Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-aj
December 27, 2004 - November 26, 2005
if it is still a clean connector in the low GHz range. Where does the BNC
connector start to fail in the GHz range?
Dave Lloyd
----- Original Message -----
| 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
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
There are several varieties of BNC connectors for different types of coax.
One size does not fit all. The AMP 225395-6 BNC connector works on RG-400
and RG-142.
Mike
Ferrer Aviation Services, LLC
www.ferrer-aviation.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: coax
>
> 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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Dec 27, 2004, at 3:10 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
> If one uses RG-400, is there a special model BNC to use to mate up
> with this
> coax dimensions?
I wasn't aware that it required different connectors. I used it and
had no problems with it.
> 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.
It is a decent connector.
> 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
> if it is still a clean connector in the low GHz range. Where does the
> BNC
> connector start to fail in the GHz range?
I don't recall. It is a constant impedance connector and I remember
reading to what freq it was good for but I just don't recall now where
it was. Regardless, it is what you have and it does work at 1.7GHz just
fine.
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: | Ozarkseller2(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 12/27/2004 1:53:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brianl(at)lloyd.com writes:
You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS.
What's better than RG-400?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
123 or something like that if you mean less signal loss and EMI rejection. But
it has more restrictions like larger bend radius and something else that turned
me off when I read it. It might be very heavy per foot.
-------------- Original message --------------
>
>
> In a message dated 12/27/2004 1:53:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> brianl(at)lloyd.com writes:
>
> You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
> frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS.
>
>
> What's better than RG-400?
>
>
>
>
>
>
123 or something like that if you mean less signal loss and EMI rejection. But
it has more restrictions like larger bend radius and something else that turned
me off when I read it. It might be very heavy per foot.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Avionics-List message posted by: Ozarkseller2(at)aol.com
In a message dated 12/27/2004 1:53:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brianl(at)lloyd.com writes:
You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS.
What's better than RG-400?
&
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
Nope, it was 393 but there's more negatives than positives with this stuff including
price, size, connector costs, etc.
But here's some specs on it:
RG-393 is 0.23 dB/ft at 4300 MHz (rated at about 50 W CW@ 4300). RG-400 is
twice the loss.
And for those looking for the 90 degree elbows, a piece of advice I got from work
is to use a swept elbow if you have to turn a corner. Do not use mitered elbows
as the pulse will get distorted from a non-linear group delay at the corner.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
>
> 123 or something like that if you mean less signal loss and EMI rejection. But
> it has more restrictions like larger bend radius and something else that turned
> me off when I read it. It might be very heavy per foot.
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 12/27/2004 1:53:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> > brianl(at)lloyd.com writes:
> >
> > You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
> > frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS.
> >
> >
> > What's better than RG-400?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 123 or something like that if you mean less signal loss and EMI rejection. But
> it has more restrictions like larger bend radius and something else that turned
> me off when I read it. It might be very heavy per foot.
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- Avionics-List message posted by: Ozarkseller2(at)aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 12/27/2004 1:53:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> brianl(at)lloyd.com writes:
>
> You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
> frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS.
>
>
> What's better than RG-400?
>
>
> &
>
>
>
>
>
>
Nope, it was 393 but there's more negatives than positives with this stuff including
price, size, connector costs, etc.
But here's some specs on it:
RG-393 is 0.23 dB/ft at 4300 MHz (rated at about 50 W CW@ 4300). RG-400 is
twice the loss.
And for those looking for the 90 degree elbows,a piece of advice I got from work
is touse a swept elbow if you have to turn a corner. Do not use mitered elbows
as the pulse will get distorted from a non-linear group delay at the corner.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Avionics-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
123 or something like that if you mean less signal loss and EMI rejection. But
it has more restrictions like larger bend radius and something else that turned
me off when I read it. It might be very heavy per foot.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Avionics-List message posted by: Ozarkseller2(at)aol.com
In a message dated 12/27/2004 1:53:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brianl(at)lloyd.com writes:
You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS.
What's better than RG-400?
&
gt;
123 or something like that if you mean less signal loss and EMI rejection. But
it has more restrictions like larger bend radius and something else that turned
me off when I read it. It might be very heavy per foot.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Avionics-List message posted by: Ozarkseller2(at)aol.com
In a message dated 12/27/2004 1:53:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brianl(at)lloyd.com writes:
You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS.
What's better than RG-400?
gh the Contributions
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garth Shearing" <garth(at)islandnet.com> |
I'm going to go against the flow on this one.
The data I have shows the RF loss in RG-58 and RG-400 is about the same.
RG-58 uses a solid polyethylene dielectric and the RG-400 uses a solid
teflon which provides operating temperatures up to 200 degrees C. RG-58 can
only go to 80 degrees C. So RG-58 is just fine for comm, nav, GPS, and
transponder. RG-58 is quite limited in terms of its ability to handle
continuous high power at high frequencies because the dielectric can heat up
to 80 degrees C easily. This is not a problem with up to 200 watt
transponders because they are only transmitting a small part of the time.
RG-58 can be used up to around 3 GHz, much higher than the 1.2 and 1.5 GHz
frequencies of GPS. Same goes for the connectors. Unless the cable is in
the engine compartment, go with the RG-58. Way cheaper, easier to work with
and weighs half as much as RG-400. I have used some teflon wire in my
engine compartment, so I do think it has its uses.
I don't understand the moisture problem. There are millions of
installations out there working just fine. The only moisture problems we
had occurred in outdoor cables where the cable ends were installed without
drip loops and no shrink boots or tape wraps on the installed connectors.
We used to drill a small hole in the bottom of the drip loop to let any
moisture drain out, but this would not be needed in a typical aircraft
installation.
If you want lower losses or higher power, you have to go to larger diameter,
which means heavier cable and connectors. You can also choose a cable with
a foam or air dielectric. I think these choices are overkill given the
short lengths of cable normally required.
Sorry guys!
Garth Shearing
VariEze and 90% RV6A
Victoria BC Canada
----- Original Message ----- >
> 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radium dial (was: Choice) |
Mantles made by Coleman haven't been radioactive for many years. If you
have some that have been in the basement for 20 years they are thoriated.
New mantles manufactured overseas may still be radioactive, but they are
labled if they are.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
Did you notify Garmin that their manual is wrong?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
To what is this referring??
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: coax
>
> Did you notify Garmin that their manual is wrong?
>
>
>
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
Thanks Garth for clearing up the confusion. I always believed that the
RG-400 was primarily for durability rather than functionality. My experience
has been that the RG-58 has performed well, except if one uses the old
screw-on BNC connectors. Those tended to weaken at the junction and also
were difficult to fabricate without some little hair of the shield shorting
out the center conductor. The crimp-on BNC connectors are really easy to
use, of course with the correct crimping tool.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Garth Shearing" <garth(at)islandnet.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: coax
>
>
> I'm going to go against the flow on this one.
>
> The data I have shows the RF loss in RG-58 and RG-400 is about the same.
> RG-58 uses a solid polyethylene dielectric and the RG-400 uses a solid
> teflon which provides operating temperatures up to 200 degrees C. RG-58
> can
> only go to 80 degrees C. So RG-58 is just fine for comm, nav, GPS, and
> transponder. RG-58 is quite limited in terms of its ability to handle
> continuous high power at high frequencies because the dielectric can heat
> up
> to 80 degrees C easily. This is not a problem with up to 200 watt
> transponders because they are only transmitting a small part of the time.
>
> RG-58 can be used up to around 3 GHz, much higher than the 1.2 and 1.5 GHz
> frequencies of GPS. Same goes for the connectors. Unless the cable is in
> the engine compartment, go with the RG-58. Way cheaper, easier to work
> with
> and weighs half as much as RG-400. I have used some teflon wire in my
> engine compartment, so I do think it has its uses.
>
> I don't understand the moisture problem. There are millions of
> installations out there working just fine. The only moisture problems we
> had occurred in outdoor cables where the cable ends were installed without
> drip loops and no shrink boots or tape wraps on the installed connectors.
> We used to drill a small hole in the bottom of the drip loop to let any
> moisture drain out, but this would not be needed in a typical aircraft
> installation.
>
> If you want lower losses or higher power, you have to go to larger
> diameter,
> which means heavier cable and connectors. You can also choose a cable
> with
> a foam or air dielectric. I think these choices are overkill given the
> short lengths of cable normally required.
>
> Sorry guys!
>
> Garth Shearing
> VariEze and 90% RV6A
> Victoria BC Canada
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- >
>> 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
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
I just made a trip to Gulf Coast Avionics yesterday to get some Coax and a couple
of Comm antennas. Because of lectric Bob's and other comments on the aeroelectric
list, I chose NOT to spend 6 times the price of RG-58 to buy RG-400 ($25
for 100 foot roll of RG-58 vs. $1.50 per foot for RG-400 from Stein Air, and
Steiny claims to have much better prices than most but I didn't bother checking
anyone else). I asked them about some cable for a GPS antenna connection
and they brought out some RG-142 (looks and costs like RG-400 but I only needed
a few feet). I have UPS GX-65 GPS/Com and they told me I needed to use a TNC
connector for it (which fortunately they also had in stock). Just one builders
experience, save your money on the Coax and buy something else you need for
the airplane. And I was surprised that Gulf Coast (sister shop to Pacific Coast
Avionics in Oregon) actually had the RG-58 for a cheaper price than Van's
aircraft!!
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Tarpon Sprgs, Florida
>From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
>Subject: Re: Avionics-List: coax
>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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
This is a response to the posting that said to use RG 400 for the GPS
antenna. Garmin's manual says to use RG 58A/U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: coax
>
> To what is this referring??
> Wayne
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: coax
>
>
> >
> > Did you notify Garmin that their manual is wrong?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jacklockamy" <jacklockamy(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | KX-125 NAV Always FLAGGED |
Trying to sort out a problem with KX-125 NAV/COM.
I'm the (lucky?) test pilot of my buddy's RV-7A (he's a student pilot
who recently soled). 17.5 hours on the hobbs and counting...
He has installed a KX-125. As I understand the operator/owner's
manual, I dial in the NAV/VOR freq. and I should get a bearing
TO/FROM the station when in the TO or FROM mode. Doesn't happen...
it always shows FLAGGED with three (3) dashes. I should also be able
to be in the OBS mode with radial entered and see the offset...
doesn't happen... it always shows FLAGGED with solid bars off both
sides of center to the edge of the display.
I get good audio verification that the NAV side is picking up the
VORs. Still all I get is "FLAGGED". That is what has me stumped...
I get good tones/IDENT from the VOR so I believe the the antenna is
doing it's thing. Why is the display/unit constantly showing FLAGGED?
BTW... the comm side of the radio works flawlessly.
Any ideas what we should check? Is it possible "Operator Error"?
I've re-read the manual three times now.... It just doens't seem to
be that difficult to operator. I'm sure it is something simple that
we are overlooking. The aircraft builder/owner also wired his own
harness, so that is of course suspect.
Thanks,
Jack Lockamy
Camrillo, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Another datapoint for this debate/exchange of references: The installation
manual for the Garmin GNS480 (CNX-80) recommends RG-142B or "similar
quality" for all antenna feeds. The 480 has GPS, COMM and NAV antenna
inputs. IMHO, RG-58 is not of similar quality. RG-400 is. Bob Nuckolls has
made this case for quite some time.
For a good source of RG 400 (and all 22759 wire) call Wiremasters in
Franklin, TN. Their number is 800 635-5342. Ask for Deb Sullivan. For
example, we bought our RG-400 for $.086 per foot. Most of the smaller
gages of hookup wire goes for around a nickel per foot. Min. order for a
mix of wire gages & types is $100 and there may be a min. length for the
RG. There is a min. length of 100 ft. for 22759 AWG 12 and up.
Cheers,
John Schroeder
>
> This is a response to the posting that said to use RG 400 for the GPS
> antenna. Garmin's manual says to use RG 58A/U.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Fwiw, the Garmin 300XL installation manual specifies RG-58A/U for COM and
GPS with a maximum length of 40 feet. The Garmin 400 and 500 series
installation manuals recommend 50 ohm coax meeting current aviation
regulations (40' max) and do not specify a particular RG number.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Dec 28, 2004, at 1:04 AM, Garth Shearing wrote:
>
>
> I'm going to go against the flow on this one.
>
> The data I have shows the RF loss in RG-58 and RG-400 is about the
> same.
Not quite. The loss in RG-400 is about the same as low-loss RG-58 with
foam dielectric.
Loss per 100M at 1000 MHz
78.6dB for RG-58 with solid dielectric
51.8dB for RG-58 with foam dielectric
52 dB for RG-400
This is a *big* difference.
If you would consider using plain-old RG-58 then you should consider
using LMR-195 microwave cable. It is functionally the same as RG-58 but
lower loss than either RG-58 or RG-400. If you are contemplating using
RG-8 (transponder or DME) then consider using LMR-400.
> RG-58 uses a solid polyethylene dielectric and the RG-400 uses a solid
> teflon which provides operating temperatures up to 200 degrees C.
The teflon construction makes it pretty impervious to just about
everything, heat included.
> RG-58 can
> only go to 80 degrees C. So RG-58 is just fine for comm, nav, GPS, and
> transponder. RG-58 is quite limited in terms of its ability to handle
> continuous high power at high frequencies because the dielectric can
> heat up
> to 80 degrees C easily. This is not a problem with up to 200 watt
> transponders because they are only transmitting a small part of the
> time.
Dielectric heating in aircraft applications just aren't a problem.
> RG-58 can be used up to around 3 GHz, much higher than the 1.2 and 1.5
> GHz
> frequencies of GPS. Same goes for the connectors. Unless the cable
> is in
> the engine compartment, go with the RG-58. Way cheaper, easier to
> work with
> and weighs half as much as RG-400. I have used some teflon wire in my
> engine compartment, so I do think it has its uses.
You can use just about any coax at any frequency if you can accept the
loss. (Actually, there is an upper limit for coax of larger diameter
because at some higher frequency it stops acting as coax and starts
acting as waveguide.)
> I don't understand the moisture problem. There are millions of
> installations out there working just fine. The only moisture problems
> we
> had occurred in outdoor cables where the cable ends were installed
> without
> drip loops and no shrink boots or tape wraps on the installed
> connectors.
Foam-dielectric coax tends to be hygroscopic, i.e. it absorbs moisture
from the atmosphere on its own. It is interesting to measure loss in
the coax with time. I used to use low-loss foam cables in my ham
station until I discovered just how badly they degraded in just a year
or two. I thought that a good coax seal to waterproof the exposed ends
would solve the problem and it just doesn't. Mil-spec double-shielded
RG-58 using silver-plated braid and center conductor does not degrade
appreciably with time so that is what I use for comm and nav runs in
aircraft. Still, RG-400 has lower loss and is even more resistant to
the environment and an airplane is a very hostile environment.
> We used to drill a small hole in the bottom of the drip loop to let any
> moisture drain out, but this would not be needed in a typical aircraft
> installation.
You drill a hole in the coax? That is more likely to let water in than
help it get out.
> If you want lower losses or higher power, you have to go to larger
> diameter,
> which means heavier cable and connectors. You can also choose a cable
> with
> a foam or air dielectric. I think these choices are overkill given the
> short lengths of cable normally required.
In general I agree with you, at least for aircraft. You never have long
runs. In the case of DME and transponder, your runs are usually not
more than about 2M so almost anything will work. Still, an airplane is
a harsh environment and coax does degrade with time. Good stuff
degrades less (mil-spec RG-58) or almost not at all (RG-400).
Consider that this radio installation will be serving someone about 20
years from now. I repaneled my Comanche in 1985. The only change I have
made since then was to replace the IFR LORAN with an IFR GPS last year.
I am still using the same old comm and nav coax, something I should
probably remedy and certainly will if I redo the avionics again.
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 29, 2004, at 12:10 AM, Ron Davis wrote:
>
> This is a response to the posting that said to use RG 400 for the GPS
> antenna. Garmin's manual says to use RG 58A/U.
What Garmin puts in their manual is not my problem. I know the
difference between various types of coax and I would never consider
using run-of-the-mill RG-58 for GPS no matter what the manufacturer
says.
Let me put it another way. I am going to spend $100,000 on the airplane
of my dreams with $20,000 in avionics and I am going to let a $20
difference in the cost of coax determine what I put in? Heck, if you
care that much I urge you to wire your OBAM airplane with PVC wire
instead of Tefzel because it is much cheaper and it will carry
electrons just as well.
Wire is cheap, especially if you go looking for where you can get it at
a reasonable price. Get the good stuff and then don't worry about it.
If a $20 difference in price is going to break you, you should not be
playing with an airplane because you are not going to have the money to
maintain it properly.
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: | Re: KX-125 NAV Always FLAGGED |
On Dec 29, 2004, at 7:55 AM, jacklockamy wrote:
> I get good audio verification that the NAV side is picking up the
> VORs. Still all I get is "FLAGGED". That is what has me stumped...
> I get good tones/IDENT from the VOR so I believe the the antenna is
> doing it's thing. Why is the display/unit constantly showing FLAGGED?
It sounds like there is a problem in the VOR converter.
> Any ideas what we should check? Is it possible "Operator Error"?
> I've re-read the manual three times now.... It just doens't seem to
> be that difficult to operator. I'm sure it is something simple that
> we are overlooking. The aircraft builder/owner also wired his own
> harness, so that is of course suspect.
Does the KX-125 have a jumper on the connector to connect the composite
output from the receiver to the input of the VOR/LOC converter? If that
jumper is not present or the composite output is grounded, you wouldn't
have any composite input to the converter and you would have the
problems you describe, i.e. no VOR/LOC function with good audio/ID when
a VOR is tuned in.
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: | Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com> |
I can't keep quiet anymore.
RG223 has been around a long time. It's the same size and shape as RG58 and has
a characteristic impedance of 50 ohms. It has silver plated wire and a double
braided shield. At one time it was too expensive for light airplanes but I have
used some surplus stock for DME and transponder service. It's rated well above
2 GHz.
I see that people are selling it on eBay. Search for RG223.
One example:
<http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=73170&item=3863201371&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW>
The "RG 400" stuff I think is really "400 RG" originally introduced by Thermax
but didn't qualify (or pay for) an approved military RG designation. I have used
it for antennas in small rockets (244 MHz telemetry) where skin heating is
a problem. It's teflon insulation is not as good, RF wise, as the polyethylene
in RG58 or RG223 but it is a whole lot easier to use in the vicinity of a soldering
iron. It's great for making baluns for use with horizontally polarized
VOR antennas. If you're still soldering pins in BNC connectors you'll love it.
--
--> Halloween == Oct 31 == Dec 25 == Christmas <--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Dec 29, 2004, at 3:48 PM, Doug McNutt wrote:
> RG223 has been around a long time. It's the same size and shape as
> RG58 and has a characteristic impedance of 50 ohms. It has silver
> plated wire and a double braided shield. At one time it was too
> expensive for light airplanes but I have used some surplus stock for
> DME and transponder service. It's rated well above 2 GHz.
I believe this is the stuff I have been referring to as
"double-shielded mil-spec RG-58." I love it. I find it pretty readily
available at ham radio swap meets. I bought about two hundred feet of
the stuff for about $20. Needless to say I haven't run out yet.
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: | "Mark/Micki Phillips" <mphill(at)gcctv.com> |
OK OK!!!! My apologies! Before you all dump on me. Your emails were before
Evelyns! A BIG kick in the ass to me :)) Hum...I might like that! love yas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: coax
>
> On Dec 29, 2004, at 3:48 PM, Doug McNutt wrote:
>
>> RG223 has been around a long time. It's the same size and shape as
>> RG58 and has a characteristic impedance of 50 ohms. It has silver
>> plated wire and a double braided shield. At one time it was too
>> expensive for light airplanes but I have used some surplus stock for
>> DME and transponder service. It's rated well above 2 GHz.
>
> I believe this is the stuff I have been referring to as
> "double-shielded mil-spec RG-58." I love it. I find it pretty readily
> available at ham radio swap meets. I bought about two hundred feet of
> the stuff for about $20. Needless to say I haven't run out yet.
>
> 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 1:54 AM, Bob White wrote:
>
> 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?
You want to use RG-400 low-loss cable.
As for making your own cables, it isn't too hard to do but you can find
companies that will construct cables to your specifications. You need
to know the length and type you want. Do a google search for companies
that do custom cabling.
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: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
Bob,
Be sure to look at previous posts on this thread. You need to get the
correct BNC connectors for the RG-400. Aircraft Spruce sells them under P/N
11-01802 .
Also you will need a good crimping tool. Any electronics supply store, maybe
even Radio Shack has them. Without these two items, you will meet nothing
but frustration. With them and a little practice, easy.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: coax
>
>
> On Dec 24, 2004, at 1:54 AM, Bob White wrote:
>
>>
>> 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?
>
> You want to use RG-400 low-loss cable.
>
> As for making your own cables, it isn't too hard to do but you can find
> companies that will construct cables to your specifications. You need
> to know the length and type you want. Do a google search for companies
> that do custom cabling.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
I was working under the following three assumptions:
1) People capable of designing a sophisticated device like a Garmin 530
would have the knowledge, skills, and facilities to determine what cable is
appropriate.
2) Firms selling GPS equipment would have a vested interest in it working
well so the customers would be happy and they would write the installation
manual toward that goal.
3) Manufacturers err, when they err at all, toward the expensive,
unnecessary side of the equation. Use only Mopar oil filters for your new
Chrysler, etc...
PVC-insulated wire would be cheaper, but the manual calls for Tefzel. I use
shielded wire where they specify it, and unshielded where they don't specify
shielded. I guess you could use shielded for all of the wires if it makes
you sleep better.
Adequate is good enough, and better than adequate is good enough, and costs
more.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: coax
>
>
> On Dec 29, 2004, at 12:10 AM, Ron Davis wrote:
>
> >
> > This is a response to the posting that said to use RG 400 for the GPS
> > antenna. Garmin's manual says to use RG 58A/U.
>
> What Garmin puts in their manual is not my problem. I know the
> difference between various types of coax and I would never consider
> using run-of-the-mill RG-58 for GPS no matter what the manufacturer
> says.
>
> Let me put it another way. I am going to spend $100,000 on the airplane
> of my dreams with $20,000 in avionics and I am going to let a $20
> difference in the cost of coax determine what I put in? Heck, if you
> care that much I urge you to wire your OBAM airplane with PVC wire
> instead of Tefzel because it is much cheaper and it will carry
> electrons just as well.
>
> Wire is cheap, especially if you go looking for where you can get it at
> a reasonable price. Get the good stuff and then don't worry about it.
> If a $20 difference in price is going to break you, you should not be
> playing with an airplane because you are not going to have the money to
> maintain it properly.
>
> 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: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
The Belden spec sheet for RG58A/U (Belden part #8219) shows its loss at 18.1
dB per 100' at 1 GHz. Curiously, Belden doesn't list an attenuation for
RG400 above 400MHz.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: coax
>
>
> On Dec 28, 2004, at 1:04 AM, Garth Shearing wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I'm going to go against the flow on this one.
> >
> > The data I have shows the RF loss in RG-58 and RG-400 is about the
> > same.
>
> Not quite. The loss in RG-400 is about the same as low-loss RG-58 with
> foam dielectric.
>
> Loss per 100M at 1000 MHz
>
> 78.6dB for RG-58 with solid dielectric
>
> 51.8dB for RG-58 with foam dielectric
>
> 52 dB for RG-400
>
> This is a *big* difference.
>
> If you would consider using plain-old RG-58 then you should consider
> using LMR-195 microwave cable. It is functionally the same as RG-58 but
> lower loss than either RG-58 or RG-400. If you are contemplating using
> RG-8 (transponder or DME) then consider using LMR-400.
>
> > RG-58 uses a solid polyethylene dielectric and the RG-400 uses a solid
> > teflon which provides operating temperatures up to 200 degrees C.
>
> The teflon construction makes it pretty impervious to just about
> everything, heat included.
>
> > RG-58 can
> > only go to 80 degrees C. So RG-58 is just fine for comm, nav, GPS, and
> > transponder. RG-58 is quite limited in terms of its ability to handle
> > continuous high power at high frequencies because the dielectric can
> > heat up
> > to 80 degrees C easily. This is not a problem with up to 200 watt
> > transponders because they are only transmitting a small part of the
> > time.
>
> Dielectric heating in aircraft applications just aren't a problem.
>
> > RG-58 can be used up to around 3 GHz, much higher than the 1.2 and 1.5
> > GHz
> > frequencies of GPS. Same goes for the connectors. Unless the cable
> > is in
> > the engine compartment, go with the RG-58. Way cheaper, easier to
> > work with
> > and weighs half as much as RG-400. I have used some teflon wire in my
> > engine compartment, so I do think it has its uses.
>
> You can use just about any coax at any frequency if you can accept the
> loss. (Actually, there is an upper limit for coax of larger diameter
> because at some higher frequency it stops acting as coax and starts
> acting as waveguide.)
>
> > I don't understand the moisture problem. There are millions of
> > installations out there working just fine. The only moisture problems
> > we
> > had occurred in outdoor cables where the cable ends were installed
> > without
> > drip loops and no shrink boots or tape wraps on the installed
> > connectors.
>
> Foam-dielectric coax tends to be hygroscopic, i.e. it absorbs moisture
> from the atmosphere on its own. It is interesting to measure loss in
> the coax with time. I used to use low-loss foam cables in my ham
> station until I discovered just how badly they degraded in just a year
> or two. I thought that a good coax seal to waterproof the exposed ends
> would solve the problem and it just doesn't. Mil-spec double-shielded
> RG-58 using silver-plated braid and center conductor does not degrade
> appreciably with time so that is what I use for comm and nav runs in
> aircraft. Still, RG-400 has lower loss and is even more resistant to
> the environment and an airplane is a very hostile environment.
>
> > We used to drill a small hole in the bottom of the drip loop to let any
> > moisture drain out, but this would not be needed in a typical aircraft
> > installation.
>
> You drill a hole in the coax? That is more likely to let water in than
> help it get out.
>
> > If you want lower losses or higher power, you have to go to larger
> > diameter,
> > which means heavier cable and connectors. You can also choose a cable
> > with
> > a foam or air dielectric. I think these choices are overkill given the
> > short lengths of cable normally required.
>
> In general I agree with you, at least for aircraft. You never have long
> runs. In the case of DME and transponder, your runs are usually not
> more than about 2M so almost anything will work. Still, an airplane is
> a harsh environment and coax does degrade with time. Good stuff
> degrades less (mil-spec RG-58) or almost not at all (RG-400).
>
> Consider that this radio installation will be serving someone about 20
> years from now. I repaneled my Comanche in 1985. The only change I have
> made since then was to replace the IFR LORAN with an IFR GPS last year.
> I am still using the same old comm and nav coax, something I should
> probably remedy and certainly will if I redo the avionics again.
>
> 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 Jan 4, 2005, at 1:11 AM, Ron Davis wrote:
>
> I was working under the following three assumptions:
>
> 1) People capable of designing a sophisticated device like a Garmin
> 530
> would have the knowledge, skills, and facilities to determine what
> cable is
> appropriate.
Surprisingly, this often isn't the case. An electrical engineer capable
of designing a GPS receiver probably has little or no experience with
various types of wire in the field, their longevity, and their failure
modes. In fact, the engineer probably had nothing to do with the
specification of coax in the manual and probably had nothing more to
say about it than when the tech pubs guy came by and said something
like, "hey Ralph, I have to put some sort of coax spec in here and
George said any 50 ohm coax would do. Is that right?" I would bet that
Ralph then said something like, "yeah, sure," and that was the end of
it. No more thought given.
> 2) Firms selling GPS equipment would have a vested interest in it
> working
> well so the customers would be happy and they would write the
> installation
> manual toward that goal.
Yes, you would think so, wouldn't you. Having worked in a number of
high-tech companies building bleeding-edge products I can attest that
it often never crosses anyone's mind.
> 3) Manufacturers err, when they err at all, toward the expensive,
> unnecessary side of the equation. Use only Mopar oil filters for your
> new
> Chrysler, etc...
That usually comes from the marketing department, not engineering,
since the Mopar filters are probably OEM'd from Fram anyway.
> PVC-insulated wire would be cheaper, but the manual calls for Tefzel.
> I use
> shielded wire where they specify it, and unshielded where they don't
> specify
> shielded. I guess you could use shielded for all of the wires if it
> makes
> you sleep better.
Nope. Sometimes unshielded is better than shielded. But that isn't the
point. My point was that RG-400 is to RG-58A/U what tefzel is to PVC
wire. If you feel you need the qualities of tefzel in your airplane you
should apply that to your coax as well.
> Adequate is good enough, and better than adequate is good enough, and
> costs
> more.
And my experience with various types of coax in various harsh
environments leads me to believe that RG-58A/U low-loss foam dielectric
coax is no more suitable for an aircraft environment than is PVC wire.
When there is a good replacement, RG-400 in this case, and that
replacement is not that much more expensive, it seem to me to be
prudent to use it.
Lastly, there is one fact that is indisputable: RG-400 coax will still
be working and meeting its specifications long after RG-58A/U will have
failed to do so. It only remains for you to decide if it matters.
After all, it is your airplane to do with what you please.
Oh, and I think this horse is dead.
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 Jan 4, 2005, at 1:25 AM, Ron Davis wrote:
>
> The Belden spec sheet for RG58A/U (Belden part #8219) shows its loss
> at 18.1
> dB per 100' at 1 GHz. Curiously, Belden doesn't list an attenuation
> for
> RG400 above 400MHz.
And another manufacturer did give attenuation specs for RG-400 at 1 GHz
and above. That the marketing doc doesn't list it does not mean it is
not suitable.
There are two clear points from my previous post:
1. the attenuation specs for RG-400 and so-called low-loss RG-58 are
essentially the same;
2. the attenuation specs for RG-400 are substantially superior to
solid-dielectric RG-58.
These facts are verifiable.
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: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
>...
>>2) Firms selling GPS equipment would have a vested interest in it
>>working
>>well so the customers would be happy and they would write the
>>installation
>>manual toward that goal.
>
>
> Yes, you would think so, wouldn't you. Having worked in a number of
> high-tech companies building bleeding-edge products I can attest that
> it often never crosses anyone's mind.
Having also worked at similar companies, and having been a customer
of at least one of the companies that Brian worked for, I can
confirm the above statement! :-)
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
| Subject: | [PLEASE READ NOW] - Addressing Upgrade At Matronics TONIGHT! |
Dear Listers,
Service Provider to upgrade to a larger IP subnet. I will be
re-addressing all of the machines on the network including the
Matronics Web Server and Matronics Email Server at that time. Name
Service will be updated at that time as well and most things should
work again pretty quick. There may be some bounced email for a few hours
or even a day or so as the new name-to-ip-address resolutions propagate
into the depths of the Internet.
If you have problems posting a message to one of the Lists or get a
bounced message back, please wait a couple of hours and try sending it
again. Generally, access to the web site should work within 1-hour of
Hopefully the transition will go smoothly and you'll hardly even
notice! :-)
Thanks for your patience!
Matt Dralle
List Administrator
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
Hi all,
I powered up my UPS GX60 today and to my dismay I found a glob of 5 or 6 pixels
dead. They sit right over the airport identifier so I will have to deal with
it soon. When I looked closely I also noticed the pixels in each corner duller
than the rest of the display.
I'd like to understand the life and failure mode of these displays because it has
spent 4 years in storage so it hasn't been used much. I assume that the only
source of a replacement part will be Garman, but if anyone one has ideas on
alternatives I'd appreciate it.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GX60 display |
On Jan 17, 2005, at 12:17 AM, Paul McAllister wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I powered up my UPS GX60 today and to my dismay I found a glob of 5 or
> 6 pixels dead. They sit right over the airport identifier so I will
> have to deal with it soon. When I looked closely I also noticed the
> pixels in each corner duller than the rest of the display.
>
> I'd like to understand the life and failure mode of these displays
> because it has spent 4 years in storage so it hasn't been used much.
> I assume that the only source of a replacement part will be Garman,
> but if anyone one has ideas on alternatives I'd appreciate it.
The displays are little LED arrays. I would not be surprised if they
just plugged in. If you could open the case you might find you could
reseat the display in its socket and solve the problem.
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> |
| Subject: | Re: GX60 display |
> ...
> I'd like to understand the life and failure mode of these displays
because it has spent 4 years in storage so it hasn't been used much.
I assume that the only source of a replacement part will be Garman,
but if anyone one has ideas on alternatives I'd appreciate it.
>
> Paul
Paul, I've had excellent service experience with both companies. My
GX-65 failed its display totally, and when they were UPS, they
promptly resoldered the display board with apologies for the
inconvenience. My experience with Garmin has been with a hand-held
aviation GPS which was clearly out-of-warranty, but the fault was
oddball, and they fixed it for free.
It's possible soldering or integrity of a plug-in display socket is
the problem, but as a big matrix, it doesn't sound hopeful if only a
small glob of pixels. With some luck, at least they may not price the
display part the exorbitant way Narco does!
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GX60 display |
Hi Brian,
I am pretty sure that its a 160 x 80 pixel electroluminescent display .
When I look really closely at the dead area I can see some kind of internal
delaminating. My first thought was that it had been knocked physically, but
there is no evidence on the outside of the display.
I don't actually know how electroluminescent displays work, I thought it was
some kind of gas discharge device, do you know ?
Garmin have a $400.00 fixed service fee, it sure would be nice if I could
just locate the part.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GX60 display
>
> On Jan 17, 2005, at 12:17 AM, Paul McAllister wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I powered up my UPS GX60 today and to my dismay I found a glob of 5 or
> > 6 pixels dead. They sit right over the airport identifier so I will
> > have to deal with it soon. When I looked closely I also noticed the
> > pixels in each corner duller than the rest of the display.
> >
> > I'd like to understand the life and failure mode of these displays
> > because it has spent 4 years in storage so it hasn't been used much.
> > I assume that the only source of a replacement part will be Garman,
> > but if anyone one has ideas on alternatives I'd appreciate it.
>
> The displays are little LED arrays. I would not be surprised if they
> just plugged in. If you could open the case you might find you could
> reseat the display in its socket and solve the problem.
>
> 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: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GX60 display |
Paul,
I suggest that you call them and get a "technical type" customer service
person on the phone. Describe the problem and maybe get them to agree that
they need to see it and review it as a possible design/material flaw. Once
he gives you some mailing and RMA info, it will probably sail through the
repair system without cost to you other than shipping. I have had several
incidents like this with my Garmin 430 and I have never been charged for
their work to fix the necessary problems when I started the process through
a technical service or field engineering type.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GX60 display
>
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> I am pretty sure that its a 160 x 80 pixel electroluminescent display .
> When I look really closely at the dead area I can see some kind of
> internal
> delaminating. My first thought was that it had been knocked physically,
> but
> there is no evidence on the outside of the display.
>
> I don't actually know how electroluminescent displays work, I thought it
> was
> some kind of gas discharge device, do you know ?
>
> Garmin have a $400.00 fixed service fee, it sure would be nice if I could
> just locate the part.
>
> Paul
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GX60 display
>
>
>>
>> On Jan 17, 2005, at 12:17 AM, Paul McAllister wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I powered up my UPS GX60 today and to my dismay I found a glob of 5 or
>> > 6 pixels dead. They sit right over the airport identifier so I will
>> > have to deal with it soon. When I looked closely I also noticed the
>> > pixels in each corner duller than the rest of the display.
>> >
>> > I'd like to understand the life and failure mode of these displays
>> > because it has spent 4 years in storage so it hasn't been used much.
>> > I assume that the only source of a replacement part will be Garman,
>> > but if anyone one has ideas on alternatives I'd appreciate it.
>>
>> The displays are little LED arrays. I would not be surprised if they
>> just plugged in. If you could open the case you might find you could
>> reseat the display in its socket and solve the problem.
>>
>> 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: | Re: GX60 display |
On Jan 17, 2005, at 2:57 PM, Paul McAllister wrote:
>
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> I am pretty sure that its a 160 x 80 pixel electroluminescent display .
> When I look really closely at the dead area I can see some kind of
> internal
> delaminating. My first thought was that it had been knocked
> physically, but
> there is no evidence on the outside of the display.
It is an EL panel? As I recall the manual said LED. I never took any of
mine apart.
> I don't actually know how electroluminescent displays work, I thought
> it was
> some kind of gas discharge device, do you know ?
If you apply a high enough voltage across a luminescent medium it will
fluoresce. AC actually make it work a lot better.
> Garmin have a $400.00 fixed service fee, it sure would be nice if I
> could
> just locate the part.
If it is out of warrantee I would just open it up and check it out.
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: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Lycoming starter on ebay |
I was browsing ebay and came across this starter for airboats. Why
airboats? Is it because of liability? It looks like the price is pretty good
for a
new starter.
Dan Hopper
Walton IN
RV-7A (Flying, well it was when the weather was a little warmer!)
_http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4520371044
&category=26442&sspagename=WDVW_
(http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4520371044&category=26442&sspagename=WDVW)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LClark6372(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 01/17/05 |
hi to all
does anyone out there have any take on what power requirements i might need
to drive a mini computer from my airplane batteries/alternator. i am having
problems running a moving map program and a engine data display program once
its connected to the bus with the engine running.....runs fine with battery
through a inverter/transformer ( dc to ac to dc)or by plugging in 110/120 ac(
wall outlet)to dc via power adapters.
jim clark
lclark6372(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Lycoming starter on ebay |
Avionics-List message previously posted by: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
> I was browsing ebay and came across this starter for airboats. Why
> airboats? Is it because of liability? It looks like the price is pretty
> good
> for a new starter.....skip....... Dan Hopper
1/19/2005
Hello Dan, FAR Sec. 21.303 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."
I would suspect that the person producing these starters does not have PMA
for them so in order to avoid violating FAR Sec. 21.303 he says they are
strictly for airboats.
The regulations preventing people from installing these starters on type
certificated aircraft are a little more indistinct or unknown and a person
could install one on a type certificated aircraft either out of ignorance of
the regulations or outright flouting of the regulations.**
There is no regulation that would prevent a person from using such a starter
on an amateur built experimental aircraft.
OC
**PS: What FAR 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."
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 01/17/05 |
>
> hi to all
> does anyone out there have any take on what power requirements i
might need
> to drive a mini computer from my airplane batteries/alternator. i
am having
> problems running a moving map program and a engine data display
program once
> its connected to the bus with the engine running.....runs fine with
battery
> through a inverter/transformer ( dc to ac to dc)or by plugging in
110/120 ac(
> wall outlet) to dc via power adapters.
>
Rough guess, but if your portable computer expects 12VDC to power
and/or charge it from a brick on the 110V AC cord, then the airplane's
14V DC is too (alternator) noisy for it, and/or the extra 2V ain't
helping either. Whether 12 or 14 volt, these bricks can be fancy
switching power supplies, whose output is fairly clean. It could also
be that the airplane's bus might not be excessively noisy, were it not
for a defective diode in the alternator.
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 01/17/05 |
DC to an inverter to DC seems like the long route, but may be the only way.
Targus makes AC/Car/Airliner converters for virtually all laptops. These
are limited to 16 volt DC input so they will work on a 14 volt plane but not
on a 28 volt plane (unless it also has a 14 volt bus).
http://www.targus.com/us/product_details.asp?sku=PAPWR300U
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <l39parts(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming starter on ebay |
No FAR actuall prohibits the installation of an airboat starter in a
certificated airplane. It would be contrary to several FARs to fly the
plane with the airboat starter though. 43.13 b is one, and 91.7 and 91.13
would likely show up on the violation if you got caught.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gerald conrad" <gwcgwc(at)videotron.ca> |
| Subject: | Wanted Garmin 196 |
Wanted: Used Garmin 196 or 296.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mr. Pilot Peter" <pdavidson(at)familynet.net> |
| Subject: | Narco CS-3B Indicator Pinout |
I'm trying to find a pinout diagram for a Narco CS-3B Course Selecor/
indicator.
I already tried Narco. They say it's too old.
-Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
"avionics-list(at)matronics.com"
| Subject: | Garmin GNC300 problem |
Posted for a friend:
New install of Garmin GNC300. All functions seem to work normally unless
the transmit button is held for 10-15 seconds. The display will then go
dim to dark & the unit hums & groans. This continues after the transmit
button is released. If power is cycled, the unit will immediately return
to normal operation. The owner has removed the GPS antenna & has seen
no change in the symptoms.
Any thoughts??
Thanks,
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
"aeroelectric list"
| Subject: | Re: Garmin GNC300 problem |
Charlie,
The transmit mode draws the most current of any mode of operation. It
sounds like the unit is being strangled for power during this time. Could
be: too small a gauge of wire used for hook-up, a bad ground, a bad circuit
breaker limiting current but not popping, a bad power supply in the new 300.
Take it back to the installer for testing. Let us know what the problem is.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Avionics-List: Garmin GNC300 problem
>
>
> Posted for a friend:
>
> New install of Garmin GNC300. All functions seem to work normally unless
> the transmit button is held for 10-15 seconds. The display will then go
> dim to dark & the unit hums & groans. This continues after the transmit
> button is released. If power is cycled, the unit will immediately return
> to normal operation. The owner has removed the GPS antenna & has seen
> no change in the symptoms.
>
> Any thoughts??
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin GNC300 problem |
Charlie England wrote:
>
> Posted for a friend:
>
> New install of Garmin GNC300. All functions seem to work normally unless
> the transmit button is held for 10-15 seconds. The display will then go
> dim to dark & the unit hums & groans. This continues after the transmit
> button is released. If power is cycled, the unit will immediately return
> to normal operation. The owner has removed the GPS antenna & has seen
> no change in the symptoms.
What you describe sounds a lot like thermal runaway in one of the power
transistors, either the PA or the modulator output transistors. As the
transistor gets warmer it draws more current which then drags down the
voltage.
Most output devices have a temperature sensing diode physically coupled
to them that varies the bias current to keep the devices from doing this.
If you have an ammeter you can see what the current draw does. Key the
mic and watch the current. If it steadily increases you are probably
seeing a thermal runaway problem.
Another possibility is that the operating point of the transistor
changes with temperature and a parasitic oscillation starts. This would
be readily apparent on a spectrum analyzer.
Oh yeah, if it keeps happening after you shut off the transmitter it
probably is in the audio stage assuming that power to the PA is cut off
during receive.
The bottom line is that it isn't supposed to do that and you need to fix it.
--
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: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
1/30/2005
Hello Fellow Builders, I provide the below URL for your inspection and
comment.
http://www.elwirecheap.com/glowingstuff/index.html
I am not affiliated with this company in any way.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ivan Pavleka <ipavleka(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Arc 300A navomatic - installation manual wanted |
Hi lists,
I am need installation manual, shematic, wiring or whatever for instalation autopilot
ARC Navomatic 300A on Cessna 172. Currently I have straight control box
with many colored wires & servoactuator only. Thanks in advance for any info.
Best Regards
Ivan Pavleka
ipavleka(at)yahoo.com
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Lehman" <lehmans(at)sympatico.ca> |
The Terra TXN 920 Installation Drawing shows an 'interphone key' input in
addition to a mic key input. It is pin 14 on connector P1 (The mic key is
pin 6).
I would guess that grounding the interphone key pin sends mic audio to the
radio speaker output without keying the transmitter but, I would like to
know for sure. Would someone please tell me what the interphone key does
and how it is used?
Thanks,
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger Evenson" <revenson(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin 330 Traffic |
The traffic audio alert in the Garmin 330 mode S transponder shows two ouputs,
one marked "high" and one marked "low". What does this mean?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Simon Lewinson" <slewinson(at)aanet.com.au> |
Hi,
I am trying to fix a KR85 ADF with the KI225 indicator. I am looking for
any info or documentation.
The receiver works and tries to lock on to the signal but the needle seems
to meve inconsistently.
Thanks Simon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
> I am trying to fix a KR85 ADF with the KI225 indicator.
> I am looking for any info or documentation.
>
> The receiver works and tries to lock on to the signal but
> the needle seems to meve inconsistently.
>
> Thanks Simon
www.esscoaircraft.com sells the maintenance manual for $65. However,
if the unit is basically functioning, these ADF manuals will not let
you begin to solve this problem w/o an ADF signal generator and
dual-trace oscilloscope.
Check for cleanliness/integrity of antenna and all other connections.
And listen to the audio with the ADF set to "ANT" with
engine/avionics/strobes running to detect interference from any of
those systems. That's where a good shop would start before hauling
the box to the bench.
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
On a short cross country recently I found that my Narco Escort II was
working but the reception range was rather short. I remember seeing
somewhere ballpark figures for range/altitude figures for VOR reception but
I can't find it.
Would appreciate it if anyone can help me out.
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Bob Gibfried"
>
> On a short cross country recently I found that my Narco Escort II was
> working but the reception range was rather short. I remember seeing
> somewhere ballpark figures for range/altitude figures for VOR reception
> but
> I can't find it. Would appreciate it if anyone can help me out. Bob,
> Wichita
3/9/2005
Hello Bob, As far as the range capability of the ground stations themselves
that can be found in paragraph 1-1-8 of the Aeronautical Information Manual.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob White" <bob(at)whitek.com> |
When one is using dual nav-comms, I'm guessing that the comms each get an
antenna, since most airplanes have two antennas on top of the wing. But
they only have one nav antenna on top of the vertical stabilizer. So how do
the two nav receivers share the antenna? A splitter like in cable tv? I
haven't seen such a device in avionics catalogs.
Thanks,
Bob White
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dual nav-comms |
>
>When one is using dual nav-comms, I'm guessing that the comms each get an
>antenna, since most airplanes have two antennas on top of the wing.
You guessed right. Each TRANSMITTER requires its own antenna.
> But
>they only have one nav antenna on top of the vertical stabilizer. So how do
>the two nav receivers share the antenna? A splitter like in cable tv?
Yep. And sometimes the splitter also offers an output for a glideslope receiver.
>haven't seen such a device in avionics catalogs.
They're there. They look just like cable TV splitters except they will have BNC
rather than type F connectors. Under the instrument panel is a place to look.
--
--> The best programming tool is a soldering iron <--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F. ILMAIN" <f_ilmain(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dual nav-comms |
You need to look for Diplexers
Info can be found on the Comant web site
http://www.comant.com/
Hope this helps
Franck
>From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Avionics-List: dual nav-comms
>Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:23:37 -0700
>
>
> >
> >When one is using dual nav-comms, I'm guessing that the comms each get an
> >antenna, since most airplanes have two antennas on top of the wing.
>
>You guessed right. Each TRANSMITTER requires its own antenna.
>
> > But
> >they only have one nav antenna on top of the vertical stabilizer. So how
>do
> >the two nav receivers share the antenna? A splitter like in cable tv?
>
>Yep. And sometimes the splitter also offers an output for a glideslope
>receiver.
>
> >haven't seen such a device in avionics catalogs.
>
>They're there. They look just like cable TV splitters except they will have
>BNC rather than type F connectors. Under the instrument panel is a place to
>look.
>
>--
>--> The best programming tool is a soldering iron <--
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
Quick question. Have my glass antennas mounted on the alum wing fairing
strips on the top of my Tripacer. Some have said that the fairings do not
provide a very good ground plain (or is it plane)?
Would a ground strap from the antenna to the large, alum gas tank cover
improve the ground plain or would the antenna have to be mounted to the
center of the cover. This would be impossible because the cover fits too
close to the top of the tank to allow the connection on the bottom of the
antenna.
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ground plane |
| From: | "Craig P. Steffen" <craig(at)craigsteffen.net> |
Bob,
> Quick question. Have my glass antennas mounted on the alum wing fairing
> strips on the top of my Tripacer. Some have said that the fairings do not
> provide a very good ground plain (or is it plane)?
Plane. Um...so what's a "glass" antenna?
First question here. Is the antenna a quarter wave antenna ("whip"
antenna) or a dipole antenna? You can tell by the length, if nothing
else. For VHF voice band (120-ish MHz), quarter wave antenna is about
23 inches, dipole is about 46 inches.
A "ground plane" is required for a quarter wave antenna. That's the
sort that you see sticking up from the top of the fuselage on a metal
airplane. The metal skin forms a pretty decent ground plane.
A ground plane isn't required at all for a diple antenna.
> Would a ground strap from the antenna to the large, alum gas tank cover
> improve the ground plain or would the antenna have to be mounted to the
> center of the cover. This would be impossible because the cover fits too
> close to the top of the tank to allow the connection on the bottom of the
> antenna.
I don't really understand the physical situation here. Can you put up
a photo or something?
In a quarter wave antenna, the ground braid (shield) of the signal
cable from the radio must be bonded to the ground plane next to the
antenna. A separate ground "strap" probably wouldn't help so much.
Unfortunately, grounds at RF frequencies have different requirements
than grounds as part of the DC power system. A quarter wave antenna
needs to stick up from its ground plane at 90 degrees, at a point
where the ground plane goes out in all directions.
Craig Steffen
--
craig(at)craigsteffen.net
public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/
current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books
career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground plain |
Bob Gibfried wrote:
>
>Quick question. Have my glass antennas mounted on the alum wing fairing
>strips on the top of my Tripacer. Some have said that the fairings do not
>provide a very good ground plain (or is it plane)?
>
>Would a ground strap from the antenna to the large, alum gas tank cover
>improve the ground plain or would the antenna have to be mounted to the
>center of the cover. This would be impossible because the cover fits too
>close to the top of the tank to allow the connection on the bottom of the
>antenna.
>
>Bob, Wichita
>
1st, are the fairings strong enough to handle the wind load of the
antennas? I'm more familiar with homebuilts where the fairings are only
strong enough to 'fair', not structural.
2nd, if the tank is more or less centered under the antenna, it might
work fairly well as a ground plane anyway since it's grounded to your
airframe. Fly it & see. (Better is the enemy of good enough.)
You can make an adequate ground plane by making 4 'radial' arms that
form a cross or 'X' with the base of the antenna sitting on the center
of the 'X'. Make each leg roughly the same length as the antenna &
ground them to the shield of the antenna wire. Aluminum strips, welding
rod, coat hangars etc will all work for the arms. Obviously, they can go
inside the fuselage/wing if it's fabric covered. You can get a lot more
elaborate than this, but I'll bet you will be happy with the performance
of this simple setup.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: can I use a nav triplexer for duplexer |
Hello, I have a triplexer (2 navs and a glideslope output)-I will only be
using one nav with glideslope, can I "cap" the unused nav output from the
triplexer, and use it as outputting one nav and one glideslope? I have some of
the bnc caps used on the old style computer bnc networks, I forget what ohm
they are. What ohm would I need to "cap" one of the nav outputs from the
triplexer? Thanks Skip Simpson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <n701rr(at)yahoo.com> |
I have a Grimes 14VDC rotating beacon pulled from my first aircraft, a 1946 Cessna
140. I would love to put that lil red beacon on my homebuilt Zenith 701.
The beacon draws about 6.5 Amps, that I imagine is fine. However she is really
loud and surges from time to time. I guess she at least needs brushes and
bushes...anyone know where I can get this sentimental little beacon rebuilt?
Thanks,
Rick
ps (ok to laugh now)
Rick
Orlando, FL. USA
http://www.geocities.com/n701rr/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground plain |
>ground plain (or is it plane)?
It helps to think if the ground plane as a flat mirror. The quarter wave antenna
above it is reflected in the plane that is the mirror. The reflection acts as
the other half of the fictional half-wave antenna that doesn't need a ground
plane by itself.
Metal acts like a mirror to radio energy. Fabric and wood do not.
If you're in the middle of Kansas building a 640 kHz antenna for AM broadcasting
the ground plane is the flat terrain below. Perhaps it is a plain.
--
--> From the U S of A, the only socialist country that refuses to admit it. <--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
Hello Rick,
Honeywell purchased Grimes Aerospace a couple of years ago. Try the
following link For their Repair & Overhaul facility
http://www.honeywell-lightingandelectronics.com/services/repair/csscap.j
sp
Best regards,
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: Avionics-List: Finding Grimes
I have a Grimes 14VDC rotating beacon pulled from my first aircraft, a
1946 Cessna 140. I would love to put that lil red beacon on my
homebuilt Zenith 701. The beacon draws about 6.5 Amps, that I imagine
is fine. However she is really loud and surges from time to time. I
guess she at least needs brushes and bushes...anyone know where I can
get this sentimental little beacon rebuilt?
Thanks,
Rick
ps (ok to laugh now)
Rick
Orlando, FL. USA
http://www.geocities.com/n701rr/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Mortensen" <dennymortensen(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: can I use a nav triplexer for duplexer |
If you have ever heard the term educated guess then you will know where
I come from as it has been a long time since school however the
"terminator" that you refer to, I think we used to call it thin net is
indeed 52 Ohm and is there fore what you want. As far as the three way
splitter, yes this should work just fine however the 3 way splitter will
present a slightly higher loss in your signal strength then a 2 way
would. Not being an avionics expert I can not tell you how many DB
difference this will make but it should not affect things to much. If
your in a pinch go for it.
Denny
-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
Hello, I have a triplexer (2 navs and a glideslope output)-I will only
be
using one nav with glideslope, can I "cap" the unused nav output from
the
triplexer, and use it as outputting one nav and one glideslope? I have
some of
the bnc caps used on the old style computer bnc networks, I forget what
ohm
they are. What ohm would I need to "cap" one of the nav outputs from
the
triplexer? Thanks Skip Simpson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Horizontal antennas |
I have a question regarding horizontally mounted antennas.
Years ago, I mounted a broadband 1/4 wave fiberglass wound antenna inside a
fiberglass dorsal fin. I didn't notice ANY reduction in transmit or receive
quality. I could still talk to and receive from stations 80-100 miles away.
I could talk to aircraft up to 300 miles away.
Last year, thinking I would save a little time fitting the antenna, I used a
bent wire antenna which is normally mounted on the bottom. This antenna
doesn't seem to be as effective as the fiberglass antenna. Is there something
I
could do to bump up the signal of this wire antenna?
Is the ground plane requirement different for the wire antenna than the
fiberglass antenna?
Gary
PS, it's mounted on a Grumman Tiger.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
I should have been more explicit. I'm using the Conant CI-121, white
fiberglass com antennas. Mounted on the Tripacer wing to fuselage alum
fairing using a 4 X 4 65 thousand doublers underneath the fairing to stiffen
the mount area. There is a gap of some six inches to the alum cover over
the 18 gal wing tank on each side.
Trying to teach my kids some instrument flight in an old (1956) aurokabe
with steam boiler equipment. Do have a double I, ground and air but pretty
outdated.
Just trying to stretch the Icom com and Narco Escort II Navcom as far as
possible.
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Horizontal antennas |
>I have a question regarding horizontally mounted antennas.
>
>Last year, thinking I would save a little time fitting the antenna, I used a
>bent wire antenna which is normally mounted on the bottom.
Bent wire antennas are pretty good but they fall off rapidly above the 90 channel
limit at 126 MHz. Some bent wire jobs have a matching box at the base with
a coil and capacitor. They're probably better.
The fiberglass jobs go out to 136 MHz. They typically use a copper foil element
inside. The width allows for some control not available with bent metal.
But HORIZONTAL? Comm signals are vertically polarized and the antenna needs to
match unless you like flying on the knife edge. VOR and ILS signals are horizontal.
--
--> If you are presented a number as a percentage, and you do not clearly understand
the numerator and the denominator involved, you are surely being lied to.
<--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Horizontal antennas |
In a message dated 3/13/05 2:02:52 PM, douglist(at)macnauchtan.com writes:
> But HORIZONTAL? Comm signals are vertically polarized and the antenna needs
> to match unless you like flying on the knife edge.=A0 VOR and ILS signals=20are
> horizontal.
>
I believe that the signal bends to match the curvature of the earth so, the
signal will be horizontal after a few miles. Now, the only drawback is the
strength of the signal toward the rear (no transmission off the tip). As I
said, I've not had any problem with transmission or reception (other than to the
rear).
My question was regarding the wire antenna and if there were a way to make it
stronger. You answered that question with the 126 Mhz upper limit.
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: Horizontal antennas |
Well you should terminate that belief as soon as possible. While it is true
that energy radiated with one polarisation can 'leak' a little, so to speak,
into some small component of another polarisation, nevertheless the main
component stays as radiated. This happens by reflection and diffraction from
obstructions near the transmit antenna and possibly due to minute amounts of
scattering. But to base your comm antenna on anything else but Vertical just
does not make sense.
As for bending round the earth, there is a small refraction effect but this
is minimal in most weathers and in anycase how does that change the
polarisation??
John Rippengal
>
> I believe that the signal bends to match the curvature of the earth so,
> the
> signal will be horizontal after a few miles. Now, the only drawback is
> the
> strength of the signal toward the rear (no transmission off the tip). As
> I
> said, I've not had any problem with transmission or reception (other than
> to the
> rear).
>
> My question was regarding the wire antenna and if there were a way to make
> it
> stronger. You answered that question with the 126 Mhz upper limit.
> Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dave" <dford(at)michweb.net> |
| Subject: | GNC300XL & routes |
I haven't been able to copy an active route 0 to save it for future use. According
to the manual, activate the route and copy it to an unused route no. I must
be missing something, anyone know what it might be?
Dave Ford
RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dave" <dford(at)michweb.net> |
| Subject: | GNC300, GI 106 , SL30 |
I thought it was possible to switch inputs to a CDI from a GPS or VOR receiver.
Below is communication with Stark Avionics saying it's not possible with the
SL30. Anyone with insight if this is correct?
Dave Ford
RV6
John,
I'll be integrating a GNC300XL and GI-106 with the SL-30.
Dave
(snip)
That can't be done. The Sl-30 can not share a CDI with the Gnc-300xl. The
OBS legs of the Sl-30 can't go through a relay of any type. John
(snip)
John,
From my understanding, others have done just that switching the inputs to
the OBS via dpdt switch. Is that what you are referring to?
Dave
(snip)
You can switch everything except the OBS. The Sl-30 looses its calibration
each time you switch and then it requires you to go through the whole
calibration procedure again.
John Stark
Stark Avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GNC300, GI 106 , SL30 |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Dave -
That is the same information that John Stark provided to me when we
discussed our stack. It has something to to with the circuitry internal to
the SL-30. That's all I remember.
Bob designed such a relay and Eric Jones has them for sale, as I recall.
You might get one and see if it works. We'd all like to know.
>
> I thought it was possible to switch inputs to a CDI from a GPS or VOR
> receiver. Below is communication with Stark Avionics saying it's not
> possible with the SL30. Anyone with insight if this is correct?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | GNC300, GI 106 , SL30 |
Avionics-List message previously posted by: "dave"
>
> I thought it was possible to switch inputs to a CDI from a GPS or VOR
> receiver.
> Below is communication with Stark Avionics saying it's not possible with
> the
> SL30. Anyone with insight if this is correct?
>
> Dave Ford
> RV6
>
>
> John,
>
> I'll be integrating a GNC300XL and GI-106 with the SL-30.
> Dave
> (snip)
> That can't be done. The Sl-30 can not share a CDI with the Gnc-300xl. The
> OBS legs of the Sl-30 can't go through a relay of any type. John
>
> (snip)
>
> John,
> From my understanding, others have done just that switching the inputs to
> the OBS via dpdt switch. Is that what you are referring to?
> Dave
>
> (snip)
>
> You can switch everything except the OBS. The Sl-30 looses its calibration
> each time you switch and then it requires you to go through the whole
> calibration procedure again.
>
> John Stark Stark Avionics
3/23/2005
Hello Dave Ford, John Stark is operating on hearsay, gossip, and rumor. I
encountered this same "it is not possible" information when I was having my
panel made and found it to be untrue.
My panel, built by David Buckwalter of Avionics Systems, consists of a GNS
430, an SL-30, and a GI 106A. I use a Northern Airborne RS 16-001 data
switch to connect the three of them. I shift between the GNS 430 and the
SL-30 with a lighted push button switch. One half labeled GNS 430 and the
other half labeled SL-30. Every push of the switch cycles from one to the
other.
On the GI 106A there are three lights: NAV, VOR/LOC, and GPS. When the NAV
light is lit I am feeding the CDI from the SL-30. When either the VOR/LOC or
GPS light is lit I am feeding the CDI from the GNS 430. To shift between
VOR/LOC or GPS I push the CDI button on the face of the GNS 430.
Everything works perfectly (Thanks, David). When flying ILS approaches I
frequently use the SL-30 set up on the localizer and glidescope and use the
GNS 430 for mileage and big picture information.
If you would like I'll provide you the pin to pin connection information off
list. You might also call David Buckwalter at Avionics Systems
(888-833-5487) with any questions that you may have.
OC
PS: The SL-30 is a great choice -- you will love it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Antenna doubler plates |
Fellow listers,
I am starting the installation of my Comant CI122 com antenna on the underbelly
of my RV6A.
All I can find in the archives is Eric Newton's post on a 3" x 6" x .040 doubler
along with a couple of others that indicate that one is required/has been used
- check the 43.13. No mention of the basis for the dimensions used.
Obviously, the AC 43.13 should have info on the determination of the appropriate
dimensions - but I have not learned to read that mumbo jumbo well enough to
get any usable information from it.
If someone could point out the correct paragraph or how they arrived at their specific
numbers, I would greatly appreciate it.
Ralph Capen
RV6AQB N822AR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brianstanley <brianstanley(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Bendix King KFC 150 Autopilot |
Anyone help me diagnose this problem. The autopilot goes through it self
test routine fine. The command bar works perfectly off the heading bug
and altitude controller. The problem comes if I then engage the
autopilot the yoke locks solid both in pitch and roll. Has anybody had
that happen to theirs.
The plane just came back from some wing work where components were moved
around. I know the wiring got cut and spliced so I'm wondering if some
of the wiring got reconnected wrongly. Does anyone have an install
manual for a KFC150 so I could do a point to point continuity check? The
shop is telling me it's a coincidence and they did reconnect the wiring
correctly but I'd like to verify if I could.
Thanks Brian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AVIATION GROUP <aviationgrp(at)yahoo.com> |
AVIATION News Group to view & share your valuable comments and the latest trends
and happenings in the aviation industry.
Please click on the attached yahoo group link site to share & receive the updates
on the latest happenings, business ventures, business opportunities, Air Shows
and Exhibitions, New Aircraft releases, and certifications, Career news, Appointments
etc.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AVIATION-NEWS/
Please take few moments recommend us to your near & dears in the industry. We
welcome your valuable comments and updates.
With best regards
AVIATION NEWS.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AVIATION-NEWS/
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Antenna doubler plates |
Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Ralph E. Capen"
> Fellow listers, I am starting the installation of my Comant CI122 com
> antenna on the underbelly
> of my RV6A. All I can find in the archives is Eric Newton's post on a 3" x
> 6" x .040 doubler
> along with a couple of others that indicate that one is required/has been
> used
> - check the 43.13. No mention of the basis for the dimensions used.
> Obviously, the AC 43.13 should have info on the determination of the
> appropriate
> dimensions - but I have not learned to read that mumbo jumbo well enough
> to
> get any usable information from it. If someone could point out the correct
> paragraph or how >they arrived at their specific numbers, I would greatly
> appreciate it. Ralph Capen RV6AQB N822AR
4/13/2005
Hello Ralph, Since you are putting this antenna on a relatively large metal
surface you are not concerned with providing a ground plane for electro
magnetic performance purposes, but just providing some additional strength
for structural purposes.
The dimensions are therefore not very critical assuming that the only holes
through the aircraft skin are for the center coax connection and the antenna
mounting screws. The trade off then becomes one of adding sufficient
additional strength to carry the bending forces on the skin from the
antenna,but not adding excessive unneeded weight.
You could go to Figure 4-16 of AC 43.13 and use those samples to crunch some
numbers if you wish, but that is not really necessary. Cut a doubler plate
in a square or rectangular shape (easier to make than a round doubler plate)
that is comfortably larger than the antenna base (at least two inches larger
all around should do it). Take into account the nearness of any bulkheads or
other structure that would interfere with drilling and riveting. Round off
the corners. Use a rivet spacing (no greater than that used in the
surrounding sturcture) that works out nicely for each side of the double
plate.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna doubler plates |
Dunno about the mount, but the ground plane for the xponder antenna only
needs to be a 5.5" diameter circle.
http://www.berkut13.com/berkut30.htm#transponder
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Avionics-List: Antenna doubler plates
> All I can find in the archives is Eric Newton's post on a 3" x 6" x .040
> doubler along with a couple of others that indicate that one is
> required/has been used - check the 43.13. No mention of the basis for the
> dimensions used.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna doubler plates |
Got the grounding plane covered.......aluminum skin.......I'm concerned about stiffening
the .025 skin....
I've seen the stuff you did - I'll be doing mine relatively the same way as I'll
have a couple of antennas mounted up under the engine cowling....
-----Original Message-----
From: James Redmon <james(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Antenna doubler plates
Dunno about the mount, but the ground plane for the xponder antenna only
needs to be a 5.5" diameter circle.
http://www.berkut13.com/berkut30.htm#transponder
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Avionics-List: Antenna doubler plates
> All I can find in the archives is Eric Newton's post on a 3" x 6" x .040
> doubler along with a couple of others that indicate that one is
> required/has been used - check the 43.13. No mention of the basis for the
> dimensions used.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eberhart <steve(at)newtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aviation News |
AVIATION GROUP wrote:
>
>
>AVIATION News Group to view & share your valuable comments and the latest trends
and happenings in the aviation industry.
>
>Please click on the attached yahoo group link site to share & receive the updates
on the latest happenings, business ventures, business opportunities, Air Shows
and Exhibitions, New Aircraft releases, and certifications, Career news,
Appointments etc.
>
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AVIATION-NEWS/
>
>
>Please take few moments recommend us to your near & dears in the industry. We
welcome your valuable comments and updates.
>
>
>With best regards
>
>AVIATION NEWS.
>
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AVIATION-NEWS/
>
>
Not another Yahoo group :-( The Yahoo groups are slowly coming back to
Matt's lists. Why start another?
Steve Eberhart
RV-7A, working on wings
N14SE reserved
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [Please Read] Matronics Email Server Upgrade... |
Dear Listers,
I will be upgrading the Matronics Email Server this weekend. This includes
some hardware improvements - more memory, faster, more capable processors -
as well as a complete operating system upgrade from scratch. I hope to
have both the old system and the new system running at the same time to
minimize the actual impact of the upgrade.
Hopefully there will be little actual downtime during the transition, but a
few posts may get lost in the shuffle. If you don't see your post show up
on the List in the normal amount of time (plus a little bit), then please
just try posting it again.
Upgrading the Matronics Email Server operating system (from Redhat Linux
7.2 to Redhat Linux WS 4) is a sizeable undertaking and requires a great
deal of work to port all of the utilities, programs, and scripts over to
the new system. As I've already mentioned, both the old and new systems
will be on line at the same time, so interruption should be held to an
absolute minimal. You might see a couple of odd test messages during the
cut-over or other odd messages; please just ignore them.
I have setup a new System Status Web Page that I will use to update List
Members on the current status of the email and web systems. Please refer
to it as often as you like:
http://www.matronics.com/SystemStatus/
Thank you for your continued support of the List Services at
Matronics! Its your yearly Contributions that make these major upgrades
possible!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [Please Read] Matronics Email Server Upgrade Complete! |
Dear Listers,
The upgrade of the Matronics Email Server can be considered complete at
this time. All known issues related to the upgrade process have been
resolved and email services are running normal. The Nightly Digest
processing has not yet been tested and will wait for tonight's update.
If you encounter any odd behavior with respect to the Matronics Email
Server over the next few days, please contact me via email at
dralle(at)matronics.com or if that fails try dralle(at)speakeasy.net.
Thanks to everyone for being patient through this arduous process of a
major system upgrade!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
At 12:37 PM 4/16/2005 Saturday, Matt Dralle wrote:
>Dear Listers,
>
>I will be upgrading the Matronics Email Server this weekend. This
>includes some hardware improvements - more memory, faster, more capable
>processors - as well as a complete operating system upgrade from
>scratch. I hope to have both the old system and the new system running at
>the same time to minimize the actual impact of the upgrade.
>
>Hopefully there will be little actual downtime during the transition, but
>a few posts may get lost in the shuffle. If you don't see your post show
>up on the List in the normal amount of time (plus a little bit), then
>please just try posting it again.
>
>Upgrading the Matronics Email Server operating system (from Redhat Linux
>7.2 to Redhat Linux WS 4) is a sizeable undertaking and requires a great
>deal of work to port all of the utilities, programs, and scripts over to
>the new system. As I've already mentioned, both the old and new systems
>will be on line at the same time, so interruption should be held to an
>absolute minimal. You might see a couple of odd test messages during the
>cut-over or other odd messages; please just ignore them.
>
>I have setup a new System Status Web Page that I will use to update List
>Members on the current status of the email and web systems. Please refer
>to it as often as you like:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/SystemStatus/
>
>
>Thank you for your continued support of the List Services at
>Matronics! Its your yearly Contributions that make these major upgrades
>possible!
>
>Best regards,
>
>Matt Dralle
>Matronics Email List Administrator
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Larkin" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Antenna doubler plates |
I could not have said it better myself....
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Subject: Avionics-List: Antenna doubler plates
Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Ralph E. Capen"
> Fellow listers, I am starting the installation of my Comant CI122 com
> antenna on the underbelly
> of my RV6A. All I can find in the archives is Eric Newton's post on a
3" x
> 6" x .040 doubler
> along with a couple of others that indicate that one is required/has
been
> used
> - check the 43.13. No mention of the basis for the dimensions used.
> Obviously, the AC 43.13 should have info on the determination of the
> appropriate
> dimensions - but I have not learned to read that mumbo jumbo well
enough
> to
> get any usable information from it. If someone could point out the
correct
> paragraph or how >they arrived at their specific numbers, I would
greatly
> appreciate it. Ralph Capen RV6AQB N822AR
4/13/2005
Hello Ralph, Since you are putting this antenna on a relatively large
metal
surface you are not concerned with providing a ground plane for electro
magnetic performance purposes, but just providing some additional
strength
for structural purposes.
The dimensions are therefore not very critical assuming that the only
holes
through the aircraft skin are for the center coax connection and the
antenna
mounting screws. The trade off then becomes one of adding sufficient
additional strength to carry the bending forces on the skin from the
antenna,but not adding excessive unneeded weight.
You could go to Figure 4-16 of AC 43.13 and use those samples to crunch
some
numbers if you wish, but that is not really necessary. Cut a doubler
plate
in a square or rectangular shape (easier to make than a round doubler
plate)
that is comfortably larger than the antenna base (at least two inches
larger
all around should do it). Take into account the nearness of any
bulkheads or
other structure that would interfere with drilling and riveting. Round
off
the corners. Use a rivet spacing (no greater than that used in the
surrounding sturcture) that works out nicely for each side of the double
plate.
OC
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pascal Gosselin <pascal(at)aeroteknic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bendix King KFC 150 Autopilot |
At 21:20 2005-04-11, you wrote:
>
>Anyone help me diagnose this problem. The autopilot goes through it self
>test routine fine. The command bar works perfectly off the heading bug
>and altitude controller. The problem comes if I then engage the
>autopilot the yoke locks solid both in pitch and roll. Has anybody had
>that happen to theirs.
>
>The plane just came back from some wing work where components were moved
>around. I know the wiring got cut and spliced so I'm wondering if some
>of the wiring got reconnected wrongly. Does anyone have an install
>manual for a KFC150 so I could do a point to point continuity check? The
>shop is telling me it's a coincidence and they did reconnect the wiring
>correctly but I'd like to verify if I could.
>Thanks Brian
Give these guys a try:
http://www.capitalavionics.com/
-Pascal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Lehman" <lehmans(at)sympatico.ca> |
Listers,
The old Terra TXN 920 has mechanical frequency selection by tiny pushbuttons
above and below each digit. One digit does not change properly in either
direction. The 2 buttons are stiff and the number usually moves only 3/4 of
the way to the next digit. One com digit is also difficult but it changes
fully with a little jiggle of the pushbuttons.
There is no access to the switch mechanism or contacts without major
surgery.
I'm looking for some experience with this problem. Should I try to get some
silicon spray or Corrosion-X/ACF 50 into the switch? Other ideas?
Thanks,
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | EuropaXSA276(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Terra TXN 920 |
Mike:
I had this unit in my old Cherokee. I experienced the same problem. I
removed outer case of the unit. I cleaned the tumblers with using an aerosol for
dusting off computer key boards. That fixed it. < You will need the long
plastic pipe that comes with the can to reach the area> I would not suggest using
any kind of lubricant on these switches.
Another word of caution. The tiny plastic windows in front of the numbers
have a tendency to fall out. < I lost one> Impossible to replace. And
impossible to find on an asphalt hanger floor!
Brian Skelly
Texas
Europa # A276 TriGear
See My build photos at:
http://www.europaowners.org/BrianS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "TOM EARHART" <TOMEAR(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Pin out for Transponder |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "TOM EARHART"
I need the pin out for a Narco AT6-A Transponder. If you can help, thanks in advance.
Tom Earhart
406-563-3332
TOMEAR(at)msn.com
N3268B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Larkin" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Pin out for Transponder |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin"
Tom,
Until you asked I had not even heard of an AT-6, but I was able to find
the pinouts..
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of TOM
EARHART
Subject: Avionics-List: Pin out for Transponder
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "TOM EARHART"
I need the pin out for a Narco AT6-A Transponder. If you can help,
thanks in advance.
Tom Earhart
406-563-3332
TOMEAR(at)msn.com
N3268B
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "TOM EARHART" <TOMEAR(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin out for Transponder |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "TOM EARHART"
Mike I received your E-mail but no pinout. I have found it on the Narco web page.
Thanks for trying. Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Larkin
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Pin out for Transponder
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin"
Tom,
Until you asked I had not even heard of an AT-6, but I was able to find
the pinouts..
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of TOM
EARHART
Subject: Avionics-List: Pin out for Transponder
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "TOM EARHART"
I need the pin out for a Narco AT6-A Transponder. If you can help,
thanks in advance.
Tom Earhart
406-563-3332
TOMEAR(at)msn.com
N3268B
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Giffen A Marr" <gamarr(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 05/31/05 |
What happened to the number of messages in the header? It started yesterday
that the message content disappeared. It saves me from opening every bulk
e-mail when I can see that there are no messages.
Giff Marr
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Avionics-List
Digest Server
Subject: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 05/31/05
*
==================================================
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.2005-05-3
1.html
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/avionics-list/Digest.Avionics-List.2005-05-3
1.txt
================================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
================================================
Avionics-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Tue 05/31/05: 0
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 05/31/05 |
What do you mean? I see it there...? "Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs -
05/31/05" in the Subject field...
Matt Dralle
At 06:25 AM 6/1/2005 Wednesday, you wrote:
>
>What happened to the number of messages in the header? It started yesterday
>that the message content disappeared. It saves me from opening every bulk
>e-mail when I can see that there are no messages.
>Giff Marr
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Avionics-List
>Digest Server
>To: Avionics-List Digest List
>Subject: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 05/31/05
>
>*
>
> ==================================================
> 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.2005-05-3
>1.html
>
>Text Version:
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/digest/avionics-list/Digest.Avionics-List.2005-05-3
>1.txt
>
>
> ================================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
>================================================
>
>
> Avionics-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Tue 05/31/05: 0
>
>
>Today's Message Index:
>----------------------
>
>
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lmar <my93avid(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Blind encoder readout |
Hi,
Is there as way that I could read the altitude that my encoder is transmittitng.
Might I also be able to adjust the encoder to read the correct altitude.
While I can usually follow directions, I do not have an understanding of avionics
or electronics.
Thanks,
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Blind encoder readout |
Larry,
There are several portable gadgets on the market that will read what your
encoder and transponder are transmitting. I don't have the details at the
moment, but, if you peruse the Flyer mags, you will probably find an ad.
However, the one I have seen a lot of is around $600. So, maybe someone has
one to loan you for a weekend. You just put it on the top of the panel and
go fly with the transponder on. It will display what the ground radar is
receiving from you.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lmar" <my93avid(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Avionics-List: Blind encoder readout
>
> Hi,
>
> Is there as way that I could read the altitude that my encoder is
> transmittitng. Might I also be able to adjust the encoder to read the
> correct altitude. While I can usually follow directions, I do not have an
> understanding of avionics or electronics.
>
> Thanks,
> Larry
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blind encoder readout |
Larry,
One option is to buy and assemble an Altitude Encoder Test Box Kit from
RST Engineering
(http://rst-engr.com/rst/catalog/altitude_encoder_and_elt.html).
The nine LEDs illuminate to show the state of your encoder's output
lines and can be used with a chart of altitude vs. encoder output to
decode your altitude and (possibly) adjust your encoder. See
http://rst-engr.com/rst/articles/kpapr98/index.html
I homebrewed a version of this tester but was unable to properly adjust
my old TCI piece-of-junk-suitable-only-as-a-boatanchor blind encoder.
Nowadays the tester still comes in handy to verify the output of my
Dynon EFIS encoder or a local buddy's ACK encoder at field elevation.
And with a small suction bulb applied to the static port, I can run the
altitude up as desired for further testing.
--
Joe
Joe Dubner, K7JD
523 Cedar Avenue
Lewiston, ID 83501
cell: (208) 305-2688
http://www.nicon.org/chapter328/jd/
On 03-Jun-05 07:11 Lmar wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is there as way that I could read the altitude that my encoder is transmittitng.
Might I also be able to adjust the encoder to read the correct altitude.
While I can usually follow directions, I do not have an understanding of avionics
or electronics.
>
> Thanks,
> Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blind encoder readout |
> Is there as way that I could read the altitude that my encoder is transmittitng.
Might I also be able to adjust the encoder to read the correct altitude.
Remember that the transponder puts out your pressure altitude. No correction for
the local barometric pressure is applied in the aircraft. It's done on the ground.
That means that anything you build for comparison with your altimeter will have
to include the appropriate arithmetic.
--
--> The best programming tool is a soldering iron <--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Blind encoder readout |
Do it the easy way! Call ATC and ask them what your transponder is
broadcasting. They can read it off the moniter as if the altimeter setting
was 29.92. Set your altimeter to 29.92 to get a valid check. When you get
your biannual transponder check, get an altimeter check for every 1000 ft.
The encoder can be adjusted if necessary.
Leo Corbalis
P.S. DO NOT CALL WHEN THE WEATHER IS STINKY AND THERE AIS LOTS OF TRAFFIC !
>> Is there as way that I could read the altitude that my encoder is
>> transmittitng. Might I also be able to adjust the encoder to read the
>> correct altitude.
>
> Remember that the transponder puts out your pressure altitude. No
> correction for the local barometric pressure is applied in the aircraft.
> It's done on the ground.
>
> That means that anything you build for comparison with your altimeter will
> have to include the appropriate arithmetic.
> --
> --> The best programming tool is a soldering iron <--
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org |
| Subject: | LED-based logo lights |
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID215JFeglv0443X29
1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
My family is currently building a Lancair IVP-turbine and I'm tasked with
doing all of the electronics and lighting. My father (the primary pilot) wants
"logo" lights - lights that shine on the vertical stab. to improve visibility
at night. The only place I really have to mount such lights is in on the
inside surface of the winglets which aren't themsleves very thick. Given that,
I've been thinking that an array of white LED's might be a good way to get the
amount of light I'm looking for while keeping the form factor very flat to fit
inside the winglet.
I'm considering using Lumex's SSP-LX6144A9UC high-intensity LEDs as the lights
of choice (a PDF of their characteristics can be found at
http://www.lumex.com/product.asp?id=1006182 - short version: 10 deg. double
angle, 2 lumens total flux, 12 candella axial intensity, ~400mW). I can buy
these at $22 ea. at Allied Electronics. I'm not 100% sure how many I'll need
but I suspect I'll want more than 8 on a side. Ideally, I'd want a light with
a double angle of 9 degrees.
First, can anyone else suggest a white LED that has a higher intentisty in the
angle I'm looking for at less money total? If we decide to paint the tail
something like red I'll simply use a red LED as the logo light.
Secondly, I've got a question about wiring up such devices. Usually when
wiring an LED you put a current-limiting resistor in series with the LED and
then put a bunch of such pairs in parallel. This helps to overcome the
temperature/current correlation common in diodes (and bipolar transistors)
that allows a single element in a parallel array to hog current and burn out
first. However, I've got a 28v supply native to the aircraft and each LED is
happiest with 3.4V. Could I simply put 7 of these in series with a small
resistor to fix the desired current at 100-120 mA? That would give me 14
lumens per side on a surface a few feet high and wide. Would that be bright
enough to make the tail visible to other planes from far enough away to
matter?
Thanks for the input.
Chad
Chad Sipperley
Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
Phoenix, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
Don't know a thing about the technical aspect of installing LEDs but one
thing really caught my eye; the use of a red light on the tail.
Aircraft have a red light on the left wingtip, a green light on the right
wingtip and a white light on the tail. In flight at night you can tell the
direction of flight by the color you see. Don't believe an inspector would
approve an aircraft for fight with any other color arrangement.
Better check with your air worthiness inspector before you go to all that
work.
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jlundberg(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Wanted-Narco Transponder Tray |
Does anyone have a Narco Transponder tray they want to sell?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LED-based logo lights |
>Secondly, I've got a question about wiring up such devices. Usually when
>wiring an LED you put a current-limiting resistor in series with the LED and
>then put a bunch of such pairs in parallel. This helps to overcome the
>temperature/current correlation common in diodes (and bipolar transistors)
>that allows a single element in a parallel array to hog current and burn out
>first. However, I've got a 28v supply native to the aircraft and each LED is
>happiest with 3.4V. Could I simply put 7 of these in series with a small
>resistor to fix the desired current at 100-120 mA?
Yes.
It's also possible to prepare the "resistor" as a power transistor in the ground
side and hook up a few other components to make a constant current device. You
could get 8 LED's in series that way.
Someday I shall replace my instrument lights that way.
--
--> If you are presented a number as a percentage, and you do not clearly understand
the numerator and the denominator involved, you are surely being lied to.
<--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rowland Carson <rowil(at)clara.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LED-based logo lights |
>You could get 8 LED's in series that way.
>
>Someday I shall replace my instrument lights that way
Doug - have you considered the effects of a single LED failure in
this scheme? I suggest that at least 2 such strings are arranged in
parallel so that everything doesn't go black when one diode dies.
(Yes, I know LEDs don't fail as often as incandescant lamps, but I'd
hate to be left in the dark on that one rare occasion when a failure
did occur!)
regards
Rowland
--
| Wilma & Rowland Carson <http://home.clara.net/rowil/>
| ... that's Rowland with a 'w' ...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cheap(er) ADS-B solutions? |
| From: | "Lawson, Michael" <mikel(at)ssd.fsi.com> |
I was excited to read about Garmin's GDL-90 Universal Access Transceiver
(UAT) for ADS-B traffic and FIS-B (free) uplink weather. I find it
affordable for the amount of lifesaving data available through it.
However, I was not so impressed that I had to hook it up to an MX-20 in
order to display anything. (Too expensive.)
Has anyone done any work (or would like to) regarding getting traffic
and weather data out of the GDL-90 and into something like an iPaq or
PC?
I know I can buy a Mode S transponder that will receive TIS, but it will
neither be able to transmit ADS-B position reports, nor will not be able
to receive FIS-B weather updates. The GDL-90 UAT is a much better
overall solution, if someone could get the data out into some standard
format.
Mike Lawson
RV-8A/fuselage in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cheap(er) ADS-B solutions? |
| From: | "Tom Brusehaver" <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
I was part of a conversation yesterday, where an FCC vendor
thought CAT-62 was not network centric. Stupid technical
choice and all. Europe is gonna have a better ATC system
than the US in the next couple years!
Anyhow, here is one document that talks about the mix ADS-B
TIS-B conflict alerts, and everything. Using CAT-62, the TIS-B
message is built.
http://www.nextor.org/pubs2/Symposium03/ European-Medium-Term-Conf.pdf
here is a similar document:
www.terma.com/multimedia/TIS-B_Application_Note.pdf
And then the ICAO study, starts at:
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/ro/apac/adsb_2003/wp19.pdf
Talking about VDL mode 4 and UAT's
Digging in on google the details can be found out about.
wrote:
>
>
>
> I was excited to read about Garmin's GDL-90 Universal Access Transceiver
> (UAT) for ADS-B traffic and FIS-B (free) uplink weather. I find it
> affordable for the amount of lifesaving data available through it.
>
> However, I was not so impressed that I had to hook it up to an MX-20 in
> order to display anything. (Too expensive.)
>
> Has anyone done any work (or would like to) regarding getting traffic
> and weather data out of the GDL-90 and into something like an iPaq or
> PC?
>
> I know I can buy a Mode S transponder that will receive TIS, but it will
> neither be able to transmit ADS-B position reports, nor will not be able
> to receive FIS-B weather updates. The GDL-90 UAT is a much better
> overall solution, if someone could get the data out into some standard
> format.
>
> Mike Lawson
> RV-8A/fuselage in progress
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott and Valeree Stout <the_stouts(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Pinout: Narco mrk-101r |
Hello All...
I was hoping someone might have the pinout for a Narco mrk-101r marker
beacon receiver. Any help is appreciated...
Thx...
-Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS indicator |
I am an RV guy and have a question.
Can an Argus 5000 be used as the sole indicator for an IFR GPS? Is an
additional annunciator required? How would OBS mode work?
Thanks
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark & Lisa" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | RE: IFR GPS indicator |
Doug,
Each IFR GPS has different requirements. The best thing to do is get with
the manufacturer; they can tell you exactly what you need for an IFR
installation.
Regards,
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
> From: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com>
> Subject: Avionics-List: IFR GPS indicator
>
>
>
> I am an RV guy and have a question.
>
> Can an Argus 5000 be used as the sole indicator for an IFR GPS? Is an
> additional annunciator required? How would OBS mode work?
>
> Thanks
>
> Tailwinds,
> Doug Rozendaal
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pinout: Narco mrk-101r |
> I was hoping someone might have the pinout for a Narco mrk-101r
marker
> beacon receiver. Any help is appreciated...
>
> Thx...
>
> -Scott
>
P102:
1 - Dimming (to lamp bus)
2- 14/28V DC in
3 - Ground
4 - Mute
5 - NC
6 - Audio Out
P103:
1 - Test activate
2 - Lamp common
3 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 9 - B - J -> NC
4 - Blue lamp
8 - Ground
C & D - Jumper
E - White lamp
F - Amber lamp
H & K - Jumper
Unless you're connecting to a Narco audio panel, you may need the MKR
101 service manual to deduce how to wire above to someone else's box
and/or lamps.
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Doug Rozendaal"
> I am an RV guy and have a question. Can an Argus 5000 be used as the sole
> indicator for an IFR
> GPS? Is an additional annunciator required? How would OBS mode work?
> Thanks Tailwinds,
> Doug Rozendaal
7/4/2005
Hello Doug, If you are going to be flying your aircraft IFR the wording of
your Operating Limitations and the FAA's interpretation of that wording is
that your aircraft must comply with the instrument and equipment
requirements of FAR Sec. 91.205.
If you read that entire Section carefully, paying particular attention to
sub paragraph (d) (2), that should answer your question regarding the
regulatory requirement for an additional annuciator in your amateur built
experimental airplane.
Guidance on GPS operations under IFR is available in paragraph 1-1-20 of the
Aeronautical Information Manual.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Split Pin Connectors? |
7/4/2005
Hello Experts and a Happy Independence Day to you, My friend took his
Beechcraft Sierra to an avionics shop because his autopilot was not working
when he retrieved the airplane from its annual inspection.
The avionics shop gave him a tale of woe plus big $$$$$ about needing to
replace a bunch of "split pin connectors" in the autopilot wiring system.
I am not familiar with "split pin connectors". Can anyone please educate me?
Thanks.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Split Pin Connectors? |
| From: | "Colin Durey" <colin(at)ptclhk.com> |
Could be one of two things...
A.
Some connectors use a split (bifurcated) pin, that is, a pin which has a
small londitudinal cut, which makes the end of the pin compressible. This
pin can then be pushed into a mating socket, which compreses it, thus
providing a more positive electrical contact. The usual way is to have a
solid pin, which pushes into a multi-fingered socket. Which is actually
better, I don't know. However, the sort of connectors that are used in
avionics are usually expensive, not neccesarrily because they need to be,
but just because its avionics, and they've got you over a barrel.
OR
B.
It could just be a "snow job". Typicaly, such connectors do not fail
unless 1) they are coupled and uncoupled many times, or, 2)there is a
corrosion buildup.
Ask which specific connectors are faulty, what they are fitted to, and
what the specific problem with them is alledged to be.
Regards
Colin Durey
>
> 7/4/2005
>
> Hello Experts and a Happy Independence Day to you, My friend took his
> Beechcraft Sierra to an avionics shop because his autopilot was not
> working
> when he retrieved the airplane from its annual inspection.
>
> The avionics shop gave him a tale of woe plus big $$$$$ about needing to
> replace a bunch of "split pin connectors" in the autopilot wiring system.
>
> I am not familiar with "split pin connectors". Can anyone please educate
> me?
> Thanks.
>
> OC
>
>
Regards
Colin Durey
Pacific Technology Corporation Ltd
+61-418-677073 (M)
+61-2-945466162 (F)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Split Pin Connectors? |
A friend flies a P Baron usually at flight levels of 21K or higher.
His old King autopilot was giving him fits as it would randomly uncouple or
roll.
Turns out the main bulkhead connector was exposed to the temps of the
altitude and the bifurcated pins were shrinking at a different rate than the
mating socket receptors. At lower, warmer altitudes, the AP did not show
any mischievous problems. He chased the electronics as the problem source.
But, turns out it was some of the connector pins. He replaced the pins with
the modern equivalent and has had no further problems.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin Durey" <colin(at)ptclhk.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Split Pin Connectors?
>
> Could be one of two things...
>
> A.
> Some connectors use a split (bifurcated) pin, that is, a pin which has a
> small londitudinal cut, which makes the end of the pin compressible. This
> pin can then be pushed into a mating socket, which compreses it, thus
> providing a more positive electrical contact. The usual way is to have a
> solid pin, which pushes into a multi-fingered socket. Which is actually
> better, I don't know. However, the sort of connectors that are used in
> avionics are usually expensive, not neccesarrily because they need to be,
> but just because its avionics, and they've got you over a barrel.
>
> OR
>
> B.
> It could just be a "snow job". Typicaly, such connectors do not fail
> unless 1) they are coupled and uncoupled many times, or, 2)there is a
> corrosion buildup.
>
> Ask which specific connectors are faulty, what they are fitted to, and
> what the specific problem with them is alledged to be.
>
> Regards
>
> Colin Durey
>>
>> 7/4/2005
>>
>> Hello Experts and a Happy Independence Day to you, My friend took his
>> Beechcraft Sierra to an avionics shop because his autopilot was not
>> working
>> when he retrieved the airplane from its annual inspection.
>>
>> The avionics shop gave him a tale of woe plus big $$$$$ about needing to
>> replace a bunch of "split pin connectors" in the autopilot wiring system.
>>
>> I am not familiar with "split pin connectors". Can anyone please educate
>> me?
>> Thanks.
>>
>> OC
>>
>>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Colin Durey
> Pacific Technology Corporation Ltd
> +61-418-677073 (M)
> +61-2-945466162 (F)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom..." <tsled(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | MicroAir T2000 Transponder & ALT-4 .... |
Hi,
I bought a MicroAir T2000 SFL Transponder and a Stratomaster Maxi Single
ALT-4, I finally got around to installing them. I made a cable according to
the wiring diagram in the manual that shows these two connected. I
installed them into my home built helicopter and when I power them up they
both seem to go thru their start up test just fine. But when I go to "Alt
Display" on the Transponder it says "NO ALTITUDE". I have removed the
unites from my helicopter, buzzed the cable and it is correct. Yes I have
the GNDs connected. I have it hooked up on a bench and it says the same
thing. When I disconnect the encoder cable the Transponder continues to say
the same thing "NO ALT". The Altimeter "seems" to indicate the correct
altitude, the VSI portion "seems" to work. I sent the ALT-4 back and they
say it checked out fine but just to be 100+% sure they sent me a new unit.
Same exact thing. I am 99.999% sure that the cable is done according to the
manual, I even had a friend buzz it too.
Have ya heard of this before? Do ya have any ideas?
Thanks for your time,
Tom...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MicroAir T2000 Transponder & ALT-4 .... |
| From: | "Craig P. Steffen" <craig(at)craigsteffen.net> |
> Same exact thing. I am 99.999% sure that the cable is done according to the
> manual, I even had a friend buzz it too.
I'm not familiar with aircraft electronics specifically, just
electronics in general.
Is it possible that one end of the cable is plugged in upside-down?
Will it go into the case in more than one way? Be VERY careful about
this--it's very easy to fry electronics getting it wrong.
One thing to check on the diagrams--they usually have things like
looking at the pins" or something to indicate which is left and
right. Those are pretty easy to mess up, particularly when you're
doing both ends of a cable. That's worth checking.
Do you have access to an oscilloscope? You can look at the signals
coming out of the encoder with it if you do. You won't be able to
read then, but you can verify that the "clock" is pulsing, for
example. Since they checked your unit, it's likley not the sender
that's the problem. If you can check the signals with the two units
plugged in, you can check the signals again. If anything that was
sending logic signals is now just a single voltage, then you have
something connected where it shouldn't be.
Craig Steffen
--
craig(at)craigsteffen.net
public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/
current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books
career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MicroAir T2000 Transponder & ALT-4 .... |
As a test, disconnect the encoder and ground the B2 and C2 pins going into
the transponder. That is the code for 500 feet. See if the transponder
responds accordingly and displays 500. If not, there may be a problem with
the transponder.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom..." <tsled(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Avionics-List: MicroAir T2000 Transponder & ALT-4 ....
>
> Hi,
>
> I bought a MicroAir T2000 SFL Transponder and a Stratomaster Maxi Single
> ALT-4, I finally got around to installing them. I made a cable according
to
> the wiring diagram in the manual that shows these two connected. I
> installed them into my home built helicopter and when I power them up they
> both seem to go thru their start up test just fine. But when I go to "Alt
> Display" on the Transponder it says "NO ALTITUDE". I have removed the
> unites from my helicopter, buzzed the cable and it is correct. Yes I have
> the GNDs connected. I have it hooked up on a bench and it says the same
> thing. When I disconnect the encoder cable the Transponder continues to
say
> the same thing "NO ALT". The Altimeter "seems" to indicate the correct
> altitude, the VSI portion "seems" to work. I sent the ALT-4 back and they
> say it checked out fine but just to be 100+% sure they sent me a new unit.
> Same exact thing. I am 99.999% sure that the cable is done according to
the
> manual, I even had a friend buzz it too.
>
> Have ya heard of this before? Do ya have any ideas?
>
> Thanks for your time,
> Tom...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List Digest Truncation Fixed!! |
Dear Listers,
I finally figured out today what was causing the occasional
truncation of the daily List Digest emails. Seems that every once in
a while a message would contain a single "." (period) on line all by
itself. The mailers would see this and assume that this was the
universal emailer signal for "end of message", and consequently
wouldn't process any of the rest of the Digest message.
I've put in a filter today to remove any of these sequences so we
should be back in business on the Digests.
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lmar <my93avid(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi all,
I have a Stratomaster engine insturment that advise to use a "transorb" between
the poositive and negative after the fuse and prior to the insturment in order
to absorb transiet high voltage. I have not been able to find a "transorb".
Do we in the USA call it by another name?
Electronically challenged,
Larry
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
Hello Larry,
Try entering transorb in google. You will find sources and description
of use.
Have a great day,
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lmar
Subject: Avionics-List: Transorb?
Hi all,
I have a Stratomaster engine insturment that advise to use a
"transorb" between the poositive and negative after the fuse and prior
to the insturment in order to absorb transiet high voltage. I have not
been able to find a "transorb". Do we in the USA call it by another
name?
Electronically challenged,
Larry
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Puckett" <rv8er(at)myawai.com> |
| Subject: | KMA20 installation manual or ?? |
Hello,
I'm installing a KMA20 and while I have the pin-out from
aeroelectric.com I need a couple of questions answered.
It appears that the KMA20 has a speaker input and a phone level input
from each Comm. The TKM radio has a speaker output and a Comm. output.
I'm assuming that I should not be connecting both of these, but I'm not
sure.
Does the KMA20 have a speaker level and a phone level input available
just so you can connect a navcom that may only have one or the other.
I'm worried that both of these inputs will be summed if I connect them
both and the overall volume will be twice as loud as it should.
Does anyone have a KMA20 install manual handy that may have the answer
to this?
Thanks,
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
Lmar wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>
> I have a Stratomaster engine insturment that advise to use a "transorb" between
the poositive and negative after the fuse and prior to the insturment in order
to absorb transiet high voltage. I have not been able to find a "transorb".
Do we in the USA call it by another name?
>
>Electronically challenged,
>
>Larry
>
If Google doesn't help, try the Aeroelectric-list. You'll probably learn
more than you ever wanted to know. :-)
I'd love to hear about your experiences with the Stratomaster. It looks
nice 'on paper'. What engine are you using it with?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim & Diane Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
Larry,
Transorb might be a trademark, transient voltage suppressers are common.
Try www.digikey.com, they have a selection for a dollar or so apiece.
Tim Shankland
Lmar wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>
> I have a Stratomaster engine insturment that advise to use a "transorb" between
the poositive and negative after the fuse and prior to the insturment in order
to absorb transiet high voltage. I have not been able to find a "transorb".
Do we in the USA call it by another name?
>
>Electronically challenged,
>
>Larry
>
>
>---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Franz Fux" <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
If you goggle it you not only get a detailed description of the term
transorb but also some diagrams and drawings on how to use the unit,
Franz
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charlie
England
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Transorb?
Lmar wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>
> I have a Stratomaster engine insturment that advise to use a "transorb"
between the poositive and negative after the fuse and prior to the
insturment in order to absorb transiet high voltage. I have not been able
to find a "transorb". Do we in the USA call it by another name?
>
>Electronically challenged,
>
>Larry
>
If Google doesn't help, try the Aeroelectric-list. You'll probably learn
more than you ever wanted to know. :-)
I'd love to hear about your experiences with the Stratomaster. It looks
nice 'on paper'. What engine are you using it with?
Charlie
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Larkin" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | KMA20 installation manual or ?? |
The speaker input to the KMA-20 is a load for the output of the com
radio being used. Some com radios need a load for the power generated
for the speaker output and the KMA-20 gives you a place to send it. On
all newer radios the com has its own load and connecting to the speaker
input on the KMA-20 is not required. That being said, I'm not sure
about the TKM stuff. The folks at TKM do things a little different and
it may be in your best interest to connect the radio to the speaker
input. The com input on the KMA-20 is the input that the audio panel
will be using for your headsets and speaker output, this must be connect
for the com to work properly.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg
Puckett
Subject: Avionics-List: KMA20 installation manual or ??
Hello,
I'm installing a KMA20 and while I have the pin-out from
aeroelectric.com I need a couple of questions answered.
It appears that the KMA20 has a speaker input and a phone level input
from each Comm. The TKM radio has a speaker output and a Comm. output.
I'm assuming that I should not be connecting both of these, but I'm not
sure.
Does the KMA20 have a speaker level and a phone level input available
just so you can connect a navcom that may only have one or the other.
I'm worried that both of these inputs will be summed if I connect them
both and the overall volume will be twice as loud as it should.
Does anyone have a KMA20 install manual handy that may have the answer
to this?
Thanks,
Greg
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: KMA20 installation manual or ?? |
There maybe another condition to consider about the KMA-20.
Sidetone to your headset. Seemed to me that it did not have the circuit
path to have sidetone... from the mike.
This may be a problem only for earlier models of -20.
However, there is a way to add a resistor to the circuitry such that it
"leaks" some mike power to the headphones. Many years ago, I saw an
avionics shop make this circuit adjustment but, can't tell you the paths
that he tapped, with the resistor addition, to bring sidetone to the
headset.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Larkin" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: KMA20 installation manual or ??
>
> The speaker input to the KMA-20 is a load for the output of the com
> radio being used. Some com radios need a load for the power generated
> for the speaker output and the KMA-20 gives you a place to send it. On
> all newer radios the com has its own load and connecting to the speaker
> input on the KMA-20 is not required. That being said, I'm not sure
> about the TKM stuff. The folks at TKM do things a little different and
> it may be in your best interest to connect the radio to the speaker
> input. The com input on the KMA-20 is the input that the audio panel
> will be using for your headsets and speaker output, this must be connect
> for the com to work properly.
>
> Mike Larkin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg
> Puckett
> To: Avionics-List(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Avionics-List: KMA20 installation manual or ??
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm installing a KMA20 and while I have the pin-out from
> aeroelectric.com I need a couple of questions answered.
>
> It appears that the KMA20 has a speaker input and a phone level input
> from each Comm. The TKM radio has a speaker output and a Comm. output.
> I'm assuming that I should not be connecting both of these, but I'm not
> sure.
>
> Does the KMA20 have a speaker level and a phone level input available
> just so you can connect a navcom that may only have one or the other.
> I'm worried that both of these inputs will be summed if I connect them
> both and the overall volume will be twice as loud as it should.
>
> Does anyone have a KMA20 install manual handy that may have the answer
> to this?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Greg
>
>
> --
>
>
> --
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
Try: http://www.periheliondesign.com/ Eric Jones' website . . . I'm sure he
can help you . . . no connection with Eric but I've purchased some things
from him . . . he seems pretty knowledgeable.
Good Luck,
Bob
On 7/16/05, Lmar wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have a Stratomaster engine insturment that advise to use a "transorb"
> between the poositive and negative after the fuse and prior to the
> insturment in order to absorb transiet high voltage. I have not been able to
> find a "transorb". Do we in the USA call it by another name?
>
> Electronically challenged,
>
> Larry
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | NYTerminat(at)aol.com |
Larry
Look at Stratomaster Website or Sport Flying Shop, they sell the transorb for
$6.00. It looks like a diode.
Bob Spudis
CH701, 912S
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jlundberg(at)cox.net> |
Does anyone know where to buy aircraft grade coiled PTT cord -- its the cord that
goes from the PTT switch on the yoke to the mike key terminal on the mic jack.
Thx.
John
Los Angeles, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | al.herron(at)Aerojet.com (Herron, Al) |
I'm new to this list, so forgive me if this has been covered already:
does anyone out there have any experience, good, bad or indifferent,
with VAL Avionics products? I'm looking for a very basic IFR setup for
my RV-7A and their INS 422/COM 760 combo looked like an economical way
to go, but I'm not familiar with the company or their products. Thanks
for any insights you can offer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Russell Voyager Travel <ron(at)voyagertravel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VAL Avionics |
I have not personally done business with Val's, but I know several people
that has had work done by Val's. They have all been happy with them. There
price is reasonable and have good service. I had Val's price a package for
my RV6 and they slightly higher than Pacific Coast Avionics. I have heard
nothing bad about Val's
Ron Russell
At 08:03 AM 7/28/2005, you wrote:
>
>I'm new to this list, so forgive me if this has been covered already:
> does anyone out there have any experience, good, bad or indifferent,
>with VAL Avionics products? I'm looking for a very basic IFR setup for
>my RV-7A and their INS 422/COM 760 combo looked like an economical way
>to go, but I'm not familiar with the company or their products. Thanks
>for any insights you can offer.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "george may" <gfmjr_20(at)hotmail.com> |
Al--
I also was looking for basic IFR and after discussions with a number of RV
folks that
were using the Val unit I purcheased one. I'm not in the air yet but the Val
unit I purchased
goes nicely with the rest of my digital panel.
George May
601XL
>From: al.herron(at)Aerojet.com (Herron, Al)
>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Avionics-List: VAL Avionics
>Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:03:04 -0700
>
>
>I'm new to this list, so forgive me if this has been covered already:
> does anyone out there have any experience, good, bad or indifferent,
>with VAL Avionics products? I'm looking for a very basic IFR setup for
>my RV-7A and their INS 422/COM 760 combo looked like an economical way
>to go, but I'm not familiar with the company or their products. Thanks
>for any insights you can offer.
>
>
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mike key <thorpt18c(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VAL Avionics |
I have used Val unit - Val760 com only.
make sure you have enough depth behind the panel as their unit measures slightly
longer than say the narco 810 or king ky97.
ran into that issue in my thorp as panel space depth was an issue.
installed the unit in a PA-22 and it worked great, no complaints from either ground
or tower services as i moved from place to place. only had it in service
about 9 months before selling the aircraft.
curious about the ins-422 as my thorp could use one in it.....
mike key
thorp t-18
"Herron, Al" wrote:
I'm new to this list, so forgive me if this has been covered already:
does anyone out there have any experience, good, bad or indifferent,
with VAL Avionics products? I'm looking for a very basic IFR setup for
my RV-7A and their INS 422/COM 760 combo looked like an economical way
to go, but I'm not familiar with the company or their products. Thanks
for any insights you can offer.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | eBay Sale NAV/COM |
I just put up a Terra TX760/TN200D that is nearly new on eBay. I bought two and
have the other one in my MustangII. These are the later digital versions that
have all the capabilities of King or (UGH) Narco radio digitals.
Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Smith <ocleju(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Alternative Engines - Geo/Suzuki |
Alternative Engines - Geo/Suzuki
If you are interested in alternative engines for
experimental aircraft you are invited to
join the flyGeo_uncensored group and learn about the
fantastic Geo/Suzuki engines used in
aircraft.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyGeo_uncensored
Both bolt on gearbox and cog belt redrives and all
other aircraft
conversion parts are available for very reasonable
cost. Turbo
versions are available also. Gearbox type redrives for
around US$1750-
The Geo/Suzuki engine uses about half the fuel that
the two stroke
engines use.
The 1.3 litre four cylinder Suzuki engine beats the
Rotax 912 in
power and weight, again both gearbox and belt type
redrives are
available.
The Geo/Suzuki one litre engine weighs a little more
than a Rotax
582, it produces 62 HP normally aspirated but with a
better, flatter
torque curve.
All those advantages plus flying engines with the
hours up to prove
them and last but not lease, far, far cheaper than a
Rotax two or four stroke engine.
One person on the group has over 1000 hours on one
installation.
FlyGeo_uncensored is a very active and helpful group
that is also a fun group and is not
doubt one of the fastest growing aircraft alternative
engine groups.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyGeo_uncensored
The FlyGeo_uncensored Management
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Loflin" <loflinj(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin Install Kits For Sale |
I have a GNS480 (formerly UPSAT CNX-80) and a SL30 install kit for sale. You
pay only what I pay which was $570 for the GNS480 kit and $150 for the SL30
kit. Both install kits were purchased from John Stark in January of last
year. Neither kit has been installed. They are still in the box I got from
John when I bought them. The SL30 kit has not been wired, but the GNS480
rack was wired by Stark Avionics. Completely wired for an external CDI and
everything.
Please call/e-mail for any additional information. Price is firm, but there
is wiggle room. I can send pictures if needed. Have original invoice if
you'd like to see that as well.
Thanks!
Jack Loflin
Corvallis, Oregon
541-745-5059 (home)
541-908-4104 (cell)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
8/18/2005
Hello Avionics Experts, My friend has a Cessna 172 with a NARCO CP 136 TSO
audio control panel in it. One selects which radio to transmit on or which
receivers to listen to by pushing in round buttons. No intercom is
incorporated.
He has been having VHF radio transmitter problems that appear after an hour
or so of flight. Since both transmitters send out just basic carrier with no
voice included after this failure mode happens it has been assumed that the
failure may be heat related and caused within the audio panel since both
transmitters are affected the same way at the same time.
When the problem was discussed with a local avionics shop their analysis was
that it could not be a heat related problem within the audio panel because
the audio panel was a simple mechanical device with no electronics inside.
Nevertheless their solution was to replace the audio control panel with a
modern PS Engineering audio control panel and intercom at the cost of big
bucks.
Can anyone confirm this description of the inner workings and hidden
mechanisms of this audio control panel? Can anyone come up with a better
(cheaper) cure than the one described above? Thank you.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
I had that problem when I first wired my MustangII. The audio out from the
mic was grounded through a pinched wired to ground behind the instrument
panel. Does both pilot and copilot have that same problem?
Find the audio out wire from the audio panel (btw, I have found NARCO stuff
to be CRAP!) and from the affected mic and check it with a multimeter to
ground. If it shows continuity to ground, that's the problem
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Avionics-List: NARCO Help
>
> 8/18/2005
>
> Hello Avionics Experts, My friend has a Cessna 172 with a NARCO CP 136
> TSO
> audio control panel in it. One selects which radio to transmit on or which
> receivers to listen to by pushing in round buttons. No intercom is
> incorporated.
>
> He has been having VHF radio transmitter problems that appear after an
> hour
> or so of flight. Since both transmitters send out just basic carrier with
> no
> voice included after this failure mode happens it has been assumed that
> the
> failure may be heat related and caused within the audio panel since both
> transmitters are affected the same way at the same time.
>
> When the problem was discussed with a local avionics shop their analysis
> was
> that it could not be a heat related problem within the audio panel because
> the audio panel was a simple mechanical device with no electronics inside.
> Nevertheless their solution was to replace the audio control panel with a
> modern PS Engineering audio control panel and intercom at the cost of big
> bucks.
>
> Can anyone confirm this description of the inner workings and hidden
> mechanisms of this audio control panel? Can anyone come up with a better
> (cheaper) cure than the one described above? Thank you.
>
> OC
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
> ...
> He has been having VHF radio transmitter problems that
> appear after an hour or so of flight.
> ...
> When the problem was discussed with a local avionics shop
> their analysis was that it could not be a heat related
problem
> within the audio panel because the audio panel was a
simple
> mechanical device with no electronics inside.
>
> Can anyone confirm this description of the inner workings
> and hidden mechanisms of this audio control panel?
There are electronics within the CP 136, but mic audio and
mic key are merely switched. A switch shouldn't fail if the
temp is elevated. Has your friend tried another microphone?
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Larkin" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
Does it happen on both radios at the same time or just one? What kind
of radios does he have in the airplane? I may have a CP 136 roaming
around here. I have worked in the avionics trade for over 15 years and
have not seen one of these units fail other then some switch problems...
Need more information before I can give you some good ideas...
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Subject: Avionics-List: NARCO Help
8/18/2005
Hello Avionics Experts, My friend has a Cessna 172 with a NARCO CP 136
TSO
audio control panel in it. One selects which radio to transmit on or
which
receivers to listen to by pushing in round buttons. No intercom is
incorporated.
He has been having VHF radio transmitter problems that appear after an
hour
or so of flight. Since both transmitters send out just basic carrier
with no
voice included after this failure mode happens it has been assumed that
the
failure may be heat related and caused within the audio panel since both
transmitters are affected the same way at the same time.
When the problem was discussed with a local avionics shop their analysis
was
that it could not be a heat related problem within the audio panel
because
the audio panel was a simple mechanical device with no electronics
inside.
Nevertheless their solution was to replace the audio control panel with
a
modern PS Engineering audio control panel and intercom at the cost of
big
bucks.
Can anyone confirm this description of the inner workings and hidden
mechanisms of this audio control panel? Can anyone come up with a better
(cheaper) cure than the one described above? Thank you.
OC
--
8/18/2005
--
8/18/2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Crosley, Rich" <RCROSLEY(at)HRTEXTRON.TEXTRON.COM> |
| Subject: | Blind Encoder for Sale |
0.14 FROM_NO_LOWER From address has no lower-case characters
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item=4570134
343&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net> |
All,
I've been thinking a lot lately about wiring. I'm about to order Bob's
book, but I'm asking you guys, the ones who've never done wiring before
(except minor home repair), what other sources, do I need to buy to get a
foundation on simple schematic reading and building up from there? I don't
know of any SportAir workshops any time soon in my area (lower AL) on the
subject.
Or will Bob's book start me out right?
Rob Wright
RV-10
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: electric help |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Rob -
Yea verily. If you can read and re-read Bob's book a couple of times, you
will be able to wire your airplane. A lot of folks have done this and have
made wire books with a page for each "system" you install. If you ask,
they will be glad to provide copies. Bob's "Z" diagrams are a very good
start. If you understand those, it will be a matter of adding a page for
each system. Most avionics and equipment mfg's. have their installation
manuals on line for downloading. They are pretty darned good, but you'll
have questions that you can ask on this forum.
I wired the panel for our Lancair ES, but would highly recommend having
the dealer you buy the avionics from do the interconnect cabling. They do
this all the time and you will be, as I was, glad to have them do it. John
Stark of Stark Avionics in Columbus, GA did our cable interconnects and I
can highly recommend him.
One word of advice: don't go off on a tangent and try to alleviate some
vague "fear" by trying to design an electrical solution. Yep, you are
building an experimental and can do anything you wish, but standardization
of design and conventional wisdom of the certified, military and airline
industry is not all bad. Things like putting the starter switch and fuel
boost pump switch on the stick grip along with several other more normal
functions of the stick grip switches is dumb. It sounds cool and it is
experimental, but you'll never find military aircraft or airliners or the
certified ships doing such a thing. I would submit that this body of
evidence is a whole lot "cooler".
If you do decide to do it, buy good tools: crimpers (or a frame with
several appropriate dies to fit in the frame), good quality stripper, and
a good quality coax stripper (one that does a 3-cut all at once).
Consistency of stripping and crimping is critical, but with good tools, it
is far easier to learn.
Hope this helps,
John
wrote:
> Or will Bob's book start me out right?
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
Must have missed something along the way.
What is Bob/s book?
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
The book: The Aeroelectric Connection
>
> Must have missed something along the way.
>
> What is Bob/s book?
>
> Bob, Wichita
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com |
When I started out my RV8 I knew practically nothing about electricity
except ohms law and that there were such things as AC and DC current. But
that was it. As I re-read Bob's book for the third time, I am confident that
I shall be able to put together a sound, reliable, functional electrical
system on my airplane. So, before buying any more books, I recommend you
read Bob's book several times.
Michele
RV8 Fuselage
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-
> list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert G. Wright
> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 12:15 AM
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Avionics-List: electric help
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
> I've been thinking a lot lately about wiring. I'm about to order Bob's
> book, but I'm asking you guys, the ones who've never done wiring before
> (except minor home repair), what other sources, do I need to buy to get a
> foundation on simple schematic reading and building up from there? I
> don't
> know of any SportAir workshops any time soon in my area (lower AL) on the
> subject.
>
>
> Or will Bob's book start me out right?
>
>
> Rob Wright
>
> RV-10
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Matronics Web Server Upgrade Today Tuesday 09/06/05 5pm |
PDT
Dear Listers,
I will be taking the Matronics Web Server down for a few hours today,
Tuesday September 6 2005 for a chassis upgrade. Archive browsing and
searching along with subscription services will be unavailable for
be processed normally during the upgrade. Please check the Matronics
System Status Page for updates (although this page resides on the web
server and won't be available during the upgrade):
http://www.matronics.com/SystemStatus/
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave McDonald <n3722r(at)earthlink.net> |
Has anyone else purchased a Michel MC-60 solid state GPS/VOR/ILS indicator? I purchased
one for use with my King KN 53 ILS indicator, but can't find any documentation
on how to hook it up. The documentation from TKM, which makes the indicator,
is very poor, and I have contacted TKM multiple times with no return
response. I have to say I am NOT happy with their customer service.
Dave McDonald
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Garmin 396/330 interconnect |
Has anyone actually connected a Garmin 396 to a 330 transponder to display
traffic? The information provided in the 396 manual is a bit sketchy.
One question is how to connect the "TIS Connect Select" pin. It appears to
toggle the TIS function off and on, but it doesn't say what the default
power-on condition is.
Any information would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Stan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Avionics-List message previously posted by: Dave McDonald
>
> Has anyone else purchased a Michel MC-60 solid state GPS/VOR/ILS
> indicator? I purchased
> one for use with my King KN 53 ILS indicator, but can't find any
> documentation
> on how to hook it up. The documentation from TKM, which makes the
> indicator,
> is very poor, and I have contacted TKM multiple times with no return
> response. I have to say I am NOT happy with their customer service.
>
> Dave McDonald
9/14/2005
Hello Dave, Why don't you try Eastern Avionics for some help? They sell both
of these units.
http://www.avionix.com/indicator.html
Also try john(at)starkavionics.com. He has always been very helpful to us
builders.
Let us know how you make out.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Janes <b_janes(at)telus.net> |
Can anybody say anything good (or bad) about this unit? I'm thinking
about a gift for my son.
Thanks...Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
Did you mean Garmin 196?
If so, the 196 is a great choice.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Janes" <b_janes(at)telus.net>
Subject: Avionics-List: garmin 96
>
> Can anybody say anything good (or bad) about this unit? I'm thinking
> about a gift for my son.
> Thanks...Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pascal Gosselin <pascal(at)aeroteknic.com> |
At 11:08 PM 9/14/2005, you wrote:
>
>Can anybody say anything good (or bad) about this unit? I'm thinking
>about a gift for my son.
>Thanks...Bob
I have flown with the GPSMAP 96 and it is a great unit considering the price.
It was my sole means of navigation when I flew from Louisiana to Montreal
over the summer (pre-Katrina). Came in real handy when I had an engine
failure over hostile terrain in West Virginia. Walked away without a scratch
to myself or the airplane.
-Pascal
+---------------------------+
Pascal Gosselin
pascal(at)aeroteknic.com
tel. (450) 676-6299
fax. (450) 676-2760
cell. (514) 298-3343
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott <squiggles(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Cessna RT 385a Radio |
Hello All..
Before I go and embarass myself in person at my local
avionics shop...Is it possible to easily convert a 24v
radio to be 14v?
Additionally, what is a reasonable price to expect to
pay for wiring harness for a 385a to a glideslope
receiver to the glideslope indicator. I'm just
looking for something to the nearest $100 here,
nothing to specific...
Thanx in advance....
-Scott
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cessna RT 385a Radio |
Scott,
That can be a tough question for the older avionics.
Probably the easiest option is to buy a converter that will boost the 14v to
the 28 v and leave the radio as is. If you do this, be sure to pay the
money for a good well regulated unit as the current requirements for the
receiver and the transmitter differ by large amounts. You could be looking
at $500-700 for a rugged, well regulated unit.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott" <squiggles(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Avionics-List: Cessna RT 385a Radio
>
> Hello All..
>
> Before I go and embarass myself in person at my local
> avionics shop...Is it possible to easily convert a 24v
> radio to be 14v?
>
> Additionally, what is a reasonable price to expect to
> pay for wiring harness for a 385a to a glideslope
> receiver to the glideslope indicator. I'm just
> looking for something to the nearest $100 here,
> nothing to specific...
>
> Thanx in advance....
>
> -Scott
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Niday <cniday(at)gb.nrao.edu> |
| Subject: | Anybody out there??? |
autolearn=disabled, USER_IN_WHITELIST -100.00)
Folks,
Is there anybody out there??? I've been on this list since Oct. 4 and I
have seen one message yet. Don't avionics folk talk to each other?
I was hoping to get some advice on what to do with some raggedy Narco
and Mitchell nav/coms in my club's Cessna 172. My inclination is to get
rid of the Mitchells and replace them with Icom com radios. I'm not
sure to do about the nav part however.
Any suggestions are welcome!
--
-Chuck Niday, N8DBN-
Tech. Spec. I
National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Green Bank, WV
http://www.gb.nrao.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark & Kelly" <eyedocs1(at)swbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there??? autolearn=disabled, USER_IN_WHITELIST |
-100.00)
You might try one of the other lists, such as the Aero-electric list.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Niday" <cniday(at)gb.nrao.edu>
Subject: Avionics-List: Anybody out there??? autolearn=disabled,
USER_IN_WHITELIST -100.00)
>
> Folks,
>
> Is there anybody out there??? I've been on this list since Oct. 4 and I
> have seen one message yet. Don't avionics folk talk to each other?
>
> I was hoping to get some advice on what to do with some raggedy Narco
> and Mitchell nav/coms in my club's Cessna 172. My inclination is to get
> rid of the Mitchells and replace them with Icom com radios. I'm not
> sure to do about the nav part however.
>
> Any suggestions are welcome!
>
> --
> -Chuck Niday, N8DBN-
> Tech. Spec. I
> National Radio Astronomy Observatory
> Green Bank, WV
> http://www.gb.nrao.edu
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
On a serious note, with a club aircraft, I'd take a look at how the plane is
used. For training you still need a nav com with a separate indicator and
glide slope and probably a gps com as a backup. I carry an Icom com but just
as a backup to my Bendix 125 and Bendix KMD 150.
My panel doesn't lend itself to hard IFR approaches but I don't do those
anymore.
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "springcanyon" <springcanyon(at)mymethow.com> |
| Subject: | Anyone out there? |
Hi Rick,
Yes, Im here just dont have much to write about yet. Im at
the serious thinking about the panel stage. Im looking toward the GRT
EFIS system, but dont quite know how to fill in around it yet.
Don Owens
Spring Canyon Ranch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Anyone out there? |
Unless you really have big bucks or don't plan on flying IFR, I'd avoid a
glass panel.
Why? Safety. Look at any heavy metal glass panel. Duel independent
(including dual AHRS) EFIS systems. They even have a 3rd tie breaker steam
gage ADI. All of that redundancy is necessary to insure you have safe
failure modes.
OK, you only have one pilot but you still need 3 independent attitude
systems. You're flying along shooting your local ILS in bad (200 - 1/2)
weather. At 400 AGL you notice your fancy EFIS telling you you're nose high,
your standby vacuum/electric ADI says nose low. What are you going to do?
Which one is right?
We know the failure modes of steam gages, the standard 6-pack has been
developed with independent sources and any discrepancy is readily noticed.
Not so with EFIS. Those black boxes have some strange failure modes. Hence
the FAA requirement for duel systems in part 121 operations.
Now if I were bound and determined to fly a glass panel, I'd stick with
CERTIFIED equipment (Garmin, Chelton, or Avidyne) and put in 2 additional
ADI systems. When I made my decisions last year I decided to go with the
Sandel EHSI, PN101 (Second HSI and #2 nav head), vacuum ADI and electric T&B
(came with the STEC 55X A/P). If I were to do it today, I'd use the
certified Chelton system, a second vacuum attitude indicator, an electric
T&B, and a second ASI and altimeter.
I wonder how many pilots are going to fly that hypnotic Garmin 1000 screen
right into the ground before we wise up.
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 springcanyon
Subject: Avionics-List: Anyone out there?
Hi Rick,
Yes, Im here just dont have much to write about yet. Im at
the serious thinking about the panel stage. Im looking toward the GRT
EFIS system, but dont quite know how to fill in around it yet.
Don Owens
Spring Canyon Ranch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ROBINFLY(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Anybody out there??? |
What is your budget? Are you IFR or VFR? Do you need IFR GPS, ADF or DME?
If you are VFR only with very low budget, I will set priority as: COMM,
transponder, GPS, intercom, audio panel, then VOR/ILS. Use portable equipments
when
possible (ie, GPS, intercom, Comm, traffic)
Icom A200 is nice, and I think it is the same radio as King KY-97A. If you
want VOR, King KX-125 is a very good value with more features than KX-155; it
has a built-in CDI, that alone will save you big money on both equipment &
installation. But why use VOR for VFR when a $500 aviation GPS offers much more?
For #2 comm, a nice handheld with external antenna and wiring to audio offers
more than a 2nd panel mount because if you need it for emergency, it is
already there. For many years, I have used a Icom A23 as my 2nd comm. I got looks
from other pilots but with external antenna, it is always loud and clear
everywhere I go. I cannot see any performance difference comparing with my panel
mount.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there??? |
...speaking to your example of using a handheld COMM with an external
antenna.
What is the slick or cleverest method today for un-coupling, example, panel
mount, COMM 2 from it's external antenna and connecting a handheld to the
same external antenna?
This would be useful; if the main electrical or COMM's failed, or, if you
stuck in Parking or similar waiting for a clearance or other instructions.
Beats having your main electrical system hot and/or your engine idling for
long periods.
I have seen the antenna feed come out to the front panel and then back in
via BNC "U" shaped short cable. The antenna side can be unconnected and the
hand held plugged in. But, is there a more clever, cleaner way of doing the
same??
David
----- Original Message -----
From: <ROBINFLY(at)aol.com>
Subject: Avionics-List: Anybody out there???
>
> What is your budget? Are you IFR or VFR? Do you need IFR GPS, ADF or
> DME?
> If you are VFR only with very low budget, I will set priority as: COMM,
> transponder, GPS, intercom, audio panel, then VOR/ILS. Use portable
> equipments when
> possible (ie, GPS, intercom, Comm, traffic)
>
> Icom A200 is nice, and I think it is the same radio as King KY-97A. If
> you
> want VOR, King KX-125 is a very good value with more features than KX-155;
> it
> has a built-in CDI, that alone will save you big money on both equipment &
> installation. But why use VOR for VFR when a $500 aviation GPS offers
> much more?
>
> For #2 comm, a nice handheld with external antenna and wiring to audio
> offers
> more than a 2nd panel mount because if you need it for emergency, it is
> already there. For many years, I have used a Icom A23 as my 2nd comm. I
> got looks
> from other pilots but with external antenna, it is always loud and clear
> everywhere I go. I cannot see any performance difference comparing with
> my panel
> mount.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there??? |
> Icom A200 is nice, and I think it is the same radio as
King KY-97A.
Perhaps this is worth comment, should someone buy Icom on
that basis. I've not run across something like that.
Besides complicating the FAA approval process, even a
digital-display comm is simple enough to implement, Icom
shouldn't need King's help in design nor actually pay them
for it. Nor would King be interested at all, I'd think.
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there??? |
If you had an Icom handheld, you could use this...
http://www.pacific-coast-avionics.com/detail.asp?id=4024
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Anybody out there???
>
> ...speaking to your example of using a handheld COMM with an external
> antenna.
>
> What is the slick or cleverest method today for un-coupling, example,
panel
> mount, COMM 2 from it's external antenna and connecting a handheld to the
> same external antenna?
>
> This would be useful; if the main electrical or COMM's failed, or, if you
> stuck in Parking or similar waiting for a clearance or other instructions.
> Beats having your main electrical system hot and/or your engine idling for
> long periods.
>
> I have seen the antenna feed come out to the front panel and then back in
> via BNC "U" shaped short cable. The antenna side can be unconnected and
the
> hand held plugged in. But, is there a more clever, cleaner way of doing
the
> same??
> David
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ROBINFLY(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Avionics-List: Anybody out there???
>
>
> >
> > What is your budget? Are you IFR or VFR? Do you need IFR GPS, ADF or
> > DME?
> > If you are VFR only with very low budget, I will set priority as: COMM,
> > transponder, GPS, intercom, audio panel, then VOR/ILS. Use portable
> > equipments when
> > possible (ie, GPS, intercom, Comm, traffic)
> >
> > Icom A200 is nice, and I think it is the same radio as King KY-97A. If
> > you
> > want VOR, King KX-125 is a very good value with more features than
KX-155;
> > it
> > has a built-in CDI, that alone will save you big money on both equipment
&
> > installation. But why use VOR for VFR when a $500 aviation GPS offers
> > much more?
> >
> > For #2 comm, a nice handheld with external antenna and wiring to audio
> > offers
> > more than a 2nd panel mount because if you need it for emergency, it is
> > already there. For many years, I have used a Icom A23 as my 2nd comm.
I
> > got looks
> > from other pilots but with external antenna, it is always loud and clear
> > everywhere I go. I cannot see any performance difference comparing with
> > my panel
> > mount.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there??? |
I think Bob Nuckolls had an article on a device that performs a similar function.
IIRC it was a stereo jack the plugged in to your panel - the panel receptacle breaks
the original connection and reroutes to what you just jacked in
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Ferrer <mike@ferrer-aviation.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Anybody out there???
If you had an Icom handheld, you could use this...
http://www.pacific-coast-avionics.com/detail.asp?id=4024
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Anybody out there???
>
> ...speaking to your example of using a handheld COMM with an external
> antenna.
>
> What is the slick or cleverest method today for un-coupling, example,
panel
> mount, COMM 2 from it's external antenna and connecting a handheld to the
> same external antenna?
>
> This would be useful; if the main electrical or COMM's failed, or, if you
> stuck in Parking or similar waiting for a clearance or other instructions.
> Beats having your main electrical system hot and/or your engine idling for
> long periods.
>
> I have seen the antenna feed come out to the front panel and then back in
> via BNC "U" shaped short cable. The antenna side can be unconnected and
the
> hand held plugged in. But, is there a more clever, cleaner way of doing
the
> same??
> David
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ROBINFLY(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Avionics-List: Anybody out there???
>
>
> >
> > What is your budget? Are you IFR or VFR? Do you need IFR GPS, ADF or
> > DME?
> > If you are VFR only with very low budget, I will set priority as: COMM,
> > transponder, GPS, intercom, audio panel, then VOR/ILS. Use portable
> > equipments when
> > possible (ie, GPS, intercom, Comm, traffic)
> >
> > Icom A200 is nice, and I think it is the same radio as King KY-97A. If
> > you
> > want VOR, King KX-125 is a very good value with more features than
KX-155;
> > it
> > has a built-in CDI, that alone will save you big money on both equipment
&
> > installation. But why use VOR for VFR when a $500 aviation GPS offers
> > much more?
> >
> > For #2 comm, a nice handheld with external antenna and wiring to audio
> > offers
> > more than a 2nd panel mount because if you need it for emergency, it is
> > already there. For many years, I have used a Icom A23 as my 2nd comm.
I
> > got looks
> > from other pilots but with external antenna, it is always loud and clear
> > everywhere I go. I cannot see any performance difference comparing with
> > my panel
> > mount.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there??? |
Thank you both for the antenna coupling suggestions.
Seems they are both the same answer...one home built and the other manuf.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Anybody out there???
>
>
> I think Bob Nuckolls had an article on a device that performs a similar
> function.
>
> IIRC it was a stereo jack the plugged in to your panel - the panel
> receptacle breaks the original connection and reroutes to what you just
> jacked in
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Ferrer <mike@ferrer-aviation.com>
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Anybody out there???
>
> <mike@ferrer-aviation.com>
>
> If you had an Icom handheld, you could use this...
> http://www.pacific-coast-avionics.com/detail.asp?id=4024
>
> Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Anybody out there???
>
>
>>
>> ...speaking to your example of using a handheld COMM with an external
>> antenna.
>>
>> What is the slick or cleverest method today for un-coupling, example,
> panel
>> mount, COMM 2 from it's external antenna and connecting a handheld to the
>> same external antenna?
>>
>> This would be useful; if the main electrical or COMM's failed, or, if you
>> stuck in Parking or similar waiting for a clearance or other
>> instructions.
>> Beats having your main electrical system hot and/or your engine idling
>> for
>> long periods.
>>
>> I have seen the antenna feed come out to the front panel and then back in
>> via BNC "U" shaped short cable. The antenna side can be unconnected and
> the
>> hand held plugged in. But, is there a more clever, cleaner way of doing
> the
>> same??
>> David
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <ROBINFLY(at)aol.com>
>> To:
>> Subject: Avionics-List: Anybody out there???
>>
>>
>> >
>> > What is your budget? Are you IFR or VFR? Do you need IFR GPS, ADF or
>> > DME?
>> > If you are VFR only with very low budget, I will set priority as: COMM,
>> > transponder, GPS, intercom, audio panel, then VOR/ILS. Use portable
>> > equipments when
>> > possible (ie, GPS, intercom, Comm, traffic)
>> >
>> > Icom A200 is nice, and I think it is the same radio as King KY-97A. If
>> > you
>> > want VOR, King KX-125 is a very good value with more features than
> KX-155;
>> > it
>> > has a built-in CDI, that alone will save you big money on both
>> > equipment
> &
>> > installation. But why use VOR for VFR when a $500 aviation GPS offers
>> > much more?
>> >
>> > For #2 comm, a nice handheld with external antenna and wiring to audio
>> > offers
>> > more than a 2nd panel mount because if you need it for emergency, it is
>> > already there. For many years, I have used a Icom A23 as my 2nd comm.
> I
>> > got looks
>> > from other pilots but with external antenna, it is always loud and
>> > clear
>> > everywhere I go. I cannot see any performance difference comparing
>> > with
>> > my panel
>> > mount.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone out there? |
Bruce,
Most of the heavy iron glass cockpit redundancy is there for dispatch
reliabilty, not because the glass fails frequently. The multuple power
sources are in place as you say but again I believe they are there to enable
dispatch with a generator inop and also to give the Cat II and III landing
capability that the airliners need occationally.
I personally feel glass is the future and we are fortunate to have an
opportunity to be on the leading edge of what will certainly be the norm in
a few years.
Jim Stone
BTW. I went with the GRT EFIS with a pictorial turn and bank and Digiflight
II VS , and used two power sources for the EFIS for my reduncy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Anyone out there?
>
> Unless you really have big bucks or don't plan on flying IFR, I'd avoid a
> glass panel.
>
> Why? Safety. Look at any heavy metal glass panel. Duel independent
> (including dual AHRS) EFIS systems. They even have a 3rd tie breaker steam
> gage ADI. All of that redundancy is necessary to insure you have safe
> failure modes.
>
> OK, you only have one pilot but you still need 3 independent attitude
> systems. You're flying along shooting your local ILS in bad (200 - 1/2)
> weather. At 400 AGL you notice your fancy EFIS telling you you're nose
> high,
> your standby vacuum/electric ADI says nose low. What are you going to do?
> Which one is right?
>
> We know the failure modes of steam gages, the standard 6-pack has been
> developed with independent sources and any discrepancy is readily noticed.
> Not so with EFIS. Those black boxes have some strange failure modes. Hence
> the FAA requirement for duel systems in part 121 operations.
>
> Now if I were bound and determined to fly a glass panel, I'd stick with
> CERTIFIED equipment (Garmin, Chelton, or Avidyne) and put in 2 additional
> ADI systems. When I made my decisions last year I decided to go with the
> Sandel EHSI, PN101 (Second HSI and #2 nav head), vacuum ADI and electric
> T&B
> (came with the STEC 55X A/P). If I were to do it today, I'd use the
> certified Chelton system, a second vacuum attitude indicator, an electric
> T&B, and a second ASI and altimeter.
>
> I wonder how many pilots are going to fly that hypnotic Garmin 1000 screen
> right into the ground before we wise up.
>
> 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
> springcanyon
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Avionics-List: Anyone out there?
>
>
>
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> Yes, Im here just dont have much to write about yet. Im at
> the serious thinking about the panel stage. Im looking toward the GRT
> EFIS system, but dont quite know how to fill in around it yet.
>
> Don Owens
> Spring Canyon Ranch
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | NYTerminat(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there??? |
What is available for a handheld nav/com. I have an old Icom A20. Would like
to use as a backup to my Icom panel mount radio. Can I just use it for comm or
can I get the Nav to work too? I have GPS and Loran for nav functions.
Bob Spudis
CH-701/912S
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there??? |
If you only want to use the handheld while waiting for clearance then just
use the rubber duck antenna.
Best overall solution is to have two comm antennas;
your handheld will then have almost as good a range
as the panel mount.
John
From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
>
> ...speaking to your example of using a handheld COMM with an external
> antenna.
>
> What is the slick or cleverest method today for un-coupling, example,
> panel
> mount, COMM 2 from it's external antenna and connecting a handheld to the
> same external antenna?
>
> This would be useful; if the main electrical or COMM's failed, or, if you
> stuck in Parking or similar waiting for a clearance or other instructions.
> Beats having your main electrical system hot and/or your engine idling for
> long periods.
>
> I have seen the antenna feed come out to the front panel and then back in
> via BNC "U" shaped short cable. The antenna side can be unconnected and
> the
> hand held plugged in. But, is there a more clever, cleaner way of doing
> the
> same??
> David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there??? |
John,
I don't really want to install a 3rd antenna up top.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Anybody out there???
>
>
> If you only want to use the handheld while waiting for clearance then just
> use the rubber duck antenna.
> Best overall solution is to have two comm antennas;
> your handheld will then have almost as good a range
> as the panel mount.
> John
> From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
>
>
>>
>> ...speaking to your example of using a handheld COMM with an external
>> antenna.
>>
>> What is the slick or cleverest method today for un-coupling, example,
>> panel
>> mount, COMM 2 from it's external antenna and connecting a handheld to the
>> same external antenna?
>>
>> This would be useful; if the main electrical or COMM's failed, or, if you
>> stuck in Parking or similar waiting for a clearance or other
>> instructions.
>> Beats having your main electrical system hot and/or your engine idling
>> for
>> long periods.
>>
>> I have seen the antenna feed come out to the front panel and then back in
>> via BNC "U" shaped short cable. The antenna side can be unconnected and
>> the
>> hand held plugged in. But, is there a more clever, cleaner way of doing
>> the
>> same??
>> David
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there??? |
> If you
>want VOR, King KX-125 is a very good value with more features than KX-155; it
>has a built-in CDI, that alone will save you big money on both equipment &
>installation.
>
>
I would meanwhile advice against that Nav-Com (out of experience against
everything from King), my unit lost the Nav part quite soon as I was out
of guarantee (I bought a year before first flight) the repair cost were
immense (>1300$). If you want to add GS later it will be more expensive
then an Apollo/Garmin SL-30 which has more nice features (built-in
Intercom, standby freq monitoring, cross pointer etc), much more modern
technics (software driven) and the repairs (if they ever happen) are
much more moderate (global rate if defect for each equipment (e.g. ~600$
for a GNS430)
Werner (now SL-30)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there??? |
Hello Bob,
I have my A20 connected into my GMA 340 audio pannel, I did need an
interfacebox in order to get it working with the PTT (can supply address
and price). The Nav part does work in principle, however due to the
antenna optimized for the com it's not optimal. But it was a good way to
test if my KX-125 was the problem or the Antenna (it was the bloody KX-125).
br
Werner
NYTerminat(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>What is available for a handheld nav/com. I have an old Icom A20. Would like
>to use as a backup to my Icom panel mount radio. Can I just use it for comm or
>can I get the Nav to work too? I have GPS and Loran for nav functions.
>
>Bob Spudis
>
>CH-701/912S
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there??? |
Can understand that. My perspective was from a glass homebuilt - Rutan
Defiant - where you can mount any number of antennas internally. I had a
Jim Weir dipole with one leg across the top of the fuselage and the other
leg down the side. That way I got both vertical and horizontal polarisation
for an Icom A20 so both comm and VOR worked quite well; plus of course a
comm antenna in each winglet and nav on each side of the canard. All buried
in the glass of course.
John
From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
>
> John,
> I don't really want to install a 3rd antenna up top.
> David
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Niday <cniday(at)gb.nrao.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody out there??? |
autolearn=disabled, USER_IN_WHITELIST -100.00)
>
> You might try one of the other lists, such as the Aero-electric list.
>
> Mark
>
And Avionics-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
>
> Yep, join the aeroelctric list and you will start getting about 20 >
> emails a day. :-)
>
> Michael Sausen RV-10 #352 Waiting on fuselage
Oh, I don't know. After reading today's digest, I've gotten lots
of good ideas.
--
-Chuck Niday, N8DBN-
Homebuilder wannabe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
| Subject: | Somebody's out there!!! |
This list has actually finally come alive. That's great.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Niday
Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Anybody out there??? autolearn=disabled,
USER_IN_WHITELIST -100.00)
>
> You might try one of the other lists, such as the Aero-electric list.
>
> Mark
>
And Avionics-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
>
> Yep, join the aeroelctric list and you will start getting about 20 >
> emails a day. :-)
>
> Michael Sausen RV-10 #352 Waiting on fuselage
Oh, I don't know. After reading today's digest, I've gotten lots
of good ideas.
--
-Chuck Niday, N8DBN-
Homebuilder wannabe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Herron, Al" <Al.Herron(at)Aerojet.com> |
I'm trying to decide which whiz-box EFIS to put in my RV, Dynon vs. Grand
Rapids Technologies. I'm leaning toward the GRT unit but have heard from
one individual who said that the set-up process was pretty cumbersome.
Anybody out there that can shed some real-world light on what it's like to
set up either one of these things?
Al Herron
RV-7A
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
Im trying to decide which whiz-box EFIS to put in my
RV, Dynon vs. Grand Rapids Technologies. Im leaning toward the GRT
unit but have heard from one individual who said that the set-up process was
pretty cumbersome. Anybody out there that can shed some real-world light
on what its like to set up either one of these things?
Al Herron
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dynon vs. GRT |
I do not have any experience on either one but I will say the GRT has a
lot more features than the Dynon. So will be more tedious to hook up
depending on what other avionics you decide on. It will accually act as an
MFP where the Dynon will not. I am leaning toward going with both. The GRT
as primary and Dynon as backup. I do know that on the GRT site they do have
wiring diagrams showing how to hook up various Garmin products and from
emailing GRT with lot's of questions Todd has been very helpful and fairly
quick with answer's several times. But Michael Schofield at Dynon is also
fairly quick with answer's although I have only contacted him once. So I
think you cannot go wrong with either on customer service.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Herron, Al" <Al.Herron(at)Aerojet.com>
Subject: Avionics-List: Dynon vs. GRT
>
> I'm trying to decide which whiz-box EFIS to put in my RV, Dynon vs. Grand
> Rapids Technologies. I'm leaning toward the GRT unit but have heard from
> one individual who said that the set-up process was pretty cumbersome.
> Anybody out there that can shed some real-world light on what it's like to
> set up either one of these things?
>
>
> Al Herron
>
> RV-7A
>
>
> xmlns:w"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
> xmlns"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
>
>
>
>
>
> font-family:Arial'>Im trying to decide which whiz-box EFIS to put in my
> RV, Dynon vs. Grand Rapids Technologies. Im leaning toward the GRT
> unit but have heard from one individual who said that the set-up process
> was
> pretty cumbersome. Anybody out there that can shed some real-world light
> on what its like to set up either one of these things?
>
>
> font-family:Arial'>
>
>
> font-family:Arial'>Al Herron
>
>
> font-family:Arial'>RV-7A
>
>
> font-family:Arial'>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon vs. GRT |
I don't know much about glass screen concepts but, here is one concept to
keep in mind.
Don't mix instrumentation display concepts if you have the option.
Here is why.....
Like anything hi tech these days, the learning curve is difficult if you
plan to learn all the functions.
A EFIS designer usually designs around a special control philosophy concept.
It is difficult enough to learn one company's concept and then, to mix in
another is usually way beyond what a normal pilot can handle especially when
the brain is flooded with an emergency situation. Pick one manufacturers
concept and stay with it.
An good example is Garmin......
The controls for both use the same concept and functions can easily be
mentally transferred from one to the other once learned.
Garmin also now has the 480. A fantastic GPS navigator that came out of the
"Tomorrow" or UPS company when Garmin bought them. If one were to make the
mistake of installing a Garmin 480 and Garmin 430, I believe that is a
disaster waiting to happen to the hapless pilot. The usage of the controls
and data flow design concepts are almost totally different. You have to
learn both; like learning to use all the functions of a PC and an Apple
computer.
Imagine trying to sort out the functions when your mind is bogged down with
ice on the wings or flying into IMC "accidentally" and trying to use the
David
PS: I am embarrassed to mention that too many pilots friends can't even
handle 50% of the functions of a simple Garmin let alone having a mixed bag
on the panel........
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Dynon vs. GRT
>
> I do not have any experience on either one but I will say the GRT has
> a
> lot more features than the Dynon. So will be more tedious to hook up
> depending on what other avionics you decide on. It will accually act as an
> MFP where the Dynon will not. I am leaning toward going with both. The GRT
> as primary and Dynon as backup. I do know that on the GRT site they do
> have
> wiring diagrams showing how to hook up various Garmin products and from
> emailing GRT with lot's of questions Todd has been very helpful and fairly
> quick with answer's several times. But Michael Schofield at Dynon is also
> fairly quick with answer's although I have only contacted him once. So I
> think you cannot go wrong with either on customer service.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Herron, Al" <Al.Herron(at)Aerojet.com>
> To:
> Subject: Avionics-List: Dynon vs. GRT
>
>
>>
>> I'm trying to decide which whiz-box EFIS to put in my RV, Dynon vs. Grand
>> Rapids Technologies. I'm leaning toward the GRT unit but have heard from
>> one individual who said that the set-up process was pretty cumbersome.
>> Anybody out there that can shed some real-world light on what it's like
>> to
>> set up either one of these things?
>>
>>
>> Al Herron
>>
>> RV-7A
>>
>>
>> > xmlns:w"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
>> xmlns"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > font-family:Arial'>Im trying to decide which whiz-box EFIS to put in my
>> RV, Dynon vs. Grand Rapids Technologies. Im leaning toward the GRT
>> unit but have heard from one individual who said that the set-up process
>> was
>> pretty cumbersome. Anybody out there that can shed some real-world light
>> on what its like to set up either one of these things?
>>
>>
>> > font-family:Arial'>
>>
>>
>> > font-family:Arial'>Al Herron
>>
>>
>> > font-family:Arial'>RV-7A
>>
>>
>> > font-family:Arial'>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon vs. GRT |
2nd message..... don't know what happened but some of the text got deleted
going to the List servers.
See below for missing stuff..
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Dynon vs. GRT
>
> I don't know much about glass screen concepts but, here is one concept to
> keep in mind.
>
> Don't mix instrumentation display concepts if you have the option.
> Here is why.....
> Like anything hi tech these days, the learning curve is difficult if you
> plan to learn all the functions.
> A EFIS designer usually designs around a special control philosophy
> concept.
> It is difficult enough to learn one company's concept and then, to mix in
> another is usually way beyond what a normal pilot can handle especially
> when
> the brain is flooded with an emergency situation. Pick one manufacturers
> concept and stay with it.
>
> An good example is Garmin......
........."If one installs a Garmin 530 and a 430 as the second unit
> The controls for both use the same concept and functions can easily be
> mentally transferred from one to the other once learned.
>
> Garmin also now has the 480. A fantastic GPS navigator that came out of
> the
> "Tomorrow" or UPS company when Garmin bought them. If one were to make
> the
> mistake of installing a Garmin 480 and Garmin 430, I believe that is a
> disaster waiting to happen to the hapless pilot. The usage of the
> controls
> and data flow design concepts are almost totally different. You have to
> learn both; like learning to use all the functions of a PC and an Apple
> computer.
>
> Imagine trying to sort out the functions when your mind is bogged down
> with
> ice on the wings or flying into IMC "accidentally" and trying to use the
> David
> PS: I am embarrassed to mention that too many pilots friends can't even
> handle 50% of the functions of a simple Garmin let alone having a mixed
> bag
> on the panel........
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Dynon vs. GRT
>
>
>>
>> I do not have any experience on either one but I will say the GRT has
>> a
>> lot more features than the Dynon. So will be more tedious to hook up
>> depending on what other avionics you decide on. It will accually act as
>> an
>> MFP where the Dynon will not. I am leaning toward going with both. The
>> GRT
>> as primary and Dynon as backup. I do know that on the GRT site they do
>> have
>> wiring diagrams showing how to hook up various Garmin products and from
>> emailing GRT with lot's of questions Todd has been very helpful and
>> fairly
>> quick with answer's several times. But Michael Schofield at Dynon is also
>> fairly quick with answer's although I have only contacted him once. So I
>> think you cannot go wrong with either on customer service.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Herron, Al" <Al.Herron(at)Aerojet.com>
>> To:
>> Subject: Avionics-List: Dynon vs. GRT
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm trying to decide which whiz-box EFIS to put in my RV, Dynon vs.
>>> Grand
>>> Rapids Technologies. I'm leaning toward the GRT unit but have heard
>>> from
>>> one individual who said that the set-up process was pretty cumbersome.
>>> Anybody out there that can shed some real-world light on what it's like
>>> to
>>> set up either one of these things?
>>>
>>>
>>> Al Herron
>>>
>>> RV-7A
>>>
>>>
>>> >> xmlns:w"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
>>> xmlns"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> font-family:Arial'>Im trying to decide which whiz-box EFIS to put in my
>>> RV, Dynon vs. Grand Rapids Technologies. Im leaning toward the GRT
>>> unit but have heard from one individual who said that the set-up process
>>> was
>>> pretty cumbersome. Anybody out there that can shed some real-world light
>>> on what its like to set up either one of these things?
>>>
>>>
>>> >> font-family:Arial'>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> font-family:Arial'>Al Herron
>>>
>>>
>>> >> font-family:Arial'>RV-7A
>>>
>>>
>>> >> font-family:Arial'>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon vs. GRT |
Al,
I have a Dynon EFIS-D10A in my Long-EZ; I can speak about that EFIS but
I know nothing about the GRT one. They're not in the same price range
nor do they have the same features AFAIK.
You didn't mention your mission requirements: VFR, IFR, night, whatever
... I fly mostly day VFR but I've done all of the above (briefly) with
my D10A. The setup is easy -- trivially so since the latest firmware
doesn't require a Windows PC (for setup/calibration) any longer. (A PC
is still required to update the firmware of course.)
Here's the deal: I like my D10A but I don't "love" it. The D10A fixed a
lot of the dissatisfiers that I had with my earlier D10 but like many
who frequent this list, I must be somewhat anal because I'm very
particular about certain little things. Might have to do with advancing
age :-)
I suppose the biggest item for me is the display size -- it's just too
small and cluttered IMO for all the information that can be put up
there. But then it costs a lot less than competing EFIS models with
larger displays. If I were buying one today, I'd skip the D10A in favor
of the D100 and I'd be a pretty happy camper.
The D10A works well and provides me with a lot of value for the money.
On top of that, Dynon has treated me well -- exceedingly well. When I
returned my D10 (not D10A) with a problem, it was fixed at no cost and
returned promptly _and had a $100+ lithium ion backup battery
installed_. When I asked about it, the service rep. said it was their
way of compensating me for my troubles! Amazing!
--
Joe
Long-EZ 821RP
Lewiston, ID 83501
http://www.nicon.org/chapter328/jd/
On 11-Nov-05 10:12 Herron, Al wrote:
>
> I'm trying to decide which whiz-box EFIS to put in my RV, Dynon vs. Grand
> Rapids Technologies. I'm leaning toward the GRT unit but have heard from
> one individual who said that the set-up process was pretty cumbersome.
> Anybody out there that can shed some real-world light on what it's like to
> set up either one of these things?
>
>
> Al Herron
>
> RV-7A
[Meaningless HTML and MS Office crap trimmed from my reply.]
[And I wish others would do the same too.]
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dynon vs. GRT |
David you are absolutely correct the confusion involved with all
the new avionics these days and changing so fast it is mind boggling. But at
the same time getting reasonable enough the average man can afford them.
Which is a fantastic thing since they bring so much more situational
awareness to the cockpit.
Looks to me (but looks can be decieving) that the GRT and Dynon
are basicly the same insofar as the screen layout is concerned on the basic
efis. From what I can tell once they are both operational there is not much
to fiddle with on the Dynon except for setting the altimeter, but depending
on what is connected to the GRT it will require a little more effort.
My theory was to keep the Dynon switched off most of the time,
especially when in possible lightning strike. Of course there is always the
possibility that lightning will even cross an open circuit to damage
electronics. That is why I have been somewhat torn between using the Dynon
vs. conventional (old style) Altimeter, vsi, asi, adi as backup. By the way
I will not use vacuum instrument's since they are prone to failure. Sure a
backup pump can be installed but by the time this is done and all is figured
in the price get's more and more. There are lot's of "if's" involved. But
one saving grace these days is that most of the portable gps's (I have a 196
I now use) have all that info on them too as even more "3rd" backup. It's
amazing how anal I can be about safety.
By the way Mike at Dynon replied back to me today on an inquiry and
only took a couple of hours to get the email response and gave me his phone
number for additional info, just wanted to let everyone know how good they
seem to be to deal with.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Dynon vs. GRT
>
> I don't know much about glass screen concepts but, here is one concept to
> keep in mind.
>
> Don't mix instrumentation display concepts if you have the option.
> Here is why.....
> Like anything hi tech these days, the learning curve is difficult if you
> plan to learn all the functions.
> A EFIS designer usually designs around a special control philosophy
> concept.
> It is difficult enough to learn one company's concept and then, to mix in
> another is usually way beyond what a normal pilot can handle especially
> when
> the brain is flooded with an emergency situation. Pick one manufacturers
> concept and stay with it.
>
> An good example is Garmin......
> The controls for both use the same concept and functions can easily be
> mentally transferred from one to the other once learned.
>
> Garmin also now has the 480. A fantastic GPS navigator that came out of
> the
> "Tomorrow" or UPS company when Garmin bought them. If one were to make
> the
> mistake of installing a Garmin 480 and Garmin 430, I believe that is a
> disaster waiting to happen to the hapless pilot. The usage of the
> controls
> and data flow design concepts are almost totally different. You have to
> learn both; like learning to use all the functions of a PC and an Apple
> computer.
>
> Imagine trying to sort out the functions when your mind is bogged down
> with
> ice on the wings or flying into IMC "accidentally" and trying to use the
> David
> PS: I am embarrassed to mention that too many pilots friends can't even
> handle 50% of the functions of a simple Garmin let alone having a mixed
> bag
> on the panel........
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
The Dynon is really easy from my experience. I had never done any wiring
before and I was able to wire it in and set it up. The wiring harness is a
must, in my opinion.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Herron, Al
Subject: Avionics-List: Dynon vs. GRT
I'm trying to decide which whiz-box EFIS to put in my RV, Dynon vs. Grand
Rapids Technologies. I'm leaning toward the GRT unit but have heard from
one individual who said that the set-up process was pretty cumbersome.
Anybody out there that can shed some real-world light on what it's like to
set up either one of these things?
Al Herron
RV-7A
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
Im trying to decide which whiz-box EFIS to put in my
RV, Dynon vs. Grand Rapids Technologies. Im leaning toward the GRT
unit but have heard from one individual who said that the set-up process was
pretty cumbersome. Anybody out there that can shed some real-world light
on what its like to set up either one of these things?
Al Herron
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
Al,
To start with I need more information about your mission. Also, I need
more information on what type of backup to your primary EFIS you will be
using. I have used almost every type of EFIS system that has been out
for at least a year. Some briefly and some I have flown behind. I have
flown the high
end stuff form the Gulfstream G-IV and Airbus 320, to the Dynon 10.
Briefly the Dynon 10A is a stand alone EFIS system that contains and air
data computer, display, encoder, and backup power system. Externally to
the system is a compass magnetometer with temperature input and engine
instrumentation. The up side is this unit is small and easy to install
and gives you the backup power function internally. The Cons to me is
the fact that the Dynon EFIS does not know where it is in space so you
don't get some of the full air data functions found on other EFIS
systems. Such as GS wind speed and direction, and flight management
interconnect. But for the price the Dynon is a good unit for VFR or IFR
with a full setup of backup instruments. I have had a Dynon installed
in an airplane I owned and have one in a friends Lancair that I fly. I
would not fly IFR behind a the Dynon on as an only source system.
(meaning having a T&B as a backup would not be enough.)
The GRT system is based on the support by GRT to Chilton for air data
computers and such that they build for them. GRT has come on the scene
using their expertise in this field and produced a product in my option
that is a lower cost Chilton EFIS system with limited function but
similar in some functions. My flight experience is limited with GRT but
they do have a bunch of long term experience in the aircraft avionics
world and their unit has much more function then the Dynon EFIS. Some
of the functions you get with the GRT that you don't get with the Dynon
is Moving Map function, Full air data function (wind, GS, Ground Track,
ect.), Flight management (flight planning), flight direction (both raw
data GS, LOC, VOR, and synthetic navigation). In short the GRT has many
more functions then the Dynon will ever have and is much more comparable
to the Chilton Sport EFIS system ( see: direct2avionics.com ).
Other systems to look at that are in between the Dynon and the GRT would
be the Blue Mountain Avionics stuff. I have worked with some of their
units but have yet to fly behind one. I just purchased their EFIS G3
Lite as a backup to a Chilton system and I will be testing it over the
next three months. I will be able to give you a comprehensive report in
January if you haven't purchased yet. My direct email is mlas(at)cox.net
Mike Larkin
Lancair Legacy
TS-11 Iskra
Kitfox IV
Airbus 320
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse
Saint
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Dynon vs. GRT
The Dynon is really easy from my experience. I had never done any
wiring
before and I was able to wire it in and set it up. The wiring harness
is a
must, in my opinion.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Herron,
Al
Subject: Avionics-List: Dynon vs. GRT
I'm trying to decide which whiz-box EFIS to put in my RV, Dynon vs.
Grand
Rapids Technologies. I'm leaning toward the GRT unit but have heard
from
one individual who said that the set-up process was pretty cumbersome.
Anybody out there that can shed some real-world light on what it's like
to
set up either one of these things?
Al Herron
RV-7A
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
Im trying to decide which whiz-box EFIS to put in my
RV, Dynon vs. Grand Rapids Technologies. Im leaning toward the GRT
unit but have heard from one individual who said that the set-up process
was
pretty cumbersome. Anybody out there that can shed some real-world light
on what its like to set up either one of these things?
Al Herron
RV-7A
--
11/11/2005
--
11/11/2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Message from David Henderson |
I couldn't figure out how to directly reply to the list, so I'm doing what I
can...
David said: "SL30 with 106A".
My question to Garmin on 09/08/2005: "Which indicator should be used with
the Garmin SL 30: the GI 102A/GI 106A or the MD200-306?".
Garmin's reply: "Of those listed only the MD200-306 has been fully tested
and certified to function as it should with the SL 30".
Hopefully, this will save you a headache down the line...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Message from David Henderson |
only the 306 has BC possibility the 106 has not
Werner
Bill Denton wrote:
>
>I couldn't figure out how to directly reply to the list, so I'm doing what I
>can...
>
>David said: "SL30 with 106A".
>
>My question to Garmin on 09/08/2005: "Which indicator should be used with
>the Garmin SL 30: the GI 102A/GI 106A or the MD200-306?".
>
>Garmin's reply: "Of those listed only the MD200-306 has been fully tested
>and certified to function as it should with the SL 30".
>
>Hopefully, this will save you a headache down the line...
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | GPS IFR requirements |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.4999 1.0000 0.0000
11/15/2005
Hello Anon, Regarding your question copied below "....how to certify a
GPS for IFR operations in an experimental aircraft?"
The short answer is: "One should not even attempt such certification because
it is not
required." Let me explain.
The term "certify" is thrown around too loosely and any attempts to
discuss a question about certifying a GPS for IFR operations in an amateur
built
experimental aircraft without first setting some ground rules will
result in endless wrangling.
To me "certified" in this context means there is a piece of paper
(certificate or
equivalent document) signed by a person authorized by the FAA Administrator
to sign
that certificate or document.
Standard type certificated aircraft get a standard airworthiness
certificate based on meeting published standards and during its operational
life no one is permitted to legally do anything to that aircraft that would
void that certificate. There are
tens of thousands of words in the Federal Aviation Regulations, Advisory
Circulars, Technical Standard Orders, RTCA documents, SAE documents, FAA
Orders, and other documents such as FAA policy that exist to maintain the
sanctity of that aircraft's
standard airworthiness status.
Amateur built experimental aircraft get an initial special airworthiness
certificate, which includes Operating Limitations specific to that
individual aircraft, signed by an FAA Inspector or a DAR (Designated
Airworthiness Representative) acting with the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Since there are no published standards for amateur built
experimental aircraft to deviate from, as long as the aircraft remains
in compliance with its Operating Limitations and the references contained
therein it is properly certified and no further certification acts are
required.
Moving on to the subject of IFR equipment and instruments in amateur
built experimental aircraft. The best discussion of this subject is by Dick
Koehler starting on page 62 of the September 2005 issue of Sport
Aviation magazine. Also see the MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT
REQUIREMENTS
FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
table available directly from me.
Now focusing specifically on GPS IFR equipment requirements and IFR
operations in amateur built experimental aircraft. One should read the
entire paragraph 1-1-19 of the August 4, 2005 edition of the AIM
(Aeronautical Information Manual)
<http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19>
Note One to Table 1-1-6 reads "To determine equipment approvals and
limitations, refer to the AFM, AFM supplements, or pilot guides." The
amateur builder has control over what his Aircraft Flight Manual says or
does not say. The pilot has access to the information and limitations
provided by the maker of his GPS equipment (pilot guides).
If the builder / pilot of an amateur built experimental aircraft is in
compliance with his aircraft's Operating Limitations, in compliance with
his AFM, in compliance with the instructions and limitations provided by the
maker of his GPS equipment, and in compliance with the equipment
requirements and flight procedural instructions regarding GPS IFR in the
most recent version of the AIM then he has met the legal requirements to
fly GPS IFR and no additional certification activity or approval is
required.
I'm happy to continue the discussion if there are differing or additional
viewpoints.
OC
----- Original Message -----
From: Anon
Subject: GPS IFR requirements
> Hello O.C. I recall that you did some extensive research on how to certify
> a GPS
> for IFR operations in an experimental aircraft. There seems to be a lot
> of interpretation of the law as written, and I would be interested in
> your findings and opinions on the subject.
> Regards, Anon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS IFR requirements |
OC,
Thanks for a very informative summary on this subject. I have had battles
with other builders intent on following the "letter of the FAR's", which
invariably lead to mass confusion and spit-ball fights. I left one
discussion group just for that reason.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Avionics-List: GPS IFR requirements
>
> 11/15/2005
>
> Hello Anon, Regarding your question copied below "....how to certify a
> GPS for IFR operations in an experimental aircraft?"
>
> The short answer is: "One should not even attempt such certification
> because
> it is not
> required." Let me explain.
>
> The term "certify" is thrown around too loosely and any attempts to
> discuss a question about certifying a GPS for IFR operations in an
> amateur
> built
> experimental aircraft without first setting some ground rules will
> result in endless wrangling.
>
> To me "certified" in this context means there is a piece of paper
> (certificate or
> equivalent document) signed by a person authorized by the FAA
> Administrator
> to sign
> that certificate or document.
>
> Standard type certificated aircraft get a standard airworthiness
> certificate based on meeting published standards and during its
> operational
> life no one is permitted to legally do anything to that aircraft that
> would
> void that certificate. There are
> tens of thousands of words in the Federal Aviation Regulations, Advisory
> Circulars, Technical Standard Orders, RTCA documents, SAE documents, FAA
> Orders, and other documents such as FAA policy that exist to maintain the
> sanctity of that aircraft's
> standard airworthiness status.
>
> Amateur built experimental aircraft get an initial special airworthiness
> certificate, which includes Operating Limitations specific to that
> individual aircraft, signed by an FAA Inspector or a DAR (Designated
> Airworthiness Representative) acting with the authority of the FAA
> Administrator. Since there are no published standards for amateur built
> experimental aircraft to deviate from, as long as the aircraft remains
> in compliance with its Operating Limitations and the references contained
> therein it is properly certified and no further certification acts are
> required.
>
> Moving on to the subject of IFR equipment and instruments in amateur
> built experimental aircraft. The best discussion of this subject is by
> Dick
> Koehler starting on page 62 of the September 2005 issue of Sport
> Aviation magazine. Also see the MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT
> REQUIREMENTS
> FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
> table available directly from me.
>
> Now focusing specifically on GPS IFR equipment requirements and IFR
> operations in amateur built experimental aircraft. One should read the
> entire paragraph 1-1-19 of the August 4, 2005 edition of the AIM
> (Aeronautical Information Manual)
> <http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19>
>
> Note One to Table 1-1-6 reads "To determine equipment approvals and
> limitations, refer to the AFM, AFM supplements, or pilot guides." The
> amateur builder has control over what his Aircraft Flight Manual says or
> does not say. The pilot has access to the information and limitations
> provided by the maker of his GPS equipment (pilot guides).
>
> If the builder / pilot of an amateur built experimental aircraft is in
> compliance with his aircraft's Operating Limitations, in compliance with
> his AFM, in compliance with the instructions and limitations provided by
> the
> maker of his GPS equipment, and in compliance with the equipment
> requirements and flight procedural instructions regarding GPS IFR in the
> most recent version of the AIM then he has met the legal requirements to
> fly GPS IFR and no additional certification activity or approval is
> required.
>
> I'm happy to continue the discussion if there are differing or additional
> viewpoints.
>
> OC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Anon
>
> Subject: GPS IFR requirements
>
>> Hello O.C. I recall that you did some extensive research on how to
>> certify
>> a GPS
>> for IFR operations in an experimental aircraft. There seems to be a lot
>> of interpretation of the law as written, and I would be interested in
>> your findings and opinions on the subject.
>
>> Regards, Anon
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Message from David Henderson |
| From: | "Marcos Della" <mdella(at)cstone.com> |
I have the MD200-306 on my SL30... And just as a side note, unless you
didn't want the glideslope indivator, the MD200-306 is cheaper than the
garmin CDI w/glideslope anyway. Even the Nav needle alone on the garmin
indicator is almost the same price as the MD200-306.
I ended up using two of the MD200-306s, one for the CNX80 and one for
the SL30
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Denton
Subject: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson
I couldn't figure out how to directly reply to the list, so I'm doing
what I can...
David said: "SL30 with 106A".
My question to Garmin on 09/08/2005: "Which indicator should be used
with the Garmin SL 30: the GI 102A/GI 106A or the MD200-306?".
Garmin's reply: "Of those listed only the MD200-306 has been fully
tested and certified to function as it should with the SL 30".
Hopefully, this will save you a headache down the line...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Henderson" <wf-k(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Message from David Henderson |
WOW! That's scary, I never even thought of the back course. I just assumed
and that gets me into trouble every time. Maybe I should spend the extra
bucks and get an avionics broker involved.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Werner
Schneider
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson
only the 306 has BC possibility the 106 has not
Werner
Bill Denton wrote:
>
>I couldn't figure out how to directly reply to the list, so I'm doing what
I
>can...
>
>David said: "SL30 with 106A".
>
>My question to Garmin on 09/08/2005: "Which indicator should be used with
>the Garmin SL 30: the GI 102A/GI 106A or the MD200-306?".
>
>Garmin's reply: "Of those listed only the MD200-306 has been fully tested
>and certified to function as it should with the SL 30".
>
>Hopefully, this will save you a headache down the line...
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS IFR requirements |
> I have had battles with other builders intent on
> following the "letter of the FAR's", which invariably
> lead to mass confusion and spit-ball fights. I left one
> discussion group just for that reason.
> Wayne
>
There is an Advisory Circular on "certifying" the
installation of GPS for IFR, but I don't see anywhere in the
FARs where we need follow it for a homebuilt as per the
other post. Of course, FAA has a concern where we're
slogging along in cloud and might cause a hazard to others,
due to our navigation error. So whatever is in the AC to
comply with the spirit of the document in that regard, plus
proper installation, seems reasonable to me.
But an example is the need for a VOR type remote indicator,
and the annunciator lights. However, it seems to me that if
the GPS is installed within easy view, and its CDI display
and such is adequate for the purpose, we shouldn't be
causing a problem.
Recently a good FAA FSDO type spoke at our EAA chapter
meeting. I asked her about these traditional airways
routings on clearance delivery I still hear, about 95%, even
bizjets. Like, how often do they get up there, and get a
direct to something they can't receive yet? Using their
GPS. She laughed. Said, "We see nothing, we hear nothing,
we know nothing!"
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Message from David Henderson |
| From: | "Marcos Della" <mdella(at)cstone.com> |
actually the 106 and 306 will both fly the BC the same. The big difference is
that the BC light doesn't come on with the 106 to let you know that the meter
is reading the opposite of what you would expect for a BC (that is, its displaying
it "correctly" and you don't have to fly opposite of the needle) But without
the light, you'd possibly forget that...
________________________________
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of David Henderson
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson
WOW! That's scary, I never even thought of the back course. I just assumed
and that gets me into trouble every time. Maybe I should spend the extra
bucks and get an avionics broker involved.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Werner
Schneider
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson
only the 306 has BC possibility the 106 has not
Werner
Bill Denton wrote:
>
>I couldn't figure out how to directly reply to the list, so I'm doing what
I
>can...
>
>David said: "SL30 with 106A".
>
>My question to Garmin on 09/08/2005: "Which indicator should be used with
>the Garmin SL 30: the GI 102A/GI 106A or the MD200-306?".
>
>Garmin's reply: "Of those listed only the MD200-306 has been fully tested
>and certified to function as it should with the SL 30".
>
>Hopefully, this will save you a headache down the line...
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com> |
| Subject: | MD200-306 indicator and dual navs |
My original plan was to install the Garmin GNS430 and SL30 with one
MD200-306, which would be shared with the two navs. I have been told that
this will not work as the indicator has to be calibrated for each nav and
will be inaccurate with the other one. I now do not know if I have panel
space for the second indicator (not to mention the bucks!)
Two questions...
One - Is this true? Do I really have to have an indicator dedicated to each
nav?
Two - If not true, how do I switch between the two navs on the indicator?
Thanks,
Bill Bradburry
Snip
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson
From: "Marcos Della" <mdella(at)cstone.com>
I have the MD200-306 on my SL30... And just as a side note, unless you
didn't want the glideslope indivator, the MD200-306 is cheaper than the
garmin CDI w/glideslope anyway. Even the Nav needle alone on the garmin
indicator is almost the same price as the MD200-306.
I ended up using two of the MD200-306s, one for the CNX80 and one for
the SL30
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Denton
Subject: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson
I couldn't figure out how to directly reply to the list, so I'm doing
what I can...
David said: "SL30 with 106A".
My question to Garmin on 09/08/2005: "Which indicator should be used
with the Garmin SL 30: the GI 102A/GI 106A or the MD200-306?".
Garmin's reply: "Of those listed only the MD200-306 has been fully
tested and certified to function as it should with the SL 30".
Hopefully, this will save you a headache down the line...
Snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | MD200-306 indicator and dual navs |
| From: | "Marcos Della" <mdella(at)cstone.com> |
I can tell you that I've gone the route about switching the CDIs and
I've been involved in the calibration of them. Its true that it is
unlikely that anyone certified will put a switch between two devices
powering the CDI (the resolver is calibrated in 10 degree increments and
there are all kinds of issues that you can get into).
With that said, you *don't* have to put a CDI on a device to use it. Its
up to *how* you want to use it.
I don't know about the 430 since I have a 480 myself, but with the 480,
there is a built in CDI/HSI that I use. I rarely use the head that is
connected to the 480 unless I'm doing my final stepdown on an ILS. As
for the SL30, it too has a built in NAV needle on its display. No GS,
but I can't remember the last time I used the GS on the SL30 for
anything other than a backup. Typically I use the SL30 to do my
references for the FAF or IAF, etc.
So althought I do have both MD300-206's in my plane, I don't use them
that much. I tend to use the GPS one less than the SL30 one (its easier
to read the 480 HSI needle than the NAV needle on the SL30)
Your milage will vary... Maybe you can find someone in your area that
has a setup that you can do a test flight with just to get an inflight
demo...
Marcos
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bbradburry(at)allvantage.com
Subject: Avionics-List: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs
My original plan was to install the Garmin GNS430 and SL30 with one
MD200-306, which would be shared with the two navs. I have been told
that this will not work as the indicator has to be calibrated for each
nav and will be inaccurate with the other one. I now do not know if I
have panel space for the second indicator (not to mention the bucks!)
Two questions... One - Is this true? Do I really have to have an
indicator dedicated to each nav? Two - If not true, how do I switch
between the two navs on the indicator? Thanks, Bill Bradburry
Snip
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson
From: "Marcos Della" <mdella(at)cstone.com>
I have the MD200-306 on my SL30... And just as a side note, unless you
didn't want the glideslope indivator, the MD200-306 is cheaper than the
garmin CDI w/glideslope anyway. Even the Nav needle alone on the garmin
indicator is almost the same price as the MD200-306.
I ended up using two of the MD200-306s, one for the CNX80 and one for
the SL30
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Denton
Subject: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson
I couldn't figure out how to directly reply to the list, so I'm doing
what I can...
David said: "SL30 with 106A".
My question to Garmin on 09/08/2005: "Which indicator should be used
with the Garmin SL 30: the GI 102A/GI 106A or the MD200-306?".
Garmin's reply: "Of those listed only the MD200-306 has been fully
tested and certified to function as it should with the SL 30".
Hopefully, this will save you a headache down the line...
Snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Grand Rapids EFIS |
Is anyone on the list now flying behind the Grand Rapids EFIS ? Was
told they now show terrain and have a weather option was wondering about
this. Also sounds like the SL30, having the capability of tracking 2 VOR's
at once, would be the way to go with this unit since it reads (if I'm
understanding it correctly) 2 VOR's at once crosschecking the GPS
coordinates. It would seem this feature would be almost as good as a GPS
itself if one was always in an area where he could pick up 2 VOR's & if the
system accually X's out the 2 radial's on the moving map showing accual
location.
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
Bought a WX-8 Stormscope off of ebay complete with wiring antenna
etc. I will not be installing in my Comp 6 for a while. Question is: Is it
possible for me to test this unit myself, maybe installing temporarily in
another airplane or bench testing ? And what should I be looking for when
testing ?
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Grand Rapids EFIS |
I invite you to join the GRT_EFIS users group on yahoo. There's an email archive
you can search through, pictures, documents and files to browse through and
of course a place to ask many folks who are flying behind the system as well
as the system developers who are also on that list.
-------------- Original message --------------
>
> Is anyone on the list now flying behind the Grand Rapids EFIS ? Was
> told they now show terrain and have a weather option was wondering about
> this. Also sounds like the SL30, having the capability of tracking 2 VOR's
> at once, would be the way to go with this unit since it reads (if I'm
> understanding it correctly) 2 VOR's at once crosschecking the GPS
> coordinates. It would seem this feature would be almost as good as a GPS
> itself if one was always in an area where he could pick up 2 VOR's & if the
> system accually X's out the 2 radial's on the moving map showing accual
> location.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
>
>
>
I invite you to join the GRT_EFIS users group on yahoo. There's an email archive
you can search through, pictures, documents and files to browse through and
of course a place to ask many folks who are flying behind the system as well as
the system developers who are also on that list.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker" <BRINKER@COX-INTERNET.COM>
Is anyone on the list now flying behind the Grand Rapids EFIS ? Was
told they now show terrain and have a weather option was wondering about
this. Also sounds like the SL30, having the capability of tracking 2 VOR's
at once, would be the way to go with this unit since it reads (if I'm
understanding it correctly) 2 VOR's at once crosschecking the GPS
coordinates. It would seem this feature would be almost as good as a GPS
itself if one was always in an area where he could pick up 2 VOR's if the
system accually X's out the 2 radial's on the moving map showing accual
location.
Randy
========================
h as the Subscriptions page,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
Randy,
Yes, you can put the antenna on the roof of your house if you want and
watch the storms come in. You are looking for electrical discharges in
the proper direction and intensity. It's been a long time since I used
a WX 8 but if memory serves me the colors change based on the rate of
strikes in a certain sector and the range is based on the amplitude of
the strikes. But in short, you should be able to set the unit up at
your house and check it by looking at radar returns on the TV. The WX 8
will only show storms that have convection. No lighting, no return. As
far a putting it on another plane or vehicle, the units are very
susceptible to electric noise. It is very possible to get false
indications if the installation is not done correctly. We use a mapping
test set to find the best location on airplanes before installation.
Mike
Lancair Legacy
TS-11
Kitfox
A-320
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker
Subject: Avionics-List: WX-8 Stormscope
<brinker@cox-internet.com>
Bought a WX-8 Stormscope off of ebay complete with wiring
antenna
etc. I will not be installing in my Comp 6 for a while. Question is:
Is it
possible for me to test this unit myself, maybe installing temporarily
in
another airplane or bench testing ? And what should I be looking for
when
testing ?
Randy
--
11/18/2005
--
11/18/2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WX-8 Stormscope |
Thanks Mike, I had heard that they need to be handled with care since
it was prossible for static electricity to fry the antenna. But am not sure
what handling with care means. Rubber gloves ?? Cloth gloves ? But then
again if it was not handled correctly by the un-installer then it may still
have a problem. I'm keeping my finger's crossed. I have had mostly good luck
off of ebay but there can always be a problem and I don't want to create it.
Even though the system wiring is suppose to be complete I may run
into a problem figuring out the connecting wires. I do not want to reverse
the polarity etc. and fry the unit. If so would you have a schematic showing
the proper connections ?
Thanks Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: WX-8 Stormscope
>
> Randy,
>
> Yes, you can put the antenna on the roof of your house if you want and
> watch the storms come in. You are looking for electrical discharges in
> the proper direction and intensity. It's been a long time since I used
> a WX 8 but if memory serves me the colors change based on the rate of
> strikes in a certain sector and the range is based on the amplitude of
> the strikes. But in short, you should be able to set the unit up at
> your house and check it by looking at radar returns on the TV. The WX 8
> will only show storms that have convection. No lighting, no return. As
> far a putting it on another plane or vehicle, the units are very
> susceptible to electric noise. It is very possible to get false
> indications if the installation is not done correctly. We use a mapping
> test set to find the best location on airplanes before installation.
>
> Mike
>
> Lancair Legacy
> TS-11
> Kitfox
> A-320
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Avionics-List: WX-8 Stormscope
>
> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> Bought a WX-8 Stormscope off of ebay complete with wiring
> antenna
> etc. I will not be installing in my Comp 6 for a while. Question is:
> Is it
> possible for me to test this unit myself, maybe installing temporarily
> in
> another airplane or bench testing ? And what should I be looking for
> when
> testing ?
>
> Randy
>
>
> --
> 11/18/2005
>
>
> --
> 11/18/2005
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | GPS IFR requirements |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.4993 1.0000 0.0000
Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Fred Fillinger"
....skip.....There is an Advisory Circular on "certifying" the
installation of GPS for IFR, but I don't see anywhere in the
FARs where we need follow it for a homebuilt as per the
other post. Of course, FAA has a concern where we're
slogging along in cloud and might cause a hazard to others,
due to our navigation error. So whatever is in the AC to
comply with the spirit of the document in that regard, plus
proper installation, seems reasonable to me......skip.....
Fred F.
11/18/2005
Hello Fred, I think that you are right on target. Please let me add a few
words about complying with AC 20-138A from a recent email exchange. OC
--------------------------RECENT EMAIL EXCHANGE----------------------
11/17/2005
Hello Wayne, Good to hear from you again. I'll respond with inserts below.
<<....skip.....My understanding is that any GPS used for primary navigation
must meet the TSO C129 guidelines, which basically boils down to having RAIM
prediction, RAIM notification, and ability for the external indicator to
become more sensitive.....skip......>>
OK, but don't forget AIM paragraph 1-1-19. d. 1. (b).
Otherwise I essentially agree, but let me pick a few nits. I know that AIM
Table 1-1-5 says TSO C129, but that is a bit misleading / out of date. (See
<http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19>). If one digs a
little deeper one finds TSO C129a, TSO C129 (AR), and TSO C146a, are also
relevant. Maybe the best way to describe the TSO requirement is to say that
one has met the
minimum GPS IFR requirements if one complies with the latest / current
version of TSO C129__ and the "appropriate" AIM requirements. More on
"appropriate" AIM requirements later.
Also note the subcategory capabilities within TSO C129__ shown in Table
1-1-5 of the AIM. . Without a copy of the current TSO and Table 1-1-5 in
front of one it is almost impossible to make a decision or take a definitive
stand on GPS IFR requirements.
The problem with getting the TSO documents and doing research is that the
TSO documents don't seamlessly relate to each other content wise and date
wise and frequently the TSO document is a bare shell with the meat of the
subject matter contained in several not readily available, and expensive if
available, documents that are referenced by the TSO.
Not quite. For initial certification the inspector's IFR avionics inspection
obligation is
fulfilled by this sentence in each aircraft's Operating Limitations "After
completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for
night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is
to be operated under VFR, day only." It is up to the builder and not the
inspector to "appropriately equip" his aircraft in this regard. An over
zealous inspector my have personal preferences in regard to IFR avionics and
because he has the power of the Administrator during the initial inspection
he may exert some influence, but he has no valid FAA prerogative with regard
to IFR avionics. That is why the recent great leaps forward in
instrumentation and avionics technology have come from the amateur built
experimental aircraft community -- our hands were not tied by inspectors
forcing us
to use the old fashioned tried and true hardware.
Here is the problem in trying to comply literally with AC 20-138A: When an
FAA bureaucrat or lawyer sits down to write an FAR, a NPRM, an Advisory
Circular, or a paragraph in the
AIM, unless that document is aimed specifically at aircraft with special
airworthiness certificates (and the writer is knowledgable thereof) the
document is fundamentally being written for type certificated aircraft with
standard airworthiness certificates. But the FAA doesn't make note of (or
appreciate) this fact. So AC 20-138A should really begin "1. PURPOSE. This
advisory circular (AC) provides guidance material for the airworthness
approval of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) equipment [and its
installation in standard type certificated aircraft]." My words added in
[xxx].
Now go to paragraph 21 of AC 20-138 INSTALLED PERFORMANCE - DATA SUBMITTAL.
The first sentence of paragraph 21.a. reads "General. This paragraph
identifies documentation typically required by the aircraft certification
authorities to support installation approval."
These "aircraft certification authorities" do not exist for installations in
previously certified amateur built experimental aircraft and if they existed
they would not have any published standards for amateur built aircraft to
measure compliance against. There is no FAA administrative mechanism for
additional certification approval of an amateur built experimental aircraft
after its initial
certification so there are no "certification authorities" to submit amateur
built experimental aircraft subsequent GPS installation documents to for
approval.** The Operating Limitations of each amateur built experimental
aircraft gives direction as to how major modifications are to be
accomplished and recorded by anyone doing so (doesn't have to be the
builder).
Minor modifications of the aircraft are left completely in the hands of
anyone choosing to make them.
The last sentence of paragraph 21. a. reads "The data described in this
paragraph is applicable to obtaining an STC, an amended TC or an amended
STC."
Amateur built experimental aircraft do not have Type Certificates so
it is not feasible to attempt to create documents in order to obtain
supplements or
amendments to a Type Certificate that does not exist.
So we amateur aircraft builders and pilots need to follow the AIM (and other
FAA documents) when appropriate, but recognize that sometimes attempting to
literally follow those documents just is not feasible.
<>
Agreed.
OC
**PS: A few years back a builder posted his experience with trying to get
the FSDO to bless / approve / certify his GPS installation in an already
flying amateur built experimental aircraft in accordance with a then current
AC that called for a flight test (as does AC 20-138A). After months of paper
shuffling and delay he finally coerced a terrified FAA
bureaucrat to fly in his death machine. The FAA gent spent the entire
flight staring out the windshield waiting for either the inevitable mid air
collision or the imminent crash. The performance of the GPS installation was
beneath / beyond
his level of interest.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com>
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: GPS IFR requirements
> We've had similar discussions on our canard email lists. My understanding
> is
> that any GPS used for primary navigation must meet the TSO C129
> guidelines,
> which basically boils down to having RAIM prediction, RAIM notification,
> and
> ability for the external indicator to become more sensitive. It must be
> installed according to AC 20-138. Any GPS can be used as long as it meets
> the TSO. But as of right now, the only units capable of doing this are
> from
> the big boys, like the Garmins, Kings, and others. Blue Mountain for
> example is not and cannot. Handhelds need not apply either.
>
> Do I have this right, or is it time to educate Wayne again. (I enjoy this
> so much.)
>
> ====================
> L. Wayne Hicks
> Senior Engineer
> Zel Technologies, LLC
> 757-325-1282 phone
> wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com
> http://www.zeltech.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
Randy,
I have not heard of the antennas being that sensitive to damage, just
false indications. So I wouldn't worry too much about that issue. I
would bring up the fact that the WX8 has been out of production for well
over 10 maybe even 20 years, so the unit is old. I will look around for
an installation manual for that unit and get back to you.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: WX-8 Stormscope
<brinker@cox-internet.com>
Thanks Mike, I had heard that they need to be handled with care
since
it was prossible for static electricity to fry the antenna. But am not
sure
what handling with care means. Rubber gloves ?? Cloth gloves ? But
then
again if it was not handled correctly by the un-installer then it may
still
have a problem. I'm keeping my finger's crossed. I have had mostly good
luck
off of ebay but there can always be a problem and I don't want to create
it.
Even though the system wiring is suppose to be complete I may
run
into a problem figuring out the connecting wires. I do not want to
reverse
the polarity etc. and fry the unit. If so would you have a schematic
showing
the proper connections ?
Thanks Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: WX-8 Stormscope
>
> Randy,
>
> Yes, you can put the antenna on the roof of your house if you want and
> watch the storms come in. You are looking for electrical discharges
in
> the proper direction and intensity. It's been a long time since I
used
> a WX 8 but if memory serves me the colors change based on the rate of
> strikes in a certain sector and the range is based on the amplitude of
> the strikes. But in short, you should be able to set the unit up at
> your house and check it by looking at radar returns on the TV. The WX
8
> will only show storms that have convection. No lighting, no return.
As
> far a putting it on another plane or vehicle, the units are very
> susceptible to electric noise. It is very possible to get false
> indications if the installation is not done correctly. We use a
mapping
> test set to find the best location on airplanes before installation.
>
> Mike
>
> Lancair Legacy
> TS-11
> Kitfox
> A-320
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Avionics-List: WX-8 Stormscope
>
> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> Bought a WX-8 Stormscope off of ebay complete with wiring
> antenna
> etc. I will not be installing in my Comp 6 for a while. Question is:
> Is it
> possible for me to test this unit myself, maybe installing temporarily
> in
> another airplane or bench testing ? And what should I be looking for
> when
> testing ?
>
> Randy
>
>
> --
> 11/18/2005
>
>
> --
> 11/18/2005
>
>
>
--
11/18/2005
--
11/18/2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS IFR requirements |
> Hello Fred, I think that you are right on target. Please
let me add a few
> words about complying with AC 20-138A from a recent email
exchange. OC
> (snip)
Interesting stuff you posted, and I'll take a crack too at
the FARs, for good or ill. First, I draw a distinction (as
does FAA) between enroute and approach-certified GPS, where
common sense should rule for our own safety, if GPS the sole
approach equipment. But from an FAR standpoint, it seems:
Part 91 binds us only to have "appropriate" navigation
equipment for IFR, not "approved" equipment. So for a
homebuilt, we buy an old ILS receiver off eBay, removed from
a Mexican airplane which crashed. Our old tube-type
Heathkit scope and stuff still work; we cobble a simple
circuit for a test signal; make the thing seemingly work
properly. We're not bound by Parts 43 and 65 re fixing it.
Then we take these boxes and duct-tape 'em to the top of the
panel, hot-wired to the battery. File and go shoot an
approach in actual conditions of 200-1/2. This is hardly
legal for type-certificated aircraft, but for a homebuilt I
know of no advisory document (AIM or AC) which prohibits
this as a matter of installation, even one more properly
done. Except that we're not to fly recklessly and cause a
problem with the above -- like buzzing a high-school soccer
game at 200 AGL in the fog, 2 miles off LOC course. So 3
FAR violations -- airworthiness, appropriate, and reckless.
But technically again, I don't see why -- at higher GPS
minimums so far -- FAA would feel the need to inject itself
into a GPS installation process in a homebuilt. So relevant
here is your citing someone's experience in asking FAA to
actually get involved, and where FAA got bored with the
matter. And the same restriction should exist as to how we
effect the installation and fly IFR with it, and cause a
reckless operation problem over the kids' soccer game.
Latter could merely be doing approaches with an
terminal/enroute-only GPS, FAA will say. So we end up
following the spirit of the AC and AIM, but no formal FAA
approval.
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | MD200-306 indicator and dual navs |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0011 1.0000 -4.4747
Avionics-List message previously posted by:
<>
11/19/2005
Hello Bill, To respond:
<>
1) Not really. Early on the manufacturer felt the SL-30 was very sensitive
to this calibration issue and wanted the SL-30 to be connected directly to
one indicator. That was the company policy and the word they put out. As
time has gone by more field experience has been gained and SL-30
modifications may also have been made. Now the experts say it is OK to
connect the SL-30 along with another navigation information source to one
indicator. I can dig back into my files for more specifics if you like.
<| From: | DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GPS IFR requirements |
Could someone please advise the email address & phone # for the wing tip
antennas?
Thanks
Doug Preston
#40372
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "springcanyon" <springcanyon(at)mymethow.com> |
| Subject: | GPS IFR requirements |
Hi Doug,
Bob Archer: 310-316-8796 The guy is very helpful. I installed his vor
antenna in my RV-7 wing tip. It was quite straight forward.
Don Owens
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GPS IFR requirements
Could someone please advise the email address & phone # for the wing tip
antennas?
Thanks
Doug Preston
#40372
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GPS IFR requirements |
Thanks. Had used 1 before in 6A and worked fine. That was several years ago
and I couldn't find his info.
Regards,
Doug
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS IFR requirements |
Doug,
They are also available from Aircraft Spruce. That's where I purchased mine.
Regards,
RHDudley
-6A flying
DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Could someone please advise the email address & phone # for the wing tip
>antennas?
>Thanks
>
>Doug Preston
>#40372
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Franz Fux" <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
| Subject: | GPS IFR requirements |
Hi Doug,
I have a brand new Archer Com wingtip antenna for sale if you are
interested, contact me off list at franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com
Franz, RV7A wiring
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard
Dudley
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GPS IFR requirements
Doug,
They are also available from Aircraft Spruce. That's where I purchased mine.
Regards,
RHDudley
-6A flying
DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Could someone please advise the email address & phone # for the wing tip
>antennas?
>Thanks
>
>Doug Preston
>#40372
>
>
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Zilz" <z4t143(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | ARC R402A Marker Beacon Receiver |
I'm looking for a Pin Out diagram for an ARC R402A Marker Beacon Receiver. Can
anyone point me to such a document?
Thx
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | MD200-306 indicator and dual navs |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0268 1.0000 -4.1053
11/20/2005
Hello Old Bob, Right you are (see below) and thanks for the opportunity to
amplify.
When I wrote "You may have runway end location from a data
base....skip...." I had in mind three possible end of runway location
sources using a data base instead of just field lat long printed on the
approach plate, but I did not want to digress that extensively. They are:
1) As you suggest if the GPS has an IFR data base one can call up the
identification of the localizer as a destination and then use an approach
plate's description of the end of the runway from that localizer to provide
end of runway location.
2) One can call up the actual end of runway waypoint from the GPS IFR data
base if that waypoint is contained therein. Usually in the form of a five
letter missed approach waypoint such as SHENA on the GPS RWY 22 approach to
Culpeper VA Regional (CJR).
3) Or if one is operating with a VFR only GPS that does not contain
internally either of the two IFR data points described above one can get a
compact disc from NACO
http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/catalog/charts/digital/daicd that
contains the latitude and longitude of all navigation aids and put in the
lat long of the localizer as a user identified waypoint and use an approach
plate's description of the end of the runway from that localizer to provide
end of runway location.
A minor technicallity is to realize that the DME antenna is not co located
with the localizer antenna. Instead the DME antenna is usually installed on
the nearby electronics shack that feeds the localizer antenna. Since there
are normally just a few yards between the electronic shack supporting the
DME antenna and the localizer antenna, that distance difference is of no
significance if one is using the localizer antenna lat long location as also
being the DME antenna location.
OC
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
In a message dated 11/19/2005 12:51:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
<>
Good Afternoon OC,
All that you say is consistent with my understanding of the system, but It
may be helpful for folks to realize that you CAN select the site of the
localizer associated DME transceiver.
That is very helpful when shooting an ILS or localizer approach because all
waypoints along that course will be delineated by that DME site.
For the original Garmin units, that site can be found in the waypoint
section listed under the associated identifier. As an example, at Rockford
Illinois (KRFD) LOC (BACK CRS) Rwy 19 approach, the DME site will have
IRFD
as the identifier of the waypoint. I am not sure how they are handling the
480.
When it was an UPSAT unit, they had that waypoint on a dedicated page for
such
locations. In any case, the localizer associated DME site will always use
the same four letter identifier as the approach being executed.
The difficulty using airport identifier delineated waypoints (Airport
Reference Point) is that it is difficult to find where that point is at many
airports. Jeppesen posts them on the airport view at some, but not all,
airports
as the ARP. NACO rarely lists them at all other than giving the long/lat.
Happy Skies, Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GPS IFR requirements |
Thanks. I have a question for Mr. Archer.
DP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GPS IFR requirements |
Thanks, but I am going to use the bent whip for comms.
DP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS IFR requirements |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.4999 1.0000 0.0000
11/20/2005
Hello Bill, Thanks for your quick response copied below. Unfortunately I
think that the instructor you referred to gave you some facts jumbled in
with some unsupported opinion BS. There appears to be three issues involved
here. They are aerobatic testing, major modification testing, and IFR
testing.
1) Regarding aerobatic testing here is what FAA Order 8130.2F currently says
should go into the Operating Limitations and what the builder pilot must do:
"(15) This aircraft is prohibited from aerobatic flight, that is, an
intentional maneuver involving
an abrupt change in the aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or
abnormal acceleration not necessary for normal flight.
NOTE: If the builder states that the aircraft is capable of aerobatic
flight,
limitation 16 will be used in lieu of limitation 15.
(16) This aircraft may conduct aerobatic flight in accordance with the
provisions of 91.303.
Aerobatics must not be attempted until sufficient flight experience has been
gained to establish that the aircraft is satisfactorily controllable and in
compliance with 91.319(b). The aircraft may only conduct those aerobatic
flight maneuvers that have been satisfactorily accomplished during flight
testing and recorded in the aircraft maintenance records by use of the
following, or a similarly worded, statement: "I certify that the following
aerobatic maneuvers have been test flown and that the aircraft is
controllable throughout the maneuvers' normal range of speeds, and is safe
for operation. The flight-tested aerobatic maneuvers are _________,
_________, __________, and __________."
NOTE: Aerobatic flights may be permitted in the assigned test area. The
applicant should be advised that aerobatics or violent maneuvers should not
be attempted until sufficient flight experience has been gained to establish
that the aircraft is satisfactorily controllable. These operating
limitations may
be modified to include only those aerobatics/maneuvers that have been
satisfactorily accomplished and recorded in the aircraft records during the
flight test period. These aerobatic maneuvers should be permitted upon
leaving the assigned test area. Appropriate limitations identifying the
aerobatics/maneuvers and conditions under which they may be performed
should be prescribed. The FAA may witness aerobatic maneuvers if deemed
necessary."
That should cover the issue of ".....skip.....you had to perform all the
manuvers in the test phase
that you were going to use in the 'grown up airplane' phase." The instructor
was correct for aerobatic testing.
2) Regarding major modification testing here is what FAA Order 8130.2F
currently says should go into the Operating Limitations and what the builder
pilot must do:
"(19) After incorporating a major change as described in 21.93, the
aircraft owner is required
to reestablish compliance with 91.319(b) and notify the geographically
responsible FSDO of the
location of the proposed test area. The aircraft owner must obtain
concurrence from the FSDO
as to the suitability of the proposed test area. If the major change
includes installing a different
type of engine (reciprocating to turbine) or a change of a fixed-pitch from
or to a controllable propeller, the aircraft owner must fill out a revised
Form 8130-6 to update the aircraft's file in the FAA Aircraft Registry. All
operations must be conducted under day VFR conditions in a sparsely
populated area. The aircraft must remain in flight test for a minimum of 5
hours. The FSDO may require additional time (more than 5 hours) depending on
the extent of the modification. Persons nonessential to the flight must not
be carried. The aircraft owner must make a detailed logbook entry describing
the change before the test flight. Following satisfactory completion of the
required number of flight hours in the flight test area, the pilot must
certify in the records that the aircraft has been shown to comply with
91.319(b). Compliance with 91.319(b) must be recorded in the aircraft
records with the following, or a similarly worded, statement: "I certify
that the prescribed flight test hours have been completed and the aircraft
is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all
maneuvers to be executed, has no hazardous characteristics or design
features, and is safe foroperation. The following aircraft operating data
has been demonstrated during the flight testing:speeds Vso ______, Vx
______, and Vy ______, and the weight ______, and CG location ______ at
which they were obtained.""
The instructor was correct to the extent that there is a requirement for
reentering the test phase, but that requirement exists only after a major
modification to the aircraft.
3) Regarding IFR testing here is what FAA Order 8130.2F currently says
should go into the Operating Limitations and what the builder pilot must do:
"(8) After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately
equipped for night
and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be
operated under VFR, day only."
That is it. As you can see the instructor's position regarding required
instrument flight testing is not supported by the pertinent basic documents.
But any rational builder-pilot should make every reasonable effort to
properly equip and test his airplane for IFR flight, if that is his goal,
and to comply with the appropriate provisions of the AIM and relevant
Advisory Circulars. Not because the FAA has set up the administrative
machinery to force him to do so, but because it is in his, and the amateur
builder's community, best interest to do so.
OC
----- Original Message -----
From: "William" <wschertz(at)ispwest.com>
Subject: Re: GPS IFR requirements
>I took the Sport air course on test flying your project, and I believe the
>statement was that you had to perform all the manuvers in the test phase
>that you were going to use in the 'grown up airplane' phase. i.e. if you
>are going to do loops, you must do a loop in the test phase and state that
>in your list of things done. When asked about IFR and the fact that you
>can't have a safety pilot along, the instructor stated that you 'do the
>ILS' under VFR conditions, verifying that the equipment does what it is
>supposed to do.
> At a separte point, i asked if you wanted to extend a performance point,
> and he stated that you take it back to test phase, do the tests, and then
> bring it out.
> Bill Schertz KIS Cruiser # 4045
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | GX60 internal battery |
Fellow listers,
I am getting an error message stating that my internal battery needs service in
my GX60. The unit continues to function - I just have to press the msg button
every few minutes.
This only started since I upgraded the datacard - that may be coincidental though.
Anyone else seen this? Is it home-repairable...with the correct battery? I have
done some miniature soldering so I could probably do it......
The archives show some of the portable units needing a similar repair - being done
by the owner. Sure would save some RV gas money!
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912
11/22/2005
Hello Fellow Builders, I have been watching this discussion of the various
methods of wire wrap and the pluses and minuses of using nylon ty-wraps with
some interest. Technology may offer a superior solution, but it doesn't seem
to have gotten much notice yet in our community. Here is a blurb from
Machine Design magazine:
"Cable ties of a polyarletherketone called Victrex
<<http://www.victrex.com/>> PEEK bundle wire and cables securely despite
long exposures to high temperatures and pressures of
oil drilling, aerospace, and military uses. Wires and cables running the
length of an aircraft fuselage or wrapped around an electric pump motor, for
example, must be bundled so they don't touch a potential heat source. Nylon
cable ties often work well in these applications. But they can melt in more
extreme applications such as oil drilling, perhaps interfering with the
pumping apparatus.
According to Richard Moore, spokesman for cable-tie maker Click Bond Inc.,
Carson City, Nev. (www.clickbond.com), drilling applications can see
temperatures of 392F. Victrex PEEK withstands temperatures to 500F and
resists chemicals, electricity, and radiation. Low-moisture absorption and
outgassing properties makes the polymer well suited for aerospace
applications - low-moisture absorption ensures dimensional stability. And
because the PEEK is halogen-free, it emits little smoke and toxic gas during
combustion. Additionally, the inherently lubricious material won't abrade
the plastic coating on the wires as is often the case with its nylon
counterpart."
I am willing to buy some PEEK cable ties from Clickbond, but haven't quite
figured out how to do so. Their marketing and distribution system is a bit
obscure to me. Any suggestions?
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | GX60 internal battery - 2nd attempt |
Noone responded on the first attempt
Fellow listers,
I am getting an error message stating that my internal battery needs service in
my GX60. The unit continues to function - I just have to press the msg button
every few minutes.
This only started since I upgraded the datacard - that may be coincidental though.
Anyone else seen this? Is it home-repairable...with the correct battery? I have
done some miniature soldering so I could probably do it......
The archives show some of the portable units needing a similar repair - being done
by the owner. Sure would save some RV gas money!
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marvin Dupree <97corvette(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GX60 internal battery - 2nd attempt |
my experience with changing an internal battery in my panel mounted
gps was good. i did talk with the factory service people and they
told me that the battery MUST be changed by them or it would not be
legal to use the gps in an airplane. they wanted $250 minumum
charge to change the battery. i bought one from radio shack and
installed it. costs about 5 bucks and works fine. it's your
call..... if you can do the job and if you want to. good luck.
marvin p.s. if you want more details, e-mail me direct
<97corvette(at)cox.net>
On Nov 23, 2005, at 8:01 AM, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>
>
> Noone responded on the first attempt
>
>
> Fellow listers,
>
> I am getting an error message stating that my internal battery
> needs service in my GX60. The unit continues to function - I just
> have to press the msg button every few minutes.
>
> This only started since I upgraded the datacard - that may be
> coincidental though.
>
> Anyone else seen this? Is it home-repairable...with the correct
> battery? I have done some miniature soldering so I could probably
> do it......
>
> The archives show some of the portable units needing a similar
> repair - being done by the owner. Sure would save some RV gas money!
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph Capen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
rvlist(at)matronics.com, rv6-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List: GX60 internal battery |
Just called Garmin-AT - got lucky.....
There is a difference between dead battery and needs service....the needs service
indicates that the unit is charging the battery and could vent into the system.
If the battery was dead I would have gotten a different error message.
According to the service technician......
Good news is that since my airplane has not flown - it is still covered by warranty...great
- allows me to test prior to first flight.
Ralph Capen
RV6A N822AR N06 90% 90%
-----Original Message-----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GX60 internal battery
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen"
Fellow listers,
I am getting an error message stating that my internal battery needs service in
my GX60. The unit continues to function - I just have to press the msg button
every few minutes.
This only started since I upgraded the datacard - that may be coincidental though.
Anyone else seen this? Is it home-repairable...with the correct battery? I have
done some miniature soldering so I could probably do it......
The archives show some of the portable units needing a similar repair - being done
by the owner. Sure would save some RV gas money!
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Lythall" <peter(at)nortech.bc.ca> |
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
Hello,
I have sorted out my engine requirements and am now planning out my panel. I
have reviewed the Blue Mountain EFIS as well as the Dynon D100. I like the
size and definition of the BM however, the idea of having a Garmin 430,
D100, and a separate EIS sounds like it may be a better idea given that
there are now 3 separate parts as opposed to one. If you have any thoughts
on this I want to spec my panel for IFR - Canadian. There seems to be some
difference between the US and CDN side of things. However, Maurice at
Transport Canada did tell me that according the Canadian Regs we do not
require TCO instruments in the Experimental type aircraft. Any thoughts or
reviews would be appreciated.
Peter Lythall
RV7
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
If you go with Chelton's budget EFIS and at least 1-430, you've covered the
bases. I would include an external CDI and slave it to the Chelton. You can also
slave your radios to the Chelton, so even if they are external, the Chelton acts
like a 430. If you eliminate the silly vacuum items (Chelton) and drop in an
electric attitude and turn coordinator, you've got 99% of a great IFR platform.
Don't get stuck on the Blue Mountain or D100 unless $$$ or CN's are a real
issue. There are many EFIS platforms available.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Lythall
Subject: Avionics-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
-->
Hello,
I have sorted out my engine requirements and am now planning out my panel. I
have reviewed the Blue Mountain EFIS as well as the Dynon D100. I like the size
and definition of the BM however, the idea of having a Garmin 430, D100, and a
separate EIS sounds like it may be a better idea given that there are now 3
separate parts as opposed to one. If you have any thoughts on this I want to
spec my panel for IFR - Canadian. There seems to be some difference between the
US and CDN side of things. However, Maurice at Transport Canada did tell me that
according the Canadian Regs we do not require TCO instruments in the
Experimental type aircraft. Any thoughts or reviews would be appreciated.
Peter Lythall
RV7
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
Hi guys,
I am looking for a few ideas. I have a fiberglass aircraft I am having problems
with RF getting into systems and causing problems.
The first area is headsets, I couldn't get my Lightspeeds to work properly. Lightspeed
acknowledged that there can be problems and offered to modify the battery
box. That improved things, but from time to time I still have problems.
The next on the list is my Navaid. Despite following Navaids suggestion of disabling
the Navaid whenever the PTT is pressed I still have issues, if I transmit
for long enough it will still swing over to a 30 degree bank which is a real
pain if I am flying in IFR conditions.
The latest trick is my intercom. Occasionally when I transmit I will get a stuck
mike. I called the manufacturer and managed to speak to the design engineer.
He acknowledged that is there is enough RF present then this could happen.
The company are currently working with me to resolve the issue.
So..... does anyone have any ideas. I have a GX60 as my nav / com and the antenna
(which is a Bob Archer) is buried in the tail. I have a single point ground
on the firewall.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF Radiation |
>I am looking for a few ideas. I have a fiberglass aircraft I am
>having problems with RF getting into systems and causing problems.
>
> I have a single point ground on the firewall.
Single point grounds are for audio stuff. Connecting an RF device, an
antenna, to that ground through a long wire or the shield of a piece
of co-ax isn't very good because the inductive reactance of the long
conductor is high at radio frequency. It's like connecting to ground
through a resistor.
Check the standing wave ratio of your antenna with the transmitter
being used. It may need a ground plane, or does the Bob Archer device
not need one? Some kind of balanced full dipole might be appropriate.
Be sure your co-ax is good stuff. RG58 with its polyethylene
insulation and not so perfect braid may have bad spots, especially if
it makes anything like a sharp corner. 400RG teflon stuff might
improve things. It has two silver-plated shield layers. Twinax is
another idea. The shield for that carries no current if it's balanced
correctly but you would be on your own to find a transmitter that
supports that kind of connection.
In the vacuum tube days there were remote mounted transmitters that
could be installed near the antenna and far away from other
electronics. I know of no such thing on the modern store shelves but
. . . whonoze?
Personal computers are painted on the inside with a conducting goo to
comply with FCC regulations. Perhaps for the aircraft, but weight?
Regulations? Once again, whonoze?
--
--> The Intelligent Designer managed to create the only species that
kills its own members while claiming that it acts in accordance with
God's word. <--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: RF Radiation |
I would certainly check that the coax connectors at each end of the feeder
are properly connected. Also check the VSWR at the transmitter end to ensure
all is well.
John
From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
>
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I am looking for a few ideas. I have a fiberglass aircraft I am having
> problems with RF getting into systems and causing problems.
>
> The first area is headsets, I couldn't get my Lightspeeds to work
> properly. Lightspeed acknowledged that there can be problems and offered
> to modify the battery box. That improved things, but from time to time I
> still have problems.
>
> The next on the list is my Navaid. Despite following Navaids suggestion
> of disabling the Navaid whenever the PTT is pressed I still have issues,
> if I transmit for long enough it will still swing over to a 30 degree bank
> which is a real pain if I am flying in IFR conditions.
>
> The latest trick is my intercom. Occasionally when I transmit I will get
> a stuck mike. I called the manufacturer and managed to speak to the
> design engineer. He acknowledged that is there is enough RF present then
> this could happen. The company are currently working with me to resolve
> the issue.
>
> So..... does anyone have any ideas. I have a GX60 as my nav / com and the
> antenna (which is a Bob Archer) is buried in the tail. I have a single
> point ground on the firewall.
>
> Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
Maybe none of the above.
check out GRT stuff @ http://www.grtavionics.com/
-------------- Original message --------------
>
> Hello,
>
>
> I have sorted out my engine requirements and am now planning out my panel. I
> have reviewed the Blue Mountain EFIS as well as the Dynon D100. I like the
> size and definition of the BM however, the idea of having a Garmin 430,
> D100, and a separate EIS sounds like it may be a better idea given that
> there are now 3 separate parts as opposed to one. If you have any thoughts
> on this I want to spec my panel for IFR - Canadian. There seems to be some
> difference between the US and CDN side of things. However, Maurice at
> Transport Canada did tell me that according the Canadian Regs we do not
> require TCO instruments in the Experimental type aircraft. Any thoughts or
> reviews would be appreciated.
>
>
> Peter Lythall
>
>
> RV7
>
>
>
>
>
>
Maybe none of the above.
check out GRT stuff @ http://www.grtavionics.com/
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Avionics-List message posted by: "Peter Lythall"
Hello,
I have sorted out my engine requirements and am now planning out my panel. I
have reviewed the Blue Mountain EFIS as well as the Dynon D100. I like the
size and definition of the BM however, the idea of having a Garmin 430,
D100, and a separate EIS sounds like it may be a better idea given that
there are now 3 separate parts as opposed to one. If you have any thoughts
on this I want to spec my panel for IFR - Canadian. There seems to be some
difference between the US and CDN side of things. However, Maurice at
Transport Canada did tell me that according the Canadian Regs we do not
require TCO instruments in the Experimental type airc
raft. Any thoughts or
reviews would be appreciated.
Peter Lythall
RV7
=============================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Keeping" <Ralph_Keeping(at)cbc.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RF Radiation |
I would defer to an RF authority on this but it seems to me you could do
some filtering on the power supply leads to the affected devices.
Somethng like a ferrite bead on the leads and a bypass capacitor (+ to
ground) of something like a .001uf should shunt any rf to ground. I
can't rember the theory exactly but you should be able to calculate the
best size of capacitor for the vhf comm freqs. In stead of math you also
couldn't hurt anything by just experimenting with different sized caps.
Ralph
>>> j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy 11/24/05 12:43 AM >>>
I would certainly check that the coax connectors at each end of the
feeder
are properly connected. Also check the VSWR at the transmitter end to
ensure
all is well.
John
From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
>
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I am looking for a few ideas. I have a fiberglass aircraft I am
having
> problems with RF getting into systems and causing problems.
>
> The first area is headsets, I couldn't get my Lightspeeds to work
> properly. Lightspeed acknowledged that there can be problems and
offered
> to modify the battery box. That improved things, but from time to
time I
> still have problems.
>
> The next on the list is my Navaid. Despite following Navaids
suggestion
> of disabling the Navaid whenever the PTT is pressed I still have
issues,
> if I transmit for long enough it will still swing over to a 30 degree
bank
> which is a real pain if I am flying in IFR conditions.
>
> The latest trick is my intercom. Occasionally when I transmit I will
get
> a stuck mike. I called the manufacturer and managed to speak to the
> design engineer. He acknowledged that is there is enough RF present
then
> this could happen. The company are currently working with me to
resolve
> the issue.
>
> So..... does anyone have any ideas. I have a GX60 as my nav / com
and the
> antenna (which is a Bob Archer) is buried in the tail. I have a
single
> point ground on the firewall.
>
> Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912
Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Paul McAllister"
<>
11/24/2005
Hello Paul, I had an RF interference problem in my KIS TR-1 composite
airplane -- I won't bother you with the details.
My solution was so simple, basic, crude, un analytical and inexpensive that
I am almost embarassed to describe it to you. What I did is just buy a bunch
of split ferrite beads and spread them liberally aroung in various places
and the problem went away.
If you research ferrite split beads on the internet you will find that they
are a staple in the ham radio community and their construction (material)
and other characteristics can be highly technical in nature. I didn't get
too deeply involved in that.
I got my beads from Surplus Sales of Nebraska
http://www.surplussales.com/FerSplit/FerSplit-1.html. Phone: 402-346-4750.
Item number ICH-264-3164251. $2.00 each (the cheapest). I installed them
just by wrapping
them with black plastic tape.
One of these days when I get real curious I will start removing them one by
one to see if the problems come back and to get a better handle on the
source. I
suspect that the problem came from antenna radiations getting into my
systems at certain frequencies.
OC
PS: I don't have much hope for making the Navaid more resistant to RF. It is
a real sieve / sponge. I'll put in a Tru Trak or Trio control unit in some
day.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
Peter,
You might also look into Dynon's new EFIS/EIS combo unit. It should save
some money and will give you both units in one. I just saw it on their
marketing materials, so they should be shipping within a couple of months.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Lythall
Subject: Avionics-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
Hello,
I have sorted out my engine requirements and am now planning out my panel. I
have reviewed the Blue Mountain EFIS as well as the Dynon D100. I like the
size and definition of the BM however, the idea of having a Garmin 430,
D100, and a separate EIS sounds like it may be a better idea given that
there are now 3 separate parts as opposed to one. If you have any thoughts
on this I want to spec my panel for IFR - Canadian. There seems to be some
difference between the US and CDN side of things. However, Maurice at
Transport Canada did tell me that according the Canadian Regs we do not
require TCO instruments in the Experimental type aircraft. Any thoughts or
reviews would be appreciated.
Peter Lythall
RV7
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Lythall" <peter(at)nortech.bc.ca> |
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
I appreciate the input.
Any one out there using the Blue Mountain that would give it a reference.
I suppose that I am leaning more towards the GRT with a Garmin 430 as the
GPS. However, the Dynon product also looks good. Tough decisions, too bad I
can't convince each one of them to send me a setup to play with. What the
heck, they should have a loaner plane that they send out to prospective
buyers. :)
Oh well, wishful thinking. Any comments on the use of the GRT or the Dynon
or the Blue Mountain would be appreciated.
After reviewing the GRT EFIS, it seems like the one that I like the most. So
I am reviewing the GRT EFIS, a Garmin 430, SL40, and the GRT EIS.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Peter Lythall
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
Peter,
You might also look into Dynon's new EFIS/EIS combo unit. It should save
some money and will give you both units in one. I just saw it on their
marketing materials, so they should be shipping within a couple of months.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Lythall
Subject: Avionics-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
Hello,
I have sorted out my engine requirements and am now planning out my panel. I
have reviewed the Blue Mountain EFIS as well as the Dynon D100. I like the
size and definition of the BM however, the idea of having a Garmin 430,
D100, and a separate EIS sounds like it may be a better idea given that
there are now 3 separate parts as opposed to one. If you have any thoughts
on this I want to spec my panel for IFR - Canadian. There seems to be some
difference between the US and CDN side of things. However, Maurice at
Transport Canada did tell me that according the Canadian Regs we do not
require TCO instruments in the Experimental type aircraft. Any thoughts or
reviews would be appreciated.
Peter Lythall
RV7
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Charrois <danlist(at)syz.com> |
| Subject: | Interest in new EFIS/EMS |
Hi everyone. First of all, let me say that this is still years away
from happening. But I thought I'd put a bit of a feeler out now anyway.
I'm thinking of developing an "all-in-one" glass cockpit. You'd
probably wonder when I'd bother when there are already other good
options available for EFIS / Engine Management Systems, etc. It's
for the same reason we build planes when there are already good ones
available commercially - there is a great sense of satisfaction in
developing something yourself. And besides, that way you can ensure
that it does exactly what *you* want.
First, my background - I have a Bachelor of Science in Electrical
Engineering, Computing Stream, and have spent the past 10 or so years
developing hardened, reliable hardware and software systems. More
recently, I became a private pilot (VFR only at the moment, but that
may change), and even more recently than that, an RV-10 builder. I
also have the luxury of owning my own company (which develops the
aforementioned hardware and software), so I can work on pretty much
whatever project I like. As a result, the decision to develop my own
EFIS/EMS was pretty much made right from the get-go. Though I plan
on doing so for 1. The sheer enjoyment of it, and 2. To make it do
exactly what I'd like it to do, I thought I'd post a note here to see
if there are any others who may be interested in something like this
as well. Not that I expect to get rich from doing so, but if there
is more than one person who can benefit from what I'll be working on,
so much the better. Of course, remember this is years away - I want
to finish the plane I'm currently building first so I'll have
something to test and develop it in. And hardware is going to
continue improve in the meantime, so nothing is set in stone.
So here are the specs of what I'm hoping to accomplish. It won't be
cheap, but then very little in aviation is...:
- A good sunlight-readable display is paramount - perhaps a
transreflective display (or whatever technology is appropriate by
then). Likely 10 inch.
- The processing equipment will be housed in a separate box from the
display
- For stability, reliability, and performance, it won't be running
anything like Windows. Probably a variant of BSD customized for the
purpose, flash memory based (no moving hard drives or something
similar to fail)
- An external watchdog timer would be implemented to automatically
restart the system if it were to fail for any reason
- An internal rechargeable battery would power the unit (and attached
sensors) if desired when the avionics bus is off, or if there is a
power system failure on the aircraft
- CPU and associated hardware would be a ruggedized embedded system/
single board computer with extended temperature operating range (-40
Celsius to +50 Celsius)
December 27, 2004 - November 26, 2005
Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-aj