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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
Please remove me from the list.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Matthew Mucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net> |
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.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 $$$
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Matthew Mucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net> |
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
Subject: | Re: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Rocket-List: Re: [rv8list] Version |
2.0 Experimental Panel Builder
I'm so impressed, that if someone'll give me an address, I'll pitch in TWO
dollars!
-Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> RocketPilot2Be(at)aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 7:35 PM
> To: rocket-list(at)matronics.com; rv8list(at)yahoogroups.com;
> rv-list(at)matronics.com; AeroElectric-List(at)matronics.com;
> Aviation-List(at)matronics.com; Avionics-List(at)matronics.com;
> EZ-List(at)matronics.com; Glasair-List(at)matronics.com;
> Homebuilt-List(at)matronics.com; Kolb-List(at)matronics.com;
> Lancair-List(at)matronics.com; Pitts-List(at)matronics.com;
> Rocket-List(at)matronics.com; RVCanada-List(at)matronics.com;
> RVEurope-List(at)matronics.com; Sonerai-List(at)matronics.com;
> Tailwind-List(at)matronics.com; Zenith-List(at)matronics.com;
> BostonRVBuilders(at)yahoogroups.com; oregon-rvlist(at)yahoogroups.com;
> RV-6and6A(at)yahoogroups.com; SEFlaRVbuilders(at)yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Rocket-List: Re: [rv8list] Version 2.0
> Experimental Panel Builder
>
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: RocketPilot2Be(at)aol.com
>
> Mike,
> wonderful job. Thanks a lot !!!
>
> (Hey, listers, shouldn't we throw a dollar in the hat for Mike ??????)
>
> /Hans Altena
> Cary, North Carolina
> (919) 412 6221
> Sitting on the fence with my $$$
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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 ? |
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 |
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 |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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 |
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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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 |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
----- 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).
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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).
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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) |
> 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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Thanks for info Ronnie.
Daniel
601 HDS
>> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Solid-state gyro |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
>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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
>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 |
>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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
>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 |
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 |
>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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gordon Robertson <gordon(at)safemail.com> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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? |
>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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com> |
>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> |
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> |
>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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
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? |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz> |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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? |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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 |
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> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John F. Herminghaus" <catignano(at)tin.it> |
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> |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org> |
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: | 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?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Check out www.lowe-electronics.com for an inexpensive GPS antenna.
Jim Cameron, Lancair ES builder
________________________________________________________________________________
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?
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
> > >
> > > 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 )
________________________________________________________________________________
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?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
Please change my address from
bobdarrah(at)aol.com
TO
rdarrah(at)austin.rr.com
Thankyou
Bob Darrah
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BOBPAS26(at)aol.com |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Cheap 3-axis solid state sensor |
Ce
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Marlin Mixon" <marlin_mixon(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | 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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "R Colman" <ronincolman(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Cheap 3-axis solid state sensor |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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? |
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 |
>
> 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? |
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? |
>
> 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? |
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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
>
> 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 )
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: 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: | "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com> |
Subject: | Re: 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>
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 |
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.
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
> 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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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 |
>
> 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 )
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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.?
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
Does anyone know if you can display "TRACK" (compass direction of
travel) on the KLX 135 GPS/Com unit?
Chuck D.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain Avionics EFIS |
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bruce Boyes <bboyes(at)systronix.com> |
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 |
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 |
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?
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 |
> 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brian Lloyd <brian(at)lloyd.com> |
>
> 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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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) |
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...
________________________________________________________________________________
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... |
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...
________________________________________________________________________________
, ,
,
Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List: Printing Labels on Wire... |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com |
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com |
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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