Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-ai
June 20, 2004 - December 27, 2004
>> looking for the pin out on an HT Instruments model DVOR/200.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Berg" <wfberg(at)msn.com> |
For transmit interlock on two KX155A's: From Com 1, P155A-6 to Com 2, P155A-J;
From Com 2, P155A-6 to Com 1, P155A-J. Use 2 conductor shielded, as short as practical
and ground shield to avionics ground.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)aol.com |
Would this be a good place to try and sell a couple of Narco 120s, a Narco ADF,
a narco 135 audio panel, an AT 150 transponder, and a Narco Nav 121? I just
removed them for a major upgrade.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Thomas Mueller" <mark.t.mueller(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin GDL 49 |
I went around and around with Garmin about two years ago about the GDL
49. The SOLE reason I bought the GNS 530 over the 430 was the larger
screen to accommodate weather datalink display. The Garmin reps and
engineers I spoke with all swore they had the solution (which turned out
to be the 49).
I did EXTENSIVE research on the OrbComm based request-reply system when
it finally started to see the light of day (EchoFlight was the first to
use this approach), and it was fairly unanimous that these datalink
systems did not perform to expectations. Many users liked the fact that
they were charged only by the amount of usage, but then were chagrined
when the bills came. Turned out they were charged for data upon request,
not reply. Thus, if their box sent a request but never received the
data, they were still charged for the "message". There is no way to
prove your box never got the data, and the reception was unreliable.
They had to argue with the billing company, EchoFlight, not Garmin.
The data resolution using this system was never great to begin with. The
data throughput is around 1200 baud. Too slow for hi-res NEXRAD.
I talked with WSI and WxWorx at OSH. They said Garmin would not release
their proprietary data standards to allow third parties to develop
alternative weather products for the 430/530, and Garmin would have to
get a significant cut even if they did. So it would basically be up to
Garmin to do something.
I pressed the Garmin reps several times. They had the standard corporate
response. "Garmin stands behind the GDL-49, and for the 430/530 users,
that is what you can have."
Let me say, my opinion of Garmin changed significantly that day. Then
Garmin bought UPSAT, so the only other company that would actually allow
third parties to develop other weather datalink technologies went away.
Then at OSH last year, Garmin unveiled the G1000. It was also mentioned
that the G1000 would use the XM-based weather datalink! They ABANDONED
their GDL-49 for their flagship product. So again, I pressed Garmin when
they would have the link for the legacy 430/530 products. The response
was "Garmin is still committed to the GDL-49 for the 430/530 user base."
I had a sidebar with a Garmin engineer that admitted last summer the
GDL-49 was a problem child, but we would not see an XM solution for the
430/530 until the roll out and certification of the G1000 was 100%
completed. The GDL-69 was in development last year, but initially will
ONLY support the G1000. They do not want to spend their engineering
resources for the legacy products at the moment. I was quite
disappointed.
It is interesting to note that even Avidyne is releasing an XM-based
datalink system for their MFDs now. I think everyone realizes LEO
request/reply systems are not practical for high-reliability, time
critical datalinks.
I got tired of waiting, and needed weather datalink for THIS T-storm
season. So I went with the NavAir PocketPC software running the WxWorx
portable receiver. The ENTIRE system was less than $2K, and it works
brilliantly. I just navigated around a line of Level 5 T-storms on
Saturday with this product. I would never have attempted the trip
without it.
As far as the soon to be certified systems, you are looking at around
$5K + install which includes boring another hole in your airframe for
yet another antenna. Also, the 430/530 screens are only 8 colors, I
believe, which will limit the variety of data that can be displayed to
some degree.
Had I to do it over again, I would have saved my pennies and got the 430
over the 530. I won't trust any Garmin rep about future product
capabilities again. They have been perpetually late supporting legacy
products. Don't even get me started on WAAS! That was another thing they
PROMISED the 430/530 were WAAS capable prior to my purchase. Now it
turns out you will have to yank the box and ship it to Garmin for a
major board modification. Not to mention, this mod was due out last
January. Still have not heard any more news about their progress.
Never trust an avionics rep!
YMMV.
Regards,
Mark
From: "Ron Curry" <rec(at)curry.org>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Garmin GDL 49
There has been extensive discussion of the GDL-49 over at the Cessna
Pilots Association forum. The fairly unanimous opinion is it's not
recommended. Apparently the reception is poor, the update delay's are
extensive, and the data is frequently inaccurate. I have personally
spoken with Garmin's VP of marketing about this product and they are
aware that it has problems and plan to obsolete it soon and release an
XM satellite based product called the GDL-69.
Nearly all of the owners over at CPA would recommend that you save your
money for something better. The most reliable datalink with the best
data seems to be the WSI right now. It displays on the MX-20 and a
couple of other devices but not on the GNS-530/430.
Regards,
Ron Curry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin GDL 49 |
Mark,
Thanks for the detailed update on Garmin's weather data problems and the
solution that you took with the NavAir system.
It is info like this that really makes these wonderful "Lists" work for the
members.
What swayed you to the NavAir system over, say, the Anywhere system and
others?
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Thomas Mueller" <mark.t.mueller(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Garmin GDL 49
>
> I went around and around with Garmin about two years ago about the GDL
> 49. The SOLE reason I bought the GNS 530 over the 430 was the larger
> screen to accommodate weather datalink display. The Garmin reps and
> engineers I spoke with all swore they had the solution (which turned out
> to be the 49).
>
>
> I did EXTENSIVE research on the OrbComm based request-reply system when
> it finally started to see the light of day (EchoFlight was the first to
> use this approach), and it was fairly unanimous that these datalink
> systems did not perform to expectations. Many users liked the fact that
> they were charged only by the amount of usage, but then were chagrined
> when the bills came. Turned out they were charged for data upon request,
> not reply. Thus, if their box sent a request but never received the
> data, they were still charged for the "message". There is no way to
> prove your box never got the data, and the reception was unreliable.
> They had to argue with the billing company, EchoFlight, not Garmin.
>
>
> The data resolution using this system was never great to begin with. The
> data throughput is around 1200 baud. Too slow for hi-res NEXRAD.
>
>
> I talked with WSI and WxWorx at OSH. They said Garmin would not release
> their proprietary data standards to allow third parties to develop
> alternative weather products for the 430/530, and Garmin would have to
> get a significant cut even if they did. So it would basically be up to
> Garmin to do something.
>
>
> I pressed the Garmin reps several times. They had the standard corporate
> response. "Garmin stands behind the GDL-49, and for the 430/530 users,
> that is what you can have."
>
>
> Let me say, my opinion of Garmin changed significantly that day. Then
> Garmin bought UPSAT, so the only other company that would actually allow
> third parties to develop other weather datalink technologies went away.
>
>
> Then at OSH last year, Garmin unveiled the G1000. It was also mentioned
> that the G1000 would use the XM-based weather datalink! They ABANDONED
> their GDL-49 for their flagship product. So again, I pressed Garmin when
> they would have the link for the legacy 430/530 products. The response
> was "Garmin is still committed to the GDL-49 for the 430/530 user base."
> I had a sidebar with a Garmin engineer that admitted last summer the
> GDL-49 was a problem child, but we would not see an XM solution for the
> 430/530 until the roll out and certification of the G1000 was 100%
> completed. The GDL-69 was in development last year, but initially will
> ONLY support the G1000. They do not want to spend their engineering
> resources for the legacy products at the moment. I was quite
> disappointed.
>
>
> It is interesting to note that even Avidyne is releasing an XM-based
> datalink system for their MFDs now. I think everyone realizes LEO
> request/reply systems are not practical for high-reliability, time
> critical datalinks.
>
>
> I got tired of waiting, and needed weather datalink for THIS T-storm
> season. So I went with the NavAir PocketPC software running the WxWorx
> portable receiver. The ENTIRE system was less than $2K, and it works
> brilliantly. I just navigated around a line of Level 5 T-storms on
> Saturday with this product. I would never have attempted the trip
> without it.
>
>
> As far as the soon to be certified systems, you are looking at around
> $5K + install which includes boring another hole in your airframe for
> yet another antenna. Also, the 430/530 screens are only 8 colors, I
> believe, which will limit the variety of data that can be displayed to
> some degree.
>
>
> Had I to do it over again, I would have saved my pennies and got the 430
> over the 530. I won't trust any Garmin rep about future product
> capabilities again. They have been perpetually late supporting legacy
> products. Don't even get me started on WAAS! That was another thing they
> PROMISED the 430/530 were WAAS capable prior to my purchase. Now it
> turns out you will have to yank the box and ship it to Garmin for a
> major board modification. Not to mention, this mod was due out last
> January. Still have not heard any more news about their progress.
>
>
> Never trust an avionics rep!
>
>
> YMMV.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> From: "Ron Curry" <rec(at)curry.org>
>
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Garmin GDL 49
>
>
> There has been extensive discussion of the GDL-49 over at the Cessna
> Pilots Association forum. The fairly unanimous opinion is it's not
> recommended. Apparently the reception is poor, the update delay's are
> extensive, and the data is frequently inaccurate. I have personally
> spoken with Garmin's VP of marketing about this product and they are
> aware that it has problems and plan to obsolete it soon and release an
> XM satellite based product called the GDL-69.
>
>
> Nearly all of the owners over at CPA would recommend that you save your
> money for something better. The most reliable datalink with the best
> data seems to be the WSI right now. It displays on the MX-20 and a
> couple of other devices but not on the GNS-530/430.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Ron Curry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Thomas Mueller" <mark.t.mueller(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin GDL 49 |
I damn near bought the AnywhereWx system at OSH last summer, but I found
out through chat rooms that there is a problem with the Sat Phone they
use for data and the KT-76A transponder (which I have in my Tiger).
Turns out SOME KT-76As interfere with the Sat Phone and prevent data
connections. That won't work for me, since I was looking for something
for serious cross countries, and I am not inclined to spend money BEFORE
I know if a system will work or not.
Funny that I couldn't get a "straight" answer from ControlVision over
this issue, but I did confirm it with sever users.
NavAir was the first, and so far only, system for the PPC that uses the
XM Sat Radio data system. Much more reliable, and available across North
America. They also have a version for Tablet PCs (when and if I can find
a decent one at the right price that is readable in direct sunlight.)
NavAir is also working on "flyable" approach plates similar to
ControlVision as well.
For my money, they were the way to go. So far, Customer Service has been
OUTSTANDING! I had a problem with the first wiring harness they sent me,
and they shipped me a new one ASAP. Every question or concern has been
answered within hours.
I also looked at the other systems at OSH (Merlin, which is now defunct,
and WSI). No one else could beat the price/performance of NavAir for my
needs. I still like the WSI product, but it is just too INSANELY
expensive compared to what you get with WxWorx. A difference of several
thousand dollars for non-certified components!
Hope that helps,
Mark
Mark,
Thanks for the detailed update on Garmin's weather data problems and the
solution that you took with the NavAir system. It is info like this that
really makes these wonderful "Lists" work for the members. What swayed
you to the NavAir system over, say, the Anywhere system and others?
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin GDL 49 |
Mark,
Again, thanks for the review.
I also have friends that use earlier AnyWhere/Control Vision products that
are having 'no support contact' problems with the AnyWhere folks. Before it
was sold to Control Vision, the customer support was very good. I will be
at Oshkosh next month and will look up NavAir. Please keep the "List" group
informed as you use the system and learn additional details about its
plusses and minuses, etc.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Thomas Mueller" <mark.t.mueller(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Garmin GDL 49
>
> I damn near bought the AnywhereWx system at OSH last summer, but I found
> out through chat rooms that there is a problem with the Sat Phone they
> use for data and the KT-76A transponder (which I have in my Tiger).
> Turns out SOME KT-76As interfere with the Sat Phone and prevent data
> connections. That won't work for me, since I was looking for something
> for serious cross countries, and I am not inclined to spend money BEFORE
> I know if a system will work or not.
>
>
> Funny that I couldn't get a "straight" answer from ControlVision over
> this issue, but I did confirm it with sever users.
>
>
> NavAir was the first, and so far only, system for the PPC that uses the
> XM Sat Radio data system. Much more reliable, and available across North
> America. They also have a version for Tablet PCs (when and if I can find
> a decent one at the right price that is readable in direct sunlight.)
>
>
> NavAir is also working on "flyable" approach plates similar to
> ControlVision as well.
>
>
> For my money, they were the way to go. So far, Customer Service has been
> OUTSTANDING! I had a problem with the first wiring harness they sent me,
> and they shipped me a new one ASAP. Every question or concern has been
> answered within hours.
>
>
> I also looked at the other systems at OSH (Merlin, which is now defunct,
> and WSI). No one else could beat the price/performance of NavAir for my
> needs. I still like the WSI product, but it is just too INSANELY
> expensive compared to what you get with WxWorx. A difference of several
> thousand dollars for non-certified components!
>
>
> Hope that helps,
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> Mark,
>
> Thanks for the detailed update on Garmin's weather data problems and the
> solution that you took with the NavAir system. It is info like this that
> really makes these wonderful "Lists" work for the members. What swayed
> you to the NavAir system over, say, the Anywhere system and others?
> David
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Thomas Mueller" <mark.t.mueller(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin GDL 49 |
Funny thing I discovered yesterday. Garmin has just released a GDL-30
for Marine applications. The GDL-30 IS XM!!! MSRP is UNDER $900!!!
How long do you think it will take Garmin to take the same boards, and
provide output for the 430/530? Does anyone think the MSRP of the
aviation version will be under $900???
Don't take me the wrong way. I am not "anti-Garmin" products. I think
some of them are outstanding. Even though I am a bit miffed at Garmin's
legacy product support, I still would have ended up with a 430 in my
plane over a 530 (although the CNX-80 looks mighty fine, but Garmin
bought out their real competition anyway.)
My beef is with the way Garmin does business. Everything is proprietary
to lock you into their product line support, just like Microshaft. Their
sales and marketing reps are a shade above "Used Car Salesmen" IMHO
(they just have better products to sell.) I also don't like the way
Garmin moved their Corporate HQ to a shell corp in the Cayman's to avoid
paying US taxes. I just HATE to pay more in individual taxes than a
profitable corporation.
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin GDL 49 |
Mark Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Don't take me the wrong way. I am not "anti-Garmin" products. I think
> some of them are outstanding.
I would like to know which ones. I had a Garmin GTX-320 transponder which was
only two or three millimeters above the junk category. The design of the 430
and 530 have several single points of failure.
> Even though I am a bit miffed at Garmin's
> legacy product support, I still would have ended up with a 430 in my
> plane over a 530 (although the CNX-80 looks mighty fine, but Garmin
> bought out their real competition anyway.)
Yeah, it is too bad, isn't it?
> I also don't like the way
> Garmin moved their Corporate HQ to a shell corp in the Cayman's to avoid
> paying US taxes. I just HATE to pay more in individual taxes than a
> profitable corporation.
Well, now my estimation of Garmin just went up a notch. I believe it is right
and proper for people to avoid paying taxes as much as possible. Still, being
a Cayman Island corporation doesn't provide much tax shelter anymore. Maybe
you should be looking at incorporating in the Caymans.
And speaking of tax dollars, do you know how many hundreds of billions of dollars
have gone into "the war on drugs"? Regardless, you can still get crack almost
anywhere you go in the US. It certainly was a good investment, wasn't it.
And one last thing to remember: we elected them.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.360.838.9669 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Quilters Confectionery <qltconf(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Compatible Transponder with NARCO AT50A tray? |
I have a NARCO AT 50 installation in my plane. I know the NARCO AT 150 and
AT 155 are slide-in compatible with the AT 50. My question is what other
manufacturers produce Transponders that are also slide-in compatible with
the AT 50 to include the encoder connections? If this is not the right
place to get an answer, please suggest another.
Many Thanks for some help, Larry O/O N22027
http://www.quiltsweets.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compatible Transponder with NARCO AT50A tray? |
Larry O/O,
Garmin makes a "Narco Adapter" for their GTX 320A transponder. I was
steered into this combination by an avionics shop as a replacement for
my ancient Narco AT 50A. The adapter is listed for the '150A but they
said it would work for the '50A. You'll not want to take my word for it
though.
You can download the installation manual to see the details for yourself
at http://www.garmin.com/manuals/168_InstallationManual.pdf
In the end I just decided to install the Garmin GTX 320A in my panel.
However, I did have to wire up the encoder harness, power, ground, etc.
and it sounds like you're trying to avoid that. In any case, I've been
very happy with the Garmin transponder in the year-and-a-half I've been
flying with it. I love it when I hear those magic words "radar contact"
instead of "not picking up your transponder".
BTW, the Narco AT 50A panel and its opening are slightly taller than the
GTX 320A. I made a small blank panel to use up the space.
--
Joe
Long-EZ 821RP
Clarkston, WA
On 25-Jun-04 12:17 Quilters Confectionery wrote:
>
> I have a NARCO AT 50 installation in my plane. I know the NARCO AT 150 and
> AT 155 are slide-in compatible with the AT 50. My question is what other
> manufacturers produce Transponders that are also slide-in compatible with
> the AT 50 to include the encoder connections? If this is not the right
> place to get an answer, please suggest another.
>
> Many Thanks for some help, Larry O/O N22027
[flotsam and jetsam removed for brevity]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com |
Anyone know where to get a good price on a G296? Best I found is $1550. How
about getting a group price. Anyone have a good contact?
Thanks,
Doug Preston
RV8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
Larry
My Narco AT50 transponder quit and I opted for the Garmin. New technology,
shorter and I bought the pig tail for the Garmin from Aircraft Spruce along
with the transponder.. A friend at an avionics shop added the connector for
the ACK encoder in a half hour at no cost. Never even considered having the
Narco repaired. Total cost was less than Narco's exchange price.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
Bob Gibfried wrote:
>
> Larry
>
> My Narco AT50 transponder quit and I opted for the Garmin. New technology,
> shorter and I bought the pig tail for the Garmin from Aircraft Spruce along
> with the transponder.. A friend at an avionics shop added the connector for
> the ACK encoder in a half hour at no cost. Never even considered having the
> Narco repaired. Total cost was less than Narco's exchange price.
Have you guys really had good luck with the Garmin transponder? I had one installed
in my CJ6A and it was no end of trouble. It kept drifting off frequency,
something I would not have expected from a solid-state transponder. I guess
I must have had a bad one.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.360.838.9669 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven Fingerhut <beechboy(at)nctv.com> |
Brian,
I have had great luck with my Garmin transponder. I also know of another
person on the field that has had the Garmin 330 for some time now. We have
the TIS displayed on Garmin 530's. The TIS, traffic information system, is a
wonderful thing. Can't say anything bad about them. Well, there was an AD
that came out recentlybut it was a software fix for the mode S that is
correceted for free by a Garmin shop.
Steve
> From: Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
> Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 08:55:42 -0400
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Transponder
>
>
> Bob Gibfried wrote:
>
>>
>> Larry
>>
>> My Narco AT50 transponder quit and I opted for the Garmin. New technology,
>> shorter and I bought the pig tail for the Garmin from Aircraft Spruce along
>> with the transponder.. A friend at an avionics shop added the connector for
>> the ACK encoder in a half hour at no cost. Never even considered having the
>> Narco repaired. Total cost was less than Narco's exchange price.
>
> Have you guys really had good luck with the Garmin transponder? I had one
> installed in my CJ6A and it was no end of trouble. It kept drifting off
> frequency, something I would not have expected from a solid-state transponder.
> I guess I must have had a bad one.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
> http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
> +1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.360.838.9669 (fax)
>
> There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
> A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
Steven Fingerhut wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> I have had great luck with my Garmin transponder. I also know of another
> person on the field that has had the Garmin 330 for some time now. We have
> the TIS displayed on Garmin 530's. The TIS, traffic information system, is a
> wonderful thing. Can't say anything bad about them. Well, there was an AD
> that came out recentlybut it was a software fix for the mode S that is
> correceted for free by a Garmin shop.
I had the 320 and it was a royal pain. I swore I would never get another Garmin
transponder. I am glad to hear that mine was an anomaly. I have stayed away
from mode-S as it transmits the aircraft's ID, a feature I do not find particularly
attractive.
I have installed three panels worth of Apollo stuff (SL15, SL-30, SL-60, SL-70,
and a GX-60 in one case) and couldn't be happier. The SL-30 gets my vote for
best nav-com ever built. An SL-30 and an SL-70 constitutes a complete IFR avionics
stack for a low-end aircraft.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.360.838.9669 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rocketman <topglock(at)cox.net> |
DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Anyone know where to get a good price on a G296? Best I found is $1550. How
>about getting a group price. Anyone have a good contact?
>Thanks,
>Doug Preston
>RV8
>
>
>
>
Doug,
Where did you find the 296 for that price?
--
Jeff
Builders Log: http://www.N55XS.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com |
Jeff, sorry, but I don't have that available as I was not interested at that
price. I got the name of the vendor from another pilot. Will try to get it.
Seems it was in Indiana????Check with me about the end of the week.
Doug
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rocketman <topglock(at)cox.net> |
DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Jeff, sorry, but I don't have that available as I was not interested at that
>price. I got the name of the vendor from another pilot. Will try to get it.
>Seems it was in Indiana????Check with me about the end of the week.
>
>Doug
>
>
>
Thanks, will do...
--
Jeff
Builders Log: http://www.N55XS.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Campbell" <GregCampbellUSA(at)earthlink.net> |
I ordered a Garmin 330 Mode-S transponder to get the TIS info.
There is a new AD requiring software version 3.03, 3.04, or 3.05.
The effective date of the AD is 9 July 2004.
Pretty funny since I got the AD before I took delivery of the transponder.
Garmin will reimburse up to an hour of shop time to update the software.
I also plan to have an old Mode-C transponder along for backup.
There are times when a little anonymity can be a good thing.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven Fingerhut <beechboy(at)nctv.com> |
Greg and Brian,
I understand the reasons for not wanting the mode S, aircraft ID all the
time, but I file 90% of the time, and when I don't I'm using flight
following. So this wasn't a drawback for me. I REALLY like the TIS. It has
saved a friend of mine from a mid air already and has helped me out on
several occasions.
I also had Apollo GX55 in my aircraft before switching to the Garmin 530. I
have had MANY Garmin products, so I liked the GX55, but not nearly as well
as previous Garmin products. I think the Apollo radio, SL30, is an
outstanding comm. I would buy one if I needed another comm.
I also received the AD on the 330. I called my avionics shop to inquire if
the upgrade had been done. I was told that the shops were notified of the AD
back in Feb, so it had already been handled.
Steve
> From: "Greg Campbell" <GregCampbellUSA(at)earthlink.net>
> Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 10:09:21 -0700
> To:
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Transponder
>
>
>
> I ordered a Garmin 330 Mode-S transponder to get the TIS info.
> There is a new AD requiring software version 3.03, 3.04, or 3.05.
> The effective date of the AD is 9 July 2004.
>
> Pretty funny since I got the AD before I took delivery of the transponder.
> Garmin will reimburse up to an hour of shop time to update the software.
>
> I also plan to have an old Mode-C transponder along for backup.
> There are times when a little anonymity can be a good thing.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Anyone looking for a 295? |
| From: | Steven Fingerhut <beechboy(at)nctv.com> |
I would like to sell my 295 to upgrade to the 296. I purchased it new and
have had Garmin do the upgrades on it. The software is the latest version on
the Jeppesen data is two cycles old. I have all the original accessories as
well as a 16 MB chip installed for the street information. It is in
excellent condition. If you are interested please contact me off list.
Thanks,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 6/26/04 5:59:32 AM, brianl(at)lloyd.com writes:
> Brian Lloyd=A0=A0 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl(at)lloyd.com=A0 Suite 201
> http://www.lloyd.com=A0 St. Thomas, VI 00802
> +1.340.998.9447 (voice)=A0=A0 +1.360.838.9669 (fax)
>
What's it like living in the Virgin Islands? I was there in '89. Right
after Hugo.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
TeamGrumman(at)aol.com wrote:
> What's it like living in the Virgin Islands? I was there in '89. Right
> after Hugo.
Sun, rum, tourists, sailing, SCUBA diving, flying to other islands for lunch (Guadeloupe
yesterday), you know, just another boring day in paradise.
I flew down to Guadeloupe yesterday. We ended up flying on the south side of Monserat
to avoid a CB and got a good look at how the volcano wiped out the town
of Plymouth. The French are much more sensible about customs and immigration
realizing that there is really no way to secure the borders so they make it
easy to come and go. I still get treated as a criminal every time I come back
to US soil tho'. I guess they don't understand that the bad guys don't bother
to come through customs.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.360.838.9669 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
TeamGrumman(at)aol.com wrote:
> What's it like living in the Virgin Islands? I was there in '89. Right
> after Hugo.
Sun, rum, tourists, sailing, SCUBA diving, flying to other islands for lunch, you
know, just another boring day in paradise.
I flew down to Guadeloupe yesterday. We ended up flying on the south side of Monserat
to avoide a CB and got a good look at how the volcano wiped out the town
of Plymouth. The French are much more sensible about customs and immigration
realizing that there is really no way to secure the borders so they make it
easy to come and go. I still get treated as a criminal every time I come back
to US soil tho'. I guess they don't understand that the bad guys don't bother
to come through customs.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.360.838.9669 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
Greg,
The Garmin unit was probably sitting in inventory for a while, dealer stock,
and missed being updated at Garmin.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Campbell" <GregCampbellUSA(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Transponder
>
> I ordered a Garmin 330 Mode-S transponder to get the TIS info.
> There is a new AD requiring software version 3.03, 3.04, or 3.05.
> The effective date of the AD is 9 July 2004.
>
> Pretty funny since I got the AD before I took delivery of the transponder.
> Garmin will reimburse up to an hour of shop time to update the software.
>
> I also plan to have an old Mode-C transponder along for backup.
> There are times when a little anonymity can be a good thing.
>
> Greg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Antenna placement |
Need to add a GPS antenna to the top of my Tripacer. Only logical space is
on the metal fairing close to one of the com antennas on either the right or
left side. Going to feed a Bendix/King 150MFD.
Can anyone tell me if I would have an interference problem?
Thanks
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Koyich" <Ron(at)Koyich.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna placement |
Should work a treat mounting the GPS antenna on the metal wing to
fuselage gap seal, Bob.
Go for it, keeping it a couple feet away from transmitting antennas.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna placement |
Bob,
I believe that Garmin recommends mounting it 30", or more, from any
transmitting antenna. I know that the Avionics shop that did my 430 install
mounted the GPS antenna closer than 30" and I do not have odd spurious
problems with guidance.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net>
Subject: Avionics-List: Antenna placement
>
> Need to add a GPS antenna to the top of my Tripacer. Only logical space
is
> on the metal fairing close to one of the com antennas on either the right
or
> left side. Going to feed a Bendix/King 150MFD.
>
> Can anyone tell me if I would have an interference problem?
>
> Thanks
>
> Bob, Wichita
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
Thanks for the tips on the GPS antenna. Ordering the antenna today along
with the wire and connectors. Hope to have it in the plane soon.
Just in time. One son with a private; another son got his private this
afternoon, and another son just starting lessons. Now they all need their
instrument tickets.
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
avionics-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Cabin speaker specs |
Folks,
After checking the archives for amplifying (pun intended) information - I have
decided that a small cabin speaker would be helpful for ground operation (pre-flight
etc).
My audio panel instructions call for a 4 ohm speaker which seem to be difficult
to locate. 8 ohm speakers are available in abundance.....
Will I fry something if I use a 8 ohm speaker? Or will it not work properly -
volume, freq, distortion...?
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cabin speaker specs |
Ralph E. Capen wrote:
> Will I fry something if I use a 8 ohm speaker? Or will it not work properly
- volume, freq, distortion...?
It won't hurt a thing. It will be just a tiny bit quieter.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cabin speaker specs |
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Cabin speaker specs
Ralph E. Capen wrote:
> Will I fry something if I use a 8 ohm speaker? Or will it not work properly
- volume, freq, distortion...?
It won't hurt a thing. It will be just a tiny bit quieter.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Gretz <warrengretz(at)gretzaero.com> |
| Subject: | Gretz Aero Heated Pitot Tubes and Mounting Brackets |
Hello Builders,
We have been off of this list for some time, but wanted to let you know we are
still making and selling parts for your aircraft. We have been in the process
of moving our operation from Colorado to Idaho for the past several months. With
luck, we should be settled into our new location in Idaho by the end of the
first week of August.
Meanwhile, our Heated Pitot Tube Mounting Bracket Kits are still very popular and
we been keeping very busy producing them. We do want to let everyone know that
we will need to increase our prices slightly, effective the 1st of August.
This increse is due to our raw material costs going up and also shipping charges
that have been going up over the past two years. We have tried to keep from
raising prices as long as we can, but now need to do so. Sorry.
GOOD NEWS is that we are getting very close to having our NEWEST Gretz Aero designed
product available! It is the GA-1000. This is a heated pitot tube that is
a totaly new design. It is completely different than any pitot before.
The Gretz Aero heated pitot tube is called the GA-1000 and will look nearly
like the PH502-12CR pitot tube except the GA-1000 will be black in color, and it
will be lighter in weight than any other heated pitot tube on the market. The
GA-1000 will be what we are calling a "smart" pitot tube. It
will give the pilot feedback as to its operation on the panel. It will also
be very energy conserative and be excellent installed in an aircraft with a
small altanator in the electrical system. The only bad part is, it is not
available yet. We plan on having it available very soon, if production does
not throw us a problem. It has taken us MUCH MUCH longer to get this project
done than we ever dreamed it would. The TARGET price on the GA-1000 is +/- $325
depending upon final production costs. This price will include shipping charges
in the US.
There are a number of builders that are purchasing our mounting bracket kit,
which was designed for the PH502-12CR pitot, (which has been available for
years), this same bracket kit will also fit the new GA-1000. Once the mounting
bracket is installed in your aircraft, the GA-1000 pitot tube can be installed
at a later date when it is available. Other pitot tubes that are now available,
will also fit into the same mounting bracket as well as the GA-1000.
We will make as big a splash as we can on our website, http://www.gretzaero.com , and this List, when the new Gretz Aero GA-1000 heated pitot tube product is available. There will be a page on the Gretz Aero website that will cover this product in great detail.
I hope this information helps you.
Your can place orders with Gretz Aero on the gretzaero.com website, print out the
printable order form on the order page of the website and mail, or call the
phone numbers below.
If you want to reply to us about this message posting, please do so directly to
my e-mail address below and not on the LIST.
Good Building to you!
Warren Gretz
Gretz Aero
15405 Bates Creek Rd.
Oreana, ID 83650
warrengretz(at)gretzaero.com
http://www.gretzaero.com
720-308-0010
208-834-2312
Warren Gretz
Gretz Aero
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Transponder testing |
Fellow listers,
Is there any way to check your transponder on the ground? I had a conversation
with the controller at my airport today and he told me that I needed to be airborne....meanwhile,
this little birdie from flight school reminds me that I was
always instructed to leave my transponder in the 'Stand-By' mode till I took
the active so it wouldn't mess up the controllers.
Considering that I was a hundred yards away, I thought that he could have told
me to hit the ident button and be done with it...we have radar on the field too
but that shouldn't matter.
Am I nutso? Does one of us not really know how stuff works? I'll be more than
happy to take an education from this list.....
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List: Transponder testing |
At a recent CFI refresher clinic, the manager of the Kansas City ARTCC
said that putting the transponder on standby while on the ground was no
longer necessary. He explained that the new terminal radars were immune
to ground transmissions.
Hope this helps.
Bill Gill
Kansas City, MO
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
Subject: RV-List: Transponder testing
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen"
Fellow listers,
Is there any way to check your transponder on the ground? I had a
conversation with the controller at my airport today and he told me that
I needed to be airborne....meanwhile, this little birdie from flight
school reminds me that I was always instructed to leave my transponder
in the 'Stand-By' mode till I took the active so it wouldn't mess up the
controllers.
Considering that I was a hundred yards away, I thought that he could
have told me to hit the ident button and be done with it...we have radar
on the field too but that shouldn't matter.
Am I nutso? Does one of us not really know how stuff works? I'll be
more than happy to take an education from this list.....
Thanks
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Ford" <dford(at)michweb.net> |
I have an O360A1A that I am intermittently fouling the bottom plugs. I can rotate
the top to bottom, bottom to top and it will work for a while. The question
I have is regarding which plug to use, I mean my ignition system calls for
either RHM38 or RHM40, is there an advantage to using a hotter plug, which I believe
is the RHM40? I recently flew to a location with engine running fine,
landed, restarted after 1/2 hour and noticed the engine running a little rough.
In flight I had a high EGT on no. 2 cylinder and had to fly at a lower rpm
setting to keep things in the green. When I landed I checked both plugs on no.
2 and sure enough the bottom plug was wet. Changed to a new plug on the bottom
and went flying, all was well. So will a hotter plug resolve this issue?
Dave Ford
RV6 w/FADEC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fouling plugs |
Dave Ford wrote:
> I have an O360A1A that I am intermittently fouling the bottom plugs.
> I can rotate the top to bottom, bottom to top and it will work for a
> while. The question I have is regarding which plug to use, I mean my
> ignition system calls for either RHM38 or RHM40, is there an
> advantage to using a hotter plug, which I believe is the RHM40? I
> recently flew to a location with engine running fine, landed,
> restarted after 1/2 hour and noticed the engine running a little
> rough. In flight I had a high EGT on no. 2 cylinder and had to fly
> at a lower rpm setting to keep things in the green. When I landed I
> checked both plugs on no. 2 and sure enough the bottom plug was wet.
> Changed to a new plug on the bottom and went flying, all was well.
> So will a hotter plug resolve this issue?
This seems like an odd place to ask this question. Regardless, this usually occurs
when the engine is in need of a top overhaul. If the bottom plugs are oil-fouled
that means you are pushing inordinate amounts of oil past the rings.
If it is just one cylinder that is doing it you probably have a bad jug. You
can try replacing the rings and rehoning the cylinder but that may be throwing
good money after bad.
What you didn't mention was what your oil consumption is. Has it increased? I
find that relatively new Lycoming cylinders properly broken in will use about
one quart every 10-15 hours (it depends on the engine). If you are constantly
oil-fouling your plugs I suspect your oil consumption is up to around 2-3 hours
per quart.
If the engine is relatively new then it sounds like it wasn't broken in properly.
You can try going back and running it really hard for about 25 hours to see
if you can improve things.
Last but not least, you can install plugs with long-reach electrodes. They are
usually used in engines that tend toward lead fouling; e.g. the Continental O-200
or the Lycoming O-235, engines designed for 80/87 that end up running on
100LL; but can help out with oil fouling too.
>
> Dave Ford RV6 w/FADEC
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Transponder testing redux |
Thanks to all that responded to the initial post - I think that I understand the
part of the original posting regarding ATC, standby, and their ability to 'see'
me on the ground.
This still leaves me with a lack of knowledge of how to ensure that my transponder
is responding to interrogations correctly.
My airport is within the mode C veil so I'll technically need it even for first
flight (that's a ways off too but if I gotta get something fixed - now's the
time). Do I need to contact an avionics shop with portable test gear? Removing
the radio seems silly since I need to test my system not just the radio.
Any takers......
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: fouling plugs |
| From: | Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
I've been told that there is too much lead in 100LL for
the O-360's. A couple people have recomended running as
much as half lead free gas. Trouble is, where to get it.
>
> I have an O360A1A that I am intermittently fouling the bottom plugs. I
> can rotate the top to bottom, bottom to top and it will work for a
> while. The question I have is regarding which plug to use, I mean my
> ignition system calls for either RHM38 or RHM40, is there an advantage
> to using a hotter plug, which I believe is the RHM40? I recently flew
> to a location with engine running fine, landed, restarted after 1/2 hour
> and noticed the engine running a little rough. In flight I had a high
> EGT on no. 2 cylinder and had to fly at a lower rpm setting to keep
> things in the green. When I landed I checked both plugs on no. 2 and
> sure enough the bottom plug was wet. Changed to a new plug on the
> bottom and went flying, all was well. So will a hotter plug resolve
> this issue?
>
> Dave Ford
> RV6 w/FADEC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder testing redux |
You have to get your transponder checked every 2 years by a certified tech
or shop. Put it off until you are almost ready to fly. No point in buying
dead time. Worst case repairs could delay you a week or 2. Buy just the
manual, antenna ,coax and tray. Do all the wiring now and buy the unit when
you are ready to go to the airport. Same for the transceiver. If the vendor
balks, there are plenty of others who will gladly sell just the stuff you
need and keep your warranty time intact. Most unit failures are in the first
few months of operation.
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Avionics-List: Transponder testing redux
>
> Thanks to all that responded to the initial post - I think that I
understand the part of the original posting regarding ATC, standby, and
their ability to 'see' me on the ground.
>
> This still leaves me with a lack of knowledge of how to ensure that my
transponder is responding to interrogations correctly.
> My airport is within the mode C veil so I'll technically need it even for
first flight (that's a ways off too but if I gotta get something fixed -
now's the time). Do I need to contact an avionics shop with portable test
gear? Removing the radio seems silly since I need to test my system not
just the radio.
>
> Any takers......
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Curry" <rec(at)curry.org> |
| Subject: | Bendix-King KI-825 |
Anyone have one of these or experience installing it? Opinions? Is it a
solid unit? Where you impressed with it's capability? Does it have
analog outputs to drive say a Cessna 400B without adapters?
Thanks,
Ron Curry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
Not an avionics expert Other than power, ground and antenna connection for
the Bendix King KMD 150 MFD with GPS, is there any other circuit
requirements?
I'm ordering a KA 92 antenna but A/S wouldn't provide a pig tail. Course I
only talked to the girl on the order desk.
Would be helpful if anyone could provide the pin numbers for the
connections.
Thanks
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Bob -
You should be able to download the installation manual for that KMD 150.
If so, there is usually a pinout for the cabling needed to make it go. I
would suspect that there are a few other in or out connections for the
box. Dimming may be one of them and GPS output for other instrumentation
may be another. If you have other navaid/comm boxes, you might consider
using the Approach Systems buss to connect them as necessary. They supply
all of the interconnect cabling between the boxes and thei buss. They have
a VFR and a full IFR version.
http://www.approach-systems.com/index.html
Hope this helps,
John
> Not an avionics expert Other than power, ground and antenna connection
> for
> the Bendix King KMD 150 MFD with GPS, is there any other circuit
> requirements?
>
> I'm ordering a KA 92 antenna but A/S wouldn't provide a pig tail.
> Course I
> only talked to the girl on the order desk.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Voltage Spike Question |
| From: | Bruce Green <mailindex(at)juno.com> |
I have a KX125 in a Christen Eagle and it has failed three times. Each
time, it would not transmit or recieve and when it was repaired, it was a
different compontent each time that "shorted out and burned a track on
the PC board" The first two failures were a week apart and then it went
a year before the next failure. The obvious question here is whether
this is just a string of bad luck with the radio or is my airplane doing
something that is damaging the radio?
The only electric items in the plane are the radio, transponder and
intercom, no lights pumps or anything else electrical. Two of the times
I know exactly when it failed and had no corresponding noise in the
headset of a voltage spike. The intercom and transponder have been
functioning fine through all of this. My gut tells me that a voltage
spike would not cause a short on my pc board, but that is just my gut.
Any ideas?
Bruce Green
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MikeTruffer" <lindbergh(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bendix-King KI-825 |
Sandel was showing off its new HSI at OSH. It can display more types of remote
imputs, has a display that's readable from a much greater side angle, easier install,
etc. It looked good to me! $11K list.
King had an 825 at OSH, too. Looked OK, but the reps there were too busy talking
to each other to answer my questions.
--Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Curry
To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 7:48 PM
Subject: Avionics-List: Bendix-King KI-825
Anyone have one of these or experience installing it? Opinions? Is it a
solid unit? Where you impressed with it's capability? Does it have
analog outputs to drive say a Cessna 400B without adapters?
Thanks,
Ron Curry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage Spike Question |
Bruce,
The first thing that comes to my mind is that the temperature is too high.
Maybe a cooling duct would improve the reliability of your electronics.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A (Flying -- 32 hours now)
In a message dated 7/31/04 8:31:50 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
mailindex(at)juno.com writes:
>
>
> I have a KX125 in a Christen Eagle and it has failed three times. Each
> time, it would not transmit or recieve and when it was repaired, it was a
> different compontent each time that "shorted out and burned a track on
> the PC board" The first two failures were a week apart and then it went
> a year before the next failure. The obvious question here is whether
> this is just a string of bad luck with the radio or is my airplane doing
> something that is damaging the radio?
>
> The only electric items in the plane are the radio, transponder and
> intercom, no lights pumps or anything else electrical. Two of the times
> I know exactly when it failed and had no corresponding noise in the
> headset of a voltage spike. The intercom and transponder have been
> functioning fine through all of this. My gut tells me that a voltage
> spike would not cause a short on my pc board, but that is just my gut.
> Any ideas?
>
> Bruce Green
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrstone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
Hi all,
Just got back from Oshkosh where I got a close look at the latest BMA EFIS
one. I was very impressed with it and was comparing it to the GRI EFIS
called the Horizon 1. I have followed BMA since they started up 4 years ago
and was not overly impressed with them enough to spend big dollars on their
product. I heard lots of promises and optimisem, and unfortunately some
gripes from unhappy customers.
They (BMA) seem to have it together now, and they offer a much better
product.
I would like to hear of any dealings with these folks, good or bad, so that
I might make a more informed decision. Some say getting the EFIS one up and
running is a real bear, but BMA sez if you follow their guidlines, you won't
have any problems.
Thanks,
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Strikefinders & Stormscopes |
Hi all,
I recently made an enquiry to a large avionics supplier in Florida as to the pro's
and cons of these two products. When I told them that I wanted to fit it
to a composite aircraft they immediately told me that getting a Stormscope to
work in an fiberglass aircraft was very difficult and they would recommended that
I purchase a Strikefinder instead.
Does anyone have any idea on why this might be so ?
Thanks,
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com> |
| Subject: | Strikefinders & Stormscopes |
Paul,
Metal aircraft tend to shield the sensors from ignition noise, where
fiberglass aircraft do not. But even metal aircraft sometimes won't shield
the intensity of noise from electronic ignitions....
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
Hi all,
I recently made an enquiry to a large avionics supplier in Florida as
to the pro's
and cons of these two products. When I told them that I wanted to fit
it
to a composite aircraft they immediately told me that getting a
Stormscope to
work in an fiberglass aircraft was very difficult and they would
recommended that
I purchase a Strikefinder instead.
Does anyone have any idea on why this might be so ?
Thanks,
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
Hi all,
I've found a small anomaly in my audio system - specifically the KA-135
audio panel...I think. I have two com radios, the KA-135 has the two
mic/radio select buttons and several inputs for aux audio (NAV1, NAV2,
Marker, DME, etc.) - standard stuff, right.
I have the audio from the engine computer (audio alerts) piped into the
KA-135 on one of the 5 aux audio lines. With com1 mic switch pushed, all is
fine...everything loud and clear. Problem: when com2 switch is activated, I
can hear com2 audio just fine but ALL other audio inputs seem to have been
muted considerably. I can still hear them but they ALL are significantly
lower in volume. This also happens to all aux audio when the "both" button
is pressed as well. The result - when I'm monitoring com2, I can barely
hear the audio warnings....not good!
I have checked side tone adjustments on the both coms..no effect. The only
volume adjustment that the KA unit has is for the external speaker...it is
unaffected by the mic select button positions.
You can get a look at my panel here: http://www.berkut13.com/berkut22.htm
Can any of you KA-135 users/fixers out there verify that this is normal?
Is there any way to adjust or change this operation mode? There is noting
the manual that describes this behavior.
Thanks all!
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: KA-134 issues |
I have a major correction to make on my post. It is NOT the King audio
panel, it is the Microair 760 radio - at least caused by it.
Several folks were on to something about the second com. I thought for sure
I had
tested the problem with the radio off...but I guess I had not. I
disconnected com2 and the problem went away. I re-connected it (with the
power off) and the problem was still gone. I turned on Com2....poof, I had
com 2 audio, but reduced aux audio. Com1 was unaffected by all modes, with
or without aux audio. The issues is isolated with com2's audio.
Any ideas how I can test this out and equalize the audio? I seem to
remember folks having problems with the Microair radio mixing with other
audio sources.
Thanks for the help!
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Avionics-List: KA-134 issues
> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:02:51 -0500
> From: James Redmon <james(at)berkut13.com>
> Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> To:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've found a small anomaly in my audio system - specifically the KA-135
> audio panel...I think. I have two com radios, the KA-135 has the two
> mic/radio select buttons and several inputs for aux audio (NAV1, NAV2,
> Marker, DME, etc.) - standard stuff, right.
>
> I have the audio from the engine computer (audio alerts) piped into the
> KA-135 on one of the 5 aux audio lines. With com1 mic switch pushed, all
is
> fine...everything loud and clear. Problem: when com2 switch is activated,
I
> can hear com2 audio just fine but ALL other audio inputs seem to have been
> muted considerably. I can still hear them but they ALL are significantly
> lower in volume. This also happens to all aux audio when the "both" button
> is pressed as well. The result - when I'm monitoring com2, I can barely
> hear the audio warnings....not good!
>
> I have checked side tone adjustments on the both coms..no effect. The only
> volume adjustment that the KA unit has is for the external speaker...it is
> unaffected by the mic select button positions.
>
> You can get a look at my panel here: http://www.berkut13.com/berkut22.htm
>
> Can any of you KA-135 users/fixers out there verify that this is normal?
> Is there any way to adjust or change this operation mode? There is noting
> the manual that describes this behavior.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dean Psiropoulos" <deanpsir(at)easystreet.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna placement. |
I read the antenna section of Lectric Bob's book but didn't see anything
about proper placement of them. I purchased commercially available antennas
for Transponder, Marker Beacon and a combination VOR/LOC/Glideslope. I want
to install the VOR/LOC/Glideslope on the bottom of the fuselage below the
horizontal stabilizer of my RV-6A. I'm thinking this should not be a
problem and when you're in the air it would seem like the optimum place for
it! But I'm no antenna expert so is this a good place to put it? Or is
there a better one? Do I need a splitter to separate LOC/VOR signals from
Glideslope (read something about this in Lectric Bob's book but not quite
sure if I need it)? Also, I've heard that one should separate receive
antennas from transmit antennas like comm and transponder. How far from
other antennas should communication and transponder antennas be placed? If
two comm. antennas are installed, how far apart from each other should they
be? How far from transponder antenna should the comm. antenna be placed?
Any other words of wisdom on antenna placement? Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Panel and wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna placement. |
On Aug 25, 2004, at 12:53 AM, Dean Psiropoulos wrote:
>
>
> I read the antenna section of Lectric Bob's book but didn't see
> anything
> about proper placement of them. I purchased commercially available
> antennas
> for Transponder, Marker Beacon and a combination VOR/LOC/Glideslope.
> I want
> to install the VOR/LOC/Glideslope on the bottom of the fuselage below
> the
> horizontal stabilizer of my RV-6A. I'm thinking this should not be a
> problem and when you're in the air it would seem like the optimum
> place for
> it! But I'm no antenna expert so is this a good place to put it? Or
> is
> there a better one?
This is a pretty good place for it. The only problem with having it
there is the possibility it could get damaged during ground handling.
> Do I need a splitter to separate LOC/VOR signals from
> Glideslope (read something about this in Lectric Bob's book but not
> quite
> sure if I need it)?
It depends on your receiver. Most receivers have separate inputs for
VOR/LOC signals and GS signals. You need a splitter for that. OTOH
the Apollo SL-30 receiver has the splitter built-in so you just connect
the antenna and go.
In my installation I ran into the reverse problem: my SL-30 expected
both signals on one cable but I had separate GS and VOR/LOC antennas.
I used a splitter as a combiner to solve the problem.
> Also, I've heard that one should separate receive
> antennas from transmit antennas like comm and transponder. How far
> from
> other antennas should communication and transponder antennas be placed?
Transponder is less of a problem than comm antennas as the frequency is
so different. I don't usually worry about the distance from the
transponder antenna as much other than to not have my other antennas
shield the transponder antenna from the ground.
As for distance between nav and comm antennas, more is better. Do what
you can to get separation.
Also, putting the airplane between the antennas helps a lot. Mounting
one antenna on the top and one on the bottom will help a lot.
> If
> two comm. antennas are installed, how far apart from each other should
> they
> be? How far from transponder antenna should the comm. antenna be
> placed?
> Any other words of wisdom on antenna placement? Thanks.
More distance is better. Do what you can and don't sweat the rest.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna placement. |
I agree with Brian....
An antenna mounted under the tail will get damaged by a rock sooner than
later. Between the main gear legs would be ideal mounting location if that
area is not already a nest of antennas, otherwise, the top of the vertical
stab. Be very diligent about careful grounding and non-grounding of the
antenna and feed coax cables, connectors, etc. Use good quality coax and
connectors. This is where a lot of comm. problems arise between dual comm.
units. If possible put one comm. antenna on top and one on the bottom for
RF isolation. I am still fighting a comm. problem between a King KX-155 and
a Garmin 430, with both antennas on top in the standard Cessna side by side
mounting that most seem to use.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Antenna placement.
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2004, at 12:53 AM, Dean Psiropoulos wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I read the antenna section of Lectric Bob's book but didn't see
> > anything
> > about proper placement of them. I purchased commercially available
> > antennas
> > for Transponder, Marker Beacon and a combination VOR/LOC/Glideslope.
> > I want
> > to install the VOR/LOC/Glideslope on the bottom of the fuselage below
> > the
> > horizontal stabilizer of my RV-6A. I'm thinking this should not be a
> > problem and when you're in the air it would seem like the optimum
> > place for
> > it! But I'm no antenna expert so is this a good place to put it? Or
> > is
> > there a better one?
>
> This is a pretty good place for it. The only problem with having it
> there is the possibility it could get damaged during ground handling.
>
> > Do I need a splitter to separate LOC/VOR signals from
> > Glideslope (read something about this in Lectric Bob's book but not
> > quite
> > sure if I need it)?
>
> It depends on your receiver. Most receivers have separate inputs for
> VOR/LOC signals and GS signals. You need a splitter for that. OTOH
> the Apollo SL-30 receiver has the splitter built-in so you just connect
> the antenna and go.
>
> In my installation I ran into the reverse problem: my SL-30 expected
> both signals on one cable but I had separate GS and VOR/LOC antennas.
> I used a splitter as a combiner to solve the problem.
>
> > Also, I've heard that one should separate receive
> > antennas from transmit antennas like comm and transponder. How far
> > from
> > other antennas should communication and transponder antennas be placed?
>
> Transponder is less of a problem than comm antennas as the frequency is
> so different. I don't usually worry about the distance from the
> transponder antenna as much other than to not have my other antennas
> shield the transponder antenna from the ground.
>
> As for distance between nav and comm antennas, more is better. Do what
> you can to get separation.
>
> Also, putting the airplane between the antennas helps a lot. Mounting
> one antenna on the top and one on the bottom will help a lot.
>
> > If
> > two comm. antennas are installed, how far apart from each other should
> > they
> > be? How far from transponder antenna should the comm. antenna be
> > placed?
> > Any other words of wisdom on antenna placement? Thanks.
>
> More distance is better. Do what you can and don't sweat the rest.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
> +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna placement. |
> some good comments on antenna placement.
I would add that the transponder antenna should be on the belly. The reason is
that the interrogators are on the ground and you don't want airborne metal between
them and the antenna.
I once saw transponder antennas on top though. They were on a pair of O-2's (Cessna
337) being converted from Vietnam service for local use by the FBI. After
a few minutes I realized that the interrogators were in the F-4E's flying above.
--
--> The best programming tool is a soldering iron <--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna placement. |
Dean Psiropoulos wrote:
> ...
> I want to install the VOR/LOC/Glideslope on the bottom of the
> fuselage below the horizontal stabilizer of my RV-6A. I'm thinking
> this should not be a problem and when you're in the air it would
> seem like the optimum place for it! But I'm no antenna expert so
> is this a good place to put it?
> ... How far from other antennas should communication and
> transponder antennas be placed? If two comm. antennas are
> installed, how far apart from each other should they be?
Installation manuals are inconsistent regarding distances and even
unspecific. Minimum 2 feet between any antennas and from metal gear
legs is a reasonable guideline. However, you might post the proposed
VOR antenna location to an RV list. As long as the whiskers are
extending mostly clear of the fuselage, it should work. But having
used an antenna analyzer and field strength meter on aircraft
installs, it's easy to disrupt radiating pattern by poor placement. A
lousy 360-degree radiating pattern on a VOR dipole can be unacceptable
if fringe reception in all directions at low altitudes is important to
you, and your mention of glideslope issues suggests potential IFR. On
the other hand, installing a "V" dipole on the top of the vertical fin
is extremely common on production aircraft, because it works rather
well.
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna placement. |
How about just installing Bob Archer's (Sportctaft Antennas) NAV antenna.
It is specifically designed to be mounted in the fiberglass wingtip. There is
no better operating NAV antenna available.
And no rocks to hit it, no drag.
The only problem is that you can't see them on aircraft that have them
installed.
Talk to Bob Archer at (310) 316-8796, or Email him at
_bobsantennas(at)earthlink.com_ (javascript:void)
Jim Ayers
Less Drag Products, Inc.
In a message dated 08/25/2004 9:05:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
skywagon(at)charter.net writes:
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "David Lloyd"
I agree with Brian....
An antenna mounted under the tail will get damaged by a rock sooner than
later. Between the main gear legs would be ideal mounting location if that
area is not already a nest of antennas, otherwise, the top of the vertical
stab. Be very diligent about careful grounding and non-grounding of the
antenna and feed coax cables, connectors, etc. Use good quality coax and
connectors. This is where a lot of comm. problems arise between dual comm.
units. If possible put one comm. antenna on top and one on the bottom for
RF isolation. I am still fighting a comm. problem between a King KX-155 and
a Garmin 430, with both antennas on top in the standard Cessna side by side
mounting that most seem to use.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Antenna placement.
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2004, at 12:53 AM, Dean Psiropoulos wrote:
>
> > --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Dean Psiropoulos"
> >
> >
> > I read the antenna section of Lectric Bob's book but didn't see
> > anything
> > about proper placement of them. I purchased commercially available
> > antennas
> > for Transponder, Marker Beacon and a combination VOR/LOC/Glideslope.
> > I want
> > to install the VOR/LOC/Glideslope on the bottom of the fuselage below
> > the
> > horizontal stabilizer of my RV-6A. I'm thinking this should not be a
> > problem and when you're in the air it would seem like the optimum
> > place for
> > it! But I'm no antenna expert so is this a good place to put it? Or
> > is
> > there a better one?
>
> This is a pretty good place for it. The only problem with having it
> there is the possibility it could get damaged during ground handling.
>
> > Do I need a splitter to separate LOC/VOR signals from
> > Glideslope (read something about this in Lectric Bob's book but not
> > quite
> > sure if I need it)?
>
> It depends on your receiver. Most receivers have separate inputs for
> VOR/LOC signals and GS signals. You need a splitter for that. OTOH
> the Apollo SL-30 receiver has the splitter built-in so you just connect
> the antenna and go.
>
> In my installation I ran into the reverse problem: my SL-30 expected
> both signals on one cable but I had separate GS and VOR/LOC antennas.
> I used a splitter as a combiner to solve the problem.
>
> > Also, I've heard that one should separate receive
> > antennas from transmit antennas like comm and transponder. How far
> > from
> > other antennas should communication and transponder antennas be placed?
>
> Transponder is less of a problem than comm antennas as the frequency is
> so different. I don't usually worry about the distance from the
> transponder antenna as much other than to not have my other antennas
> shield the transponder antenna from the ground.
>
> As for distance between nav and comm antennas, more is better. Do what
> you can to get separation.
>
> Also, putting the airplane between the antennas helps a lot. Mounting
> one antenna on the top and one on the bottom will help a lot.
>
> > If
> > two comm. antennas are installed, how far apart from each other should
> > they
> > be? How far from transponder antenna should the comm. antenna be
> > placed?
> > Any other words of wisdom on antenna placement? Thanks.
>
> More distance is better. Do what you can and don't sweat the rest.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
> +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim and Vivian" <jimscjs(at)mbay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna placement. |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Antenna placement.
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2004, at 12:53 AM, Dean Psiropoulos wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I read the antenna section of Lectric Bob's book but didn't see
> > anything
> > about proper placement of them. I purchased commercially available
> > antennas
> > for Transponder, Marker Beacon and a combination VOR/LOC/Glideslope.
> > I want
> > to install the VOR/LOC/Glideslope on the bottom of the fuselage below
> > the
> > horizontal stabilizer of my RV-6A. I'm thinking this should not be a
> > problem and when you're in the air it would seem like the optimum
> > place for
> > it! But I'm no antenna expert so is this a good place to put it? Or
> > is
> > there a better one?
>
> This is a pretty good place for it. The only problem with having it
> there is the possibility it could get damaged during ground handling.
>
> > Do I need a splitter to separate LOC/VOR signals from
> > Glideslope (read something about this in Lectric Bob's book but not
> > quite
> > sure if I need it)?
>
> It depends on your receiver. Most receivers have separate inputs for
> VOR/LOC signals and GS signals. You need a splitter for that. OTOH
> the Apollo SL-30 receiver has the splitter built-in so you just connect
> the antenna and go.
>
> In my installation I ran into the reverse problem: my SL-30 expected
> both signals on one cable but I had separate GS and VOR/LOC antennas.
> I used a splitter as a combiner to solve the problem.
>
> > Also, I've heard that one should separate receive
> > antennas from transmit antennas like comm and transponder. How far
> > from
> > other antennas should communication and transponder antennas be placed?
>
> Transponder is less of a problem than comm antennas as the frequency is
> so different. I don't usually worry about the distance from the
> transponder antenna as much other than to not have my other antennas
> shield the transponder antenna from the ground.
>
> As for distance between nav and comm antennas, more is better. Do what
> you can to get separation.
>
> Also, putting the airplane between the antennas helps a lot. Mounting
> one antenna on the top and one on the bottom will help a lot.
>
> > If
> > two comm. antennas are installed, how far apart from each other should
> > they
> > be? How far from transponder antenna should the comm. antenna be
> > placed?
> > Any other words of wisdom on antenna placement? Thanks.
>
> More distance is better. Do what you can and don't sweat the rest.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
> +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Koyich" <Ron(at)Koyich.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna placement. |
>> There is no better operating NAV antenna available.<<
Wow! Big claim.
A pair of balanced blades works pretty well - JUST to be argumentative,
how is the Archer antenna better, Jim?
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna placement. |
Simple. It's designed to work as part of the total aircraft airframe.
I'm not the expert. Talk to Bob Archer. Bob knows antennas on aircraft
from empirical data he helped obtain as an antenna designer at TRW.
Or ask Lectric Bob about Bob Archer. He knows Bob Archer.
Jim Ayers
Less drag Products, Inc.
In a message dated 08/25/2004 11:32:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Ron(at)Koyich.com writes:
Wow! Big claim.
A pair of balanced blades works pretty well - JUST to be argumentative,
how is the Archer antenna better, Jim?
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com> |
1980 172N SKYHAWK II....2-TKM Slide-in replacements were installed a couple
of years ago[Which by the way have worked flawless till now] The last 6
months or so i have been getting tremendous squealing or feedback when Ptt
is pushed. Radios have been switched top for bottom with no change. headsets
have been changed, different PTT's have been used. Radios were sent back to
factory and nothing found.Radios receive loud and clear.Cleaned all radio
contacts and antenna contacts, reinstalled everything and checked on the
ground with handheld[engine not running],everything sounded fine.Started
plane,taxied,took off, and radios were unusable again. Transponder light
lites[sometimes] and vor needles move when PTT is pushed.Problem is only
with transmittion and when PTT is pushed, static and squeal are so bad it's
hard to stand on the headset. If i remember correctly, radio volume control
does nothing to increase or decrease noise.It's like the Bremuda Triangle in
there!!!
BOB RIEGNER
N60846
1980 172N SKYHAWKII
RADIO SQUEAL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RADIO SCREAM |
Hi Bob,
Did you happen to change headsets recently? I had the same problem and it
turned out to be RF breaking into my headsets and causing audio feedback
when I transmitted.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RADIO SCREAM |
>The last 6 months or so i have been getting tremendous squealing or feedback
when Ptt
>is pushed.
It might not be feedback. Check for variation in tone with engine speed or landing
lights. A bad diode in an alternator can be confused with feedback oscillation.
--
--> Halloween == Oct 31 == Dec 25 == Christmas <--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RADIO SCREAM |
Bob,
Was anything done or changed in your audio panel unit? Most audio boxes do
a lot of isolation of one comm. from the other when TX'ing. If this
isolation fails then comm. RF energy can leak to the other comm. and cause
the headset scream that you mention. If you turn one radio off, do you
still get the noise in the headset when the PTT is pressed?
You may have a common ground for the panel bus or other that has a loose
connection or a broken wire causing a ground loop that is active during
TX'ing because of the higher current going to the comm. unit.
If anything in your antenna coax, connectors, antenna is not right, grounds,
feeds, etc., the TX'ing comm. will radiate RF that could blast into the 2nd
comm.
Let us all know what you find.....?
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com>
Subject: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
>
> 1980 172N SKYHAWK II....2-TKM Slide-in replacements were installed a
couple
> of years ago[Which by the way have worked flawless till now] The last 6
> months or so i have been getting tremendous squealing or feedback when Ptt
> is pushed. Radios have been switched top for bottom with no change.
headsets
> have been changed, different PTT's have been used. Radios were sent back
to
> factory and nothing found.Radios receive loud and clear.Cleaned all radio
> contacts and antenna contacts, reinstalled everything and checked on the
> ground with handheld[engine not running],everything sounded fine.Started
> plane,taxied,took off, and radios were unusable again. Transponder light
> lites[sometimes] and vor needles move when PTT is pushed.Problem is only
> with transmittion and when PTT is pushed, static and squeal are so bad
it's
> hard to stand on the headset. If i remember correctly, radio volume
control
> does nothing to increase or decrease noise.It's like the Bremuda Triangle
in
> there!!!
>
> BOB RIEGNER
> N60846
> 1980 172N SKYHAWKII
> RADIO SQUEAL
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
Sounds very much as though there is a lot of RF leaking into the cabin
causing feedback through your audio/intercom/headset. Check the coax
connection to the antenna particularly the outer sheathing for good
solid non-corroded connections both ends right through to the
radios. Could seem ok until the vibration of engine running causes
poor connection.
John
1980 172N SKYHAWK II....2-TKM Slide-in replacements were installed a
couple
of years ago[Which by the way have worked flawless till now] The last 6
months or so i have been getting tremendous squealing or feedback when
Ptt
is pushed. Radios have been switched top for bottom with no change.
headsets
have been changed, different PTT's have been used. Radios were sent back
to
factory and nothing found.Radios receive loud and clear.Cleaned all
radio
contacts and antenna contacts, reinstalled everything and checked on the
ground with handheld[engine not running],everything sounded fine.Started
plane,taxied,took off, and radios were unusable again. Transponder light
lites[sometimes] and vor needles move when PTT is pushed.Problem is only
with transmittion and when PTT is pushed, static and squeal are so bad
it's
hard to stand on the headset. If i remember correctly, radio volume
control
does nothing to increase or decrease noise.It's like the Bremuda
Triangle in
there!!!
BOB RIEGNER
N60846
1980 172N SKYHAWKII
RADIO SQUEAL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RADIO SCREAM |
Thanks for all the great ideas guys.
David,
The stock[cessna] audio panel was replaced by an avionics tech.[
KMA24] The radios worked fine when the replace was done. The radio still
squeals when the second radio is turned off and PTT pushed.
Bob
>From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
>Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:10:12 -0700
>
>
>Bob,
>Was anything done or changed in your audio panel unit? Most audio boxes do
>a lot of isolation of one comm. from the other when TX'ing. If this
>isolation fails then comm. RF energy can leak to the other comm. and cause
>the headset scream that you mention. If you turn one radio off, do you
>still get the noise in the headset when the PTT is pressed?
>
>You may have a common ground for the panel bus or other that has a loose
>connection or a broken wire causing a ground loop that is active during
>TX'ing because of the higher current going to the comm. unit.
>
>If anything in your antenna coax, connectors, antenna is not right,
>grounds,
>feeds, etc., the TX'ing comm. will radiate RF that could blast into the 2nd
>comm.
>
>Let us all know what you find.....?
>David
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com>
>To:
>Subject: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
>
>
> >
> > 1980 172N SKYHAWK II....2-TKM Slide-in replacements were installed a
>couple
> > of years ago[Which by the way have worked flawless till now] The last 6
> > months or so i have been getting tremendous squealing or feedback when
>Ptt
> > is pushed. Radios have been switched top for bottom with no change.
>headsets
> > have been changed, different PTT's have been used. Radios were sent back
>to
> > factory and nothing found.Radios receive loud and clear.Cleaned all
>radio
> > contacts and antenna contacts, reinstalled everything and checked on the
> > ground with handheld[engine not running],everything sounded fine.Started
> > plane,taxied,took off, and radios were unusable again. Transponder light
> > lites[sometimes] and vor needles move when PTT is pushed.Problem is only
> > with transmittion and when PTT is pushed, static and squeal are so bad
>it's
> > hard to stand on the headset. If i remember correctly, radio volume
>control
> > does nothing to increase or decrease noise.It's like the Bremuda
>Triangle
>in
> > there!!!
> >
> > BOB RIEGNER
> > N60846
> > 1980 172N SKYHAWKII
> > RADIO SQUEAL
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RADIO SCREAM |
HI PAUL,
HAVE USED 4 DIFFERENT AND ALL ARE THE SAME.
BOB
>From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
>Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 07:58:32 -0500
>
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Did you happen to change headsets recently? I had the same problem and it
>turned out to be RF breaking into my headsets and causing audio feedback
>when I transmitted.
>
>Paul
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RADIO SCREAM |
Bob,
Do both radios squeal the same when turned on one at a time?
If they do then you can probably rule out an antenna or coax feed problem.
Any chance that you have a cabin speaker over head that is active when it
should only be supplying audio to the headphones. I once found feedback
from the speaker going back via the mike and setting up a feedback
squeal...but, that is rare. And, I think you said that they check out fine
as long as the engine is not running. Then, it has to be in the charging or
magneto system. Maybe a noise filter failed...
Let us know....
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
>
> Thanks for all the great ideas guys.
> David,
> The stock[cessna] audio panel was replaced by an avionics tech.[
> KMA24] The radios worked fine when the replace was done. The radio still
> squeals when the second radio is turned off and PTT pushed.
> Bob
>
>
> >From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
> >Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
> >Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:10:12 -0700
> >
> >
> >Bob,
> >Was anything done or changed in your audio panel unit? Most audio boxes
do
> >a lot of isolation of one comm. from the other when TX'ing. If this
> >isolation fails then comm. RF energy can leak to the other comm. and
cause
> >the headset scream that you mention. If you turn one radio off, do you
> >still get the noise in the headset when the PTT is pressed?
> >
> >You may have a common ground for the panel bus or other that has a loose
> >connection or a broken wire causing a ground loop that is active during
> >TX'ing because of the higher current going to the comm. unit.
> >
> >If anything in your antenna coax, connectors, antenna is not right,
> >grounds,
> >feeds, etc., the TX'ing comm. will radiate RF that could blast into the
2nd
> >comm.
> >
> >Let us all know what you find.....?
> >David
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com>
> >To:
> >Subject: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 1980 172N SKYHAWK II....2-TKM Slide-in replacements were installed a
> >couple
> > > of years ago[Which by the way have worked flawless till now] The last
6
> > > months or so i have been getting tremendous squealing or feedback when
> >Ptt
> > > is pushed. Radios have been switched top for bottom with no change.
> >headsets
> > > have been changed, different PTT's have been used. Radios were sent
back
> >to
> > > factory and nothing found.Radios receive loud and clear.Cleaned all
> >radio
> > > contacts and antenna contacts, reinstalled everything and checked on
the
> > > ground with handheld[engine not running],everything sounded
fine.Started
> > > plane,taxied,took off, and radios were unusable again. Transponder
light
> > > lites[sometimes] and vor needles move when PTT is pushed.Problem is
only
> > > with transmittion and when PTT is pushed, static and squeal are so bad
> >it's
> > > hard to stand on the headset. If i remember correctly, radio volume
> >control
> > > does nothing to increase or decrease noise.It's like the Bremuda
> >Triangle
> >in
> > > there!!!
> > >
> > > BOB RIEGNER
> > > N60846
> > > 1980 172N SKYHAWKII
> > > RADIO SQUEAL
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RADIO SCREAM |
Dave'
It is much more prominent in the bottom radio. Most of the time i
can get the top radio to transmit good enough to be heard but the bottom
radio, once it starts it's thing, is completely unusable and squeals so loud
that you cannot hear yourself in your own headset.What completely baffles me
is the fact that it is intermitent[not always identically the same]. Most of
the time[at the present] the radios seem to start out fine, but as soon as
engine startup and warmup takes place they seem to deteriorate,bottom always
getting worse until takeoff and after first couple minutes of flight are
unusable.Why would the transponder light lite up[transponder on] when PTT is
pushed? and why would the nav needles move when PTT is pushed?As a young
mechanic in my late teens, i recall loose grounds being the cause of most of
my wacky scenarios.Awhile back i recall going out flying for a couple of
hours and the first 1/2 to 3/4 of an hour was perfect radio wise, and then
the problem would start. Now i really can't get any usable time because of
the problem. so i guess you could say it has gotten progressively worst.
Bob
>From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
>Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:19:26 -0700
>
>
>Bob,
>Do both radios squeal the same when turned on one at a time?
>If they do then you can probably rule out an antenna or coax feed problem.
>Any chance that you have a cabin speaker over head that is active when it
>should only be supplying audio to the headphones. I once found feedback
>from the speaker going back via the mike and setting up a feedback
>squeal...but, that is rare. And, I think you said that they check out fine
>as long as the engine is not running. Then, it has to be in the charging
>or
>magneto system. Maybe a noise filter failed...
>Let us know....
>David
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
>
>
> >
> > Thanks for all the great ideas guys.
> > David,
> > The stock[cessna] audio panel was replaced by an avionics
>tech.[
> > KMA24] The radios worked fine when the replace was done. The radio still
> > squeals when the second radio is turned off and PTT pushed.
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > >From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
> > >Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> > >To:
> > >Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
> > >Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:10:12 -0700
> > >
>
> > >
> > >Bob,
> > >Was anything done or changed in your audio panel unit? Most audio
>boxes
>do
> > >a lot of isolation of one comm. from the other when TX'ing. If this
> > >isolation fails then comm. RF energy can leak to the other comm. and
>cause
> > >the headset scream that you mention. If you turn one radio off, do you
> > >still get the noise in the headset when the PTT is pressed?
> > >
> > >You may have a common ground for the panel bus or other that has a
>loose
> > >connection or a broken wire causing a ground loop that is active during
> > >TX'ing because of the higher current going to the comm. unit.
> > >
> > >If anything in your antenna coax, connectors, antenna is not right,
> > >grounds,
> > >feeds, etc., the TX'ing comm. will radiate RF that could blast into the
>2nd
> > >comm.
> > >
> > >Let us all know what you find.....?
> > >David
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com>
> > >To:
> > >Subject: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
> > >
> > >
>
> > > >
> > > > 1980 172N SKYHAWK II....2-TKM Slide-in replacements were installed a
> > >couple
> > > > of years ago[Which by the way have worked flawless till now] The
>last
>6
> > > > months or so i have been getting tremendous squealing or feedback
>when
> > >Ptt
> > > > is pushed. Radios have been switched top for bottom with no change.
> > >headsets
> > > > have been changed, different PTT's have been used. Radios were sent
>back
> > >to
> > > > factory and nothing found.Radios receive loud and clear.Cleaned all
> > >radio
> > > > contacts and antenna contacts, reinstalled everything and checked on
>the
> > > > ground with handheld[engine not running],everything sounded
>fine.Started
> > > > plane,taxied,took off, and radios were unusable again. Transponder
>light
> > > > lites[sometimes] and vor needles move when PTT is pushed.Problem is
>only
> > > > with transmittion and when PTT is pushed, static and squeal are so
>bad
> > >it's
> > > > hard to stand on the headset. If i remember correctly, radio volume
> > >control
> > > > does nothing to increase or decrease noise.It's like the Bremuda
> > >Triangle
> > >in
> > > > there!!!
> > > >
> > > > BOB RIEGNER
> > > > N60846
> > > > 1980 172N SKYHAWKII
> > > > RADIO SQUEAL
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RADIO SCREAM |
Dave,
Also, i do have an overhead speaker, but it is not active, at
least not by the audio panel. All the speaker bottons are dissengaged on the
audio panel.
Bob
>From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
>Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:19:26 -0700
>
>
>Bob,
>Do both radios squeal the same when turned on one at a time?
>If they do then you can probably rule out an antenna or coax feed problem.
>Any chance that you have a cabin speaker over head that is active when it
>should only be supplying audio to the headphones. I once found feedback
>from the speaker going back via the mike and setting up a feedback
>squeal...but, that is rare. And, I think you said that they check out fine
>as long as the engine is not running. Then, it has to be in the charging
>or
>magneto system. Maybe a noise filter failed...
>Let us know....
>David
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
>
>
> >
> > Thanks for all the great ideas guys.
> > David,
> > The stock[cessna] audio panel was replaced by an avionics
>tech.[
> > KMA24] The radios worked fine when the replace was done. The radio still
> > squeals when the second radio is turned off and PTT pushed.
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > >From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
> > >Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> > >To:
> > >Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
> > >Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:10:12 -0700
> > >
>
> > >
> > >Bob,
> > >Was anything done or changed in your audio panel unit? Most audio
>boxes
>do
> > >a lot of isolation of one comm. from the other when TX'ing. If this
> > >isolation fails then comm. RF energy can leak to the other comm. and
>cause
> > >the headset scream that you mention. If you turn one radio off, do you
> > >still get the noise in the headset when the PTT is pressed?
> > >
> > >You may have a common ground for the panel bus or other that has a
>loose
> > >connection or a broken wire causing a ground loop that is active during
> > >TX'ing because of the higher current going to the comm. unit.
> > >
> > >If anything in your antenna coax, connectors, antenna is not right,
> > >grounds,
> > >feeds, etc., the TX'ing comm. will radiate RF that could blast into the
>2nd
> > >comm.
> > >
> > >Let us all know what you find.....?
> > >David
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com>
> > >To:
> > >Subject: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
> > >
> > >
>
> > > >
> > > > 1980 172N SKYHAWK II....2-TKM Slide-in replacements were installed a
> > >couple
> > > > of years ago[Which by the way have worked flawless till now] The
>last
>6
> > > > months or so i have been getting tremendous squealing or feedback
>when
> > >Ptt
> > > > is pushed. Radios have been switched top for bottom with no change.
> > >headsets
> > > > have been changed, different PTT's have been used. Radios were sent
>back
> > >to
> > > > factory and nothing found.Radios receive loud and clear.Cleaned all
> > >radio
> > > > contacts and antenna contacts, reinstalled everything and checked on
>the
> > > > ground with handheld[engine not running],everything sounded
>fine.Started
> > > > plane,taxied,took off, and radios were unusable again. Transponder
>light
> > > > lites[sometimes] and vor needles move when PTT is pushed.Problem is
>only
> > > > with transmittion and when PTT is pushed, static and squeal are so
>bad
> > >it's
> > > > hard to stand on the headset. If i remember correctly, radio volume
> > >control
> > > > does nothing to increase or decrease noise.It's like the Bremuda
> > >Triangle
> > >in
> > > > there!!!
> > > >
> > > > BOB RIEGNER
> > > > N60846
> > > > 1980 172N SKYHAWKII
> > > > RADIO SQUEAL
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RADIO SCREAM |
On Aug 27, 2004, at 7:20 AM, Robert Riegner wrote:
>
> getting worse until takeoff and after first couple minutes of flight
> are
> unusable.Why would the transponder light lite up[transponder on] when
> PTT is
> pushed? and why would the nav needles move when PTT is pushed?As a
> young
> mechanic in my late teens, i recall loose grounds being the cause of
> most of
> my wacky scenarios.
I really do think you are looking at a bad coax shield connection or a
bad ground at the comm antenna(s). If it were my airplane here is how
I would troubleshoot the problem:
1. Remove, inspect, and repair the BNC connectors at the antennas.
2. Unbolt the comm antennas from the airframe in order to inspect and
clean where the antenna bolts to the airframe. A little scotchbright
goes a long way here.
3. Inspect and repair the shield braid connection at the radio tray.
When there is a break in the shield RF gets inside the airframe (we can
talk about Faraday cages here if you want to) and affects everything.
Every wire in the airplane will pick up the RF to some extent. The
nonlinear devices (transistors, diodes, etc.) will rectify the RF and
provide DC voltages to make indicator pointers move, lights light, etc.
BTW, if the coax is older than about 10 years, rip in out and replace
it with good stuff like RG-400. It will help solve problems in the
long run.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RADIO SCREAM |
Thanks kindly Brian. This stuff is fascinating. Thanks to all the brains out
there behind the info we may well get this problem fixed. Will certainly
post any progress made. Annual due now so radios will come after.Any and all
suggestions always accepted. Thanks guys.
BOB
N6084G
>From: Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
>Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 07:58:12 -0400
>
>
>On Aug 27, 2004, at 7:20 AM, Robert Riegner wrote:
>
> >
> > getting worse until takeoff and after first couple minutes of flight
> > are
> > unusable.Why would the transponder light lite up[transponder on] when
> > PTT is
> > pushed? and why would the nav needles move when PTT is pushed?As a
> > young
> > mechanic in my late teens, i recall loose grounds being the cause of
> > most of
> > my wacky scenarios.
>
>I really do think you are looking at a bad coax shield connection or a
>bad ground at the comm antenna(s). If it were my airplane here is how
>I would troubleshoot the problem:
>
>1. Remove, inspect, and repair the BNC connectors at the antennas.
>
>2. Unbolt the comm antennas from the airframe in order to inspect and
>clean where the antenna bolts to the airframe. A little scotchbright
>goes a long way here.
>
>3. Inspect and repair the shield braid connection at the radio tray.
>
>When there is a break in the shield RF gets inside the airframe (we can
>talk about Faraday cages here if you want to) and affects everything.
>Every wire in the airplane will pick up the RF to some extent. The
>nonlinear devices (transistors, diodes, etc.) will rectify the RF and
>provide DC voltages to make indicator pointers move, lights light, etc.
>
>BTW, if the coax is older than about 10 years, rip in out and replace
>it with good stuff like RG-400. It will help solve problems in the
>long run.
>
>Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
>brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
>+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RADIO SCREAM |
Brian,
I assume that the coax is probably 24 yrs old.
Bob
>From: Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
>Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 07:58:12 -0400
>
>
>On Aug 27, 2004, at 7:20 AM, Robert Riegner wrote:
>
> >
> > getting worse until takeoff and after first couple minutes of flight
> > are
> > unusable.Why would the transponder light lite up[transponder on] when
> > PTT is
> > pushed? and why would the nav needles move when PTT is pushed?As a
> > young
> > mechanic in my late teens, i recall loose grounds being the cause of
> > most of
> > my wacky scenarios.
>
>I really do think you are looking at a bad coax shield connection or a
>bad ground at the comm antenna(s). If it were my airplane here is how
>I would troubleshoot the problem:
>
>1. Remove, inspect, and repair the BNC connectors at the antennas.
>
>2. Unbolt the comm antennas from the airframe in order to inspect and
>clean where the antenna bolts to the airframe. A little scotchbright
>goes a long way here.
>
>3. Inspect and repair the shield braid connection at the radio tray.
>
>When there is a break in the shield RF gets inside the airframe (we can
>talk about Faraday cages here if you want to) and affects everything.
>Every wire in the airplane will pick up the RF to some extent. The
>nonlinear devices (transistors, diodes, etc.) will rectify the RF and
>provide DC voltages to make indicator pointers move, lights light, etc.
>
>BTW, if the coax is older than about 10 years, rip in out and replace
>it with good stuff like RG-400. It will help solve problems in the
>long run.
>
>Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
>brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
>+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RADIO SCREAM |
Robert Riegner wrote:
> Why would the transponder light lite up[transponder on] when PTT is
> pushed? and why would the nav needles move when PTT is pushed?
On the transponder, X-Files or Twilight Zone comes to mind. It seems
to me also that radiated RF is the source of your problem, but there's
no way that even RF radiated at the transponder freq and going into
its antenna input can cause a reply. Do you have a remote ident
switch? Any wire (which can pick up radiated RF) which feeds a
semiconductor can cause whatever that wire does to exhibit visible
behavior on a device, like the VOR head. However, a quick peek at
King and Narco schematics shows remote ident goes direct to an IC, but
with a "pull down" arrangement, so a few mV tops introduced there
shouldn't do anything. Unless maybe the strength of the radiated
pickup is so large it's effect on the +5V internal supply is
triggering a key IC device inside.
Above analysis is why, for me, first place to look is RF pickup by the
mic audio line. Lousy half a mV pickup is potential trouble, and some
mics are high impedance. Sorry, can't help beyond this, but an xponder
reply tells me we may be looking for something untypical.
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RADIO SCREAM |
On Aug 27, 2004, at 8:46 AM, Robert Riegner wrote:
>
> Brian,
> I assume that the coax is probably 24 yrs old.
24-year-old RG-58 coax is not much good.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RADIO SCREAM |
Thank you
>From: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net>
>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
>Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:14:19 -0400
>
>
>Robert Riegner wrote:
>
> > Why would the transponder light lite up[transponder on] when PTT is
> > pushed? and why would the nav needles move when PTT is pushed?
>
>On the transponder, X-Files or Twilight Zone comes to mind. It seems
>to me also that radiated RF is the source of your problem, but there's
>no way that even RF radiated at the transponder freq and going into
>its antenna input can cause a reply. Do you have a remote ident
>switch? Any wire (which can pick up radiated RF) which feeds a
>semiconductor can cause whatever that wire does to exhibit visible
>behavior on a device, like the VOR head. However, a quick peek at
>King and Narco schematics shows remote ident goes direct to an IC, but
>with a "pull down" arrangement, so a few mV tops introduced there
>shouldn't do anything. Unless maybe the strength of the radiated
>pickup is so large it's effect on the +5V internal supply is
>triggering a key IC device inside.
>
>Above analysis is why, for me, first place to look is RF pickup by the
>mic audio line. Lousy half a mV pickup is potential trouble, and some
>mics are high impedance. Sorry, can't help beyond this, but an xponder
>reply tells me we may be looking for something untypical.
>
>Fred F.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RADIO SCREAM |
No remote ident switch!
>From: "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com>
>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
>Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:18:49 -0400
>
>
>Thank you
>
>
> >From: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net>
> >Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
> >Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:14:19 -0400
> >
> >
> >Robert Riegner wrote:
> >
> > > Why would the transponder light lite up[transponder on] when PTT is
> > > pushed? and why would the nav needles move when PTT is pushed?
> >
> >On the transponder, X-Files or Twilight Zone comes to mind. It seems
> >to me also that radiated RF is the source of your problem, but there's
> >no way that even RF radiated at the transponder freq and going into
> >its antenna input can cause a reply. Do you have a remote ident
> >switch? Any wire (which can pick up radiated RF) which feeds a
> >semiconductor can cause whatever that wire does to exhibit visible
> >behavior on a device, like the VOR head. However, a quick peek at
> >King and Narco schematics shows remote ident goes direct to an IC, but
> >with a "pull down" arrangement, so a few mV tops introduced there
> >shouldn't do anything. Unless maybe the strength of the radiated
> >pickup is so large it's effect on the +5V internal supply is
> >triggering a key IC device inside.
> >
> >Above analysis is why, for me, first place to look is RF pickup by the
> >mic audio line. Lousy half a mV pickup is potential trouble, and some
> >mics are high impedance. Sorry, can't help beyond this, but an xponder
> >reply tells me we may be looking for something untypical.
> >
> >Fred F.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | 337s, GPS installs, and AC 20-138A |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
Hey Robert you seem to be dancing all round the periphery but not
cutting to the chase. When are you going to change that coax??
John
No remote ident switch!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com> |
JUST TRYING TO ANSWER ALL THE GOOD PEOPLE WHO HAVE GIVEN THERE ADVICE. FIRST
ON THE AGENDA WILL BE TO REPLACE BOTH NAV/COM COAX'S, MAKE SURE ANTENNA'S
ARE GROUNDED GOOD AT MOUNTING POINT, THEN MAKE SURE THERE IS NO LOOSE GROUND
BEHIND PANEL.I ONLY GET TO WORK IN MY HANGER ONE DAY ON THE WEEKEND AND I
NEED TO START ANNUAL THIS WEEKEND. BRICK BY BRICK MY CITIZENS....BRICK BY
BRICK.ALL HAVE GIVEN GOOD IDEAS AND AND HOPEFULLY NOTHING WILL BE MISSED
WITH SUCH KNOWLEDGEABLE SUBCRIBERS.
THANKS EVERYONE
BOB
N6084G
>From: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy>
>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: Avionics-List: RADIO SCREAM
>Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 19:31:43 +0100
>
>
>
>Hey Robert you seem to be dancing all round the periphery but not
>cutting to the chase. When are you going to change that coax??
>John
>
>
>No remote ident switch!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ECLarsen81(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RADIO SCREAM |
In a message dated 8/27/2004 7:24:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rade66(at)msn.com
writes:
Why would the transponder light lite up[transponder on] when PTT is
pushed?
Turn off your transponder and see if it goes away.
Ed Larsen
Ypsi, MI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Approach GPS Question |
Hi all,
I have a UPS GX60 and I noticed that it doesn't list any localizer approaches.
I tried simulating one tonight into my local airport (ILS/LOC 10 @ UES) and it
seems to work fine by setting the OBS to 103 degrees as per the approach plate
and intercepting at 45 degrees
Does any one have any idea why localizer approaches are not part of an approach
certified GPS ?
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Approach GPS |
Paul,
An IFR certified GPS can only be used to replace ground-based equipment
for approach if the FAA has certified an overlay approach. An overlay
approach is exactly what you described; you use the GPS to provide course
guidance to a ground-based navaid. These are usually identified by the
title: VOR *OR* GPS RWYXX, NDB *OR* GPS RWYXX, (emphasis added), etc.
I'm unaware of any Localizer overlay approaches. The localizer will
theoretically provide more accurate course guidance than the GPS,
especially when close to the runway, so nothing is gained by overlaying
GPS. I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority
of runways served by a Localizer have some type of GPS approach available.
BTW, the FAA doesn't allow you substitute GPS to provide lateral guidance
for any ground-based navaids on approach unless it is an overlay
approach. You *can* subtitute GPS for required ADF or DME equipment on
any approach (except for non-overlay NDB approaches, if the title doesn't
contain "GPS" you must have ADF installed and use it for lateral
guidance), but not if that equipment is at your required alternate.
If you're an AOPA member, you can view this link for more info.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/1999/991213gps.html
Mark
> Hi all,
>
> I have a UPS GX60 and I noticed that it doesn't list any localizer
> approaches. I tried simulating one tonight into my local airport
> (ILS/LOC 10 @ UES) and it seems to work fine by setting the OBS to 103 >
> degrees as per the approach plate and intercepting at 45 degrees
> Does any one have any idea why localizer approaches are not part of an
> approach certified GPS?
> Paul
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Home Telephone
Company's Web-Based Email interface.
http://webmail.hometel.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "T.B." <tb1115(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Approach GPS Question |
Only actual localizer signals may be used for conducting a localizer approach.
Localizers are still more accurate than GPS and you must use the more accurate
ground-based signal in order to conduct a localizer approach to the locaizer
minimums specified on your chart.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | I'd like to subscribe ... sign me up please |
jerry(at)mc.net
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Transponder Issue |
Hi all,
I have UPS SL70 mounted in my composite Europa. Up until recently it has operated
faultlessly, but I a recent trip between Wisconsin and Arkansas I had several
complaints from ATC that they could not see my transponder, even at 9000'.
I am unsure if I have a problem or not, the antenna is mounted in the baggage bay,
it is a simple "spike" type mounted on a piece of 6 x 6 aluminum. the cable
run is fairly short and it is RG400. I have reseated the transponder, the
connection to the coax and to the antenna and I can't spot any obvious problem.
During the times that ATC were complaining I was seeing a solid reply to there
integrations so the receiver seems to be working fine. I'd appreciate anyone's
input on things to check or trouble shooting ideas.
Thanks, Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
I have a similar question. As far as I'm concerned, the first place to start in
checking out avionics in an aircraft is the antenna; after making sure the unit
has power.
Not knowing much about avionics, how do you check to make sure you have a good
connection with the antenna; what equipment do you use and what readings should
you expect?
Would appreciate any assistance.
Bob, Wichita
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Sep 10, 2004, at 9:20 AM, wrote:
>
> I have a similar question. As far as I'm concerned, the first place
> to start in checking out avionics in an aircraft is the antenna; after
> making sure the unit has power.
>
> Not knowing much about avionics, how do you check to make sure you
> have a good connection with the antenna; what equipment do you use and
> what readings should you expect?
Troubleshooting an antenna or feedline problem for a transponder is
pretty difficult since it requires specialized equipment. Fortunately
it is so simple that if you do it right, it will work.
1. Visually inspect the cable and then check the it with an ohmmeter.
You should have zero ohms from center-pin to center-pin, zero ohms from
outer-shell to outer-shell, and infinite ohms from center-pin to
outer-shell. Make sure you flex the cable while doing this to check
for any bad connection.
2. Make sure antenna is projecting downward and is attached to a flat
metal plate at least 6" in diameter.
3. Check to make sure that the center-pin to outer-shell on the
antenna show infinite ohms.
If you really want to be sure you need to go to an avionics shop that
has a transponder test set. They can verify the output of the
transponder right at the antenna connector and they can verify that the
antenna is radiating a proper signal. To just test it and not
calibrate it shouldn't cost more than a couple of dollars and if the
shop isn't busy they may just do the test for free, especially if they
think you will pay them to troubleshoot any problems found.
Something else to consider: transponder signals are of sufficiently
high frequency that they are subject to shading. Think of the antenna
as a light bulb and any piece of metal as a wall that casts a shadow.
If the shadow falls on the ATC radar antenna, your signal to them will
probably go away.
For example, my RV-4 had the transponder antenna mounted between the
gear legs. I could make my ATC reply disappear just by turning my
airplane so that one of the gear legs was interposed between the
transponder antenna and the ATC RADAR antenna.
If you have the antenna in the baggage compartment anything you put in
there is potentially going to shade the antenna. For this reason I
strongly recommend that you mount your transponder antenna on the belly
of the airplane. I know you are trying to reduce drag to the absolute
minimum but the belly of the airplane, especially downwind from the
engine cooling air outlet, is already a turbulent area and any antennas
there are unlikely to have any effect in the effective flat-plate drag
of the airplane.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 9/10/04 8:21:09 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
rfg842(at)cox.net writes:
>
> I have a similar question. As far as I'm concerned, the first place to
> start in checking out avionics in an aircraft is the antenna; after making sure
> the unit has power.
>
> Not knowing much about avionics, how do you check to make sure you have a
> good connection with the antenna; what equipment do you use and what readings
> should you expect?
>
> Would appreciate any assistance.
>
> Bob, Wichita
Bob,
The transponder is a simple 1/4 wave vertical. What this means is that there
is nothing in the base of the antenna except the insulator. Check it by
making sure the inner conductor of the coax shows continuity to the antenna, and
that it is not shorted to the mounting flange. Also, the shield of the coax
must contact ground at the mounting flange of the antenna. There's not much to
go wrong. The problems would be in the mechanical connections.
Hope this helps.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A (Flying 41 hours)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
Brian,
Much better answer than mine! I think I better just listen -- er read!
Dan H
In a message dated 9/10/04 9:12:20 AM US Eastern Standard Time, br
ianl(at)lloyd.com writes:
> Troubleshooting an antenna or feedline problem for a transponder is
> pretty difficult since it requires specialized equipment. Fortunately
> it is so simple that if you do it right, it will work.
>
> 1. Visually inspect the cable and then check the it with an ohmmeter.
> You should have zero ohms from center-pin to center-pin, zero ohms from
> outer-shell to outer-shell, and infinite ohms from center-pin to
> outer-shell. Make sure you flex the cable while doing this to check
> for any bad connection.
>
> 2. Make sure antenna is projecting downward and is attached to a flat
> metal plate at least 6" in diameter.
>
> 3. Check to make sure that the center-pin to outer-shell on the
> antenna show infinite ohms.
>
> If you really want to be sure you need to go to an avionics shop that
> has a transponder test set. They can verify the output of the
> transponder right at the antenna connector and they can verify that the
> antenna is radiating a proper signal. To just test it and not
> calibrate it shouldn't cost more than a couple of dollars and if the
> shop isn't busy they may just do the test for free, especially if they
> think you will pay them to troubleshoot any problems found.
>
> Something else to consider: transponder signals are of sufficiently
> high frequency that they are subject to shading. Think of the antenna
> as a light bulb and any piece of metal as a wall that casts a shadow.
> If the shadow falls on the ATC radar antenna, your signal to them will
> probably go away.
>
> For example, my RV-4 had the transponder antenna mounted between the
> gear legs. I could make my ATC reply disappear just by turning my
> airplane so that one of the gear legs was interposed between the
> transponder antenna and the ATC RADAR antenna.
>
> If you have the antenna in the baggage compartment anything you put in
> there is potentially going to shade the antenna. For this reason I
> strongly recommend that you mount your transponder antenna on the belly
> of the airplane. I know you are trying to reduce drag to the absolute
> minimum but the belly of the airplane, especially downwind from the
> engine cooling air outlet, is already a turbulent area and any antennas
> there are unlikely to have any effect in the effective flat-plate drag
> of the airplane.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
> +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
Bob,
The transponder is a simple 1/4 wave vertical.=A0 What this means is that there
is nothing in the base of the antenna except the insulator.=A0 Check it by
making sure the inner conductor of the coax shows continuity to the antenna,
and
that it is not shorted to the mounting flange.=A0 Also, the shield of the coax
must contact ground at the mounting flange of the antenna.=A0 There's not much
to
go wrong.=A0 The problems would be in the mechanical connections.
Hope this helps.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A (Flying 41 hours)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
> ...
> Not knowing much about avionics, how do you check to make sure you
have a good connection with the antenna; what equipment do you use and
what readings should you expect?
>
> Bob, Wichita
> >
The only common box I know of is the good old MFJ-259B antenna
analyzer that many hams have and like to show off. It will test for
coax loss, even fairly accurately measure its length. However, it
will not test the antenna at xpondr frequency. A metal stub antenna
is conducive to physical inspection and test of continuity/ground
isolation with an ohmmeter. Patch in a length of newish RG-58 and go
fly. If the xponder now works with lossy RG-58 at 1 gHz, replacing
the cable with correct stuff should solve any problem. The proper way
to test in the air is about 50nm from an ATC site at 5-6000 feet AGL,
maybe closer in if using an RG-58 patch. Fly a very lazy 360 (sweeps
can be as much as like 20 seconds apart) and ask ATC to watch for
"dropouts."
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Sep 10, 2004, at 10:22 AM, Hopperdhh(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> Much better answer than mine! I think I better just listen -- er read!
Thanks. I am a ham and I worked my way through college working in an
avionics shop. Now I build wireless ISPs. I have a little experience
with things radiolike. :
)
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
One other point to check is to connect the antenna connector to ANOTHER
piece of coax and check as described below.
A friend of mine had a problem and I **think** the problem in the end was
that all checked out fine to the test below but when the coax was pushed
onto the antenna the pin slid back just a bit or was not protruding enough
to make a good contact.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 10:22 AM
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Transponder
>
>
> Brian,
>
> Much better answer than mine! I think I better just listen -- er read!
>
> Dan H
>
>
> In a message dated 9/10/04 9:12:20 AM US Eastern Standard Time, br
> ianl(at)lloyd.com writes:
>
> > Troubleshooting an antenna or feedline problem for a transponder is
> > pretty difficult since it requires specialized equipment. Fortunately
> > it is so simple that if you do it right, it will work.
> >
> > 1. Visually inspect the cable and then check the it with an ohmmeter.
> > You should have zero ohms from center-pin to center-pin, zero ohms from
> > outer-shell to outer-shell, and infinite ohms from center-pin to
> > outer-shell. Make sure you flex the cable while doing this to check
> > for any bad connection.
> >
> > 2. Make sure antenna is projecting downward and is attached to a flat
> > metal plate at least 6" in diameter.
> >
> > 3. Check to make sure that the center-pin to outer-shell on the
> > antenna show infinite ohms.
> >
> > If you really want to be sure you need to go to an avionics shop that
> > has a transponder test set. They can verify the output of the
> > transponder right at the antenna connector and they can verify that the
> > antenna is radiating a proper signal. To just test it and not
> > calibrate it shouldn't cost more than a couple of dollars and if the
> > shop isn't busy they may just do the test for free, especially if they
> > think you will pay them to troubleshoot any problems found.
> >
> > Something else to consider: transponder signals are of sufficiently
> > high frequency that they are subject to shading. Think of the antenna
> > as a light bulb and any piece of metal as a wall that casts a shadow.
> > If the shadow falls on the ATC radar antenna, your signal to them will
> > probably go away.
> >
> > For example, my RV-4 had the transponder antenna mounted between the
> > gear legs. I could make my ATC reply disappear just by turning my
> > airplane so that one of the gear legs was interposed between the
> > transponder antenna and the ATC RADAR antenna.
> >
> > If you have the antenna in the baggage compartment anything you put in
> > there is potentially going to shade the antenna. For this reason I
> > strongly recommend that you mount your transponder antenna on the belly
> > of the airplane. I know you are trying to reduce drag to the absolute
> > minimum but the belly of the airplane, especially downwind from the
> > engine cooling air outlet, is already a turbulent area and any antennas
> > there are unlikely to have any effect in the effective flat-plate drag
> > of the airplane.
> >
> > Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> > brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
> > +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
> >
>
> Bob,
>
> The transponder is a simple 1/4 wave vertical.=A0 What this means
> is that there
>
> is nothing in the base of the antenna except the insulator.=A0 Check it by
> making sure the inner conductor of the coax shows continuity to
> the antenna,
> and
> that it is not shorted to the mounting flange.=A0 Also, the
> shield of the coax
> must contact ground at the mounting flange of the antenna.=A0
> There's not much
> to
> go wrong.=A0 The problems would be in the mechanical connections.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Dan Hopper
> RV-7A (Flying 41 hours)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pascal Gosselin <pascal(at)aeroteknic.com> |
| Subject: | Bendix-King IN-831A HSI Pinout ? |
Looking for pinout for Bendix-King IN-831A HSI. Has DB-37 connector in
back, looks like original equipment on a Piper Navajo with KX-170B
radios. Pulling everything out to put CNX-80, MX-20, WSI, etc....
-Pascal
+---------------------------+
Pascal Gosselin
pascal(at)aeroteknic.com
tel. (450) 676-6299
fax. (450) 676-2760
cell. (514) 298-3343
________________________________________________________________________________
I am looking into adding a DME unit. Hopefully some one can answer a
couple of questions:
Can a King KN62/4 DME be interfaced to the channeling outputs of a Narco
122 nav unit?
Where can I find the pin connection information on the King DMEs?
Thanks for any help.
Stan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pete Waters <pedroagua(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: DME Channeling |
Stan,
I went though this same question about a year ago. I concluded that the KNS-80,
which has DME built in to a VOR / ILS box equiiped with RNAV function, was
the most cost-effective way to get DME. Stand-alone DMEs seem to cost a bundle
an really provide very little -- just a distance to a ground station. With
the KNS-80 you also get VOR-based RNAV capability (although you can only program
a maximum of four waypoints at a time). However, this lets you fly to fixes
defined by a radial and a DME and simply follow your CDI needles like you're
tracking a radial. The DME countdown will tell you when you get there.
A downside is that there are limited numbers of indicators that are compatible
with the KNS-80. The usual KI-209 that goes with the usual KX-155 won't work.
A KI-206 will work, but it's more expensive, so you'll lose mone on the trade-in.
Another thing to think about is that you probably don't want DME per se, you
want DME **function**. As far as I know, this can be supplied by the DME readout
of a GPS if the GPS is certified for that type if flight. I.e. if you want
to use the DME readout of a GPS for en route IFR nav, it's got to be an enroute-approved
IFR GPS. I'm not sure what the rule is for approaches...since 1/10th
of an NM on a DME readout is 600 feet, and approach-certified GPS's are tighter
than that, I'd think that you could use GPS "DME" on, say, a VOR/DME or
ILS/DME approach (especially on an arc or to define a missed approach point),
but I'd like a second opinion on that.
Full-disclosure here -- I actually bought a used KNS-80 and KI-206 about a year
ago for installation in my RV-4. Since then, I've decided to go with a approach-certified
GX-60 and NAV-122 combo, mostly becasue of weight and space in
the tight RV panel, and so I could shoot GPS approaches. You might want to check
out that path as well. Otherwise, note that I'm planning on selling the
KNS-80 and KI-206 in a few weeks. Contact me off list if you might be interested
in it.
If you want to buy from a vendor, you can get the KNS-80 / KI-206 combo from
Eastern Avionics (among other places). In the least, you can check out their
website for a description.
- Pete Waters
N562PW
splevy@l-band-systems.com wrote:
I am looking into adding a DME unit. Hopefully some one can answer a
couple of questions:
Can a King KN62/4 DME be interfaced to the channeling outputs of a Narco
122 nav unit?
Where can I find the pin connection information on the King DMEs?
Thanks for any help.
Stan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: DME Channeling |
On Sep 20, 2004, at 9:57 PM, Pete Waters wrote:
>
> Stan,
>
> I went though this same question about a year ago. I concluded that
> the KNS-80, which has DME built in to a VOR / ILS box equiiped with
> RNAV function, was the most cost-effective way to get DME.
> Stand-alone DMEs seem to cost a bundle an really provide very little
> -- just a distance to a ground station. With the KNS-80 you also get
> VOR-based RNAV capability (although you can only program a maximum of
> four waypoints at a time). However, this lets you fly to fixes
> defined by a radial and a DME and simply follow your CDI needles like
> you're tracking a radial. The DME countdown will tell you when you
> get there.
> A downside is that there are limited numbers of indicators that are
> compatible with the KNS-80. The usual KI-209 that goes with the usual
> KX-155 won't work. A KI-206 will work, but it's more expensive, so
> you'll lose mone on the trade-in.
When I upgraded the panel in my Aztec I kept the KNS-80 but got rid of
the electromechanical HSI that was there and replaced it with a Sandel
EHSI. Since the KNS-80 was backup to the new GX-60/SL-30/Sandel combo
I was installing I wanted it to operate completely standalone. Almost
any ARINC-compatible VOR/ILS indicator with AC OBS resolver will work
with the KNS-80 I found an old Bendix unit gathering dust in a radio
shop and bought it for a song. If all else fails, the KNS-80 with its
dedicated indicator will let me navigate and shoot any VOR/LOC/ILS/RNAV
approach.
And the KNS-80 works really well and is spot on. I agree that it is a
great radio.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: DME Channeling |
Pete,
Your are exactly right about wanting DME function. My objective is to get
it with minimum expense and effort. I am starting IFR training, and I will
most likely take my checkride in this plane.
I did look at the KNS80 as an option, but this is going into a Grumman
Traveler, and I only have a 1.75 inch opening left in the stack. That also
seems to rule out the panel GPS units I have seen which need 2 inches. I
was also told that the GPS installation had to be fully IFR compliant to
(legally) use the DME function. Since I have two com radios and two of the
Narco all-in-one navs, that would probably mean swapping for nav-coms and
new indicators, or at least getting one of the new Narco units that can be
driven by a GPS (~$3K).
Despite the rather minimal performance per dollar for a simple DME, it
looks like it is still the best solution. And the KN62/4 are only 1.3
inches high, so they will fit without any modification.
So I think I am back to trying to channel the DME from the Narco, or just
tune it manually.
Stan
>
>Stan,
>
> I went though this same question about a year ago. I concluded that
> the KNS-80, which has DME built in to a VOR / ILS box equiiped with RNAV
> function, was the most cost-effective way to get DME. Stand-alone DMEs
> seem to cost a bundle an really provide very little -- just a distance to
> a ground station. With the KNS-80 you also get VOR-based RNAV capability
> (although you can only program a maximum of four waypoints at a
> time). However, this lets you fly to fixes defined by a radial and a DME
> and simply follow your CDI needles like you're tracking a radial. The
> DME countdown will tell you when you get there.
> A downside is that there are limited numbers of indicators that are
> compatible with the KNS-80. The usual KI-209 that goes with the usual
> KX-155 won't work. A KI-206 will work, but it's more expensive, so
> you'll lose mone on the trade-in.
> Another thing to think about is that you probably don't want DME per
> se, you want DME **function**. As far as I know, this can be supplied by
> the DME readout of a GPS if the GPS is certified for that type if flight.
> I.e. if you want to use the DME readout of a GPS for en route IFR nav,
> it's got to be an enroute-approved IFR GPS. I'm not sure what the rule
> is for approaches...since 1/10th of an NM on a DME readout is 600 feet,
> and approach-certified GPS's are tighter than that, I'd think that you
> could use GPS "DME" on, say, a VOR/DME or ILS/DME approach (especially on
> an arc or to define a missed approach point), but I'd like a second
> opinion on that.
> Full-disclosure here -- I actually bought a used KNS-80 and KI-206
> about a year ago for installation in my RV-4. Since then, I've decided
> to go with a approach-certified GX-60 and NAV-122 combo, mostly becasue
> of weight and space in the tight RV panel, and so I could shoot GPS
> approaches. You might want to check out that path as well. Otherwise,
> note that I'm planning on selling the KNS-80 and KI-206 in a few
> weeks. Contact me off list if you might be interested in it.
> If you want to buy from a vendor, you can get the KNS-80 / KI-206 combo
> from Eastern Avionics (among other places). In the least, you can check
> out their website for a description.
>
>- Pete Waters
>N562PW
>
>splevy@l-band-systems.com wrote:
>
>I am looking into adding a DME unit. Hopefully some one can answer a
>couple of questions:
>
>Can a King KN62/4 DME be interfaced to the channeling outputs of a Narco
>122 nav unit?
>
>Where can I find the pin connection information on the King DMEs?
>
>Thanks for any help.
>
>Stan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pete Waters <pedroagua(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: DME Channeling |
Stan,
Another thing to think about is to use an approach-certified GPS without moving-map or CDI display, i.e. one that just shows on the box itself the radial and DME to a waypoint. That way the DME readout is legal if you're doing the rest of the navigation off a VOR or ILS system. I think the UPSAT SL-50 might do the trick for you, and it's only 1.3 inches tall. Eastern Avionics (www.avionix.com) lists it on their website for $1795, although I don't know if they still stock it (their webpage can often be out of date).
The cost of getting the IFR-approved installation will also be a factor, however.
But it just seems to me that radio-based DMEs cost big bucks and provide
very little data for the price. Using the GPS method gives you DME and bearing
info for less money. Over to you.
BTW, I have no connection with Eastern Avionics. It's just that in my websurfing,
they seem to have one of the best selections at some of the best prices.
They come across as very knowlegdable on the phone, also.
- Pedro
splevy@l-band-systems.com wrote:
Pete,
Your are exactly right about wanting DME function. My objective is to get
it with minimum expense and effort. I am starting IFR training, and I will
most likely take my checkride in this plane.
I did look at the KNS80 as an option, but this is going into a Grumman
Traveler, and I only have a 1.75 inch opening left in the stack. That also
seems to rule out the panel GPS units I have seen which need 2 inches. I
was also told that the GPS installation had to be fully IFR compliant to
(legally) use the DME function. Since I have two com radios and two of the
Narco all-in-one navs, that would probably mean swapping for nav-coms and
new indicators, or at least getting one of the new Narco units that can be
driven by a GPS (~$3K).
Despite the rather minimal performance per dollar for a simple DME, it
looks like it is still the best solution. And the KN62/4 are only 1.3
inches high, so they will fit without any modification.
So I think I am back to trying to channel the DME from the Narco, or just
tune it manually.
Stan
>
>Stan,
>
> I went though this same question about a year ago. I concluded that
> the KNS-80, which has DME built in to a VOR / ILS box equiiped with RNAV
> function, was the most cost-effective way to get DME. Stand-alone DMEs
> seem to cost a bundle an really provide very little -- just a distance to
> a ground station. With the KNS-80 you also get VOR-based RNAV capability
> (although you can only program a maximum of four waypoints at a
> time). However, this lets you fly to fixes defined by a radial and a DME
> and simply follow your CDI needles like you're tracking a radial. The
> DME countdown will tell you when you get there.
> A downside is that there are limited numbers of indicators that are
> compatible with the KNS-80. The usual KI-209 that goes with the usual
> KX-155 won't work. A KI-206 will work, but it's more expensive, so
> you'll lose mone on the trade-in.
> Another thing to think about is that you probably don't want DME per
> se, you want DME **function**. As far as I know, this can be supplied by
> the DME readout of a GPS if the GPS is certified for that type if flight.
> I.e. if you want to use the DME readout of a GPS for en route IFR nav,
> it's got to be an enroute-approved IFR GPS. I'm not sure what the rule
> is for approaches...since 1/10th of an NM on a DME readout is 600 feet,
> and approach-certified GPS's are tighter than that, I'd think that you
> could use GPS "DME" on, say, a VOR/DME or ILS/DME approach (especially on
> an arc or to define a missed approach point), but I'd like a second
> opinion on that.
> Full-disclosure here -- I actually bought a used KNS-80 and KI-206
> about a year ago for installation in my RV-4. Since then, I've decided
> to go with a approach-certified GX-60 and NAV-122 combo, mostly becasue
> of weight and space in the tight RV panel, and so I could shoot GPS
> approaches. You might want to check out that path as well. Otherwise,
> note that I'm planning on selling the KNS-80 and KI-206 in a few
> weeks. Contact me off list if you might be interested in it.
> If you want to buy from a vendor, you can get the KNS-80 / KI-206 combo
> from Eastern Avionics (among other places). In the least, you can check
> out their website for a description.
>
>- Pete Waters
>N562PW
>
>splevy@l-band-systems.com wrote:
>
>I am looking into adding a DME unit. Hopefully some one can answer a
>couple of questions:
>
>Can a King KN62/4 DME be interfaced to the channeling outputs of a Narco
>122 nav unit?
>
>Where can I find the pin connection information on the King DMEs?
>
>Thanks for any help.
>
>Stan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brandon Tucker <btucke73(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Serial input transponders |
I have been looking through the website for the Dynon
system, and found that their altitude encoder output
for transponder is serial. Which models of
transponders use serial ports for altitude input? I
read somewhere that some use parrallel, but the
article did not list the suspects.
Encoders are cheap, but I don't want to buy one
if I don't have to.
Thanks in advance,
Brandon Tucker
601 HDS, Corvair
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Serial input transponders |
The Garmin GTX 327 is one. It will take either the parallel or serial code. Doug
at Dynon has one so he made sure the 10A outputs the correct data stream.
Ken
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Brandon Tucker <btucke73(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
>
>I have been looking through the website for the Dynon
>system, and found that their altitude encoder output
>for transponder is serial. Which models of
>transponders use serial ports for altitude input? I
>read somewhere that some use parrallel, but the
>article did not list the suspects.
>
> Encoders are cheap, but I don't want to buy one
>if I don't have to.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Brandon Tucker
>601 HDS, Corvair
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Serial input transponders |
On Sep 22, 2004, at 12:41 AM, Ken Simmons wrote:
>
> The Garmin GTX 327 is one. It will take either the parallel or serial
> code. Doug at Dynon has one so he made sure the 10A outputs the
> correct data stream.
The Apollo SL-70 does as well.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger Evenson" <revenson(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Transponder antenna separation |
Garmin transponder install manual suggests 3' minimum between transponder antenna
and any other antenna, and also 3' minimum between transponder antenna and
transponder unit itself.
I don't have these ideals. I can locate the transponder antenna closer (than 3')
to the com antenna in order to be 3' from the transponder itself; or, I can
locate the transponder antenna closer to the transponder and maintain 3' between
the transponder antenna and the com antenna.
Having to compromise, is one criteria more important than the other?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder antenna separation |
Generally, the smaller antenna is blocked by the larger antenna in the
direction of the larger antenna. The smaller antenna signal should also be
stronger in the opposite direction from the larger antenna. A greater the distance
between antennas reduces the signal strength distortion.
The larger antenna should be basically unaffected by the smaller antenna,
except that the signal could be stronger across the smaller antenna.
Hope that helps.
Jim Ayers
RV-6A mounting transponder antenna in tailcone behind baggage compartment
and using a Sportcraft Vertical Stabilizer COM antenna.
Just a few holes to patch in the fuselage belly. :-)
In a message dated 09/25/2004 6:52:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
revenson(at)comcast.net writes:
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Roger Evenson"
Garmin transponder install manual suggests 3' minimum between transponder
antenna and any other antenna, and also 3' minimum between transponder antenna
and transponder unit itself.
I don't have these ideals. I can locate the transponder antenna closer (than
3') to the com antenna in order to be 3' from the transponder itself; or, I
can locate the transponder antenna closer to the transponder and maintain 3'
between the transponder antenna and the com antenna.
Having to compromise, is one criteria more important than the other?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Dykhoff <davedykhoff(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | VHF Interference by Transponder |
I'm getting serious interference on my VHF (KX-155) anytime my transponder (KX-76)
issues a reply. If I go to standby on the transponder it solves the problem.
The interference has been happening for a while, but it recently got much
worse; incoming VHF comms are unintelligible anytime the transponder is placed
in reply and is being interrogated.
I previously had had the comm and transponder antenna coax cables bundled together;
today I physically separated them in the hope that would fix the problem,
but it had no effect.
Thanks,
Dave Dykhoff
RV-8 N1063G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VHF Interference by Transponder |
On Oct 11, 2004, at 11:41 PM, Dave Dykhoff wrote:
>
>
> I'm getting serious interference on my VHF (KX-155) anytime my
> transponder (KX-76) issues a reply. If I go to standby on the
> transponder it solves the problem. The interference has been
> happening for a while, but it recently got much worse; incoming VHF
> comms are unintelligible anytime the transponder is placed in reply
> and is being interrogated.
>
> I previously had had the comm and transponder antenna coax cables
> bundled together; today I physically separated them in the hope that
> would fix the problem, but it had no effect.
It could be RF getting in but that isn't the only possible problem.
Remember, the KX-155 is going to do a good job of rejecting the
transponder frequencies coming in the antenna. I would be looking
somewhere else in the chain. Here is what I would check:
1. Check the shields of the coax where they attach to both radios and
antennas. This is probably not the problem but one should check the
easy stuff first.
2. Check the antenna grounding to the airframe. A little corrosion
can make for some interesting behavior.
3. Try getting your avionics shop to hook their transponder test-set
directly to the transponder while it is in the airplane, bypassing the
transponder's antenna. If the noise is still present, start looking at
noise getting in to the KX-155 through the power distribution.
4. Check all grounds. If one radio or the other lost its main power
ground, it would use the coax and/or other grounds and shields as a
return for the power. Any noise impressed upon there from the
transponder's power supply would show up in almost everything.
5. If you have an oscilloscope use that to look at the power leads
going into the KX-155. If you see a lot of crap from the transponder's
power supply, you may be seeing the problem.
And speaking of oscilloscopes, I found a great one to just keep around
the shop. It is a low-cost battery-operated scope meter from Velleman.
The one I got is the HPS40. It is a good digital voltmeter but it is
also a 12MHz oscilloscope. As I recall, I paid about $270 for mine.
It is fantastic for troubleshooting where noise in coming from in an
electrical system.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: VHF Interference by Transponder |
1st thing are your antennas close together?
2nd. Check the grounds on your antennas.
3rd Bad antenna cable or ends.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Dykhoff" <davedykhoff(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Avionics-List: VHF Interference by Transponder
>
> I'm getting serious interference on my VHF (KX-155) anytime my transponder
(KX-76) issues a reply. If I go to standby on the transponder it solves the
problem. The interference has been happening for a while, but it recently
got much worse; incoming VHF comms are unintelligible anytime the
transponder is placed in reply and is being interrogated.
>
> I previously had had the comm and transponder antenna coax cables bundled
together; today I physically separated them in the hope that would fix the
problem, but it had no effect.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave Dykhoff
> RV-8 N1063G
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | cs-List:I need Help against possible FAA action |
| From: | "Wayne @ Aircraft Engravers" <wayne(at)engravers.net> |
Can anyone help me?
The FAA has gotten an anonymous complaint that my company Aircraft
Engravers is making aircraft parts illegally. Specifically our faceplate
inserts for the older avionics such as the KX-170B's. We do not make the
actual faceplate itself, just the inserts that fit into the old faceplate.
As many of you have used the older avionics before, you know that many
times the text is worn away on the older/heavily used units. So we came up
with these inserts to correct the problem of illegible text. The inserts
are made from plastic and are .020" to .032" thick depending on the radio
which get inserted into or lay on top of the original factory faceplate.
A before and after picture can be viewed at
http://www.engravers.net/aircraft/fp_inserts.htm and a list of the
different faceplates types we make at
http://www.engravers.net/aircraft/fp_list.htm.
The FAA wants to classify us as an Unapproved Parts Manufacturer of
aircraft parts. We contest that the inserts that we make are not original
parts and never claimed that they are. We state in our installation
directions, "Have this insert installed by an avionics shop if you do not
have all the proper tools, are not a qualified technician or are not sure
you are capable of doing this job".
ALL of our faceplate inserts are backed by our 100% satisfaction guarantee
that each and every faceplate will fit properly and give your radio a nice
finished look or your money back.
The FAA should let us continue to make and sell these faceplate inserts to
certified aircraft owners and/or avionics shops.
If you have any insights or comments into this problem please let me know.
Thanks.
Wayne Cahoon
Aircraft Engravers
(860) 653-2780
(860) 653-7324 Fax
http://www.engravers.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ionics-List:I need Help against possible FAA action |
It seems to me that the FAA is not the real problem. The real problem is
you feeble attempt to use the list to advertise your product. Nice try.
Al young
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ionics-List:I need Help against possible FAA action |
Mr Bainbridge (sp?) of B&C specialties (IIRC) had an issue similar to this a couple
of years ago.
Now there's a regular full page on his problem and resolution in the EAA magazine(s).
IIRC, EAA brought his issue in public forum to the FAA director @ Oshkosh
one year and she fixed it. It wasn't the manufacture but the use which was
the real issue......sounds familiar.
Good luck!
-----Original Message-----
From: "Wayne @ Aircraft Engravers" <wayne(at)engravers.net>
Subject: Avionics-List:I need Help against possible FAA action
Can anyone help me?
The FAA has gotten an anonymous complaint that my company Aircraft
Engravers is making aircraft parts illegally. Specifically our faceplate
inserts for the older avionics such as the KX-170B's. We do not make the
actual faceplate itself, just the inserts that fit into the old faceplate.
As many of you have used the older avionics before, you know that many
times the text is worn away on the older/heavily used units. So we came up
with these inserts to correct the problem of illegible text. The inserts
are made from plastic and are .020" to .032" thick depending on the radio
which get inserted into or lay on top of the original factory faceplate.
A before and after picture can be viewed at
http://www.engravers.net/aircraft/fp_inserts.htm and a list of the
different faceplates types we make at
http://www.engravers.net/aircraft/fp_list.htm.
The FAA wants to classify us as an Unapproved Parts Manufacturer of
aircraft parts. We contest that the inserts that we make are not original
parts and never claimed that they are. We state in our installation
directions, "Have this insert installed by an avionics shop if you do not
have all the proper tools, are not a qualified technician or are not sure
you are capable of doing this job".
ALL of our faceplate inserts are backed by our 100% satisfaction guarantee
that each and every faceplate will fit properly and give your radio a nice
finished look or your money back.
The FAA should let us continue to make and sell these faceplate inserts to
certified aircraft owners and/or avionics shops.
If you have any insights or comments into this problem please let me know.
Thanks.
Wayne Cahoon
Aircraft Engravers
(860) 653-2780
(860) 653-7324 Fax
http://www.engravers.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Mucker" <matthew(at)mucker.net> |
| Subject: | ionics-List:I need Help against possible FAA action |
Wayne,
You need a lawyer. Free legal advice from folks you meet on the internet is
worth less than what you pay for it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Jensen <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
| Subject: | ionics-List:I need Help against possible FAA action |
I'm blind and I could see through that one!
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Al Young
Subject: Re: Avionics-List:I need Help against possible FAA action
It seems to me that the FAA is not the real problem. The real problem is
you feeble attempt to use the list to advertise your product. Nice try.
Al young
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "N5522F" <lindbergh(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | ionics-List:I need Help against possible FAA action |
You might make it clear to your prospective customers that your parts don't
meet any FAA standards (TSO, PMA, whatever).
You might also say they're for use in experimental aircraft only, and that
the buyer and the installing mechanic must deterimine how to legally use
them in a certificated aircraft.
It seems to me that no one can stop you from making and selling the parts
you're making, nor can the FAA take action against you, as long as you don't
misrepresent the parts to the market.
(I gotta say it: Something doesn't seem right here. If I were more cynical,
I'd say your post is actually a disguised effort to advertise and promote
your products, that FAA action against you isn't imminent as you contend.)
--Mike Truffer
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ralph E.
Capen
Subject: Re: Avionics-List:I need Help against possible FAA action
Mr Bainbridge (sp?) of B&C specialties (IIRC) had an issue similar to this a
couple of years ago.
Now there's a regular full page on his problem and resolution in the EAA
magazine(s). IIRC, EAA brought his issue in public forum to the FAA
director @ Oshkosh one year and she fixed it. It wasn't the manufacture but
the use which was the real issue......sounds familiar.
Good luck!
-----Original Message-----
From: "Wayne @ Aircraft Engravers" <wayne(at)engravers.net>
Subject: Avionics-List:I need Help against possible FAA action
Can anyone help me?
The FAA has gotten an anonymous complaint that my company Aircraft
Engravers is making aircraft parts illegally. Specifically our faceplate
inserts for the older avionics such as the KX-170B's. We do not make the
actual faceplate itself, just the inserts that fit into the old faceplate.
As many of you have used the older avionics before, you know that many
times the text is worn away on the older/heavily used units. So we came up
with these inserts to correct the problem of illegible text. The inserts
are made from plastic and are .020" to .032" thick depending on the radio
which get inserted into or lay on top of the original factory faceplate.
A before and after picture can be viewed at
http://www.engravers.net/aircraft/fp_inserts.htm and a list of the
different faceplates types we make at
http://www.engravers.net/aircraft/fp_list.htm.
The FAA wants to classify us as an Unapproved Parts Manufacturer of
aircraft parts. We contest that the inserts that we make are not original
parts and never claimed that they are. We state in our installation
directions, "Have this insert installed by an avionics shop if you do not
have all the proper tools, are not a qualified technician or are not sure
you are capable of doing this job".
ALL of our faceplate inserts are backed by our 100% satisfaction guarantee
that each and every faceplate will fit properly and give your radio a nice
finished look or your money back.
The FAA should let us continue to make and sell these faceplate inserts to
certified aircraft owners and/or avionics shops.
If you have any insights or comments into this problem please let me know.
Thanks.
Wayne Cahoon
Aircraft Engravers
(860) 653-2780
(860) 653-7324 Fax
http://www.engravers.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Jensen <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Well, not really for sale, but I have an idea I'll give away.
Builders and tinkers (I know--that's repetitive) are always buying things,
which means they also have things to sell. Builders, trying to unload good
'stuff', is denigrated to sheepish posts to the List, mentioning they have a
few odd items for anyone interested. Of course, there are a few brazen ones
that make no attempt to respect the prohibition against commercialism on the
list; a few make half hearted attempts to camouflage their efforts, but fool
no one. Nonetheless, I've seen few people that resent being exposed to a
good buy or a good product. Why should the willing sellers need to feel
ashamed to expose willing buyers to a good buy?
The solution? How about a separate 'For Sale' List where builder can
list/unload their surplus items, rather than have to make some lame
reference to Ebay. A separate list for 'Vendors' may even have merit.
There's a few products out there I'd like to know about that may not have
the exposure of a Garmin and King, et al. The feedback the vendors would
face on the list would keep them pretty honest and help all of us sort out
the good from the bad.
Probably been tried, and abandoned already, but its worth a thought. No?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Wayne @
Aircraft Engravers
Subject: Avionics-List:I need Help against possible FAA action
Can anyone help me?
The FAA has gotten an anonymous complaint that my company Aircraft
Engravers is making aircraft parts illegally. Specifically our faceplate
inserts for the older avionics such as the KX-170B's. We do not make the
actual faceplate itself, just the inserts that fit into the old faceplate.
As many of you have used the older avionics before, you know that many
times the text is worn away on the older/heavily used units. So we came up
with these inserts to correct the problem of illegible text. The inserts
are made from plastic and are .020" to .032" thick depending on the radio
which get inserted into or lay on top of the original factory faceplate.
A before and after picture can be viewed at
http://www.engravers.net/aircraft/fp_inserts.htm and a list of the
different faceplates types we make at
http://www.engravers.net/aircraft/fp_list.htm.
The FAA wants to classify us as an Unapproved Parts Manufacturer of
aircraft parts. We contest that the inserts that we make are not original
parts and never claimed that they are. We state in our installation
directions, "Have this insert installed by an avionics shop if you do not
have all the proper tools, are not a qualified technician or are not sure
you are capable of doing this job".
ALL of our faceplate inserts are backed by our 100% satisfaction guarantee
that each and every faceplate will fit properly and give your radio a nice
finished look or your money back.
The FAA should let us continue to make and sell these faceplate inserts to
certified aircraft owners and/or avionics shops.
If you have any insights or comments into this problem please let me know.
Thanks.
Wayne Cahoon
Aircraft Engravers
(860) 653-2780
(860) 653-7324 Fax
http://www.engravers.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VHF Interference by Transponder |
Dave Dykhoff wrote:
>
> I'm getting serious interference on my VHF (KX-155) anytime my
> transponder (KX-76) issues a reply. If I go to standby on the
transponder
> it solves the problem.
> ...
It isn't likely RF interference, since the replies are only about 21
microseconds long, which wouldn't be audible at the reply rate typical
in flight. I had a similar problem with an AT-150, and the source was
noise coming in through the 14V supply to the audio panel. A filter
choke and capacitor on the 14V to the audio panel (a rather basic RST
kit) fixed it, along with some alternator whine, which actually was
the principal problem when using headphones.
What I think was happening is that every time it replied, a large,
noise-creating load is placed on the switching 1,500V pwr supply
inside the xponder, so that what was heard was an audio-frequency
whine for a brief time - about .3 second - needed to replenish its
big, high-voltage capacitor which supplies 250+W of xmit power. Since
yours is bad enough to make comm receive unintelligible, poor
grounding of the xponder or even the comm is a possible suspect. What
does the noise sound like?
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
| Subject: | ionics-List:I need Help against possible FAA action |
Lighten up. I think that Wayne is asking a question on a legitimate problem
to a group of people where someone may have a solution just like every other
question on this list. I can see how the FAA would do something like this
since the engraved panels could be considered non-approved parts of the
radio. My solution would be to look at the regs on placards since that is
what they really are. I don't think you need an approved part if you put an
engraved pre-takeoff placard on your panel, for instance.
As far as Wayne and Aircraft Engravers advertizing, if you look back through
the RV and avionics list archives you will see that Wayne occasionally
offers an engraved solution to someone's problem, but more often just gives
helpfull advice or comments. I do not know Wayne very well, but have had
him engrave several panels and placard for ship's bridge consoles at my day
job and can comment that he does top notch work, quickly, and at reasonable
prices. My boss came to me in a rant the first time I used them because he
has a friend with a local engraving business, but as soon as I showed him
the panels he shut up and told me to keep using them. Flame me if you will.
I am wearing my asbestos underwear.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Al Young
Subject: Re: Avionics-List:I need Help against possible FAA action
It seems to me that the FAA is not the real problem. The real problem is
you feeble attempt to use the list to advertise your product. Nice try.
Al young
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Slobovia Outernational BBQ 2 day warning |
We hope to see you here at Slobovia Outernational Saturday morning to
eat BBQ & talk airplanes. We expect to have a good turnout of homebuilts
& classics, with some alternative engines in the mix.
Info on Slobovia (MS71) can be found at
http://www.airnav.com/airport/MS71 or you can email me direct for
driving directions.
Charlie
flying RV-4; RV-7 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Smith" <cbsmith(at)nf.sympatico.ca> |
I just got my Icom IC-A200 (purchased new) radio hook-up in my homebuilt and tried
testing it while the airplane was still on the ground. I live in a fairly
remote area so I wasn't too surprised not to hear any audio chat So for a quick
check I tried listening in on 121.5 while tripping the ELT for a couple of
seconds and only received a low power signal. While trouble-shooting the problem
I tried disconnecting the antenna wire connector from the radio antenna during
the ELT test and to my surprise the signal became very strong with the antenna
disconnected ...? Now I'm suspecting the antenna which was bought new,
used once and removed and stored in my basement for 9 years. Is there an easy
way to check an antenna?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Clay Smith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna testing |
Yes the easy way is to use an amateur radio
2 metre band VSWR meter Problem is almost certainly to be in coax
terminations/connectors.
You could check these out before getting the VSWR meter with a simple ohm
meter but everone should have a VSWR meter available for trouble shooting
their antennas.
John Rippengal.
>
> .................................................
strong with the antenna disconnected ...? Now I'm suspecting the antenna
which was bought new, used once and removed and stored in my basement for 9
years. Is there an easy way to check an antenna?
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> Clay Smith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garth Shearing" <garth(at)islandnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna testing |
You probably already have an answer. However, if you don't have a VSWR
meter like most amateur radio types and avionics shops do, you can test with
a multimeter and find most faults. Assuming the fault is definitely in the
antenna, measure the dc resistance between the antenna connector and
ground - the shield part of the connector. This should read an open circuit
or very high resistance. This assumes that your antenna is the quarter-wave
type which they are almost always are. If the resistance is very low or a
short, there is probably a fault in the antenna connector or elsewhere in
the antenna. It may be very difficult to fix. If this is the case, get a
new antenna - duh! If the resistance does measure high to infinity, check
the resistance from the centre on the antenna connector to somewhere on the
antenna pole itself. You may have to scrape off some paint or insulation to
do this, but the antenna is probably no good anyway. If the resistance is
high, there is an open somewhere in the antenna between the connector centre
pin and the antenna itself. You have to get inside to find the open and
solder/silver solder it.
These faults are extremely rare, though. Have fun.
Garth Shearing
VariEze and 90% RV6A
Victoria BC Canada
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clay Smith" <cbsmith(at)nf.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Avionics-List: Antenna testing
>
> I just got my Icom IC-A200 (purchased new) radio hook-up in my homebuilt
and tried testing it while the airplane was still on the ground. I live in
a fairly remote area so I wasn't too surprised not to hear any audio chat
So for a quick check I tried listening in on 121.5 while tripping the ELT
for a couple of seconds and only received a low power signal. While
trouble-shooting the problem I tried disconnecting the antenna wire
connector from the radio antenna during the ELT test and to my surprise the
signal became very strong with the antenna disconnected ...? Now I'm
suspecting the antenna which was bought new, used once and removed and
stored in my basement for 9 years. Is there an easy way to check an
antenna?
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> Clay Smith
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C starter |
the lights go out..
You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You get a
big inductive spike when ou do that.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Matt
Luthi
Subject: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C starter the lights
go out..
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Luthi"
I just connected my new B&C starter motor to the electrical system and
tested it without the flywheel installed. When I engage the starter motor
all my gadgets (GRT EFIS, EIS, Skymap IIIc GPS) don't like this very much
and reboot. It looks to me as if the bus voltage drops too much for them to
keep running. This is only just for the moment when I engage the starter. I
kept it running while it ran all the electronic gizmos come up again fine.
1. I have a new Odyseey PC680 battery, charged, indicating 12.8V
2. The EFIS and EIS are always on when the master switch is engaged (no
avionics master)
3. I followed the "all electric aircraft on a budget" approach religiously.
Questions:
1. Is this "normal" behaivour?
2. I have dual Lightspeed ignition without a backup battery - I have the
SD-8 PM Standby Alternator for redundancy but now after I have read the
posts about the "kickback" problem experienced on EI systems during cranking
and resulting low voltage I am not so sure that this is a good setup for my
starter motor. Should I wire a backup battery with a diode to one of the LSE
units?
d entirely through the Contributions
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ECLarsen81(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C starter |
the...
Adding a W31 (P&B) series toggle breaker as an avionics master switch would
keep you well within your budget, about $16 from Spruce. Lots cheaper than
avionics repairs.
Ed Larsen
Ypsi, MI
In a message dated 10/18/2004 7:29:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
brian.kraut(at)engalt.com writes:
You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You get a
big inductive spike when ou do that.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Matt
Luthi
Subject: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C starter the lights
go out..
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Luthi"
I just connected my new B&C starter motor to the electrical system and
tested it without the flywheel installed. When I engage the starter motor
all my gadgets (GRT EFIS, EIS, Skymap IIIc GPS) don't like this very much
and reboot. It looks to me as if the bus voltage drops too much for them to
keep running. This is only just for the moment when I engage the starter. I
kept it running while it ran all the electronic gizmos come up again fine.
1. I have a new Odyseey PC680 battery, charged, indicating 12.8V
2. The EFIS and EIS are always on when the master switch is engaged (no
avionics master)
3. I followed the "all electric aircraft on a budget" approach religiously.
Questions:
1. Is this "normal" behaivour?
2. I have dual Lightspeed ignition without a backup battery - I have the
SD-8 PM Standby Alternator for redundancy but now after I have read the
posts about the "kickback" problem experienced on EI systems during cranking
and resulting low voltage I am not so sure that this is a good setup for my
starter motor. Should I wire a backup battery with a diode to one of the LSE
units?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Arnold de Brie" <betergebit(at)wanadoo.nl> |
Listers
I have recovered from my damaged Lancair one Narco MK12D+ with indicator and
the 150 transponder
Anyone interested contact me off list
Arnold de Brie
The Netherlands
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Jensen <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Always on avionics |
Isn't the admonishment, to never start the plane with the electronics turned
on, contrary to the threads that hold that the new electronics are pretty
impervious to the spikes associated with startup, or did I miss something?
Or just a difference of opinion?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Kraut
Subject: Always on avionics
You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You get a
big inductive spike when ou do that.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Matt
Luthi
Subject: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C starter the lights
go out..
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Luthi"
I just connected my new B&C starter motor to the electrical system and
tested it without the flywheel installed. When I engage the starter motor
all my gadgets (GRT EFIS, EIS, Skymap IIIc GPS) don't like this very much
and reboot. It looks to me as if the bus voltage drops too much for them to
keep running. This is only just for the moment when I engage the starter. I
kept it running while it ran all the electronic gizmos come up again fine.
1. I have a new Odyseey PC680 battery, charged, indicating 12.8V
2. The EFIS and EIS are always on when the master switch is engaged (no
avionics master)
3. I followed the "all electric aircraft on a budget" approach religiously.
Questions:
1. Is this "normal" behaivour?
2. I have dual Lightspeed ignition without a backup battery - I have the
SD-8 PM Standby Alternator for redundancy but now after I have read the
posts about the "kickback" problem experienced on EI systems during cranking
and resulting low voltage I am not so sure that this is a good setup for my
starter motor. Should I wire a backup battery with a diode to one of the LSE
units?
d entirely through the Contributions
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Always on avionics |
I idiotproofed (no guessing) my electronics by wiring a 30-40 amp ice cube
relay in paralell with the starter relay. I used the NC contacts so that
when I start the engine all the electronics are DISCONNECTED. If you
accidentally hit the start switch with the engine running this will really
save your wallet !
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Subject: Avionics-List: RE: Always on avionics
>
> Isn't the admonishment, to never start the plane with the electronics
turned
> on, contrary to the threads that hold that the new electronics are pretty
> impervious to the spikes associated with startup, or did I miss something?
> Or just a difference of opinion?
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
> Kraut
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Always on avionics
>
>
>
> You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You get
a
> big inductive spike when ou do that.
>
> Brian Kraut
> Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
> www.engalt.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Matt
> Luthi
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C starter the lights
> go out..
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Luthi"
>
>
> I just connected my new B&C starter motor to the electrical system and
> tested it without the flywheel installed. When I engage the starter motor
> all my gadgets (GRT EFIS, EIS, Skymap IIIc GPS) don't like this very much
> and reboot. It looks to me as if the bus voltage drops too much for them
to
> keep running. This is only just for the moment when I engage the starter.
I
> kept it running while it ran all the electronic gizmos come up again fine.
>
> 1. I have a new Odyseey PC680 battery, charged, indicating 12.8V
> 2. The EFIS and EIS are always on when the master switch is engaged (no
> avionics master)
> 3. I followed the "all electric aircraft on a budget" approach
religiously.
>
> Questions:
> 1. Is this "normal" behaivour?
> 2. I have dual Lightspeed ignition without a backup battery - I have the
> SD-8 PM Standby Alternator for redundancy but now after I have read the
> posts about the "kickback" problem experienced on EI systems during
cranking
> and resulting low voltage I am not so sure that this is a good setup for
my
> starter motor. Should I wire a backup battery with a diode to one of the
LSE
> units?
>
>
> d entirely through the Contributions
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Trampas" <tstern(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Always on avionics |
You guys know that the electronics can be designed such that they operate
while starting the engine.
Regards,
Trampas
www.sterntech.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Leo J.
Corbalis
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RE: Always on avionics
I idiotproofed (no guessing) my electronics by wiring a 30-40 amp ice cube
relay in paralell with the starter relay. I used the NC contacts so that
when I start the engine all the electronics are DISCONNECTED. If you
accidentally hit the start switch with the engine running this will really
save your wallet !
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Subject: Avionics-List: RE: Always on avionics
>
> Isn't the admonishment, to never start the plane with the electronics
turned
> on, contrary to the threads that hold that the new electronics are pretty
> impervious to the spikes associated with startup, or did I miss something?
> Or just a difference of opinion?
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
> Kraut
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Always on avionics
>
>
>
> You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You get
a
> big inductive spike when ou do that.
>
> Brian Kraut
> Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
> www.engalt.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Matt
> Luthi
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C starter the lights
> go out..
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Luthi"
>
>
> I just connected my new B&C starter motor to the electrical system and
> tested it without the flywheel installed. When I engage the starter motor
> all my gadgets (GRT EFIS, EIS, Skymap IIIc GPS) don't like this very much
> and reboot. It looks to me as if the bus voltage drops too much for them
to
> keep running. This is only just for the moment when I engage the starter.
I
> kept it running while it ran all the electronic gizmos come up again fine.
>
> 1. I have a new Odyseey PC680 battery, charged, indicating 12.8V
> 2. The EFIS and EIS are always on when the master switch is engaged (no
> avionics master)
> 3. I followed the "all electric aircraft on a budget" approach
religiously.
>
> Questions:
> 1. Is this "normal" behaivour?
> 2. I have dual Lightspeed ignition without a backup battery - I have the
> SD-8 PM Standby Alternator for redundancy but now after I have read the
> posts about the "kickback" problem experienced on EI systems during
cranking
> and resulting low voltage I am not so sure that this is a good setup for
my
> starter motor. Should I wire a backup battery with a diode to one of the
LSE
> units?
>
>
> d entirely through the Contributions
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Always on avionics |
True enough but the only thing that slightly worries me is that I notice
that all modern autos
switch off the radios when starting. Are they being over-cautious?
John Rippengal
>
> You guys know that the electronics can be designed such that they operate
> while starting the engine.
>
> Regards,
> Trampas
> www.sterntech.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Always on avionics |
There's only one ACCESSORY circuit on a car and some of the loads on it are
substancial. I believe the accessories are swithced off to reduce the load
on the battery in the START mode.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Trampas" <tstern(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Always on avionics |
I think that is a hold over from the 60's... Look at it this way, they do
not turn off the computer when starting...
Regards,
Trampas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Rippengal
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RE: Always on avionics
True enough but the only thing that slightly worries me is that I notice
that all modern autos
switch off the radios when starting. Are they being over-cautious?
John Rippengal
>
> You guys know that the electronics can be designed such that they operate
> while starting the engine.
>
> Regards,
> Trampas
> www.sterntech.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Always on avionics |
Hi All-
Without wanting to stir the pot too much, I'd like to offer a different
perspective on these issues. Altho avionics CAN be spikeproofed, and some
MAY be, and whatever the heck SHOULD be, I can tell you definitively that
both of my non-certified units and one certified unit recommend against
starting the engine with them turned on, one certified unit says nothing on
the subject, and three certified units say "warrantee void". Makes it
simple for me...
As to idiot proofing, my set up uses parallel busses. The gear on the bus
that DOESN'T carry the cranking loads is, of course, just fine. The bus
that DOES carry the cranking loads has 2 particularly susceptible units -
the stby EFIS and one EI unit. I have wired my starter switch through the
IGN and STBY EFIS toggle switches such that if the stby EFIS or IGN 1 are
on, there is no power to the starter switch. Simple, clean, and minimal
parts count. Meets the KISS requirement for operations, thereby
protecting me (and my avionics) from myself.
YMMV
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
> Isn't the admonishment, to never start the plane with the electronics
turned
> on, contrary to the threads that hold that the new electronics are pretty
> impervious to the spikes associated with startup, or did I miss something?
> Or just a difference of opinion?
>
>
> You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You
get a
> big inductive spike when ou do that.
>
> I idiotproofed (no guessing) my electronics by wiring a 30-40 amp ice cube
> relay in paralell with the starter relay. I used the NC contacts so that
> when I start the engine all the electronics are DISCONNECTED. If you
> accidentally hit the start switch with the engine running this will really
> save your wallet !
> Leo Corbalis
>
>
> You guys know that the electronics can be designed such that they operate
> while starting the engine.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Always on avionics |
Fair enough. I'm sure there is no likely transient that can't be contained
these days.
John
>
> I think that is a hold over from the 60's... Look at it this way, they do
> not turn off the computer when starting...
>
> Regards,
> Trampas
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Always on avionics |
| From: | Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
All? I have a 2001 Saab 95, and the radios stay on
once you put the key in until you pull it out.
wrote:
>
>
> True enough but the only thing that slightly worries me is that I notice
> that all modern autos
> switch off the radios when starting. Are they being over-cautious?
> John Rippengal
>
>
>>
>> You guys know that the electronics can be designed such that they
>> operate
>> while starting the engine.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Trampas
>> www.sterntech.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Smith" <cbsmith(at)nf.sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 10/18/04 |
Should all antenna/coax cable connectors be silver soldered?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Avionics-List Digest Server" <avionics-list-digest(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Avionics-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 10/18/04
> *
>
> ==================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> ==================================================
>
> Today's complete Avionics-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the Avionics-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/avionics-list/Digest.Avionics-List.2004-10-18.html
>
> Text Version:
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/avionics-list/Digest.Avionics-List.2004-10-18.txt
>
>
> ================================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ================================================
>
>
> Avionics-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Mon 10/18/04: 3
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 11:31 AM - Re: Antenna testing (Garth Shearing)
> 2. 04:28 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C starter
the lights go out.. (Brian Kraut)
> 3. 09:20 PM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C
starter the... (ECLarsen81(at)aol.com)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Garth Shearing" <garth(at)islandnet.com>
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Antenna testing
>
>
> You probably already have an answer. However, if you don't have a VSWR
> meter like most amateur radio types and avionics shops do, you can test
with
> a multimeter and find most faults. Assuming the fault is definitely in
the
> antenna, measure the dc resistance between the antenna connector and
> ground - the shield part of the connector. This should read an open
circuit
> or very high resistance. This assumes that your antenna is the
quarter-wave
> type which they are almost always are. If the resistance is very low or a
> short, there is probably a fault in the antenna connector or elsewhere in
> the antenna. It may be very difficult to fix. If this is the case, get a
> new antenna - duh! If the resistance does measure high to infinity, check
> the resistance from the centre on the antenna connector to somewhere on
the
> antenna pole itself. You may have to scrape off some paint or insulation
to
> do this, but the antenna is probably no good anyway. If the resistance is
> high, there is an open somewhere in the antenna between the connector
centre
> pin and the antenna itself. You have to get inside to find the open and
> solder/silver solder it.
>
> These faults are extremely rare, though. Have fun.
>
> Garth Shearing
> VariEze and 90% RV6A
> Victoria BC Canada
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clay Smith" <cbsmith(at)nf.sympatico.ca>
> Subject: Avionics-List: Antenna testing
>
>
>
> >
> > I just got my Icom IC-A200 (purchased new) radio hook-up in my homebuilt
> and tried testing it while the airplane was still on the ground. I live
in
> a fairly remote area so I wasn't too surprised not to hear any audio chat
> So for a quick check I tried listening in on 121.5 while tripping the ELT
> for a couple of seconds and only received a low power signal. While
> trouble-shooting the problem I tried disconnecting the antenna wire
> connector from the radio antenna during the ELT test and to my surprise
the
> signal became very strong with the antenna disconnected ...? Now I'm
> suspecting the antenna which was bought new, used once and removed and
> stored in my basement for 9 years. Is there an easy way to check an
> antenna?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any help.
> >
> > Clay Smith
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com>
> Subject: Avionics-List: RE: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C
starter
> the lights go out..
>
>
> You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You get
a
> big inductive spike when ou do that.
>
> Brian Kraut
> Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
> www.engalt.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Matt
> Luthi
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C starter the lights
> go out..
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Luthi"
>
>
> I just connected my new B&C starter motor to the electrical system and
> tested it without the flywheel installed. When I engage the starter motor
> all my gadgets (GRT EFIS, EIS, Skymap IIIc GPS) don't like this very much
> and reboot. It looks to me as if the bus voltage drops too much for them
to
> keep running. This is only just for the moment when I engage the starter.
I
> kept it running while it ran all the electronic gizmos come up again fine.
>
> 1. I have a new Odyseey PC680 battery, charged, indicating 12.8V
> 2. The EFIS and EIS are always on when the master switch is engaged (no
> avionics master)
> 3. I followed the "all electric aircraft on a budget" approach
religiously.
>
> Questions:
> 1. Is this "normal" behaivour?
> 2. I have dual Lightspeed ignition without a backup battery - I have the
> SD-8 PM Standby Alternator for redundancy but now after I have read the
> posts about the "kickback" problem experienced on EI systems during
cranking
> and resulting low voltage I am not so sure that this is a good setup for
my
> starter motor. Should I wire a backup battery with a diode to one of the
LSE
> units?
>
>
> d entirely through the Contributions
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: ECLarsen81(at)aol.com
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RE: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C
starter
> the...
>
>
> Adding a W31 (P&B) series toggle breaker as an avionics master switch
would
> keep you well within your budget, about $16 from Spruce. Lots cheaper than
> avionics repairs.
> Ed Larsen
> Ypsi, MI
>
> In a message dated 10/18/2004 7:29:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> brian.kraut(at)engalt.com writes:
>
> You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You get
a
> big inductive spike when ou do that.
>
> Brian Kraut
> Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
> www.engalt.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Matt
> Luthi
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C starter the lights
> go out..
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Luthi"
>
>
> I just connected my new B&C starter motor to the electrical system and
> tested it without the flywheel installed. When I engage the starter motor
> all my gadgets (GRT EFIS, EIS, Skymap IIIc GPS) don't like this very much
> and reboot. It looks to me as if the bus voltage drops too much for them
to
> keep running. This is only just for the moment when I engage the starter.
I
> kept it running while it ran all the electronic gizmos come up again fine.
>
> 1. I have a new Odyseey PC680 battery, charged, indicating 12.8V
> 2. The EFIS and EIS are always on when the master switch is engaged (no
> avionics master)
> 3. I followed the "all electric aircraft on a budget" approach
religiously.
>
> Questions:
> 1. Is this "normal" behaivour?
> 2. I have dual Lightspeed ignition without a backup battery - I have the
> SD-8 PM Standby Alternator for redundancy but now after I have read the
> posts about the "kickback" problem experienced on EI systems during
cranking
> and resulting low voltage I am not so sure that this is a good setup for
my
> starter motor. Should I wire a backup battery with a diode to one of the
LSE
> units?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | silver solder connectors |
On Oct 25, 2004, at 12:08 AM, Clay Smith wrote:
>
>
> Should all antenna/coax cable connectors be silver soldered?
No. Ordinary lead/tin solder is just fine. I prefer 64/37 "eutectic"
solder as it goes from liquid to solid without passing through the
plastic phase. This tends to result in better joints.
It is important to ensure that you moisture-proof all joints. Use
either weatherproof connectors (BNC and 'N' are supposed to be) or use
a sealant like Coax-Seal over the connector and coax.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: silver solder connectors |
On Oct 27, 2004, at 9:19 AM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2004, at 12:08 AM, Clay Smith wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Should all antenna/coax cable connectors be silver soldered?
>
> No. Ordinary lead/tin solder is just fine. I prefer 64/37 "eutectic"
That should read "63/37"
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 10/18/04 |
I would think that silver solder is not necessary and might even be a poor
idea as with the additional heat one could destroy the spacing between the
center and shield. I know that I destroyed (melted) enough of the dielectric
on a mag ground wire by just trying to solder a pig-tail ground on the
shield that the engine would not start. Ohm meter still said no connection
but the engine would not start until the shielded wire was replaced.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clay Smith" <cbsmith(at)nf.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 10/18/04
>
> Should all antenna/coax cable connectors be silver soldered?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Avionics-List Digest Server" <avionics-list-digest(at)matronics.com>
> To: "Avionics-List Digest List"
> Subject: Avionics-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 10/18/04
>
>
> > *
> >
> > ==================================================
> > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> > ==================================================
> >
> > Today's complete Avionics-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> > two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
formatted
> > in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> > and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> > of the Avionics-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> > such as Notepad or with a web browser.
> >
> > HTML Version:
> >
> >
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/avionics-list/Digest.Avionics-List.2004-10-18.html
> >
> > Text Version:
> >
> >
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/avionics-list/Digest.Avionics-List.2004-10-18.txt
> >
> >
> > ================================================
> > EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> > ================================================
> >
> >
> > Avionics-List Digest Archive
> > ---
> > Total Messages Posted Mon 10/18/04: 3
> >
> >
> > Today's Message Index:
> > ----------------------
> >
> > 1. 11:31 AM - Re: Antenna testing (Garth Shearing)
> > 2. 04:28 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C
starter
> the lights go out.. (Brian Kraut)
> > 3. 09:20 PM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C
> starter the... (ECLarsen81(at)aol.com)
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > From: "Garth Shearing" <garth(at)islandnet.com>
> > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Antenna testing
> >
>
> >
> > You probably already have an answer. However, if you don't have a VSWR
> > meter like most amateur radio types and avionics shops do, you can test
> with
> > a multimeter and find most faults. Assuming the fault is definitely in
> the
> > antenna, measure the dc resistance between the antenna connector and
> > ground - the shield part of the connector. This should read an open
> circuit
> > or very high resistance. This assumes that your antenna is the
> quarter-wave
> > type which they are almost always are. If the resistance is very low or
a
> > short, there is probably a fault in the antenna connector or elsewhere
in
> > the antenna. It may be very difficult to fix. If this is the case, get
a
> > new antenna - duh! If the resistance does measure high to infinity,
check
> > the resistance from the centre on the antenna connector to somewhere on
> the
> > antenna pole itself. You may have to scrape off some paint or
insulation
> to
> > do this, but the antenna is probably no good anyway. If the resistance
is
> > high, there is an open somewhere in the antenna between the connector
> centre
> > pin and the antenna itself. You have to get inside to find the open and
> > solder/silver solder it.
> >
> > These faults are extremely rare, though. Have fun.
> >
> > Garth Shearing
> > VariEze and 90% RV6A
> > Victoria BC Canada
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clay Smith" <cbsmith(at)nf.sympatico.ca>
> > Subject: Avionics-List: Antenna testing
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I just got my Icom IC-A200 (purchased new) radio hook-up in my
homebuilt
> > and tried testing it while the airplane was still on the ground. I live
> in
> > a fairly remote area so I wasn't too surprised not to hear any audio
chat
> > So for a quick check I tried listening in on 121.5 while tripping the
ELT
> > for a couple of seconds and only received a low power signal. While
> > trouble-shooting the problem I tried disconnecting the antenna wire
> > connector from the radio antenna during the ELT test and to my surprise
> the
> > signal became very strong with the antenna disconnected ...? Now I'm
> > suspecting the antenna which was bought new, used once and removed and
> > stored in my basement for 9 years. Is there an easy way to check an
> > antenna?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance for any help.
> > >
> > > Clay Smith
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 2
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > From: "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com>
> > Subject: Avionics-List: RE: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C
> starter
> > the lights go out..
> >
>
> >
> > You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You
get
> a
> > big inductive spike when ou do that.
> >
> > Brian Kraut
> > Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
> > www.engalt.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Matt
> > Luthi
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C starter the lights
> > go out..
> >
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Luthi"
>
> >
> >
> > I just connected my new B&C starter motor to the electrical system and
> > tested it without the flywheel installed. When I engage the starter
motor
> > all my gadgets (GRT EFIS, EIS, Skymap IIIc GPS) don't like this very
much
> > and reboot. It looks to me as if the bus voltage drops too much for them
> to
> > keep running. This is only just for the moment when I engage the
starter.
> I
> > kept it running while it ran all the electronic gizmos come up again
fine.
> >
> > 1. I have a new Odyseey PC680 battery, charged, indicating 12.8V
> > 2. The EFIS and EIS are always on when the master switch is engaged (no
> > avionics master)
> > 3. I followed the "all electric aircraft on a budget" approach
> religiously.
> >
> > Questions:
> > 1. Is this "normal" behaivour?
> > 2. I have dual Lightspeed ignition without a backup battery - I have the
> > SD-8 PM Standby Alternator for redundancy but now after I have read the
> > posts about the "kickback" problem experienced on EI systems during
> cranking
> > and resulting low voltage I am not so sure that this is a good setup for
> my
> > starter motor. Should I wire a backup battery with a diode to one of the
> LSE
> > units?
> >
> >
> > d entirely through the Contributions
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 3
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > From: ECLarsen81(at)aol.com
> > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RE: AeroElectric-List: when running my new
B&C
> starter
> > the...
> >
> >
> > Adding a W31 (P&B) series toggle breaker as an avionics master switch
> would
> > keep you well within your budget, about $16 from Spruce. Lots cheaper
than
> > avionics repairs.
> > Ed Larsen
> > Ypsi, MI
> >
> > In a message dated 10/18/2004 7:29:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > brian.kraut(at)engalt.com writes:
>
> >
> > You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You
get
> a
> > big inductive spike when ou do that.
> >
> > Brian Kraut
> > Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
> > www.engalt.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Matt
> > Luthi
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C starter the lights
> > go out..
> >
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Luthi"
>
> >
> >
> > I just connected my new B&C starter motor to the electrical system and
> > tested it without the flywheel installed. When I engage the starter
motor
> > all my gadgets (GRT EFIS, EIS, Skymap IIIc GPS) don't like this very
much
> > and reboot. It looks to me as if the bus voltage drops too much for them
> to
> > keep running. This is only just for the moment when I engage the
starter.
> I
> > kept it running while it ran all the electronic gizmos come up again
fine.
> >
> > 1. I have a new Odyseey PC680 battery, charged, indicating 12.8V
> > 2. The EFIS and EIS are always on when the master switch is engaged (no
> > avionics master)
> > 3. I followed the "all electric aircraft on a budget" approach
> religiously.
> >
> > Questions:
> > 1. Is this "normal" behaivour?
> > 2. I have dual Lightspeed ignition without a backup battery - I have the
> > SD-8 PM Standby Alternator for redundancy but now after I have read the
> > posts about the "kickback" problem experienced on EI systems during
> cranking
> > and resulting low voltage I am not so sure that this is a good setup for
> my
> > starter motor. Should I wire a backup battery with a diode to one of the
> LSE
> > units?
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Bienkowski <joeb47(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: silver solder connectors |
Hello,
Brian is CORRECT about the 63/37 eutectic solder. This is
the best solder for ALL electronic work as it is the LOWEST
melting point of ALL tin/lead solder joints!
Joe
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> No. Ordinary lead/tin solder is just fine. I prefer 64/37 "eutectic"
> solder as it goes from liquid to solid without passing through the
> plastic phase. This tends to result in better joints.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Smith" <cbsmith(at)nf.sympatico.ca> |
Should all antenna / coax cable connectors be silver soldered?
Thanks,
Clay
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
This came up this week and the answer is still NO!
Cy Galley - Chair,
AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
A Service Project of Chapter 75
EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clay Smith" <cbsmith(at)nf.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Avionics-List: Antenna
>
> Should all antenna / coax cable connectors be silver soldered?
>
> Thanks,
> Clay
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Oct 28, 2004, at 6:20 PM, Clay Smith wrote:
>
>
> Should all antenna / coax cable connectors be silver soldered?
No. Use 63/37 rosin-core solder.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | 2 Months ago...Radio Scream |
Larsen,Rippengal,Lloyd,Fillinger,Mcnutt,McAllister.....Thanks for all the
help. Problem seems to be resolved. Finally got all coax replaced along with
new connectors. Antenna and all other grounds checked. Radio's are
exceptionally quite and transmitt perfect.I'd have to believe the coax was
main cause.Thanks for the input.
Sincerely
Radio Scream
Robert Riegner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Riegner" <rade66(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | 2 Months ago...Radio Scream |
Larsen,Rippengal,Lloyd's,Fillinger,Mcnutt,McAllister.....Thanks for all the
help. Problem seems to be resolved. Finally got all coax replaced along with
new connectors. Antenna and all other grounds checked. Radio's are
exceptionally quite and transmitt perfect.I'd have to believe the coax was
main cause.Thanks for the input.
Sincerely
Radio Scream
Robert Riegner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 Months ago...Radio Scream |
On Oct 29, 2004, at 7:12 AM, Robert Riegner wrote:
>
> Larsen,Rippengal,Lloyd's,Fillinger,Mcnutt,McAllister.....Thanks for
> all the
> help. Problem seems to be resolved. Finally got all coax replaced
> along with
> new connectors. Antenna and all other grounds checked. Radio's are
> exceptionally quite and transmitt perfect.I'd have to believe the coax
> was
> main cause.Thanks for the input.
You are most welcome. Properly working radios are a joy.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Smith" <cbsmith(at)nf.sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 10/28/04 |
Sorry guys, I couldn't remember if I sent the message earlier this week ...
Thanks for the replies.
Clay
>
> This came up this week and the answer is still NO!
>
> Cy Galley - Chair,
> AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
> A Service Project of Chapter 75
> EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
> EAA Sport Pilot
>
cs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Bettmeng <shootin(at)altelco.net> |
I am contemplating my instrument panel. Looking at the books offered by
Builders Bookstore.
Would appreciate any recommendations. Leaning towards glass as much as
possible
on a Glastar.
thankx
rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
Contemplate night IFR and everything goes dark.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Bettmeng
Subject: Avionics-List: books
I am contemplating my instrument panel. Looking at the books offered by
Builders Bookstore.
Would appreciate any recommendations. Leaning towards glass as much as
possible
on a Glastar.
thankx
rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Nov 2, 2004, at 12:36 PM, Rick Bettmeng wrote:
>
>
> I am contemplating my instrument panel. Looking at the books offered
> by
> Builders Bookstore.
> Would appreciate any recommendations. Leaning towards glass as much as
> possible
> on a Glastar.
Start by getting the Aeroelectric Connection from Bob Nuckolls. It
covers a lot. After you figure out your electrical system you can
think about the avionics. Bob also runs a mailing list on this server.
Subscribe to aeroelectric.
> thankx
> rick
>
>
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pascal Gosselin <pascal(at)aeroteknic.com> |
| Subject: | King/Cessna connector identification request |
I'm trying to find a source for connectors of this type:
http://www.aircraftpanel.com/GM41-connector.jpg
This from a KI-203 but the type of connectors are also found on RT-328s
(different density/layout).
I know I can buy a King install kit, but I'm wondering if these can be
had from Newark/Digikey/Mouser. Part says GM-41M and I found a GM-41F lying
around at our shop but the female pin sizes are too small. No luck with
that part number anywhere.
-Pascal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pascal Gosselin <pascal(at)aeroteknic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: King/Cessna connector identification request |
At 14:30 2004-11-05, Pascal Gosselin wrote:
>
>
>I'm trying to find a source for connectors of this type:
>
>http://www.aircraftpanel.com/GM41-connector.jpg
To answer my own question:
http://www.winchesterelectronics.com/products/rp/mra.pdf
Actually I got a part number and manufacturer when I asked for one of
these from Southeast Aerospace. I'll be ordering it through them (not worth
the hassle to go elsewhere).
When was the last time you saw a Winchester Hard Drive ? They used
to rule the industry ! Times change... owned by Northrup Grumman now!
-Pascal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Massey" <TMASSEY22(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | SL-60 Data Update Question |
I have just bought a new IIMorrow/Apollo/Garmin SL-60 out of a display case, and
will need to update the database at some point. During the install, my avionics
shop installed a dataloader cable so that I could update from a laptop at
the aircraft. Calls to Garmin AT tech support for the update software manager
resulted in being told that the SL-60 must be removed from the airplane, put
in simulator mode, and fed through a Garmin-supplied data and power cable for
it to accept the update. The Operator's manual doesn't say anything about this,
and I am getting told by an owner through another forum that these things
can be loaded just fine while installed in the airplane. Simply looking for a
definitive answer and guidance.
Tom Massey
704.814.7761
tmassey22(at)carolina.rr.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SL-60 Data Update Question |
On Nov 18, 2004, at 8:31 AM, Tom Massey wrote:
>
>
> I have just bought a new IIMorrow/Apollo/Garmin SL-60 out of a display
> case, and will need to update the database at some point. During the
> install, my avionics shop installed a dataloader cable so that I could
> update from a laptop at the aircraft. Calls to Garmin AT tech support
> for the update software manager resulted in being told that the SL-60
> must be removed from the airplane, put in simulator mode, and fed
> through a Garmin-supplied data and power cable for it to accept the
> update. The Operator's manual doesn't say anything about this, and I
> am getting told by an owner through another forum that these things
> can be loaded just fine while installed in the airplane. Simply
> looking for a definitive answer and guidance.
As an owner of three SL-60s in three different aircraft over time, I
think I can comment.
Garmin AT told you almost right. It depends on how the connector in
the aircraft is wired. The SL-60 is placed into simulator mode by a
jumper between two pins on one of the connectors. (I believe you just
ground the "simulator" pin actually but I don't have the manual in
front of me.) This jumper is present in the cable they supply for
updating the database.
If you want to make it possible to update the database in the SL-60
while it is in the aircraft you will need to add a switch or figure
another way to connect the pins in order to place the radio in
simulator mode. I brought the pins out to unused pins on a DB-9
connector and wired up a special database update cable. When I plugged
in that cable it placed the radio in simulator mode so I could update
the database.
I would not install a switch as it might get thrown in flight. Making
it part of the cable makes more sense from a safety-of-flight point of
view.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: SL-60 Data Update Question |
I bought an SL-60 on eBay 4 months ago. The data base was from 1996. I
ordered the cables and software from Garmin and did the install on the bench.
It doesn't take long to remove the unit. I did have a hell-of-a-time getting
the software to load. It would load for about halfway through and then
quit. It took three tries.
By-the-way, The SL-60 is hooked up to an MX20.. I also have a Garmin 430
in my panel. They each have features I like. If the 430 would pick more
than 9 nearest airports/vors, I would like it more.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
| Subject: | Course Deviation Indicator. |
Folks,
I am looking for technical data for an Executive Instruments Inc ( Addison,
Texas if they still exist) Course Deviation indicator, Part No. 802100-06.
This was used as a deviation indicator on a Trimble TNL 2000 GPS fit, it's
a good unit that I would like to use, but it came without paperwork in a
bunch of stuff I bought.
Regards,
Bill Hamilton.
CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE
W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet Services
and Warbirds.Net. & .
This message is intended for and should only be used by the addressee. It
is confidential and may contain legally privileged information.If you are
not the intended recipient any use distribution,disclosure or copying of
this message is strictly prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege
attached to this communication are not waived or lost by reason of the
mistaken delivery to you.If you have received this message in error, please
notify us immediately to Australia 61 (0)408 876 526
Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ". ." <hogbacon(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Thommen Encoding Altimeter Pinout |
Anyone have the pinout connection details for the Thommen 3A67 encoding
altimeter (29 pin circular plug on back of altimeter)? My local avionics
shop doesn't and Thommen in Switzerland don't respond to emails or faxes.
I'd like to connect it to a Narco AT50A transponder (for which I do have the
pinouts).
http://search.msn.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Lister Comments - Please Support The Lists |
Dear Listers,
Wow! People have been including some very nice comments along with their
Contributions lately! I've included another set of below and will send
another set in a couple of days.
Guys, I really appreciate your kind words and support. In the last few
days, the contributions have really started to come in and its looking like
support this year may slightly surpass last year's. There's still a few
days left in this year's Fund Raiser, so if you've been waiting until the
last minute to make your Contribution, now's the time!
Make Your Contribution Today: http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
----------------- More of What Listers Are Saying... --------------------
Every morning 5:30 am, coffee and the "List". It's how I start my day.
Robert G.
The list is still my favorite aviation magazine.
Roger H.
Great resource, without the distraction of pop ups and ads!
Douglas D.
I look forward to my daily list reading almost as much as my coffee!
Hal K.
Great service!
Aaron G.
I have made some great friends, because of it!
Bob D.
Great resource!!
Richard S.
I learn something of value every time I read the messages.
Stan S.
Great list!
Thomas E.
Now that I am close to completion of my [homebuilt], I look back
and wonder how I could ever have made it this far without [the Lists].
Jeff O.
Outstanding site and administration.
Anthony S.
Great forum for our projects.
Darrel M.
I have become a List Addict!
George M.
A very helpful resource for me.
Dennis K.
Great for staying up on the latest.
Forrest L.
Valuable benefit for the users.
George A.
Great tool for all [builders].
Tony M.
Can't tell you how much I appreciate the archives.
Ken B.
I really enjoy the sharing of information and the "discussions" that come up.
Ross S.
[The List] reminds us home builders that help is just a few clicks away.
Danny W.
A great resource!
Christopher S.
Always a pleasure to support this list!
Richard W.
Thanks for helping all of us build better aircraft.
John P.
Great list(s)for data, info and making friends.
John S.
[The] List has helped me much with my building process.
Raimo T.
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=lxKQBLDG0jjJqLG/Xbln5PQkDbxLIAZmrvjVWNqrk6paJNyynPMmpISe0IlwBMT/dycKo4TqHEOUmXX7C3jlM+VslxRmiaDAg1jnB9GiOUKoBvUwJTAWvNrxhZUI5lo5z774FHRMGFAvy2a8XUctj+AvaHK5qjl/PE4/48NAbSs;
| From: | Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com> |
I have an SL70 xpdr in my RV-8. After 30 hours of TT, the display showing PA has
developed a problem. The digits occasionally dance around. It'll show 029
for example, but blink 034 very quickly. Any idea what might cause this? The
one time I asked ATC for a check, they verified an ident and accurate altitiude.
The Dynon is providing encoder info.
Thx.
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dancing SL70 PA |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Larry -
Dynon D-10 or D-10A? Thanks,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
D10.
I just came from the hanger where I looked at it again. It said 006, and
was jumping to 049, I think -- hard to tell it was changing so fast. When I
powered off the Dynon, the xpdr changed to "---", then back to the dancing
when it was powered back on.
I sent an email to Dynon asking for their opinion.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Schroeder [mailto:jschroeder(at)perigee.net]
> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 8:34 PM
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Dancing SL70 PA
>
> -->
>
> Larry -
>
> Dynon D-10 or D-10A? Thanks,
>
> John
>
>
> =========
> =========
> Matronics Forums.
> =========
> =========
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dancing SL70 PA |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
On the D-10 there are a lot of wires for the transponder interface. I'd
check the harness.
John
wrote:
>
> D10.
>
> I just came from the hanger where I looked at it again. It said 006, and
> was jumping to 049, I think -- hard to tell it was changing so fast.
> When I
> powered off the Dynon, the xpdr changed to "---", then back to the
> dancing
> when it was powered back on.
>
> I sent an email to Dynon asking for their opinion.
>
> -
> Larry Bowen
> Larry(at)BowenAero.com
> http://BowenAero.com
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Schroeder [mailto:jschroeder(at)perigee.net]
>> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 8:34 PM
>> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Dancing SL70 PA
>>
>> -->
>>
>> Larry -
>>
>> Dynon D-10 or D-10A? Thanks,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> =========
>> =========
>> Matronics Forums.
>> =========
>> =========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Dynon EFIS Firmware Update |
I don't know if all Dynon EFIS users got the word but there's a new
firmware load (version 1.10.00) for the D10 (and presumably another one
for the D10A) on Dynon's web site:
http://dynondevelopment.com/docs/EFIS_D10_downloads.html
Yesterday I gave 1.10.00 a try and I like it! I'm unable to give any
quantitative data because I was very busy with the aircraft (flying CAS
in support of friendly troops against the sovereign nation of New
Spudland :-), but IMO it's a "keeper". I very much like the new
solid-colored ball for the turn-and-slip indicator. The display felt
"crisper" (faster update rate?) and I experienced no "leans" or other
anomalies on the attitude indicator in spite of continuous high-G
maneuvering in the vicinity of the FEBA .
--
Joe
Long-EZ 821RP
Clarkston, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg.Puckett(at)united.com |
| Subject: | KA51B integral lighting? |
Hello,
Does anyone happen to know if the King KA51B Slaving Accessory has an
internal light that is supposed to illuminate the meter movement=3F
I just finished wiring my dimmers and while the back plate nomenclature
on the KA51 is lit beautifully the little meter is not lit at all.
Before I tear it apart to look for the grain of wheat I though maybe
someone here would know.
Thanks in advance,
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net> |
I ran accross this tonight while looking for DigiTrak prices.
http://www.rvtraining.com/html/new_products.html
Pretty interesting!
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Jensen <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Now, if they put an internal backup battery, good for approx. 1 hour ops
(ala Mid-Continent AI), they'd have quite the instrument there. Though an
external backup battery could be jiggered up to the same effect, an
all-in-one package would lower the parts count, less complexity.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Maureen &
Bob Christensen
Subject: Avionics-List: TruTrak ADI
I ran accross this tonight while looking for DigiTrak prices.
http://www.rvtraining.com/html/new_products.html
Pretty interesting!
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Pull type aircrat Circuit Breakers and other types.... |
Anyone familiar with the "insides" of the typical circuit breakers (CB) that we
use on our aircraft?
I am curious what the mechanism is that makes a CB go intermittent or bad, particularly
the low amperage units.
Also curious if "pulling" and resetting the breaker occasionally might be good
for it, by possible cleaning or re-setting any contact points inside. I have
never cut one apart and looked at the mechanism...especially the low current units.
Let's hear from the gurus.....
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pull type aircrat Circuit Breakers and other types.... |
David Lloyd wrote:
> Anyone familiar with the "insides" of the typical circuit breakers
(CB)
> I am curious what the mechanism is that makes a CB go intermittent
> or bad, particularly the low amperage units.
The # of cycles will be in the data sheet for pullable types. For
example, the P & B W-23 is 10,000 cycles, 6,000 at 100% of rated load.
Of course, not in their literature is anything about the "mechanism
that makes a CB go intermittent or bad, particularly the low amperage
units." Especially if you're referring to the kind you can't pull, is
this documented somewhere?
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net> |
| Subject: | TSO - vs NON-TSO |
I'm trying to decided whether to buy a TSOed Sensitive Altimeter or
NON-TSOed?
My concern is accuracy (obviously) and Pitot/Static System Checks.
Are NON-TSOed Altimeters accurate enough to pass the test?
Has anyone researched this issues?
I will be operating some IFR.
Thanks,
Bob Christensen
RV-8 Builder - SE Iowa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TSO - vs NON-TSO |
Hi Bob,
I used the Non TSO'd altimeter sold by Van's in my Europa and it passed the
pitot/static system check just fine.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim & Diane Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TSO - vs NON-TSO |
Bob,
Before I starting buying instruments I checked with the FAA, I was told
if it passes the pitot/ static tests it's OK for IFR flight.
Tim Shankland
Maureen & Bob Christensen wrote:
>
>
>I'm trying to decided whether to buy a TSOed Sensitive Altimeter or
>NON-TSOed?
>
>My concern is accuracy (obviously) and Pitot/Static System Checks.
>
>Are NON-TSOed Altimeters accurate enough to pass the test?
>
>Has anyone researched this issues?
>
>I will be operating some IFR.
>
>Thanks,
>Bob Christensen
>RV-8 Builder - SE Iowa
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ECLarsen81(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: TSO - vs NON-TSO |
In a message dated 12/20/2004 7:41:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tshank(at)megsinet.net writes:
>I'm trying to decided whether to buy a TSOed Sensitive Altimeter or
>NON-TSOed?
>
You would need TSO'd equipment if operating for transport or hire, as
defined by the reg's. Most equipment (non-TSO'd) is just as accurate and in some
cases are the same minus the NRC to certify and unit documentation costs.
my .02
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: TSO - vs NON-TSO |
Folks,
My reaction is: There is so little difference in price, and given that a
non TSO altimeter only meets unknown standards, why bother.
Think in terms of the cost of the altimeter as a percentage of the total
cost of the aircraft, then thing of all the ways you can get into trouble
with a miss-reading altimeter.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton.
At 06:46 21/12/2004, you wrote:
>
>
>
>I'm trying to decided whether to buy a TSOed Sensitive Altimeter or
>NON-TSOed?
>
>My concern is accuracy (obviously) and Pitot/Static System Checks.
>
>Are NON-TSOed Altimeters accurate enough to pass the test?
>
>Has anyone researched this issues?
>
>I will be operating some IFR.
>
>Thanks,
>Bob Christensen
>RV-8 Builder - SE Iowa
>
>
CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE
W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet Services
and Warbirds.Net. & .
This message is intended for and should only be used by the addressee. It
is confidential and may contain legally privileged information.If you are
not the intended recipient any use distribution,disclosure or copying of
this message is strictly prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege
attached to this communication are not waived or lost by reason of the
mistaken delivery to you.If you have received this message in error, please
notify us immediately to Australia 61 (0)408 876 526
Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim & Diane Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TSO - vs NON-TSO |
I'm not sure where you're buying your altimeter, but from Aircraft
Spruce the difference between a TSO ($409) and non TSO ($189) sensitive
altimeter is substantial to my budget.
Tim Shankland
W J R HAMILTON wrote:
>
>Folks,
>My reaction is: There is so little difference in price, and given that a
>non TSO altimeter only meets unknown standards, why bother.
>Think in terms of the cost of the altimeter as a percentage of the total
>cost of the aircraft, then thing of all the ways you can get into trouble
>with a miss-reading altimeter.
>Cheers,
>Bill Hamilton.
>
>
>At 06:46 21/12/2004, you wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>I'm trying to decided whether to buy a TSOed Sensitive Altimeter or
>>NON-TSOed?
>>
>>My concern is accuracy (obviously) and Pitot/Static System Checks.
>>
>>Are NON-TSOed Altimeters accurate enough to pass the test?
>>
>>Has anyone researched this issues?
>>
>>I will be operating some IFR.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Bob Christensen
>>RV-8 Builder - SE Iowa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE
>W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet Services
>and Warbirds.Net. & .
>This message is intended for and should only be used by the addressee. It
>is confidential and may contain legally privileged information.If you are
>not the intended recipient any use distribution,disclosure or copying of
>this message is strictly prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege
>attached to this communication are not waived or lost by reason of the
>mistaken delivery to you.If you have received this message in error, please
>notify us immediately to Australia 61 (0)408 876 526
>Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TSO - vs NON-TSO |
Tim & Diane Shankland wrote:
>
> I'm not sure where you're buying your altimeter, but from Aircraft
> Spruce the difference between a TSO ($409) and non TSO ($189)
sensitive
> altimeter is substantial to my budget.
>
I do tax and accounting for an FAA certificated instrument shop.
"NonTSO" has no more meaning for an altimeter than if they said
"contains no additives nor preservatives." If a mfr does not produce
a TSO'd version, it could be oriental junk. If they do (and who
does?), to produce a TSO and a nonTSO'd version of an altimeter costs
the same, if it's of the same design. If you're paying substantially
less, how can you be sure of what you're getting?
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N55XS <topglock(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TSO - vs NON-TSO |
Tim & Diane Shankland wrote:
>
>I'm not sure where you're buying your altimeter, but from Aircraft
>Spruce the difference between a TSO ($409) and non TSO ($189) sensitive
>altimeter is substantial to my budget.
>
>Tim Shankland
>
>W J R HAMILTON wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Folks,
>>My reaction is: There is so little difference in price, and given that a
>>non TSO altimeter only meets unknown standards, why bother.
>>Think in terms of the cost of the altimeter as a percentage of the total
>>cost of the aircraft, then thing of all the ways you can get into trouble
>>with a miss-reading altimeter.
>>Cheers,
>>Bill Hamilton.
>>
>>
>>At 06:46 21/12/2004, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm trying to decided whether to buy a TSOed Sensitive Altimeter or
>>>NON-TSOed?
>>>
>>>My concern is accuracy (obviously) and Pitot/Static System Checks.
>>>
>>>Are NON-TSOed Altimeters accurate enough to pass the test?
>>>
>>>Has anyone researched this issues?
>>>
>>>I will be operating some IFR.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Bob Christensen
>>>RV-8 Builder - SE Iowa
>>>
>
>
>
>
Tim,
I bought the $189 version from ACS. Very Very smooth movement and
accurate, as the actual test sheet shows no more that a 5 foot deviation
at altitude. As I live very close to the airport, I check the
barometric presssure that ATIS provides and set the Altimiter. The
resulting altitude comes up right, everytime. I plan to fly with it
taped to the dash so I can compare its performance to the TSO'd unit in
the plane. I have a feeling that it will do fine...
--
Jeff - A055
Primed the doors, avionics panel and windscreen surround, today...
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pull type aircrat Circuit Breakers and other types.... |
Yes, it is good to cycle the breakers periodically. Breaker designs can be
magnetic, heat operated, or electronic (Zlan or arc fault). Heat types
mechanically move a trip lever (bi-metal, hot wire, or melting solder) to
allow the spring to quickly open the contacts.
Zlan types actually have a power converter, and microprocessor inside to
think about what's going on and when to trip. They go against the old rule
of thumb to use fuses to protect equipment and breakers to protect wires.
Most low amperage aircraft breakers are of the hot wire type. They are more
expensive and fail more often because it's harder to design a device to use
a small current to physically move the trip lever. The contacts and other
parts still have to interrupt a fault current which can be up to 3500 amps.
Think of it this way: It's harder to find a small air leak than a big one.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TSO - vs NON-TSO |
Yes, non-TSO'd altimeters will pass the static test and are accurate enough
to match the blind encoder for the transponder check. The pitot isn't
connected to the altimeter. Non-TSO'd altimeters work fine for VFR/IFR
flight and are completely legal for flight under part 91.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TSO - vs NON-TSO |
>Folks,
>My reaction is: There is so little difference in price, and given that a
>non TSO altimeter only meets unknown standards, why bother.
>Think in terms of the cost of the altimeter as a percentage of the total
>cost of the aircraft, then thing of all the ways you can get into trouble
>with a miss-reading altimeter.
>Cheers,
>Bill Hamilton
A TSO is paperwork, not parts. Of course you need a TSO'd unit to fly under
part 135 in a T-34...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TSO - vs NON-TSO |
>I do tax and accounting for an FAA certificated instrument shop.
>"NonTSO" has no more meaning for an altimeter than if they said
>"contains no additives nor preservatives." If a mfr does not produce
>a TSO'd version, it could be oriental junk. If they do (and who
>does?), to produce a TSO and a nonTSO'd version of an altimeter costs
>the same, if it's of the same design. If you're paying substantially
>less, how can you be sure of what you're getting?
>
>Reg,
>Fred F
You could install it and have a certificated repair station test it, sort of
like the regs require. Do you believe that aviation alternator belts are of
better quality than automotive? The cost difference is a factor of 20 for
belts whose sole difference IMHO is the word "aircraft" rubber-stamped on
the expensive one.
It's quite possible to build a good-working copy of an altimeter in a
Chinese factory and sell it cheap if you don't spend millions certifying it
to the FAA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: TSO - vs NON-TSO |
In a message dated 12/22/04 1:54:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
topglock(at)cox.net writes:
> I plan to fly with it
> taped to the dash so I can compare its performance to the TSO'd unit in
> the plane. I have a feeling that it will do fine...
>
> --
> Jeff - A055
> Primed the doors, avionics panel and windscreen surround, today...
>
>
Jeff,
Do you plan to hook it into the static system of the altimeter you are
comparing it against? The cabin pressure could be many feet different than the
static pressure.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
N766DH (Flying since July)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
I think you really have to assess the risk between a TSO and a non TSO
instrument.
An engine gauge that is not accurate or a turn and bank instrument that is
off fifteen degrees under VFR conditions aren't vital problems. At today's
aircraft speeds, being at the correct altitude for the direction flown could
be a real problem. Doesn't mean the non TSO instrument may not be as good
but the standards are different and failure could come at any time. It may
be better to save the budget in some other area other than an altimeter..
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
TSO is only one way of about 5 to certify something for aircraft.
Is it necessary? No.
My Bellanca did NOT have any TSOed instrument or anything else until I
installed a transponder/encoder as TSOs were "invented" about the time of my
plane's manufacture.
I will compare my altimeter up against any TSOed one you wish. I know that
mine is better as it was made by a real instrument maker... C.G. Conn back
in 1944 for the Army Air Corp and certified to 30,000 ft. Unfortunately, it
can never be overhauled as it has a radium dial. On the other hand it still
works accurately 60 years later.
Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
Newsletter Editor-in-Chief & EAA TC
www.bellanca-championclub.com
Actively supporting Bellancas every day
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net>
Subject: Avionics-List: Choice
>
> I think you really have to assess the risk between a TSO and a non TSO
> instrument.
>
> An engine gauge that is not accurate or a turn and bank instrument that is
> off fifteen degrees under VFR conditions aren't vital problems. At
today's
> aircraft speeds, being at the correct altitude for the direction flown
could
> be a real problem. Doesn't mean the non TSO instrument may not be as good
> but the standards are different and failure could come at any time. It
may
> be better to save the budget in some other area other than an altimeter..
>
> Bob, Wichita
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
> Doesn't mean the non TSO instrument may not be as good
> but the standards are different and failure could come at any time.
> ....
> Bob, Wichita
>
There are no standards for nonTSO. It cannot be installed in a
production aircraft, unless it is FAA-approved by other means, such as
an STC.
Anyone can make an instrument and target only the homebuilt market,
plus scofflaws with production planes. It can be anything from junk
to a decent instrument.
I had to send back a new, nonapproved airspeed indicator (a UMA). The
thing read 6 MPH fast near the stall speed; OK at cruise.
Replacement.was still 2 MPH fast, both times verified by a shop. The
factory must have adjusted it before closing it up; they put the red
witness glop on the many adjuster screws. The usual instrument to do
this is a simple manometer, and it can't become inaccurate.
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
I don't know any way to assess the risk of TSO'd vs non-TSO'd altimeters. I
do know the regs don't require a TSO'd altimeter in your CJ/Yak and one can
therefore infer that the feds think the non-TSO'd altimeter is adequate.
The prices I've seen would let you buy two non-TSO'd altimeters and still be
a few bucks ahead of buying one TSO'd unit...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
Cool story.
Do you know of a good altimeter maker today?
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Choice
>
> TSO is only one way of about 5 to certify something for aircraft.
>
> Is it necessary? No.
>
> My Bellanca did NOT have any TSOed instrument or anything else until I
> installed a transponder/encoder as TSOs were "invented" about the time of
> my
> plane's manufacture.
>
> I will compare my altimeter up against any TSOed one you wish. I know that
> mine is better as it was made by a real instrument maker... C.G. Conn back
> in 1944 for the Army Air Corp and certified to 30,000 ft. Unfortunately,
> it
> can never be overhauled as it has a radium dial. On the other hand it
> still
> works accurately 60 years later.
>
> Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
> Newsletter Editor-in-Chief & EAA TC
> www.bellanca-championclub.com
> Actively supporting Bellancas every day
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: Avionics-List: Choice
>
>
>>
>> I think you really have to assess the risk between a TSO and a non TSO
>> instrument.
>>
>> An engine gauge that is not accurate or a turn and bank instrument that
>> is
>> off fifteen degrees under VFR conditions aren't vital problems. At
> today's
>> aircraft speeds, being at the correct altitude for the direction flown
> could
>> be a real problem. Doesn't mean the non TSO instrument may not be as
>> good
>> but the standards are different and failure could come at any time. It
> may
>> be better to save the budget in some other area other than an altimeter..
>>
>> Bob, Wichita
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
> I do know the regs don't require a TSO'd altimeter in your CJ/Yak
and one can
> therefore infer that the feds think the non-TSO'd altimeter is
adequate.
The installer can install anything he/she feels is an approved part,
approved by some means, and return it to service. You can't just put
any old part in there.
I have an old nonTSO altimeter downstairs made by a recognizable mfr,
but it says Cessna on the dial face and has a Cessna part #. A
replacement "Cessna" altimeter is legal; it' a Cessna part.
But if a foreign A/C with markings in Cyrillic and millibars, no
longer available, I think you can replace it only with a TSO'd
instrument.
The fuel sender in my plane is no longer made by Stewart Warner, and
it has the out-of-business, airframe mfr's official part#. There's
only one repair shop who overhauls these things, and they assess a
hefty tariff to do so. The distributor of them, who's also a repair
facility for this type A/C, says sorry, that's the only choice you
got. And as the supply of serviceable senders dwindles, the core
charge to this distributor when he ships you a replacement from stock
goes up into the flight levels. They need your old part, really,
really bad; there's no TSO for a fuel sender, so no alternative route
there.
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pull type aircrat Circuit Breakers and other types.... |
Ron,
Thanks for confirming that a little CB exercise is good for some breakers. I suspect
the low amperge DC units are the most sensitive to aging and other mysteries
that affect these criters.
Merry Christmas...
David
>
> From: "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com>
> Date: 2004/12/22 Wed AM 11:19:32 PST
> To:
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Pull type aircrat Circuit Breakers and other types....
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
It wasn't clear to me whether you were talking about the fuel sender for an
experimental or for a Cessna. If it's for the Cessna you would need a
sender on the original type certificate, or an STC'd sender, or a field
approval on a 337. If it's for an experimental, you can use anything you
think is safe for flight.
As to altimeters, you can install a non-TSO altimeter in any experimental
and in Cessna/Piper/Beech/etc if you are flying under part 91. If you
believe this is incorrect, please enlighten me by quoting the FAR number
that says you need a TSO when flying under part 91.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob White" <bob(at)whitek.com> |
I want to install a Garmin GNC 300XL. They mention 50 Ohm, but so far I've
missed finding the instructions on what coax to use to connect the intenna
to the black box. What parts are recommended for the antenna cable and the
connectors, which are BNC on both ends? Does anyone sell made-up cables, or
should one install the connectors oneself?
Thanks,
Bob White
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net> |
No doubt you can install Non-TSO'd Altimeters, etc.
The original question was/is will they pass a pitot/static system check
required for IFR? I've come to the conclusion . . . maybe but is it worth
worrying about for $200-300??
Thanks for all the responses!
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Choice
>
> It wasn't clear to me whether you were talking about the fuel sender for
an
> experimental or for a Cessna. If it's for the Cessna you would need a
> sender on the original type certificate, or an STC'd sender, or a field
> approval on a 337. If it's for an experimental, you can use anything you
> think is safe for flight.
>
> As to altimeters, you can install a non-TSO altimeter in any experimental
> and in Cessna/Piper/Beech/etc if you are flying under part 91. If you
> believe this is incorrect, please enlighten me by quoting the FAR number
> that says you need a TSO when flying under part 91.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net> |
| Subject: | Off/On/Mom Switch |
I'm looking for a switch that can control the electric fuel pump and primer
solenoid on a RV-8 from one switch . . . Off/On/Mom.
Can anyone tell me where to find on and what to ask for?
Thanks,
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
>
> It wasn't clear to me whether you were talking about the fuel sender
> for an experimental or for a Cessna. If it's for the Cessna you
would
> need a sender on the original type certificate, or an STC'd sender,
or
> a field approval on a 337. If it's for an experimental, you can use
> anything you think is safe for flight.
> ...
I fully agree with what all you wrote, and I was referring to
type-certificated airplanes, not experimental - amateur-built.
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Dec 23, 2004, at 2:20 PM, Fred Fillinger wrote:
> But if a foreign A/C with markings in Cyrillic and millibars, no
> longer available, I think you can replace it only with a TSO'd
> instrument.
>
> They need your old part, really,
> really bad; there's no TSO for a fuel sender, so no alternative route
> there.
I think you guys are confusing TSO with PMA. TSO is just the FAA 'Good
Housekeeping Seal'. It means that it is somehow better.
But parts can be FAA-approved without meeting any particular TSO. As
far as I know, the only place TSO in mentioned in the Regs is for
approval of a GPS for IFR enroute, terminal, or approach operations.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Dec 23, 2004, at 11:01 AM, Bob Gibfried wrote:
>
> I think you really have to assess the risk between a TSO and a non TSO
> instrument.
>
> An engine gauge that is not accurate or a turn and bank instrument
> that is
> off fifteen degrees under VFR conditions aren't vital problems. At
> today's
> aircraft speeds, being at the correct altitude for the direction flown
> could
> be a real problem. Doesn't mean the non TSO instrument may not be as
> good
> but the standards are different and failure could come at any time.
> It may
> be better to save the budget in some other area other than an
> altimeter..
That is why there is a pitot-static check. It determines whether the
altimeter and the rest of the pitot-static system meet specifications.
Since the altimeter must be tested in the aircraft adherence to TSO is
a moot point. You know it is safe and accurate because you have tested
it and you continue to test it.
The other side is that loss of altimeter accuracy is immediately
apparent before flight because you set the local barometric setting
into the kolsman window and then look to see if the altimeter shows the
correct altitude.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Radium dial (was: Choice) |
On Dec 23, 2004, at 11:46 AM, cgalley wrote:
> I will compare my altimeter up against any TSOed one you wish. I know
> that
> mine is better as it was made by a real instrument maker... C.G. Conn
> back
> in 1944 for the Army Air Corp and certified to 30,000 ft.
> Unfortunately, it
> can never be overhauled as it has a radium dial. On the other hand it
> still
> works accurately 60 years later.
Ha, I ran into the same problem. I had an instrument that I wanted
overhauled so I took it to my local instrument shop (the Gyro House in
Auburn, CA, USA). The guy took one look at it, turned around, and
returned with a Geiger counter. It screamed when he put it up to the
face of the instrument. He then explained to me that they could not
overhaul it and the disposal cost was astronomical as it is considered
nuclear waste. I kid you not. I still have that instrument but I have
no idea what I am ever going to do with it.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Jensen <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
| Subject: | Radium dial (was: Choice) |
Brian,
I may have a fix for you. I'll check with our shipping guys to see that its
okay. If it is, I'll buy it from you for $0.01, then we'll dispose of it
along with the rest of our nuclear waste. The shipping/disposal regs are a
little tricky for some of these materials, but given the limited quantity, I
suspect its not that big of a deal when we combine it with our regular
disposal shipments. Certainly, if you have a broker take care of it, it'll
be several hundred dollars--if you're lucky. If it works out, consider it
pay-back for some of your list contributions. You can contact me off-list.
Chuck
you wrote...
The guy took one look at it, turned around, and
returned with a Geiger counter. It screamed when he put it up to the
face of the instrument. He then explained to me that they could not
overhaul it and the disposal cost was astronomical as it is considered
nuclear waste. I kid you not. I still have that instrument but I have
no idea what I am ever going to do with it.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> ...
> But parts can be FAA-approved without meeting any particular TSO.
> As far as I know, the only place TSO in mentioned in the Regs is for
> approval of a GPS for IFR enroute, terminal, or approach operations.
"Must meet requirements of TSO" is in Part 91 for ELTs and
transponders. Doesn't have to be TSOd, but since a TSO is the easier
way to go for this kind of stuff, I believe in practice they all are.
I was talking to the avionics mgr of a fancy FBO, jet service and
stuff, where on display was a box to display Mode C being sent to ATC.
He said, I can sell it to you, but I can't install it. Really, why
not? It straps onto your altitude data lines, and it will "break" the
TSO of your transponder, which then violates Part 91 to fly. What if
I don't have a TSOd transponder? Yes you do. You can't even install
it in a homebuilt.
Then why do you sell them? We bought 'em first, then we asked FAA.
That's why they're on sale!
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Mucker" <matthew(at)mucker.net> |
| Subject: | Radium dial (was: Choice) |
Check and be sure if it really does need disposal as nuclear waste.
I trained as a medical technologist. Several hospital laboratory procedures
use radioactivity as a marker for various tests. Though the materials would
make a Geiger counter scream, the radiation level was so low that it was
legal to dispose of the waste as regular biohazard waste; no additional
precautions were necessary. FedEx even shipped this stuff (with a nice
scary warning label on the box, of course.)
I suspect Chuck would know more about this than I would, but don't get too
scared yet, Brian.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of Chuck Jensen
> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 9:41 AM
> To: 'avionics-list(at)matronics.com'
> Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Radium dial (was: Choice)
>
>
>
> Brian,
>
> I may have a fix for you. I'll check with our shipping guys
> to see that its
> okay. If it is, I'll buy it from you for $0.01, then we'll
> dispose of it
> along with the rest of our nuclear waste. The
> shipping/disposal regs are a
> little tricky for some of these materials, but given the
> limited quantity, I
> suspect its not that big of a deal when we combine it with our regular
> disposal shipments. Certainly, if you have a broker take
> care of it, it'll
> be several hundred dollars--if you're lucky. If it works
> out, consider it
> pay-back for some of your list contributions. You can
> contact me off-list.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> you wrote...
>
> The guy took one look at it, turned around, and
> returned with a Geiger counter. It screamed when he put it up to the
> face of the instrument. He then explained to me that they could not
> overhaul it and the disposal cost was astronomical as it is
> considered
> nuclear waste. I kid you not. I still have that instrument but I have
> no idea what I am ever going to do with it.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
> +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty
> things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
> =========
> =========
> =========
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> That is why there is a pitot-static check. It determines whether the
> altimeter and the rest of the pitot-static system meet
specifications.
That's certainly is some assurance, but I had a TSOd altimeter that
would intermittently stick right at 4,000, rather undesirable for IFR
in solid. Instrument shop said that's on the list of what can happen.
So, for serious IFR, the only question for me is the chance of a
altimeter maybe made in the Indonesia, though testing accurate...but
will never stick, or do anything else on that list. What happens when
the aneroid thingy springs a tiny leak?
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Off/On/Mom Switch |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Bob -
B&C has an S700-2-50 that may work. Off would be down, middle would be
boost pump on and mom. up would be primer and boost pump. See Bob
Nuckolls' Aeroelectric Connection for more details.
B&C: http://www.bandcspecialty.com/
John Schroeder
> I'm looking for a switch that can control the electric fuel pump and
> primer
> solenoid on a RV-8 from one switch . . . Off/On/Mom.
>
> Can anyone tell me where to find on and what to ask for?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
| Subject: | Radium dial (was: Choice) |
Bury it in the backyard for 300 years and it will be fine when your great,
great, great, great,.... grand kids dig it up.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Subject: Avionics-List: Radium dial (was: Choice)
On Dec 23, 2004, at 11:46 AM, cgalley wrote:
> I will compare my altimeter up against any TSOed one you wish. I know
> that
> mine is better as it was made by a real instrument maker... C.G. Conn
> back
> in 1944 for the Army Air Corp and certified to 30,000 ft.
> Unfortunately, it
> can never be overhauled as it has a radium dial. On the other hand it
> still
> works accurately 60 years later.
Ha, I ran into the same problem. I had an instrument that I wanted
overhauled so I took it to my local instrument shop (the Gyro House in
Auburn, CA, USA). The guy took one look at it, turned around, and
returned with a Geiger counter. It screamed when he put it up to the
face of the instrument. He then explained to me that they could not
overhaul it and the disposal cost was astronomical as it is considered
nuclear waste. I kid you not. I still have that instrument but I have
no idea what I am ever going to do with it.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Altimeters- TSO vs non TSO |
Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Fred Fillinger"
> ....skip....... It cannot be installed in a production aircraft, unless it
> is FAA-approved by other means, such as
> an STC.....skip.....
12/24/2004
Hello Fred, Your statement above regarding altimeters permitted to be
installed in "production aircraft" (I assume that you mean standard type
certificated aircraft) puzzles me.
I am aware that the FAA, by means of the FAR's, requires some instruments
and equipment in aircraft (both standard type certificated and amateur built
experimental) to be "approved" by some FAA approval process. I am also aware
that there are various ways that the FAA can grant approval for a piece of
equipment that is to be installed in an airplane. But there are also
instruments and equipment required to be in both those aircraft categories
that do not have to be FAA approved.
If one reads FAR Sec 91.205 carefully it identifies which items of required
equipment must be "approved" in order to be used in aircraft. Some examples
are: collision lights, safety belts, shoulder harness', ELT's (by reference
to FAR Sec 91.207), and position lights.**
Altimeters are not identified as one of the items that must be "approved" by
some FAA approval process in order to be installed in an aircraft.
My question to you is: What is the basis for your statement above? Thanks.
OC
**PS: I would like to point out again that since there are no certification
requirements for amateur built experimental aircraft that the FAA approval
process for some of these items used in those aircraft comes in the form of
the initial inspection and airworthiness approval of these aircraft.
PPS: One should also be aware that though FAR Sec 91.205 itself says that
the Section applies to "...civil aircraft with a standard category US
airworthiness certificate..." the Operating Limitations that are part of the
Special Airworthiness Certificate issued for each amateur built experimental
aircraft contains the words ".....In addition, this aircraft must be
operated in accordance with the applicable air traffic and general operating
rules of Part 91...........".
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
I believe springing a leak could happen to any altimeter TSOed or not, even
though I haven't had it happen. Would it be very obvious? What would be the
symptoms?
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Choice
>
> Brian Lloyd wrote:
> >
> > That is why there is a pitot-static check. It determines whether the
> > altimeter and the rest of the pitot-static system meet
> specifications.
>
> That's certainly is some assurance, but I had a TSOd altimeter that
> would intermittently stick right at 4,000, rather undesirable for IFR
> in solid. Instrument shop said that's on the list of what can happen.
>
> So, for serious IFR, the only question for me is the chance of a
> altimeter maybe made in the Indonesia, though testing accurate...but
> will never stick, or do anything else on that list. What happens when
> the aneroid thingy springs a tiny leak?
>
> Reg,
> Fred F.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Jensen <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
| Subject: | Radium dial (was: Choice) |
Great, great, great, great grand kids would still be at risk. Since the
half-life of radium is approx. 1,600 years, you might be okay 80 generations
from now. Because radium is primarily an alpha/beta emitter, its not really
a risk unless inhaled or ingested (such as the radium dial painters did when
they formed the paint brush to a very fine point on their tongue--mouth and
throat cancer). A few hundred years from now, the 'diggers' in your back
yard will probably be alright if they don't throw it in a trash fire, then
stand downwind. Of course, as long as they don't inhale.....well, that's
another story.
I know your comment was in jest, but we should take great care in disposing
of these type things (including smoke detectors--Americium). We are
spending billions cleaning up DOD and DOE sites because of bad practices a
few decades ago. Hopefully we're wiser and better-behaved nowadays.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Kraut
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Radium dial (was: Choice)
Bury it in the backyard for 300 years and it will be fine when your great,
great, great, great,.... grand kids dig it up.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Subject: Avionics-List: Radium dial (was: Choice)
On Dec 23, 2004, at 11:46 AM, cgalley wrote:
> I will compare my altimeter up against any TSOed one you wish. I know
> that
> mine is better as it was made by a real instrument maker... C.G. Conn
> back
> in 1944 for the Army Air Corp and certified to 30,000 ft.
> Unfortunately, it
> can never be overhauled as it has a radium dial. On the other hand it
> still
> works accurately 60 years later.
Ha, I ran into the same problem. I had an instrument that I wanted
overhauled so I took it to my local instrument shop (the Gyro House in
Auburn, CA, USA). The guy took one look at it, turned around, and
returned with a Geiger counter. It screamed when he put it up to the
face of the instrument. He then explained to me that they could not
overhaul it and the disposal cost was astronomical as it is considered
nuclear waste. I kid you not. I still have that instrument but I have
no idea what I am ever going to do with it.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: Radium dial (was: Choice) |
Just to be clear on this a half life of 1600 years doesn't mean it is not
radiating at all in 3200 years. In 1600 it's down to half, in 3200 it's down
to a quarter, 4800 to an eighth etc.
John Rippengal.
>
> Great, great, great, great grand kids would still be at risk. Since the
> half-life of radium is approx. 1,600 years, you might be okay 80
> generations
> from now. Because radium is primarily an alpha/beta emitter, its not
> really
> a risk unless inhaled or ingested (such as the radium dial painters did
> when
> they formed the paint brush to a very fine point on their tongue--mouth
> and
> throat cancer). A few hundred years from now, the 'diggers' in your back
> yard will probably be alright if they don't throw it in a trash fire, then
> stand downwind. Of course, as long as they don't inhale.....well, that's
> another story.
>
> I know your comment was in jest, but we should take great care in
> disposing
> of these type things (including smoke detectors--Americium). We are
> spending billions cleaning up DOD and DOE sites because of bad practices a
> few decades ago. Hopefully we're wiser and better-behaved nowadays.
>
> Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Altimeters- TSO vs non TSO |
> > ....skip....... It cannot be installed in a production aircraft,
unless it
> > is FAA-approved by other means, such as
> > an STC.....skip.....
> ...
> If one reads FAR Sec 91.205 carefully it identifies which items of
> required equipment must be "approved" in order to be used in
aircraft.
> to be installed in an aircraft.
> ...
> My question to you is: What is the basis for your statement above?
Thanks.
Think it works like this. Part 91 isn't the only rule for maintaining
type-certificated aircraft, but also Parts 21 and 43. These make it
clear it to me at least that only actual aircraft parts go into actual
airplanes. Take the silly example of a rusted cigarette lighter
socket. If the plane is still in production, profit motive will
dictate what they do. But if out-of-business, can they get one from
Auto Zone? Seems a better idea than getting a semi-rusted one from an
A/C salvage yard and try refurbishing it. One solution is just do it,
but it's not listed among the work done in the log.
However, an altimeter is not a trivial item, and the Regs forbid
anyone from making one and selling it as an aircraft part, except for
homebuilts and ultralights. If they sell a nonTSOd instrument but
with a PMA, maybe a shop might go with that, if it's not the specific
part the airframe mfr used. Is there such an animal out there? None
of the instruments I have, sold for homebuilt only, say PMA.
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radium dial (was: Choice) |
On Dec 24, 2004, at 9:55 AM, Matthew Mucker wrote:
>
>
> Check and be sure if it really does need disposal as nuclear waste.
>
> I trained as a medical technologist. Several hospital laboratory
> procedures
> use radioactivity as a marker for various tests. Though the materials
> would
> make a Geiger counter scream, the radiation level was so low that it
> was
> legal to dispose of the waste as regular biohazard waste; no additional
> precautions were necessary. FedEx even shipped this stuff (with a nice
> scary warning label on the box, of course.)
>
> I suspect Chuck would know more about this than I would, but don't get
> too
> scared yet, Brian.
Oh, I am not the least bit scared. In fact, I don't really care. I just
thought that the hoopla was funny.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Dec 24, 2004, at 10:09 AM, Fred Fillinger wrote:
>> That is why there is a pitot-static check. It determines whether the
>> altimeter and the rest of the pitot-static system meet
> specifications.
>
> That's certainly is some assurance, but I had a TSOd altimeter that
> would intermittently stick right at 4,000, rather undesirable for IFR
> in solid. Instrument shop said that's on the list of what can happen.
Things break. TSO is no guarantee that the thing won't break.
> So, for serious IFR, the only question for me is the chance of a
> altimeter maybe made in the Indonesia, though testing accurate...but
> will never stick, or do anything else on that list. What happens when
> the aneroid thingy springs a tiny leak?
It is broken and will no longer indicate altitude. You will need to
repair/replace it.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Dec 24, 2004, at 9:59 AM, Fred Fillinger wrote:
> I was talking to the avionics mgr of a fancy FBO, jet service and
> stuff, where on display was a box to display Mode C being sent to ATC.
> He said, I can sell it to you, but I can't install it. Really, why
> not? It straps onto your altitude data lines, and it will "break" the
> TSO of your transponder, which then violates Part 91 to fly.
Well, if the display unit is not approved and it requires permanent
installation you would need a field approval to install in in a
certified airplane. You would not for a homebuilt. That is what the
experimental designation is all about.
> What if
> I don't have a TSOd transponder? Yes you do. You can't even install
> it in a homebuilt.
I don't believe this is correct but I am not an aviation law specialist.
There are non-TSO'd transponders just as there are non-TSO'd nav-coms.
Both are legal in even certified aircraft. You can have approved
devices without having them meet TSO.
> Then why do you sell them? We bought 'em first, then we asked FAA.
> That's why they're on sale!
I find that surprisingly many radio shops do not fully understand the
rules and regs. It is best to take what they say with a grain of salt.
If they say yes, it is almost definitely OK. If they say no, you need
to do some research because it may still be OK.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim & Diane Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Off/On/Mom Switch |
Digikey.
Tim Shankland
Maureen & Bob Christensen wrote:
>
>I'm looking for a switch that can control the electric fuel pump and primer
>solenoid on a RV-8 from one switch . . . Off/On/Mom.
>
>Can anyone tell me where to find on and what to ask for?
>
>Thanks,
>Bob
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
> Things break. TSO is no guarantee that the thing won't break.
>
Sure. I can't tell whether you're disagreeing with my corollary to
that, such that if an altimeter is made from parts mfg'd in Taiwan and
assembled in Mexico, can one assume that it's as safe in IFR as a TSOd
instrument? Really not something to debate; a builder need be only as
conservative as he wishes.
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
>
> There are non-TSO'd transponders just as there are non-TSO'd
nav-coms.
I have FAA's list. The old Genave Beta 5000 in not TSO'd, nor is the
vacuum tube Narco AT6A. Both of these can be had off eBay for $20 or
less, since neither could possiblly be made servicable. The FAA
document even implies that transponders must be "Level 1 approval,"
which includes a TSO among other ways. Nav-comms are OK at lower
approval levels.
> > Then why do you sell them? We bought 'em first, then we asked
FAA.
> > That's why they're on sale!
>
> I find that surprisingly many radio shops do not fully understand
the
> rules and regs. It is best to take what they say with a grain of
salt.
> If they say yes, it is almost definitely OK. If they say no, you
need
> to do some research because it may still be OK.
Seems a purely interpretative issue; nothing to research. The input
impedance on this Mode C readout box is 1 megohm. So a shop might
conclude the thing can't possibly affect the transponder's ability to
continue to perform to meet the requirements of the TSO. But, this
shop called the FAA office which oversees them, and they said no.
This FSDO has Avionics Inspectors on the staff.
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
Your assumption is that your TSOed is not made in Mexico or Tawain or China
may be totally false.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Choice
>
> > Things break. TSO is no guarantee that the thing won't break.
> >
> Sure. I can't tell whether you're disagreeing with my corollary to
> that, such that if an altimeter is made from parts mfg'd in Taiwan and
> assembled in Mexico, can one assume that it's as safe in IFR as a TSOd
> instrument? Really not something to debate; a builder need be only as
> conservative as he wishes.
>
> Reg,
> Fred F.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Dec 24, 2004, at 3:43 PM, Fred Fillinger wrote:
>
>
>> Things break. TSO is no guarantee that the thing won't break.
>>
> Sure. I can't tell whether you're disagreeing with my corollary to
> that, such that if an altimeter is made from parts mfg'd in Taiwan and
> assembled in Mexico, can one assume that it's as safe in IFR as a TSOd
> instrument? Really not something to debate; a builder need be only as
> conservative as he wishes.
I rarely bother with new instruments. I tend to buy overhauled
instruments. Most instrument overhaul shops can tell you what lasts and
what doesn't. I don't bother looking for TSO. YMMV.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
> Seems a purely interpretative issue; nothing to research. The input
> impedance on this Mode C readout box is 1 megohm. So a shop might
> conclude the thing can't possibly affect the transponder's ability to
> continue to perform to meet the requirements of the TSO. But, this
> shop called the FAA office which oversees them, and they said no.
> This FSDO has Avionics Inspectors on the staff.
And my experience is that very few people in the FAA have any clue.
Their standard reply is 'no'. That is easy and requires no effort
and/or research on their part.
YMMV.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
When I wrote "Choice" never expected this kind of response. Have never seen
29 messages on this list. Thanks to all who contributed.
Next question.
Have a 1955 certified aircraft plus a home built with the usual Walmart
engine instruments. On the certified aircraft have had the flight
instruments rebuilt one by one and now starting with the engine instruments.
I plan to replace the old steam engine gauges with the new digital gauges.
Bought the new digital RPM gauge and an engineer who worked at the firm said
one problem with the new gauges is RF interference. Said that he saw one
installation that lost the oil pressure/temp gauge readings whenever you
keyed the mike, even with double, shielded wires. Every installation had to
be custom tested because of different radio packages.
Anyone with any experience with the new gauges before I waste some $2,000.
Are some better than others? Would appreciate comments.
Thanks
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Dec 25, 2004, at 12:22 PM, Bob Gibfried wrote:
> Bought the new digital RPM gauge and an engineer who worked at the
> firm said
> one problem with the new gauges is RF interference. Said that he saw
> one
> installation that lost the oil pressure/temp gauge readings whenever
> you
> keyed the mike, even with double, shielded wires. Every installation
> had to
> be custom tested because of different radio packages.
>
> Anyone with any experience with the new gauges before I waste some
> $2,000.
> Are some better than others? Would appreciate comments.
It can be a problem but that problem is usually solvable. Proper
shielding and bypassing helps as does cleaning and fixing the antenna
wiring for the comm.
If you have a problem:
1. bypass the leads to ground at the engine monitor using .001 uFd disc
ceramic caps on both leads;
2. add ferrite beads to the sensor wiring;
3. make sure your antennas are securely bonded to the skin of the
airframe.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Altimeters- TSO vs non TSO |
Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Fred Fillinger"
> ....skip....... It cannot be installed in a production aircraft, unless it
> is FAA-approved by other means, such as an STC.....skip.....>>
>> My question to you is: What is the basis for your statement above?
> Think it works like this. Part 91 isn't the only rule for maintaining
> type-certificated aircraft, but also Parts 21 and 43. These make it
> clear it to me at least that only actual aircraft parts go into actual
> airplanes....skip...
> However, an altimeter is not a trivial item, and the Regs forbid
> anyone from making one and selling it as an aircraft part, except for
> homebuilts and ultralights. If they sell a nonTSOd instrument but
> with a PMA, maybe a shop might go with that, if it's not the specific
> part the airframe mfr used. Is there such an animal out there? None
> of the instruments I have, sold for homebuilt only, say PMA. Fred F.
12/25/2004
Hello Fred, Thanks for your prompt and on point response. I am inclined to
agree.
FAR Sec21.303 says "....no person may produce a modification or replacement
part for sale for installation on a type certificated product unless it is
produced pursuant to a Parts Manufacturer Approval issued under this
subpart."**
That would seem to prevent the manufacture of non approved parts intended to
be installed in type certificated aircraft.
But what FAR Sec in Part 43, or elsewhere in the regulations, do you feel
prevents the installation of non approved parts in type certificated
aircraft?
The closest that I can come to such a prohibition is FAR Sec 43.13 (b) which
says "Each person maintaining or altering, or performing preventive
maintenance, shall do that work in such a manner and use materials of such a
quality, that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine,
propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or
properly altered condition with regard to aerodynamic function, structural
strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and other qualities
affecting airworthiness).##
Thanks for your help.
OC
**PS: This is the FAR that Bill Bainbridge of B&C was accused of violating
by the FAA in a famous case in which the FAA was forced to drop the charges
and apologize.
##PPS: We had some pompous FAA ass who made a presentation to our local EAA
Chapter several years ago that tried to tell us that that section of the
FAR's meant that we could not make modifications to our amateur built
experimental aircraft that improved any of those characteristics because the
aircraft must remain equal to the condition that it was in when it received
its original airworthiness inspection.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com |
Bob,
RG-400 cable seems to be the preferred for most applications because of lower
loss characteristics, but am not an expert on this.
You might consider posting this to the Aerolectric list which is somewhat
more active and addresses questions like this.
Doug Windhorn
In a message dated 12/23/2004 9:54:29 PM Pacific Standard Time,
bob(at)whitek.com writes:
> I want to install a Garmin GNC 300XL. They mention 50 Ohm, but so far I've
> missed finding the instructions on what coax to use to connect the intenna
> to the black box. What parts are recommended for the antenna cable and the
> connectors, which are BNC on both ends? Does anyone sell made-up cables,
or
> should one install the connectors oneself?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Altimeters- TSO vs non TSO |
bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
> ...
> That would seem to prevent the manufacture of non approved parts
intended to
> be installed in type certificated aircraft.
>
> But what FAR Sec in Part 43, or elsewhere in the regulations, do you
feel
> prevents the installation of non approved parts in type certificated
> aircraft?
> ....
I think you've found the correct FARs. But I think FAA does not mean
to imply that while no one can produce a unapproved aircraft part, but
the aircraft installer -- who knows little about the quality of that
part -- can make, say an automotive part, effectively an aircraft part
by simply saying it looks good and installing it. If this reasoning
applies to a Gates V-belt where a PMA item is available, I think it
surely does to a "nonapproved" altimeter (TSOd versions are always
available). Though it raises a good question about a seemingly
well-fitting, generic Gates V-belt to fix a real old plane where
that's the only choice.
The wording in Part 43 I think is a little loose by intent, or a lot
of old airplanes would be grounded or other silly problems arise.
I once worked with an A&P/IA, who shortly went on to manage a big,
bizjet maintenance op, to install an STC'd, lightweight starter. The
repositioned starter cable would chafe against the muffler, so he
quickly made a clever little hold-off bracket.
At minimum, Part 21 allows me as owner to make a part, and the
installer can approve it. So I kidded him, hey, that problem is not
mentioned in the STC installation paperwork for this type A/C and no
bracket is supplied. You can't make aircraft parts. No, he said,
that's the one you just made, remember? And a nice job you did!
Maybe the way FAA uses the word "alteration" not always associated
with the word "major" in Part 43, implying what the A&P did was
legally "minor alteration." The applicable Advisor Circular re
alterations says "please contact FSDO for advice," specifically
referring to major vs. minor repairs to out-of-production A/C. Many
repairmen maybe know better than to do that if reasonably judged
minor? :-)
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
The installation manual calls for RG-58A/U for the GPS antenna and says to
follow the com antenna manufacturer's instructions for it. I would use the
same wire for it, use BNC connectors made for this cable, and make up the
wires myself after runnng the cables.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Off/On/Mom Switch |
Are you looking for a switch that has both circuits off, one circuit on
(stays on when you move your hand) and another position where the first
circuit stays on and the second circuit comes on momentarily? That sounds
like an ignition/starter switch.
I'm not sure there is a short, simple description of that switch, but they
are available... somewhere.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radium dial (was: Choice) |
You could disassemble the altimeter yourself and remove the face and strip
the paint/radium off and then have the instrument overhauled and the face
repainted.
It would be good to NOT inhale the radium if you remove it yourself and to
wash your hands, tools, etc so you don't eat the radium either. It's pretty
much harmless outside the body and bad for eyes, nostrils, and internal body
surfaces.
If you want to get rid of it? Some cities have free hazmat disposal days,
otherwise there are few options. Don't ship it by any means because the
fines for that run to $10,000 per offense.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radium dial (was: Choice) |
>Bury it in the backyard for 300 years and it will be fine when your great,
>great, great, great,.... grand kids dig it up.
>
>Brian Kraut
>Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
You need to come up with another alternative, Brian. The halflife of radium
is about 1600 years. Multiply times 7 to get 11,400 years it needs to be
buried.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Altimeters- TSO vs non TSO |
It's far more convincing when quoting "the regs" to quote the one, by
number, that supports what you are arguing. As for "Part 91 isn't the only
rule for maintaining
type-certificated aircraft...", part 91 is general operating and flight
rules. In prohibits flight unless certain maintenace is done, but it
doesn't require or specify how maintenance is done.
Nor does part 21.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radium dial (was: Choice) |
>
>
> Check and be sure if it really does need disposal as nuclear waste.
>
> I trained as a medical technologist. Several hospital laboratory
> procedures
> use radioactivity as a marker for various tests. Though the materials
> would
> make a Geiger counter scream, the radiation level was so low that it
> was
> legal to dispose of the waste as regular biohazard waste; no additional
> precautions were necessary. FedEx even shipped this stuff (with a nice
> scary warning label on the box, of course.)
You can't use medical waste regulations for aircraft instruments. The
medical business has been granted many exemptions due to their god-like
status. Their status and the extreme lobbying power of their union- the
AMA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Black" <black(at)usa.sh> |
There's a newer model GPS for sale on ebay. The bids look pretty low.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem
<http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4513914376>
&item=4513914376
Has anyone used one of these?
Bob Black
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.Munz" <182ppl(at)comcast.net> |
I have had this GPS for 3 years now and it is great. There are some down
sides though. The screen is large so the unit requires alot of power so
running it off a battery is mostly out of the question. With that power
there comes alot of heat so you cant really strap it to your thigh with any
comfort. With those things in mind a good hard mount (or panel mount) and a
good cigarette power plug are a must. As for the operation of the GPS I
never have lost a signal, the graphics are top notch (the terrain awareness
feature is very useful) and the interface is pretty easy to use. From what I
hear the unit is compatible with most auto-pilots on the experimental
market. The screen has always been readable in the brightest of light and it
will light up your cabin at night if you dont turn down the dimmer. All in
all a good buy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Black" <black(at)usa.sh>
Subject: Avionics-List: GPS
>
> There's a newer model GPS for sale on ebay. The bids look pretty low.
>
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem
> <http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4513914376>
> &item=4513914376
>
>
> Has anyone used one of these?
>
>
> Bob Black
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Dec 26, 2004, at 11:02 PM, Ron Davis wrote:
>
> The installation manual calls for RG-58A/U for the GPS antenna and
> says to
> follow the com antenna manufacturer's instructions for it. I would
> use the
> same wire for it, use BNC connectors made for this cable, and make up
> the
> wires myself after runnng the cables.
Do not use RG-58A/U for GPS installations. The signal losses at the GPS
frequencies (1.7GHz) are astronomical. Use RG-400 instead. This is a
low-loss, 100% shielded coax that may be used anywhere one would use
RG-58U or RG-58A/U.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
I have used the RG-58A/U for my GPS without any signal problems. However, I
have also recently tried making cables using RG-400 and BNC connectors from
ACS with a very curious problem. Seems the coax has the center insulation,
that around the center stranded wire, a bit larger in diameter than the BNC
connectors could be forced onto. Has anyone else experienced this problem.
At one time apparently, either the BNC or the RG-400 was a match, since I do
have the transponder coax made from the RG-400.
Out of frustration, I went back to the old RG-58A/U for my recent GNS430
installation.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: coax
>
>
> On Dec 26, 2004, at 11:02 PM, Ron Davis wrote:
>
>>
>> The installation manual calls for RG-58A/U for the GPS antenna and
>> says to
>> follow the com antenna manufacturer's instructions for it. I would
>> use the
>> same wire for it, use BNC connectors made for this cable, and make up
>> the
>> wires myself after runnng the cables.
>
> Do not use RG-58A/U for GPS installations. The signal losses at the GPS
> frequencies (1.7GHz) are astronomical. Use RG-400 instead. This is a
> low-loss, 100% shielded coax that may be used anywhere one would use
> RG-58U or RG-58A/U.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
> +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Dec 27, 2004, at 1:12 PM, Wayne Sweet wrote:
>
>
> I have used the RG-58A/U for my GPS without any signal problems.
Most GPS antennas have a 20db amplifier built-in which overcomes the
loss in the coax. Regardless, you will have much more loss with RG-58
than you will with RG-400. Also, RG-400 is much less prone to water
absorption than RG-58 (low-loss foam dielectric RG-58 is very prone to
water absorption) so will stay low-loss for much longer.
I stand by my original statement that one should not use RG-58 coax in
a GPS installation. You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS. If you must use RG-58
look for the double-shielded mil-spec stuff. That is ideal for your VHF
comm and nav runs.
> However, I
> have also recently tried making cables using RG-400 and BNC connectors
> from
> ACS with a very curious problem. Seems the coax has the center
> insulation,
> that around the center stranded wire, a bit larger in diameter than
> the BNC
> connectors could be forced onto. Has anyone else experienced this
> problem.
> At one time apparently, either the BNC or the RG-400 was a match,
> since I do
> have the transponder coax made from the RG-400.
> Out of frustration, I went back to the old RG-58A/U for my recent
> GNS430
> installation.
You should be using a good crimp-on BNC connector. It is more secure
than the solder/locking-collar type BNC connector.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
I did use and have been using crimp-on connectors for some time. It was the
ACS BNC crimp-on connectors that absolutely would not fit over the center
insulation. I also tried BNC connectors from a local electronics shop; same
result. At around $2.00 a foot for the RG-400, I did not feel like
"experimenting" more by ordering new coax, in hopes that the other batch was
abnormal.
BTW, my A no luck. Really
weird.
I really would like to make all my coax the RG-400, but how???
If anyone would like to experiment, I would happily ship a section of wire
and a BNC connector for them to try.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: coax
>
>
> On Dec 27, 2004, at 1:12 PM, Wayne Sweet wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I have used the RG-58A/U for my GPS without any signal problems.
>
> Most GPS antennas have a 20db amplifier built-in which overcomes the
> loss in the coax. Regardless, you will have much more loss with RG-58
> than you will with RG-400. Also, RG-400 is much less prone to water
> absorption than RG-58 (low-loss foam dielectric RG-58 is very prone to
> water absorption) so will stay low-loss for much longer.
>
> I stand by my original statement that one should not use RG-58 coax in
> a GPS installation. You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
> frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS. If you must use RG-58
> look for the double-shielded mil-spec stuff. That is ideal for your VHF
> comm and nav runs.
>
>> However, I
>> have also recently tried making cables using RG-400 and BNC connectors
>> from
>> ACS with a very curious problem. Seems the coax has the center
>> insulation,
>> that around the center stranded wire, a bit larger in diameter than
>> the BNC
>> connectors could be forced onto. Has anyone else experienced this
>> problem.
>> At one time apparently, either the BNC or the RG-400 was a match,
>> since I do
>> have the transponder coax made from the RG-400.
>> Out of frustration, I went back to the old RG-58A/U for my recent
>> GNS430
>> installation.
>
> You should be using a good crimp-on BNC connector. It is more secure
> than the solder/locking-collar type BNC connector.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
> +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
Brian,
If one uses RG-400, is there a special model BNC to use to mate up with this
coax dimensions?
Realizing that most the GPS manufs. seem to have standardized on the BNC for
the connector of choice I guess we are stuck with it.
I question whether staying with BNC is smart idea as it's impedance
characteristics start to degrade at the larger bandwidths. I don't recall
June 20, 2004 - December 27, 2004
Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-ai