -- definitely; >3. Radio flip-flop -- it's been my experience that every time I change radio >frequencies, I have to put in the frequency at the radio and it is easier to >then do the flip-flop at the radio. I wouldn't put radio flip-flop on the >stick. >4. AP engage/disengage -- definitely, especially the disengage; >5. Starter -- absolutely not. Used (hopefully) once per flight and >relatively serious consequences for accidental actuation. >6. Rockets, guns, phasers ... -- definitely : ) We clearly think the same way. The one thing I would do tho' is put the PTT on the throttle. I have been flying a military trainer with the PTT on the throttle and I really, really prefer it there to having it on the stick. >Here's a list of what I have on my Infinity stick grip (Velocity with Sierra >Flight Systems EFIS installed -- no autopilot): > >1. Speed Brake; >2. Two-axis trim; >3. Voice Warning mute (EFIS function); >4. PTT; >5. #2 MFD screen swap switch (EFIS function); I agree with everything except the PTT. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 30, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 03/29/01
At 09:50 AM 3/30/2001, HornetBall(at)aol.com wrote: >Right idea but I suggest you refocus a little. The most important procedures >to optimize are emergency procedures. Normal procedures come next. This >effectively reverses your above groupings because, with emergency procedures >taking priority, the powerplant controls go to the non-stick hand (since >almost all of our emergencies are power-plant related). Also, who says >switches have to be in a horizontal row? That's the worst possible thing to >do, although it makes assembling Cessna's a little cheaper. Why adopt that? >Show me a fighter plane with that arrangement? We *really* are on the same page here. I plan all my switches in (a) vertical row(s) along the left side of the instrument panel with the toggles operating left/right. I can put my hand on a switch and it won't actuate when I hit a bump or am pulling G since most acceleration will be along the vertical axis and the switches don't actuate in that axis. >My groupings are as follows: >... > >For a picture of my panel go to the Sierra Flight Systems website >(www.sierrafs.com). My panel is the uncluttered Velocity panel. Very nicely done. It appears well thought out. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HornetBall(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 30, 2001
Subject: Re: Panel layout, switches on stick
In a message dated 3/30/01 12:48:40 PM Central Standard Time, brian(at)lloyd.com writes: > We clearly think the same way. The one thing I would do tho' is put the > PTT on the throttle. If your throttle has provisions for a switch, then the convention is to put the PTT there. If you have two radios, then make the PTT a three-position momentary . . . toggle up to transmit on COM1 and down to transmit on COM2 . . . goodbye audio panel. Also, the speed brake switch is most logically placed on the throttle. I have vernier controls and didn't have the option of using the throttle for switches. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 30, 2001
From: dab(at)froghouse.org
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 03/29/01
HornetBall(at)aol.com wrote: > Right idea but I suggest you refocus a little. The most important > procedures to optimize are emergency procedures. Normal procedures > come next. I was just going through checklists and thinking about flow but your point about concentrating on emergency procedures first is very well taken. > Also, who says switches have to be in a horizontal row? That's the > worst possible thing to do, although it makes assembling Cessna's a > little cheaper. Why adopt that? Show me a fighter plane with that > arrangement? Well, I've not had a lot of time in fighter cockpits (though if you're offering rides in your F-18 I'll travel anywhere in North America to take you up on it) but I was planning on arranging at least some of the switches vertically. So is there a human factors argument for which direction should be 'on'? I'd probably make towards me be 'on' and away be 'off' but that becomes ambiguous with side by side seating and switches in the middle of the panel between the seats. -Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gilles.thesee" <gilles.thesee(at)wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 03/29/01
Date: Mar 30, 2001
Hi Dave, > > Well, I've not had a lot of time in fighter cockpits (though if you're > offering rides in your F-18 I'll travel anywhere in North America to > take you up on it) but I was planning on arranging at least some of > the switches vertically. So is there a human factors argument for > which direction should be 'on'? I'd probably make towards me be 'on' > and away be 'off' but that becomes ambiguous with side by side seating > and switches in the middle of the panel between the seats. > there's a standard : right is "on" for switches moving horizontally. Otherwise high is "on", as in any occidental aircraft, including US Navy birds ;-) Cheers, Gilles ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HornetBall(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 30, 2001
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 03/29/01
In a message dated 3/30/01 2:16:16 PM Central Standard Time, dab(at)froghouse.org writes: > Well, I've not had a lot of time in fighter cockpits (though if you're > offering rides in your F-18 I'll travel anywhere in North America to > take you up on it) but I was planning on arranging at least some of > the switches vertically. So is there a human factors argument for > which direction should be 'on'? I'd probably make towards me be 'on' > and away be 'off' but that becomes ambiguous with side by side seating > and switches in the middle of the panel between the seats. > I'll travel too to recapture the old glory days. Alas, my Velocity is the best I can do these days. I think you misunderstood my point about horizontal switches. I was talking about how the switches are arranged, not the direction of actuation. It seems to be the norm these days to buy about 12 identical-looking rocker switches, arrange them horizontally in a row at the bottom of the panel, and be happy about it. The point I was trying to make is that this is a very poor arrangement. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vaso(at)Bovan.com" <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: Eliminate Audio Panel ?
Date: Mar 31, 2001
I'm interested in eliminating the audio panel in the Glastar I'm building. How might this be done while having two radios ? One annoyance with most modern audio panels is their ADF and DME and second NAV buttons, which I'll never need. Is there some combination of two radios with features such as frequency monitoring and built-in intercom which would make an audio panel (and intercom ?) unnecessary ? -Vaso Bovan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HornetBall(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 31, 2001
Subject: Re: Eliminate Audio Panel ?
My background is military aviation (Navy F/A-18). After returning from the Persian Gulf War, I took up civilian flying for fun. So, here I was, a combat experienced fleet aviator, learning to fly Cessnas. The 152 was no big deal. Simple airplane and simple panel. Fairly well done. Then I got in the flying club's 172. Guess what? Couldn't get the radios to work. Someone finally helped me out and showed me the dreaded "audio panel." It was a little monstrosity with a dozen micro-switches all in a row, most of which had no function as installed in that particular airplane. Human factors nightmare. I've been on a Don Quixote-style crusade against the audio panel ever since. The latest audio panels have 4 basic functions: 1. Marker Beacon Display; 2. Isolate Audio Amplifiers; 3. Control which radio the PTT controlled; and 4 Intercom. Obviously, an intercom and a marker beacon display (assuming you are installing ILS) need to be installed to fill those respective functions (note that most newer radios include a rudimentary two-place intercom function these days). This also lets you put the marker beacon lights where they belong, in your instrument scan rather than in the radio stack. Isolating audio amplifiers isn't a requirement unless you are using the speaker outputs of very old radios. Most of us don't use speakers anymore, and the "line-level" outputs for headsets can be simply tied together. Use the volume knobs to control what you hear. PTT control can be handled as I described previously. You might also examine whether you need two radios. Added equipment (especially if not used) costs more than just the price for the extra equipment. You're also increasing pilot workload/confusion, weight, electrical load, and the chances for in-flight electrical problems. I fly with a single ICOM A200 radio. Great radio, modern design, good user interface, very clear reception and transmission, no GPS interference and great reliability. I back it up with a handheld and a panel antenna jack. I've never had to use my backup. UPS now makes a radio on which you can receive/transmit on one frequency while monitoring a second -- great for listening to ATIS. The only reason I would install two transceivers is if I flew formation a great deal. In that case, it is nice to have one radio for intra-formation comms, and a second for extra-formation comms. Well, I guess I've spewed on enough. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HornetBall(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 31, 2001
Subject: Re: Eliminate Audio Panel ?
My background is military aviation (Navy F/A-18). After returning from the Persian Gulf War, I took up civilian flying for fun. So, here I was, a combat experienced fleet aviator, learning to fly Cessnas. The 152 was no big deal. Simple airplane and simple panel. Fairly well done. Then I got in the flying club's 172. Guess what? Couldn't get the radios to work. Someone finally helped me out and showed me the dreaded "audio panel." It was a little monstrosity with a dozen micro-switches all in a row, most of which had no function as installed in that particular airplane. Human factors nightmare. I've been on a Don Quixote-style crusade against the audio panel ever since. The latest audio panels have 4 basic functions: 1. Marker Beacon Display; 2. Isolate Audio Amplifiers; 3. Control which radio the PTT controlled; and 4 Intercom. Obviously, an intercom and a marker beacon display (assuming you are installing ILS) need to be installed to fill those respective functions (note that most newer radios include a rudimentary two-place intercom function these days). This also lets you put the marker beacon lights where they belong, in your instrument scan rather than in the radio stack. Isolating audio amplifiers isn't a requirement unless you are using the speaker outputs of very old radios. Most of us don't use speakers anymore, and the "line-level" outputs for headsets can be simply tied together. Use the volume knobs to control what you hear. PTT control can be handled as I described previously. You might also examine whether you need two radios. Added equipment (especially if not used) costs more than just the price for the extra equipment. You're also increasing pilot workload/confusion, weight, electrical load, and the chances for in-flight electrical problems. I fly with a single ICOM A200 radio. Great radio, modern design, good user interface, very clear reception and transmission, no GPS interference and great reliability. I back it up with a handheld and a panel antenna jack. I've never had to use my backup. UPS now makes a radio on which you can receive/transmit on one frequency while monitoring a second -- great for listening to ATIS while talking to approach. The only reason I would install two transceivers is if I flew formation a great deal. In that case, it is nice to have one radio for intra-formation comms, and a second for extra-formation comms. Well, I guess I've spewed on enough. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hook57(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 31, 2001
Subject: Re: Eliminate Audio Panel ?
Van's has a simple switch thats cheap for switching 2 comms, also the PMA 4000 is a relatively inexpensive audio panel that accomodates 2 comms, 2 navs and an intercomm. Mark....almost there RV6 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net>
Date: Mar 31, 2001
Subject: Re: Eliminate Audio Panel ?
From: Hook57(at)aol.com Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Eliminate Audio Panel ? Send reply to: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > > Van's has a simple switch thats cheap for switching 2 comms, also the PMA > 4000 is a relatively inexpensive audio panel that accomodates 2 comms, 2 > navs and an intercomm. Mark....almost there RV6 > I use a PMA 4000 now and it is a good unit. In my new glasair I am going the no audio panel route and use a (can't remember the model #) PMA ? intercom/CD player. It is the same intercom as the PMA 4000. Jim > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jayeandscott" <jayeandscott(at)home.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 03/29/01
Date: Mar 31, 2001
Enjoyed reading this thread and thought I'd put my two-cents-worth in. My experience is with Boeing, Douglas, Lockheed and Airbus cockpits. On all but Airbus, forward on the pedestal and overhead panels and up on the forward panels is ON. Airbus just had to do thiings differently than Boeing, so their philosophy revolves around a palm forward arc of the arm from the waist all the way to the overhead- this reuslts in forward being ON on the pedestal, up being on for the forward panels, But aft being On on the overhead panels. Actualy, only the lights are toggle switches on the overhead with everything else being switchlights, but I still flew around the first month with the landing lights on until I adjusted. I agree that a visually-appealing row of rocker switches may help win awards and help the resale prospects but IMHO it's a step backwards ergonomically-vs-safety wise. I'm hoping to recreate the single-pilot cockpit look of a generation ago-wherein the fuel pump switch is over by the fuel pressure gauge; the fuel quantities on either side of the tank selector, the ammeter by the alternator field, the voltmeter by the master switch- you get the idea. Coupled with pressure-switch activated annunciators right at the top of the panel in front of the pilot( for oil and fuel pressure, vacuum, low volts and canopy unlock, parking brake) and I should have everything covered. I t took generations of design to come up with this arrangement and, while it may just be my advancing age, I think it was the high point of analog cockpit design. I also like the old way of mounting instruments in that they slide in from the aft(pilot) side of the panel with the mounting holes around their case on top of the panel. Makes working on them, behiind them, or trying a rearrangement a breeze. Pop out four screws, slide the instrument out and set iit in your lap and you;ve instantly got a hand-sized access hole to the back of the panel. Vans new engine gauges come with the nuts already pressed into the case so I'll have to think about that. Now for left-hand versus right-hand. Professionally I fly with a lefthand side stick and right hand throttles and the adjustment period was so brief as to be unnoticeable. I've also flown the RV-6A with a centre throttle and didn't like it at all. I think it was because the stick was not a sidestick and the motion of the stick felt very unnatural to my left arm and brain. Oddly enough, an RV-4 I occasionally fly is the exact opposite of the A340 but requires no conscious adjustment on my part whatsoever and feels just right. I was sold on a left throttle, right stick arrangement until I sat in the left seat of a new Globemaster at the abbotsford airshow and, surprize, it had centre throttles with a left-hand grip on a stick between the pilot's legs.Oh well, easy and cheap enough to tie a single-lever, left-wall-mounted, throttle to a centre quadrant throttle. Then we have both. That leaves only the decision regarding the left-stick grip. Should it be moulded for the left hand or the right hand. Isn't having all this freedom wonderful? Scott Jackson RV-6, canopy British Columbia ----- Original Message ----- From: gilles.thesee <gilles.thesee(at)wanadoo.fr> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:40 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 03/29/01 > > Hi Dave, > > > > Well, I've not had a lot of time in fighter cockpits (though if you're > > offering rides in your F-18 I'll travel anywhere in North America to > > take you up on it) but I was planning on arranging at least some of > > the switches vertically. So is there a human factors argument for > > which direction should be 'on'? I'd probably make towards me be 'on' > > and away be 'off' but that becomes ambiguous with side by side seating > > and switches in the middle of the panel between the seats. > > > there's a standard : right is "on" for switches moving horizontally. > Otherwise high is "on", as in any occidental aircraft, including US Navy > birds ;-) > > Cheers, > > Gilles > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 31, 2001
From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List - grip switches
My thinking for the starter switch on the grip was to be able to hold the stick back while cranking. I specifically said started engage, because there would be a guarded starter enable switch on the panel. I don't plan on having a keyed switch for the starter. Once started, the starter enabled switch would be switched off. Now the grip switch is dead. Do you like my idea any better now that I've explained the details? Larry RV-8 fuse From: dab(at)froghouse.org Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 03/29/01 HornetBall(at)aol.com wrote: > 5. Starter -- absolutely not. Used (hopefully) once per flight and > relatively serious consequences for accidental actuation. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Nellis" <mnellis(at)peoplepc.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List - grip switches
Date: Mar 31, 2001
I had the same thoughts as you Larry. I was planning on using Bobs method of a three position switch for the mag but with a twist. Off, MagOn, StarterArm. Use the switch on the grip to start then put the mag switch to the MagOn position although when in the StarterArm position the mag would also be on. The alternative (in a tail wheel anyway) is to use the left had to crank the engine, right had to mess with the throttle and knees to hold the stick back. Besides it just seems kinda cool to have the stick in one hand, throttle in the other and start the engine. The above example is, of course, for the RV-6, you tandem guys might have to do it differently. Mike Nellis Stinson 108-2 N9666K RV-6 N699BM (reserved) Plainfield, IL (LOT) http://bmnellis.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Bowen" <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 4:37 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Avionics-List - grip switches > > My thinking for the starter switch on the grip was to be able to hold the stick > back while cranking. I specifically said started engage, because there would > be a guarded starter enable switch on the panel. I don't plan on having a > keyed switch for the starter. > > Once started, the starter enabled switch would be switched off. Now the grip > switch is dead. Do you like my idea any better now that I've explained the > details? > > Larry > RV-8 fuse > > > From: dab(at)froghouse.org > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 03/29/01 > > > HornetBall(at)aol.com wrote: > > > 5. Starter -- absolutely not. Used (hopefully) once per flight and > > relatively serious consequences for accidental actuation. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carlfro(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List - grip switches
Date: Mar 31, 2001
Larry, I thought about doing what you did as I wanted to keep the right hand on the stick. I ended up with a starter permissive key lock on the right breaker panel and a pushbutton starter switch on the far lower left corner of the panel. With my left hand on the throttle, the switch can be operated with my left index finger. Carl Froehlich RV-8A (systems install) Vienna, VA -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry Bowen Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 5:38 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Avionics-List - grip switches My thinking for the starter switch on the grip was to be able to hold the stick back while cranking. I specifically said started engage, because there would be a guarded starter enable switch on the panel. I don't plan on having a keyed switch for the starter. Once started, the starter enabled switch would be switched off. Now the grip switch is dead. Do you like my idea any better now that I've explained the details? Larry RV-8 fuse From: dab(at)froghouse.org Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 03/29/01 HornetBall(at)aol.com wrote: > 5. Starter -- absolutely not. Used (hopefully) once per flight and > relatively serious consequences for accidental actuation. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HornetBall(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 31, 2001
Subject: Re: Avionics-List - grip switches
In a message dated 3/31/01 4:40:28 PM Central Standard Time, lcbowen(at)yahoo.com writes: > Do you like my idea any better now that I've explained the > Yes. I hadn't considered the tailwheel aspect. Goes back to original point of carefully considering why you put certain switches in certain places. Seems like you've done that. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 01, 2001
Subject: Collins Avionics Question
From: Shelby Smith <rvaitor(at)home.com>
What are people's experiences with Collins eqmt? I have them in my Musketeer and they have worked flawlessly. I am considering buying a package with a DME and RNAV and selling what is left over. I think I will have an almost complete with instruments(2 VORs and indicators + GS) IFR stack. I will be short an audio panel and one comm. Should I sell all for $3500 +- or keep as spares. Thanks, -- Shelby Smith rvaitor(at)home.com RV6A - Skinning Fuselage - 200HP N95EB - reserved ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David A. Leonard" <dleonar1(at)maine.rr.com>
Subject: Garmin Hand held interface to Century auto pilot
Date: Apr 01, 2001
Anyone know how to get the NMEA (marine interface wires coming out of the power cable) on a Garmin 295 GPS to run the autopilot? I have an old Century II that is theoretically coupled to my radios, but really only likes following the DG. I was thinking that it would back up the Vacuum system well if the GPS could be coupled to the AP. Thanks, Dave Leonard Bellanca Super Viking ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HornetBall(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 01, 2001
Subject: Re: Garmin Hand held interface to Century auto pilot
In a message dated 4/1/01 4:30:38 PM Central Daylight Time, dleonar1(at)maine.rr.com writes: > Anyone know how to get the NMEA (marine interface wires coming out of the > power cable) on a Garmin 295 GPS to run the > autopilot? > > I have an old Century II that is theoretically coupled to my radios, but > really only likes following the DG. I was thinking that it would back up > the Vacuum system well if the GPS could be coupled to the AP. > > Thanks, Dave Leonard > > Bellanca Super Viking > Porcine Associates (www.porcine.com) makes what you need. Just don't tell the FAA that you're coupling your autopilot to non-certified avionics. You'll be very happy and so will they. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 01, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Collins Avionics Question
At 01:44 PM 4/1/2001, you wrote: > >What are people's experiences with Collins eqmt? I have them in my Musketeer >and they have worked flawlessly. I am considering buying a package with a >DME and RNAV and selling what is left over. I think I will have an almost >complete with instruments(2 VORs and indicators + GS) IFR stack. I will be >short an audio panel and one comm. > >Should I sell all for $3500 +- or keep as spares. It is 30 year-old technology that isn't made anymore. Collins isn't even in the light GA market anymore. Spare parts are hard to come by. If you are comfortable with that ... Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Davis" <rvpilot(at)mpinet.net>
Subject: Re: Garmin Hand held interface to Century auto pilot
Date: Apr 01, 2001
Dave, The NMEA 0183 signal needs to be converted to analog. An outfit named Porcine associates out in Calif make a little box that does this called Smart Coupler or something like that. Their No. might be in the Yeller Pages. They usually have a display next to Jeff Rose (Electroair) at S&F & Oshkosh. Bill RV-8 N48WD ----- Original Message ----- From: "David A. Leonard" <dleonar1(at)maine.rr.com> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 5:25 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Garmin Hand held interface to Century auto pilot > > Anyone know how to get the NMEA (marine interface wires coming out of the > power cable) on a Garmin 295 GPS to run the > autopilot? > > I have an old Century II that is theoretically coupled to my radios, but > really only likes following the DG. I was thinking that it would back up > the Vacuum system well if the GPS could be coupled to the AP. > > Thanks, Dave Leonard > > Bellanca Super Viking > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 01, 2001
Subject: Re: Collins Avionics Question
From: Shelby Smith <rvaitor(at)home.com>
Thanks Brian, I've been flying them for almost two years and not one glitch. S-tec is supporting them (http://www.s-tec.com/products.html) and I called their tech support, everyone was at lunch, but I got an excellent call back with lots of info - very helpful - invited me to call anytime. I haven't talked to anyone who has had a lot of problems with the Collins - have you had a lot problems? One interesting thing I found out from the fellow I am thinking about buying an RNAV from(which, BTW, is no longer supported) is the Collins IND 351 can be coupled to the Garmin GNS 430 - I don't think my King KI-209 will. Thanks and haven't most of us been flying 30+ year old technology until about 5 years ago? Does Steve Barnard still have his RV? -- Shelby Smith rvaitor(at)home.com RV6A - Skinning Fuselage - 200HP N95EB - reserved > From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com> > Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 15:55:41 -0700 > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Collins Avionics Question > > It is 30 year-old technology that isn't made anymore. Collins isn't even > in the light GA market anymore. Spare parts are hard to come by. If you > are comfortable with that ... > > > Brian Lloyd > brian(at)lloyd.com > +1.530.676.1113 - voice > +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 01, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Collins Avionics Question
At 07:14 PM 4/1/2001, you wrote: > >Thanks Brian, > >I've been flying them for almost two years and not one glitch. S-tec is >supporting them (http://www.s-tec.com/products.html) and I called their tech >support, everyone was at lunch, but I got an excellent call back with lots >of info - very helpful - invited me to call anytime. I haven't talked to >anyone who has had a lot of problems with the Collins - have you had a lot >problems? A lot? No. Some? Yes. Fortunately it isn't my airplane that has them. A friend of mine just *HAD* to have this one particular Rockwell 112 (his first airplane). It has the Collins MicroLine radios. >One interesting thing I found out from the fellow I am thinking >about buying an RNAV from(which, BTW, is no longer supported) Don't feel bad. I just bought an Aztec which has a King KNS-80. I have discovered King no longer supports it. I must be getting old because I remember when the KNS-80 came out. Heck, I almost put one in my Comanche when I rebuilt its panel in 1985. Instead I put in an IFR-certified LORAN just to be different. That turned out to be a good choice. >is the Collins >IND 351 can be coupled to the Garmin GNS 430 - I don't think my King KI-209 >will. It depends on which flavor of the KI-209 you have (KI-209b I think). I have a KI-209 in my CJ6A with a selector switch that allows me to switch it between the KX-155 and the Apollo SL-60 GPS/com. It works like a champ with the exception that the KI-209 needs power from the KX-155 to operate so the KX-155 has to be on even tho' I never use it. The comm in the SL-60 is way superior to the comm in the KX-155 and I don't use the nav in the KX-155 unless I am shooting an approach. >Thanks and haven't most of us been flying 30+ year old technology until >about 5 years ago? That is true. I have the Comanche from my father (we share it but it lives with him most of the time) and I was just thinking that its panel, all new King gear in 1985, isn't that much out of date other than the fact that the comms are 720 channel instead of 760 channel. OTOH, I haven't seen too much that is new besides the UPSAT/Apollo gear and the Sierra Flight Systems stuff. UPSAT's stuff doesn't seem all that different on the outside but it sure is different on the inside. I am seriously impressed. Then there is Garmin: fancy outside, questionable technology/engineering inside. You can tell which company is run by engineers and which one is run by marketroids. >Does Steve Barnard still have his RV? I think so but I don't know for sure. We are in the same EAA chapter but I haven't been to an EAA chapter meeting in way-too-long. I suspect if I went more regularly, I would know. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 02, 2001
Subject: Re: Collins Avionics Question
From: Shelby Smith <rvaitor(at)home.com>
> From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com> > Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 20:28:29 -0700 > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Collins Avionics Question > > > At 07:14 PM 4/1/2001, you wrote: >> >> Thanks Brian, >> >> I've been flying them for almost two years and not one glitch. S-tec is >> supporting them (http://www.s-tec.com/products.html) and I called their tech >> support, everyone was at lunch, but I got an excellent call back with lots >> of info - very helpful - invited me to call anytime. I haven't talked to >> anyone who has had a lot of problems with the Collins - have you had a lot >> problems? > > A lot? No. Some? Yes. Fortunately it isn't my airplane that has > them. A friend of mine just *HAD* to have this one particular Rockwell 112 > (his first airplane). It has the Collins MicroLine radios. Well, I've got a friend that just bought a 112 out in CA. Should be back here, if not already, this week. I told him I liked the Collins radios. > >> One interesting thing I found out from the fellow I am thinking >> about buying an RNAV from(which, BTW, is no longer supported) > > Don't feel bad. I just bought an Aztec which has a King KNS-80. I have > discovered King no longer supports it. I must be getting old because I > remember when the KNS-80 came out. Heck, I almost put one in my Comanche > when I rebuilt its panel in 1985. Instead I put in an IFR-certified LORAN > just to be different. That turned out to be a good choice. Back in the mid 80's my dad had a 182RG with RNAV, and we thought we were in tall cotton(that means hot stuff if you're not from the south). The issue now for me is what is the additional cost of having the RNAV(I'm just now adding a DME). That would allow IFR direct filing - cost probably $500. > >> is the Collins >> IND 351 can be coupled to the Garmin GNS 430 - I don't think my King KI-209 >> will. > > It depends on which flavor of the KI-209 you have (KI-209b I think). I > have a KI-209 in my CJ6A with a selector switch that allows me to switch it > between the KX-155 and the Apollo SL-60 GPS/com. It works like a champ > with the exception that the KI-209 needs power from the KX-155 to operate > so the KX-155 has to be on even tho' I never use it. The comm in the SL-60 > is way superior to the comm in the KX-155 and I don't use the nav in the > KX-155 unless I am shooting an approach. > >> Thanks and haven't most of us been flying 30+ year old technology until >> about 5 years ago? > > That is true. I have the Comanche from my father (we share it but it lives > with him most of the time) and I was just thinking that its panel, all new > King gear in 1985, isn't that much out of date other than the fact that the > comms are 720 channel instead of 760 channel. > > OTOH, I haven't seen too much that is new besides the UPSAT/Apollo gear and > the Sierra Flight Systems stuff. UPSAT's stuff doesn't seem all that > different on the outside but it sure is different on the inside. I am > seriously impressed. Then there is Garmin: fancy outside, questionable > technology/engineering inside. You can tell which company is run by > engineers and which one is run by marketroids. That is interesting. It seems sooo many folks are doing the Garmin thing. I have liked the UPSAT stuff especially the slim line. That is encouraging that it is better on the inside. > >> Does Steve Barnard still have his RV? > > I think so but I don't know for sure. We are in the same EAA chapter but I > haven't been to an EAA chapter meeting in way-too-long. I suspect if I > went more regularly, I would know. > > > Brian Lloyd > brian(at)lloyd.com > +1.530.676.1113 - voice > +1.360.838.9669 - fax Thanks again, -- Shelby Smith 68 B-23 N4004T serial #1110 Located at EAA Chapter 162 Sport Aviation Complex ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Eliminate Audio Panel ?
From: Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com
Date: Apr 02, 2001
04/02/2001 07:50:05 AM >I'm interested in eliminating the audio panel in the Glastar I'm building. How might this be done while having two radios ? The UPS SL-30 navcom has a built-in intercom, and both the nav and com are able to monitor a 2nd channel. This might do the job for you. Note that if you want a 2nd com in case the first one fails, you will need another radio and you probably won't be able to use the SL-30 intercom with it. I see three alternatives for a backup with the SL-30: 1) omit the 2nd radio. probably OK for vfr. 2) use a handheld for an emergency backup. 3) switch your headset to the 2nd radio if the first one fails. g. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 02, 2001
From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com>
Subject: Re: Eliminate Audio Panel ? - SL30
> >I'm interested in eliminating the audio panel in the Glastar I'm building. >How might this be done while having two radios ? One annoyance with most >modern audio panels is their ADF and DME and second NAV buttons, which I'll >never need. Is there some combination of two radios with features such as >frequency monitoring and built-in intercom which would make an audio panel >(and intercom ?) unnecessary ? I bought the UPS SL30 comm which includes an intercom (not a great one) but more importantly, ability to monitor a 2nd channel. As soon as anything comes in on the primary channel the aux channel gets blocked. This is 90% as good as 2 radios, especially for things like picking up ATIS while still staying in touch with ATC, or monitoring the 'next' frequency such as tower while you are currently talking to ground. I see in an adv that they have a nav version with a CDI built in. This one radio can do a lot of what an audio panel would do. I actually prefer it to the normal audio panel which doesn't give the main channel priority, just mashes them together into one stream of cacophony (cacaphony?). Bruce ------- WWW.SYSTRONIX.COM ---------- Real embedded Java and much more High speed 8051 systems +1-801-534-1017 Salt Lake City, USA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 02, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Eliminate Audio Panel ?
At 07:50 AM 4/2/2001, you wrote: >I see three alternatives for a backup with the SL-30: >1) omit the 2nd radio. probably OK for vfr. I use an SL-60 as the only comm in my Piper Clipper. The radios are extremely reliable. The ability to monitor the standby freq makes a second comm unnecessary. It works just peachy for IFR. So long as you have the ability to navigate, the comm is superfluous. >2) use a handheld for an emergency backup. This is probably the right answer. >3) switch your headset to the 2nd radio if the first one fails. That works. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 02, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Eliminate Audio Panel ? - SL30
The SL-30 has standby channel monitor in the com and the ability to track both the active and standby freqs in the nav. The active freq drives the omni head (CDI/OBS) while the standby will give you radial or bearing to the station for a second VOR. This one radio does 99% of what you would use two nav-coms for. Combine it with an SL-60 or GX-60 GPS/com and you have a LOT of capability in a very small package with no single point of failure. The nav and com sections of the SL-30, SL-60, and GX-60 are separate so failure of one doesn't take out all your capability. For something that simple I would go with the PS Engineering PMA-4000. It gives transmitter switching, the ability to switch com audio, and a nice intercom in a small footprint. I did build my own audio switching for my RV-4. It was pretty simple with a mic selector for the com or an external hand-held radio, and separate audio switching for the com, nav, MB receiver, and external radio. The audio source switching was passive (resistive summing) and fed the line input of my intercom (intercom acting as a buffer amp). It worked very well and I was able to put the switches in a convenient place on the left side of my panel where I could use them without taking my hand of the stick. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DanJE(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 03, 2001
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 03/31/01
Scott Jackson: LEFT HAND ON THE STICK (A message for right handers!) I've flown all sorts of aircraft, having been military and flown all the USAF fighters and many of the transports and even some bombers; as well as having flown the prototype BD-5, both prop and jet at the Bede factory in Kansas; and also having flown darn near every thing Boeing has built for the airlines since 1963, as well as the Convair 880 (there's a rare one for you!); AND, having flown as a test pilot for the Navy at Patuxent River, I've flown the F-18... but it has a centER stick, not a side stick as the F-16 does. I mention the BD-5 because of all the airplanes I've flown, the BD-5 felt the MOST NATURAL with a RIGHT side stick controller (like the F-16) and a left side throttle/ flaps, etc. At the moment, I fly the Boeing 777, which has conventional Boeing yoke set up (I'm a Captain, so the throttles are in the right hand). This is just like flying a Cessna 150, and while it works, its only second best to the BD-5 / F-16, or even the right seat of any Boeing Airliner. The Airbice all have a nice side stick controller, best flown from the right seat if you're right handed. But, the feedback is unusual, and the throttles don't move with rpm / EPR changes -- the throttles are force feel switches, basically. This is unerving to a Boeing pilot for a while. We expect to SEE the control move when the autopilot / autothrottle does something! I also own and fly an RV-6. (That's why I'm here.) I fly the RV-6 from the left seat, just in case someone sees me and then they know that I'm still "the Captain" of my RV-6! But, truth be told, its much easier to fly from the right seat with stick in right hand, throttle in left hand! I HATE the center stick in left hand, throttle in right hand set up in my RV-6! Getting used to landing the RV-6 with stick in left hand, throttle in right hand was quite disconcerting at first. But in all things like that, your brain eventually 'reprograms' the mental software, and you learn how... But its never as good as a landing with the right hand on the stick! Consider this (right handers..): Could you EVER learn to write with excellent penmanship with your LEFT hand? I think not! My suggestion for the RV-6 set up: Build it like Van says, but... put an ADDITIONAL throttle on the left sidewall. Then, either pilot can fly 99% of the time with right hand on stick, left hand on the throttle! Works great for landing! By the way, overhead cockpit switches in airliners are not specifically a Boeing decision... Sometimes, the airline orders the plane built differently. TWA has long had the overhead switches and even the Flight Engineer switches on the 727 go the WRONG way (from all the other airlines with identical airplanes!). The Convair 880 also had all the switches backward on the overhead panel from the usual Boeing/United/American/Delta/everyone besides TWA method -- I'm told all of this had to do with one particular individual who had a LOT to say about the design of TWA aircraft in the early 1960's -- Howard Hughes. Mr Hughes practically dictated everything about the Convair 880 (and hence, the 990) and he wanted the switches UP for on, not forward, as Boeing and all the rest did them! In the military, we used to have a saying that would generally allow you to fly almost any airplane: Shiny switches up or outboard, red guarded switches all closed or covered, and dull or safety-wired switches left just as they are-- go fly! Dan Eikleberry RV-6... Flying. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jayeandscott" <jayeandscott(at)home.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 03/31/01
Date: Apr 03, 2001
----- Original Message ----- From: <DanJE(at)aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 3:00 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 03/31/01 > Thanks for your input and I agree wholeheartedly with your observations and am impressed with your experience. It's actually pretty simple mod to install a left hand throttle as a single-lever quadrant tied into a centre quadrant which has a throttle lever that extends below the pivot point and that's where the Teleflex cable from the other lever attaches(just in case you were considering it). > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 03, 2001
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 03/31/01
From: Shelby Smith <rvaitor(at)home.com>
That was the question I was going to ask - how hard is it to install dual engine controls? -- Shelby Smith rvaitor(at)home.com RV6A - Skinning Fuselage - 200HP N95EB - reserved > From: "jayeandscott" <jayeandscott(at)home.com> > Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:53:44 -0700 > To: > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 03/31/01 > > Thanks for your input and I agree wholeheartedly with your observations and > am impressed with your experience. It's actually pretty simple mod to > install a left hand throttle as a single-lever quadrant tied into a centre > quadrant which has a throttle lever that extends below the pivot point and > that's where the Teleflex cable from the other lever attaches(just in case > you were considering it). ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary" <gpoulos(at)mind.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 03/31/01
Date: Apr 03, 2001
Dan Eikleberry wrote... > But its never as good as a landing with the right hand on the stick! My RV-7A (still in the planning stage until my daughter gets through college) will be set up to fly from the right seat, just like a Sia Marchetti at our local airport. > By the way, overhead cockpit switches... I've experienced planes with overhead switched, had to turn my bifocals upside-down to read them. Don't know how you airliner-types do it. Thanks, Dan, for the great analysis. __________ Gary ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jayeandscott" <jayeandscott(at)home.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 03/31/01
Date: Apr 03, 2001
It'd only be simple if the centre throttle was also a lever type and not the plunger that most RV's have. I'm assuming you only want the throttle on the left- the propp, mixture and carbheat would still be in the centre. ----- Original Message ----- From: Shelby Smith <rvaitor(at)home.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 4:21 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 03/31/01 > > That was the question I was going to ask - how hard is it to install dual > engine controls? > > -- > Shelby Smith > rvaitor(at)home.com > RV6A - Skinning Fuselage - 200HP > N95EB - reserved > > From: "jayeandscott" <jayeandscott(at)home.com> > > Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > > Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:53:44 -0700 > > To: > > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 03/31/01 > > > > Thanks for your input and I agree wholeheartedly with your observations and > > am impressed with your experience. It's actually pretty simple mod to > > install a left hand throttle as a single-lever quadrant tied into a centre > > quadrant which has a throttle lever that extends below the pivot point and > > that's where the Teleflex cable from the other lever attaches(just in case > > you were considering it). > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 03, 2001
From: Collins <collins(at)pali.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 03/31/01
How about the center stick and outboard throttles of the Zenith designs? Have you flown one? At least from the left seat, it would seem to be just right. I am learning in a Citabria and throttle seems right to me also. Bob Collins Sunnyvale CA USA DanJE(at)aol.com wrote: > > > Scott Jackson: > LEFT HAND ON THE STICK (A message for right handers!) > I've flown all sorts of aircraft, having been military and flown all the > USAF fighters and many of the transports and even some bombers; as well as > having flown the prototype BD-5, both prop and jet at the Bede factory in > Kansas; and also having flown darn near every thing Boeing has built for the > airlines since 1963, as well as the Convair 880 (there's a rare one for > you!); AND, having flown as a test pilot for the Navy at Patuxent River, I've > flown the F-18... but it has a centER stick, not a side stick as the F-16 > does. > I mention the BD-5 because of all the airplanes I've flown, the BD-5 felt > the MOST NATURAL with a RIGHT side stick controller (like the F-16) and a > left side throttle/ flaps, etc. > > At the moment, I fly the Boeing 777, which has conventional Boeing yoke > set up (I'm a Captain, so the throttles are in the right hand). This is just > like flying a Cessna 150, and while it works, its only second best to the > BD-5 / F-16, or even the right seat of any Boeing Airliner. > > The Airbice all have a nice side stick controller, best flown from the > right seat if you're right handed. But, the feedback is unusual, and the > throttles don't move with rpm / EPR changes -- the throttles are force feel > switches, basically. This is unerving to a Boeing pilot for a while. We > expect to SEE the control move when the autopilot / autothrottle does > something! > > I also own and fly an RV-6. (That's why I'm here.) I fly the RV-6 from > the left seat, just in case someone sees me and then they know that I'm still > "the Captain" of my RV-6! But, truth be told, its much easier to fly from the > right seat with stick in right hand, throttle in left hand! I HATE the > center stick in left hand, throttle in right hand set up in my RV-6! > > Getting used to landing the RV-6 with stick in left hand, throttle in > right hand was quite disconcerting at first. But in all things like that, > your brain eventually 'reprograms' the mental software, and you learn how... > But its never as good as a landing with the right hand on the stick! > Consider this (right handers..): Could you EVER learn to write with excellent > penmanship with your LEFT hand? I think not! > > My suggestion for the RV-6 set up: Build it like Van says, but... put an > ADDITIONAL throttle on the left sidewall. Then, either pilot can fly 99% of > the time with right hand on stick, left hand on the throttle! Works great for > landing! > > By the way, overhead cockpit switches in airliners are not specifically a > Boeing decision... Sometimes, the airline orders the plane built differently. > TWA has long had the overhead switches and even the Flight Engineer switches > on the 727 go the WRONG way (from all the other airlines with identical > airplanes!). The Convair 880 also had all the switches backward on the > overhead panel from the usual Boeing/United/American/Delta/everyone besides > TWA method -- > > I'm told all of this had to do with one particular individual who had a LOT > to say about the design of TWA aircraft in the early 1960's -- Howard Hughes. > Mr Hughes practically dictated everything about the Convair 880 (and hence, > the 990) and he wanted the switches UP for on, not forward, as Boeing and > all the rest did them! > > In the military, we used to have a saying that would generally allow you to > fly almost any airplane: Shiny switches up or outboard, red guarded switches > all closed or covered, and dull or safety-wired switches left just as they > are-- go fly! > > Dan Eikleberry > RV-6... Flying. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 03, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Right hand, left hand
At 03:00 PM 4/3/2001, you wrote: > Getting used to landing the RV-6 with stick in left hand, throttle in >right hand was quite disconcerting at first. But in all things like that, >your brain eventually 'reprograms' the mental software, and you learn how... >But its never as good as a landing with the right hand on the stick! >Consider this (right handers..): Could you EVER learn to write with excellent >penmanship with your LEFT hand? I think not! You have quite a bit of background but your measure is in how you fly the airplane. I have and regularly fly a Comanche (yoke in left hand), a Nanchang CJ6A (stick in right hand), a Piper PA-16 Clipper (stick in left hand), and then I instruct in the Clipper (stick in right hand), and a C-150 (yoke in right hand). I fly all of them and make a point of flying them all very well. Sure I would prefer stick in right hand but I prefer a yoke in my left. Go figure. The key point is being able to fly the airplane to both yours and its limits. Nothing else really matters. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DanJE(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 04, 2001
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 04/03/01
I've got a NON-Avionics question... How do you guys get this continuous-running-email thing so early? I was getting private email responses this afternoon, shortly after I posted my message here. And, there were several responses on it when I got the message tonight. In my computer, the matronics.com mail lists messages always seem to arrive at 11:55 pm each night. And yet, you guys were reading and responding all day long! HOW do I retrieve or view this string of messages anytime in the day? All i can get is the message sent previously, the night before! Is there a way to access this without having to wait for the mail to arrive? Dan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com>
Subject: Re: Digest vs (was Re: Avionics-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 04/03/01)
Date: Apr 04, 2001
> How do you guys get this continuous-running-email thing so early? > > I was getting private email responses this afternoon, shortly after I posted > my message here. And, there were several responses on it when I got the > message tonight. > In my computer, the matronics.com mail lists messages always seem to arrive > at 11:55 pm each night. And yet, you guys were reading and responding all > day long! > > HOW do I retrieve or view this string of messages anytime in the day? All i > can get is the message sent previously, the night before! Is there a way to > access this without having to wait for the mail to arrive? Hey Dan, Sounds to me like you're subscribed to the Digest version of the list (the topic of the message indicates that as well). Go back to the subscription form and change it to the normal (non-digets) form. http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/ Steve Steven J. Devine, President, Consultant, TZOGON Enterprises Incorporated President, EAA Chapter 136 (LWM/Merrimac Valley) steve@tzogon.com HAM Tech lic: N1YZJ http://www.tzogon.com http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/glass_cockpit http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/stolch801 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "mmucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net>
Subject: left hand vs right hand controls
Date: Apr 05, 2001
So what's the ideal for left-handed pilots like me? I'm waaaaaaaaaaaay far away from this step, but I was considering putting a left sidestick on my Zenith (I'm left handed) and a center throttle quadrant. My only concern with this setup is that I'll have to take my hand off the stick to write anything down. Comments? I'd love to hear them! -Matt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 04, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: digest vs. individual messages
At 12:52 AM 4/4/2001, you wrote: > >I've got a NON-Avionics question... >How do you guys get this continuous-running-email thing so early? Matronics offers both direct and digest email. If you subscribe to the digest email, the mail server saves up the day's messages and then sends them to you all at once in a single large email message at the end of the day. If you want to receive the individual messages, change your subscription at the matronics web site: http://www.matronics.com/avionics-list Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 04, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: left hand vs right hand controls
At 09:43 AM 4/5/2001, you wrote: > >So what's the ideal for left-handed pilots like me? > >I'm waaaaaaaaaaaay far away from this step, but I was considering putting a >left sidestick on my Zenith (I'm left handed) and a center throttle >quadrant. > >My only concern with this setup is that I'll have to take my hand off the >stick to write anything down. > >Comments? I'd love to hear them! Do it whichever way you are most comfortable and then train yourself to fly it. The key is not which hand you use for stick, throttle, switches, etc.; the key is not having to switch hands on the stick/yoke in order to fiddle with knobs and switches. The other thing is to lay things out so you can find them blindfolded. It is nice to be confident in turning things on/off or changing frequencies when you are in the clag, on the gauges, and experiencing moderate turbulence. I would much rather be looking at the six-pack than hunting around the cockpit for that elusive switch. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Right hand, left hand
From: Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com
Date: Apr 04, 2001
5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 04/04/2001 10:10:04 AM >How about the center stick and outboard throttles of the Zenith designs? Have you flown one? At least from the left seat, it would seem to be just right. I have a lot of hours in a Zenith CH601, and I find it very natural and easy to fly - right hand on stick, left hand on throttle. Having the stick on the right instead of in the center (between knees) is more comfortable. However, when it is time to tune the radios it is a bit awkward as it is necessary to fly with the left hand for a bit, and it is a long reach. In practice this is not a big deal but it is less than perfect, especially while IFR (the 601 is not a particularly stable IFR platform). Thinking about Dan Eikleberry's very interesting post, I wonder if the best system for a right hander would be to fly from the right seat with a side stick on the right, engine controls in the center, and radios on the left. The left hand gets to do engine and radio work with minimum reaching, and the right hand gets to fly from it's most natural position. Anyway, if others wonder about the Zenith designs, I like the center stick setup. g. PS - I have even more hours in Cessnas, 150 through 210, with left hand on the yoke and right hand on the throttle. That works just fine for me, although not as well as the 601HD. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "mmucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net>
Subject: Right hand, left hand
Date: Apr 05, 2001
Glenn wrote: >Thinking about Dan Eikleberry's very interesting post, I wonder >if the best system for a right hander would be to fly from >the right seat with a side stick on the right, engine controls >in the center, and radios on the left. The left hand gets >to do engine and radio work with minimum reaching, and the >right hand gets to fly from it's most natural position. This is *exactly* what I'm considering for my Zenith! (Except I'm left handed and would fly left seat.) I like the thought of adjusting radios and other equipment without having to take my hand off the stick, AND that the radios would be accessible from either seat. (Engine and radio controls in the center.) My only concern, again, is that I'd have to take my hand off the stick to do any writing. Hmmm.... if I could only grow a third arm... -Matt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 04, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Right hand, left hand
At 10:10 AM 4/4/2001, you wrote: >Thinking about Dan Eikleberry's very interesting post, I wonder >if the best system for a right hander would be to fly from >the right seat with a side stick on the right, engine controls >in the center, and radios on the left. The left hand gets >to do engine and radio work with minimum reaching, and the >right hand gets to fly from it's most natural position. My Clipper is side-by-side seating with sticks. I do prefer to fly from the right seat. The only problem is that the gyros are on the left side. I must admit, I never have to take my right hand off the stick when sitting in the right seat. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 05, 2001
Subject: Re: left hand vs right hand controls
In a message dated 04/04/2001 9:48:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mmucker(at)airmail.net writes: > I'm waaaaaaaaaaaay far away from this step, but I was considering putting a > left sidestick on my Zenith (I'm left handed) and a center throttle > quadrant. > > My only concern with this setup is that I'll have to take my hand off the > stick to write anything down. > > Comments? I'd love to hear them! > > -Matt > Use a tape recorder. :-) Jim Ayers ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 9 Msgs - 04/04/01
From: Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com
Date: Apr 05, 2001
5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 04/05/2001 06:49:28 AM > My only concern with this setup is that I'll have to take my hand off the stick to write anything down. That is the one big problem with my center-stick CH601. Big pain while IFR. Best solution: an autopilot. g. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hook57(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 08, 2001
Subject: Re: left hand vs right hand controls
Left hand right hand left hand right hand......must be nice to have a choice! Have'nt you ever flinched at that little gnat that flew toward you from the left ...err right...whatever side, you didn't pause to train your lt/rt hand to swat at it. It takes a little time and practice but you'll learn to cooridinate the movements required for the aircraft. Personally I like the stick or yoke in the hook and the throttle in the right hand, but in my case it is the only choice, but on occassion I've had the throttle in the hook and the yoke/stick in the right hand ( from jets to citabrias)not a big deal. Enjoy the flying..... Mark....almost there RV6 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 08, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: left hand vs right hand controls
At 05:44 PM 4/8/2001, you wrote: > >Left hand right hand left hand right hand......must be nice to have a choice! >Have'nt you ever flinched at that little gnat that flew toward you from the >left ...err right...whatever side, you didn't pause to train your lt/rt hand >to swat at it. It takes a little time and practice but you'll learn to >cooridinate the movements required for the aircraft. Personally I like the >stick or yoke in the hook and the throttle in the right hand, but in my case >it is the only choice, but on occassion I've had the throttle in the hook and >the yoke/stick in the right hand ( from jets to citabrias)not a big deal. >Enjoy the flying..... >Mark....almost there RV6 And then there is the paraplegic at Palo Alto who has modified his Grob motorglider with the aileron/elevator stick in one hand and rudder stick in the other. I think he opted for a twist-grip (motorcycle/helicopter) throttle on the rudder stick. I see him flying regularly so it must work pretty well for him. I guess you can get used to anything. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jayeandscott" <jayeandscott(at)home.com>
Subject: Re: left hand vs right hand controls
Date: Apr 08, 2001
Hi Guys- I thought we'd beaten this thread to death..... any helicopters out there with reversed controls? ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 6:03 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: left hand vs right hand controls > > At 05:44 PM 4/8/2001, you wrote: > > > >Left hand right hand left hand right hand......must be nice to have a choice! > >Have'nt you ever flinched a > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Daniel Pelletier" <pelletie1(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: ICS NAV/COM RADIO an KT76A TRANSPONDER
Date: Apr 16, 2001
HI LIST, I'm completing cuts in my panel and plan to buy an ICS Nav/com from Wag-Aero. I'd like to get the exact slot size for the ICS UNIT. Anybody have info. P.S. Anybody has the same info for the KING CROWN series KT76A transponder. Daniel Pelletier 601 HDS >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ronnie Brown" <rolandbrown(at)sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: ICS NAV/COM RADIO an KT76A TRANSPONDER
Date: Apr 15, 2001
Here's the transponder: http://www.bendixking.com/static/aongd/transponders.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Pelletier" <pelletie1(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 8:57 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: ICS NAV/COM RADIO an KT76A TRANSPONDER > > > HI LIST, > > I'm completing cuts in my panel and plan to buy an ICS Nav/com from > Wag-Aero. I'd like to get the exact slot size for the ICS UNIT. Anybody > have info. > > P.S. Anybody has the same info for the KING CROWN series KT76A transponder. > > Daniel Pelletier > 601 HDS > > >> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Daniel Pelletier" <pelletie1(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: ICS NAV/COM RADIO an KT76A TRANSPONDER
Date: Apr 16, 2001
Thanks for info Ronnie. Daniel 601 HDS >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gregory Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: Solid-state gyro
Date: Apr 19, 2001
Has anyone seen or have experience with the solid-state gyro package being offered by PC Flight Systems? It's a $1295 hardware/software gyro package to run on a Pocket PC. Their web site is: http://www.pcflightsystems.com/ They have a link to an article about the BEI Gyrochip that it's apparently based on http://www.sensorsmag.com/articles/0899/26/main.shtml The gyro (software is WinCE specific) looks like a candidate for my glass panel unless there are some inherent flaws or limitations for use as a VFR safety net or maybe light IFR (not hard IFR). Comments? There hasn't been much discussion on this list for a while - any new developments on other solid-state gyros or glass panels? Regards, Greg Young RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) wiring & systems ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 20, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Solid-state gyro
At 09:09 PM 4/19/2001, you wrote: >The gyro (software is WinCE specific) looks like a candidate for my glass >panel unless there are some inherent flaws or limitations for use as a VFR >safety net or maybe light IFR (not hard IFR). Comments? I exchanged email with the gentleman who makes it. He is amenable to make just the gyro package available and would be willing to repackage it. >There hasn't been much discussion on this list for a while - any new >developments on other solid-state gyros or glass panels? Some of us are working on things that might impinge on this area. 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: Solid-state gyro
Date: Apr 21, 2001
>The gyro (software is WinCE specific) looks like a candidate for my glass >panel unless there are some inherent flaws or limitations for use as a VFR >safety net or maybe light IFR (not hard IFR). Comments? Yes, there are limitations: I don't know about the BEI gyrochip, but most of the MEMS (Micro Electo-Mechanical Systems) are affected by vibration, and angular slew rate limitations. Often the chip manufacturers will rate a chip for a specific range of rotational rates, i.e. one chip is sensitive to subtle changes, but will "lose it" if you turn rapidly. Another chip might track fairly well if rotated more rapildy, but drift off after a few seconds when held mostly stationary. So, before buying, I'd find out exactly what MEMS chips are used in the product and locate their data sheets on the Web. Usually the specs will show how many degrees of drift per unit of time to expect. Another consideration: aircraft attitude gyros are self correcting to a degree and will reorient themselves in straight and level flight. Does this product do the same thing automatically, or do you have to frequently adjust it manually like a heading gyro? It is probably possible to detect whether you are in straight and level flight through a clever arangement of MEMS accellerometers--at which point they would send a signal to reset the display. For alternatives to mechanical gyros, I see three competing technologies that are worth exploring: MEMS as above, Ring Laser Gyros/Fiber Optic Gyros and GPS (1 receiver + 4 separate antennae placed on nose, tail and wingtips). I no longer hold any opinion over which is best. I though recently that GPS would be the winning solution because as long as it has signal, it can always figure out your orientation--no drift over time problems. Trouble is, you DO lose signal. I suppose that each technology has its strengths and weaknesses and the ultimate solution will perhaps depend on GPS and either MEMS or RLG/FOG. Marlin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 22, 2001
From: Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz>
Subject: Re: Solid-state gyro
Marlin Mixon wrote: > >The gyro (software is WinCE specific) looks like a candidate for my glass > >panel unless there are some inherent flaws or limitations for use as a VFR > >safety net or maybe light IFR (not hard IFR). Comments? > > Yes, there are limitations: I don't know about the BEI gyrochip, but most > of the MEMS (Micro Electo-Mechanical Systems) are affected by vibration, and > angular slew rate limitations. Yup. Also, most (all?) MEMS gyros are rate gyros... they measure rate of turn. That means that they're possibly suitable to replace a DG, but not to replace an attitude gyro (eg artificial horizon) which is a displacement gyro... it measures the absolute angle of the gyro mount (the aircraft) to the gyro itself. It might (should?) be possible to integrate rate of turn to measure displacement... presumably that's what the WinCE software mentioned does. Frank. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 22, 2001
From: Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz>
Subject: Attitude measurement via GPS
Some time ago, I read a discussion on this, but I can't find it again. I guess it wasn't on this list, but I'm hoping someone here can point me in the direction of some information. As best I can recall, the concept is to connect two GPS antennae to some kind of device that measures the phase difference between the received GPS signals. This difference then tells you the relative positions of the antennae (given 3 visible satellites, I guess), and consequently the attitude of the aircraft. Given three antennae (one at each wingtip, one in the tail) it should be possible to calculate attitude in all 3 axes. IIRC, this technique has something to do with DGPS and allows GPS measurements down to a few cm in accuracy. Frank. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Solid-state gyro
Date: Apr 21, 2001
>From: Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz> > >Marlin Mixon wrote: > > >The gyro (software is WinCE specific) looks like a candidate for my >glass > > >panel unless there are some inherent flaws or limitations for use as a >VFR > > >safety net or maybe light IFR (not hard IFR). Comments? > > > > Yes, there are limitations: I don't know about the BEI gyrochip, but >most > > of the MEMS (Micro Electo-Mechanical Systems) are affected by vibration, >and > > angular slew rate limitations. > >Yup. Also, most (all?) MEMS gyros are rate gyros... they measure rate of >turn. That means that they're possibly suitable to replace a DG, but not >to replace an attitude gyro (eg artificial horizon) which is a >displacement gyro... it measures the absolute angle of the gyro mount >(the aircraft) to the gyro itself. > Yes, integrate the rate over time and you should have your position at any instance. Rotational jerks will cause spikes and vibration causes noise. If your integrator isn't fast enough or misses a reading or too, this can cause error as well. I believe some chips do the integration internally so that they can provide the best data possible. Vibration will get you though! Can you imagine a 60 Hz simple harmonic vibration coupled with a 60 Hz sampling rate? Your AHRS readings might look normal...If you're Patty Wagstaff. >It might (should?) be possible to integrate rate of turn to measure >displacement... presumably that's what the WinCE software mentioned >does. > I presume that the black box that sits on the panel which houses the gyros/accellerometers does the integration of the various sensors. I wouldn't think that the serial interface could provide sufficient bandwidth for this purpose. The serial interface would have to provide simple info like "5 degrees low, 3 degrees right, Hdg 030" on a continuous cycle. Marlin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Attitude measurement via GPS
Date: Apr 22, 2001
>From: Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz> > > >Some time ago, I read a discussion on this, but I can't find it again. I >guess it wasn't on this list, but I'm hoping someone here can point me >in the direction of some information. > Yes, a long while back there was a reference to Seagull Systems. I just found the page over there (link is below) for their GIA 2000. Interesting because they're doing the hybrid that I mentioned in a previous email. http://www.seagull.com/VehicleControl/VehicleControlMain.html >As best I can recall, the concept is to connect two GPS antennae to some >kind of device that measures the phase difference between the received >GPS signals. This difference then tells you the relative positions of >the antennae (given 3 visible satellites, I guess), and consequently the No, only one satellite is needed (more below). >attitude of the aircraft. Given three antennae (one at each wingtip, one >in the tail) it should be possible to calculate attitude in all 3 axes. > >IIRC, this technique has something to do with DGPS and allows GPS >measurements down to a few cm in accuracy. Yes, that's my understanding--They figure out the phase difference of the actual signal wave. Also the attitude accuracy, in the cm range, transcends the Selective Availability problems--you get the accuracy even with S/A turned on because you aren't measuring any GPS position, you are comparing the difference in time between satellite A and antenna X versus satellite A and antenna Y. Because the satellites are typically so far away, the signal can be thought of mathematically as a plane eminating from from the satellite, coming at you like a square-rigger's boat sail. Marlin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 22, 2001
From: Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz>
Subject: Re: Solid-state gyro
Marlin Mixon wrote: > >It might (should?) be possible to integrate rate of turn to measure > >displacement... presumably that's what the WinCE software mentioned > >does. > > I presume that the black box that sits on the panel which houses the > gyros/accellerometers does the integration of the various sensors. I > wouldn't think that the serial interface could provide sufficient bandwidth > for this purpose. The serial interface would have to provide simple info > like "5 degrees low, 3 degrees right, Hdg 030" on a continuous cycle. Yes, you're right... the specs page says "The EFIS-AIGRYRO6X module contains a microprocessor that uses digital signal processing algorithms to process the solid state gyroscope and accelerometer signals. The signal processing algorithms convert the sensor signals to roll and pitch information. The roll and pitch information is then encoded into an RS232 serial data signal, which is sent to the PocketPC display unit." Also, the RS232 interface runs at 115Kbps, and updates are "greater than 50 frames of all axis per second". Running the serial port at 115Kbps in a high-noise environment seems to me to be asking for trouble. Curiously, the Sensors Mag page says these gyros work by the Coriolis effect due to Earth's rotation. Then it says they were used on the Mars Sojourner and in space applications! Frank. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 22, 2001
From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Re: Solid-state gyro
What I'd like to know is who actually makes the BEI Gyrochip itself and where to purchase it. Not the aluminum cast/machined cased modules, just the IC (Integrated Circuit) chip itself. I know where to buy the accelerometers (Analog Devices, from Newark). Finn Frank and Dorothy wrote: > Yes, you're right... the specs page says "The EFIS-AIGRYRO6X module > contains a microprocessor that uses digital signal processing algorithms > to > process the solid state gyroscope and accelerometer signals. The signal > processing algorithms convert the sensor signals to roll and pitch > information. > The roll and pitch information is then encoded into an RS232 serial data > signal, > which is sent to the PocketPC display unit." NetZero Platinum No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month! http://www.netzero.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John W Livingston" <jliving(at)erinet.com>
Subject: Solid-state gyro
Date: Apr 22, 2001
>Curiously, the Sensors Mag page says these gyros work by the Coriolis >effect due to Earth's rotation. Then it says they were used on the Mars >Sojourner and in space applications! The Coriolis effect was originally described in terms of a side force caused by a radial motion(due to north south travel at a longitude away from the equator) relative to the earth's center of rotation, but the effect is simply the Newtonian cross coupling of inertial forces when a radially moving mass is rotated about that axis. The best example I know of (since I have experienced it) is trying to walk inward from the outside edge a merry-go-round. To conserve rotating momentum, you are accelerated to the side. John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <tcwatson(at)seanet.com>
Subject: Re: Solid-state gyro
Date: Apr 22, 2001
I found this on a rotary engine list: www.pcfilghtsystems.com/ Terry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Solid-state gyro
Date: Apr 22, 2001
>From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> >What I'd like to know is who actually makes the BEI Gyrochip itself and >where to >purchase it. Not the aluminum cast/machined cased modules, just the IC >(Integrated >Circuit) chip itself. > >I know where to buy the accelerometers (Analog Devices, from Newark). I was wondering that myself. six months ago, I spent some time researching this. I found one nice chip that seemed to meet my specs, but they didn't post a price. I emailed for a quote for a single axis gyro chip and the nice lady emailed me back and told me they were $1,200 each, but I could get $200 off per chip if I bought a dozen or more. These chips definitely are not at the "jellybean jar stage." Marlin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Solid-state gyro
Date: Apr 22, 2001
One other thing, the reason why MEMS accellerometers are easily obtainable whereas MEMS gyros are not is the automotive industry: The car manufacturers are using the accellerometers for airbag deployment, but relatively few manufacturers are yet using gyros for spinout detection. I understand, however, that some of the new Cadillacs are using MEMS gyros, so before too long, you should be able to acquire a few at the local junkyard. Marlin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 22, 2001
From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com>
Subject: new native Java controller - usable in avionics?
Disclaimer: this is a semi-commercial announcement, which list members may find interesting. JStamp has not been approved by any government agency for specific use in aircraft. For a long time, Rockwell-Collins has been making and using their own real-time embedded controllers in their commercial and military avionics and flight controls. They make their own since they must meet stringent military and FAA requirements. These are programmed in ADA, which is a language approved by the military and FAA. Some years ago, about the time the Java language (tm Sun Microsystems) emerged, some engineers realized their controller could be modified to execute Java 'byte codes' as its native instruction set. This would eliminate the slow layers of a JVM (java virtual machine), operating system, etc. The Java language would actually execute natively right on the silicon, the same way assembly code on other controllers does. This would provide a huge increase in performance, while still allowing the well-documented Java benefits of fewer bugs, faster development, huge sets of available code, etc. A group of engineers and experienced chip designers from other backgrounds started their own company, called aJile Systems (www.ajile.com). After several years of work and refinement, these native Java controllers are now available! Forget the assumptions that Java is slow and requires a ton of memory on a huge controller, sucks a lot of power, etc. The aJile controllers change all that. My company, Systronix (www.systronix.com) has taken one of these controllers, added a power supply, memory, and other logic, and squeezed it all on to a tiny 1x2 inch module about the size of a large postage stamp. We call it the JStamp. They are shipping now, details at http://www.jstamp.com. They range from $100-150 in modest quantity. With it's heritage of avionics and hard real-time capability, it would be interesting to use some of these in some aircraft avionics systems. We're talking with some vendors of Java graphical support, including - you guessed it - flight instrument displays. We are developing support for a 100x32 1x2 inch monochrome graphic LCD, and CAN network to communicate between modules. Future versions, in PC104 and 100x160 mm form factor, will support color 1/4 VGA and ethernet. Demo versions of all these were shown at recent trade shows and will be at JavaOne in SFO in June. One thing which has held back development of powerful, reasonably-priced avionics is that for intelligence, you either have to settle for a tiny 8-bit controller with 64 KBytes of memory, or jump to an embedded PC. Now you can have a 32-bit controller with a rich high-level language at little more than the 8-bit system cost. We are interested in supporting any of you who might find this new technology interesting. I've been following the solid state gyro thread and may purchase a system to use in a balancing robot, controlled by a JStamp. Thank you Bruce Boyes ------- WWW.SYSTRONIX.COM ---------- Real embedded Java and much more High speed 8051 systems +1-801-534-1017 Salt Lake City, USA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 23, 2001
From: Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz>
Subject: Re: Solid-state gyro
Marlin Mixon wrote: > >From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> > >What I'd like to know is who actually makes the BEI Gyrochip itself and > >where to > >purchase it. Not the aluminum cast/machined cased modules, just the IC > >(Integrated > >Circuit) chip itself. BEI Technologies... http://www.bei-tech.com/ From one of their pages "Inertial Sensors: Known for their advanced technology, excellent reliability and high quality, one of BEI's truly unique technologies is the Systron Donner GyroChip sensor. With quartz as their active sensing element, these rate-of-rotation sensors utilize micro-machined technology. They have developed a proven track record in stabilization, flight control and guidance for aircraft, missiles and guided munitions. Now, through advanced manufacturing techniques, they have made significant gains in commercial markets, embedding their small size, low power and rugged configurations into automotive, medical and communications markets. Our inertial sensor products include several forms of the BEI GyroChip sensor and a six-degree-of-freedom configuration known as the Motion Pak." Contact BEI SYSTRON DONNER INERTIAL DIVISION 2700 Systron Drive Concord, CA 94518 Tel: (925) 671-6400 Fax: (925) 671-6590 > >I know where to buy the accelerometers (Analog Devices, from Newark). > > I was wondering that myself. six months ago, I spent some time researching > this. I found one nice chip that seemed to meet my specs, but they didn't > post a price. I emailed for a quote for a single axis gyro chip and the > nice lady emailed me back and told me they were $1,200 each, but I could get > $200 off per chip if I bought a dozen or more. Ouch! Frank. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 23, 2001
From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Re: Solid-state gyro
Looks like what BEI calls a "chip" is a complete assembly in aluminum or steel case, NOT just the chip. Really would like to know where to purchase the actual chip itself. Finn > Marlin Mixon wrote: > > >From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> > > >What I'd like to know is who actually makes the BEI Gyrochip itself and > > >where to > > >purchase it. Not the aluminum cast/machined cased modules, just the IC > > >(Integrated > > >Circuit) chip itself. > > BEI Technologies... http://www.bei-tech.com/ > > >From one of their pages "Inertial Sensors: Known for their advanced > technology, excellent reliability and high quality, one of BEI's truly > unique technologies is the Systron Donner GyroChip sensor. With quartz > as their active sensing element, these rate-of-rotation sensors utilize > micro-machined technology. They have developed a proven track record in > stabilization, flight control and guidance for aircraft, missiles and > guided munitions. Now, through advanced manufacturing techniques, they > have made significant gains in commercial markets, embedding their > small size, low power and rugged configurations into automotive, medical > and communications markets. Our inertial sensor products include several > forms of the BEI GyroChip sensor and a six-degree-of-freedom > configuration known as the Motion Pak." > > Contact BEI > SYSTRON DONNER INERTIAL DIVISION > 2700 Systron Drive > Concord, CA 94518 > > Tel: (925) 671-6400 > Fax: (925) 671-6590 > > > >I know where to buy the accelerometers (Analog Devices, from Newark). > > > > I was wondering that myself. six months ago, I spent some time researching > > this. I found one nice chip that seemed to meet my specs, but they didn't > > post a price. I emailed for a quote for a single axis gyro chip and the > > nice lady emailed me back and told me they were $1,200 each, but I could get > > $200 off per chip if I bought a dozen or more. NetZero Platinum No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month! http://www.netzero.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Glauser <david.glauser(at)xpsystems.com>
Subject: Solid-state gyro
Date: Apr 23, 2001
http://www.cee.hw.ac.uk/~tena/ins/ This page has lists of many navigation sensors and systems. I don't have experience at the hardware level, but perhaps someone else might benefit from this information. David ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 23, 2001
From: Gordon Robertson <gordon(at)safemail.com>
Subject: EFIS panel
Very interesting discussion re. EFIS panels. Please will anyone comment on the bluemountain system ? http://bluemountainavionics.com/ Gordon Robertson RV-8 fuse and thinking of avionics ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 24, 2001
From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Re: Solid-state gyro
Here's an answer from BEI. (the faxed quote was at $2,200+). I guess we're still some years away from real inexpensive solidstate gyros. Anybody know car make and model these are likely installed in? Maybe need to pay a visit to the junkyard. Finn --- Dear Mr. Lassen: The term "GyroChip" refers to a family of quartz rate sensors manufactured by Systron Donner Inertial Division - SDID (all of SDID sensors share the same technology; i.e., quartz not silicone). Single axis sensors range from the QRS11 (highest performance and most expensive) to the AQRS rate sensor. Multi-axis sensors include the MotionPak and DQI packages. SDID does not sell the sensing element only. All SDID rate sensors are complete; i.e., electronics are integral to the sensor. The customer is only required to provide a DC Input Voltage and the rate sensor output will be a DC analog signal that is proportional to angular rate (angular velocity). Integrating the rate output will provide the customer with angle or angular displacement. To meet your unit price goals (<$100), may I suggest our AQRS rate sensor. SDID provides this rate sensor to the automotive industry for an anti-skid control system. We currently manufacture 5,000 to 8,000 per day of the AQRS rate sensor. In small quantities of the AQRS-00075-109 rate sensor (1 to 3 units) the unit price is $300; when purchased in quantities of greater than 1,501 sensors, the AQRS-00075-109 unit price is slightly below $100. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me directly. Best regards, David E. Antkowiak E-mail: dantkowiak(at)systron.com Phone: (925) 671-6648 Fax: (925) 671-6647 -----Original Message----- From: Finn Lassen [mailto:finnlassen(at)netzero.net] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 7:20 PM Subject: Quoation Thanks for the quotation you faxed me. However, we're obviously not on the same page. I'm looking to buy the chip itself, not a complete module. I'd expect the silicone chip to sell for less than $100. Who actually manufactures the chip and where can I buy it? Finn Lassen NetZero Platinum No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month! http://www.netzero.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David A. Leonard" <dleonar1(at)maine.rr.com>
Subject: Century II problem
Date: Apr 26, 2001
I have a Mitchell/Century II A/P in my Bellanca Viking. It doesn't couple the radios well, but up until lately, it has done a fine job of following the DG heading bug. Lately it will occasionally have a hard time picking up the heading bug..or wander..once it finds it, it seems to work well. Turning it off and on again usually helps. The failure is intermittent, and once it is working it seems to continue pretty well. When it is its failure mode, it will still follow the roll control if you disengage it from the DG, so I know the servos are working well. Anyone have any thoughts? My immediate thought is to clean all harness conecctors/contacts. Thanks for all of your expertise..it sure is nice to have some people who know about these things to ask!! Thanks, Dave Leonard N77FE ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Green" <jegreen(at)cdc.net>
Subject: Century II problem
Date: Apr 26, 2001
The Century II which I flew in a C-206 had similar problems. It followed the roll control but would not follow DG or radios. It was not intermittent-it never worked. I pulled the control unit out of the radio stack. On the underside were four large transistors. I marked their locations, then removed them and compared them with a digital volt meter on the diode test setting. Check readings between case and leads. I found one which was apparently bad. When I replaced it, the system worked! Jeff Green > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of David A. > Leonard > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 10:22 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: Century II problem > > > > > I have a Mitchell/Century II A/P in my Bellanca Viking. It doesn't couple > the radios well, but up until lately, it has done a fine job of following > the DG heading bug. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 27, 2001
From: Robert Simpson <siaero(at)siaero.com.au>
Subject: Re: Century II problem
Dave, You meantion that your autopilot doesnt follow the radios well, so i assume you have a radio coupler in it. If so, find the plug marked CD33 on the back of the unit and unplug it, connect it directly to the back of the DG after unplugging that connector. This will remove the coupler from the autopilot system and allow you to check DG signals directly. Dont forget to secure the loom and connector from the coupler to the DG. Dont want to read about you in a crash comic somewhere. You say the servo is good because it still works in manual roll. This could be a red herring as when you are in manual roll, you can get larger drive signals going to the servo, as it will be controlled directly by how much you turn the knob. Check your logs, if the servo hasnt been looked at in the last 800 to 1000 hours, pull it and get it overhauled, you might be surprised as to how good the auto actually is, Good Luck, let me know if you need any more advise. Regards Rob Simpson Simspson Aeroelectrics P/L Melbourne Australia "David A. Leonard" wrote: > > I have a Mitchell/Century II A/P in my Bellanca Viking. It doesn't couple > the radios well, but up until lately, it has done a fine job of following > the DG heading bug. > > Lately it will occasionally have a hard time picking up the heading bug..or > wander..once it finds it, it seems to work well. Turning it off and on > again usually helps. The failure is intermittent, and once it is working it > seems to continue pretty well. > > When it is its failure mode, it will still follow the roll control if you > disengage it from the DG, so I know the servos are working well. > > Anyone have any thoughts? > > My immediate thought is to clean all harness conecctors/contacts. > > Thanks for all of your expertise..it sure is nice to have some people who > know about these things to ask!! > > Thanks, Dave Leonard N77FE > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: new native Java controller - usable in avionics?
Date: Apr 29, 2001
>From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com> >Disclaimer: this is a semi-commercial announcement, which list members may >find interesting. JStamp has not been approved by any government agency for >specific use in aircraft. That's fine, I will provide info on a similar product that some of the newer list members may not be aware of. Dallas Semiconductor (dalsemi) has a neat little microcontroller board using the DS80C390 chip that has a java runtime environment on a chip. It's called the TINI board and you can see it at http://www.ibutton.com. It costs $50 in quantities of 1. It has some really neat software and hardware development features: It uses SIM slot design (it looks like a tallish sim stick) so that you can buy a standard memory SIM connector or grab one from a dead motherboard and use it to interface to your product. This enables you, for example, to put a SIM slot in your avionics package, then later if you find a bug in the controller program you wrote, you can pull the microcontroller completely out of the aircraft, and plug it into the programmer board called TINI Socket ($20-$35, sold separately) that is connected to your development computer and FTP (more on FTP below) a freshly compiled java class (byte-code program) directly to TINI's non-volatile memory. Then you can install it back in the plane and try it out. It comes with 1/2 megabyte of non-volatile SRAM (The 1 megabyte one costs $67). Also it has dual CAN controllers. Additionally, it has free Java APIs allowing you to program the board's I/O capabilities. So if you need to talk to the CAN controller, you can do it through your Java program using these classes. Also it has an ethernet interface that links into the TINI Socket's RJ-45 connector. This gives you two nice features 1. It allows you to connect the TINI Socket/TINI board combo to your LAN, allowing you to FTP your programs directly to the board and 2. It allows you to interface the TINI board to ethernet, if ethernet is your network of choice in your aircraft (as opposed to CAN). (Yes, it has DHCP for getting its IP address) Setting up the programming environment for this board involves downloading and installing a freely available Java Development Kit (JDK) from Sun (Which you should already have if you write any Java) and also downloading the TINI API classes from Dalsemi. You theoretically could interface a display directly with this board which might prove to be technically challenging, or you might instead choose to interface the TINI board via one of its two serial interfaces to a WinCE (pronounced "wince") or Palm device in similar fashion to the AHRS solid state gyro product discussed here recently. Marlin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 29, 2001
From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com>
Subject: Re: TINI
>That's fine, I will provide info on a similar product that some of the newer >list members may not be aware of. > >Dallas Semiconductor (dalsemi) has a neat little microcontroller board using >the DS80C390 chip that has a java runtime environment on a chip. It's called >the TINI board and you can see it at http://www.ibutton.com. It costs $50 in >quantities of 1. It has some really neat software and hardware development >features: Yes, I am quite familiar with TINI. My company is the first, and now, leading independent (i.e. not Dallas Semiconductor) company providing socket boards and accessories for TINI. We've been working with TINI since it first came out. We are listed on the Dallas website as a TINI partner. If you need TCP/IP and ethernet hardware and don't have realtime needs, TINI may be the best solution. You get a lot for $50. It draws 250 mA at 5V so is not a good candidate for battery operation. It only has 64 KBytes of flash available for your use (you can add more externally, our STEP+ board has a socket to add another 512 KBytes flash). I'm curious what you've been doing with it in avionics-related areas. Thanks Bruce Boyes ------- WWW.SYSTRONIX.COM ---------- Real embedded Java and much more High speed 8051 systems +1-801-534-1017 Salt Lake City, USA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net>
Date: Apr 29, 2001
Subject: Re: wire stripping tool
Does anyone know of a source of the Tefzel blades for the wire stripping tool (Stripmaster by Ideal or its clone by Radio Shack). They come with the edge cutting blades for PVC insulation not the center cutting blades for Tefzel wire. Jim Robinson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: TINI
Date: Apr 30, 2001
>From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com> >>I'm curious what you've been doing with it in avionics-related areas. > Not much...I would like to experiment with engine sensing and display. I bought an automotive temperature sender (thermistor) and callibrated it in water in order to figure out what resistors I'd need to put it in an op-amp circuit. FADEC would be interesting as well. Also interested in AHRS. The main reason why I haven't progressed farther is I became frustrated with trying to acquire the components I wanted. You can go to Motorolla's web site, for example, and see all kinds of neato sensors, but spend days trying to find someone..anyone who'd sell you less than ten. The price of some of the newer MEMS sensors put me off as well especially since I know relatively little about electronics--I could easily design an unworkable solution and waste a lot of money. Marlin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 30, 2001
From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Re: TINI
www.newark.com for motorola sensors. Also, why use thermistors as temp sensors when you can get linear calibrated ICs (in transistor housings) for $3 or so? Digikey has them. LM34/35 by National Semiconductors. Analog Devices makes them too (even cheaper?) Finn Marlin Mixon wrote: > > >From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com> > >>I'm curious what you've been doing with it in avionics-related areas. > > > Not much...I would like to experiment with engine sensing and display. I > bought an automotive temperature sender (thermistor) and callibrated it in > water in order to figure out what resistors I'd need to put it in an op-amp > circuit. FADEC would be interesting as well. Also interested in AHRS. > The main reason why I haven't progressed farther is I became frustrated with > trying to acquire the components I wanted. You can go to Motorolla's web > site, for example, and see all kinds of neato sensors, but spend days trying > to find someone..anyone who'd sell you less than ten. The price of some of > the newer MEMS sensors put me off as well especially since I know relatively > little about electronics--I could easily design an unworkable solution and > waste a lot of money. > > Marlin > NetZero Platinum No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month! http://www.netzero.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil>
Subject: Lycoming Oil Pressure Sensor that fits on engine?
Date: Apr 30, 2001
All, Does anyone know of a small oil pressure sender unit which actually fits on the Lycoming O320? It really bugs me to have to remote mount a standard one. I really can't believe someone has not marketed one. John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 01, 2001
From: Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz>
Subject: Attitude sensor
Hi Guys, I thought I might pass on an idea I picked up elsewhere for a solid state attitude sensor and see what others think. I'm doing some research into measuring of ocean waves... one way that waves are measured is using a buoy that floats on the surface. Modern buoys measure heave (vertical motion) using an accelerometer and pitch and roll using two magnetometers. The attitude of the buoy is measured relative to the earth's magnetic field. So, what do you guys think? Could magnetometers be used to measure attitude in an aircraft? Or would there be too many varying magnetic fields due to radios, ignition, and other electrical equipment? Frank. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 30, 2001
From: dab(at)froghouse.org
Subject: Re: Attitude sensor
Frank and Dorothy wrote: > So, what do you guys think? Could magnetometers be used to measure > attitude in an aircraft? Or would there be too many varying magnetic > fields due to radios, ignition, and other electrical equipment? It's not so much interference, though you'd have to deal with that, it's that measuring the Earth's magnetic field will, at best, give you a single vector which is the direction of the field at that point. It doesn't tell you anything about your rotation about that axis. Suppose you're trying to use this to replace your ADI. There's a band (probably about halfway between north magnetic pole and south magnetic pole) where the magnetic field will be horozontal with the surface of the Earth. If you're flying north or south, the magnetic field won't tell you anything about your roll angle. If you're flying east or west it won't tell you your pitch. Basically you either need something that gives you all three axes or always points directly at the center of the Earth if you don't care about yaw. -Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 30, 2001
From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com>
Subject: Re: Attitude sensor
> >Hi Guys, > >I thought I might pass on an idea I picked up elsewhere for a solid >state attitude sensor and see what others think. > >I'm doing some research into measuring of ocean waves... one way that >waves are measured is using a buoy that floats on the surface. Modern >buoys measure heave (vertical motion) using an accelerometer and pitch >and roll using two magnetometers. The attitude of the buoy is measured >relative to the earth's magnetic field. > >So, what do you guys think? Could magnetometers be used to measure >attitude in an aircraft? Or would there be too many varying magnetic >fields due to radios, ignition, and other electrical equipment? Do you have some example products? Are they solid state? Price? We're working on a balancing robot at the moment so am keenly interested. At the moment we have some of the Analog Devices 202 sensors. Bruce ------- WWW.SYSTRONIX.COM ---------- Real embedded Java and much more High speed 8051 systems +1-801-534-1017 Salt Lake City, USA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 30, 2001
From: Steven Eberhart <newtech(at)newtech.com>
Subject: Re: Attitude sensor
A number of years back there was a lot of work done on auto-pilots for radio control models using sensors out on the wing tips that measured electrostatic force differences between the two wing tips. THey made a number of successful flights. Don't know what became of the project as this must have been twenty or more years ago. I think Dr. Maynard Hill was the designer of the system IIRC. Steve Eberhart On Tue, 1 May 2001, Frank and Dorothy wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > I thought I might pass on an idea I picked up elsewhere for a solid > state attitude sensor and see what others think. > > I'm doing some research into measuring of ocean waves... one way that > waves are measured is using a buoy that floats on the surface. Modern > buoys measure heave (vertical motion) using an accelerometer and pitch > and roll using two magnetometers. The attitude of the buoy is measured > relative to the earth's magnetic field. > > So, what do you guys think? Could magnetometers be used to measure > attitude in an aircraft? Or would there be too many varying magnetic > fields due to radios, ignition, and other electrical equipment? > > Frank. > > Steve Eberhart mailto:newtech(at)newtech.com One test is worth a thousand expert opinions but a thousand opinions are easier to get. --plagiarized from an unknown author ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 30, 2001
From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com>
Subject: Re: temp sensors
> >www.newark.com for motorola sensors. > >Also, why use thermistors as temp sensors when you can get linear calibrated ICs >(in transistor housings) for $3 or so? Digikey has them. LM34/35 by National >Semiconductors. Analog Devices makes them too (even cheaper?) > >Finn > Depending on the temp range, the solid state ones are way too limited, typically 125 degC or less. Not much good for even oil temp (250 deg C) or CHT (400 deg C?). Bruce ------- WWW.SYSTRONIX.COM ---------- Real embedded Java and much more High speed 8051 systems +1-801-534-1017 Salt Lake City, USA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 30, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: TINI
At 05:55 AM 4/30/2001, you wrote: > >www.newark.com for motorola sensors. > >Also, why use thermistors as temp sensors when you can get linear >calibrated ICs >(in transistor housings) for $3 or so? Digikey has them. LM34/35 by National >Semiconductors. Analog Devices makes them too (even cheaper?) They might not handle the temp range you want to operate. Oil temp needs to go to about 150C worst case (Lycoming engines redline at about 120C). The ICs might work for OAT or carb air temp but that is about it. If you have to have a thermistor input anyway, you might as well use thermistors for all temp sensors that don't need thermocouples (CHT, EGT, TIT, etc.). Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 30, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Lycoming Oil Pressure Sensor that fits on
engine? At 06:17 AM 4/30/2001, you wrote: > > >All, > > Does anyone know of a small oil pressure sender unit which actually > fits on the Lycoming O320? It really bugs me to have to remote mount a > standard one. I really can't believe someone has not marketed one. You can mount a standard oil pressure sender right on the engine if you want to but it might fail from vibration. It will live longer if remotely mounted. >John > > Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John W Livingston" <jliving(at)erinet.com>
Subject: Lycoming Oil Pressure Sensor that fits on engine?
Date: Apr 30, 2001
Brian, I was thinking of a smaller than normal pressure sensor that would not be prone to a vibration. I would think that one of the mems strain gage types could be made to work. John -----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, April 30, 2001 8:04 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Lycoming Oil Pressure Sensor that fits on engine? At 06:17 AM 4/30/2001, you wrote: > > >All, > > Does anyone know of a small oil pressure sender unit which actually > fits on the Lycoming O320? It really bugs me to have to remote mount a > standard one. I really can't believe someone has not marketed one. You can mount a standard oil pressure sender right on the engine if you want to but it might fail from vibration. It will live longer if remotely mounted. >John > > Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 01, 2001
From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Re: TINI
Ok, I just looked it up. I'm using Analog Devices TMP36GS (in TO-92 package), good for -40C to +150C. Paid $1.17 a piece. 10mV/C. Good for OAT, water, fuel, carb and oil temps. Of course I use thermocouples (K) into AD595 for my EGT probes. Finn Brian Lloyd wrote: > > At 05:55 AM 4/30/2001, you wrote: > > > >www.newark.com for motorola sensors. > > > >Also, why use thermistors as temp sensors when you can get linear > >calibrated ICs > >(in transistor housings) for $3 or so? Digikey has them. LM34/35 by National > >Semiconductors. Analog Devices makes them too (even cheaper?) > > They might not handle the temp range you want to operate. Oil temp needs > to go to about 150C worst case (Lycoming engines redline at about > 120C). The ICs might work for OAT or carb air temp but that is about > it. If you have to have a thermistor input anyway, you might as well use > thermistors for all temp sensors that don't need thermocouples (CHT, EGT, > TIT, etc.). > > Brian Lloyd > brian(at)lloyd.com > +1.530.676.1113 - voice > +1.360.838.9669 - fax > NetZero Platinum No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month! http://www.netzero.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: KahnSG(at)aol.com
Date: May 01, 2001
Subject: Re:oil pressure switch
Vibration is not the only factor. A switch mounted on the engine would be subjected to a lot more heat than a remote mounted one. Many heating and cooling cycles. I sell a lot of oil pressure switches for cars and trucks. I'm already selling OPS for 1998 and 1999 vehicles. I haven't had to replace one in my plane for 22 years. Steve Springfield Auto Parts Co., Inc. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Siebold" <psiebold(at)calpoly.edu>
Subject: TC Amps WAS: TINI
Date: May 01, 2001
Finn, Wow, you are using AD595s. I looked at those, and realized they would break the bank. Newark wants $25/piece. 4 EGTs, 4 CHTs, = $200. Not to mention the PCB board space required for 8 14 pin chips. On the other hand, I tried using op-amps to make a Type K TC amp, with limited success. Gains were a bitch, and accuracy at interested temps was 50-100 degF. Not very good. My next plan was to try a AD623 instrumentation amp with a LM34 for cold junction compensation. Much cheeper than the AD595, and much less board space. What have others been doing for Thermocouple Amplification? -Pete From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: TINI Ok, I just looked it up. I'm using Analog Devices TMP36GS (in TO-92 package), good for -40C to +150C. Paid $1.17 a piece. 10mV/C. Good for OAT, water, fuel, carb and oil temps. Of course I use thermocouples (K) into AD595 for my EGT probes. Finn Brian Lloyd wrote: > > At 05:55 AM 4/30/2001, you wrote: > > > >www.newark.com for motorola sensors. > > > >Also, why use thermistors as temp sensors when you can get linear > >calibrated ICs > >(in transistor housings) for $3 or so? Digikey has them. LM34/35 by National > >Semiconductors. Analog Devices makes them too (even cheaper?) > > They might not handle the temp range you want to operate. Oil temp needs > to go to about 150C worst case (Lycoming engines redline at about > 120C). The ICs might work for OAT or carb air temp but that is about > it. If you have to have a thermistor input anyway, you might as well use > thermistors for all temp sensors that don't need thermocouples (CHT, EGT, > TIT, etc.). > > Brian Lloyd > brian(at)lloyd.com > +1.530.676.1113 - voice > +1.360.838.9669 - fax > NetZero Platinum No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month! http://www.netzero.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com>
Subject: Re: TC Amps WAS: TINI
Date: May 01, 2001
I bought an AD594 and an AD595 just to test and calibrate my system, it seemed like the easiest way to go. Yes, it will be expensive to add them all but I didn't see a reasonable alternative. They have an etch layout in the spec sheet and it's simple and cheap to send out for small custom etched boards ($59 for three if anyone wants to split the cost). Gary K. ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Siebold <psiebold(at)calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 11:18 AM Subject: Avionics-List: TC Amps WAS: TINI > > Finn, > > Wow, you are using AD595s. I looked at those, and realized they would break > the bank. Newark wants $25/piece. 4 EGTs, 4 CHTs, = $200. Not to mention > the PCB board space required for 8 14 pin chips. > > On the other hand, I tried using op-amps to make a Type K TC amp, with > limited success. Gains were a bitch, and accuracy at interested temps was > 50-100 degF. Not very good. My next plan was to try a AD623 > instrumentation amp with a LM34 for cold junction compensation. Much > cheeper than the AD595, and much less board space. > > What have others been doing for Thermocouple Amplification? > > -Pete > > > From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: TINI > > > Ok, I just looked it up. I'm using Analog Devices TMP36GS (in TO-92 > package), good > for -40C to +150C. Paid $1.17 a piece. 10mV/C. > > Good for OAT, water, fuel, carb and oil temps. > > Of course I use thermocouples (K) into AD595 for my EGT probes. > > Finn > > Brian Lloyd wrote: > > > > > At 05:55 AM 4/30/2001, you wrote: > > > > > >www.newark.com for motorola sensors. > > > > > >Also, why use thermistors as temp sensors when you can get linear > > >calibrated ICs > > >(in transistor housings) for $3 or so? Digikey has them. LM34/35 by > National > > >Semiconductors. Analog Devices makes them too (even cheaper?) > > > > They might not handle the temp range you want to operate. Oil temp needs > > to go to about 150C worst case (Lycoming engines redline at about > > 120C). The ICs might work for OAT or carb air temp but that is about > > it. If you have to have a thermistor input anyway, you might as well use > > thermistors for all temp sensors that don't need thermocouples (CHT, EGT, > > TIT, etc.). > > > > Brian Lloyd > > brian(at)lloyd.com > > +1.530.676.1113 - voice > > +1.360.838.9669 - fax > > > > > NetZero Platinum > No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access > Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month! > http://www.netzero.net > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Andrew & Rhonda" <andrho(at)ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: TC Amps WAS: TINI
Date: May 02, 2001
Peter, I am using AD595's for EHT's and AD594's for CHT's, all I have done is multiplexed the inputs to the thermocouple amps, info was found on the data sheets, or an application note?? I can't remember which. I have been using these IC's for thermocouple amps for years (not in homebuilts) they are very good, I get around 3-4 degrees C accuracy . I can get them for $30 AUD here in Australia, thats about $15 US with current exhange rate...shop around! regards, Andrew Winkworth Cozy MKIV #937 Melbourne, Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Siebold <psiebold(at)calpoly.edu> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:18 AM Subject: Avionics-List: TC Amps WAS: TINI > > Finn, > > Wow, you are using AD595s. I looked at those, and realized they would break > the bank. Newark wants $25/piece. 4 EGTs, 4 CHTs, = $200. Not to mention > the PCB board space required for 8 14 pin chips. > > On the other hand, I tried using op-amps to make a Type K TC amp, with > limited success. Gains were a bitch, and accuracy at interested temps was > 50-100 degF. Not very good. My next plan was to try a AD623 > instrumentation amp with a LM34 for cold junction compensation. Much > cheeper than the AD595, and much less board space. > > What have others been doing for Thermocouple Amplification? > > -Pete > > > From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: TINI > > > Ok, I just looked it up. I'm using Analog Devices TMP36GS (in TO-92 > package), good > for -40C to +150C. Paid $1.17 a piece. 10mV/C. > > Good for OAT, water, fuel, carb and oil temps. > > Of course I use thermocouples (K) into AD595 for my EGT probes. > > Finn > > Brian Lloyd wrote: > > > > > At 05:55 AM 4/30/2001, you wrote: > > > > > >www.newark.com for motorola sensors. > > > > > >Also, why use thermistors as temp sensors when you can get linear > > >calibrated ICs > > >(in transistor housings) for $3 or so? Digikey has them. LM34/35 by > National > > >Semiconductors. Analog Devices makes them too (even cheaper?) > > > > They might not handle the temp range you want to operate. Oil temp needs > > to go to about 150C worst case (Lycoming engines redline at about > > 120C). The ICs might work for OAT or carb air temp but that is about > > it. If you have to have a thermistor input anyway, you might as well use > > thermistors for all temp sensors that don't need thermocouples (CHT, EGT, > > TIT, etc.). > > > > Brian Lloyd > > brian(at)lloyd.com > > +1.530.676.1113 - voice > > +1.360.838.9669 - fax > > > > > NetZero Platinum > No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access > Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month! > http://www.netzero.net > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com>
Subject: CHT wire ends
Date: May 06, 2001
How did you terminate the ends of the CHT's to your circuitry? They come with the pin-ends, should I get mating sockets for these or are they solderable? Gary K. ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew & Rhonda <andrho(at)ozemail.com.au> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 8:17 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: TC Amps WAS: TINI > > Peter, > > I am using AD595's for EHT's and AD594's for CHT's, all I have done is > multiplexed the inputs to the > thermocouple amps, info was found on the data sheets, or an application > note?? I can't remember which. > I have been using these IC's for thermocouple amps for years (not in > homebuilts) they are very good, > I get around 3-4 degrees C accuracy . > > I can get them for $30 AUD here in Australia, thats about $15 US with > current exhange rate...shop around! > > regards, > > Andrew Winkworth > Cozy MKIV #937 > Melbourne, Australia > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Peter Siebold <psiebold(at)calpoly.edu> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:18 AM > Subject: Avionics-List: TC Amps WAS: TINI > > > > > > > Finn, > > > > Wow, you are using AD595s. I looked at those, and realized they would > break > > the bank. Newark wants $25/piece. 4 EGTs, 4 CHTs, = $200. Not to > mention > > the PCB board space required for 8 14 pin chips. > > > > On the other hand, I tried using op-amps to make a Type K TC amp, with > > limited success. Gains were a bitch, and accuracy at interested temps was > > 50-100 degF. Not very good. My next plan was to try a AD623 > > instrumentation amp with a LM34 for cold junction compensation. Much > > cheeper than the AD595, and much less board space. > > > > What have others been doing for Thermocouple Amplification? > > > > -Pete > > > > > > From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> > > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: TINI > > > > > > Ok, I just looked it up. I'm using Analog Devices TMP36GS (in TO-92 > > package), good > > for -40C to +150C. Paid $1.17 a piece. 10mV/C. > > > > Good for OAT, water, fuel, carb and oil temps. > > > > Of course I use thermocouples (K) into AD595 for my EGT probes. > > > > Finn > > > > Brian Lloyd wrote: > > > > > > > > At 05:55 AM 4/30/2001, you wrote: > > > > > > > > >www.newark.com for motorola sensors. > > > > > > > >Also, why use thermistors as temp sensors when you can get linear > > > >calibrated ICs > > > >(in transistor housings) for $3 or so? Digikey has them. LM34/35 by > > National > > > >Semiconductors. Analog Devices makes them too (even cheaper?) > > > > > > They might not handle the temp range you want to operate. Oil temp > needs > > > to go to about 150C worst case (Lycoming engines redline at about > > > 120C). The ICs might work for OAT or carb air temp but that is about > > > it. If you have to have a thermistor input anyway, you might as well > use > > > thermistors for all temp sensors that don't need thermocouples (CHT, > EGT, > > > TIT, etc.). > > > > > > Brian Lloyd > > > brian(at)lloyd.com > > > +1.530.676.1113 - voice > > > +1.360.838.9669 - fax > > > > > > > > > NetZero Platinum > > No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access > > Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month! > > http://www.netzero.net > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI" <jessevli(at)zeelandnet.nl>
Subject: Schematic diagrams of Aviation diagrams
Date: May 06, 2001
Hello list, Does anyone know where you can get a copy of schematic diagrams for aviation radios suchs as King and Genave ? Is there a site which has does online, or any other resource such as the Quick-Shot book for connector information for avionics but than with schematic diagrams of the radios themselfs. Thanks, Jesse ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 07, 2001
From: "John F. Herminghaus" <catignano(at)tin.it>
Subject: Quick-Shot book
Jesse Kluijfhout mentioned the Quick-Shot book for connector information. Where can one find/purchase one? Thanks John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Siebold" <psiebold(at)calpoly.edu>
Subject: CHT wire ends
Date: May 07, 2001
Thermocouple termination is very important. The termination of the TK must be at the temperature of the cold junction compensation. I used Type K pins for DB-25 sockets from omega (www.omega.com) to bring the thermocouple wire inside my unit. -Pete From: "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com> Subject: Avionics-List: CHT wire ends How did you terminate the ends of the CHT's to your circuitry? They come with the pin-ends, should I get mating sockets for these or are they solderable? Gary K. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Andrew & Rhonda" <andrho(at)ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: CHT wire ends
Date: May 09, 2001
Termination of thermocouples are very important, as not to introduce multiple junctions, and errors in measurement of the real junction temperature. There are a number of was of doing this. I used a THERMOCOUPLE TERMINAL BLOCK mounted on a pcb right next to the multiplexer and AD595 amp, a type K thermocouple is placed under the AD595 to provide compensation of the terminal block. I am looking into sourcing subminiature D style connectors here in Australia, I know there available in the US..... will make life easier for multiplte EGT and CHT temps. Regards, Andrew Winkworth Cozy MKIV #937 Melbourne, Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary K <flyink(at)efortress.com> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 3:02 AM Subject: Avionics-List: CHT wire ends > > How did you terminate the ends of the CHT's to your circuitry? They come > with the pin-ends, should I get mating sockets for these or are they > solderable? > Gary K. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Andrew & Rhonda <andrho(at)ozemail.com.au> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 8:17 PM > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: TC Amps WAS: TINI > > > > > > > Peter, > > > > I am using AD595's for EHT's and AD594's for CHT's, all I have done is > > multiplexed the inputs to the > > thermocouple amps, info was found on the data sheets, or an application > > note?? I can't remember which. > > I have been using these IC's for thermocouple amps for years (not in > > homebuilts) they are very good, > > I get around 3-4 degrees C accuracy . > > > > I can get them for $30 AUD here in Australia, thats about $15 US with > > current exhange rate...shop around! > > > > regards, > > > > Andrew Winkworth > > Cozy MKIV #937 > > Melbourne, Australia > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Peter Siebold <psiebold(at)calpoly.edu> > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:18 AM > > Subject: Avionics-List: TC Amps WAS: TINI > > > > > > > > > > > > Finn, > > > > > > Wow, you are using AD595s. I looked at those, and realized they would > > break > > > the bank. Newark wants $25/piece. 4 EGTs, 4 CHTs, = $200. Not to > > mention > > > the PCB board space required for 8 14 pin chips. > > > > > > On the other hand, I tried using op-amps to make a Type K TC amp, with > > > limited success. Gains were a bitch, and accuracy at interested temps > was > > > 50-100 degF. Not very good. My next plan was to try a AD623 > > > instrumentation amp with a LM34 for cold junction compensation. Much > > > cheeper than the AD595, and much less board space. > > > > > > What have others been doing for Thermocouple Amplification? > > > > > > -Pete > > > > > > > > > From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> > > > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: TINI > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I just looked it up. I'm using Analog Devices TMP36GS (in TO-92 > > > package), good > > > for -40C to +150C. Paid $1.17 a piece. 10mV/C. > > > > > > Good for OAT, water, fuel, carb and oil temps. > > > > > > Of course I use thermocouples (K) into AD595 for my EGT probes. > > > > > > Finn > > > > > > Brian Lloyd wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > At 05:55 AM 4/30/2001, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >www.newark.com for motorola sensors. > > > > > > > > > >Also, why use thermistors as temp sensors when you can get linear > > > > >calibrated ICs > > > > >(in transistor housings) for $3 or so? Digikey has them. LM34/35 by > > > National > > > > >Semiconductors. Analog Devices makes them too (even cheaper?) > > > > > > > > They might not handle the temp range you want to operate. Oil temp > > needs > > > > to go to about 150C worst case (Lycoming engines redline at about > > > > 120C). The ICs might work for OAT or carb air temp but that is about > > > > it. If you have to have a thermistor input anyway, you might as well > > use > > > > thermistors for all temp sensors that don't need thermocouples (CHT, > > EGT, > > > > TIT, etc.). > > > > > > > > Brian Lloyd > > > > brian(at)lloyd.com > > > > +1.530.676.1113 - voice > > > > +1.360.838.9669 - fax > > > > > > > > > > > > > NetZero Platinum > > > No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access > > > Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month! > > > http://www.netzero.net > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI" <jessevli(at)zeelandnet.nl>
Subject: Re: Quick-Shot book
Date: May 09, 2001
Hi John, Avionics list members, The Quick-Shot book is made by QS Products. They use the have an homepage at http://home1.gte.net/qsprod/index.htm But that dont seem too work any longer. Tomorrow I will be working at our local airport, and there Ive got a Quick Shot available, If I remember correctly there is a postal adress in it, to contact for updates etc. Maybe that could be usefull. Regards, Jesse ----- Original Message ----- From: "John F. Herminghaus" <catignano(at)tin.it> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 7:26 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Quick-Shot book > > Jesse Kluijfhout mentioned the Quick-Shot book for connector information. > > Where can one find/purchase one? > > Thanks > > John > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ron Koval" <ronko(at)corecomm.net>
"Brian Stanley"
Subject: Re: Quick-Shot book
Date: May 09, 2001
I personally have finally found a place that took an order for the "Quick Shot Information Booklet" which was in stock. Source: Chief Aircraft ... phone 1-800-447-3408 ... ask for Noreen at extension 4018 (note: it seems that suppliers like these do not want to take the time to find this item, so use Noreen, she put the effort to find the item). Best regards, Ronko N9850U ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI <jessevli(at)zeelandnet.nl> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 1:07 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Quick-Shot book > > Hi John, Avionics list members, > > The Quick-Shot book is made by QS Products. > They use the have an homepage at > http://home1.gte.net/qsprod/index.htm > But that dont seem too work any longer. > Tomorrow I will be working at our local > airport, and there Ive got a Quick Shot available, > If I remember correctly there is a postal adress > in it, to contact for updates etc. Maybe that > could be usefull. > > Regards, > > Jesse > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John F. Herminghaus" <catignano(at)tin.it> > To: > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 7:26 AM > Subject: Avionics-List: Quick-Shot book > > > > > > > Jesse Kluijfhout mentioned the Quick-Shot book for connector information. > > > > Where can one find/purchase one? > > > > Thanks > > > > John > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Majors" <mmajors(at)ieee.org>
Subject: Re: Quick-Shot book
Date: May 09, 2001
Try Edmo Distributors also. 800-235-3300. My Quick Shot is from 1998 and says Edmo on the front page. Also, it says: QS Products 3434 Airfield Dr West Lakeland, FL, 33811 941-619-6187 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Koval" <ronko(at)corecomm.net> "Brian Stanley" Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Quick-Shot book > > I personally have finally found a place that took an order for the "Quick > Shot Information Booklet" which was in stock. > > Source: Chief Aircraft ... phone 1-800-447-3408 ... ask for Noreen at > extension 4018 (note: it seems that suppliers like these do not want to take > the time to find this item, so use Noreen, she put the effort to find the > item). > > Best regards, > > Ronko > N9850U > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI <jessevli(at)zeelandnet.nl> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 1:07 AM > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Quick-Shot book > > > > > > > Hi John, Avionics list members, > > > > The Quick-Shot book is made by QS Products. > > They use the have an homepage at > > http://home1.gte.net/qsprod/index.htm > > But that dont seem too work any longer. > > Tomorrow I will be working at our local > > airport, and there Ive got a Quick Shot available, > > If I remember correctly there is a postal adress > > in it, to contact for updates etc. Maybe that > > could be usefull. > > > > Regards, > > > > Jesse > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "John F. Herminghaus" <catignano(at)tin.it> > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 7:26 AM > > Subject: Avionics-List: Quick-Shot book > > > > > > > > > > > > Jesse Kluijfhout mentioned the Quick-Shot book for connector > information. > > > > > > Where can one find/purchase one? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 09, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: thermocouple junctions
Every time you make a connection between dissimilar metals in a thermocouple circuit you create another junction. The key is to ensure that each pair of junctions are kept at the same temperature. Therefore if you solder your thermocouple leads to a connector then solder leads from the matching connector to a circuit board, you end up with a whole bunch of junctions, e.g.: thermocouple wire to solder solder to pin material pin material to plating material plating material on one pin to its receptacle in the other connector solder ... wire ... solder ... circuit board trace plating ... circuit board trace base metal ... etc. The key is to keep each complementary junction pair at the same temperature (every junction pair has a hot junction and a cold junction). If you do that, you won't have a problem with errors creeping into your system. Of course, the fewer junctions you have, the fewer possible sources of error you will have. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com>
Subject: Re: thermocouple junctions
Date: May 10, 2001
Thanks for the help. I ended up ordering some thermocouple-to-PC board connectors from Omega. I shopped at Omega before but I couldn't afford anything from there. Even these little connectors were 5 for $19 for type J and K. That's almost $50 with shipping. So I'm saving money by building my own airplane and I'm saving money by building my own instrumentation, this is great! ;<} Now I guess it makes more sense to multiplex all of the CHT inputs into one AD595 instead of buying an amplifier for each thermocouple. I was worried about the junctions in that case too but I guess it will all cancel out and save $100. Thanks to whoever mentioned that too. Gary K. ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 6:01 PM Subject: Avionics-List: thermocouple junctions > > Every time you make a connection between dissimilar metals in a > thermocouple circuit you create another junction. The key is to ensure > that each pair of junctions are kept at the same temperature. Therefore if > you solder your thermocouple leads to a connector then solder leads from > the matching connector to a circuit board, you end up with a whole bunch of > junctions, e.g.: > > thermocouple wire to solder > solder to pin material > pin material to plating material > plating material on one pin to its receptacle in the other connector > solder ... > wire ... > solder ... > circuit board trace plating ... > circuit board trace base metal ... > etc. > > The key is to keep each complementary junction pair at the same temperature > (every junction pair has a hot junction and a cold junction). If you do > that, you won't have a problem with errors creeping into your system. > > Of course, the fewer junctions you have, the fewer possible sources of > error you will have. > > Brian Lloyd > brian(at)lloyd.com > +1.530.676.1113 - voice > +1.360.838.9669 - fax > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <tcwatson(at)seanet.com>
Subject: I-K Technologies flight and engine monitor
Date: May 10, 2001
Here's a link to a flight and engine monitor mentioned in the June 2001 Plane & Pilot. i-ktechnologies.com There is an ad in the June Kitplanes, page 25, for another engine management system by CRG in Fresno, CA but no web site. Their phone is (559) 277-3560. Terry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 13, 2001
From: Gene Barlowe <gbarlowe(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Instrument Panel Drawings
Hi folks, This is my first attempt at taking advantage of the Piper List. It is such a joy getting the daily message that there are "0" new messages I thought it would be different to send one and see what happens. I am restoring a '66 Cherokee PA28-150 and want to redo part of the instrument panel. Specifically the Northwest quadrant. Left of the radio stack and above the row of breakers. I am told that most NC shops are happy with Autocad drawings. Cool. I prefer ACAD but don't want to reinvent the wheel. Instrument placement and mounting locations are easy but it sure would be nice to start with an existing drawing that has an accurate perimeter already specified. I plan to use a .125 aluminum plate over the existing panel (hogged out for clearance). Does anyone have any ACAD drawings of a PA28-150 panel that I could start from? Thanks in advance for your reply. Gene Barlowe Camarillo CA EAA Chapter 723 gbarlowe(at)pacbell.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 2001
From: Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org>
Subject: GPS antennas
Hello List, Does anyone know why the GPS antennas that are sold are so expensive - or rather, what is inside those things - how are they made? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 2001
From: Tim Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net>
Subject: Re: GPS antennas
Gary, Because of the high frequencies involved in GPS most of the RF activity is handled in the antenna to eliminate very expensive and hard to use (semi rigid) cables. The signal back to the main unit with the timing data is at a lower frequency. Tim Shankland Gary Liming wrote: > > Hello List, > > Does anyone know why the GPS antennas that are sold are so expensive - or > rather, what is inside those things - how are they made? > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 2001
From: Ted Strange <tedstrange(at)home.com>
Subject: Re: GPS antennas
Tim: Can you cut the antenna cable and splice in an extention and if so what kind of cable ? Thank you Tim Shankland wrote: > > > Gary, > > Because of the high frequencies involved in GPS most of the RF activity is > handled in the antenna to eliminate very expensive and hard to use (semi > rigid) cables. The signal back to the main unit with the timing data is at a > lower frequency. > > Tim Shankland > > Gary Liming wrote: > > > > > Hello List, > > > > Does anyone know why the GPS antennas that are sold are so expensive - or > > rather, what is inside those things - how are they made? > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI" <jessevli(at)zeelandnet.nl>
Subject: Re: GPS antennas
Date: Jun 01, 2001
Hi Gary, Have a look at http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Cabana/4340/gpsant.html Its a homemade helical GPS antenna, not really usefull for aircraft, but nice for the idea. Maybe the author of the site can tell you how the small flat commercial GPS antennas work. Regards, Jesse ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 01, 2001
From: Joe & Judy Christian <k5hmd(at)ATT.NET>
Subject: Manual for Narco Com 10A
I'm looking for a service manual for a Narco Com 10A which I use as a "hanger" radio. Thanks, Joe Christian P35 N61JC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 01, 2001
From: ET - #PU <psi(at)hillweb.com>
Subject: Re: Piper-List: Instrument Panel Drawings
Gene, Forget CAD files... I did mine, PA28-180, '66 in past October. Radio stack convert from coffee grinders to : Garmin audio/intercom 340 KY196a KNS80 AT50 Old main panel cut with reminder of 3/4 of the inch and install blind nuts. From aluminium (i guess .125) cut new one and fit perimeter with file (forget ACAD... you need to use file!). Punch and drill holes and fit almost perfect. Painted and install all on the panel. Bolted panel in place. Do not forget make all wiring before you install all in place. Wiring diagram what you need real computer aid... :-) Whole modernization took 4 weeks in three shifts. Do not ask how much money ... I started with ACAD, but it is waste of time, since you doing one of kind installation. Look on the picture. Good luck! Vlad >--> Piper-List message posted by: Gene Barlowe > >Hi folks, > >This is my first attempt at taking advantage of the Piper List. It is such >a joy getting the daily message that there are "0" new messages I thought it >would be different to send one and see what happens. > >I am restoring a '66 Cherokee PA28-150 and want to redo part of the >instrument panel. Specifically the Northwest quadrant. Left of the radio >stack and above the row of breakers. I am told that most NC shops are happy >with Autocad drawings. Cool. I prefer ACAD but don't want to reinvent the >wheel. Instrument placement and mounting locations are easy but it sure >would be nice to start with an existing drawing that has an accurate >perimeter already specified. I plan to use a .125 aluminum plate over the >existing panel (hogged out for clearance). > >Does anyone have any ACAD drawings of a PA28-150 panel that I could start >from? > >Thanks in advance for your reply. > >Gene Barlowe >Camarillo CA >EAA Chapter 723 >gbarlowe(at)pacbell.net > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "J. N. Cameron" <toucan@the-i.net>
Subject: GPS Antennas
Date: Jun 01, 2001
Check out www.lowe-electronics.com for an inexpensive GPS antenna. Jim Cameron, Lancair ES builder ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 01, 2001
From: Ray Anderson <Raymond.Anderson(at)sun.com>
Subject: Re: GPS antennas
Most of the GPS antennas I've seen are either patch antennas or quadrahelix types. They are either passive (no preamp) or active with a preamp integrated into the antenna assembly. I'm not aware of any that perform frequency conversion in the antenna (not to say that it couldn't be done). Since the frequency is around 1.6 GHz (not all that high in the grand scheme of things RF), semi-rigid cable is generally not used. Plain old flexible coax suffices. Units with an integrated preamp also feed DC from the GPS unit up the coax to power the preamp. If the antenna is close to the GPS receiver a passive type is usually used (say like in a handheld unit). For airborne or vehicular applications where the antenna must be placed some distance from the receiver, an active type may be preferred as the gain associated with the preamp compensates for the inherent loss of the coax transmission line (and the preamp sets the noise figure of the system which would be degraded by the line loss otherwise.) -Ray Anderson raymonda(at)eng.sun.com >Gary, > >Because of the high frequencies involved in GPS most of the RF activity is >handled in the antenna to eliminate very expensive and hard to use (semi >rigid) cables. The signal back to the main unit with the timing data is at a >lower frequency. > >Tim Shankland > >Gary Liming wrote: > >> >> Hello List, >> >> Does anyone know why the GPS antennas that are sold are so expensive - or >> rather, what is inside those things - how are they made? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 01, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: GPS antennas
At 07:33 PM 5/31/2001, you wrote: > >Gary, > >Because of the high frequencies involved in GPS most of the RF activity is >handled in the antenna to eliminate very expensive and hard to use (semi >rigid) cables. The signal back to the main unit with the timing data is at a >lower frequency. While many satellite receiver systems use a low-noise block downconverter at the antenna, I am not aware of any GPS systems that have antennas that do that. The GPS antenna is usually a "patch" antenna that has a pattern that covers 360 degrees in azimuth and 90 degrees in elevation with very little signal level difference (very close to the theoretical isotropic radiator). Inside is also a preamplifier and preselector that rejects most everything outside of the GPS frequency and then amplifies the signal to overcome the loss in the coax feedline. The power for the preamp is provided on the antenna lead from the receiver itself. That is why you have to be careful not to attach anything to the radio's antenna terminal that might provide a DC short from center conductor to shield. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2001
From: Tim Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net>
Subject: Re: GPS antennas
Ted, It's possible, but not usually a good idea. The cable has to have animpedance match with both ends and your splice would alter this. What would be best is to buy an assembled cable. If you try and modify your cable you might end up with no GPS. If you want to construct a cable you can find an assortment of parts at Allied Electronics http://www.allied.avnet.com, there are other companies that sell the cable assemblies, but those catalogs are at work. Ted Strange wrote: > > Tim: > Can you cut the antenna cable and splice in an extention and if so what > kind of cable ? > Thank you > > Tim Shankland wrote: > > > > > > Gary, > > > > Because of the high frequencies involved in GPS most of the RF activity is > > handled in the antenna to eliminate very expensive and hard to use (semi > > rigid) cables. The signal back to the main unit with the timing data is at a > > lower frequency. > > > > Tim Shankland > > > > Gary Liming wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello List, > > > > > > Does anyone know why the GPS antennas that are sold are so expensive - or > > > rather, what is inside those things - how are they made? > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jerome Kaidor <jerryk(at)best.com>
Subject: Re: GPS antennas
Date: Jun 02, 2001
> > > > > > Because of the high frequencies involved in GPS most of the RF activity is > > > handled in the antenna to eliminate very expensive and hard to use (semi > > > rigid) cables. The signal back to the main unit with the timing data is at a > > > lower frequency. > > > *** This makes sense. I'm installing a GNS430, and Garmin's spec is that the antenna can be connected to the radio with up to 40 feet of RG-58/U. Forty feet of RG58 would pretty much murder a signal at 1.2 gigs. I wonder what the I.F. frequency is? - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2001
From: ET - #PU <psi(at)hillweb.com>
Subject: Re: GPS antennas
When I installed my G295 on the yoke, I need to cut and remake cable end, since it goes inside yoke tube. And I did. It works great, no signal loss in comparison on my first temporary installation with cable spiral over yoke tube. You need to make it elegant, according to spec. Vlad > >Ted, > >It's possible, but not usually a good idea. The cable has to have animpedance >match with both ends and your splice would alter this. What would be best >is to >buy an assembled cable. If you try and modify your cable you might end up >with no >GPS. If you want to construct a cable you can find an assortment of parts at >Allied Electronics http://www.allied.avnet.com, there are other companies that >sell the cable assemblies, but those catalogs are at work. > >Ted Strange wrote: > > > > > Tim: > > Can you cut the antenna cable and splice in an extention and if so what > > kind of cable ? > > Thank you > > > > Tim Shankland wrote: > > > > > > > > > Gary, > > > > > > Because of the high frequencies involved in GPS most of the RF > activity is > > > handled in the antenna to eliminate very expensive and hard to use (semi > > > rigid) cables. The signal back to the main unit with the timing data > is at a > > > lower frequency. > > > > > > Tim Shankland > > > > > > Gary Liming wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello List, > > > > > > > > Does anyone know why the GPS antennas that are sold are so > expensive - or > > > > rather, what is inside those things - how are they made? > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 04, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: GPS antennas
At 06:15 AM 6/2/2001, you wrote: > >Ted, > >It's possible, but not usually a good idea. The cable has to have animpedance >match with both ends and your splice would alter this. It isn't a problem if you use constant-impedance connectors like type BNC or type N. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobDarrah(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 06, 2001
Subject: address change
Please change my address from bobdarrah(at)aol.com TO rdarrah(at)austin.rr.com Thankyou Bob Darrah ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BOBPAS26(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 14, 2001
Subject: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/13/01
Please cancel me from your subscription list. Thanks, Bob Pastusek ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <tcwatson(at)seanet.com>
Subject: Heads Up Display
Date: Jun 14, 2001
For those who might be interested but didn't see this in tomorrow's Aero-News: (slightly abbreviated) Wearable HUD Getting Close to GA Market A successful week-long flight test of heads-up display technology showed dramatic increases in situational awareness for private pilots using a cockpit visualization system built around the Microvision augmented vision technology and AvroTec's suite of moving map display software, the company tells us. The demonstration also marked the first private pilot flight test evaluation of Microvision's prototype Nomad Personal Display System, the company's first commercial product based on its Retinal Scanning Display technology. A revolutionary way to display images and information, Microvision's RSD technology uses an extremely safe low-power beam of light to "paint" rows of pixels onto the eye, creating a high-resolution, full-motion image without the use of electronic screens of any kind. To the viewer, the image appears to be floating directly in front of them at about an arm's length away, as if on a large transparent computer screen or television. The "Nomad" system is wearable over glasses, and focuses at infinity. Using the retinal scanning, it works with just about anyone's eyes; and there is little that cannot be displayed, using this technology. In an aircraft, such displays a moving maps, terrain features, and other data can be displayed. Judging by a short conversation our editor had with a company representative, it's theoretically possible, and should be technically possible in the relatively short term, to display nearly everything on the panel, using this lightweight appendage. The flight test supports the company's extension of the Nomad system's aerospace applications beyond its core military customers to include private pilots, said Steve Whiston, Microvision's marketing manager for defense and aerospace. "This application is a natural extension for our Nomad system which excels in brightly-lit environments where the user needs access to information in a hands-free and see-through mode," said Whiston. "We see a large marketplace potential stemming from the base of over 200,000 single engine general aviation aircraft in the US alone. Combine the potential for increased safety with the overall improvement in situational awareness, and you have a solid foundation for a very successful Nomad application." <> In the cockpit, though, is where we can focus. At about $10,000, the unit at the high end for GA applications; but it's portable among properly-equipped aircraft (like a rental fleet or even a school might soon have) right now; and price drops, precipitous price drops, invariably manifest themselves, as production ramps up. During the week-long trial, test pilots superimposed images from AvroTec's moving map display software onto their vision using the Nomad augmented vision display system. Pilots reported the cockpit system delivered easily readable data in bright daylight conditions against both the sky and the ground and did not obstruct the field of view nor prevent such routine tasks as radio frequency adjustments and throttle changes. Based on this initial success, the two companies next plan a test to compare and quantify the amount of time pilots spend looking down at controls and maps with traditional displays versus time spent looking out of the cockpit using the prototype Nomad system displays. The increase in time spent looking out enhances situational awareness, which correlates with increased safety. Second round test results will be reported at Oshkosh in July. FMI: www.mvis.com Terry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Todd Houg <thoug(at)attglobal.net>
Subject: Wiring diagram for Cessna RT-308C Nav/Com
Date: Jun 17, 2001
I've aquired an old Cessna RT-308C Nav/Com and would like to set it up as a fixed base unit to put in our hangar to listen in on the traffic. Can anyone provide me a connector pinout or wiring diagram? All I really need is the connector pinout for power and audio output. Is there a good source for this type of information? Thanks in advance, Todd Houg RV-9A - building the wings! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Cheap 3-axis solid state sensor
Date: Jun 22, 2001
Any of you seen this? This is news to me even though it's been around since 1999. Honeywell makes a 3-axis magnetic sensor. Check out: http://www.ssec.honeywell.com:80/magnetic/new/090399.html The amazing thing is that the cheaper chip (I think it's the HMC1023) is only $75 at DigiKey and it measures all three axes. The other great thing is that it doesn't drift like gyros and it's sampling rate is higher than phase-differential GPS. I'm not sure how one might calibrate such a 3-axis magnetic sensor, but once you did it, you could provide your display software with a 2-D table of calibration values. Such a technique could provide very accurate attitude information. Also, the FAQ sheet points out that solid-state sensors such as these are not subject to erroneous slewing like wet compases are during accellerations or other such pains. Although www.digikey.com sells it, today the inventory level is 0. You can find it there by doing a search on Honeywell. Marlin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "R Colman" <ronincolman(at)home.com>
Subject: Cheap 3-axis solid state sensor
Date: Jun 22, 2001
While the chip is pretty new, the approach is not. Remember flux gates have been around for about 70 years or so. This technique works just great for STATIC applications (or samples). In other words it works - provided the aircraft isn't moving. Acceleration and centrifugal force fool the tilt sensors and you lose your reference to the horizon. No free lunches - darn! -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Marlin Mixon Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 9:25 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Cheap 3-axis solid state sensor Any of you seen this? This is news to me even though it's been around since 1999. Honeywell makes a 3-axis magnetic sensor. Check out: http://www.ssec.honeywell.com:80/magnetic/new/090399.html The amazing thing is that the cheaper chip (I think it's the HMC1023) is only $75 at DigiKey and it measures all three axes. The other great thing is that it doesn't drift like gyros and it's sampling rate is higher than phase-differential GPS. I'm not sure how one might calibrate such a 3-axis magnetic sensor, but once you did it, you could provide your display software with a 2-D table of calibration values. Such a technique could provide very accurate attitude information. Also, the FAQ sheet points out that solid-state sensors such as these are not subject to erroneous slewing like wet compases are during accellerations or other such pains. Although www.digikey.com sells it, today the inventory level is 0. You can find it there by doing a search on Honeywell. Marlin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hook57(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 22, 2001
Subject: Re: Cheap 3-axis solid state sensor
Ce ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Cheap 3-axis solid state sensor
Date: Jun 22, 2001
>From: "R Colman" <ronincolman(at)home.com> > >This technique works just great for STATIC applications (or samples). In >other words it works - provided the aircraft isn't moving. Acceleration and >centrifugal force fool the tilt sensors and you lose your reference to the >horizon. Hmmm... not according to the info sheet. It's designed for a dynamic environment. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "R Colman" <ronincolman(at)home.com>
Subject: Cheap 3-axis solid state sensor
Date: Jun 22, 2001
The info sheet is a pr piece. Yes this device will give you readings all the time - moving or not - it does not care or know. A single flux gate only gives an accurate reading when level. Aircraft (and marine) flux gates have traditionally been mechanically gimbaled to correct for this. If you have three flux gates you can "gimbal" them in software - which is what these guys are talking about. But...BUT in order to do that you must know which way down is - thus the use of "pendulums" which today are very small chip based devices. Unfortunately they, like the seat of your pants, cannot distinguish pitch, yaw or roll from how they feel. I'm with you on this - it would be nice. But there is a reason that AHRS's cost big bucks - beyond the FAA induced costs. There are a pile of balls in the are that must be sorted through to calculate the aircraft orientation real time. That cute little senor by it self only knows where the magnet is. -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Marlin Mixon Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 7:08 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Cheap 3-axis solid state sensor >From: "R Colman" <ronincolman(at)home.com> > >This technique works just great for STATIC applications (or samples). In >other words it works - provided the aircraft isn't moving. Acceleration and >centrifugal force fool the tilt sensors and you lose your reference to the >horizon. Hmmm... not according to the info sheet. It's designed for a dynamic environment. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 23, 2001
From: Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz>
Subject: Re: Cheap 3-axis solid state sensor
R Colman wrote: > The info sheet is a pr piece. Yes this device will give you readings all the > time - moving or not - it does not care or know. A single flux gate only > gives an accurate reading when level. Aircraft (and marine) flux gates have > traditionally been mechanically gimbaled to correct for this. If you have > three flux gates you can "gimbal" them in software - which is what these > guys are talking about. But...BUT in order to do that you must know which > way down is - thus the use of "pendulums" which today are very small chip > based devices. Unfortunately they, like the seat of your pants, cannot > distinguish pitch, yaw or roll from how they feel. I think you (or maybe I) have misunderstood. My understanding is that these devices are not accelerometers or gyros (no pendulums or similar)... they sense a magnetic field. And in this application, what they're sensing is the (relatively) constant magnetic field of the Earth. By having three sensors mutually at right angles, you can sense the direction of the field relative to the sensors. Or, to put it another way, the direction of the sensors relative to the field. If you know the direction of the field relative to the Earth, then you can measure the orientation of the sensor device relative to the Earth. Consequently, you can then determine which direction really is "down". So solving the problem depends on knowing the direction of the magnetic field the devices are in, relative to the Earth. I suspect that that isn't going to be easy... It's going to depend on the location of the sensors in 3D relative to the Earth (latitude, longitude, altitude). All those are of course available in an aircraft. (However, it would be unfortunate to lose GPS lock or have a static leak and therefore get a false artificial horizon). But there's also the magnetic field round the aircraft due to the iron you're carrying around, plus the various electrical devices. This would need to be corrected for somehow. Perhaps the easiest way might be to mount the sensors somewhere remote from the radios and suchlike... the obvious place is in the tail, assuming the sensors are small and light, and there's no antennas mounted there. Frank. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Cheap 3-axis solid state sensor
At 03:09 PM 6/22/2001, you wrote: >By having three sensors mutually at right angles, you can sense the >direction of the field relative to the sensors. Or, to put it another >way, the direction of the sensors relative to the field. If you know the >direction of the field relative to the Earth, then you can measure the >orientation of the sensor device relative to the Earth. Consequently, >you can then determine which direction really is "down". No, you can't. You can rotate the aircraft along the magnetic vector without changing that vector relative to the three-axis magnetometer. Therefore you can't get attitude information from it. A real AHRS has a three axis magnetometer but it also has three axes of gyros and three orthogonal accelerometers. Once you know the attitude of the aircraft you can project the magnetic field vector on a plane tangent to the earth in order to discern magnetic heading. This is used to provide absolute correction of heading in the AHRS. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 23, 2001
From: Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz>
Subject: Re: Cheap 3-axis solid state sensor
Brian Lloyd wrote: > > > At 03:09 PM 6/22/2001, you wrote: > >By having three sensors mutually at right angles, you can sense the > >direction of the field relative to the sensors. Or, to put it another > >way, the direction of the sensors relative to the field. If you know the > >direction of the field relative to the Earth, then you can measure the > >orientation of the sensor device relative to the Earth. Consequently, > >you can then determine which direction really is "down". > > No, you can't. You can rotate the aircraft along the magnetic vector > without changing that vector relative to the three-axis > magnetometer. Therefore you can't get attitude information from it. It's a magnetic field, not a vector. Or have I got it wrong? Assuming it is a 3D field, then no matter which axis you rotate about, the other two magnetometers must change the amount of magnetism that they detect. > A real AHRS has a three axis magnetometer but it also has three axes of > gyros and three orthogonal accelerometers. Once you know the attitude of > the aircraft you can project the magnetic field vector on a plane tangent > to the earth in order to discern magnetic heading. This is used to provide > absolute correction of heading in the AHRS. An inertial platform doesn't need magnetometers at all. It has 3 gyros and 3 accelerometers, and that's all that's needed to determine attitude. Or are you saying that the magnetometers are used to correct the inertial platform for drift? Frank. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "R Colman" <ronincolman(at)home.com>
Subject: Cheap 3-axis solid state sensor
Date: Jun 22, 2001
Yup, Brian has it right. Although you don't need the flux info to determine attitude - you really just have it to keep from having to manually set the "DG" - thus you slave yourself to the Flux sensor. The other benefit is that this give you a little reality check for error detection. Of course for folks messing about in this price range, you would never see an AHRS without a flux sensor. But as he says, to get attitude from solid state rate (strap down) gyros you need more info - hence the need for the accelerometers. Now what Frank is contemplating makes good intuitive sense. You'd think that if you have a three way flux sensor, you could bolt it down to a plastic airplane get away from all magnetic stuff and the thing would always point to north no matter what your attitude. But the problem, as Brian points out, is that you can end up with a zero change even though you have moved. The tri-flux gate does not "see" the magnetism as a point if light is space that it can point to. Instead the flux is cutting through all three planes at once and it cannot tell the direction of "flow." All sorts of weird things can go on that produce really messy problems (like right side up north Vs. upside down south). I will say that kind of like magic carburetors that let your car run on water, very bright people keep spending a great deal of time searching for a way to make a flux gyro. In the early 90's one of the first moving map guys (who shall remain nameless) told me in no uncertain terms at Oshkosh that he had cracked this. I'm sure he believed it. I offered to fund it if he could demo the thing. After many put off meeting dates he quietly conceded to the often unpleasant laws of nature. Hopefully someone will figure it out someday. But in the meantime, gyros are going to keep getting cheaper and cheaper to the point that this all becomes moot. Ronin Colman At 03:09 PM 6/22/2001, you wrote: >By having three sensors mutually at right angles, you can sense the >direction of the field relative to the sensors. Or, to put it another >way, the direction of the sensors relative to the field. If you know the >direction of the field relative to the Earth, then you can measure the >orientation of the sensor device relative to the Earth. Consequently, >you can then determine which direction really is "down". No, you can't. You can rotate the aircraft along the magnetic vector without changing that vector relative to the three-axis magnetometer. Therefore you can't get attitude information from it. A real AHRS has a three axis magnetometer but it also has three axes of gyros and three orthogonal accelerometers. Once you know the attitude of the aircraft you can project the magnetic field vector on a plane tangent to the earth in order to discern magnetic heading. This is used to provide absolute correction of heading in the AHRS. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "R Colman" <ronincolman(at)home.com>
Subject: Cheap 3-axis solid state sensor
Date: Jun 22, 2001
snip An inertial platform doesn't need magnetometers at all. It has 3 gyros and 3 accelerometers, and that's all that's needed to determine attitude. Or are you saying that the magnetometers are used to correct the inertial platform for drift? Frank. If the gyros were perfect you would not need the accelerometers. But in the real world they do drift quite a bit. So in the logic of the thing you use the gyro data for rapid changes and the accelerometers to correct for drift when you are in a more steady state. This is what a conventional slaved DG does. When you start a turn the slaving is cut (because the flux gate will read wrong if the aircraft is not level) When you are back to flying pretty much straight, the slaving comes back making the small corrections to your DG as needed. Ronin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2001
From: dab(at)froghouse.org
Subject: Re: Cheap 3-axis solid state sensor
Frank and Dorothy wrote: > It's a magnetic field, not a vector. Or have I got it wrong? A magnetic field is a vector field. That is, at each point in space there is a magnetic vector (direction in three dimensions and intensity) for that point. A thee axis magnetometer will measure the magnetic vector for the point it's at. > Assuming it is a 3D field, then no matter which axis you rotate > about, the other two magnetometers must change the amount of > magnetism that they detect. If you rotate about the axis of the magnetic vector, you'll see no change in magnetic intensity on any of the three axes of the magnetometer. > An inertial platform doesn't need magnetometers at all. It has 3 > gyros and 3 accelerometers, and that's all that's needed to > determine attitude. > > Or are you saying that the magnetometers are used to correct the > inertial platform for drift? Almost. The magnetometers can be used to correct for drift about the yaw axis (except directly over the north or south magnetic poles). Accelerometers may be used to correct for drift about the pitch and roll axes. Basically, the 3 axis magnetometer gives you a vector pointing to magnetic north. The 3 axis accelometer gives you a vector pointing to the center of the earth (except for acceleration problems, so you run it through a really low pass filter). Given two vectors that don't point in the same direction (as they do over the north and south magnetic poles) you can calculate your attitude and use it to correct the gyro drift. -Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 23, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Cheap 3-axis solid state sensor
At 09:38 PM 6/22/2001, you wrote: > >snip > >An inertial platform doesn't need magnetometers at all. It has 3 gyros >and 3 accelerometers, and that's all that's needed to determine >attitude. Right. >Or are you saying that the magnetometers are used to correct the >inertial platform for drift? Yes. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jerome Kaidor <jerryk(at)best.com>
Subject: Avionics book?
Date: Jun 25, 2001
Hello, I'm looking for some sort of book that would describe the electronics used in small planes. Best would be at a "technician" level, e.g. for someone who is already in electronics - not to waste my time and paper trying to teach the difference between voltage and current, and how a resistor works - I already know these things, thank you. The book I'm looking for would describe in detail the frequencies and modulation used for VOR signals. It would describe the standard interfaces between navcoms, glideslope receivers, indicators, and GPS's. It would describe the frequencies and pulses for DME's and transponders. It would tell the Gray codes used for mode C. Is there anything like this out there? Thanks in advance, - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David P. Walen" <davewsr(at)wilmington.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics book?
Date: Jun 25, 2001
used to be one at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (perhaps through its web site). I think it is called Avionics for Aviators. They also have some inhouse books such as that which are used for classroom texts that are excellent. -----Original Message----- From: Jerome Kaidor <jerryk(at)best.com> avionics-list(at)matronics.com Date: Monday, June 25, 2001 3:46 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Avionics book? > >Hello, > > I'm looking for some sort of book that would describe the electronics >used in small planes. Best would be at a "technician" level, e.g. for >someone who is already in electronics - not to waste my time and paper >trying to teach the difference between voltage and current, and how a >resistor works - I already know these things, thank you. > > The book I'm looking for would describe in detail the frequencies and >modulation used for VOR signals. It would describe the standard >interfaces between navcoms, glideslope receivers, indicators, and GPS's. >It would describe the frequencies and pulses for DME's and transponders. >It would tell the Gray codes used for mode C. > > Is there anything like this out there? Thanks in advance, > > - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jerome Kaidor <jerryk(at)best.com>
Subject: Re: JAVA programming
Date: Jun 25, 2001
> > I would like to learn JAVA programming. The only language I have used is > BASIC, and that not recently. What is the best way to become proficient in > this language? Would you recommend enrolling in a class at a college or > university, or is there a good self-study or distance learning course out > there? I want a strong foundation, no matter if it is expensive. > *** Hi Jeff, It sort of depends on how you learn best. Some people require a classroom situation. You do indeed have a lot of ground to cover. Not so much learning Java, but learning to program. * algorithm design * program organization * datastructures * Top down design * Bottom up design * structured flow control * Interpreter/compiler design * Specific useful algorithms - searches, sorts, data compression ...and much etc.... * Computer I/O and hardware That being said, all of these things can be gotten out of books. That's how I did it, and I've been programming for a living for 20 years. In the specific case of Java, I found a copy of Microsoft Java 1.1 cheap at the flea market. It came with a book inside called "Learn Java Now" that was very good. One could sit there with the book in one hand and the computer in the other, working the examples. There is also a excellent book available for free on the internet called "Thinking in Java" by Bruce Eckels. See http://www.mindview.net/Books/DownloadSites. In general, the best way to learn programming is to program. Find some project you want to do and just jump in and do it. Mess it all up the first time, go back to the books, throw what you did away, and do it all over. Do it a couple times. You'll learn a lot. Best if it's something that's simple to get working, but can be added to. My "starting project" was a terminal program for my TRS-80. I was too cheap to buy RadioShack's serial port, so bought an 8251 "usart". Whups, Radio Shack's terminal program doesn't work for my usart! Gotta write my own. The simplest possible terminal program is simple as can be: If there is a character from the USART, Display it on the screen If there is a character from the keyboard, send it to the USART. Swing round and do it again. ....but one can get a good deal fancier than that. I had instant help screens, blinking cursors, Xmodem downloads, shell escapes. And much etc. Learned a lot. Didn't sit in any boring lectures. You can too. - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David J. Spencer" <djohnspe(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics book?
Date: Jun 25, 2001
Jerry... The worst book is: 'Every Pilots Guide to Aviation Electronics' by John M. Ferrara The Next worst is: ' Pilot's Avionics Survival Guide' by Edward Maher The best I have found, but probably not up to your level of expertise, is: 'The AeroElecrtic Connection' by Bob Nuckolls Order it at http://www.aeroelectric.com I also have the 'Avionics Installation Handbook' by Robert Horan which is a handy little guide of wiring diagrams. If you find something, please let me know... David J. Spencer Beech A23-24 This Plane WILL fly again... djs(at)Group54.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerome Kaidor" <jerryk(at)best.com> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 2:14 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Avionics book? > > Hello, > > I'm looking for some sort of book that would describe the electronics > used in small planes. Best would be at a "technician" level, e.g. for > someone who is already in electronics - not to waste my time and paper > trying to teach the difference between voltage and current, and how a > resistor works - I already know these things, thank you. > > The book I'm looking for would describe in detail the frequencies and > modulation used for VOR signals. It would describe the standard > interfaces between navcoms, glideslope receivers, indicators, and GPS's. > It would describe the frequencies and pulses for DME's and transponders. > It would tell the Gray codes used for mode C. > > Is there anything like this out there? Thanks in advance, > > - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jerome Kaidor <jerryk(at)best.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics book?
Date: Jun 26, 2001
> > Jerry... > > The worst book is: 'Every Pilots Guide to Aviation Electronics' by John M. > Ferrara *** You got that right. Three dollars worth of information ensconced in a twenty dollar book. I should sell mine on Ebay. > > The Next worst is: ' Pilot's Avionics Survival Guide' by Edward Maher > *** Don't have that one. The fact that it says "Pilot's" probably means it's no use. > The best I have found, but probably not up to your level of expertise, is: > 'The AeroElecrtic Connection' by Bob Nuckolls > *** I bought Bob's book the first I heard of it. > Order it at http://www.aeroelectric.com > > I also have the 'Avionics Installation Handbook' by Robert Horan which is a > handy little guide of wiring diagrams. > *** Is that the $70 one? I looked at that, seemed useful, but not exactly what I was looking for - more a quick reference for somebody who works on a lot of different units. - Jerry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David J. Spencer" <djohnspe(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics book?
Date: Jun 26, 2001
As usual right on all counts... David J. Spencer Beech A23-24 This Plane WILL fly again... djs(at)Group54.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerome Kaidor" <jerryk(at)best.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 1:47 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Avionics book? > > > > > Jerry... > > > > The worst book is: 'Every Pilots Guide to Aviation Electronics' by John M. > > Ferrara > *** You got that right. Three dollars worth of information ensconced in a > twenty dollar book. I should sell mine on Ebay. > > > > > The Next worst is: ' Pilot's Avionics Survival Guide' by Edward Maher > > > *** Don't have that one. The fact that it says "Pilot's" probably means > it's no use. > > > > The best I have found, but probably not up to your level of expertise, is: > > 'The AeroElecrtic Connection' by Bob Nuckolls > > > *** I bought Bob's book the first I heard of it. > > > Order it at http://www.aeroelectric.com > > > > I also have the 'Avionics Installation Handbook' by Robert Horan which is a > > handy little guide of wiring diagrams. > > > *** Is that the $70 one? I looked at that, seemed useful, but not exactly > what I was looking for - more a quick reference for somebody who works on a > lot of different units. > > - Jerry > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2001
From: Matthew Gelber <mgelber(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Getting info out of sensors into a computer
Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer OK, this is a real low-level question, but here goes. Whenever I see one of the EFIS devices, like the Meggit units on page 49 of this months (July 2001) AOPA Pilot, I start thinking... As a VB & Java programmer, that device is a trivial software challenge... at least the part where you visually display the information you've obtained from sensors. For instance, you could put sensors in the pitot-static system and get altitude, airspeed, and rate-of-climb, and temperature sensors for most of the engine instrumentation would be easy to come by. The question is, how do you get the data into a PDA/computer and access their values through high-level software (like VB or Java)? NI has a lot of products like: http://sine.ni.com/apps/we/nioc.vp?lang=US&pc=mn&cid=1066 http://sine.ni.com/apps/we/nioc.vp?lang=US&pc=mn&cid=1051 I know nothing of electronics, I'm just a software guy. I have no idea how to approach this kind of task. Would something like the NI products about be a good starting point? I think you could get one of these boxes, a nice PDA, sensors and all the connections for around $3000. Pretty steep but no worse than the commercial units and you'd have a lot more flexibility. What do you guys think? Matthew RV-8A fuselage ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2001
From: Derek Streeter <streeter(at)rv9a.sketchy.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 06/28/01
For a non-electronics guy, you may find using the serial port the easiest solution (if not the only solution in the case of a PDA). You can then pick up several of these programmable micro-controllers (try www.parallaxinc.com, or www.atmel.com) which are easily interfaced with pressure sensors, thermocouples, etc. Essentially, you write your micro-controller code in some derivative of basic in their PC software, which is then flashed onto the chip via the PC's parallel port. Many of these micro-controllers have built-in A/D conversion so from your code standpoint, you just read a 12bit (or 8-, 10-, 16-) value from the A/D and send it on the serial port to your VB application. No reason you can't put several of these on a bus and devise a polling protocol to bring order to all the chatter. One micro-controller could perhaps handle CHT and EGT, another could do all the pitot-static, etc. These little devices can easily drive LED indicators or 16x2 LCD displays, though you seem to be interested in displaying the data with your VB/Java. The trick is providing for some means of calibration either in software or in hardware (trip pots). Good news is that it'll cost much less than three grand. The first url above has links to many applications pages. Take a look. Virtually all of these new 'digital' monitoring instruments use a (more commercially oriented) micro-controller (Motorola's HC-series, etc) which are wired to A/D convertors and some type of display. The fancier LCD/graphics units have something closer to a PC inside. I understand UPSAT's MX-20 is on the order of a 166Mhz MMX pentium (and I think it even runs Windows NT). -Derek >From: Matthew Gelber <mgelber(at)pacbell.net> >Subject: Avionics-List: Getting info out of sensors into a computer > > >Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer > >OK, this is a real low-level question, but here goes. Whenever I see one of >the EFIS devices, like the Meggit units on page 49 of this months (July >2001) AOPA Pilot, I start thinking... > >As a VB & Java programmer, that device is a trivial software challenge... at >least the part where you visually display the information you've obtained >from sensors. For instance, you could put sensors in the pitot-static >system and get altitude, airspeed, and rate-of-climb, and temperature >sensors for most of the engine instrumentation would be easy to come by. >The question is, how do you get the data into a PDA/computer and access >their values through high-level software (like VB or Java)? > >NI has a lot of products like: >http://sine.ni.com/apps/we/nioc.vp?lang=US&pc=mn&cid=1066 > >http://sine.ni.com/apps/we/nioc.vp?lang=US&pc=mn&cid=1051 > >I know nothing of electronics, I'm just a software guy. I have no idea how >to approach this kind of task. Would something like the NI products about >be a good starting point? I think you could get one of these boxes, a nice >PDA, sensors and all the connections for around $3000. Pretty steep but no >worse than the commercial units and you'd have a lot more flexibility. What >do you guys think? > >Matthew >RV-8A fuselage ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "R Colman" <ronincolman(at)home.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 06/28/01
Date: Jun 29, 2001
For a whole lot less money and time try www.rkymtn.com I have their uEncoder. A friend of mine has their uMoniter. The quality is first rate. If you want to roll your own, I would observe that it is easy to marginalize the other guys work. By that I mean that software guys tend to consider hardware a trivial problem. The analog crowd, tends to minimize the problems of real time embedded programming. -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Derek Streete Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 7:29 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 06/28/01 For a non-electronics guy, you may find using the serial port the easiest solution (if not the only solution in the case of a PDA). You can then pick up several of these programmable micro-controllers (try www.parallaxinc.com, or www.atmel.com) which are easily interfaced with pressure sensors, thermocouples, etc. Essentially, you write your micro-controller code in some derivative of basic in their PC software, which is then flashed onto the chip via the PC's parallel port. Many of these micro-controllers have built-in A/D conversion so from your code standpoint, you just read a 12bit (or 8-, 10-, 16-) value from the A/D and send it on the serial port to your VB application. No reason you can't put several of these on a bus and devise a polling protocol to bring order to all the chatter. One micro-controller could perhaps handle CHT and EGT, another could do all the pitot-static, etc. These little devices can easily drive LED indicators or 16x2 LCD displays, though you seem to be interested in displaying the data with your VB/Java. The trick is providing for some means of calibration either in software or in hardware (trip pots). Good news is that it'll cost much less than three grand. The first url above has links to many applications pages. Take a look. Virtually all of these new 'digital' monitoring instruments use a (more commercially oriented) micro-controller (Motorola's HC-series, etc) which are wired to A/D convertors and some type of display. The fancier LCD/graphics units have something closer to a PC inside. I understand UPSAT's MX-20 is on the order of a 166Mhz MMX pentium (and I think it even runs Windows NT). -Derek >From: Matthew Gelber <mgelber(at)pacbell.net> >Subject: Avionics-List: Getting info out of sensors into a computer > > >Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer > >OK, this is a real low-level question, but here goes. Whenever I see one of >the EFIS devices, like the Meggit units on page 49 of this months (July >2001) AOPA Pilot, I start thinking... > >As a VB & Java programmer, that device is a trivial software challenge... at >least the part where you visually display the information you've obtained >from sensors. For instance, you could put sensors in the pitot-static >system and get altitude, airspeed, and rate-of-climb, and temperature >sensors for most of the engine instrumentation would be easy to come by. >The question is, how do you get the data into a PDA/computer and access >their values through high-level software (like VB or Java)? > >NI has a lot of products like: >http://sine.ni.com/apps/we/nioc.vp?lang=US&pc=mn&cid=1066 > >http://sine.ni.com/apps/we/nioc.vp?lang=US&pc=mn&cid=1051 > >I know nothing of electronics, I'm just a software guy. I have no idea how >to approach this kind of task. Would something like the NI products about >be a good starting point? I think you could get one of these boxes, a nice >PDA, sensors and all the connections for around $3000. Pretty steep but no >worse than the commercial units and you'd have a lot more flexibility. What >do you guys think? > >Matthew >RV-8A fuselage ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2001
From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer
Hm... I wonder if there is a market for this. I could easily make and sell a box for less that $100 accepting 16 analog inputs and transmitting the output via a serial port. Sensors are extra. I use cheap ($20) Motorola pressure sensors. Low temp sensors less that $2 and EGT $25 on up. Finn Matthew Gelber wrote: > > Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer > > OK, this is a real low-level question, but here goes. Whenever I see one of > the EFIS devices, like the Meggit units on page 49 of this months (July > 2001) AOPA Pilot, I start thinking... > > As a VB & Java programmer, that device is a trivial software challenge... at > least the part where you visually display the information you've obtained > from sensors. For instance, you could put sensors in the pitot-static > system and get altitude, airspeed, and rate-of-climb, and temperature > sensors for most of the engine instrumentation would be easy to come by. > The question is, how do you get the data into a PDA/computer and access > their values through high-level software (like VB or Java)? > > NI has a lot of products like: > http://sine.ni.com/apps/we/nioc.vp?lang=US&pc=mn&cid=1066 > > http://sine.ni.com/apps/we/nioc.vp?lang=US&pc=mn&cid=1051 > > I know nothing of electronics, I'm just a software guy. I have no idea how > to approach this kind of task. Would something like the NI products about > be a good starting point? I think you could get one of these boxes, a nice > PDA, sensors and all the connections for around $3000. Pretty steep but no > worse than the commercial units and you'd have a lot more flexibility. What > do you guys think? > > Matthew > RV-8A fuselage > NetZero Platinum No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month! http://www.netzero.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jerome Kaidor <jerryk(at)best.com>
Subject: Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer
Date: Jun 29, 2001
> > Hm... I wonder if there is a market for this. > > I could easily make and sell a box for less that $100 accepting 16 analog inputs > and transmitting the output via a serial port. > *** I was going to build something like this - for a home control project. I envisioned a PIC or similar - eight pins dedicated as a software flash A/D converter, a couple more pins as a bit banger serial port, and four pins to drive analog switches. - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer
At 08:12 AM 6/29/2001, you wrote: > >Hm... I wonder if there is a market for this. > >I could easily make and sell a box for less that $100 accepting 16 analog >inputs >and transmitting the output via a serial port. It is not as easy as you think. We are building such a critter right now. The engine sensor box has lots and lots of analog signal conditioning as well as a bunch of inputs. Thermocouples have their own idiosyncrasies. Think about cold-junction correction. Then there are pulse inputs such as magneto (RPM) and fuel flow (nice signal from an optical chopper). Hardware and software signal conditioning for mag p-lead pulses is black art. We are also doing an air data sensor box. Communications? Dual redundant CAN busses. We do have a serial port on each sensor box but we plan to use that for configuration of the sensor inputs, e.g. what sensor is on which input, calibration, lookup tables for nonlinear sensors, etc. After that you just listen for what you want on the CAN buss. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2001
From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com>
Subject: Re: JAVA programming
> >> >> I would like to learn JAVA programming. The only language I have used is >> BASIC, and that not recently. What is the best way to become proficient in >> this language? Would you recommend enrolling in a class at a college or >> university, or is there a good self-study or distance learning course out >> there? I want a strong foundation, no matter if it is expensive. You might check out http://www.jrealtime.com and http://www.jstamp.com for the first available Java embedded controllers. These are 32-bit systems which execute Java natively, i.e., it's their "ssembly code". This makes Java a real candidate for all kinds of realtime tasks such as avionics. More info on the website. This is not vaporware, development kits are shipping today. Bruce Boyes Technical Director www.jstamp.com ------- WWW.SYSTRONIX.COM ---------- Real embedded Java and much more High speed 8051 systems +1-801-534-1017 Salt Lake City, USA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 30, 2001
From: Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz>
Subject: Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer
Finn Lassen wrote: > Hm... I wonder if there is a market for this. > > I could easily make and sell a box for less that $100 accepting 16 analog inputs > and transmitting the output via a serial port. I'd love to have something like this for general playing around (not really for aircraft-type stuff)... I'd pay US$100 for it. But a couple of questions... 1. What data rate are you talking about? i.e. how fast will the various analog channels be sampled? Are we talking 1Hz, 10Hz, 100Hz, 1kHz sampling rates? Or, better yet, would the sampling rate be programmable? Independently programmable for each input channel? 2. What resolution on the inputs? 8-bit probably wouldn't cut it, but what about 12- or 16-bit? 3. Presumably you'll have some kind of protocol between the box and the host computer. Error detection on the protocol? I guess that the protocol would be published? Frank. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 30, 2001
From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer
Brian Lloyd wrote: > > At 08:12 AM 6/29/2001, you wrote: > > > >Hm... I wonder if there is a market for this. > > > >I could easily make and sell a box for less that $100 accepting 16 analog > >inputs > >and transmitting the output via a serial port. > > It is not as easy as you think. We are building such a critter right > now. The engine sensor box has lots and lots of analog signal conditioning > as well as a bunch of inputs. Thermocouples have their own > idiosyncrasies. Think about cold-junction correction. Then there are > pulse inputs such as magneto (RPM) and fuel flow (nice signal from an > optical chopper). Hardware and software signal conditioning for mag p-lead > pulses is black art. > > We are also doing an air data sensor box. > > Communications? Dual redundant CAN busses. We do have a serial port on > each sensor box but we plan to use that for configuration of the sensor > inputs, e.g. what sensor is on which input, calibration, lookup tables for > nonlinear sensors, etc. After that you just listen for what you want on > the CAN buss. I was thinking real low end. 16 channel mux with at most 1 resistor/capacitor filter per input, followed by 8 or 10 bit A/D. EGT cold junction compensation (AD595's) would be $15 extra per EGT channel. Expect input ranges 0 - 5 volts (using signal conditioned sensors). Yours sounds much more high-end. Finn NetZero Platinum No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month! http://www.netzero.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 30, 2001
From: deltaB(at)erols.com
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 06/28/01
I was thinking that myself. The displays are the easy part. "We'll get you the data, you make it look nice". Sun won't release Java for our application. Ahh, shucks. Should just tell them it's for an "Experimental". (I mean at work, It's ok for avionics) BTW: Looks like the micrroMonitor already does all of the data acquisition for you, but having a user data port was'nt in the original design spec. The data is there. I just think it is too much effort to make a one off device to extract the data. If someone came up with something for that, it'd be worth paying for. It would be nice to automatically log the data for testing. Bernie C. R Colman wrote: > > > For a whole lot less money and time try www.rkymtn.com I have their > uEncoder. A friend of mine has their uMoniter. The quality is first rate. If > you want to roll your own, I would observe that it is easy to marginalize > the other guys work. By that I mean that software guys tend to consider > hardware a trivial problem. The analog crowd, tends to minimize the problems > of real time embedded programming. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gregory Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer
Date: Jun 30, 2001
The Grand Rapids Technology EIS 4000 does have a serial output of all its data. The sample rate is 2-3 per second. I'm going to fly first with its built-in character display but I plan to use it as my data acquisition unit for a graphical display. It has all engine monitoring signals plus flight air data. My all-up cost was ~$1750 including all options (fuel flow & flight data) and sensors (4 EGT, 4CHT, MP, Oil temp & press, fuel flow & press, OAT). I believe Sierra Flight Systems used this originally to drive the engine monitoring portion of their display. I'm still looking for a suitable display: 10 inch sunlight readable (~1000 NITs), SVGA or better. Any suggestions? Anyone seen for used the Fujitsu Stylistic 3400 (or other) with their "outdoor" display... is it? Regards, Greg Young RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) scheduling DAR > > I was thinking that myself. The displays are the easy part. > "We'll get you the data, you make it look nice". > > Sun won't release Java for our application. Ahh, shucks. > Should just tell them it's for an "Experimental". (I mean at > work, It's ok for avionics) > > BTW: Looks like the micrroMonitor already does all of the > data acquisition for you, but having a user data port was'nt > in the original design spec. The data is there. I just think > it is too much effort to make a one off device to extract the > data. If someone came up with something for that, it'd be > worth paying for. It would be nice to automatically log the > data for testing. > > > Bernie C. > > > R Colman wrote: > > > > > > > For a whole lot less money and time try www.rkymtn.com I have their > > uEncoder. A friend of mine has their uMoniter. The quality > is first rate. If > > you want to roll your own, I would observe that it is easy > to marginalize > > the other guys work. By that I mean that software guys tend > to consider > > hardware a trivial problem. The analog crowd, tends to > minimize the problems > > of real time embedded programming. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com>
Subject: Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer
Date: Jun 30, 2001
I'm using a $200 single board computer and a $100 analog board with Borland C and the graphics library. The basic unit is working fine. The analog is 8 channels of 8-bit, which is good enough for temps but I'll add another 16-channel 12-bit board for $200 (at least the altimeter would need 12-bit). Then hopefully an audio board and a GPS module. These are all plug-in PC104 modules and can be stacked many high. The sensors add up to a few bucks, and the display will be expensive too. I found a 500 NIT 12.4" color for about $750 or a 10" color 200 NIT touch screen for $350. I don't think the 200 NIT will be bright enough so I'm still shopping. I got the J/K thermocouple amps and multiplexer for four CHT's and two EGT's into one each amp per the app notes. Haven't done the tach or flowmeter yet but the $100 analog board has three counters and a timer so that should work. It'll probably need some type of buffering but I'm not there yet. Fun stuff and a million different ways to skin a cat. Any sort of digital processing of engine data is definitely the way to go. It's good to hear the different approaches. If anyone has done the flowmeter or tach into a digital counter, or has a lead on a nice color display, please let me know. Gary K. ----- Original Message ----- From: Gregory Young <gyoung@cs-sol.com> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 6:37 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Getting info out of sensors into a computer > > The Grand Rapids Technology EIS 4000 does have a serial output of all its > data. The sample rate is 2-3 per second. I'm going to fly first with its > built-in character display but I plan to use it as my data acquisition unit > for a graphical display. It has all engine monitoring signals plus flight > air data. My all-up cost was ~$1750 including all options (fuel flow & > flight data) and sensors (4 EGT, 4CHT, MP, Oil temp & press, fuel flow & > press, OAT). I believe Sierra Flight Systems used this originally to drive > the engine monitoring portion of their display. > > I'm still looking for a suitable display: 10 inch sunlight readable (~1000 > NITs), SVGA or better. Any suggestions? Anyone seen for used the Fujitsu > Stylistic 3400 (or other) with their "outdoor" display... is it? > > Regards, > Greg Young > RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) scheduling DAR > > > > > I was thinking that myself. The displays are the easy part. > > "We'll get you the data, you make it look nice". > > > > Sun won't release Java for our application. Ahh, shucks. > > Should just tell them it's for an "Experimental". (I mean at > > work, It's ok for avionics) > > > > BTW: Looks like the micrroMonitor already does all of the > > data acquisition for you, but having a user data port was'nt > > in the original design spec. The data is there. I just think > > it is too much effort to make a one off device to extract the > > data. If someone came up with something for that, it'd be > > worth paying for. It would be nice to automatically log the > > data for testing. > > > > > > Bernie C. > > > > > > R Colman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > For a whole lot less money and time try www.rkymtn.com I have their > > > uEncoder. A friend of mine has their uMoniter. The quality > > is first rate. If > > > you want to roll your own, I would observe that it is easy > > to marginalize > > > the other guys work. By that I mean that software guys tend > > to consider > > > hardware a trivial problem. The analog crowd, tends to > > minimize the problems > > > of real time embedded programming. > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ronnie Brown" <rolandbrown(at)sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer
Date: Jun 30, 2001
And another way to skin the data input stuff is to use an EIS system http://www.hometown.aol.com/enginfosys. Its rather inexpensive considering that you get all of the sensors and alarm monitoring in a very small data acquisition package - AND it has RS-232 out that you can feed to a small computer and let it do the graphics processing. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 9:16 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Getting info out of sensors into a computer > > I'm using a $200 single board computer and a $100 analog board with Borland > C and the graphics library. The basic unit is working fine. The analog is > 8 channels of 8-bit, which is good enough for temps but I'll add another > 16-channel 12-bit board for $200 (at least the altimeter would need 12-bit). > Then hopefully an audio board and a GPS module. These are all plug-in PC104 > modules and can be stacked many high. The sensors add up to a few bucks, > and the display will be expensive too. I found a 500 NIT 12.4" color for > about $750 or a 10" color 200 NIT touch screen for $350. I don't think the > 200 NIT will be bright enough so I'm still shopping. I got the J/K > thermocouple amps and multiplexer for four CHT's and two EGT's into one each > amp per the app notes. Haven't done the tach or flowmeter yet but the $100 > analog board has three counters and a timer so that should work. It'll > probably need some type of buffering but I'm not there yet. > Fun stuff and a million different ways to skin a cat. Any sort of digital > processing of engine data is definitely the way to go. It's good to hear > the different approaches. If anyone has done the flowmeter or tach into a > digital counter, or has a lead on a nice color display, please let me know. > > Gary K. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gregory Young <gyoung@cs-sol.com> > To: > Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 6:37 AM > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Getting info out of sensors into a computer > > > > > > The Grand Rapids Technology EIS 4000 does have a serial output of all its > > data. The sample rate is 2-3 per second. I'm going to fly first with its > > built-in character display but I plan to use it as my data acquisition > unit > > for a graphical display. It has all engine monitoring signals plus flight > > air data. My all-up cost was ~$1750 including all options (fuel flow & > > flight data) and sensors (4 EGT, 4CHT, MP, Oil temp & press, fuel flow & > > press, OAT). I believe Sierra Flight Systems used this originally to drive > > the engine monitoring portion of their display. > > > > I'm still looking for a suitable display: 10 inch sunlight readable (~1000 > > NITs), SVGA or better. Any suggestions? Anyone seen for used the Fujitsu > > Stylistic 3400 (or other) with their "outdoor" display... is it? > > > > Regards, > > Greg Young > > RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) scheduling DAR > > > > > > > > I was thinking that myself. The displays are the easy part. > > > "We'll get you the data, you make it look nice". > > > > > > Sun won't release Java for our application. Ahh, shucks. > > > Should just tell them it's for an "Experimental". (I mean at > > > work, It's ok for avionics) > > > > > > BTW: Looks like the micrroMonitor already does all of the > > > data acquisition for you, but having a user data port was'nt > > > in the original design spec. The data is there. I just think > > > it is too much effort to make a one off device to extract the > > > data. If someone came up with something for that, it'd be > > > worth paying for. It would be nice to automatically log the > > > data for testing. > > > > > > > > > Bernie C. > > > > > > > > > R Colman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For a whole lot less money and time try www.rkymtn.com I have their > > > > uEncoder. A friend of mine has their uMoniter. The quality > > > is first rate. If > > > > you want to roll your own, I would observe that it is easy > > > to marginalize > > > > the other guys work. By that I mean that software guys tend > > > to consider > > > > hardware a trivial problem. The analog crowd, tends to > > > minimize the problems > > > > of real time embedded programming. > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 01, 2001
From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 06/30/01
Any opinions on this glass cockpit? http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/ ===== Larry Bowen Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com>
Subject: Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer
Date: Jul 01, 2001
> And another way to skin the data input stuff is to use an EIS system > http://www.hometown.aol.com/enginfosys. Its rather inexpensive considering > that you get all of the sensors and alarm monitoring in a very small data > acquisition package - AND it has RS-232 out that you can feed to a small > computer and let it do the graphics processing. Yes, that's a nice front end for a bigger display but I think for the most part, the software is pretty easy and that's where the customization and flexibility is that I'd like to play with and try to improve. I hope to get the plane flying with a minimum of engine-only instrumentation but have all hooks (hardware and software) in place. Then, after test flying and getting another building bug, I turn to the instrumentation software and start adding trend analysis, MP3 player, GPS, air data, etc. I am mounting a 2" X 5" X 7" aluminum box on the firewall for assorted instrumentation (CHT/EGT amps, MAP sensor, starter relay, and any signal conditioning) and that will have extra space to add more later. I am using AMP CPC connectors with MIL pins on the firewall so this whole thing is easily removed and modified, and the PC104 design allows simple plug-in add-on boards for additional I/O, audio, GPS, etc. So I'm hoping this is a reasonably simple, cheap, modular and flexible design that can be continuously upgraded and improved as I'm flying. > There was a general discussion on thi slist about custom glass cockpits a > while back... just ideas, never got inteo serious development. I set up a > site with our rough specs here: > http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/glass_cockpit > I would be happy to continue maintianing this site, tracking people's > progress, and mataining a "database" (using the term loosely) of people's > successes and failures and so on for others to build on... > Steve If there is webspace available I'd be happy to contribute the little that I have. It doesn't quite fit in with the CAN design but I guess it can (absolutely no pun intended - honest). It's a simple concept with a single processor and all sensors wired to it and a single display but there's no reason it couldn't be expanded to fit that system design or at least some of the pieces used. I wanted something operational this summer (which is slipping to this winter) so I had to keep it simple for myself. I think the website idea is fantastic and all the detailed sensors and sensor interfaces could be stored there for review and sharing, with parts lists, costs and options for processors and displays. I'd love to try to contribute some pieces but unfortunately don't have the time to document everything by myself on a website. This is an excellent group project, can I sign up? Gary K. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 01, 2001
From: Steve Kay <skay(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 06/30/01
If you read in detail what this EFIS I think you'llbe extremely impressed with it, especially how complete it is for the price and as compared to other systems. I also lie that it is highly customizable as I'm leaning toward the DeltaHawk turbo-diesel which has unique requirements from an engine monitoring point of view. While i'm far from an expert I'll let you know if I see any shortcomings after Oshkosh. -Steve Larry Bowen wrote: > > Any opinions on this glass cockpit? > > http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/ > > ===== > Larry Bowen > Larry(at)BowenAero.com > http://BowenAero.com > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 01, 2001
From: Gordon Robertson <gordon(at)safemail.com>
Subject: Glass cockpit database
Steven, Great idea. We need a place to correlate thoughts and ideas. I will bookmark it and contribute as the inspiration takes me. Gordon Robertson RV8 fuse. From: "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Re. Getting info out of sensors There wasa general discussion on thi slist about custom glass cockpits a while back... just ideas, never got inteo serious development. I set up a site with our rough specs here: http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/glass_cockpit I would be happy to continue maintianing this site, tracking people's progress, and mataining a "database" (using the term loosely) of people's successes and failures and so on for others to build on... Steve Steven J. Devine, President, Consultant, TZOGON Enterprises Incorporated President, EAA Chapter 136 (Merrimac Valley) http://eaa136.tzogon.com 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 01, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer
At 09:09 PM 6/29/2001, you wrote: >I was thinking real low end. 16 channel mux with at most 1 resistor/capacitor >filter per input, followed by 8 or 10 bit A/D. EGT cold junction compensation >(AD595's) would be $15 extra per EGT channel. Expect input ranges 0 - 5 volts >(using signal conditioned sensors). If you plan to use it in an airplane, plan to regularly replace MUX chips without more protection than a resistor and a cap. >Yours sounds much more high-end. Yes. It has to be something I would bet my life on since I will be putting it in all my airplanes. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)gte.net>
Subject: Getting info out of sensors into a computer
Date: Jul 02, 2001
Just a quick question about the analog inputs to an A/D converter. Most automotive systems (actually all that I am aware of) use a single RC to filter the analog inputs - generally about a 0.1 cap and 1 to 10K resistor. Sometimes an additional .001 NPO cap is used across the input. You say that's not good enough? Seems to work good enough for 100 million cars. Just wondered. >original message: If you plan to use it in an airplane, plan to regularly replace MUX chips without more protection than a resistor and a cap. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ken Brooks" <kdbrv8r(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain Avionics EFIS
Date: Jul 02, 2001
Larry Bowen wrote: Any opinions on Blue Mountain Avionics EFIS? I checked out their website at www.bluemountainavionics.com and was pretty impressed! I'll definitely pay them a visit at Oshkosh, and since I was planning on spending around ten grand on my RV-8 panel anyway, why not have a 21st Century Panel that does the work of so many "steam gauges" for about the same price. Of course I'll have the necessary back-up instruments, but my partner Ed and I have decided to be IFR-legal so we can file that way when we go cross-country. It's a fact of life that ATC tends to treat you like a "real person" when you file IFR, compared with the typical reception that VFR-types get when they transit busy areas. That and the ability to legally fly through the clouds when you need to have convinced us that that's the way to go for us. Thanks for the heads-up, Larry. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jerome Kaidor <jerryk(at)best.com>
Subject: Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer
Date: Jul 02, 2001
> > Just a quick question about the analog inputs to an A/D converter. Most > automotive systems (actually all that I am aware of) use a single RC to > filter the analog inputs - generally about a 0.1 cap and 1 to 10K resistor. > Sometimes an additional .001 NPO cap is used across the input. You say > that's not good enough? Seems to work good enough for 100 million cars. > Just wondered. > *** Once upon a time, I worked on a "life and property critical" application for railroading. We had sensors hooked to the tracks. It seems that railroad tracks take frequent lightning hits, as they pass through the middle of nowhere, and may be the only large metal objects for miles. Each input bit had a resistor feeding a surge supressor ( sort of a high-zoot zener diode ). Signal was then piped through a large resistor to a comparator with the appropriate voltage switch point at its other pin. I think there may have been capacitors to catch the quick spikes too. Southern Pacific railroad had a lightning box they'd stick our boards in. Something involving lots of voltage, thyristors the size of doorknobs, I never saw it. Survival of the lightning box was a requirement for our product. We wrote some damn bulletproof software code for that product. The processor spent about 30 percent of its time checking the system. Every moment that it was not doing useful work, it was doing integrity tests. We had stack checks, memory checks, processor instruction set checks ( this may have been a little overboard ). We had interrupt service routines checking the main program, and the main program checking the interrupt service routines. We had a watchdog on a 1/2 second fuse. It got to where we had trouble fixing bugs, because it would find the symptom itself and reset so fast. If I was flying an airplane on software, THAT's the caliber of software I'd like to depend on. I don't know if its attainable with "big" operating systems, like Windows, or even Linux. Just too much stuff in there. Sorry for wandering off topic..... - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 02, 2001
From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com>
Subject: RE: Language/platform for proposed sensor system
Suppose you could find a 32-bit embedded controller which is descended from the realtime avionics controllers at Rockwell Collins, used in Boeing 7X7 avionics and flight controls, and virtually all military aviation GPS receivers in use today. This controller was programmed in - of all things - Ada, since that is FAA and mil-spec for flight critical systems. Suppose that a group of engineers saw that an Ada controller and a Java controller are not that far apart, saw that Java could be the wave of the future, and started to make the Java version. Suppose that Rockwell supported them for a while ('new ideas are good'), then changed its corporate mind ('focus on our core business'). Suppose the engineers left Rockwell with Rockwell's blessing and a license for the technology. Suppose they worked for a few more years, iterating the chip, each time getting closer to a 32-bit controller which executes Java natively (yes, natively - no slow interpreter or operating system needed, Java runs on the 'bare metal' just like assembly code). Suppose the chip also had extensions for hard real-time control, since one founder of the company is a member of the Real Time for Java executive group. Suppose they finally succeeded in creating and producing such a chip in Spring of 2001. Now suppose another company took that chip, combined it with memory, power converter, and other logic and squeezed it all onto a 1x2 inch module with easy to use DIP legs, and started shipping that in April 2001. The first company is aJile (http://www.ajile.com) and the second is Systronix (my company), and the product is JStamp - (http://www.jstamp.com). It's the first really new technology to come along in embedded systems in about 20 years. The benefits are rich, standard tools sets in a powerful high level language, now fast enough and low power enough for all kinds of new applications. It's like a new small turbine powerplant compared to a 50-year old piston engine. Bruce Boyes ------- WWW.SYSTRONIX.COM ---------- Real embedded Java and much more High speed 8051 systems +1-801-534-1017 Salt Lake City, USA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 02, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Getting info out of sensors into a computer
At 05:33 AM 7/2/2001, you wrote: > >Just a quick question about the analog inputs to an A/D converter. Most >automotive systems (actually all that I am aware of) use a single RC to >filter the analog inputs - generally about a 0.1 cap and 1 to 10K resistor. >Sometimes an additional .001 NPO cap is used across the input. You say >that's not good enough? Seems to work good enough for 100 million cars. >Just wondered. Cars tend to have better bonding. A single pole low-pass filter might do what you need to do. The resistor also acts to limit current if something gets really screwed up. Measuring voltage is pretty easy. It is when you are trying to measure a resistive sender, e.g. oil pressures, fuel pressure, oil temp, etc., especially when referenced to ground, that it gets trickier. Many engines are tied to the airframe with a single ground strap, one that hasn't been cared for since the airplane was built 30 years ago. Both starter and alternator ground currents go through this and impress some potential difference between the engine and the rest of the airframe. Now also think about P-leads being grounded, often incorrectly, and you have a fairly hostile environment. The guy doing our sensor box has built an engine monitor before. He is the one who says that you are going to lunch MUX chips as he did before he finally got the input protection correct. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 02, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain Avionics EFIS
At 08:10 AM 7/2/2001, you wrote: > >Larry Bowen wrote: Any opinions on Blue Mountain Avionics EFIS? > >I checked out their website at www.bluemountainavionics.com and was pretty >impressed! You didn't think that their display was too cluttered? Every outfit I have seen tends to try to put too much on their display. >I'll definitely pay them a visit at Oshkosh, and since I was >planning on spending around ten grand on my RV-8 panel anyway, why not have >a 21st Century Panel that does the work of so many "steam gauges" for about >the same price. And why bother with displaying the engine gauges at all? If nothing is wrong, why waste display space to show an image of a gauge that is showing you what it has been showing you for the last 500 hours? The only time you really need to see a gauge is when it's NOT showing you what it has showed you for the last 500 hours. >Of course I'll have the necessary back-up instruments, but >my partner Ed and I have decided to be IFR-legal so we can file that way >when we go cross-country. It's a fact of life that ATC tends to treat you >like a "real person" when you file IFR, compared with the typical reception >that VFR-types get when they transit busy areas. I commute daily through the SF Bay Area airspace. I most fly VFR and file only when I need to. After about 5000 hours of flying, I haven't noticed that you get a whole lot better support when IFR. OTOH, then they really can tell you where to go. : ) >That and the ability to >legally fly through the clouds when you need to have convinced us that >that's the way to go for us. Thanks for the heads-up, Larry. Basic IFR certification is a great safety factor. I won't have an airplane that won't let me shoot an approach legally and safely. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 03, 2001
From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer
All my temp and pressure "senders" are on-chip signal conditioned. You feed them +5 volts and you get a signal back from 0 (actually a specified offset) to 5 V (radiometric to the supply 5 V). None of my sensors have metal-to-metal contact with the engine and all are connected to my engine monitor (mux) with shielded cable. I don't even need to calibrate the sensors, I simply use the data sheet specs for offset and mV/psi or mV/oC. 1 - 2 % overall accuracy is plenty good for my engine monitoring purposes. I know my home brewed system is very low-end, but I do like my feature of showing all engine parameters simultaneously. I use a simple monochrome 20 chars x 4 lines display with LED backlighting easily read in bright sunlight as well as night. These are the parameters I'm continuously showing (with 2 spare analog inputs still): Oil pressure Water pressure Fuel pressure 1 Fuel pressure 2 Water temp Oil temp before cooler Oil temp after cooler EGT 1 EGT 2 RPM MAP Mixture (using an oxygen sensor) Voltage Left tank level (gallons) Right tank level (gallons) Fuel flow Fuel used I just finished modifying my program to add hi/low limits warning (bright blinking hi intensity LED). Very convenient. Finn Brian Lloyd wrote: > Cars tend to have better bonding. > > A single pole low-pass filter might do what you need to do. The resistor > also acts to limit current if something gets really screwed up. > > Measuring voltage is pretty easy. It is when you are trying to measure a > resistive sender, e.g. oil pressures, fuel pressure, oil temp, etc., > especially when referenced to ground, that it gets trickier. Many engines > are tied to the airframe with a single ground strap, one that hasn't been > cared for since the airplane was built 30 years ago. Both starter and > alternator ground currents go through this and impress some potential > difference between the engine and the rest of the airframe. Now also think > about P-leads being grounded, often incorrectly, and you have a fairly > hostile environment. > > The guy doing our sensor box has built an engine monitor before. He is the > one who says that you are going to lunch MUX chips as he did before he > finally got the input protection correct. > > Brian Lloyd NetZero Platinum No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month! http://www.netzero.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob and Dawn Luce" <robluce1(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain Avionics EFIS
Date: Jul 03, 2001
At 08:10 AM 7/2/2001, you wrote: >> >>Larry Bowen wrote: Any opinions on Blue Mountain Avionics EFIS? >> >>I checked out their website at www.bluemountainavionics.com and was pretty >>impressed! >You didn't think that their display was too cluttered? Every outfit I have >seen tends to try to put too much on their display. No. He wants 8k for it, and for that price, he can put the engine instruments on the screen if he wants to. >>I'll definitely pay them a visit at Oshkosh, and since I was >>planning on spending around ten grand on my RV-8 panel anyway, why not have >>a 21st Century Panel that does the work of so many "steam gauges" for about >>the same price. >And why bother with displaying the engine gauges at all? If nothing is >wrong, why waste display space to show an image of a gauge that is showing >you what it has been showing you for the last 500 hours? The only time you >really need to see a gauge is when it's NOT showing you what it has showed >you for the last 500 hours. Some people would want the engine gauges front and center. In particular, if you're running a Mazda turbo 13B conversion. If you were running other than a auto conversion (or Rotax), putting in different guages and moving them to the right side might make sense. If you're concerned about how the engine is operating, putting the guages in front of you and making the screen flash when something goes past limits would be something that a programmer would be inclined to do. Frankly, most pilots don't check their engine enough in flight. Has anyone ever gotten around to doing anything with the glass cockpit? RLuce ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 03, 2001
Subject: Wiring multiple audio sources
From: <racker(at)rmci.net>
I'm hooking up a Flightcom 403mc intercom to an Icom A-200 comm radio. In addition to the comm radio, I would like to be able to hear the aural alarms from the engine monitor, GPS (waypoint intersection/airspace warning), and tachometer (rev limit). Can I simply attach these audio outputs the the AUX input of the intercom? How would one correct an overly loud or quiet alarm (the impedance of the intercom is 600 ohms)? Other methods? Thanks, Rob Acker (RV-6, painting and wiring). ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HornetBall(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 03, 2001
Subject: Re: Wiring multiple audio sources
Wiring to the AUX input is fine. Also, the ICOM has an auxiliary input, and I've used the ICOM's input for some things on my plane (my intercom did not have an AUX input). If you are concerned about differing volume levels, simple potentiometers will do the trick. Once you find the volume level you like, you can replace the pot with a resistor of the same value (or leave it alone). Of course, you can only reduce volume, not increase it. There are more elegant ways to do this, of course, but the above is simple and expedient. Didn't Jim Weir just publish something in Kitplanes on this subject.? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 04, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Getting info out of sensors into a computer
At 06:57 AM 7/3/2001, you wrote: >I know my home brewed system is very low-end, but I do like my feature of >showing all engine parameters simultaneously. This is one of those things you have to live with to get comfortable. I had an Audio Flight Avionics AFA-10 in my RV-4. (It is still in the RV-4 but the RV-4 is no longer mine.) We have been conditioned to always monitor the steam gauges since there is no warning system in most aircraft panels. But with the AV-10 I was able to decide what I wanted to see and it boiled down to what I could change. I had the extra 4-line display which would display 4 chosen parameters so I picked the ones I could control or directly impinged on my decision making process. These turned out to be RPM, CHT, EGT, and time remaining in the fuel tanks. In my CJ6A these parameters will be RPM, MAP, CHT, and oil temp. These correspond to the throttle, prop, cowl flaps, and oil cooler door controls. If I don't have a knob to change the value, I only need something that will watch the values for me and let me know when they go out of preset limits. So experience has shown me that most of the engine gauges display useless information 99.99% of the time and when they do display useful information, I probably am not looking at them anyway. Given my interest in formation flying and aerobatics, my head is out of the cockpit most of the time anyway so display gauges are even more useless. So there is my logic born of 30 years and 5000 hours of experience. But the great thing about software-based systems is that you can change them to meet new thinking and new experience. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 04, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain Avionics EFIS
At 07:21 AM 7/3/2001, you wrote: > >You didn't think that their display was too cluttered? Every outfit I have > >seen tends to try to put too much on their display. > >No. He wants 8k for it, and for that price, he can put the engine >instruments on the screen if he wants to. See my posting regarding what I think needs to be displayed. Clutter makes it difficult to extract information from a display quickly. It will tend to make you more head-down in the cockpit. > >And why bother with displaying the engine gauges at all? If nothing is > >wrong, why waste display space to show an image of a gauge that is showing > >you what it has been showing you for the last 500 hours? The only time you > >really need to see a gauge is when it's NOT showing you what it has showed > >you for the last 500 hours. > >Some people would want the engine gauges front and center. In particular, >if you're running a Mazda turbo 13B conversion. If you were running other >than a auto conversion (or Rotax), putting in different guages and moving >them to the right side might make sense. If you're concerned about how the >engine is operating, putting the guages in front of you and making the >screen flash when something goes past limits would be something that a >programmer would be inclined to do. I beg to differ. You need two kinds of information in front of you: things you can change, and things are aren't what they should be. When I move the throttle, prop, mixture, cowl flap, or oil cooler shutter controls, I want gauges that tell me what has happened or will happen. Those are performance gauges and you need them to actually fly the airplane properly. If the oil pressure is 5 Kg/cm 2 (75 PSI) and hasn't changed, why should you have to look at it and assimilate that information during your scan? Conversely you really need to know when it changes regardless of whether you are looking at it. Displaying it on the panel doesn't help you most of the time. The concept of displaying performance instruments and getting rid of everything else when it isn't important is called the "dark cockpit" concept. That is how they are building instrumentation systems in the heavy stuff these days. If you have looked at a modern airliner cockpit you will notice that it is much less cluttered these days, even to the point of eliminating a person in the cockpit. These concepts apply to our cockpits as well, especially given that we usually fly with only one set of eyes working in the cockpit. They should be where they will do the most good, usually looking outside. >Frankly, most pilots don't check their engine enough in flight. Of course they don't and they shouldn't anymore. Cluttering the panel with a bunch of distracting and generally unused gauges won't help either. Computers do a much, much better job of this task than you or I ever will. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 04, 2001
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)ATT.NET>
Subject: RG-58U,RG-400U,RG-142U
Listers Is there reason for selecting the more expensive 50 ohm coax instead of the garden varieties for comm, nav or GPS? I've read that, in any case the stranded center conductor os preferred over the solid. In the ACS catalog they indicate that the RG-400U is for certificated aircraft and the RG-58U is only for experimental. Is there a significant difference in reliability or losses? Thanks in advance. Richard Dudley ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chuck Deiterich" <cfd(at)tstar.net>
Subject: Bendix King KLX135
Date: Jul 05, 2001
Does anyone know if you can display "TRACK" (compass direction of travel) on the KLX 135 GPS/Com unit? Chuck D. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hook57(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 09, 2001
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain Avionics EFIS
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hook57(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 09, 2001
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain Avionics EFIS
Let me try that again.....(#% @ laptops), Having flown EFIS equipped jets and steam equipped ones, as well as C-150's, I do not think you can realistically compare the $800,000.00 plus EFIS systems reliability and capabilities to an $8000.00 unit. Just my 2 cents. Mark.........RV-6...soon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 10, 2001
From: Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org>
Subject: Shock mounting
Does someone have any real data concerning shock mounting instrument panel devices? Given the cost of a panel devices, it is an inexpensive thing to do, both in cost and weight. I can intuitively see the need for protection of "needle" devices that use a jeweled movement (or just precision bearings) since it seems that these moving parts would be subject to vibration more than solid state devices. Yet I see so many builders not doing it. Does that mean it is really not necessary? Gary Liming ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 10, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Shock mounting
At 10:11 AM 7/10/2001, you wrote: > > >Does someone have any real data concerning shock mounting instrument panel >devices? Given the cost of a panel devices, it is an inexpensive thing to >do, both in cost and weight. I can intuitively see the need for protection >of "needle" devices that use a jeweled movement (or just precision >bearings) since it seems that these moving parts would be subject to >vibration more than solid state devices. Yet I see so many builders not >doing it. Does that mean it is really not necessary? I have heard that, in many cases, shock mounting the panel is actually detrimental to the instruments because it increases the amplitude of the vibrations at some frequencies. For this reason I am planning to remove the shock mounting on the panel of my Comanche and go for a rigid mounting. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 10, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain Avionics EFIS
At 06:56 PM 7/9/2001, you wrote: > >Let me try that again.....(#% @ laptops), Having flown EFIS equipped jets and >steam equipped ones, as well as C-150's, I do not think you can realistically >compare the $800,000.00 plus EFIS systems reliability and capabilities to an >$8000.00 unit. Just my 2 cents. Why not? The computer/telecom industry has given us low-cost, high-rel parts and equipment. There are a lot of constraints in heavy-iron glass (ARINC compatibility for one) that make it more expensive and not significantly more reliable. A Litton RLG inertial platform costs an arm and a leg but we are seeing high-rel, low-cost AHRS coming out that will beat the MTBF specs for the Litton RLG-INS all hollow. So don't sell the little stuff short. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 17, 2001
From: deltaB(at)erols.com
Subject: Asked & Answered / Where can I get Bendix-King user manuals?
Having recently returned to the air in post-litigation spam rentals, I found myself staring at a new stack of instruments. I mean stare, that's about all I could do. I vaguely remembered what a flip-flop was. But the GPS didn't look anything like my magellan 2000. Sure the rental place had a manual that went with the plane, but that is a terrible place to learn. The bi-annual and rental checkout went well enough, but I knew I had a whole lot more to learn. I was thinking of asking the list where a GPS and Autopilot guide could be obtained, like the POHs you can get for the 172. But I did a bit of work on my own first. Why rely on others? The internet is a big place with some nuggets of information, and I found a nugget. So instead of asking, I'm telling. Go here. Bendix/King has a site with REAL information. Go figure. <<http://www.bendixking.com/>> <<http://bkweb01.ais.honeywell.com/static/bk_club/pilotguides/pilotguide.html>> Bernie C. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 17, 2001
From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com>
Subject: DME in general
Just got back on the ground from a flight over central Utah at 12,000 MSL. Had an experience which was a first. Need a sanity check. From CDC to DTA, northbound, using a Narco DME 890, we were indicating 148 knots groundspeed for over 15 minutes. Then for about 5 minutes 190 knots. This was flying on V21 between the MLF and DTA VOR/DME navaids. We expected at most a 30 knot tailwind. Is going this fast even possible? Could a DME lie that badly? It seemed to work normally at other times. Usually at 8000 feet AGL it doesn't look like you're going very fast when you look down at the ground. Today it looked like we were really ripping. We were in a band of rising air, so was able to put the nose down a bit and indicate 120-130 KIAS. And the time between points agreed with these speeds, on average, although our average speed over an hour and forty minutes was much lower - perhaps 140 knots. I was under the hood in an IFR X-C so was not at liberty to stop and document a lot or circle back and pass over the same course again to confirm this. Oh, we were in a generic 160 hp C172 with a TAS of 100 knots. Yes I have an instructor witness. ?? Bruce Boyes ------- WWW.SYSTRONIX.COM ---------- Real embedded Java and much more High speed 8051 systems +1-801-534-1017 Salt Lake City, USA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jayeandscott" <jayeandscott(at)home.com>
Subject: Re: DME in general
Date: Jul 17, 2001
Mountain wave? ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 6:26 PM Subject: Avionics-List: DME in general > > Just got back on the ground from a flight over central Utah at 12,000 MSL. > Had an experience which was a first. Need a sanity check. > > From CDC to DTA, northbound, using a Narco DME 890, we were indicating 148 > knots groundspeed for over 15 minutes. Then for about 5 minutes 190 knots. > This was flying on V21 between the MLF and DTA VOR/DME navaids. We expected > at most a 30 knot tailwind. > > Is going this fast even possible? Could a DME lie that badly? It seemed to > work normally at other times. Usually at 8000 feet AGL it doesn't look like > you're going very fast when you look down at the ground. Today it looked > like we were really ripping. We were in a band of rising air, so was able > to put the nose down a bit and indicate 120-130 KIAS. And the time between > points agreed with these speeds, on average, although our average speed > over an hour and forty minutes was much lower - perhaps 140 knots. I was > under the hood in an IFR X-C so was not at liberty to stop and document a > lot or circle back and pass over the same course again to confirm this. > > Oh, we were in a generic 160 hp C172 with a TAS of 100 knots. > > Yes I have an instructor witness. > > ?? > > Bruce Boyes > ------- WWW.SYSTRONIX.COM ---------- > Real embedded Java and much more > High speed 8051 systems > +1-801-534-1017 Salt Lake City, USA > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ronnie Brown" <rolandbrown(at)sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: DME in general
Date: Jul 18, 2001
Get a GPS - and make your instructor teach you how to use it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Boyes" <bboyes(at)systronix.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 9:26 PM Subject: Avionics-List: DME in general > > Just got back on the ground from a flight over central Utah at 12,000 MSL. > Had an experience which was a first. Need a sanity check. > > From CDC to DTA, northbound, using a Narco DME 890, we were indicating 148 > knots groundspeed for over 15 minutes. Then for about 5 minutes 190 knots. > This was flying on V21 between the MLF and DTA VOR/DME navaids. We expected > at most a 30 knot tailwind. > > Is going this fast even possible? Could a DME lie that badly? It seemed to > work normally at other times. Usually at 8000 feet AGL it doesn't look like > you're going very fast when you look down at the ground. Today it looked > like we were really ripping. We were in a band of rising air, so was able > to put the nose down a bit and indicate 120-130 KIAS. And the time between > points agreed with these speeds, on average, although our average speed > over an hour and forty minutes was much lower - perhaps 140 knots. I was > under the hood in an IFR X-C so was not at liberty to stop and document a > lot or circle back and pass over the same course again to confirm this. > > Oh, we were in a generic 160 hp C172 with a TAS of 100 knots. > > Yes I have an instructor witness. > > ?? > > Bruce Boyes > ------- WWW.SYSTRONIX.COM ---------- > Real embedded Java and much more > High speed 8051 systems > +1-801-534-1017 Salt Lake City, USA > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ronnie Brown" <rolandbrown(at)sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: Asked & Answered / Where can I get Bendix-King user
manuals?
Date: Jul 18, 2001
Also: Garmin has a free GNS 430 simulator at www.garmin.com and UPSAT has a free Apollo GX60 simulator at www.upsat.com Go here. Bendix/King has a site with REAL > information. Go figure. > > > <<http://www.bendixking.com/>> > <<http://bkweb01.ais.honeywell.com/static/bk_club/pilotguides/pilotguide.htm l>> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Moore" <rmoore16(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: DME in general
Date: Jul 18, 2001
> Just got back on the ground from a flight over central Utah at 12,000 MSL. > Had an experience which was a first. Need a sanity check. OK **start sanity check** >We were in a band of rising air, so was able > to put the nose down a bit and indicate 120-130 KIAS. 125 kts at 12,000' and +5 degrees C equals 154 kts TAS plus a 30 kt tailwind equals 184 kts...pretty close. > Oh, we were in a generic 160 hp C172 with a TAS of 100 knots. To do 100 kts TAS at that altitude and temp, you would have been indicating about 80 kts > Yes I have an instructor witness. A qualified instructor???? :-) **end sanity check** Bob Moore ATP B-707, B-727, L-188 CFI ASE-IA USN S-2F, P-2V, P-3B ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Elkins" <elkinde1(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: DME in general
Date: Jul 18, 2001
I took a trip in a C150 from Las Vegas to Denver at the end of May. While going through the Moab area towards Grand Junction at 11,500'. Indicated was 95kts and GPS read 128kts. Nice tailwind with a lot of smooth air. This was not the only trip that this has happened. Same spot different time of year. Last trip was in November 2000. Dennis Elkins >From: "Bob Moore" <rmoore16(at)tampabay.rr.com> >Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: Avionics-List: DME in general >Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:19:22 -0400 > > > > Just got back on the ground from a flight over central Utah at 12,000 >MSL. > > Had an experience which was a first. Need a sanity check. > >OK > >**start sanity check** > > >We were in a band of rising air, so was able > > to put the nose down a bit and indicate 120-130 KIAS. > >125 kts at 12,000' and +5 degrees C equals 154 kts TAS >plus a 30 kt tailwind equals 184 kts...pretty close. > > > Oh, we were in a generic 160 hp C172 with a TAS of 100 knots. > >To do 100 kts TAS at that altitude and temp, you would have been >indicating about 80 kts > > > Yes I have an instructor witness. > >A qualified instructor???? :-) > >**end sanity check** > >Bob Moore >ATP B-707, B-727, L-188 >CFI ASE-IA >USN S-2F, P-2V, P-3B > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Elkins" <elkinde1(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: DME in general
Date: Jul 18, 2001
I took a trip in a C150 from Las Vegas to Denver at the end of May. While going through the Moab area towards Grand Junction at 11,500'. Indicated was 95kts and GPS read 135kts. Nice tailwind with a lot of smooth air. This was not the only trip that this has happened. Same spot different time of year. Last trip was in November 2000. No reports from weather observation to indicate wind only clear VFR conditions. Maybe there's something in the middle of Utah that's special. Dennis Elkins >From: "Bob Moore" <rmoore16(at)tampabay.rr.com> >Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: Avionics-List: DME in general >Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:19:22 -0400 > > > > Just got back on the ground from a flight over central Utah at 12,000 >MSL. > > Had an experience which was a first. Need a sanity check. > >OK > >**start sanity check** > > >We were in a band of rising air, so was able > > to put the nose down a bit and indicate 120-130 KIAS. > >125 kts at 12,000' and +5 degrees C equals 154 kts TAS >plus a 30 kt tailwind equals 184 kts...pretty close. > > > Oh, we were in a generic 160 hp C172 with a TAS of 100 knots. > >To do 100 kts TAS at that altitude and temp, you would have been >indicating about 80 kts > > > Yes I have an instructor witness. > >A qualified instructor???? :-) > >**end sanity check** > >Bob Moore >ATP B-707, B-727, L-188 >CFI ASE-IA >USN S-2F, P-2V, P-3B > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Elkins" <elkinde1(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: DME in general
Date: Jul 18, 2001
The first speed was based on memory. I had to go back to my flight plan to confirm the speed and found that it was much higher than I first stated. Dennis Elkins >From: "Dennis Elkins" <elkinde1(at)hotmail.com> >Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com >To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: Avionics-List: DME in general >Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 14:51:42 -0600 > > >I took a trip in a C150 from Las Vegas to Denver at the end of May. While >going through the Moab area towards Grand Junction at 11,500'. Indicated >was >95kts and GPS read 135kts. Nice tailwind with a lot of smooth air. This >was >not the only trip that this has happened. Same spot different time of >year. >Last trip was in November 2000. No reports from weather observation to >indicate wind only clear VFR conditions. Maybe there's something in the >middle of Utah that's special. > >Dennis Elkins > > >From: "Bob Moore" <rmoore16(at)tampabay.rr.com> > >Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > >To: > >Subject: Re: Avionics-List: DME in general > >Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:19:22 -0400 > > > > > > > > > > Just got back on the ground from a flight over central Utah at 12,000 > >MSL. > > > Had an experience which was a first. Need a sanity check. > > > >OK > > > >**start sanity check** > > > > >We were in a band of rising air, so was able > > > to put the nose down a bit and indicate 120-130 KIAS. > > > >125 kts at 12,000' and +5 degrees C equals 154 kts TAS > >plus a 30 kt tailwind equals 184 kts...pretty close. > > > > > Oh, we were in a generic 160 hp C172 with a TAS of 100 knots. > > > >To do 100 kts TAS at that altitude and temp, you would have been > >indicating about 80 kts > > > > > Yes I have an instructor witness. > > > >A qualified instructor???? :-) > > > >**end sanity check** > > > >Bob Moore > >ATP B-707, B-727, L-188 > >CFI ASE-IA > >USN S-2F, P-2V, P-3B > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David J. Spencer" <djohnspe(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: DME in general
Date: Jul 18, 2001
It's not just Utah. During a trip from Dallas to Phoenix in a Beech Sport we had 120 mph indicated at 8,500 msl. Coming out of Guadalupe Pass, and headed westward, our Loran indicated 150 KNOTS for about twenty minutes. The visuals were perceptive. The FAA was reporting clear with minimum winds. David J. Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Elkins" <elkinde1(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 3:51 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: DME in general > > > I took a trip in a C150 from Las Vegas to Denver at the end of May. While > going through the Moab area towards Grand Junction at 11,500'. Indicated was > 95kts and GPS read 135kts. Nice tailwind with a lot of smooth air. This was > not the only trip that this has happened. Same spot different time of year. > Last trip was in November 2000. No reports from weather observation to > indicate wind only clear VFR conditions. Maybe there's something in the > middle of Utah that's special. > > Dennis Elkins > > >From: "Bob Moore" <rmoore16(at)tampabay.rr.com> > >Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > >To: > >Subject: Re: Avionics-List: DME in general > >Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:19:22 -0400 > > > > > > > > > Just got back on the ground from a flight over central Utah at 12,000 > >MSL. > > > Had an experience which was a first. Need a sanity check. > > > >OK > > > >**start sanity check** > > > > >We were in a band of rising air, so was able > > > to put the nose down a bit and indicate 120-130 KIAS. > > > >125 kts at 12,000' and +5 degrees C equals 154 kts TAS > >plus a 30 kt tailwind equals 184 kts...pretty close. > > > > > Oh, we were in a generic 160 hp C172 with a TAS of 100 knots. > > > >To do 100 kts TAS at that altitude and temp, you would have been > >indicating about 80 kts > > > > > Yes I have an instructor witness. > > > >A qualified instructor???? :-) > > > >**end sanity check** > > > >Bob Moore > >ATP B-707, B-727, L-188 > >CFI ASE-IA > >USN S-2F, P-2V, P-3B > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI" <jessevli(at)zeelandnet.nl>
Subject: Low audio
Date: Aug 28, 2001
Hello List, A while ago there was a discussion about audio panels and audio level. Ive got a problem with a CD player delivering 2.2 Volts @ 1000 Ohms while the audio panel wants input at 500 Ohms. This means if I would connect it now the audio level wouldnt be correct. Someone replied who knew a small amplifier impedance adjuster. Knows anyone on this list an FAA or JAR approved solution (in the form of an amplifier which gives audio panel input and gives a the correct load of 1000 Ohms at the radio. I could build it myself, but that wouldnt be allowed, as it should be with a JAR for one or FAA form. Thanks, Jesse ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: DME in general
At 06:26 PM 7/17/2001, Bruce Boyes wrote: > >From CDC to DTA, northbound, using a Narco DME 890, we were indicating 148 >knots groundspeed for over 15 minutes. Then for about 5 minutes 190 knots. >This was flying on V21 between the MLF and DTA VOR/DME navaids. We expected >at most a 30 knot tailwind. > >Is going this fast even possible? Could a DME lie that badly? Yes and yes. If you didn't experience any of the symptoms of acceleration due to wave activity (you can feel it) then I would bet on a lying DME. An airborne DME transceiver sends out a train of pulses to which the DME transponder at the ground station replies. The time of flight gives distance and the delta in time of flight of multiple replies gives speed (first derivative). The DME uses its own pulse repetition rate and time window to discriminate between replies to itself and replies to others. It is pretty crude and simple, a characteristic of RADAR-like pulse systems from the early 1950's, but it works. But if you get someone else who is approximately the same distance and with approximately the same pulse repetition rate, your receiver can lock to the replies to the other DME, not the replies to its own interrogations. The symptom is that groundspeed takes off in some wild direction as the receiver tries to track the wrong pulse train. Eventually the receiver can't maintain lock on the bogus replies and relocks to its own replies with the display coming back to normal, usually with a change in distance and groundspeed. This doesn't happen too often but it does happen and it causes pilots to wig out when it does. ; ) Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Low audio
At 08:41 AM 8/28/2001, you wrote: > > > Hello List, > >A while ago there was a discussion about audio panels >and audio level. Ive got a problem with a CD player >delivering 2.2 Volts @ 1000 Ohms while the audio >panel wants input at 500 Ohms. This means if I would >connect it now the audio level wouldnt be correct. It shouldn't make a difference. 2.2V into 1000 ohms should provide plenty of audio into 500 ohms. Most line driver stages have very low output impedances anyway (on the order of a couple of tens of ohms) and the input stages tend to be higher impedance than they say so the output level shouldn't change noticeably. Just hook it up and see how it works. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI" <jessevli(at)zeelandnet.nl>
Subject: Re: Low audio
Date: Aug 28, 2001
Hello List, Brian, Thats just the problem. The CD player gives a low audio hooked up to the GMA-340. Even when the volume is at maximum the volume is to low to listen too the CD player with the engine running. (Volume is also low without engine running, but offcourse the overall noise is lower during engine out.) Jesse ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2001
From: Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Low audio
> > Hello List, Brian, > > Thats just the problem. The CD player gives a low > audio hooked up to the GMA-340. Even when the > volume is at maximum the volume is to low to listen > too the CD player with the engine running. (Volume > is also low without engine running, but offcourse the > overall noise is lower during engine out.) Then the problem is probably not one of impedance mismatch (check the signal level at the audio panel input from the CD player) but of just plain old level matching. Does the CD player have adjustable output level? Does the audio panel have a level setting pot for each input? Check those first before you start thinking about an outboard preamp. BTW, is this CD player from a car or is it one of the commercial ones certified for aircraft installation? The preamp outputs from automotive CD players generally are lower level than the headphone level inputs expected by most audio panels. You may find that, if your CD player has an unbridged, unbalanced speaker output (if so, the output power of the CD player will be about 3.5W RMS into 4 ohms), you can use the speaker output to drive the input of the audio panel, possibly through a resistive pad. Most car radios these days use bridged outputs (two amps driving the speaker out-of-phase to allow the speaker to swing to the supply rails) which won't work in this case. (Actually, they might work if you use just one of the speaker leads referenced to ground but that is a long shot.) I need more info. I will be happy to take this topic off the list if it is more convenient for you. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Tanner" <gtanner(at)bendcable.com>
Subject: Low audio
Date: Aug 28, 2001
I had that problem just plugging a portable cd player into my intercom through the audio input---couldn't hear a thing with the engine running. Could barely hear with it off. Greg -----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, August 28, 2001 11:38 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Low audio > > Hello List, Brian, > > Thats just the problem. The CD player gives a low > audio hooked up to the GMA-340. Even when the > volume is at maximum the volume is to low to listen > too the CD player with the engine running. (Volume > is also low without engine running, but offcourse the > overall noise is lower during engine out.) Then the problem is probably not one of impedance mismatch (check the signal level at the audio panel input from the CD player) but of just plain old level matching. Does the CD player have adjustable output level? Does the audio panel have a level setting pot for each input? Check those first before you start thinking about an outboard preamp. BTW, is this CD player from a car or is it one of the commercial ones certified for aircraft installation? The preamp outputs from automotive CD players generally are lower level than the headphone level inputs expected by most audio panels. You may find that, if your CD player has an unbridged, unbalanced speaker output (if so, the output power of the CD player will be about 3.5W RMS into 4 ohms), you can use the speaker output to drive the input of the audio panel, possibly through a resistive pad. Most car radios these days use bridged outputs (two amps driving the speaker out-of-phase to allow the speaker to swing to the supply rails) which won't work in this case. (Actually, they might work if you use just one of the speaker leads referenced to ground but that is a long shot.) I need more info. I will be happy to take this topic off the list if it is more convenient for you. Brian Lloyd brian(at)lloyd.com +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2001
From: Bob & Rita Falstad <RandBFalstad(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Landing/Taxi Lightrs & Dimming Circuit for GlaStar
Folks, I'm starting the panel for a GlaStar. I believe most GlaStar builders put the landing/taxi light in the cowl. I'd like to put the Duckworks (RV) landing/taxi lights in the leading edges. Does anyone know how I can contact the Duckworks guy? I need to know if the plexiglass can be re-heated and re-formed to match the contour of the GlaStar's leading edge. Maybe he's even got a kit that will fit a GlaStar. Also, we've closed our wings and I'm wondering if any GlaStar builders out there have strung any wire through the leading edge after the wing is done. Our flexible wiring conduit is full of wires for wingtip nav and strobe lights and wires for heated pitot tube. The panel will have a mix of incandescent lights (engine instruments) and the UMA electroluminescent light bezels (flight instruments). The avionics are a Garmin GNC250XL GPS/Comm and GTX320 transponder with their own internal lighting. Any ideas how to hook up a dimmer circuit to keep the lighting intensity relatively constant among the different lighting types? Do I need to use separate dimming circuits? Thanks in advance. Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 04, 2001
From: Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com>
Subject: comm radio & LORAN ant???
I need to do some quick & dirty troubleshooting of a problem with poor readability from my comm transmitter. Does anyone remember if an old LORAN antenna is halfway close to a/c comm frequency & impedence? The preamp is in a seperate box & easily bypassed, & the ant was wired with RG-58, so I'm hoping I can just move a cable to troubleshoot the radio installation. Thanks, Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Sep 14, 2001
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com, avionics-list(at)matronics.com, rv4-list(at)matronics.com, rv6-list(at)matronics.com, tailwind-list(at)matronics.com, pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Printing Labels on Wire...
Hello Listers, I've been pondering the impending electrical wiring of the 'ol RV-4 and it occurred to me that at some point in my 10-year building process someone showed me a nifty wire labeler that would allow you to put most any gauge of wire in one side and pull it completely through. The labeler would repeatedly print a string of text along the wire from one end to the other. I have no idea now where I saw this labeler or what it was called. Does anyone have any insight on this device? Thanks! Matt Dralle RV-4 / #1763 / N442RV -- 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 14, 2001
From: "J. Forster" <jfor(at)onemain.com>
rv4-list(at)matronics.com, rv6-list(at)matronics.com, tailwind-list(at)matronics.com, pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Printing Labels on Wire...
They are thermal printers. I don't remember who makes them but it might be Allen Avionics. Try eBay. -John Matt Dralle wrote: > > Hello Listers, > > I've been pondering the impending electrical wiring of the 'ol RV-4 and > it occurred to me that at some point in my 10-year building process someone > showed me a nifty wire labeler that would allow you to put most any > gauge of wire in one side and pull it completely through. The labeler > would repeatedly print a string of text along the wire from one end to the > other. I have no idea now where I saw this labeler or what it was > called. Does anyone have any insight on this device? > > Thanks! > > Matt Dralle ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "R Colman" <ronincolman(at)home.com>
Subject: Printing Labels on Wire...
Date: Sep 14, 2001
Matt, I've seen them at the AEA show. You might look at that www page. But my guess is that these are very low volume/high $$ units. Suited to folks in business but not one time operators. I would also observe that for getting it wired, anything will do. Once you are done it's a non-issue. But worrying about such things may extend your current building process another 10 years! If I were you I've buy the Van's harness, hook it up, finish your bird and wait for the police state to let you fly. Ronin Hello Listers, I've been pondering the impending electrical wiring of the 'ol RV-4 and it occurred to me that at some point in my 10-year building process someone showed me a nifty wire labeler that would allow you to put most any gauge of wire in one side and pull it completely through. The labeler would repeatedly print a string of text along the wire from one end to the other. I have no idea now where I saw this labeler or what it was called. Does anyone have any insight on this device? Thanks! Matt Dralle RV-4 / #1763 / N442RV -- 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: "Gaylen Lerohl" <lerohl@rea-alp.com>
, , ,
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Printing Labels on Wire...
Date: Sep 15, 2001
Listers: An inexpensive method is illustrated in our "How to" pages: http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/Page94.html. If you don't have a high temp heat gun an open flame works well too. I like to set a candle on the bench so I can use both hands to maneuver the wire. You might want to practice on some scrap first, especially if you are using wire insulated with material other than Tefzel. Regards, Gaylen Lerohl www.terminaltown.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> ; ; ; ; ; ; Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 19:06 Subject: AeroElectric-List: Printing Labels on Wire... > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) > > > Hello Listers, > > I've been pondering the impending electrical wiring of the 'ol RV-4 and > it occurred to me that at some point in my 10-year building process someone > showed me a nifty wire labeler that would allow you to put most any > gauge of wire in one side and pull it completely through. The labeler > would repeatedly print a string of text along the wire from one end to the > other. I have no idea now where I saw this labeler or what it was > called. Does anyone have any insight on this device? > > Thanks! > > Matt Dralle > RV-4 / #1763 / N442RV > > > -- > > > 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: "Private" <rhinorob(at)home.com>
Subject: Avionics - Apollo SL40 Com + EXP2v For Sale
Date: Sep 16, 2001
For Sale: NEW EXP2V + Indicator Module + Extender Module - $450 OBO For details goto http://www.controlvision.com/frame.cfm?link=avionics.htm Also: Apollo SL40 COM for sale US$1,200 OBO. For details goto http://www.upsat.com/sl40.shtml Contact Rob Cranston at 519-474-0819 or email rhinorob(at)home.com Payment by check, money order, wire transfer or credit card. THE TRAY MOUNT EXP2V board offers the ultimate in simplicity. The entire electrical system slides out of the panel for extremely fast installation and service. Comes prewired with rocker switches. A true QUICK BUILD electrical system. $424 THE INDICATOR MODULE is a compact, multi function electrical system annunciator panel that provides a positive status of each circuit in the EXPBUS, over and under voltage warning lights, an amp-meter, and a solid state light dimmer for the instrument panel lighting. $129 EXTENDER MODULE * Up to 26 amps load, 30 volts DC * 7 current protected outputs * Works with EXP-BUS or standalone * Built in trip indicators * Saves time and money $49 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ClearProp1(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 17, 2001
Subject: God Bless America Apparel
rocket-list(at)matronics.com, kolb-list(at)matronics.com, zenith-list(at)matronics.com, yak-list(at)matronics.com, ez-list(at)matronics.com, lancair-list(at)matronics.com, cessna-list(at)matronics.com, beech-list(at)matronics.com, cadet-list(at)matronics.com, avionics-list(at)matronics.com, aerobatic-list(at)matronics.com, pitts-list(at)matronics.com, homebuilt-list(at)matronics.com As many of you know, the American Flags have sold out very quickly in most stores across America. For those of you that want to wear the American Flag proudly on your shirt or hat, we have them in stock and ready to send out. The design is a waving flag with God Bless America proudly stated across the flag. A portion of every sale will go towards helping the families of this disastrous crime. Show support for your country. Scott Brown Six-Shooters Embroidery, Inc. phone: 561-748-2420 Fax: 561-748-6980 Visit us at www.six-shooters.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ClearProp1(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 17, 2001
Subject: Re: RV-List: God Bless America Apparel
rocket-list(at)matronics.com, kolb-list(at)matronics.com, zenith-list(at)matronics.com, yak-list(at)matronics.com, ez-list(at)matronics.com, lancair-list(at)matronics.com, cessna-list(at)matronics.com, beech-list(at)matronics.com, cadet-list(at)matronics.com, avionics-list(at)matronics.com, pitts-list(at)matronics.com, homebuilt-list(at)matronics.com Sure, I am planning on sending a dollar from every shirts sold to both the Fire Fighters Foundation and the Red Cross. A few responses have indicated that I did not give a way to purchase these items. Items can be purchased either over the phone, fax, or email by forwarding your name, address, phone number and credit card for purchases. Or you can send a check to: Six-Shooters Embroidery, Inc. 2731 SE Taiwinds Rd. Jupiter, FL 33478 Items being sold are: White T-shirts Denim Blue hats White Polo Shirts Ash polo shirts All are beautifully embroidered with the American Flag and "God Bless America". Thank you for all your responses!! Scott Brown Six-Shooters Embroidery, Inc. phone: 561-748-2420 Fax: 561-748-6980 Visit us at www.six-shooters.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 2001
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com, rocket-list(at)matronics.com, kolb-list(at)matronics.com, zenith-list(at)matronics.com, yak-list(at)matronics.com, ez-list(at)matronics.com, lancair-list(at)matronics.com, cessna-list(at)matronics.com, beech-list(at)matronics.com, cadet-list(at)matronics.com, avionics-list(at)matronics.com, pitts-list(at)matronics.com, homebuilt-list(at)matronics.com
From: jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: RV-List: God Bless America Apparel
Can any of well known list posters vouch for this guy and I don't mean one of his friends. Unless someone we know on the list can vouch for him I wouldn't provide my CC# to anyone coming a knocking without knowing without knowing who your doing business and that it a legitimate business. Anyone can put up a web page and look real. jerryb >--> Kolb-List message posted by: ClearProp1(at)aol.com > > > > >Sure, I am planning on sending a dollar from every shirts sold to both the >Fire Fighters Foundation and the Red Cross. > >A few responses have indicated that I did not give a way to purchase these >items. Items can be purchased either over the phone, fax, or email by >forwarding your name, address, phone number and credit card for purchases. Or >you can send a check to: > >Six-Shooters Embroidery, Inc. >2731 SE Taiwinds Rd. >Jupiter, FL 33478 > >Items being sold are: > >White T-shirts >Denim Blue hats >White Polo Shirts >Ash polo shirts > >All are beautifully embroidered with the American Flag and "God Bless >America". > >Thank you for all your responses!! > > >Scott Brown >Six-Shooters Embroidery, Inc. > >phone: 561-748-2420 Fax: 561-748-6980 > >Visit us at www.six-shooters.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 2001
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 2001
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 2001
rv-listAmatronics.com(at)matronics.com, rocket-list@matronics, kolb-list(at)matronics.com, zenith-list(at)matroncis.com, yak-list(at)matronics.com, ez-list(at)matronics.com, lancair-list(at)matronics.com, cessna-list(at)matronics.com, beech-list(at)matronics.com, cadet-list(at)matronics.com, avionics-list(at)matronics.com, aerobatic-list(at)matronics.com, pitts-list(at)matronics.com, homebuilt-list(at)matronics.com
From: Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net>
Subject: God Bless America Apparel
Scott Brown dba Six-Shooters Embroidery, Inc - Jupiter, Florida Your recent scattershot spamming of the entire Matronics airplane type listing is not a nice thing to do. The Pietenpol list, for example, is for messages among Pietenpol people. Matt's rules of protocol for list use specifically state that the list is not for commercial sales use. If you want to capitalize on the sudden surge of "show the flag" sentiment by selling dry goods, that is your decision. But please do not clutter up all of the Matronics airplane lists with your spam of advertising. That was not a nice thing to do. Doc Mosher Oshkosh USA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Nu4man(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 02, 2001
Subject: Re: Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting]
Please change my email address from nu4man(at)aol.com to nu24man(at)earthlink.net Thanks, Norm Foreman ________________________________________________________________________________
From: glasboz1(at)att.net
Subject: Radio Transmitter Squeal
Date: Oct 04, 2001
On one or two frequencies I sometimes get a squeal when I transmit. All other frequencies are OK. I can hear it in my headset and ATC says it sounds like a squeal. Any thoughts Carter KX-155 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Garth Shearing" <garth(at)islandnet.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 10/03/01
Date: Oct 04, 2001
If your antenna is too close to your headset, it may be causing your trouble. The antenna RF signal can be picked up by the headset circuit, be rectified by the early audio stages turning the RF signal back into audio, hence a "feedback whistle". The squeal will probably "wow" when you rotate your head or move the headset leads around if this is the source of the problem. Replacing the antenna with an "RF load" will prove this. Just moving the antenna farther away, or on the bottom of the aircraft if aluminum would solve the problem. Reducing "mic gain" in radio or headset could also prove problem (not a permanent fix though if mic gain is OK on good frequencies). Putting an RF filter in the headset leads might help. Just one possibility. Garth Shearing VariEze and 80% RV6A > From: glasboz1(at)att.net > Subject: Avionics-List: Radio Transmitter Squeal > > > On one or two frequencies I sometimes get a squeal when > I transmit. All other frequencies are OK. > > I can hear it in my headset and ATC says it sounds > like a squeal. > > Any thoughts > > Carter > KX-155 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ROBINFLY(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 09, 2001
Subject: re: Century IIB autopilot
HELP! I have a Century IIB autopilot in my early v-tail. In heading mode, when I make a heading change, the bank was about 35 to 45 degree to each side. How do I adjust the potentiometer behind the console/amp faceplate? I could see 4 adjustable screws in the bottom right corner of the unit. Robin Hou ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 25, 2001
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: NEW Matronics Email List Feature! Browse Current List
Messages! Dear Listers,


March 07, 2001 - October 26, 2001

Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-ae