Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-ap

October 02, 2009 - December 27, 2010



      >>
      >> The GPS portion of the GX-60 and VOR/ILS portion of the SL-30 work just
      >> fine. Comm. reception on both radios is loud and clear (at least I can 
      >> hear
      >> people in the pattern even if I can't talk to them).
      >>
      >> When I originally ran through the installation checkout I left the 
      >> settings
      >> on the radios at the factory recommended (transmit worked fine so I left 
      >> the
      >> settings alone) and have been making changes to the Mic gains only. 
      >> These
      >> are computer controlled radios so I'm wondering if I need to adjust any
      >> other parameters such as squelch (no pots to control squelch like the old
      >> days) after making the Mic gain adjustments. Could the two be somehow
      >> related through logic in the computer program that runs the radios?
      >> I'm really stumped, any suggestions?  Any UPS AT radio stack users have 
      >> this
      >> problem? How did you fix it?  Should I run through the installation 
      >> checkout
      >> with the engine running so as to have more noise impinging on the 
      >> microphone
      >> while making adjustments?  Don't like the idea of head down in the 
      >> cockpit
      >> with engine running but I can tie down the airplane while doing the 
      >> checks
      >> (I'm talking ground running here not trying to make adjustments in 
      >> flight)!
      >> Thanks for the help.
      >>
      >> Dean Psiropoulos
      >> RV-6A N197DM
      >> Flying and tweeking.
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 02, 2009
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: Re: Official Avionics-List FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)
Just to prove I read your stuff each month: > Remember that there > are still people checking they're email via dial up modem. Really should be their My mother would approve of the rest. Doug -- --> From the U S of A, the only socialist country that refuses to admit it. <-- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 05, 2009
Subject: RMI/ADF indicator driven by Garmin 300?
My manual shows my Garmin 300 will drive a KI229 RMI. The 229 is fairly expensive, but used KI226/227 are cheap, "working". This is my backup 300 gps, I have no indicator now. 1. Will the KI226/227 and other ADF indicators use the same input as the KI229? 2. Since my primary gps will be following a KI202 vor indicator, what are your thoughts on having an adf indicator running off the backup gps? Everything can help I guess. 3. Anyone done this? Thanks Skip ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: PLEASE READ - Matronics Email List Fund Raiser During November!
Dear Listers, Each November I hold a PBS-like fund raiser to support the continued operation and upgrade of the List services at Matronics. It's solely through the Contributions of List members that these Matronics Lists are possible. There is NO advertising to support the Lists. You might have noticed the conspicuous lack of flashing banners and annoying pop-ups on the Matronics Email List email messages and web site pages such as the Matronics List Forums ( http://forums.matronics.com ), the List Wiki ( http://wiki.matronics.com), or other related pages such as the List Search Engine ( http://www.matronics.com/search ), the List Browser ( http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse ), etc. This is because I believe in a List experience that is completely about the sport we all enjoy - namely Airplanes and not about annoying advertisements. During the month of November I will be sending out List messages every couple of days reminding everyone that the Fund Raiser is underway. I ask for your patience and understanding during the Fund Raiser and throughout these regular messages. The Fund Raiser is only financial support mechanism I have to pay all of the bills associated with running these lists. Your personal Contribution counts! Once again, this year I've got a terrific line up of free gifts to go along with the various Contribution levels. Most all of these gifts have been provided by some of the vary members and vendors that you'll find on Matronics Lists and have been either donated or provided at substantially discounted rates. This year, these generous people include Bob Nuckolls of the AeroElectric Connection (http://www.aeroelectric.com/), Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore (http://www.buildersbooks.com/), and Jon Croke of HomebuiltHELP (http://www.homebuilthelp.com/). These are extremely generous guys and I encourage you to visit their respective web sites. Each one offers a unique and very useful aviation-related product line. I would like publicly to thank Bob, Andy, and Jon for their generous support of the Lists again this year!! You can make your List Contribution using any one of three secure methods this year including using a credit card, PayPal, or by personal check. All three methods afford you the opportunity to select one of this year's free gifts with a qualifying Contribution amount!! To make your Contribution, please visit the secure site below: http://www.matronics.com/contribution I would like to thank everyone in advance for their generous financial AND moral support over the years! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 03, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: November List Fund Raiser
A couple of years ago I implemented an automatic "squelch button" of sorts for the Fund Raiser messages. Here's how it works... As soon as a List member makes a Contribution through the Matronics Fund Raiser web site, he or she will instantly cease to receive these Fund Raiser messages for the rest of the month! Its just that simple. Don't you wish PBS worked that way! :-) I really do appreciate each and every one of your individual Contributions to support the Lists. It is your support that enables me to upgrade the hardware and software that are required to run a List Site such as this one. It also goes to pay for the commercial-grade Internet connection and to pay the huge electric bill to keep the computer gear running and the air conditioner powered on. I run all of the Matronics Email List and Forums sites here locally which allows me to control and monitor every aspect of the system for the utmost in reliably and performance. Your personal Contribution matters because, when combined with other Listers such as yourself, it pays the bills to keep this site up and running. I accept exactly ZERO advertising dollars for the Matronics Lists sites. I can't stand the pop-up ads and all other commercials that are so prevalent on the Internet these days and I particularly don't want to have it on my Email List sites. If you appreciate the ad-free, grass-roots, down-home feel of the Matronics Email Lists, please make a Contribution to keep it that way!! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator [Note that there are certain circumstances where you might still see a Contribution related message. For example, if someone replies to one of the messages, when using the List Browse feature, or when accessing List message via the Forum. The system keys on the given email address and since most of these are anonymous public access methods, there is no simple way to filter them.] ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Reminder
Dear Listers, Just a quick reminder that November is the annual List Fund Raiser. The Matronics Lists are 100% member supported and all of the operational costs are provided for my your Contributions during this time of the year. Your personal Contribution makes a difference and keeps all of the Matronics Email Lists and Forums completely ad-free. Please make your Contribution today to keep these services up and running! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you in advance! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: More on Garmin Aviation Protocol
From: "201pilot" <peter.rejto(at)oberlin.edu>
Date: Nov 06, 2009
My flight planning software allows for a USB uplink to my Garmin 695. It works great but is mostly useless as all the waypoints transferred are seen as "user" waypoints and consequently a lot of features in the Garmin are lost. Not only that the database database gradually fills with too many user waypoints meaning that every time you go to select a familiar airport you must choose between the useless "user" waypoint and the actual Jepp. waypoint. It occurred to me that a flight plan program that could output a flight plan in Garmin "Aviation" protocol might overcome these shortcomings. Naturally one would need to input data to the serial input on the Garmin and not the USB. Is there a source for the Garmin Aviation Protocol, and if there is, would it be legal to develop a flight planner around it? Thanks for any input. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271395#271395 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Please Make A Contribution To Support Your Lists
Dear Listers, There is no advertising income to support the Matronics Email Lists and Forums. The operation is supported 100% by your personal Contributions during the November Fund Raiser. Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these services. You can pick up a really nice gift for making your Contribution too! You may use a Credit Card or Paypal at the Matronics Contribution Site here: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or, you can send a personal check to the following address: Matronics / Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore, CA 94551-0347 Thank you in advance for your generous support! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Fund Raiser List of Contributors - Please Make A Contribution
Today! Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. Won't you take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors (LOC)? As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems at least - if not a whole lot more - valuable as a building/flying/recreating/entertainment tool as your typical magazine subscription! Please take minute and assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics PO Box 347 Livermore CA 94551-0347 I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: List Fund Raiser
Dear Listers, Just a reminder that November is the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser month. There are some very nice incentive gifts to choose from as well! Please make your Contribution today: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Some Very Nice Comments...
Dear Listers, I've been getting some really nice comments from Listers along with their List Support Contributions. I've shared some of them below. Please read them over and see what your fellow Listers think of the Lists and Forums. Please make a Contribution today to support the continued upgrade and operation of these services. There are lots of sweet gifts available, so browse the extensive selection and pickup a nice item along with your qualifying Contribution. http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you in advance for your generous support! It is very much appreciated! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ----------- What Listers Are Saying About The Lists ----------- Few things in life bring more usefulness than the List. This is worth every penny! Stephen T. I have enjoyed the list for way too many years, but continue to get closer to flying my project with the help of listers. C.L. Thanks for this List. It's been a great source of encouragement and information. Arden A. Great service! Gerald T. It's always interesting reading the lists and I've gotten some good help from the issues and answers there. Steve T. Been a member of the List for 12 years. Keep up the good work. John H. Great Site! Harry M. Great source of information... Martin H. Thanks for providing this great service! Jeff P. I continue to get and give information through these lists. Ralph C. This is a wonderful resource! Warren H. This is what inernet was meant for, sharing information and experience. Michael W. Thanks for making such a good list! Fred D. Thanks for running a great service! Michael F. I really appreciate it. Dan H. Thanks for the great service. Michael L. Thanks for maintaining this great resource. John C. Your sites have been a great resourses and an introduction to many competent aircraft designers and fabricators. Jon M. Thanks for all that you do to maintain the Matronics forums and for the personal help that you have been to me in answering my questions regarding the use of the forums. William B. [The List] helped me get flying, fly off my test hours and make my systems better. Ralph C. The Universe is a better place because of you. Eric J. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 16, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Contributions Down By 21%...
Dear Listers, As of today, contributions to the Matronics List Fund Raiser are lagging behind last year at this time by 21%. I have a fund raiser each year simply to cover my operating costs for the Lists. I *do not* accept any advertising income to support the Lists and rely solely on the contributions of members to keep the expenses paid. I run all of my own servers and they are housed here locally, and the Internet connection is a commercial-grade, T1 connection with public address space. I also maintain a full backup system that does nightly backups of all List-related data so that in the event of a server crash or worse, all of the Lists and the many years of List archive data could be restored onto a new server in a matter of hours. All of this costs a fair amount of money, not to mention a significant amount of my personal time as well. I have a Fund Raiser each year to cover these costs and I ask that members that feel they receive a benefit from my investments, make a modest contribution each year to support the continued operation and upgrade of these services. If you enjoy the Lists, please make a contribution today. I also offer some incentive gifts for larger contribution levels. At the Contribution Web Wite, you can use a credit card, Paypal, or personal check to show your support for the continuation of these services: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: What's My Contribution Used For?
Dear Listers, Some have asked, "What's my Contribution used for?" and that's a good question. Here are just a few examples of what your direct List support enables. It provides for the very expensive, commercial-grade T1 Internet connection used on the List insuring maximum performance and minimal contention when accessing List services. It pays for the regular system hardware and software upgrades enabling the highest performance possible for services such as the Archive Search Engine, List Browser, and Forums. It pays for narly 20 years (yeah, I really said *20* years) worth of online archive data available for instant random search and access. And, it offsets the many hours spent writing, developing, and maintaining the custom applications that power this List Service such as the List Browse, Search Engine, Forums, and Wiki. But most importantly, your List Contribution enables a forum where you and your peers can communicate freely in an environment that is free from moderation, censorship, advertising, commercialism, SPAM, and computer viruses. How many places on the Internet can you make all those statements these days? It is YOUR CONTRIBUTION that directly enables these many aspects of these valuable List services. Please support it today with your List Contribution. Its one of the best investments you can make in your Sport... List Contribution Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Just A Few Days Left; Still Trailing Last Year...
Dear Listers, There are just a few more days left of this year's List Fund Raiser! Response has been very good, but still well behind last year. If you've been waiting until the last minute to make your contribution and maybe even pick up a great gift, now might be good time to show your support! Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists and the *only* means of keeping these Lists running is through your Contributions during this Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution today! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Published
in December! Dear Listers, The List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! In December I post a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matronics / Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore CA 94551-0347 USA (Please include your email address on the check!) I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 24, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Just A Few More Days To Make Your List Contribution...
There is less than a week left in this year's List Fund Raiser and only a few short days to grab one of the great Contribution Gifts available this year. Support is still significantly lagging behind last year at this point but hopefully it will pick up here towards the end. Please remember that it is solely the Contributions of List members that keeps the Lists up and running as there is no commercialism or advertising on the Matronics Lists and Forums. The List Contribution web site is secure, fast, and easy and you can use a credit card, Paypal, or a personal check: http://www.matronics.com/contribution I want to thank everyone that has already made a generous contribution to support the Lists! Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics EMail List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Valin & Allyson Thorn <thorn(at)starflight.aero>
Subject: Re: Just A Few More Days To Make Your List Contribution...
Date: Nov 24, 2009
Matt - this is our first time on list. We are still in construction so not involved much now, but planning to be next year. What is your recommended contribution amount? Thanks, Allyson On Nov 24, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Matt Dralle wrote: > > > There is less than a week left in this year's List Fund Raiser and > only a few short days to grab one of the great Contribution Gifts > available this year. Support is still significantly lagging behind > last year at this point but hopefully it will pick up here towards > the end. Please remember that it is solely the Contributions of > List members that keeps the Lists up and running as there is no > commercialism or advertising on the Matronics Lists and Forums. > > The List Contribution web site is secure, fast, and easy and you can > use a credit card, Paypal, or a personal check: > > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > I want to thank everyone that has already made a generous > contribution to support the Lists! > > Thank you! > > Matt Dralle > Matronics EMail List and Forum Administrator > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Just A Few More Days To Make Your List Contribution...
From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Date: Nov 24, 2009
[quote="thorn(at)starflight.aero"]Matt - this is our first time on list. We are still in construction so not involved much now, but planning to be next year. What is your recommended contribution amount? Thanks, Allyson [quote] Hi Allyson, A contribution of $20 or $30 is common. If you wish to receive a gift with your contribution, a higher contribution level is necessary. You can find complete details at the contribution web site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you in advance! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator -------- Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=274670#274670 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: What Are You Thankful For...?
Dear Listers, Here in the United States, Thursday is our National day of Thanksgiving. Many of us will be traveling to be with our families and friends to share in generous feasts of plenty and giving thanks for many blessings that have been bestowed upon us. Many Listers have expressed over the last couple of weeks how thankful they are for the Email Lists and Forums here on the Matronics servers and for all of the assistance and comradery they have experienced being a part of the Lists. One of my favorite comments is when someone writes to me and says something like, "Its the first thing I do in the morning while I'm having my morning coffee!". That's a wonderful tribute to the purpose and function of these Lists. Its always great to hear I'm not the only one that jumps out of bed each morning to check my List email!! Won't you take a minute today and show your appreciation for these Lists and for their continued operation and upgrade? The List Contribution Site is: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you in advance for your kind consideration, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chuck Deiterich" <cffd(at)pgrb.com>
Subject: Garmin GNC 250 XL data card
Date: Nov 27, 2009
I have a Garmin GNC 250XL that I use only VFR. My data card is from 2001, it contains 2 megabytes of memory and now holds the America's data base including Argentina, Canada, Continental US, Mexico, etc. Is my card big enough to hold the current Jeppesen data base for just the lower 48 states of US? (I suspect it is.) Thanks, Chuck D. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: No "Black Friday" For List Fund Raiser...
Even though the number of List subscriptions and List posts are up significantly this year compared to last year, support during this year's List Fund Raiser has been woefully lagging from last year. There are only a couple more days left in November and the end of the Fund Raiser is quickly approaching. I have always preferred a non-commercial List experience as many, many members have also expressed that they do as well. However, if the yearly fund raiser cannot generate sufficient funds to keep the bills paid on the List service expenses, I will have to look into some sort of advertising. Please don't let that happen! Your personal contribution of $20 or $30 goes a long ways to keeping the operation a float. The lunch combo at Carl's Jr costs nearly $10 these days. Isn't the List worth at least as much as a couple of burgers? Please make sure your name is on this year's List of Contributors published in December. The Contribution site is secure, quick, and easy: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you in advance for your support! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2009
From: <psamuelian(at)charter.net>
Subject: MaxPulse MaxDim Group Buy
Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving... Just a reminder... Last call for the MaxDim / MaxPulse group buy is this Sunday, 11/29/2009. If you want to purchase a MaxDim for $121+3.35 shipping or a MaxPulse for $141+$3.35 shipping, please go to samcoaviation.com and complete the purchase through PayPal. The $8 rebate per unit will be refunded to you as a manual PayPal refund. Shipping will start next week. Thanks to all who have participated already! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Just Two More Days Left; Fund Raiser Behind By 12%...
Dear Listers, This year's List Fund Raiser is still trailing last year by a 12% margin. If you like the ad-free environment that is the Matronics Email List and Forum experience, please make a quick Contribution to keep it that way! http://www.matronics.com/contribution I've been getting a ton of really nice comments from Contributors regarding the Lists. Please read over some of them below and see if they don't resonate with you as well. Thank you in advance for your generous contribution to support these Lists! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator --------------------------- Member Feedback ---------------------------- ur web site is a real institution of the whole Experimental Aircraft subculture. John G Thanks Matt for the lists. A lot of good info. Great bunch of list members. Great videos and no SPAM. Paul C It has been a valuable tool. Troy M ..appreciate the site as much as ever. Larry M By using various forums I've learned a ton, received great advice, made friends, and saved money! Craig W Since I've finished [my project], I've not had much to do as far as fabrication of electrical systems. However, selectively reading various topics is still very valuable and Bob's insights and new how to's make me a continuous subscriber. Larry F Matronics user groups are the best tool I have for learning to build my RV-10! Philip W There is always useful knowledge to be found on this list, and I suspect that it has kept quite a few people out of trouble over the years it has been in operation. Good entertainment, too. Graham H Great web site. I wish I'd known about it while building. Bob S I'm happy to provide some support to this list. It is very helpful. Vaughn T Good service to sport aviation!! Roger B Awesome Service you provide for us! Bill R My [project] is almost finished! However, it wouldn't be close without the [this] group. Douwe B Great list. Robert S I'm not a builder yet but learning lots from the list. Peter M Some nonsense, some humor, but mostly good information. Tony C Thanks for creating and keeping the Lists. They are entertaining and always informative! John M Thanks for this valuable resource to our community. Barry H The list is IMHO the greatest resource on the net. John B Thanks again for providing another year of your useful List service. Jerry B Great site indeed, every time I get a message I usually learn something. Peter B You are making a huge contribution to the builder fraternity and in no small way enhancing sport aviation safety. Richard G The List is the SINGLE, MOST IMPORTANT resource I have in building my RV10. I would be lost without out it. And I have made a bunch of new friends as well! Les K The lists are one of the things I really enjoy, so keep up the good work. Freddie H Every year -- the best value for my time and money! Owen B This list is a major contribution to safe building! Donald K Really enjoy the daily boost it gives me. Walter S In the last 18 months I have been privileged to listen & ask. I have learnt at the feet of the masters... Stewart G You set the standard on how Internet forums should be run and managed. Larry W The Universe is a better place because of you. Eric J [The List] helped me get flying, fly off my test hours and make my systems better. I continue to get and give information through these lists. Ralph C ..another GREAT year of advice, answers, and inspiration courtesy of the Lists and your hard work!!!! Rob B ..the best forum on the Internet! Robert B I can't tell you how grateful I am for your list and your subscribers to keep me up to date and holding the dream. Ashley M This page makes it easy to contribute. Jeffrey P Thank you for your expertise in creating & running the much useful lists! Anthony P Thanks for providing our advertising free on line community. George R Thanks for maintaining the equipment and software to provide this valuable source of information to us individuals. Your effort is appreciated by many more people than you realize. Ross H Thanks for a great site. Although the project is complete and flying I still get a wealth of information from all the messages. Marcus C Only learned about you six months ago...my RV-7A is just finished, but the list has been helpful. Wish I had discovered you sooner. Jack B This is an invaluable communications media for us common minded folks to exchange technical and other information. George H ..great service that you provide. David W ..still appreciate your list. Alain L [The] Lists are an invaluable resource. I know that it has helped me enormously in my project. William B ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: [Please Read] - Last Official Day of List Fund Raiser!
Dear Listers, Its November 30th and that means at least two things. For better or worse, its my 46th birthday! But it also means that its that last official day of the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser! If you been jones'n over one of the really nice gifts that are available this year with a qualifying Contribution, then now is the time to jump on one!! If you've been meaning to make a Contribution this month but have been putting it off for some reason, NOW is the time! I will be posting the List of Contributors in a few days, so you'll probably want to be known as a person that supported the Lists! I want to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution so far this year in support of our Lists. It is your generosity that keeps this operation a float and I don't ever forget it. Hopefully everyone feels the same. The List Contribution Web Site is fast and easy. Please support our habit by making your Contribution right now: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you to all in advance! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Gretz Heated Pitot For Sale
From: "Barry" <blalmarz(at)embarqmail.com>
Date: Dec 02, 2009
Pitot has been sold Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=275746#275746 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 09, 2009
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Garmin 400 / 500 series memory cards
I am still trying to locate a less expensive alternative to the $349 data card sold by Garmin. My research points me to the automotive based equivalent product like this: http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=garmin+data+card&oe=utf8&cid=15894842160258834519&sa=title#p I have not determined if the card will actually fit - but it appears to have a similar form factor. Anyone out there with a Garmin StreetPilot or E-Map GPS in their car and a 400/500 series GPS in their airplane? Would you be willing to try fitting the cards - power off, of course....to see if they physically fit. Thanks, Ralph ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Narco MK-12E
From: "rwcherry" <rwc(at)cherryfarm.com>
Date: Dec 15, 2009
Is there any way to tell if a Narco MK-12E Nav/Com has the glideslope receiver installed by outwards appearance? Does the glideslope use the same antenna input as the VOR/localizer? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277665#277665 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Narco MK-12E
From: "rwcherry" <rwc(at)cherryfarm.com>
Date: Dec 15, 2009
Just answered my own question. I found a MK-12E manual which shows a separate antenna connector for the GS; which means the one I have does not have the GS. This also matches the weight label: 5.0 pounds for Nav/Com without GS, 5.4 pounds for Nav/Com with GS. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277667#277667 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 21, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 2009 List of Contributors
Dear Listers, The 2009 Matronics Email List and Forum Fund Raiser officially ended a couple of weeks ago and its time that I publish this year's List of Contributors. Its the people on this list that directly make the Email Lists and Forums possible. Their generous contributions keep the servers and Internet connection up and running. You can still show your support this year and pick up a great gift at the same time. The Contribution Web Site is fast, easy, and secure: http://www.matronics.com/contribution I also want to thank Bob, Jon, Andy, and John for their generous support through the supply of great gifts this year!! These guys have some great products and I encourage you to visit their respective web sites: Bob Nucklolls - AeroElectric - www.aeroelectric.com Jon Croke - HomebuiltHELP - www.homebuilthelp.com Andy Gold - The Builder's Bookstore - www.buildersbooks.com John Caldwell - HowToCrimp - www.howtocrimp.com And finally, I'm proud to present The 2009 Fund Raiser List of Contributors: http://www.matronics.com/loc/2009.html Thanks again to everyone that made a Contribution this year!! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Cannon plugs
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley(at)townisp.com>
Date: Dec 28, 2009
Looking for a good source for a 22 (or more) pin cannon plug for a fire wall penetration. Thanks, Keith -------- Keith McKinley 700HS KFIT Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=279070#279070 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Graham <jlgraham(at)erols.com>
Subject: Old Old Radio
Date: Dec 29, 2009
Has anyone ever heard of the Lear Incorporated VHF Receiver model LR-5B? It is an old unusable but very interesting aviation radio, and appears to be early 30's vintage. There are two knobs (one for volume, one for tuning) and the round dial tuning range covers 108 to 127 megacycles. Physical size is 3"H x 6"W x 8"Deep. My son gave it to me for a hangar display, but now having received it, I cannot help but wonder about its history. If anyone has a lead, or knows the kinds of aircraft it was used in, (or ever used one) I would love to know more. I do not get any hits when searching via Google. Thanks-- Jim Graham Fairfax Station, VA Tecnam Sierra LSA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Don Morrisey <donmorrisey(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Issue with Garmin GTX 330 XPDR
Date: Jan 01, 2010
Hello Listers=2C I have just been finishing up my panel and one of the last things in was my transponder a Garmin GTX 330 . Very straightforward to install as I had a wiring harness made for it. Anyway got it in and it powered right up and does a self test etc. I later discovered that each time I activate the Ma ster SWitch=2C the unit turns itself on=2C even though I had left it powere d off via the "Off" button on the unit. I went back over the wiring and no thing seems amiss??? Any idea why it would be doing this? I have no issues with any of my other avionics that are connected to this wiring harness (SL40 and PMA 4000 Audi o Panel). Thanks. Don... www.donsbushcaddy.com Don Morrisey's Skunkworks _________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Issue with Garmin GTX 330 XPDR
Date: Jan 02, 2010
1/2/2010 Hello Don Morrisey, You wrote: "I later discovered that each time I activate the Master SWitch the unit turns itself on even though I had left it powered off via the "Off" button on the unit. I went back over the wiring and nothing seems amiss??? Any idea why it would be doing this?" This very topic is currently being discussed on the aeroelectric list. Read the email exchanges below (last email is first). Also if you go to this web site, download the GTX327 installation manual and look at figure B4 on page 47 you will see the pins and notes that are being discussed. http://www.velocityxl.com/Downloads/GTX327Transponder_InstallationManual.pdf OC ========================================== Allen then wrote: Actually I meant 327 rather than 337. I looked at the installation manual pin out diagram and my Approach Systems engineer (Tim Hass) has pin 1 and pin 15 jumpered. The drawing calls pin 1 "Avionics Master on which may be the pin that I could unhook from power and make it work like we want. I emailed Tim Hass at Approach Systems to ask for clarification on this issue. I'll let you know what I find out. Allen ================================================= -----Original Message----- From: bakerocb(at)cox.net [mailto:bakerocb(at)cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 1:22 PM Subject: GTX337 ON or OFF? 1/1/2010 Hello Allen Fullmer, You wrote: "........skip.....I have also noticed that the GTX337 transponder cannot be set to remain off when power is supplied. It will remain in the standby position but, once again, when I am playing and fiddling around I just hate to see it go up and down unnecessarily. Haven't decided on a switch for it or not." I also can not program my GTX327 to remain OFF when power is applied or reapplied to the avionics buss.** But the GTX327 has some options on which pins electrical power can be supplied to. If you pick the correct pin(s) the box will remain OFF until you push the ON button on the face of the box. I suspect that the GTX337 may be built the same way. So if you desire, and have the capability, you could rewire your GTX337 so that it would remain OFF until you pushed the ON button on the face of the box. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." **PS: I suspect that the person who wired my panel set it up that way so that it would take a very deliberate OFF button action on my part in order to take off with the transponder OFF. I am with you, I'd like to have total ON - OFF control of the box with the buttons on the face of the box. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ============================================== From: Don Morrisey <donmorrisey(at)hotmail.com> Subject: Avionics-List: Issue with Garmin GTX 330 XPDR Hello Listers I have just been finishing up my panel and one of the last things in was my transponder a Garmin GTX 330 . Very straightforward to install as I had a wiring harness made for it. Anyway got it in and it powered right up and does a self test etc. I later discovered that each time I activate the Ma ster SWitch=2C the unit turns itself on=2C even though I had left it powere d off via the "Off" button on the unit. I went back over the wiring and no thing seems amiss??? Any idea why it would be doing this? I have no issues with any of my other avionics that are connected to this wiring harness (SL40 and PMA 4000 Audi o Panel). Thanks. Don... www.donsbushcaddy.com Don Morrisey's Skunkworks ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Questions about circuit protection
Date: Jan 02, 2010
1/2/2010 Hello Matthew Schumacher, You wrote: "I think I will just get fuse blocks per your recommendation for the reasons you mention, but also because problems with a fuse can be remedied in the air quickly and easily." If you are thinking of replacing fuses in the air to trouble shoot and solve an electrical problem please think again. There are several disadvantages. Some are: 1) Your airplane's Operating Limitations (part of its airworthiness certificate) will require you to equip the aircraft in accordance with 14 CFR 91.205 if you fly at night or IFR. Paragraph 91.205 (c) (6) says: "One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required, that are accessible to the pilot in flight." This means that, by regulation, if you design your airplane so that you have access to those fuse blocks in flight then you must also have available to you all those spare fuses while in flight. Do you want to create that burden / nuisance / danger? 2) Trouble shooting an electrical system in flight by fumbling around to locate and then insert the appropriate fuse is not a good idea, particularly at night or IFR when you should be concentrating on flying the airplane. So fuse blocks are a good idea, but where you locate them has some operational and safety implications. Please read some more of Bob Nuckolls' philosophy regarding electrical problems / failures in flight. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ======================================================== From: Matthew Schumacher <schu(at)schu.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Questions about circuit protection. First, thank you very much for looking at my stuff Bob. I greatly appreciate it and have donated to keep this list going... ...................................... big skip ...................................... I know that fuses/breakers/fuselinks protect the wiring, what I was missing was the part about problems with one component spreading to others instead of being isolated. I think I will just get fuse blocks per your recommendation for the reasons you mention, but also because problems with a fuse can be remedied in the air quickly and easily. Thanks again, schu ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Questions about circuit protection
Date: Jan 03, 2010
1/3/2009 Hello Again Matthew Schumacher, You wrote: 1) "Are you saying that if I put the fuses under the panel where they aren't accessible then my airplane will still meet 14 CFR 91.205 (c) and that I won't need to carry spares?" Yes. That is exactly what the regulation is saying. If the pilot does not have access, while in flight, to the location of fuses installed in the aircraft's electrical system then there is no 91.205 regulatory requirment to carry any spare fuses. 2) "I would read "that are accessible to the pilot in flight" to mean that the fuse panel is accessible to the pilot,......." That is correct. 3) "..........not the fusees since who cares if you can get to the fuses if you can't get to the panel." Again correct. Your reasoning, and the reasoning of the regulation, is that if you cannot get access to the location of the fuses installed in the electrical system while in flight then there is no reason for the pilot to carry, and have access to, spare fuses while in flight. Now the wise pilot would carry some spare fuses, as well as some other spare items or tools (which can be discussed at length), so that he may perform some limited trouble shooting / repair work if needed on the ground at some away from home location in order to get back to home base or some other location where he might be able to effect a more permanent repair. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." PS: If one is designing and manufacturing a 14 CFR Part 23 type certificated aircraft the regulations / requirements for fuse location in the aircraft's electrical system are found in Part 23.1357 (d) which says: "If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is essential to safety in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so located and identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in flight." But experimental amateur built aircraft are not required, per se, to comply with 14 CFR Part 23. If we build our experimental amateur built aircraft's electrical system in accordance with the philosophy that things can fail and that we have a plan B back up that will allow graceful degradation and continued safe flight to an acceptable landing site then no fuse in our electrical system would be "essential to safety in flight". =================================================== From: Matthew Schumacher <schu(at)schu.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Questions about circuit protection bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote: > If you are thinking of replacing fuses in the air to trouble shoot and > solve an electrical problem please think again. There are several > disadvantages. Some are: > > 1) Your airplane's Operating Limitations (part of its airworthiness > certificate) will require you to equip the aircraft in accordance with > 14 CFR 91.205 if you fly at night or IFR. > > Paragraph 91.205 (c) (6) says: "One spare set of fuses, or three spare > fuses of each kind required, that are accessible to the pilot in flight." > > This means that, by regulation, if you design your airplane so that you > have access to those fuse blocks in flight then you must also have > available to you all those spare fuses while in flight. Do you want to > create that burden / nuisance / danger? Hold on, back the truck up. Are you saying that if I put the fuses under the panel where they aren't accessible then my airplane will still meet 14 CFR 91.205 (c) and that I won't need to carry spares? I would read "that are accessible to the pilot in flight" to mean that the fuse panel is accessible to the pilot, not the fusees since who cares if you can get to the fuses if you can't get to the panel. schu ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cannon plugs
From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 04, 2010
Try Newark Electronics or Digikey. They both have full selection of metal and CPC components -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=280055#280055 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cannon plugs
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley(at)townisp.com>
Date: Jan 04, 2010
just ordered one from them. Thanks! K -------- Keith McKinley 700HS KFIT Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=280057#280057 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TBelvin38(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 06, 2010
Subject: Re: Old Old Radio
Sir, I used one a few times in a friends C 140 in the 60s. You had to take when tuning it. Tom Belvin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2010
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Voyager flight software group formed
Of interest may be a new yahoo group for those using Seattle Avionics "Voyager" flight software just formed this week by a Garmin GNS480 user that also uses Voyager. Voyager_FPS_Users(at)yahoogroups.com http://www.seattleavionics.com/Products.aspx SA has both subscription based and free products, and customer support from SA monitors the group and has replied to questions. Ron Q. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: crimping with a dmc af8 crimping tool
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley(at)townisp.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2010
I have the tool and a m22520/1-02 head. Just looking for the proper method of inserting the pin to be crimped as well as what a good test for the quality of the crimp should be. I do not have a g-125 gage to calibrate with. Also, do not have more than a couple pins to practice with. Thank you, Keith McKinley -------- Keith McKinley 700HS KFIT Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281218#281218 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2010
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: crimping with a dmc af8 crimping tool
At 16:40 1/12/2010, you wrote: >I have the tool and a m22520/1-02 head. > >Just looking for the proper method of inserting the pin to be >crimped as well as what a good test for the quality of the crimp should be. You should have a positioner to hold and properly position (gee...) the pin within the crimping pins. Which contact positioner you need is based on what socket/pin contacts you are using. To free-hand position a contact within the crimp head, well, for a reliable crimp I would think it not a good practice. >I do not have a g-125 gage to calibrate with. Also, do not have more >than a couple pins to practice with. If you're just worried about the depth of the crimp, you can purchase some gage pins from McMaster Carr for a few bucks each. Don't offhand recall the go/no-go diameters, but I can check them tomorrow and post. If you visit the Daniels/DMC tools site, there is extensive reference material to chose the correct tooling... http://www.dmctools.com/default.htm Ron Q. >Thank you, > >Keith McKinley ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: crimping with a dmc af8 crimping tool
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley(at)townisp.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2010
Thanks Ron, I looked at the small pins that do the crimping and tried a test. I now see that the pin is actually inserted almost all the way into the positioner for the correct crimp. It also seems to "snap" into place. I think my crimp was just fine as a healthy pull on the connection did not break it. I probably should invest in the go no go tool and I do have the number for that. Saw one on ebay for 25 bucks Thanks again Keith -------- Keith McKinley 700HS KFIT Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281247#281247 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2010
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: crimping with a dmc af8 crimping tool
At 16:40 1/12/2010, you wrote: >Just looking for the proper method of inserting the pin to be >crimped as well as what a good test for the quality of the crimp should be. > >I do not have a g-125 gage to calibrate with. Also, do not have more >than a couple pins to practice with. The G-125, aka, M22520/3-1 can be used to test crimp depth for both the small AFM-8 M22520/2-01 and large AF-8 M22520/1-01 crimpers. The NO-GO diameter is 0.0440 dia and the GO is 0.0390 dia. Use SEL 4 for the /1-01 and SEL 8 for the /2-01 tools. Plug gauges can be purchased from McMaster-Carr at this page http://www.mcmaster.com/#plug-gauges/=5cx5qj using these part numbers 23055A039 23065A044 for $3.06 each. The G-125 tool is little more than a dual ended collet holder for these plug gauges with the above instructions... Ron Q. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: crimping with a dmc af8 crimping tool
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley(at)townisp.com>
Date: Jan 13, 2010
Thanks Ron! Above and beyond! Keith -------- Keith McKinley 700HS KFIT Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281294#281294 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Garmin 430 background lighting
Date: Jan 15, 2010
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
I did a long night flight last night and the brightness of the 430s (2 of them) was overwhelming in the darkness. I left one on and restarted the other in the setup mode to see if I could affect the brightness. I could affect it a little, but, really not enough to matter. The unit needs a manual adjustment for brightness. The unit needs a better design for replacing the battery in it also. I ha d the battery replaced in one of them and the entire unit needs to be disa ssembled and a new battery soldered in place. Really difficult to replace . Years ago, I replaced a battery in a Power Mac that looked exactly like th e battery in the 430. I think the battery was 5 years old in that one too . The battery was $12 and took 5 minutes to replace. Garmin needs to hire Steve Jobs. Question: Is there a simple, straight forward way to dim the 430 screen at night? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bruce Smith <haveblue1(at)mac.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 430 background lighting
Date: Jan 15, 2010
Gary, I've experienced the same problem. I was able to tone down the light by adding one of these to the screen of the Garmin 430.http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/av/gps_zscreen.html Might help in your application too. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 15, 2010, at 2:47 PM, teamgrumman(at)aol.com wrote: > I did a long night flight last night and the brightness of the 430s > (2 of them) was overwhelming in the darkness. I left one on and > restarted the other in the setup mode to see if I could affect the > brightness. I could affect it a little, but, really not enough to > matter. > > The unit needs a manual adjustment for brightness. > > The unit needs a better design for replacing the battery in it > also. I had the battery replaced in one of them and the entire unit > needs to be disassembled and a new battery soldered in place. > Really difficult to replace. > > Years ago, I replaced a battery in a Power Mac that looked exactly > like the battery in the 430. I think the battery was 5 years old in > that one too. The battery was $12 and took 5 minutes to replace. > > Garmin needs to hire Steve Jobs. > > Question: Is there a simple, straight forward way to dim the 430 > screen at night? > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mark Swaney <swaneymj(at)mac.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 430 background lighting
Date: Jan 16, 2010
Looking at paragraph 5.3.7 in the 400W series installation manual, it looks like you can tie the display and/or key lighting to either the 430's photocell or to a DC lighting bus. There's also a minimum display brightness setting. Is that what you changed? There are also several other settings, including SLOPE and OFFSET you might look at. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 17, 2010
1/17/2009 Hello Steve Thomas, You wrote: 1) "Can I fly somewhere else to get it done once I have flown off my hours?" Here is what 14 CFR says: "91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use. (d) ATC authorized deviations. Requests for ATC authorized deviations must be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned airspace within the time periods specified as follows: (2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to the airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the request may be made at any time." So you see that it is possible to fly your airplane without an operating transponder where one is required if you obtain ATC permission to do so. Why not do some research to: A) Determine how amenable your local ATC coverage people are to letting you make a one time flight without a transponder IAW 91.215 (d) (2) above. B) Find a facility that will do your transponder cert and design your flight test area to include that facility. Then make your request to ATC and on a flight subsequent to your first flight fly to that location to have the certification done. (I recommend that the first test flight be just a 20-30 minute orbit over the originating field.) It would not be reasonable to expect permission to perform the entire Phase one testing without a transponder unless you were able to do the testing in airspace that did not require a transponder. 2) "Do I need a transponder cert for my DAR inspection?" The regulations do not require this -- see 91.215 (d) (2). But a DAR, or FAA inspector, has wide discretion and the power of the FAA Administrator in that original airworthiness inspection and he may choose to require one. If you have not already established some contact and level of rapport with your prospective inspector you should start now -- and ask him that question. An FAA inspector would be my first choice. How are you doing with the program letter and all of the other paperwork required? 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ======================================================== From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification A message to Stan Sutterfield: You wrote last June: > This may not be the ideal forum for asking this question, but I'll try it > anyway. > > I want to certify my RV-8 for IFR flight. I know the FARs - I've looked at > them. > > I have the Blue Mountain EFIS One as primary instrumentation. > I have the Blue Mountain EFIS Lite as a backup. > Both EFISs are on different electrical busses - the main and the standby. > - > which can be tied together, if needed. > > I asked a local avionics guy about doing a pitot-static and transponder > > check for IFR. He said I would have to install a separate altimeter and > > encoder in order to get IFR certification. The EFIS has a built-in encod > er. > > Has anyone else encountered this obstacle? > > Stan Sutterfield There were several replies that mostly focused on finding the right avionics guy. I have the exact same setup in my panel as do you and am ready for certification. Can you share your experience? Are you certified and flying? Who did you use for your certification and how did you go about getting it? I am in Southern California, and anyone else who can offer any advice on this topic will be welcome. My local shop mostly deals with biz jets and large non-jets. I don't think they will be very helpful with an experimental. Also, exorbitantly expensive. Do I need a transponder cert for my DAR inspection? Can I fly somewhere else to get it done once I have flown off my hours? Steve Thomas ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Garmin 430 background lighting
Date: Jan 17, 2010
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
When I went to the setup page, there was something about slope, . . . . I forget. Anyway, it didn't seem to make a hoot about how bright the dis play was. I'll look into it more today. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Swaney <swaneymj(at)mac.com> Sent: Sat, Jan 16, 2010 4:12 pm Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Garmin 430 background lighting Looking at paragraph 5.3.7 in the 400W series installation manual, it look s like you can tie the display and/or key lighting to either the 430's photocell or to a DC lighting bus. There's also a minimum display brightness setting. Is that what you changed? There are also several other settings, including SLOPE and OFFSET you might look at. ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 17, 2010
1/17/2010 Hello Stan Sutterfield, You wrote: 1) "All of this is correct, but why does ATC need to be involved?" Valid question. ATC does not need to be involved in approving non transponder flight operations if one is not flying in airspace where the aircraft must be transponder equipped. Note my wording copied from below "......where one is required....". See 14 CFR 91.215 (b) (1) through (5) for a description of the airspace where the aircraft must be transponder equipped. We are assuming an aircraft that has been originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system. 2) "Unless you will be flying under airspace that requires a transponder, then there is no need to contact ATC ..........skip....." I agree, providing the word "under" is changed to the word "in" as "in" is a more inclusive word and also the wording used in 14 CFR 91.215. 3) "........... coordinate with approach control by phone for instructions." Approach Control is part of the ATC (Air Traffic Control) system. When you talk to approach control you are talking to ATC. 4) "My DAR did not ask for proof of pitot-static or transponder certification ..........." Good, I think that is the way that it should be done. However, as I mentioned earlier the inspector during the initial airworthiness inspection is endowed with the power of the Administrator and some inspectors swing a too heavy hammer. If one disagrees with the inspector one is left with either swallowing that disagreement or going over the inspector's head within the FAA. One should proceed with caution in going over the inspector's head on a specific item because the inspector may find other areas to show that he is really the boss. I recall a particularly stubborn DAR that required direction from FAA Headquarters, at my request, through the supervising FSDO before he would yield on an inspection issue. He got so mad when he was over ruled that he refused to acknowledge to me that he had been wrong. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ========================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: <speedy11(at)aol.com> ; Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 11:40 AM Subject: Re: Encoder Certification > > All of this is correct, but why does ATC need to be involved? Unless you > will be flying under airspace that requires a transponder, then there is > no > need to contact ATC unless you want them to check your transponder code > and > mode C. If you are transiting under class B, then coordinate with > approach control by phone for instructions. > My DAR did not ask for proof of pitot-static or transponder > certification - > although I had them available. > Stan Sutterfield > ================================================ > > 1/17/2009 > > Hello Steve Thomas, You wrote: > > 1) "Can I fly somewhere else to get it done once I have flown off my > hours?" > > Here is what 14 CFR says: > > "91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use. > > (d) ATC authorized deviations. Requests for ATC authorized deviations > must > be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned > airspace > within the time periods specified as follows: > > (2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to the > airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to > proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the > request > may be made at any time." > > So you see that it is possible to fly your airplane without an operating > transponder where one is required if you obtain ATC permission to do so. > Why > not do some research to: > > A) Determine how amenable your local ATC coverage people are to letting > you > make a one time flight without a transponder IAW 91.215 (d) (2) above. > > B) Find a facility that will do your transponder cert and design your > flight > test area to include that facility. Then make your request to ATC and on > a > flight subsequent to your first flight fly to that location to have the > certification done. (I recommend that the first test flight be just a > 20-30 > minute orbit over the originating field.) > > It would not be reasonable to expect permission to perform the entire > Phase > one testing without a transponder unless you were able to do the testing > in > airspace that did not require a transponder. > > 2) "Do I need a transponder cert for my DAR inspection?" > > The regulations do not require this -- see 91.215 (d) (2). But a DAR, or > FAA > inspector, has wide discretion and the power of the FAA Administrator in > that original airworthiness inspection and he may choose to require one. > > If you have not already established some contact and level of rapport > with > your prospective inspector you should start now -- and ask him that > question. An FAA inspector would be my first choice. How are you doing > with > the program letter and all of the other paperwork required? > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > ======================================================== > > From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification > > A message to Stan Sutterfield: > > You wrote last June: > >> This may not be the ideal forum for asking this question, but I'll try > it >> anyway. >> >> I want to certify my RV-8 for IFR flight. I know the FARs - I've > looked at >> them. >> >> I have the Blue Mountain EFIS One as primary instrumentation. >> I have the Blue Mountain EFIS Lite as a backup. >> Both EFISs are on different electrical busses - the main and the > standby. >> - >> which can be tied together, if needed. >> >> I asked a local avionics guy about doing a pitot-static and > transponder >> >> check for IFR. He said I would have to install a separate altimeter > and >> >> encoder in order to get IFR certification. The EFIS has a built-in > encod >> er. >> >> Has anyone else encountered this obstacle? >> >> Stan Sutterfield > > There were several replies that mostly focused on finding the right > avionics guy. I have the exact same setup in my panel as do you and am > ready for certification. Can you share your experience? Are you > certified and flying? Who did you use for your certification and how > did you go about getting it? > > I am in Southern California, and anyone else who can offer any advice on > this topic will be welcome. My local shop mostly deals with biz jets > and large non-jets. I don't think they will be very helpful with an > experimental. Also, exorbitantly expensive. Do I need a transponder > cert for my DAR inspection? Can I fly somewhere else to get it done > once I have flown off my hours? > > > Steve Thomas > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 18, 2010
1/18/2010 Hello Sam Hoskins, You wrote: 1) "Without looking at the regs, I seem to recall that if the aircraft is equipped with an operating transponder, it must be turned on." That is correct. Here is what 14 CFR 91.215 (c) says: "(c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in accordance with 91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC." 2) "My simple minded solution would to pull the transponder and stuff it into a flight bag. You could even apply a sticker that says "INOP". Fly to the shop, then install it for the test." That would be a violation of 14 CFR 91.215 which says, in part: "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an operable coded radar beacon transponder having either Mode 3/A 4096 code capability,.............." 91.215 goes on to provide some exceptions to the above requirement such as aircraft originally certified with no electrical system and getting permission from ATC to operate with no transponder. What you describe is not one of the exceptions. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ==================================== Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> Without looking at the regs, I seem to recall that if the aircraft is equipped with an operating transponder, it must be turned on. My simple minded solution would to pull the transponder and stuff it into a flight bag. You could even apply a sticker that says "INOP". Fly to the shop, then install it for the test. Sam ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 19, 2010
1/18/2010 Hello Steve Thomas, You wrote: 1) "Being able to do my own pitot-static check will also get me a long way to being able to discuss with some authority." A) There is no regulatory requirement for a pitot system check, but you may gain some confidence in the accuracy of your airspeed indicator by performing one. B) The static pressure system check performed in order to meet the requirements of 14 CFR 91.411 quoted here: "Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections. (a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace under IFR unless- (1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter;" Must be performed in accordance with the portion of 14 CFR 91.411 quoted here: "(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted by- (1) The manufacturer of the airplane, or helicopter, on which the tests and inspections are to be performed; (2) A certificated repair station properly equipped to perform those functions and holding- (i) An instrument rating, Class I; (ii) A limited instrument rating appropriate to the make and model of appliance to be tested; (iii) A limited rating appropriate to the test to be performed; (iv) An airframe rating appropriate to the airplane, or helicopter, to be tested; or (3) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating (static pressure system tests and inspections only)." So only if you hold one of the qualifications listed above, would you be able to perform the regulatory requirement of the static pressure system tests. But otherwise, as you point out, performing the test yourself could help you in your discussions. The equipment and parameters to perform the test are described in 14 CFR Appendix E to Part 43 (a). 2) "Being able to calibrate my BMA EFIS ahead of time will be a giant step in the right direction." Good idea. 3) "I will report back and detail my experience." I would appreciate that -- thank you. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ============================================== From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Encoder Certification A discussion is already underway. What is most important to me is to know the facts. You cannot argue with "experts" if you don't know the facts. Being able to do my own pitot-static check will also get me a long way to being able to discuss with some authority. Being able to calibrate my BMA EFIS ahead of time will be a giant step in the right direction. Thanks to all of you for this invaluable help! I will report back and detail my experience. Steve Thomas ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 19, 2010
1/19/2010 Hello Jon Finley, Many thanks for your input and raising this point again. You wrote: 1) "Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace." I did not make this assumption. 2) "If I missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my comments." Here is my wording: "It would not be reasonable to expect permission to perform the entire Phase one testing without a transponder unless you were able to do the testing in airspace that did not require a transponder." This specifically raises the point that there is indeed airspace that does not require a transponder. I also point out that 14 CFR 91.215 (b) (1) through (b) (5) and 91.215 (c) identifies the airspace where you must have a transponder. If one is not flying in the airspace identified then there is no requirement for a transponder. 3) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b),........" Absolutely on point. Up on my soap box now: I have been working on people sized airplanes (as opposed to models) since 1950 and flying since 1958 -- all that time I was planning and gathering information with the intent of building my own airplane some day. When that day came and I started to build and the internet allowed me to see what other builders were thinking and writing I was appalled at the ignorance and assumptions regarding applicable regulations displayed by my fellow builders. Here we had the greatest opportunity on our planet to do this wonderful homebuilding and flying thing and there were many builders so willing to operate on hearsay, gossip, and rumor and possibly violate regulations rather than educate themselves. Each notorious violation bringing us closer to the day when we could lose the opportunity to homebuild and fly. So my mission in life became to educate my fellow homebuilders and pilots regarding what the regulations actually say with the hope and belief that education would encourage compliance. That is why many of my postings read the way they do. 4) "Additionally, 91.215 (c), does not apply as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." Let's see what 14 CFR definitions says: "Controlled airspace means an airspace of defined dimensions within which air traffic control service is provided to IFR flights and to VFR flights in accordance with the airspace classification. Note: Controlled airspace is a generic term that covers Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, and Class E airspace." So as long as one is flying outside of the airspace identified in 91.215 (b) (1) through (5) and outside the definition of controlled airspace then one indeed does not need to have or operate a transponder. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ================================================== From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification Bakerocb, Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace. If I missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my comments. No doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment (controlled airspace). If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 91.215 (c), does not apply as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled. So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or without it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is true. If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be interested in hearing. Jon ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Altitude encoder
Date: Jan 19, 2010
1/19/2010 Hello Angier Ames, You wrote: ".....it is my understanding that your IFR equipment must perform to minimum FAA specs, but there is no requirement that the equipment be certified." Why operate on just an understanding when you can go to the regulations and determine the facts? With regard specifically to the altitude encoder here is what 14 CFR says on this subject: "91.217 Data correspondence between automatically reported pressure altitude data and the pilot's altitude reference. No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment associated with a radar beacon transponder- (a) When deactivation of that equipment is directed by ATC; (b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the altimeter normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that altimeter referenced to 29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the aircraft; or (c) Unless the altimeters and digitizers in that equipment meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively." So now, instead of just operating on some understanding, I call it hearsay, gossip, and rumor, we can operate on the facts. Also please see the attachment. Please let me know if you want further clarification. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ================================================= From: "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Altitude encoder I built the Rocky Mountain Instrument MicroEncoder from a kit and although I can't say for certain, the altitude encoder portion of this instrument may well be more accurate than a certified unit. Which gets me to my point...., it is my understanding that your IFR equipment must perform to minimum FAA specs, but there is no requirement that the equipment be certified. Angier Ames N4ZQ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 19, 2010
Calibration is generally done with a Barfield tester... Bring $$$$. Noel -----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 Sent: January 19, 2010 1:42 AM lists(at)stevet.net Subject: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification 1/18/2010 Hello Steve Thomas, You wrote: 1) "Being able to do my own pitot-static check will also get me a long way to being able to discuss with some authority." A) There is no regulatory requirement for a pitot system check, but you may gain some confidence in the accuracy of your airspeed indicator by performing one. B) The static pressure system check performed in order to meet the requirements of 14 CFR 91.411 quoted here: "Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections. (a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace under IFR unless- (1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter;" Must be performed in accordance with the portion of 14 CFR 91.411 quoted here: "(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted by- (1) The manufacturer of the airplane, or helicopter, on which the tests and inspections are to be performed; (2) A certificated repair station properly equipped to perform those functions and holding- (i) An instrument rating, Class I; (ii) A limited instrument rating appropriate to the make and model of appliance to be tested; (iii) A limited rating appropriate to the test to be performed; (iv) An airframe rating appropriate to the airplane, or helicopter, to be tested; or (3) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating (static pressure system tests and inspections only)." So only if you hold one of the qualifications listed above, would you be able to perform the regulatory requirement of the static pressure system tests. But otherwise, as you point out, performing the test yourself could help you in your discussions. The equipment and parameters to perform the test are described in 14 CFR Appendix E to Part 43 (a). 2) "Being able to calibrate my BMA EFIS ahead of time will be a giant step in the right direction." Good idea. 3) "I will report back and detail my experience." I would appreciate that -- thank you. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ============================================== From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Encoder Certification A discussion is already underway. What is most important to me is to know the facts. You cannot argue with "experts" if you don't know the facts. Being able to do my own pitot-static check will also get me a long way to being able to discuss with some authority. Being able to calibrate my BMA EFIS ahead of time will be a giant step in the right direction. Thanks to all of you for this invaluable help! I will report back and detail my experience. Steve Thomas ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 20, 2010
1/20/2010 Hello Steve Thomas, You write: "I am the manufacturer of the airplane." {Response} Nice try, but no cigar. In the eyes of the FAA you are not the manufacturer of a type certificated airplane (which title carrys many significant qualifications, approvals, and inspections), but instead the "fabicator and assembler" of an experimental amateur built airplane. The regulatory permission and description that allows our category of aircraft to exist does not use the word "manufactured". See here: " 14 CFR 21.191 Experimental certificates. Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes: (g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation." 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ========================================================= Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> OC, As I read the regs. you quote below, it sounds like I am qualified to perform the tests. > "(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted > by- > > (1) The manufacturer of the airplane, or helicopter, on which the tests > and inspections are to be performed; I am the manufacturer of the airplane. Steve Thomas ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 20, 2010
1/20/2010 Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more with your help? You write: 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are huge expanses of this country where this is true." {Response} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam the wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the uncontrolled airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance. There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now. Can you please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area and confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to doubt them. Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E airspace and therefore is controlled. 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)." {Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet of the surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b) (5) (i). See here: "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an operable coded radar beacon transponder....... (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface; and....." 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or without it turned on." {Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with no transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL if within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is controlled, as long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with. Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you have in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se? Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or not is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather the specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled airspace" is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 CFR paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a transponder or not. Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a set of low altitude IFR charts for the entire country. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. Yes there is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be hard pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding white (controlled airspace) unless a special navigation effort was made. ================================================== From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification Bakerocb, Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace. If I missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my comments. No doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment (controlled airspace). If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 91.215 (c), does not apply as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled. So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or without it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is true. If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be interested in hearing. Jon ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: ONGOING DISCUSSION
Date: Jan 20, 2010
1/19/2010 Hello Jim, Good to hear from you. You ask: "Does the following item (a) possibly relieve one from compliance with the 24 calendar month criteria if the aircraft involved never operates under "IFR conditions" in controlled airspace?" >"14 CFR 91.411 (a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in >controlled airspace under IFR unless- > > (1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure > system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude > reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with > appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter;" {Response} Just avoiding all "IFR operations in controlled airspace" is not sufficient to relieve one of the 14 CFR required periodic transponder checks. Let's see if we can figure out why. 1) First, while operating in what airspace must one's aircraft be "........equipped with an operable coded radar beacon transponder......"? Paragraph 91.215 (b) answers that question: "91.215 (b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an operable coded radar beacon transponder .........." So if one avoids flying in any of the transponder required airspace as described in (b) (1) through (b) (5) then one does not need a transponder. But if one flys, even under VFR, in any of that described airspace then they must have an operable transponder installed. Note that the airspace below 10,000 feet MSL and within 2,500 feet of the surface is not transponder required airspace. See 91.215 (b) (5) (i).** 2) What kind of transponder must we part 91 pilots have to fly in that transponder required airspace? 91.215 (a) answers that question: "91.215 (a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder equipment installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements of any class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S)." 3) Does that 91.215 (a) required installed transponder have to have any kind of a periodic test? 91.413 answers that question: "91.413 ATC transponder tests and inspections. (a) No persons may use an ATC transponder that is specified in 91.215(a), 121.345(c), or 135.143(c) of this chapter unless, within the preceding 24 calendar months, the ATC transponder has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendix F of part 43 of this chapter; and..............." 4) When are we required to operate the 91.215 (a) required transponder that has been tested as required by 91.413? Paragraph 91.215 (c) answers that question: "91.215 (c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in accordance with 91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC." 5) Note that the term IFR has not even come up yet in the questions and answers in 1, 2, 3, and 4 above. So what is the big deal about transponders and IFR controlled airspace? The big deal is the requirement in 91.411 of complying with Appendix E as well as Appendix F of Part 43 for a transponder used in IFR operations in controlled airspace. See here: "91.411 Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections. (a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace under IFR unless- (1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter;" 6) So if we have an aircraft with an engine-driven electrical system how do we get out from under the 91.411 or 91.413 every two year transponder checks? We could: A) Never fly (VFRor IFR) within the 91.215 (b) transponder required airspace. Then you will not be be required to either have a transponder or have it checked if you do have one. If you do have a transponder installed, but it has not been checked you are forbidden from operating it. B) Fly only VFR within the 91.215 (b) permitted airspace -- below 10,000 feet MSL or within 2,500 feet above the surface. There you will not be be required to either have a transponder or have it checked if you do have one. If you do have a transponder installed, but it has not been checked you are forbidden from operating it. C) Fly IFR only in Class G uncontrolled airspace, if you can find some. There you will not be required to either have a transponder or have it checked if you do have one. If you do have a transponder installed, but it has not been checked you are forbidden from operating it. You don't even have to be in contact with ATC. I think that item C above is largely theoretical in nature. Supposedly the low altitude IFR charts show the uncontrolled Class G airspace below 14,500 MSL in brown. It has been quite awhile since I've flown out west where there was still some brown showing, but there wasn't much left. All airspace above 14,500MSL is Class E air space and therefore considered controlled. So you can see that it is possible to avoid the 14 CFR required periodic transponder checks, but not very practical unless maybe you are an ag pilot operating locally. Comments or questions? OC **PS: See 91.215 (b) (2). I note that KHWY is within 30 miles of KIAD which is listed in Appendix D, Section 1 to Part 91. Therefore airplanes operating out of KHWY are required to have operable transponders. =================================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:12 PM Subject: ONGOING DISCUSSION > Hello, OC, > > Enjoyed meeting you and looking at your Experimental some months back when > I was at HEF for Craig Laporte's first flight of his Tailwind. > > I've been following the "Forum" discussions on Transponder required-checks > and have learned a lot from your well informed inputs. The following > portion of your current message caused me to wonder if I have been missing > something of significance in this arena. > > Does the following item (a) possibly relieve one from compliance with the > 24 calendar month criteria if the aircraft involved never operates under > "IFR conditions" in controlled airspace? > > > "(a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled > airspace under IFR unless- > > (1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure > system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude > reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with > appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter;" > > Jim McCulley > TAILWIND at HWY > ==================================================================================== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au
Date: Jan 21, 2010
Subject: Re: Encoder Certification
Folks, Using the term "controlled airspace" is a bit of a misnomer. Airspace is categorized as A, B, C, D, E, F and G. Only F and G are "uncontrolled", there is no F in the US, and very little G, outside Alaska. For those with a long memory, what is now E, in the US was once called "Controlled/VFR Exempt". In regular day to day flying, it is very hard to dodge E airspace in US, as it is most common airspace below below A. Generally, B,C and D are terminal/tower airspace. Below 10,000', for Part 91 operations, the requirement for a transponder relates to the transponder veil withing 30 miles of the airfields on which Class B is centered, or as otherwise noted/charted. In my opinion, as an individual, you can only satisfy the requirements for a Mode C encoder by having a TSO unit, with the necessary initial/recurrent testing. How?? do you establish the 95% probability performance otherwise required in Part 91, already mentioned, a simple test of an installation does not do that, it does not establish the in-service performance is maintained. Regards, Bill Hamilton > bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote: > > > 1/20/2010 > > Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more > with > your help? > > You write: > > 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are > huge > expanses of this country where this is true." > > {Response} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam > the > wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the > uncontrolled > airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low > altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance. > > There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now. Can > you > please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area > and > confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to doubt > them. > Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E airspace > and > therefore is controlled. > > 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that > folks > living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for > hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the > airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)." > > {Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet of > the > surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b) > (5) > (i). See here: > > "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no > person > may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) > through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an > > operable coded radar beacon transponder....... > > (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of > Columbia > at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 > feet > above the surface; and....." > > 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or > without > it turned on." > > {Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with > no > transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL > if > within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is controlled, > as > long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with. > > Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you > have > in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se? > > Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or > not > is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather > the > specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled > airspace" > is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 > CFR > paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a > transponder or not. > > Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a > set of > low altitude IFR charts for the entire country. > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. Yes > there > is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be hard > pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding white (controlled > airspace) > unless a special navigation effort was made. > > ================================================== > > From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification > > Bakerocb, > > Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace. If > I missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my comments. > No > doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment > (controlled airspace). > > If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks > living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for > hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the > airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 91.215 (c), > does > not > apply as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled. > > So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or without > it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is > true. > > If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be interested in hearing. > > Jon > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 21, 2010
1/21/2010 Hello Bill Boyd, You wrote: 1) "OC, I'm pretty sure my experimental airworthiness certificate has a blank on it for "manufacturer."" {Response} That is correct. FAA Form 8130-7 SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE block B is entitled MANUFACTURER. This form is used for many different kinds of aircraft than just experimental amateur built. Some of these different kinds of aircraft could indeed have been created by an FAA recognized manufacturer such as Boeing, Piper, Cessna, etc. 2) "I've seen some builders put their last name there, while others put "Vans" or whatever." {Response} Not likely. That form is filled out and signed by the FAA Representative, either an FAA Employee or a DAR, who signs it in block E. 3) "I'm not looking at my cert right now it's in the plane), but I'm reasonably sure the box I'm referring to is not labeled "Fabricator."" {Response} I am looking at my SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE right now. Block B, MANUFACTURER has N/A as an entry. Block D, BUILDER has my name. I hope that every homebuilder who has read this thread is now convinced that they are not their aircraft's manufacturer, which is one of the qualifications listed in 14 CFR 91.411 as needed in order to perform the tests required by that paragraph (91.411 Atimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspection). 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." PS: I write not to pick on you Bill, but to encourage my fellow builders to move from the casual arena of "pretty sure" or "hearsay, gossip, and rumor" to the available facts (which are usually not that hard to come by) regarding our hobby. ========================================================== Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification From: Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> OC, I'm pretty sure my experimental airworthiness certificate has a blank on it for "manufacturer." I've seen some builders put their last name there, while others put "Vans" or whatever. I'm not looking at my cert right now (it's in the plane), but I'm reasonably sure the box I'm referring to is not labeled "Fabricator." -Bill B ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: ONGOING DISCUSSION
Date: Jan 21, 2010
1/21/2010 Hello Raymond, You wrote; "Q. Who can test and inspect to verify compliance with E and F of the chapter?" {Response} The entities qualified to perform the 14 CFR Part 43 Appendicies E and F tests required by 14 CFR paragraphs 91.411 and 91.413 are listed in those paragraphs. They can be readily accessed at this web site by clicking on Regulations & Policies: http://www.faa.gov/ 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ================================================= From: ray <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ONGOING DISCUSSION Q. Who can test and inspect to verify compliance with E and F of the chapter? Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 21, 2010
From: lessdragprod(at)aol.com
Hi All, I just checked the FAA records: William E. Boyd, Jr is the "manufacturer" of a RV-6A. There is no BUILDER block on the aircraft registration form. What did you put on the 8050-1 form you sent to FAA Oklahoma City to register your air craft? I think this is the first form the FAA sees for a new homebuilt. Jim Ayers -----Original Message----- From: bakerocb(at)cox.net r(at)gmail.com Sent: Thu, Jan 21, 2010 4:34 am Subject: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification 1/21/2010 Hello Bill Boyd, You wrote: 1) "OC, I'm pretty sure my experimental airworthiness certificate has a bl ank on it for "manufacturer."" {Response} That is correct. FAA Form 8130-7 SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFIC ATE block B is entitled MANUFACTURER. This form is used for many different kinds of aircraft than just experimental amateur built. Some of these dif ferent kinds of aircraft could indeed have been created by an FAA recogniz ed manufacturer such as Boeing, Piper, Cessna, etc. 2) "I've seen some builders put their last name there, while others put "V ans" or whatever." {Response} Not likely. That form is filled out and signed by the FAA Repre sentative, either an FAA Employee or a DAR, who signs it in block E. 3) "I'm not looking at my cert right now it's in the plane), but I'm reaso nably sure the box I'm referring to is not labeled "Fabricator."" {Response} I am looking at my SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE right now. Block B, MANUFACTURER has N/A as an entry. Block D, BUILDER has my name. I hope that every homebuilder who has read this thread is now convinced th at they are not their aircraft's manufacturer, which is one of the qualifi cations listed in 14 CFR 91.411 as needed in order to perform the tests re quired by that paragraph (91.411 Atimeter system and altitude reporting eq uipment tests and inspection). 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and un derstand knowledge." PS: I write not to pick on you Bill, but to encourage my fellow builders to move from the casual arena of "pretty sure" or "hearsay, gossip, and rumor" to the available facts (which are usually not that hard to come by ) regarding our hobby. ======================== ======================== =========== Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification From: Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> OC, I'm pretty sure my experimental airworthiness certificate has a blank on it for "manufacturer." I've seen some builders put their last name there, while others put "Vans" or whatever. I'm not looking at my cert right now (it's in the plane), but I'm reasonably sure the box I'm referring to is not labeled "Fabricator." -Bill B ======================== ============ ======================== ============ ======================== ============ ======================== ============ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 21, 2010
1/21/2010 Hello Again Jon Finley, Thank you for responding to my request (copied below) to review the charting of controlled and uncontrolled airspace in your area. Before I respond to the specific points that you made in that charting regard I would like to again remind all of the readers regarding the non relevance of generic controlled airspace when it comes to determining whether or not an aircraft must be equipped with an operable coded transponder. I repeat: "Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or not is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather the specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled airspace" is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 CFR paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a transponder or not." You wrote: 1) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." {Response} Is that really true? I don't have the current appropriate sectional and low altitude IFR charts of the areas out west to compare side by side, but the few sectional charts that I do have (outdated) of the areas where I think there should be some uncontrolled Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 MSL feet do not identify this airspace. But this Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL is the airspace that I believe is shown in brown on the low altitude IFR charts. 2) "Said another way,one has to look at a sectional to see at what altitude the floor of Class E airspace exists." {Response} I agree, the sectionals do show where the floor of controlled Class E airspace is at either 700 feet (using magenta colored shading) or 1,200 feet (using blue color shading) above the surface. But do the sectionals in your area also show the uncontrolled Class G airspace that goes from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL like the low altitude charts show with brown shading? If so how do the sectionals show this same airspace? 3) "There is quite a bit of area (many, many, many square miles) where Class E starts at 14,500' AGL and a few locations where it starts at 11,500' and 12,000'." {Response} And again it does not matter where Class E starts, 700 feet above the surface, 1,200 feet above the surface, 11,500 feet MSL, 12,000 feet MSL or 14,500 feet MSL when it comes to where one needs an operable coded transponder in an aircraft because it is paragraph 14 CFR 91.215 (b) (5) (i), (along with the other relevant paragraphs in 91.215 (b)), that determines transponder requirement. The relevant numbers in 91.215 (b) (5) (i) are to be below 10,000 feet MSL or within 2,500 feet of the surface in order to operate without a transponder. Even if one is operating in that uncontrolled Class G airspace between 10,000 feet MSL and the beginning of controlled Class E airspace at 14,500 feet MSL one must have an operable coded transponder. 4) "Here, it is possible/legal (due to the airspace) to pull the transponder (or leave it off) and fly to a repair shop (obviously depending on where the repair shop is..).' {Response} Agreed, as long as one is in compliance with 14 CFR 91.215 (b). 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ====================================================== From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification Bakerocb, SkyVector.com is an awesome resource. You can view any sectional or IFR chart in the US (maybe more, I haven't tried) with it and do some very neat trip planning. You are absolutely right, one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists. Said another way, one has to look at a sectional to see at what altitude the floor of Class E airspace exists. I admit that I took some liberty with my previous statement to make a point. Obviously we have plenty of Class E space here. The Class E airspace where I live (E98) starts at 1200' AGL (about 6,000' MSL). That is true for most of the northern half of the state except where an airport with an approach exists (the Class E floor extends to 700'/ground at those locations). There is quite a bit of area (many, many, many square miles) where Class E starts at 14,500' AGL and a few locations where it starts at 11,500' and 12,000'. With that in mind, I do not have a good guess at how much of my actual flying is in uncontrolled airspace (i.e. beneath the floor of Class E) but I would guess about 40%. When going x-country (i.e. hundreds of miles), a higher altitude is typical which places me in Class E. Most of my flying is recreational (to from breakfast, sightseeing, having fun) and is fairly low - I do get above 1200' AGL but also spend a lot of time below 1200' AGL. Here, it is possible/legal (due to the airspace) to pull the transponder (or leave it off) and fly to a repair shop (obviously depending on where the repair shop is..). Jon Finley =========================================================== > 1/20/2010 > > Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more > with > your help? > > You write: > > 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are > huge > expanses of this country where this is true." > > {Response} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam > the > wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the > uncontrolled > airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low > altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance. > > There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now. > Can you > please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area > and > confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to doubt > them. > Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E airspace > and > therefore is controlled. > > 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that > folks > living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for > hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the > airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)." > > {Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet > of the > surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b) > (5) > (i). See here: > > "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no > person > may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) > through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with > an > operable coded radar beacon transponder....... > > (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of > Columbia > at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 > feet > above the surface; and....." > > 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or > without > it turned on." > > {Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with > no > transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL > if > within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is controlled, > as > long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with. > > Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you > have > in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se? > > Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or > not > is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather > the > specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled > airspace" > is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 > CFR > paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a > transponder or not. > > Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a > set of > low altitude IFR charts for the entire country. > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. Yes > there > is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be hard > pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding white (controlled > airspace) > unless a special navigation effort was made. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2010
From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Arnav FMS 5000 GPS Antenna
I have an Arnav FMS 5000 in my aircraft. This is a dual receiver IFR certified unit that uses either GPS or Loran C. I have it working with Loran only but just purchased the GPS receiver. Does anyone know what kind of GPS antenna I need? I know some GPS antennas are receiver specific and some have a built in preamp so I want to make sure I don't buy the wrong type of antenna. Thanks. John Grosse ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Aircraft Manufacturer
Date: Jan 22, 2010
1/22/2010 Hello Jim Ayers, You wrote: 1) "What did you put on the 8050-1 form you sent to FAA Oklahoma City to register your air craft?" {Response} I put my name. 2) "There is no BUILDER block on the aircraft registration form." {Response} That is correct. Similarly only the term MANUFACTURER rather than BUILDER appears in many other generic FAA forms that are used in the process of getting our experimental amateur built aircraft through the FAA administrative wickets of purchasing, registration, and certification. To wit: Form 8050-2, AIRCRAFT BILL OF SALE Form 8050-3, CERTIFICATE OF AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION Form 8050-88, IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ASSIGNMENT AND REGISTRATION OF AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT. (This form refers to the "bill of sale from manufacturer of the kit" -- they mean the company that created the kit from which the aircraft is built.)** Form 8050-110, CONFIRMATION OF RESERVATION OF UNITED STATES REGISTRATION NUMBER. The use of these generic FAA forms in the process and the use of the term MANUFACTURER in those generic forms and on the FAA web site does not make the builder of an amateur built experimental aircraft into an approved aircraft manufacturer in the eyes of the FAA. This fact is made abundantly clear in the FAA Form 8130-7 SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE for each individual experimental amateur built aircraft when the MANUFACTURER block is filled with N/A (Not Applicable) and the BUILDER block is filled with the builder's name by the FAA Representative who fills out and signs the form. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." **PS: Note that this same form number 8050-88 is use for a different FAA form AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP FOR AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT which does use the term "Builder's Name". I guess the FAA was running short of money and could not afford different numbers for these two different forms. ================================================== Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification From: lessdragprod(at)aol.com Hi All, I just checked the FAA records: William E. Boyd, Jr is the "manufacturer" of a RV-6A. There is no BUILDER block on the aircraft registration form. What did you put on the 8050-1 form you sent to FAA Oklahoma City to register your air craft? I think this is the first form the FAA sees for a new homebuilt. Jim Ayers ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
Date: Jan 22, 2010
1/22/2010 Hello Jon, You wrote: 1) "Oh brother.." {Response} Hang in there for one more go around. This time we will restrict the discussion to just charting of uncontrolled airspace and leave transponders out of it since that subject seems to make some peoples' head hurt. 2) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFRchart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." and "RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm" {Response} Just looking at a Sectional chart alone and the web site diagram does not permit one to see where all true uncontrolled airspace exists. Here is why: A) The AIRPORT TRAFFIC AND AIRSPACE Legend portion of current Sectional charts has this wording in it: "Only the controlled and reserved airspace effective below 18,000 ft. MSL are shown on this chart." This means that the location of lateral areas of uncontrolled Class G airspace that go from the surface up to 14,500 feet can not be determined by looking at a Sectional chart. B) The AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES AND AIRSPACE INFORMATION on a current IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart has these wordings in it under AIRSPACE INFORMATION: "Open area (white) indicates controlled airspace (Class E); unless otherwise indicated." "All airspace 14,500' and above is controlled (Class E)" "Shaded area (brown) indicates uncontrolled airspace below 14,500' (Class G)" So one needs both Sectional and IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts to completely determine where all uncontrolled Class G airspace is located. The Sectional chart will tell one where the controlled Class E airspace exists both laterally by an outline and vertically by either magenta or blue shading, but won't tell one where the the lateral dimensions of uncontrolled Class G airspace are. The IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart, by brown shading, will show one where uncontrolled Class G airspace exists laterally from the surface up to 14,500. Why don't you get an IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart for some areas out west where there is some brown shading, check it out, and let us know what you find. Our IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts back east are all white between the navigation information. Thanks. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ================================================= From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> Subject: RE: Encoder Certification Date: Jan 21, 2010 Oh brother.. Apparently this discussion has went around and around enough times that what is being said no longer makes sense to anyone. Next subject please! Jon ======================================= Jon Finley wrote: RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm Jon ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net>
Subject: Encoder CertificationAeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 22, 2010
1/22/201 It does not mention "Controlled Airspace" anywhere in 91.215 (b) but: 91.215 (c) states: Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operatble ATC transponder maintained in accordance with 91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment f installed and shall reply on the appropriated code or as assigned by ATC. *********************************************************************************************************************** So this means to me that if you have a transponder installed that has been tested per 91.413, you MUST turn it on when in ANY CONTROLLED AIRSPACE. (A,B,C,D,E) If your transponder has NOT been tested per 91.413, you MUST NOT turn it on> 1/21/2010 Hello Again Jon Finley, Thank you for responding to my request (copied below) to review the charting of controlled and uncontrolled airspace in your area. Before I respond to the specific points that you made in that charting regard I would like to again remind all of the readers regarding the non relevance of generic controlled airspace when it comes to determining whether or not an aircraft must be equipped with an operable coded transponder. I repeat: "Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or not is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather the specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled airspace" is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 CFR paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a transponder or not." Bill Morelli billvt(at)together.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Give it a rest
Date: Jan 22, 2010
1/22/2010 Hello Greg Young, You wrote: "Give it a rest." I agree -- I'm gone too. Some people have controlled airspace and transponder requirement and uncontrolled airspace and transponder non requirement so hard wired into their brain that no facts can change their mind. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ======================================================== "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com> Subject: Encoder Certification Date: Jan 21, 2010 Dude... Give it a rest. I've exercised the delete key way too often. I'm gone. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
Date: Jan 23, 2010
1/23/2010 Hello Jon Finley, I am sorry that your January 22, 2010 2:11 PM posting copied below has an emotional and rejecting tone to it. My postings in response to yours have in no way intended to be punitive or critical of you personally -- just educational for all involved. With that in mind please let me respond in detail to your posting copied below. You wrote: 1) "It is no wonder folks on the list are asking for this nonsense to stop." {Response} Yes, I was persistent regarding transponder requirements. I did this because some people were still posting using the wrong criteria and I did not want to let that erroneous information stand uncorrected. 2) "As an aside, do you work for the government??" {Response} My personal work for the U. S. government consisted of 36 years on active duty in the US Navy and US Marine Corps as both enlisted and officer fixing and flying airplanes and helicopters. I retired from that work in 1986. 3) "WE ALL GET IT!" {Response} Good, I hope that my postings had something to do with that. 4) "So, if only "controlled airspace" is shown then "uncontrolled airspace" cannot be shown?? That makes no sense." {Response} When the aviation chart makers were confronted with the problem of showing the lateral dimensions of that uncontrolled Class G airspace which goes from the surface all the way up to 14,500 feet MSL they realized that putting such information on a Sectional chart would result in unacceptable clutter. They came up with the solution of using brown shading for those areas on the low altitude IFR charts to show that information. 5) "Using these generic terms ("controlled" and "uncontrolled" makes this entire section worthless)." {Response} These are the accepted terms. They make it possible to write about those two different kinds of airspace without listing each individual identification letter each time the writer wants to refer to a kind of airspace. 6) "We agree that Class G airspace exists UNDER the floor of Class E airspace. THIS IS DEPICTED ON A SECTIONAL. You do not need an IFR chart to see this." {Response} This is correct, but you do need a low altitude IFR chart to show the lateral dimensions of the uncontrolled airspace shaded brown that goes from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL because that information is not depicted on a Sectional chart. See the response to item 4 above. One cannot get the total picture just by focusing on vertical dimensions and looking at a Sectional chart. 7) "Why don't YOU do the research instead of asking me to do it? Better still, do this research BEFORE responding." {Response} I have already done so. I am suggesting that you look at the actual charts involved, Albuquerque Sectional and the low altitude IFR chart for that area, so that you can see the brown shading for yourself. I made this suggestion because you did not appear to take my posted information as valid. 8) " I have given you the resource (Skyvector.com) to see any sectional and IFR chart in the USA." I did go to the Skyvector site as you suggested -- thank you. I Iooked at the sample charts that they would let me look at for no cost -- those samples, while not of the specific area of our interest, did confirm my posted information. Since I fly from an airport in Virginia I could not justify the expense of purchasing a current Albuquerque Sectional (my copy is outdated) and appropriate current low altitude IFR chart just to look at them myself when my goal was to have you look at them. A fellow EAA Chapter member has offered to give me a complete set of current low altitude IFR charts. When I get my hands on them I will let you know and ask for your mailing address so that I can mail you the appropriate low altitude IFR chart. I presume that you already have a current Albuquerque Sectional since you fly out of Los Lunas (E98). Please let me know if this plan is acceptable to you. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ==================================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: <jon(at)finleyweb.net> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 2:11 PM Subject: RE: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace Bakerocb, Apparently I am a terrible glutten for punishment.. It is no wonder folks on the list are asking for this nonsense to stop. As an aside, do you work for the government?? 1. For some reason you seem to believe that nobody understands this (when is a transponder required). WE ALL GET IT! It is very simple (it has been said repeatedly, read CFR 91.215 (b)). 2.A. So, if only "controlled airspace" is shown then "uncontrolled airspace" cannot be shown?? That makes no sense. "Uncontrolled airspace" is everything that is NOT controlled. Using these generic terms ("controlled" and "uncontrolled" makes this entire section worthless). This part is getting really old.... On a sectional: Class B, C, and D indicate where the "controlled airspace" extends to the ground (and much more). The lowest floor of Class E is 700' AGL. The shaded magenta lines show where the floor of Class E changes from 700' AGL to 1,200' AGL. The shaded blue lines show where the floor of Class E changes from 1200' AGL to 14,500' AGL. The staggered blue lines (e.g. "----___---___-----___----") show where the floor of the Class E airspace is when this cannot be depicted by the shaded blue or magenta lines. These staggered blue lines either specify the floor of the Class E airspace or it is 14,500' MSL. Class G airspace exists UNDER Class E (at a minimum, possibly more, I'm not sure). 2.B. We agree that Class G airspace exists UNDER the floor of Class E airspace. THIS IS DEPICTED ON A SECTIONAL. You do not need an IFR chart to see this. Additionally, a low level IFR chart does NOT depict the areas in which the floor of the Class E is at a non-standard (14,500' MSL) altitude. This means that the pilot could THINK, because the chart is showing "white", that Class E exists to 1,200' AGL when it does not (rather, it may end at 12,500' AGL, for example). Why don't YOU do the research instead of asking me to do it? Better still, do this research BEFORE responding. I have given you the resource (Skyvector.com) to see any sectional and IFR chart in the USA. I'll even give you a tip - look at the two charts in the area around Gallup, NM (GUP). Jon ===================================================== -----Original Message----- From: bakerocb(at)cox.net Hello Jon, You wrote: 1) "Oh brother.." {Response} Hang in there for one more go around. This time we will restrict the discussion to just charting of uncontrolled airspace and leave transponders out of it since that subject seems to make some peoples' head hurt. 2) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFRchart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." and "RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm" {Response} Just looking at a Sectional chart alone and the web site diagram does not permit one to see where all true uncontrolled airspace exists. Here is why: A) The AIRPORT TRAFFIC AND AIRSPACE Legend portion of current Sectional charts has this wording in it: "Only the controlled and reserved airspace effective below 18,000 ft. MSL are shown on this chart." This means that the location of lateral areas of uncontrolled Class G airspace that go from the surface up to 14,500 feet can not be determined by looking at a Sectional chart. B) The AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES AND AIRSPACE INFORMATION on a current IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart has these wordings in it under AIRSPACE INFORMATION: "Open area (white) indicates controlled airspace (Class E); unless otherwise indicated." "All airspace 14,500' and above is controlled (Class E)" "Shaded area (brown) indicates uncontrolled airspace below 14,500' (Class G)" So one needs both Sectional and IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts to completely determine where all uncontrolled Class G airspace is located. The Sectional chart will tell one where the controlled Class E airspace exists both laterally by an outline and vertically by either magenta or blue shading, but won't tell one where the the lateral dimensions of uncontrolled Class G airspace are. The IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart, by brown shading, will show one where uncontrolled Class G airspace exists laterally from the surface up to 14,500. Why don't you get an IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart for some areas out west where there is some brown shading, check it out, and let us know what you find. Our IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts back east are all white between the navigation information. Thanks. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ================================================= From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> Subject: RE: Encoder Certification Date: Jan 21, 2010 Oh brother.. Apparently this discussion has went around and around enough times that what is being said no longer makes sense to anyone. Next subject please! Jon ======================================= Jon Finley wrote: RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm Jon ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
Date: Jan 24, 2010
1/24/2010 Hello Fellow Marine Old Bob, You wrote: "However, I do NOT see where controlled and uncontrolled airspace is pertinent to the discussion." Agreed -- airspace category identification on charts per se was not pertinent to the original posting, but that identification became of educational interest as postings went on. I don't think an audit trail of the entire sequence of postings on how this subject got all wrapped around the axle is desired by all readers -- so here is a condensed audit trail version: A) It all began with a posting by Steve Thomas (Msg # 48119 on Jan 16, 2010), using the subject "Encoder Certification" who wanted to know if he could fly away from his home base with his newly certified experimental amateur built airplane without an operating and certified transponder in order to have the appropriate transponder checks done at another location. B) Both you and I responded to his request (maybe some others as well) telling him how this was possible. Neither of us used the term "controlled airspace". C) Then on Jan 18, 2010 in #48141 Jon Finley wrote: "Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace." and leaving the impression that controlled airspace alone could possibly be the determining factor in whether or not an aircraft was required to be equipped with an operable coded transponder. D) You and I both responded in a supportive, but clarification manner to Jon. Then followed a series of transponder oriented postings by many that morphed into a discussion of controlled versus uncontrolled airspace transponder requirements that further morphed into a discussion of how controlled and uncontrolled airspace was depicted on our aviation charts. E) In that discourse on Jan20, 2010 in Msg #48158 Jon wrote: "......one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." F) I then attempted to clarify that chart related statement by changing the subject line to "Charting Uncontrolled Airspace" and pointing out the existence of the brown shaded uncontrolled airspace locations on the low altitude IFR charts which could not be determined by looking at a Sectional chart alone. Jon took exception to my clarification and we were launched off on an ongoing posting wrangle on that charting point using the new subject line . So you can see how we got from encoder certification into airspace depictions on charts. Maybe a bit messy sequence of events, and maybe not all directly related to this aeroelectric list venue, but still of some interest to those of us who fly in this country. I am mindful of the many readers of this list who may absorb what is written here without a challenging or questioning attitude and I am reluctant to let stand potentially misleading information. Semper Fidelis, 'OC' ====================================================== From: bobsv35b(at)aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace Good Morning OC, I, for one admire your tenacity and am glad you are helping to educate the rest of us. However, I do NOT see where controlled and uncontrolled airspace is pertinent to the discussion. As I understood the question, he wanted to know where a transponder was required. A transponder is NOT required for VFR flight in the vast majority of controlled airspace. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Downers Grove. IL Stearman N3977A Never an officer, just a Corporal, USMC. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 24, 2010
1/24/2010 Hello John Grosse, You wrote: "I personally don't understand why you just wouldn't buy a transponder..." {Response} Recall that this thread began with a posting by Steve Thomas (Msg # 48119 on Jan 16, 2010 using the subject "Encoder Certification") who wanted to know if he could fly away from his home base with his newly certified experimental amateur built airplane without an operating and certified transponder in order to have the appropriate transponder checks done at another location. Sorry that it got so drawn out and exhausting as we initially tried to help him and then got bogged down while trying to clarify some subsequent postings. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ===================================================== From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Encoder Certification This whole discussion has me totally exhausted. I personally don't understand why you just wouldn't buy a transponder... unless, of course. you're smuggling drugs or are flying some WWI vintage rag bag with no electrical system. Then I get it, and why would you even care? John Grosse ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 25, 2010
1/25/2010 Hello Angier Ames, You wrote 1) 2) and 3) below: 1) "Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in controlled airspace." {Response} Not true for all controlled airspace -- just that airspace identified in 91.215 (b). Can you show otherwise? 2) "And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or 135, as per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be certified/ TSO'd." {Response} Not true because 14 CFR Section 215 (a) says exactly the opposite. Read here: "91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use. (a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder equipment installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements of any class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S)." 3) "So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. Your only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets the performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b or c or TSO-C112." {Response} More than a bit misleading. The FAA requirements of proving "the performance and environmental standards" of a TSO, or an alternate method of complying with the requirements, for avionics are very extensive, demanding, and expensive. This is why most of the altitude encoding EFIS' available to the experimental amateur built community are not TSO'd. There is extensive material in the aeroelectric list archives on the significance of paragraph14 CFR 91.217, particularly 91.217 (b). Just help yourself. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ======================================================== From: "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Encoder Certification Since we are all now exhausted by this subject, lets beat this dead horse one more time. Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in controlled airspace. And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or 135, as per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be certified/ TSO'd. So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. Your only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets the performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b or c or TSO-C112. Angier Ames N4ZQ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Carey <kpc(at)speakeasy.net>
Subject: Re: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 25, 2010
/set mode = "dead horse" /enable beat On Jan 25, 2010, at 9:35 AM, wrote: > > 1/25/2010 > > Hello Angier Ames, You wrote 1) 2) and 3) below: > > 1) "Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in > controlled airspace." > > {Response} Not true for all controlled airspace -- just that > airspace identified in 91.215 (b). Can you show otherwise? > > 2) "And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or 135, as > per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be certified/ > TSO'd." > > {Response} Not true because 14 CFR Section 215 (a) says exactly the > opposite. Read here: > > "91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use. > > (a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not > conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder > equipment installed must meet the performance and environmental > requirements of any class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO- > C74c (Mode A with altitude reporting capability) as appropriate, or > the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S)." > > 3) "So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. > Your only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets > the performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b > or c or TSO-C112." > > {Response} More than a bit misleading. The FAA requirements of > proving "the performance and environmental standards" of a TSO, or > an alternate method of complying with the requirements, for avionics > are very extensive, demanding, and expensive. This is why most of > the altitude encoding EFIS' available to the experimental amateur > built community are not TSO'd. There is extensive material in the > aeroelectric list archives on the significance of paragraph14 CFR > 91.217, particularly 91.217 (b). Just help yourself. > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather > and understand knowledge." > > ======================================================== > > From: "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Encoder Certification > > Since we are all now exhausted by this subject, lets beat this dead > horse one more time. > Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in controlled > airspace. And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or 135, > as per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be certified/ > TSO'd. > > So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. Your > only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets the > performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b or c > or TSO-C112. > > Angier Ames > N4ZQ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 25, 2010
/set mode = "dead horse" /enable beat > On Jan 25, 2010, at 9:35 AM, wrote: > > > > > 1/25/2010 > > > > Hello Angier Ames, You wrote 1) 2) and 3) below: > > > > 1) "Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in > > controlled airspace." > > > > {Response} Not true for all controlled airspace -- just > that airspace > > identified in 91.215 (b). Can you show otherwise? > > > > 2) "And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or 135, as > > per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be certified/ > > TSO'd." > > > > {Response} Not true because 14 CFR Section 215 (a) says exactly the > > opposite. Read here: > > > > "91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: radio transmission problems
From: "ejessee" <eejessee(at)us.ibm.com>
Date: Feb 01, 2010
Hello all, I have a VAL COM 760 radio in my Zenith 701 with 912 UL engine. Since I have owned the plane, I have had intermittent radio transmission problems. Some days, people I am communicating with indicate that the radio is clear. Other days, they cannot even understand what I am saying. I have been described as "garbled", "scratchy", "much background noise", and "completely unintelligible". The radio receives perfectly. Considering that this is an intermittent problem does anyone have an idea as to what might be my problem? Thanks in advance for your help. -------- Ernest Jessee N4931M Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=284514#284514 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: radio transmission problems
From: "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: Feb 01, 2010
The charging system on the Rotax is fairly rough and can put out different noise depending on the state of the battery. You could check that the required 40,000 uF capacitor is present in the wiring installation. The other possibilities are the headset, the radio itself or the quality of the antenna and cable connection. The VSWR needs checking on the range of frequencies used, typically 118 - 136. Ralph -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=284549#284549 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: radio transmission problems
Date: Feb 02, 2010
My best guess is you have a ground problem somewhere. Look for a loose ground wire. If you find one make sure to remove it, clean both ends and the area it connects to and then reinstall. Check your plugs... If they are resistor plugs they should have about 5K Ohm resistance in the centre conductor. I had one occurrence where a cracked seal caused coolant to short out the resistors in my plugs. On receive the radio was crystal clear but even a close line of sight I was nothing but hash. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ejessee Sent: February 1, 2010 10:22 PM Subject: Avionics-List: radio transmission problems Hello all, I have a VAL COM 760 radio in my Zenith 701 with 912 UL engine. Since I have owned the plane, I have had intermittent radio transmission problems. Some days, people I am communicating with indicate that the radio is clear. Other days, they cannot even understand what I am saying. I have been described as "garbled", "scratchy", "much background noise", and "completely unintelligible". The radio receives perfectly. Considering that this is an intermittent problem does anyone have an idea as to what might be my problem? Thanks in advance for your help. -------- Ernest Jessee N4931M Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=284514#284514 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Loram" <johnl(at)loram.org>
Subject: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
Date: Feb 03, 2010
Does any one know of a source (other than Omega) for multi-pin bulkhead connectors that are compatible with Type J & K thermocouples? I wiring the firewall foreword... thanks, -john- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
Date: Feb 05, 2010
John: My advice would be to just use a grummet. The wires on thermocouples have to be a consistent types of metal from the couple itself to the instrument. Finding a multi pin bulkhead fitting in the exact correct metals may be difficult if not impossible. If your plane is certified be sure to follow AC43 for specs on cable supporting. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Loram Sent: February 3, 2010 7:33 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector? Does any one know of a source (other than Omega) for multi-pin bulkhead connectors that are compatible with Type J & K thermocouples? I wiring the firewall foreword... thanks, -john- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2010
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)cox.net>
Subject: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
At 07:47 2/5/2010, you wrote: >The wires on thermocouples have >to be a consistent types of metal from the couple itself to the instrument. I don't believe as stated that's entirely true. A voltage is developed across a junction of differing metals, that's why a TC works, but... If a transition is made from conductor metal type A, to conductor metal type B, we'll assume some voltage +E is developed. However, when transitioning back from conductor metal type B to conductor metal type A, voltage E is again developed, but it is now -E. When both transitions are at the same temperature, the voltages cancel one another out and minimal if any error voltage is generated. We do this all the time in a thermal-vacuum chamber used for NASA satellite/spacecraft verification all the time and it's quite acceptable; assuming the transitions are at a constant or nearly so temperature. While the instrument within the chamber is cycled from ~ +85C to ~ -100C, the transition connector remains near ambient ~ +22C. Errors are minimal and well within acceptable limits. Ron Q. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kevin Carey" <kcarey(at)alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
Date: Feb 05, 2010
Have you checked with the manufacturer of the EGT/CHT system you're using? I have an EI UBG-16 and when I checked with EI, they didn't have a problem with using a standard multi-pin connector at the bulkhead. There are already two pretty common looking multi-pin connectors in the harness for the EGT and CHT leads installed at the factory. Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:47 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector? > > John: > > My advice would be to just use a grummet. The wires on thermocouples have > to be a consistent types of metal from the couple itself to the > instrument. > Finding a multi pin bulkhead fitting in the exact correct metals may be > difficult if not impossible. > > If your plane is certified be sure to follow AC43 for specs on cable > supporting. > > Noel > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Loram > Sent: February 3, 2010 7:33 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector? > > > Does any one know of a source (other than Omega) for multi-pin bulkhead > connectors that are compatible with Type J & K thermocouples? I wiring the > firewall foreword... > > thanks, -john- > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Loram" <johnl(at)loram.org>
Subject: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
Date: Feb 05, 2010
You're quite correct Ron. Somehow I had failed to notice that I would be creating two, opposite polarity junctions that would be "isothermal"... Now, I just need to find a cheap source for mil spec circular connectors (MIL-C-5015). Anybody have a favorite source? I need a bulkhead and plug connector with 24 pins for the thermocouples. thanks all for comments, -john- _____ From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Quillin Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:07 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector? At 07:47 2/5/2010, you wrote: The wires on thermocouples have to be a consistent types of metal from the couple itself to the instrument. I don't believe as stated that's entirely true. A voltage is developed across a junction of differing metals, that's why a TC works, but... If a transition is made from conductor metal type A, to conductor metal type B, we'll assume some voltage +E is developed. However, when transitioning back from conductor metal type B to conductor metal type A, voltage E is again developed, but it is now -E. When both transitions are at the same temperature, the voltages cancel one another out and minimal if any error voltage is generated. We do this all the time in a thermal-vacuum chamber used for NASA satellite/spacecraft verification all the time and it's quite acceptable; assuming the transitions are at a constant or nearly so temperature. While the instrument within the chamber is cycled from ~ +85C to ~ -100C, the transition connector remains near ambient ~ +22C. Errors are minimal and well within acceptable limits. Ron Q. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Loram" <johnl(at)loram.org>
Subject: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
Date: Feb 05, 2010
Turns out that such connectors do exist in several different version. You buy the pins separately to match the thermocouple wire. Pins cost about $20 each. However, I've finally realized that it won't be necessary to use a special connector. (see other posts on same subject). I'm determined not to have to disconnect 24 wires for thermocouples every time I want to pull the engine. -john- > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Noel Loveys > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 7:47 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead > connector? > > > > John: > > My advice would be to just use a grummet. The wires on > thermocouples have to be a consistent types of metal from the > couple itself to the instrument. > Finding a multi pin bulkhead fitting in the exact correct > metals may be difficult if not impossible. > > If your plane is certified be sure to follow AC43 for specs > on cable supporting. > > Noel > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of John Loram > Sent: February 3, 2010 7:33 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector? > > > Does any one know of a source (other than Omega) for > multi-pin bulkhead connectors that are compatible with Type J > & K thermocouples? I wiring the firewall foreword... > > thanks, -john- > > > > > > > > Photoshare, and much much more: > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 05, 2010
Amphenol certainly makes TC compatible pins for J & K combos. You might be able to request samples. These pins are usually not stocked at Digikey or Newark, etc, but that does not mean they are not potentially available. Check the Amphenol catalogs for your choice in metal or plastic circular connectors. -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=284991#284991 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
Date: Feb 05, 2010
As far as i know for certification the metals have to be consistant... If the plane is not certified that is not a requirement. Noel From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Quillin Sent: February 5, 2010 12:37 PM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector? At 07:47 2/5/2010, you wrote: The wires on thermocouples have to be a consistent types of metal from the couple itself to the instrument. I don't believe as stated that's entirely true. A voltage is developed across a junction of differing metals, that's why a TC works, but... If a transition is made from conductor metal type A, to conductor metal type B, we'll assume some voltage +E is developed. However, when transitioning back from conductor metal type B to conductor metal type A, voltage E is again developed, but it is now -E. When both transitions are at the same temperature, the voltages cancel one another out and minimal if any error voltage is generated. We do this all the time in a thermal-vacuum chamber used for NASA satellite/spacecraft verification all the time and it's quite acceptable; assuming the transitions are at a constant or nearly so temperature. While the instrument within the chamber is cycled from ~ +85C to ~ -100C, the transition connector remains near ambient ~ +22C. Errors are minimal and well within acceptable limits. Ron Q. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
Date: Feb 05, 2010
I've used the 38999 series Mil connectors (with std gold pins) with great success for all kinds of firewall connections - including K and J type thermos. Flame Enterprises as a distributor for Mil-everything. http://www.flamecorp.com/ The CPC Series 2 connectors are also good, but they are plastic - not recommended for use on the firewall. You can get those from all the usual suspects - Mouser, Digi-Key, Allied, etc. I have not used them, but they may come in a metal form factor...dunno. James Redmon Berkut #013/Race 13 www.berkut13.com ----- Original Message ----- From: John Loram To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:48 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector? You're quite correct Ron. Somehow I had failed to notice that I would be creating two, opposite polarity junctions that would be "isothermal"... Now, I just need to find a cheap source for mil spec circular connectors (MIL-C-5015). Anybody have a favorite source? I need a bulkhead and plug connector with 24 pins for the thermocouples. thanks all for comments, -john- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Quillin Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:07 AM To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector? At 07:47 2/5/2010, you wrote: The wires on thermocouples have to be a consistent types of metal from the couple itself to the instrument. I don't believe as stated that's entirely true. A voltage is developed across a junction of differing metals, that's why a TC works, but... If a transition is made from conductor metal type A, to conductor metal type B, we'll assume some voltage +E is developed. However, when transitioning back from conductor metal type B to conductor metal type A, voltage E is again developed, but it is now -E. When both transitions are at the same temperature, the voltages cancel one another out and minimal if any error voltage is generated. We do this all the time in a thermal-vacuum chamber used for NASA satellite/spacecraft verification all the time and it's quite acceptable; assuming the transitions are at a constant or nearly so temperature. While the instrument within the chamber is cycled from ~ +85C to ~ -100C, the transition connector remains near ambient ~ +22C. Errors are minimal and well within acceptable limits. Ron Q. href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List">http://www.matr onics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 09, 2010
I think someone is confused here. The purpose for keeping the alloys the same in the path to the voltmeter for T/C measurement has nothing to do with certification. It has to do with Accuracy! If there is a point where the metal changes, it creates a new thermocouple (usually a "cold point") These additional thermocouples will change the net voltage at the voltmeter and thus the temperature reading. There is almost always a cold junction at the meter itself to contend with. If you have several cold junctions in the loop at different temps and all in the same direction of metal change, your reading will be very inaccurate. Yes, even if the pins are gold plated! But then, who among us ever bothered to test the accuracy of their CHT or EGT probes? Thus it has always been. Knowing the reasons for certain guidelines lets you make sensible plans -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=285636#285636 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2010
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
At 08:39 2/9/2010, you wrote: >But then, who among us ever bothered to test the accuracy of their >CHT or EGT probes? If the craft has been sheltered in a hangar, most every time the master/avionics is turned ON. How close are all the probes to ambient and one another? Absolute accuracy, as good as whatever reference you have. Relitive accuracy, how do they diverge? No, that's not a test at operating temperature, but it does verify the probe is there and connected... Ron Q. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
Date: Feb 09, 2010
I agree with your comment on the accuracy which is why if there are dissimilar metals in the circuit of the T/C it will never get certified. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rampil Sent: February 9, 2010 1:09 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector? I think someone is confused here. The purpose for keeping the alloys the same in the path to the voltmeter for T/C measurement has nothing to do with certification. It has to do with Accuracy! If there is a point where the metal changes, it creates a new thermocouple (usually a "cold point") These additional thermocouples will change the net voltage at the voltmeter and thus the temperature reading. There is almost always a cold junction at the meter itself to contend with. If you have several cold junctions in the loop at different temps and all in the same direction of metal change, your reading will be very inaccurate. Yes, even if the pins are gold plated! But then, who among us ever bothered to test the accuracy of their CHT or EGT probes? Thus it has always been. Knowing the reasons for certain guidelines lets you make sensible plans -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=285636#285636 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2010
From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
Sorry, but I have to speak up regarding the confusion... While what seems to be the consensus is literally true, in reality it really doesn't make any difference. The way a thermocouple works is by a phenomenon called the Seebeck effect. This has a complicated physics description, but the net result is that any metallic material that is exposed to one temperature at one end and another at the other, will generate a small voltage across its length. Each material has its own characteristic voltage per degree difference between ends. A thermocouple takes advantage of the different voltages by pairing two different materials - one generates one voltage and the other generates another. Because they are connected at one end (where the desired temperature measurement is to take place) one can measure the voltage difference at the other end. A so called "cold junction" compensation is usually provided in the gauge or meter that displays the temperature so that the readout shows the actual temperature at the far end rather than the temperature difference between the two ends. Ideally the same material should be used from the temperature measurement point to the meter that displays the reading. Practically speaking this is not necessary and is a source of a great many old wives tales. Take the example of a connector that has the two thermocouple wires on each end and the connector contacts between them (i.e. thermocouple wire from the point of interest to the connector and then thermocouple wire from the connector to the meter). Yes, the different material of the contacts will generate a small voltage from one end to the other based on the temperature difference between the two ends of the connector. What is this temperature difference likely to be? Probably less that one degree unless it is a very long connector. Further, both sets of pins are the same, so the net voltage generated by the connector will be zero. So the only difference on voltage at the meter will be the very small temperature difference between one end of the connector and the other. Considering most of us are measuring CHT (several hundred If one chooses to use a connector to go through the firewall and then use regular copper wire to connect between the firewall connector and the meter in the cockpit, then that would cause an error that might be measurable. If the firewall is 150 degrees and the cockpit is 70 degrees, then there will be an error of 80 degrees in the display, which is definitely significant for what we are measuring - if we are trying to tell what the exact temperature is. However, even in this extreme case, the typical use of the readout is to compare the temperature of the cylinders to each other or the EGTs to each other. Even though the displayed temperature will not be correct, if all thermocouples go through the same connector, they will all be affected the same and can still be compared properly. So... A connector that is added to a set of thermocouple wires run from the temperature measurement point to the meter has essentially no effect on accuracy of the measurement. You can even add lengths of copper wire if the temperature difference between the two ends of the copper wire are at the same temperature. Your error in this case will be only the difference in temperature between the two ends of the copper wire. There are a few caveats: All the above regarding connectors and copper wire is true if the two wires from the thermocouple and connector and copper are run over the same physical path so they are exposed to the same temperature differences. If you were to use two connectors - one for each of the thermocouple wires - placed far apart you could get errors that mattered (why you would do this I have no idea). The materials in the path of the two thermocouple wires must be identical (except for the thermocouple wires themselves of course) - that way all the other materials will generate the same voltages in each path so the reading will be only what the thermocouple wires generate over their length - whether they are one unbroken run or a run broken by a connector. If you are trying to measure temperatures of a only few degrees above ambient, then, while the above is still true, the errors may be too much for your requirements. If you are measuring CHT and EGT adding a connector is irrelevant to the reading. Dick Tasker rampil wrote: > --> Avionics-List message posted by: "rampil" > > I think someone is confused here. > The purpose for keeping the alloys the same in the path to the voltmeter > for T/C measurement has nothing to do with certification. It has to do > with Accuracy! If there is a point where the metal changes, it creates a > new thermocouple (usually a "cold point") These additional thermocouples > will change the net voltage at the voltmeter and thus the temperature reading. There is almost always a cold junction at the meter itself to > contend with. If you have several cold junctions in the loop at different > temps and all in the same direction of metal change, your reading will > be very inaccurate. Yes, even if the pins are gold plated! > > But then, who among us ever bothered to test the accuracy of their > CHT or EGT probes? > > Thus it has always been. Knowing the reasons for certain guidelines lets > you make sensible plans > > -------- > Ira N224XS > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=285636#285636 > > > -- Please Note: No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however, that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced. -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2010
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
A well thought out answer that says it all. Read it, There was a time when thermocouples in aircraft were hooked up to sensitive D'Arsonval current meters, the analog kind with a magnet, a coiled spring, and a pointer. Those meters measured current rather than voltage and that made the length and resistance of the wires important. Re-calibration would be required if, for instance, a thermocouple was shortened during installation or repair. The solid state digital voltmeters of today have no such problems. When reading FAA rules of engagement remember that most of them were written 50 years ago. Richard's use of the Seebeck effect in his description is accurate but perhaps more complicated than necessary, You won't go far wrong by thinking of a junction of two metals as a tiny temperature sensitive battery with a known voltage vs temperature function that you can look up in tables. The Omega Company is really good at providing those tables. <http://www.omega.com/toc_asp/sectionSC.asp?section=A&book=temperature> -- --> A fair tax is one that you pay but I don't <-- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robert Brunkenhoefer <robertbrunk(at)mac.com>
Subject: Remov me from this list, please
Date: Feb 10, 2010
Sent from my iPhone Robert E. Brunkenhoefer Brunkenhoefer Law Firm, P.C. 520 Lawrence St. Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Phone: 361-888-8808 Facsimile: 361-888-6753 robert(at)brunklaw.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Air Pathways AP120
From: "Noplugs" <qas44n(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 10, 2010
I have come across an "Air Pathways AP120" Intercom. Does anyone use intercom? And can anyone help me with a copy of the installation manual & schematic? Thanks Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=285840#285840 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Loram" <johnl(at)loram.org>
Subject: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
Date: Feb 11, 2010
Hi Ira, I agree with you in all but one detail: when I insert a connector into a leg of a thermocouple wire I've created three junctions. One does not generate a voltage, and the other two junctions generate equal voltages (because they are at the same temperature) and opposite polarity (so they cancel out). For example: Take a piece of thermocouple wire and cut it. Crimp a brass connector pin on one end of the cut and a brass connector socket on the other end of the cut. Now plug the brass pin into the brass socket. The Brass/Brass junction does not generate a voltage because it is a junction of similar metals. However you have created two other junctions; one is Iron/Brass and the other is Brass/Iron. These two junctions create equal voltages (because they are at the same temperature) but the voltages are of opposite polarity, and cancel one another out. The connector has no net effect. regards, -john- > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rampil > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:39 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead > connector? > > > I think someone is confused here. > The purpose for keeping the alloys the same in the path to > the voltmeter for T/C measurement has nothing to do with > certification. It has to do with Accuracy! If there is a > point where the metal changes, it creates a new thermocouple > (usually a "cold point") These additional thermocouples will > change the net voltage at the voltmeter and thus the > temperature reading. There is almost always a cold junction > at the meter itself to contend with. If you have several > cold junctions in the loop at different temps and all in the > same direction of metal change, your reading will be very > inaccurate. Yes, even if the pins are gold plated! > > But then, who among us ever bothered to test the accuracy of > their CHT or EGT probes? > > Thus it has always been. Knowing the reasons for certain > guidelines lets you make sensible plans > > -------- > Ira N224XS > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=285636#285636 > > > > > > > > Photoshare, and much much more: > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2010
Hi All, I agree with all the comments that follow my snip. The real problem is not the absolute precision or accuracy of these systems which may each in usual practice with the cheap design gauges (though most pricey to purchase since they carry an aviation sticker), be 10% or worse. The issue is the basic lack of understanding in many builders (this applies to boats and cars too!) about things electric. Simple principles of operation are not that hard or foreign. Understanding the most basic principles help designers from big errors, and would as a side effect, eliminate 90% of the traffic on Bob's mediated group. -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=286122#286122 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
Date: Feb 12, 2010
Is it reasonable to believe if the connection is going through a bulkhead that the temperatures will be different on each side of the bulkhead? Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Loram Sent: February 11, 2010 7:31 PM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector? Hi Ira, I agree with you in all but one detail: when I insert a connector into a leg of a thermocouple wire I've created three junctions. One does not generate a voltage, and the other two junctions generate equal voltages (because they are at the same temperature) and opposite polarity (so they cancel out). For example: Take a piece of thermocouple wire and cut it. Crimp a brass connector pin on one end of the cut and a brass connector socket on the other end of the cut. Now plug the brass pin into the brass socket. The Brass/Brass junction does not generate a voltage because it is a junction of similar metals. However you have created two other junctions; one is Iron/Brass and the other is Brass/Iron. These two junctions create equal voltages (because they are at the same temperature) but the voltages are of opposite polarity, and cancel one another out. The connector has no net effect. regards, -john- > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rampil > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:39 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead > connector? > > > I think someone is confused here. > The purpose for keeping the alloys the same in the path to > the voltmeter for T/C measurement has nothing to do with > certification. It has to do with Accuracy! If there is a > point where the metal changes, it creates a new thermocouple > (usually a "cold point") These additional thermocouples will > change the net voltage at the voltmeter and thus the > temperature reading. There is almost always a cold junction > at the meter itself to contend with. If you have several > cold junctions in the loop at different temps and all in the > same direction of metal change, your reading will be very > inaccurate. Yes, even if the pins are gold plated! > > But then, who among us ever bothered to test the accuracy of > their CHT or EGT probes? > > Thus it has always been. Knowing the reasons for certain > guidelines lets you make sensible plans > > -------- > Ira N224XS > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=285636#285636 > > > > > > > > Photoshare, and much much more: > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2010
From: Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
Probably different, but by how much? The thermocouple wire is connected on each side to a connector pin, the connector pins connected to each other. All metallic and relatively good thermal conductors. How accurately do you want to measure the CHT/EGT anyway? As Ira noted, the meter is probably the "weakest link" in this accuracy equation anyway. Dick Tasker Noel Loveys wrote: > --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" > > Is it reasonable to believe if the connection is going through a bulkhead > that the temperatures will be different on each side of the bulkhead? > > Noel > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Loram > Sent: February 11, 2010 7:31 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector? > > --> Avionics-List message posted by: "John Loram" > > Hi Ira, I agree with you in all but one detail: when I insert a connector > into a leg of a thermocouple wire I've created three junctions. One does not > generate a voltage, and the other two junctions generate equal voltages > (because they are at the same temperature) and opposite polarity (so they > cancel out). > > For example: Take a piece of thermocouple wire and cut it. Crimp a brass > connector pin on one end of the cut and a brass connector socket on the > other end of the cut. Now plug the brass pin into the brass socket. The > Brass/Brass junction does not generate a voltage because it is a junction of > similar metals. However you have created two other junctions; one is > Iron/Brass and the other is Brass/Iron. These two junctions create equal > voltages (because they are at the same temperature) but the voltages are of > opposite polarity, and cancel one another out. The connector has no net > effect. > > regards, -john- > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rampil >> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:39 AM >> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead >> connector? >> >> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "rampil" >> >> I think someone is confused here. >> The purpose for keeping the alloys the same in the path to >> the voltmeter for T/C measurement has nothing to do with >> certification. It has to do with Accuracy! If there is a >> point where the metal changes, it creates a new thermocouple >> (usually a "cold point") These additional thermocouples will >> change the net voltage at the voltmeter and thus the >> temperature reading. There is almost always a cold junction >> at the meter itself to contend with. If you have several >> cold junctions in the loop at different temps and all in the >> same direction of metal change, your reading will be very >> inaccurate. Yes, even if the pins are gold plated! >> >> But then, who among us ever bothered to test the accuracy of >> their CHT or EGT probes? >> >> Thus it has always been. Knowing the reasons for certain >> guidelines lets you make sensible plans >> >> -------- >> Ira N224XS >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=285636#285636 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Photoshare, and much much more: >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Loram" <johnl(at)loram.org>
Subject: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
Date: Feb 12, 2010
It is reasonable to believe that there is a temperature difference of a few tenths of a degree. Not enough to be perceptible by any of the instrumentation we're using. -john- > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Noel Loveys > Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 6:54 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Re: Thermocouple compatible > bulkhead connector? > > > > Is it reasonable to believe if the connection is going > through a bulkhead that the temperatures will be different on > each side of the bulkhead? > > Noel > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of John Loram > Sent: February 11, 2010 7:31 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Re: Thermocouple compatible > bulkhead connector? > > > Hi Ira, I agree with you in all but one detail: when I insert > a connector into a leg of a thermocouple wire I've created > three junctions. One does not generate a voltage, and the > other two junctions generate equal voltages (because they are > at the same temperature) and opposite polarity (so they cancel out). > > For example: Take a piece of thermocouple wire and cut it. > Crimp a brass connector pin on one end of the cut and a brass > connector socket on the other end of the cut. Now plug the > brass pin into the brass socket. The Brass/Brass junction > does not generate a voltage because it is a junction of > similar metals. However you have created two other junctions; > one is Iron/Brass and the other is Brass/Iron. These two > junctions create equal voltages (because they are at the same > temperature) but the voltages are of opposite polarity, and > cancel one another out. The connector has no net effect. > > regards, -john- > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of rampil > > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:39 AM > > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead > > connector? > > > > > > I think someone is confused here. > > The purpose for keeping the alloys the same in the path to the > > voltmeter for T/C measurement has nothing to do with > certification. It > > has to do with Accuracy! If there is a point where the > metal changes, > > it creates a new thermocouple (usually a "cold point") These > > additional thermocouples will change the net voltage at the > voltmeter > > and thus the temperature reading. There is almost always a cold > > junction at the meter itself to contend with. If you have several > > cold junctions in the loop at different temps and all in the same > > direction of metal change, your reading will be very > inaccurate. Yes, > > even if the pins are gold plated! > > > > But then, who among us ever bothered to test the accuracy > of their CHT > > or EGT probes? > > > > Thus it has always been. Knowing the reasons for certain > guidelines > > lets you make sensible plans > > > > -------- > > Ira N224XS > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=285636#285636 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Photoshare, and much much more: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Photoshare, and much much more: > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Bendix Portables
From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 19, 2010
Hi All, I happened to walk into Hangar 62 aka Banyon Avionics aka Tropic Aero at Ft Lauderdale Exec today. Not a bad pilot shop. The avionics product manager told me that yesterday Bendix-King Honeywell cut off support for the AV8or line including spouting some gibberish about remotely disabling the GPS access. He said BK would be refunding all prior purchases. The shop is a big Garmin dealer of course! This of course is nearly unbelievable, so I just went to the BK site. It says nothing of course, except that BK just signed an exclusive deal with Duncan Avionics to support the AV8or 3D Horizon units. Can anyone shed some light? -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=287260#287260 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Bendix Portables
From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 19, 2010
Hi All, I happened to walk into Hangar 62 aka Banyon Avionics aka Tropic Aero at Ft Lauderdale Exec today. Not a bad pilot shop. The avionics product manager told me that yesterday Bendix-King Honeywell cut off support for the AV8or line including spouting some gibberish about remotely disabling the GPS access. He said BK would be refunding all prior purchases. The shop is a big Garmin dealer of course! This of course is nearly unbelievable, so I just went to the BK site. It says nothing of course, except that BK just signed an exclusive deal with Duncan Avionics to support the AV8or 3D Horizon units. Can anyone shed some light? -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=287261#287261 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 20, 2010
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
Postcard in this morning's snail mail: TC Measurement and Control Inc. PO Box 685 Hillside, IL 60192-9922 877 449 0700 Free 72 page "wallchart format" 16 x 12 inch complete reference manual for Thermocouple and Resistance Thermometry. Request a copy at <http://www.tc-inc.com>. And it's NOT Omega. But I'm fairly sure there is danger of getting on yet another mailing list. -- --> If it's not on fire it's a software problem. <-- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bendix Portables
From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2010
It looks like, with further checking, that BK is not abandoning the AV8or series at all. It appears instead that the sales crew on the floor at Tropic Aero is seriously misinformed and they should get their floor demo unit of the AV8or Ace fixed instead of leaving it broken. -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=287965#287965 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bendix Portables
From: "n395v" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>
Date: Feb 25, 2010
Found this posted by Darryl Medd on the CPS website Duncan Aviation and Bendix/King by Honeywell Sign Exclusive Agreement for Sales & Service Of AV80R Horizon 3D Portable Cockpit Information System February 18, 2010 LINCOLN, NEB. Duncan Aviation and Bendix/King by Honeywell have signed an agreement that gives Duncan Aviation exclusive rights to sell and service Honeywells Portable Cockpit Information system, the AV8OR Horizon 3D. A portable Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) with 3D Synthetic Vision and IFR approach plates, the AV8OR Horizon 3D provides the ultimate in situational awareness. During flight, it generates and displays dynamic, realistic 3D imagery, showing a cockpit-like view regardless of external conditions. With optional NEXRAD satellite weather and 3D traffic detection, the system has been developed by pilots, for pilots, as a cost-effective solution to improve flight safety. We are excited about the opportunity to introduce this leading edge cockpit technology to operators of general aviation aircraft, says Chris Gress, Sales Manager of Duncan Aviations Components Solutions team. This reasonably priced AV8OR Horizon with synthetic vision gives the smaller aircraft operator very similar information and the improved safety features found in the cockpit displays of aircraft coming off the OEM lines today. On the ground, the AV8OR system can be used as a Tablet PC, running Microsoft Windows-based aviation software that allows the user to plan a route, download weather forecasts, save flight plans, and more. For more information about the AV8OR Horizon 3D, call Matt Nelson, Manager of Duncan Aviations Avionics Satellite Network at 402.479.4202. You can also visit the following website links: https://www.bendixking.com/AV8OR3D/AV8ORHORIZON3D/default.html https://www.bendixking.com/AV8OR3D/dealer.html Bendix/King by Honeywell is a global provider of avionics, communications and flight controls for the general aviation market. Duncan Aviation is an aircraft service provider supporting the aviation needs of government and business operators and other service providers. Services include major and minor airframe inspections and maintenance, engine services, major retrofits for cabin and cockpit systems in addition to full paint and interior services and aircraft sales and acquisitions. Duncan Aviation also has aircraft components solutions experts available 24/7/365 at 800.228.1836 or 402.475.4125 (international) who can handle any aircraft system problem with immediate exchanges, rotables, loaners or avionics/instrument/accessory/propeller repairs and overhauls. Complete service facilities are located in Lincoln, Neb., and Battle Creek, Mich. Additional locations include more than 20 satellite avionics facilities strategically located throughout the United States. For more information about any of Duncan Aviations services, contact us at 402.475.2611 or 800.228.4277. Or visit us on the web at http://www.DuncanAviation.aero. -------- Milt Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=288119#288119 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2010
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Bendix Portables
5k$ for that combo and only 300nits, don't know but that is a pretty impressive price for what you get I would say. Werner On 25.02.2010 14:30, n395v wrote: > --> Avionics-List message posted by: "n395v" > > Found this posted by Darryl Medd on the CPS website > > Duncan Aviation and Bendix/King by Honeywell Sign Exclusive Agreement for Sales& Service Of AV80R Horizon 3D Portable Cockpit Information System > > > February 18, 2010 > > LINCOLN, NEB. Duncan Aviation and Bendix/King by Honeywell have signed an agreement that gives Duncan Aviation exclusive rights to sell and service Honeywells Portable Cockpit Information system, the AV8OR Horizon 3D. > > A portable Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) with 3D Synthetic Vision and IFR approach plates, the AV8OR Horizon 3D provides the ultimate in situational awareness. During flight, it generates and displays dynamic, realistic 3D imagery, showing a cockpit-like view regardless of external conditions. With optional NEXRAD satellite weather and 3D traffic detection, the system has been developed by pilots, for pilots, as a cost-effective solution to improve flight safety. > > We are excited about the opportunity to introduce this leading edge cockpit technology to operators of general aviation aircraft, says Chris Gress, Sales Manager of Duncan Aviations Components Solutions team. This reasonably priced AV8OR Horizon with synthetic vision gives the smaller aircraft operator very similar information and the improved safety features found in the cockpit displays of aircraft coming off the OEM lines today. > > On the ground, the AV8OR system can be used as a Tablet PC, running Microsoft Windows-based aviation software that allows the user to plan a route, download weather forecasts, save flight plans, and more. > > For more information about the AV8OR Horizon 3D, call Matt Nelson, Manager of Duncan Aviations Avionics Satellite Network at 402.479.4202. You can also visit the following website links: > https://www.bendixking.com/AV8OR3D/AV8ORHORIZON3D/default.html > https://www.bendixking.com/AV8OR3D/dealer.html > > Bendix/King by Honeywell is a global provider of avionics, communications and flight controls for the general aviation market. > Duncan Aviation is an aircraft service provider supporting the aviation needs of government and business operators and other service providers. Services include major and minor airframe inspections and maintenance, engine services, major retrofits for cabin and cockpit systems in addition to full paint and interior services and aircraft sales and acquisitions. Duncan Aviation also has aircraft components solutions experts available 24/7/365 at 800.228.1836 or 402.475.4125 (international) who can handle any aircraft system problem with immediate exchanges, rotables, loaners or avionics/instrument/accessory/propeller repairs and overhauls. > > Complete service facilities are located in Lincoln, Neb., and Battle Creek, Mich. Additional locations include more than 20 satellite avionics facilities strategically located throughout the United States. For more information about any of Duncan Aviations services, contact us at 402.475.2611 or 800.228.4277. Or visit us on the web at http://www.DuncanAviation.aero. > > -------- > Milt > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=288119#288119 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2010
From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Help with an BMA EFIS/One question
I have a BMA EFIS/One G3 gold box. My plane is to the point where I have started checking out the avionics interconnections. I have the EFIS connected to my SL30 and to my Trutrak autopilot. The Trutrak was not communicating so I opened the EFIS/One up to take a look. I discovered that the additional serial ports, one of which is connected to the Trutrak and which I assumed were a standard part of the EFIS/One, are not there. Contacting "alumni" from BMA indicates that the serial ports were an option - which I didn't request since I didn't know they were optional. In any case, the ports were on a standard PC104 quad serial port board which I could easily add to my system if I only knew what board it was and what settings on the board. So far no one with any involvement with BMA has been able to help me identify the board. So my questions are: Is there any one who has an EFIS/One G3 with the serial port option that could open their box and either take a picture of each side of the top (approx 3.5"x3.5") board or let me know of any manufacturing numbers on the board? Or, is there anyone with this EFIS that has the serial ports, is not using the extra serial ports (ports 2-5) and would be interested in selling me the serial port board? Or, if the price is right, the entire G3. And for those of you who are not aware, there is someone on the BMA forums that is currently working to get regular chart updates going again (with Greg's blessing). The plan is for them to be even cheaper than when BMA was supplying them since the charts will be generated directly from the feds database, rather than through Jeppeson as a middleman. Not that the difference in cost is really a big deal if charts are available again! Thanks for any help you can offer. Dick Tasker -- Please Note: No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however, that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced. -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2010
From: Dave Lammers <davelammers(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: In line filter
Hi, does anyone on the list know where to purchase an in-line (BNC/BNC) low-pass filter to pass 243 mhz, and reject the GPS carrier of 1.5 Ghz and above? It turns out that my comm radio causes the ring diodes in the output of my ELT to resonate and retransmit at frequencies that saturate and shut down the GPS reciever front end. I don't want to move antennas (already 4 feet apart) and think that a simple low pass filter in the ELT antenna line will do. I can easily make one but would rather just purchase one already packaged. Thanks Dave Lammers ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2010
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: Re: In line filter
> >Hi, does anyone on the list know where to purchase an in-line (BNC/BNC) low-pass filter to pass 243 mhz, and reject the GPS carrier of 1.5 Ghz and above? >It turns out that my comm radio causes the ring diodes in the output of my ELT to resonate and retransmit at frequencies that saturate and shut down the GPS reciever front end. >I don't want to move antennas (already 4 feet apart) and think that a simple low pass filter in the ELT antenna line will do. I can easily make one but would rather just purchase one already packaged. >Thanks Huh?? Some things you say just are not clear. Your 121.5/243 MHz ELT had better not be transmitting when you poke a mic key on a comm transmitter. Ring diodes? Are you talking about the diodes in a double-balanced mixer? I suppose something like that could be used in an ELT to create the harmonic of 121.5 that it needs but I haven't seen one that does that and it would more likely be done before a non-linear final amplifier. The GPS carrier is generated only by the satellites. The receivers are only receivers and radiate nothing at 1.5 GHz. Some might have a local oscillator for heterodyning but the level would be quite low. 121.5/243 is dying and is already not being monitored by satellites. Are you planning to replace it with a 409 MHz version. As for a filter about 20 feet of RG-58 will attenuate pretty well at 1.5 GHz and still pass 121.5 MHz. -- --> Halloween == Oct 31 == Dec 25 == Christmas <-- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2010
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: In line filter
ELT transmit sections are not isolated in any way and do resonate harmonically when energized by strong RF signal in same spectrum. Especially the early ones. It takes very little harmonics to overwhelm the front end of a GPS. While a com receiver needs something better than -40db signal for you to perceive it, GPS receivers operate with -150 db signal, so a tenth of a watt output of a 5th or higher order harmonic from an ELT will easily overwhelm the GPS receiver. I had ELT harmonics(excited by a dozen TV broadcast antennas within 5 miles) overwhelming both com receivers to break squelch with loud static when all 3 antennas were top-side on the airframe. Moved com 2 antenna to the belly and problem went away. I knew it was the ELT because the same flight with ELT antenna disconnected had no problems. Reconnecting ELT antenna and they came right back. Doug McNutt wrote: > > > Huh?? Some things you say just are not clear. > > Your 121.5/243 MHz ELT had better not be transmitting when you poke a mic key on a comm transmitter. > > Ring diodes? Are you talking about the diodes in a double-balanced mixer? I suppose something like that could be used in an ELT to create the harmonic of 121.5 that it needs but I haven't seen one that does that and it would more likely be done before a non-linear final amplifier. > > The GPS carrier is generated only by the satellites. The receivers are only receivers and radiate nothing at 1.5 GHz. Some might have a local oscillator for heterodyning but the level would be quite low. > > 121.5/243 is dying and is already not being monitored by satellites. Are you planning to replace it with a 409 MHz version. > > As for a filter about 20 feet of RG-58 will attenuate pretty well at 1.5 GHz and still pass 121.5 MHz. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Shaun Wilkinson" <shaunwilkinson(at)cloud9aviation.net>
Subject: GA7 RPM Gauge Urgently Required
Date: Mar 08, 2010
Dear All, Ive been given the avionics-list info in the hope that you/somoene might be able to help me. I have a Grumman Cougar 1979 serial number GA7-0105 in the UK. It went for its annual and someone has stolen the rpm guage along with a few other items. I have replaced everything but the rpm guage. I cant get the annual finished till i have one !!! I will pay for your services along with the part and mailing Can anyone help in any way at all. Kind regards Shaun Wilkinson Shaun Wilkinson Owner Cloud 9 Aviation (UK) Cloud 9 Aviation (CZ) Leeds Flying School Yorkshire Flight Training Cloud 9 Air Taxi Cloud 9 Travel Offices in: UK and Czech Private and Commercial Pilot Training UK and European Air Taxi and Charter Full Turn-key service providers bespoke to clients needs Head Office: Leeds Flying School, Coney Park Estate, Leeds & Bradford Airport, Leeds S19 7XS, England, UK Tel: +0044 7535301757 +0044 1642714505 Visit: http://www.cloud9aviation.net Visit: http://www.leedsflyingschool.com CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Cloud 9 Aviation Limited or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify admin(at)cloud9aviation.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2010
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: In line filter
I believe you can get them from avionics shops. 1st generation ELTs that came out in the '70s are worst for this, and will even interfere with your com radios, often breaking squelch with static if near strong FM/TV transmitters. 2nd generation ELTs from the 90s have better suppression, and I believe the 406 units are supposedly even better. With your GPS, be sure you aren't getting interference directly from your com or nav radios. Most, including King and Narco have specific frequencies that cause GPS interference when tuned to those frequencies..does not require transmit, just being tuned to receive the frequencies will shut down GPS reception. Avionics shops that install IFR certified units are supposed to specifically test all of those frequencies and install notch filters if any of them cause any interference. Dave Lammers wrote: > > Hi, does anyone on the list know where to purchase an in-line (BNC/BNC) > low-pass filter to pass 243 mhz, and reject the GPS carrier of 1.5 Ghz > and above? > It turns out that my comm radio causes the ring diodes in the output of > my ELT to resonate and retransmit at frequencies that saturate and shut > down the GPS reciever front end. > I don't want to move antennas (already 4 feet apart) and think that a > simple low pass filter in the ELT antenna line will do. I can easily > make one but would rather just purchase one already packaged. > Thanks > Dave Lammers > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: In line filter
From: "Bill & Sue" <Billandsue(at)billbell.co.uk>
Date: Mar 09, 2010
You could try a simple (and cheap) 1/4 wave stub: Just connect a short open ended length of coax cable to a BNC tee-piece in line with the ELT antenna. The coax stub just needs to be cut to the right length - about 3.5 cm should do it but it slightly depends on what coax you use. cut it to say 5 cm and snip tiny bits off till the problem disappears! Hope that helps! Bill Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=289759#289759 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John DeCuir <jadecuir(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: In line filter
Date: Mar 10, 2010
I had problems like yours, and I tried notch filters in the comm ant lead to no avail. I replaced comm and GPS coax with RG400 and eliminated the problem. John DeCuir RV4 > > From: Dave Lammers <davelammers(at)mchsi.com> > Subject: Avionics-List: In line filter > > > Hi, does anyone on the list know where to purchase an in-line (BNC/BNC) > low-pass filter to pass 243 mhz, and reject the GPS carrier of 1.5 Ghz > and above? > It turns out that my comm radio causes the ring diodes in the output of > my ELT to resonate and retransmit at frequencies that saturate and shut > down the GPS reciever front end. > I don't want to move antennas (already 4 feet apart) and think that a > simple low pass filter in the ELT antenna line will do. I can easily > make one but would rather just purchase one already packaged. > Thanks > Dave Lammers > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bendix Portables
From: Vincent Palermo <vpalermo(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Mar 23, 2010
Big load of garbage, contact Gulf Coast Avionics in Lakeland, they are the largest Garmin dealer around Florida, they also sell a bunch of AV8ors. Vincent Palermo vpalermo(at)tampabay.rr.com On Feb 19, 2010, at 5:05 PM, rampil wrote: > > Hi All, > > I happened to walk into Hangar 62 aka Banyon Avionics aka Tropic Aero > at Ft Lauderdale Exec today. Not a bad pilot shop. > > The avionics product manager told me that yesterday Bendix-King > Honeywell cut off support for the AV8or line including spouting some > gibberish about remotely disabling the GPS access. He said BK would > be refunding all prior purchases. The shop is a big Garmin dealer of > course! > > This of course is nearly unbelievable, so I just went to the BK site. > It says nothing of course, except that BK just signed an exclusive > deal with Duncan Avionics to support the AV8or 3D Horizon units. > > Can anyone shed some light? > > -------- > Ira N224XS > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=287261#287261 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bendix Portables
From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 24, 2010
I'd use other words, but in the end, I probably just find the BK product manager at SnF or Oshkosh and let them know about the product undermining at Tropic Aero. -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291535#291535 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2010
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse
Anyone else out there with S-Tec 30 and GPSS? Any of you having issues with the internal fuse in the GPSS module? Mine blew once during construction and was a real pain to ship back and have S-Tec (whatever their name is now) solder in a new one. I attributed that to using a power supply (even with a battery) to run my panel during build testing. It has since blown again and I am trying to figure out a way to not have to go through this PITA another time. More importantly, what is causing this little critter to pop in the first place? The rest of the panel works fine with no other avionics issues. I have gone back to my engine monitor to look for any recorded voltage spikes....the highest I have is 14.0 which should be within the normal operating range of the system (?). I have spike catching diodes on my relays and have a process for powering up and powering down stuff like this to prevent it from happening for other reasons. Your thoughts please, Ralph Capen RV6A N822AR @ N06 55hrs ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Update on non TSO'd altitude encoders
Date: Mar 27, 2010
3/27/2010 Mr. Baker, I do not have any new info on this subject. The FAA has not issued any statement regarding TSO equipment or installation either specifically for encoders or for any other equipment on the aircraft. The question has been asked many times to many FAA offices. Their response to date has been the same - no response at all beyond "we'll get back to you". I assure you that if we ever do get a response in writing that we can publish, we will do so at once. It's a question that needs answering, and we will continue to pursue an answer. Unfortunately, to date we have not had any success in this endeavor. Stay tuned! When we know something we'll get the word out pronto. Joe Norris EAA 113615 Lifetime Homebuilders Community Manager EAA-The Spirit of Aviation Phone: 888.322.4636 Extension 6806 Fax: 920.426.4873 =========================================================== 2/18/2010 Hello Mr. Norris, From time to time the subject of using a non TSO'd altitude encoder in amateur built experimental aircraft comes up on the Matronics aeroelectric list. Copied below is one of those postings. No favorable response on this subject has ever been received from FAA Headquarters. Many more postings on this subject can be found by searching for "non TSO'd altitude encoders" at this web site: http://www.matronics.com/searching/ws_script.cgi The last thing that I read from EAA to resolve this situation was a suggestion that the builder just purchase and install a TSO'd altitude encoder (in addition to the non TSO'd altitude encoder incorporated into the EFIS) in order to meet the FAA requirements. Do you have any additional information to add on this subject at this time? Thank you, Owen C. Baker EAA 0073580 ============================================================= #32094 From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net> Subject: encoder approval Date: Aug 10, 2006 Responding to a posting from Skip Simpson: 8/10/2006 Hello Skip, The issue on the use of non TSO'd altitude encoders is currently under review (again) at FAA headquarters. I have been involved in this issue for some time, but have refrained from posting any information on this unresolved issue because of the potentially huge adverse impact upon our amateur built community. I wanted to avoid much controversial and distracting communications pending the, hopefully favorable, eventual ruling by FAA on this subject. Here in a fairly brief summary form is the situation: 1) FAR 91.217 Reads as follows: "Data correspondence between automatically reported pressure altitude data and the pilot's altitude reference. No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment associated with a radar beacon transponder- (a) When deactivation of that equipment is directed by ATC; (b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the altimeter normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that altimeter referenced to 29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the aircraft; or (c) Unless the altimeters and digitizers in that equipment meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively." 2) It would appear that any aircraft, standard type certificated or experimentally certificated, whether flying IFR or VFR, and replying with a mode C transponder altitude read out to ATC, either must comply with 91.217 (b) or be using a TSO-C88 approved altitude encoder. 3) Some companies providing altitude encoders to the amateur built experimental aircraft community, some of which are incorporated into EFIS, have been providing non TSO'd altitude encoders. It is not always made clear by the manufacturing companies whether the altitude encoders within their EFIS are TSO'd or not. 4) Some of these non TSO'd altitude encoders have better performance than the TSO calls for both in terms of altitude granularity output and in output format (serial instead of gray code). 5) There are many of these non TSO'd encoders in aircraft that are currently flying and many in aircraft under construction. 6) A general presumption in the community was made (at least by those that thought about it) that if an altimeter - altitude encoder - transponder installation passed the FAR Part 43 Appendix E and F tests which are required by FAR 91.411 and 91.413 every two years, that FAR 91.217 (b) was being complied with. 7) A ruling from FAA headquarters in response to a letter from me said "not so" to such compliance interpretation in the following fashion: "Your letter posed the following questions: 1. If an amateur built experimental aircraft has an installed TSO'd ATC transponder as required by Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) section 91.215, but a non-TSO'd altitude encoder and the installation has passed the test and inspection requirements of 14 CFR sections 91.411 and 91.413 within the preceding 24 calendar months, does the installation meet the requirements of 14 CFR section 91.217(b), and therefore make that installation acceptable for IFR operations? 2. If the answer to question one is No, can you please tell me why? The answer to question one is "No." The testing required to show the transmitted altitude data corresponds within 125 feet (on a 95 percent probability basis) is more rigorous than the requirements referenced in 14 CFR sections 91.411, 91.413, and 14 CFR, part 43 appendices E and F. The tests required by 14 CFR part 43 appendix E(c) measure the automatic pressure altitude at a sufficient number of test points to ensure the altitude reporting equipment performs its intended function. Title 14 CFR section 91.217 paragraphs (b) and (c), state that pressure altitude reporting equipment must be tested and calibrated to transmit altitude data correspondence within stated specifications; or, the altimeters and digitizers must meet the standards in TSO-C10B and TSO-C88, respectively. Should the owner/operator elect to exhibit compliance with tests and calibration provided in 14 CFR section 91.217(b), a test method would need to be developed that ensures the transmitted data corresponds within 125 feet of the indicated altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the aircraft on a 95 percent probability basis. This testing also needs to ensure the performance characteristics of the equipment are not impacted when subjected to environmental conditions (voltage fluctuations temperature, vibration, etc.) which may be encountered in airborne operations. Completed tests and calibration results should be maintained in the aircraft records. Thank you for your interest in aviation safety." 8) You can see the tremendous impact that enforcement of such a position would have on the companies making and selling non TSO'd encoders or EFIS containing non TSO'd encoders, the airplanes under construction planning to incorporate those EFIS, and all of those airplanes currently flying with non TSO'd altitude encoders. 9) I did not accept the FAA's position in 7) above as the final word and am working through a cooperating local FAA FSDO employee to both educate FAA headquarters and to get them to adopt a more reasonable position on the use of non TSO'd altitude encoders. 10) I would encouage our community to not react in an adverse manner to the FAA's current position and to continue to work the issue on a cooperative basis. I will post additional information as it becomes available and attempt to answer any questions that you may have. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. =================================================== From: CardinalNSB(at)aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval Is the Rocky Mountain encoder approved for certificated aircraft, the factory says that "it conforms to c88a", is that enough, or is there more needed. Any opinions on the unit. Thanks, Skip Simpson>> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: aviation
From: "shannonex" <shannonexhowel(at)yahoo.in>
Date: Mar 28, 2010
Pilots and aviation lovers, what sort of events would interest you at a fly in? I'm interested in hosting a fly in at a local airport to raise awareness for General Aviation, maybe some money for my local CAP unit, interest prospective pilots in the area (to help out my instructor) and have a good time in general for everyone. I've heard of things like spot landing competitions and the like, are there any other fun things like this? -------- i need help Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292044#292044 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ralph & Maria Finch" <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com>
Subject: aviation
Date: Mar 28, 2010
The best fly in I went to for some years was only that: a fly in. No events, no competitions, no air shows, and no public (they weren't excluded though). It was way out of the way on a farmer's dichondra field. The date wasn't even announced, just word of mouth. Mostly experimentals or similar, few spam cans. The only other thing going on at the field was a barbeque by the local EAA chapter. So it was just pilots having some fun on a grass field. Walk around look at the airplanes. Yack it up over a hamburger and homemade pies and goodies. Do some touch-and-goes at the end, and head home. Best fun of all. Ralph Finch Davis, California RV-9A QB-SA -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of shannonex Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 2:31 AM Subject: Avionics-List: aviation Pilots and aviation lovers, what sort of events would interest you at a fly in? I'm interested in hosting a fly in at a local airport to raise awareness for General Aviation, maybe some money for my local CAP unit, interest prospective pilots in the area (to help out my instructor) and have a good time in general for everyone. I've heard of things like spot landing competitions and the like, are there any other fun things like this? -------- i need help Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292044#292044 __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4979 (20100328) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Halverson" <william(at)netpros.net>
Date: Mar 28, 2010
Subject: Re: aviation
What state? Where is 'yahoo.in'? +-----Original Message----- +From: shannonex [mailto:shannonexhowel(at)yahoo.in] +Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 02:31 AM +To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com +Subject: Avionics-List: aviation + + +Pilots and aviation lovers, what sort of events would interest you at a fly in? +I'm interested in hosting a fly in at a local airport to raise awareness for General Aviation, maybe some money for my local CAP unit, interest prospective pilots in the area (to help out my instructor) and have a good time in general for everyone. I've heard of things like spot landing competitions and the like, are there any other fun things like this? + +-------- +i need help ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pete Christensen" <pchristensen10(at)austin.rr.com>
Subject: Re: aviation
Date: Mar 28, 2010
Food ----- Original Message ----- From: "shannonex" <shannonexhowel(at)yahoo.in> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 4:31 AM Subject: Avionics-List: aviation > > Pilots and aviation lovers, what sort of events would interest you at a > fly in? > I'm interested in hosting a fly in at a local airport to raise awareness > for General Aviation, maybe some money for my local CAP unit, interest > prospective pilots in the area (to help out my instructor) and have a good > time in general for everyone. I've heard of things like spot landing > competitions and the like, are there any other fun things like this? > > -------- > i need help > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292044#292044 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Aircraft Parts For Sale
From: "Nanchang CJ6" <lcdzkj(at)live.cn>
Date: Mar 30, 2010
Hello all, We can supply the aircraft parts as below.If there have anything you need, pls contact with us.E-mail to: lcdzkj(at)live.cn 1.Chinese aircraft and relevant parts: CJ6/PT6,Y-5,Y-7,Y-8,Y-12,Z- 9,MA60, K-8,J-7... 2.Russian aircraft and relevant parts: IL-76,Mi-17,Mig-29,Yak-18,An-2,Tu-154... 3.Avionic device: Aviation electronics, Navigation facility, Aviation parts, Cabin instruments, Engine and its accessories... -------- Sarah:86-13468610692 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292461#292461 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Sell Nanchang CJ6 aircraft parts
From: "Nanchang CJ6" <lcdzkj(at)live.cn>
Date: Mar 30, 2010
P/N Des. 1 SBL-40 inverter 2 SBL-53 inverter 3 QDF-1 Compressed air solenoid valve 4 1J-S34-1 5 GZ-14 Tachometer transmitter 6 H2-6121-106 fuel filter cup 8 H2-6904-00 fixing pin 9 H2-6901-320 rubber bushes 10 GWR-1 Resistor temperature sensor 11 H2-3700-00-1 Flap hinge 12 H2-3204-20 Trim hinge 14 H2-9840-100A Air charging hose 15 Airfield power cable 18 H2-5522-00 Emergency air valve 19 H2-4230-40 Front gear uplock 20 H2-4130-50 Main gear uplock 21 H2-9830-400 Air charging tool with manometer 22 GR-8 Thermocouple 1 Ignition coil DH-2 2 Indicator light(White) ZSD-1 3 Indicator light(Red) ZSD-1 4 Indicator light(Green) ZSD-1 5 Indicator light(Yellow) ZSD-1 6 Indicator light(Purple) ZSD-1 7 Tail Light(White) WD-1 8 wing tip nav. Light(Red) HD-3 9 wing tip nav. Light(Green) HD-3 10 Push button AN-1A 11 Push button AN-3A 12 Push button AN-2 13 Gear switch H2-4260-01/03 14 uplock A/C H2-4230-50 16 PRV assembly H2-5502-00 17 valve H2-5522-00 18 gear guard plate( right side) H2-4311-00-1 19 magnetic compass LC-2 20 front wheel hub LW-11 21 brake cable screw H2-5113-05 22 pulley H2-5230-00 23 pulley H2-5407-30 24 pulley H2-5403-20/5 25 emergency air bottle H2-5506-10 26 plug H2-5506-13 27 Nipple H2-5505-31 28 washer H2-5505-32/1 29 reducing valve QS-1 31 deposit filter QL-17 32 air charging connector JT-7A P/N 1 Prop Cap and nut 2 crush washers for oil sump 4 Air flap valve 5 Prop governor control bracket 6 QS-1 air valve 7 QS-2 air valve 8 spark plugs 9 brake pads 10 brake air bladders 11 Small Light bulbs for exterior 12 Small Light bulbs for interior 13 Air filters for air pump (box) 14 Gill shutter rods 15 Gill shutters 16 Gill shutter complete assembly ring 17 Fuel cover Zeus 18 Copilot lunch box Zeus 19 Wing tip fairings 20 Oil cooler wing faring 21 Air pressure gauge cockpit P/N Eng Des. 1 12-5522-00 Double action valve 2 H2-5522-00 Emergency valve 3 H2-5503-00 Check Valve 4 H2-5523-00 Hose 5 H2-5524-00 Hose 6 H2-5526-00 Hose 7 H2-5532-00/3 Hose 8 H2-5532-00/5 Hose 9 H2-1030-100 Anti-Dust Cover 10 H2-0109-110 Seat pad 11 H2-7510-90 Seat pad 12 HB2-30B Pin 13 BM5GB62 Nut 14 GB1018-20 Washer 15 H2-9850-900 Oil Table 16 H2-9850-100 Screw Jack 17 H2-9820-200 Screw Jack 18 H2-9810-200 Screw Jack 19 H2-9820-300 Control Lock 20 H2-9820-400 Control Lock 21 H2-9260-10 Cover P/N Qty HB1-101-10x20x2.8 2 HB1-404G-M10 5 HB1-104-10x20x2.8 3 H2-3000-02 1 BM8GB54-45 1 HB1-125-5x29.5x2 2 HB1-404G-M4 4 HB1-125-5x41.5x2 2 HB1-125-5x41.5x2 2 HB1-502LB-4x3.5 2 H2-4250-00 1 H2-4150-00 2 H2-4220-00 1 -------- Sarah:86-13468610692 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292462#292462 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peck, Gaillard R CTR USAF ACC USAFWS/CBD" <gaillard.peck.ctr(at)nellis.af.mil>
Date: Mar 31, 2010
Subject: Sell Nanchang CJ6 aircraft parts
Sarah, How are you fixed for L-39 parts inventory? Gail Peck -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nanchang CJ6 Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:13 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Sell Nanchang CJ6 aircraft parts P/N Des. 1 SBL-40 inverter 2 SBL-53 inverter 3 QDF-1 Compressed air solenoid valve 4 1J-S34-1 5 GZ-14 Tachometer transmitter 6 H2-6121-106 fuel filter cup 8 H2-6904-00 fixing pin 9 H2-6901-320 rubber bushes 10 GWR-1 Resistor temperature sensor 11 H2-3700-00-1 Flap hinge 12 H2-3204-20 Trim hinge 14 H2-9840-100A Air charging hose 15 Airfield power cable 18 H2-5522-00 Emergency air valve 19 H2-4230-40 Front gear uplock 20 H2-4130-50 Main gear uplock 21 H2-9830-400 Air charging tool with manometer 22 GR-8 Thermocouple 1 Ignition coil DH-2 2 Indicator light(White) ZSD-1 3 Indicator light(Red) ZSD-1 4 Indicator light(Green) ZSD-1 5 Indicator light(Yellow) ZSD-1 6 Indicator light(Purple) ZSD-1 7 Tail Light(White) WD-1 8 wing tip nav. Light(Red) HD-3 9 wing tip nav. Light(Green) HD-3 10 Push button AN-1A 11 Push button AN-3A 12 Push button AN-2 13 Gear switch H2-4260-01/03 14 uplock A/C H2-4230-50 16 PRV assembly H2-5502-00 17 valve H2-5522-00 18 gear guard plate( right side) H2-4311-00-1 19 magnetic compass LC-2 20 front wheel hub LW-11 21 brake cable screw H2-5113-05 22 pulley H2-5230-00 23 pulley H2-5407-30 24 pulley H2-5403-20/5 25 emergency air bottle H2-5506-10 26 plug H2-5506-13 27 Nipple H2-5505-31 28 washer H2-5505-32/1 29 reducing valve QS-1 31 deposit filter QL-17 32 air charging connector JT-7A P/N 1 Prop Cap and nut 2 crush washers for oil sump 4 Air flap valve 5 Prop governor control bracket 6 QS-1 air valve 7 QS-2 air valve 8 spark plugs 9 brake pads 10 brake air bladders 11 Small Light bulbs for exterior 12 Small Light bulbs for interior 13 Air filters for air pump (box) 14 Gill shutter rods 15 Gill shutters 16 Gill shutter complete assembly ring 17 Fuel cover Zeus 18 Copilot lunch box Zeus 19 Wing tip fairings 20 Oil cooler wing faring 21 Air pressure gauge cockpit P/N Eng Des. 1 12-5522-00 Double action valve 2 H2-5522-00 Emergency valve 3 H2-5503-00 Check Valve 4 H2-5523-00 Hose 5 H2-5524-00 Hose 6 H2-5526-00 Hose 7 H2-5532-00/3 Hose 8 H2-5532-00/5 Hose 9 H2-1030-100 Anti-Dust Cover 10 H2-0109-110 Seat pad 11 H2-7510-90 Seat pad 12 HB2-30B Pin 13 BM5GB62 Nut 14 GB1018-20 Washer 15 H2-9850-900 Oil Table 16 H2-9850-100 Screw Jack 17 H2-9820-200 Screw Jack 18 H2-9810-200 Screw Jack 19 H2-9820-300 Control Lock 20 H2-9820-400 Control Lock 21 H2-9260-10 Cover P/N Qty HB1-101-10x20x2.8 2 HB1-404G-M10 5 HB1-104-10x20x2.8 3 H2-3000-02 1 BM8GB54-45 1 HB1-125-5x29.5x2 2 HB1-404G-M4 4 HB1-125-5x41.5x2 2 HB1-125-5x41.5x2 2 HB1-502LB-4x3.5 2 H2-4250-00 1 H2-4150-00 2 H2-4220-00 1 -------- Sarah:86-13468610692 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292462#292462 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Bose Aviation Headset X - sale
From: "AirMike" <Mikeabel(at)pacbell.net>
Date: Mar 31, 2010
I notice that Sportys is selling this headset for $845 which is an unprecedented price for this awesome headset. Usually when the mfg drops the price like this ($150) it is to reduce inventory in anticipation of a new model being released. Does anybody have any information on the possibility that Bose is going to release a new model headset at Sun-n-Fun or at Oshkosh????? -------- OSH '10 or Bust Q/B - phase 1 / painting Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292587#292587 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Bose Aviation Headset X - sale
Date: Mar 31, 2010
More likely, the Lightspeed Zulu was kicking their butt and the had no choice but to drop the price. -James ----- Original Message ----- From: "AirMike" <Mikeabel(at)pacbell.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 7:49 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Bose Aviation Headset X - sale > > I notice that Sportys is selling this headset for $845 which is an > unprecedented price for this awesome headset. Usually when the mfg drops > the price like this ($150) it is to reduce inventory in anticipation of a > new model being released. Does anybody have any information on the > possibility that Bose is going to release a new model headset at Sun-n-Fun > or at Oshkosh????? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 31, 2010
From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Bose Aviation Headset X - sale
The price is good through May 31st. so it won't be at Sun 'n Fun. My guess is they're trying to meet the competition from Light Speed. John Grosse AirMike wrote: > --> Avionics-List message posted by: "AirMike" > > I notice that Sportys is selling this headset for $845 which is an unprecedented price for this awesome headset. Usually when the mfg drops the price like this ($150) it is to reduce inventory in anticipation of a new model being released. Does anybody have any information on the possibility that Bose is going to release a new model headset at Sun-n-Fun or at Oshkosh????? > > -------- > OSH '10 or Bust > Q/B - phase 1 / painting > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292587#292587 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Transponder Swap...Tray Question
From: "FlyboyTR" <flyboytr(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Apr 25, 2010
I have a King KT76 in my plane. It's been in the shop two times for repairs and is now starting to act up again. I am interested in a Garmin 327. Will that fit my King tray? If not...I'm back to the repair shop or buying a used yellow tagged KT76. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Travis :D -------- Travis Rayner Mobile, AL Skystar Vixen, N-789DF Continental IO-240, Prince P-Tip Prop ADI-II Autopilot AnyWhereMap Navigation with weather www.enotam.net (My Flying Info Website) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295679#295679 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Ferrer" <mike@ferrer-aviation.com>
Subject: Re: Transponder Swap...Tray Question
Date: Apr 25, 2010
Nope, won't fit, Even a KT-76A won't fit in a KT-76 tray... Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "FlyboyTR" <flyboytr(at)bellsouth.net> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 5:42 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Transponder Swap...Tray Question > > I have a King KT76 in my plane. It's been in the shop two times for > repairs and is now starting to act up again. I am interested in a Garmin > 327. Will that fit my King tray? > > If not...I'm back to the repair shop or buying a used yellow tagged KT76. > > Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! > > Travis :D > > -------- > Travis Rayner > Mobile, AL > Skystar Vixen, N-789DF > Continental IO-240, Prince P-Tip Prop > ADI-II Autopilot > AnyWhereMap Navigation with weather > www.enotam.net (My Flying Info Website) > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295679#295679 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Transponder Swap...Tray Question
Date: Apr 25, 2010
Most trays are model specific... the tray only fits the model it's designed for. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of FlyboyTR Sent: April 25, 2010 8:12 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Transponder Swap...Tray Question I have a King KT76 in my plane. It's been in the shop two times for repairs and is now starting to act up again. I am interested in a Garmin 327. Will that fit my King tray? If not...I'm back to the repair shop or buying a used yellow tagged KT76. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Travis :D -------- Travis Rayner Mobile, AL Skystar Vixen, N-789DF Continental IO-240, Prince P-Tip Prop ADI-II Autopilot AnyWhereMap Navigation with weather www.enotam.net (My Flying Info Website) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295679#295679 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Transponder Swap...Tray Question
From: "FlyboyTR" <flyboytr(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Apr 25, 2010
Drat [Evil or Very Mad] No way to win. Thanks for the input. I guess I'm stuck with the model I have or ripping out the panel to install a new tray. I'll be making an appointment with the radio shop...again! Thanks! :D -------- Travis Rayner Mobile, AL Skystar Vixen, N-789DF Continental IO-240, Prince P-Tip Prop ADI-II Autopilot AnyWhereMap Navigation with weather www.enotam.net (My Flying Info Website) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295706#295706 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Henderson" <europabill(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Pinouts for ARC R-442A and R-402A
Date: Apr 26, 2010
I've got some old ARC avionics and need the pinouts for the following: ARC R-442A Nav Receiver ARC R-402A Marker Beacon Receiver If anyone has any information on these (pinouts, schematics, service manuals, etc.) and could email it to me it would be appreciated. I've checked on the web and it's almost like these units didn't exist even though they were made in the 70's. Thanks, Europabill ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: Transponder Swap...Tray Question
Date: Apr 26, 2010
While the trays themselves are model specific the sizes the trays need in the stack are pretty close to standard. Replacing the tray should take a couple of hours or less at a good shop, most of that time is crimping wires, but be ready for some sticker shock on the price of the tray itself. The amount of time that the installation will take will depend on what other equipment you have in your stack and if there are any block diagrams of the installation in the log. Speaking of block diagrams a good shop will draw first and then install and will insert a copy of the diagram in the log for troubleshooting and making upgrades easier. What you won't get is the installation manuals. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of FlyboyTR Sent: April 25, 2010 11:25 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Transponder Swap...Tray Question Drat [Evil or Very Mad] No way to win. Thanks for the input. I guess I'm stuck with the model I have or ripping out the panel to install a new tray. I'll be making an appointment with the radio shop...again! Thanks! :D -------- Travis Rayner Mobile, AL Skystar Vixen, N-789DF Continental IO-240, Prince P-Tip Prop ADI-II Autopilot AnyWhereMap Navigation with weather www.enotam.net (My Flying Info Website) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295706#295706 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Transponder Swap...Tray Question
From: "FlyboyTR" <flyboytr(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Apr 26, 2010
Thanks Noel. The information is helpful. When the builder built my Vixen he did a great job and behind the panel is very clean and tidy. However, the way it was done really makes upgrades very difficult. The panel would be next to impossible to remove without disconnecting every single wire. ...plus there is probably less than 1/2" of slack in each wire from end to end. There is no block diagram available. :( ...wish there was! The last several planes I built I install either 2 or 3 large cannon plugs so the panel could easily be removed and all the panel wiring was only connected to the panel (not to support airframe structures, etc). I sure wish there was an easy way to remove the transponder tray and rewire the plug...but at this point, I don't see that happening. I guess I will stick with my old KT76A and either have it repaired, again, or look for another one. Thanks again for your input! Travis :D -------- Travis Rayner Mobile, AL Skystar Vixen, N-789DF Continental IO-240, Prince P-Tip Prop ADI-II Autopilot AnyWhereMap Navigation with weather www.enotam.net (My Flying Info Website) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295737#295737 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 26, 2010
From: wgill10(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Transponder Swap...Tray Question
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Looking for info on GPS-50/60/65
Date: Apr 27, 2010
Has anyone with a UPS AT GX-50/60/65 panel mount GPS been able to change the ground speed readout from knots to MPH? I'm trying to finish a ground speed calibration series and it would be easier if the flight instruments and GPS had the same speed readout. I looked through the installation and operating manuals and didn't find any information on changing KNOTS to MPH. Anyone ever done this? If so how did you do it? Dean Psiropoulos RV-6A N197DM Flying and finishing touches ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Question on PS6000/SL-10 Audio Panel
Date: Apr 27, 2010
My PS engineering 6000 (mfg for UPS AT as the SL-10 MS) intercom has stereo audio inputs and outputs. The other day I was flying and finally plugged in my Sandisk mp3 player to enjoy some music while working my airspeed calibration runs. I had the Sandisk volume set at maximum and had to have the volume on the PS 6000 at 3/4 maximum to hear the music at a low level. Also the music sounded a little distorted (not too surprising given the volume setting on the 6000). I was hoping that there would be a pot on the circuit board that I could adjust to increase the input sensitivity but couldn't find anything in the manual about it. The system is set up for stereo but right now I'm running the mono Sigtronics headset that I purchased during my "Cessna" days, I have the volume on the headset at maximum when doing the above test. The 6000 manual says it's ok to plug in mono headsets so I doubt that the system has been damaged in any way. Anyone have some words of wisdom on running mp3 and other audio input devices with aviation intercoms and audio panels? I assumed the audio inputs needed high level (not speaker level inputs) but maybe the Sandisk just doesn't have enough oomph. In the short term I plan to convert the mono headset to Stereo, long term I plan to purchase an ANR Stereo headset of excellent quality (and unfortunately price). Please advise. Thanks. Dean Psiropoulos RV-6A N197DM Flying and finishing touches ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Looking for info on GPS-50/60/65
Date: Apr 27, 2010
Try calling the legacy help desk at Garmin - they were willing to help me when I was troubleshooting my GX60....before the display crapped out..... ----- Original Message ----- From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:53 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Looking for info on GPS-50/60/65 > > > > Has anyone with a UPS AT GX-50/60/65 panel mount GPS been able to change > the > ground speed readout from knots to MPH? I'm trying to finish a ground > speed > calibration series and it would be easier if the flight instruments and > GPS > had the same speed readout. I looked through the installation and > operating > manuals and didn't find any information on changing KNOTS to MPH. Anyone > ever done this? If so how did you do it? > > Dean Psiropoulos > RV-6A N197DM > Flying and finishing touches > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Narco COM11/11A/120 Tray Connectors
From: "okiairboss" <boss(at)adaairexpo.com>
Date: Apr 27, 2010
I am looking for qty 2 Molex white single sided 15 pin Narco tray connectors. Can be out of salvage and missing pins. Needed for ground based air boss rig. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295966#295966 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Hamilton" <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Looking for info on GPS-50/60/65
Date: Apr 28, 2010
Not wanting to sound facetious, but how about changing the ASI to knots, a MPH ASI is a bit of a legacy device these days. All the distances you will be looking at on the GPS (or charts) are NM, not SM. Cheers, Bill Hamilton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:28 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Looking for info on GPS-50/60/65 Try calling the legacy help desk at Garmin - they were willing to help me when I was troubleshooting my GX60....before the display crapped out..... ----- Original Message ----- From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:53 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Looking for info on GPS-50/60/65 > > > > Has anyone with a UPS AT GX-50/60/65 panel mount GPS been able to change > the > ground speed readout from knots to MPH? I'm trying to finish a ground > speed > calibration series and it would be easier if the flight instruments and > GPS > had the same speed readout. I looked through the installation and > operating > manuals and didn't find any information on changing KNOTS to MPH. Anyone > ever done this? If so how did you do it? > > Dean Psiropoulos > RV-6A N197DM > Flying and finishing touches > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Henderson" <europabill(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Narco COM11/11A/120 Tray Connectors
Date: Apr 28, 2010
Don't know if this place has what you're looking for, but I found a connector that fits a KT-76A cheap..... http://www.mikesarcade.com/cgi-bin/store.pl?sku=CECM24 It's a gamming store, but who cares if you can find what you need. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "okiairboss" <boss(at)adaairexpo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:58 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Narco COM11/11A/120 Tray Connectors > > I am looking for qty 2 Molex white single sided 15 pin Narco tray > connectors. Can be out of salvage and missing pins. Needed for ground > based air boss rig. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295966#295966 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 28, 2010
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Question on PS6000/SL-10 Audio Panel
I have the PMA7000MS (UPSAT SL15). When I was going through the integration of my stereo system, I remember reading the requirement for low level input: "NOTE: Use the low level output of any entertainment device to connect to the audio panel. Maximum signal level is 2 VAC p-p. DO NOT use a speaker-level output, this will cause internal damage in the audio panel." There is a minimum power requirement for operation though: "The audio signal at the entertainment input must be a minimum of 500 mV P-P per channel for optimum music performance." The first one of these criteria was a limiting factor in my selection of audio inputs...I have a Sony AM/FM/CD/MP3 player attached to my audio panel (as it output the corect voltage levels)...the Sony has inputs to take iPods or whatever else so I am adding that type of equipment through the Sony. Ralph RV6A N822AR @ N06 - 60 hours....just getting to installing the main wheel pants.... -----Original Message----- >From: DEAN PSIROPOULOS <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> >Sent: Apr 27, 2010 10:33 PM >To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Avionics-List: Question on PS6000/SL-10 Audio Panel > > >My PS engineering 6000 (mfg for UPS AT as the SL-10 MS) intercom has stereo >audio inputs and outputs. The other day I was flying and finally plugged in >my Sandisk mp3 player to enjoy some music while working my airspeed >calibration runs. I had the Sandisk volume set at maximum and had to have >the volume on the PS 6000 at 3/4 maximum to hear the music at a low level. >Also the music sounded a little distorted (not too surprising given the >volume setting on the 6000). I was hoping that there would be a pot on the >circuit board that I could adjust to increase the input sensitivity but >couldn't find anything in the manual about it. The system is set up for >stereo but right now I'm running the mono Sigtronics headset that I >purchased during my "Cessna" days, I have the volume on the headset at >maximum when doing the above test. The 6000 manual says it's ok to plug in >mono headsets so I doubt that the system has been damaged in any way. >Anyone have some words of wisdom on running mp3 and other audio input >devices with aviation intercoms and audio panels? I assumed the audio >inputs needed high level (not speaker level inputs) but maybe the Sandisk >just doesn't have enough oomph. In the short term I plan to convert the mono >headset to Stereo, long term I plan to purchase an ANR Stereo headset of >excellent quality (and unfortunately price). Please advise. Thanks. > >Dean Psiropoulos >RV-6A N197DM >Flying and finishing touches > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 28, 2010
From: David Bridgham <dab(at)froghouse.org>
Subject: Re: Looking for info on GPS-50/60/65
I haven't run down to the airport to try this out, but my manual says: Press SYS Large knob to Navigation Info, press Enter Large knob to Program Nav Pages, press Enter If I'm reading this right, it should show "Nav Mode Display - Programmable and -- Autonav Pages *". Use the Small Knob to reach a programmable Nav page. Press SEL to start field selection. Turn the Large Knob to the desired field. Turn the Small Knob to select the units you want. Press Enter to save that change or Sel to ignore the change. Yup, never would have guessed all that. If it doesn't work, I'll try it out on my GX-60 and get better instructions. Good luck. -Dave On 04/27/2010 09:53 PM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote: > > > Has anyone with a UPS AT GX-50/60/65 panel mount GPS been able to change the > ground speed readout from knots to MPH? I'm trying to finish a ground speed > calibration series and it would be easier if the flight instruments and GPS > had the same speed readout. I looked through the installation and operating > manuals and didn't find any information on changing KNOTS to MPH. Anyone > ever done this? If so how did you do it? > > Dean Psiropoulos > RV-6A N197DM > Flying and finishing touches > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Audible Alarms using GMA 340
From: "Carl E. Kohn" <ckohn(at)cek.com>
Date: May 01, 2010
I am hoping to tap into some experience using the GMA 340. I use a GMA 340 in my Velocity XL-RG and would like to implement some audible alarms. I could create a series of alarm tones and connect these to the Music2 connection on the GMA 340, but I have a feeling that a device like this must be set up to accept a logic signal so as to allow it to create an audible alarm. Has anyone installed audible alarms using the GMA 340, and if so, how did you do it? Regards, Carl -- Carl E. Khn CEK Associates Inc. (647)299-1508 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Interesting Products
Date: May 08, 2010
5/8/2010 Some products that may be of interest to list members: http://www.qcavionix.com/index.php?cat=10000 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Electronic Circuit Breakers on your EFIS
From: "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com>
Date: May 11, 2010
Vertical Power, along with its EFIS partners, recently announced the VP-X Electronic Circuit Breaker System. The VP-X uses proven electronic circuit breakers to simplify wiring and provide advanced electrical system capabilities. Monitor the status of individual devices and the entire electrical system right from your EFIS. Avionics, lights, trim, and flaps can all be controlled using standard switches or the EFIS. The VP-X works with Advanced Flight Systems, Grand Rapids Technologies HX and HX Sport, and MGL Voyager/Odyssey Gen 2 EFIS products. Click to learn more. http://www.verticalpower.com/VPX.html -------- Marc Ausman http://www.verticalpower.com "Move up to a modern electrical system" RV-7 IO-390 Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=297357#297357 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 11, 2010
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Garmin 400W/500W displays
Has anyone else had their display go fuzzy as the temps go up? Mine did the other day - but returned to normal after landing and cooling down. It has a built in cooling fan - do I need to connect another blower to the cooling tube also? Thanks, Ralph ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 12, 2010
From: Robin Hou <rmhou(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: ARC (Cessna) IN-525B
My GNC 420W outputs simple +5v to -5v for-CDI's L-R and Up-Down.- I rea d its installation manual and, unlike 430W, it does not need a resolver.- I want to install it with a simple L-R and Up-Down indicator.- Am I corr ect that ARC IN-525B accepts +5v to -5v for L-R and Up-Down inputs? Thanks in advance, Robin Hou=0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Cingari <mcingari(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Audio Mic and Phone Lo connections
Date: May 17, 2010
I am wiring a SL-40 and a G420W into a PMA5000EX. The SL-40 has a mic ground on pin 7 of the connector. The G420W has a com mic audio low on pin 18 of connector P4002. On the PMA5000EX wiring diagram connector J1 there is no pin used for the com mic audio low/ground. Should I connect the SL-40 and G420W audio grounds and mic grounds to a common point at the audio panel? Thanks, Mike Cingari ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Cingari <mcingari(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Mic and Phone Audio Low
Date: May 22, 2010
I am wiring a SL-40 and a G420W into a PMA5000EX. The SL-40 has a mic ground on pin 7 of the connector. The G420W has a com mic audio low on pin 18 of connector P4002. On the PMA5000EX wiring diagram connector J1 there is no pin used for the com mic audio low/ground. Should I connect the SL-40 and G420W audio grounds and mic grounds to a common point at the audio panel? Thanks, Mike Cingari ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sell Nanchang CJ6 aircraft parts
From: "Nanchang CJ6" <lcdzkj(at)live.cn>
Date: Jun 01, 2010
Gail Peck,do you have L-39 aircraft?And do you need some L-39 parts? We are specialized in Chinese aircraft parts in China. If you are interested in it,please send part number and quantity you needed!We will make offer to you.Thanks in advance! Regards/Sarah -------- Sarah's E-mail:lcdzkj(at)live.cn Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299664#299664 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peck, Gaillard R CTR USAF ACC USAFWS/CBD" <gaillard.peck.ctr(at)nellis.af.mil>
Date: Jun 16, 2010
Subject: Re: Sell Nanchang CJ6 aircraft parts
Sarah, Thanks for the email. I do not own an L-39 or other warbird/foreign aircraft. At one time I was looking for a MiG-21 nose wheel for a museum display but other colleagues sourced the item. Regards, Gail Peck -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nanchang CJ6 Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 6:42 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Sell Nanchang CJ6 aircraft parts Gail Peck,do you have L-39 aircraft?And do you need some L-39 parts? We are specialized in Chinese aircraft parts in China. If you are interested in it,please send part number and quantity you needed!We will make offer to you.Thanks in advance! Regards/Sarah -------- Sarah's E-mail:lcdzkj(at)live.cn Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299664#299664 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Mic and Phone Audio Low
From: "j_dunavin" <j_dunavin(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jul 03, 2010
you can... it won't hurt anything. You might get some noise though.[/u] Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303598#303598 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Garmin 400W/500W displays
From: "j_dunavin" <j_dunavin(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jul 03, 2010
I have also had that happen, especially when the cockpit is all closed up.... Sure wouldn't hurt to have a fan, on a switch, that you could turn on and off. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303599#303599 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Audible Alarms using GMA 340
From: "j_dunavin" <j_dunavin(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jul 03, 2010
At work, one of our costumers has three alarms hooked up. I believe that there is one direct audio input, and we hooked all three up to it, by placing a resistor in series with each input, so as to isolate the inputs from each other. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303600#303600 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: KLX 135A GPS BOARD
From: "Krawietz" <krawietz(at)gvtc.com>
Date: Jul 05, 2010
I have a KLX 135A that has an intermittent GPS Board. The Factory says it is the older generation and is not repairable. Anyone parting out one that is willing to sell me this board? Any thoughts on a replacement. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303803#303803 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: KLX 135A GPS BOARD
Date: Jul 06, 2010
If you have the board out to where you can examine it.....some suggestions. Maybe the problem is a cold-like solder joint that opens under heat/cold or vibration. Use one of those desk top magnifier stand gadgets and a good light and look at all the connections as close as possible. Flex the board a bit; not too much. You may visually be able to see a hairline break in a component connection, signal etch track, or connector attachment point. Also, look at any pin/connector that look different from adjacent pins, etc. You could have a cold - hot problem where a pin looses signal path from a mis-aligned or distorted pin. This has worked for me several times in the past. It takes patience. Or, hopefully, someone on the List will send you a 135A to make the swap out easy. Sorry, ....I do not have a 135. David ____________________________________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Krawietz" <krawietz(at)gvtc.com> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 8:50 AM Subject: Avionics-List: KLX 135A GPS BOARD > > I have a KLX 135A that has an intermittent GPS Board. The Factory says it > is the older generation and is not repairable. Anyone parting out one > that is willing to sell me this board? Any thoughts on a replacement. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303803#303803 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net>
Subject: KMD 150 case
Date: Jul 11, 2010
Have a spare Bendix King KMD 150 GPS case. $25.00 plus shipping. Bob, Wichita ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Penelope Laurence <plaurence(at)pixcom.com>
Date: Jul 22, 2010
Subject: TELEVISION PRODUCTION COMPANY LOOKING FOR FERRY PILOTS
FOR DISCOVERY CHANNEL SERIES. Hi We are URGENTLY looking for adventurous, risk-taking Ferry pilots for a new Discovery Channel series. If this sounds like you or someone you know emai l your name & contact information to plaurence(at)pixcom.com. Many thanks Penelope Laurence researcher Pixcom ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tad Sargent" <tadsargent(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: FS: Trutrak autopilot
Date: Jul 31, 2010
Digitrak http://www.trutrakap.com/products/Digitrak.html Fits Standard 2.25" Round Hole Built-in Ground Track DG Track Select Mode GPS Nav Mode Control Wheel Steering 12 Volts only New DT2 - $1,600 This unit has been used for 123 hours. I bought it from a friend and I intended to install it in the RV8 I am building, my partner does not want an A/P in the plane. Asking price $1300.00 for a barely used unit call 704-591-2035 Tad Sargent TeamRV ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2010
Subject: Re: FS: Trutrak autopilot
From: Dan Bergeron <dan.pat.b(at)gmail.com>
Tad: I already have a TRUTRAK a/p in my RV-7A an am not in the market for anothe r but, you may want to reconsider your decision to not install it in your RV-8. I don't know what kind of flying you intend to do with your RV but i f it's cross country, either IFR or VFR, you definitely want to have an a/p. My first serious x/c flight was from western Mass to southern NJ - i did i t without the a/p functioning and, when I got home, I wasted no time getting that On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Tad Sargent wrot e: > Digitrak > http://www.trutrakap.com/products/Digitrak.html > > Fits Standard 2.25=94 Round Hole > Built-in Ground Track DG > Track Select Mode > GPS Nav Mode > Control Wheel Steering > 12 Volts only > New DT2 - $1,600 > > This unit has been used for 123 hours. I bought it from a friend and I > intended to install it in the RV8 I am building, my partner does not want an > A/P in the plane. > > Asking price $1300.00 for a barely used unit > call 704-591-2035 > > Tad Sargent > TeamRV > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2010
From: George Nielsen <genie(at)swissmail.org>
Subject: "Read You Broken"
My RV-6 contains a Garmin GNC 420 and a King KY 97A. Both used to work properly. Today I could listen to radio communication on both of them. But when I tried to transmit with the Garmin GNC 420 nobody acknowledged, and when I tried to do so with the King KY 97A the reply from the tower was "... read you broken". A friend of mine who was airborne stated that he also heard me broken. Therefore the cause could not have been the presence of a hangar between my aircraft and the tower. I use my headsets regularly in other aircraft and therefore do not think that the headset was the cause. Would you know what the cause of this could be, and what I can do to remedy it? Thanks. George Nielsen genie(at)swissmail.org RV-6 PH-XGN Lelystad, The Netherlands ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: "Read You Broken"
Date: Aug 14, 2010
From: "Dennis W. Wilt" <dwwilt(at)aol.com>
Problems transmitting on both radios could be caused from several differen t things. However, it is likely something that is common, like the audio panel, or the microphone jack, or a grounding problem. I wouldn't comple tely rule out the headset either. I would most likely think it is from a broken or corroded ground in the system. I would take it to an avionics shop, but you may know the wiring on your aircraft fairly well and can ch eck the continuity and/or resistance for problems fairly easily. Have a wonderful day, Dennis -----Original Message----- From: George Nielsen <genie(at)swissmail.org> Sent: Sat, Aug 14, 2010 5:28 pm Subject: Avionics-List: "Read You Broken" My RV-6 contains a Garmin GNC 420 and a King KY 97A. Both used to work pro perly. Today I could listen to radio communication on both of them. But wh en I tried to transmit with the Garmin GNC 420 nobody acknowledged, and wh en I tried to do so with the King KY 97A the reply from the tower was "... read you broken". A friend of mine who was airborne stated that he also heard me broken. Therefore the cause could not have been the presence of a hangar between my aircraft and the tower. I use my headsets regularly in other aircraft and therefore do not think that the headset was the cause. Would you know what the cause of this cou ld be, and what I can do to remedy it? Thanks. George Nielsen genie(at)swissmail.org RV-6 PH-XGN Lelystad, The Netherlands ======================== ============ ======================== ============ ======================== ============ ======================== ============ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: "Read You Broken"
Date: Aug 14, 2010
From: "Dennis W. Wilt" <dwwilt(at)aol.com>
Forgot to give you a trouble shooting tip. Try the failsafe mode on your audio panel. If the problem still exists, then it is not likely to be th e audio panel, if you can transmit fine, you have found the problem. On my audio panel, fail safe is turning it off and then you can use Comm 1. Have a wonderful day, Dennis -----Original Message----- From: George Nielsen <genie(at)swissmail.org> Sent: Sat, Aug 14, 2010 5:28 pm Subject: Avionics-List: "Read You Broken" My RV-6 contains a Garmin GNC 420 and a King KY 97A. Both used to work pro perly. Today I could listen to radio communication on both of them. But wh en I tried to transmit with the Garmin GNC 420 nobody acknowledged, and wh en I tried to do so with the King KY 97A the reply from the tower was "... read you broken". A friend of mine who was airborne stated that he also heard me broken. Therefore the cause could not have been the presence of a hangar between my aircraft and the tower. I use my headsets regularly in other aircraft and therefore do not think that the headset was the cause. Would you know what the cause of this cou ld be, and what I can do to remedy it? Thanks. George Nielsen genie(at)swissmail.org RV-6 PH-XGN Lelystad, The Netherlands ======================== ============ ======================== ============ ======================== ============ ======================== ============ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2010
From: Robin Hou <rmhou(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: IN-443
I am looking for the pinout for ARC IN-443. -Please help. -Thanks in ad vance.Robin Hou=0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 03, 2010
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)cox.net>
Subject: Narco Com 810+
Looking to see if anyone has a -service- manual for the Narco 810/811 TSO in their library... TIA Ron Q. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Isenb=FCrger_Georg?= <gi(at)av8r.de>
Subject: Re: Narco Com 810+
Date: Sep 03, 2010
Ron, do you need the entire manual or just the pin out (see attached)? regards George Am 03.09.2010 um 20:06 schrieb Ron Quillin: Looking to see if anyone has a -service- manual for the Narco 810/811 TSO in their library... TIA Ron Q. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 03, 2010
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Narco Com 810+
Looking to troubleshoot a display issue, so, minimally, a schematic. tnx Ron At 12:39 9/3/2010, you wrote: >Ron, > >do you need the entire manual or just the pin out (see attached)? > >regards > >George ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Spammed Account
Date: Sep 10, 2010
From: luhrs280(at)aol.com
Please be advised that our AOL account was compromised this morning. Plea se delete any e-mails that you received. Our apologies for any inconvenience. The McCrackins ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Halo Headset, Quiet Technologies: Missing in Action!
From: "FlyboyTR" <flyboytr(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Sep 22, 2010
I have been the happy owner of a Halo headset by Quiet Technologies for over a year. 6 weeks ago the mic died. I contacted Phil McCandless with Quiet Technologies and he requested I send it to him for repair. I did. Over a week later I contacted Phil via email to check on the repair. He had not gotten to it but said he would let me know. Since then I have not been able to get anyone to answer the phone(s) or reply to email. I have been without my headset for over 6 weeks...and this is not looking good! I have two concerns...one is my headset and the other is the status of the business and/or Phil McCandless...which come full circle to my concern about my headset! If anyone has any info regarding the present status of the company or Mr. McCandless, I would sincerely appreciate an update. Thanks! Travis :) -------- Travis Rayner Mobile, AL Skystar Vixen, N-789DF Continental IO-240, Prince P-Tip Prop ADI-II Autopilot AnyWhereMap Navigation with weather www.enotam.net (My Flying Info Website) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=313384#313384 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Vans RPM Transducer IE VTACHGEN 12
Date: Sep 23, 2010
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
Question, I just bought the VTACHGEN transducer from Van's. It comes with nothing but a plastic bag. Does anyone know what the pulses/rev value are for this item when used on a 4 cylinder engine? I need to setup my Dynon 180 to accept. Thanks, Glenn ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 25, 2010
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AFS 3400 EM %HP function
How many AFS3400EM (only) users are out there? How are you calculating your %HP? The Engine Monitor function for %HP is only good at Sea Level and the current software won't take advantage of your GPS-input altitude to perform the calculation. It has been promised and promised - but for the last software release, they fessed-up and said they don't know when it'll get fixed. They tell me to 'use the charts' meanwhile. It was actually one of the features that helped me decide to buy their unit after I gave up on my "JPI-enhanced" VM1000. Don't get me wrong, I really like the unit that I have and it does everything else that I ask of it. I just want to find out how everyone else out there is doing this - or if they even knew it is an issue with the EM units. Thanks ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Back On Line
Date: Oct 07, 2010
Test Edward L. Anderson Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC 305 Reefton Road Weddington, NC 28104 http://www.andersonee.com http://www.eicommander.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <slipstream(at)wavecable.com>
Subject: GNS 430 Volume
Date: Oct 28, 2010
After installing a used GNS-430 in my RV-7 project, I'm noticing that the volume knob doesn't seem to be working -- The output is only at one level, and can only be altered by the headset's own volume control. I doubt it'll be loud enough for flight, even with the headset turned up all the way. I've tried it through the intercom (Sigtronics), and also without. The audio Hi output is connected to the intercom (or directly to headset jack, during my trouble-shooting), and the audio Lo is grounded at the firewall. Any thoughts? Brooks Wolfe RV-7 details details details... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 28, 2010
From: George Nielsen <genie(at)swissmail.org>
Subject: Buying and Selling Avionics
What is the most effective way of selling and buying used avionics? I am interested in buying a used Garmin GNS 430. I am interested in selling: * Garmin GNC 420 * VAL INS 422 TSO VOR/ILS * King KT76A transponder * EZ Pilot autopilot My main preoccupation is selling. Ideally I would like to be able to trade in my Garmin GNC 420 for a GNS 430 and supplement with either money or some of my other avionics. Do you know of any shop that does such deals, or should I advertise in a site like eBay, Barnstormers or any other one? Thanks. George Nielsen Vans RV-6 PH-XGN Lelystad, the Netherlands ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug Dodson" <douglas.dodson(at)pobox.com>
Subject: GNS 430 Volume
Date: Oct 28, 2010
This may not be your problem, but the actual volume lags the movement of the knob on the Gx30 products. It really annoys me, but hey what can you bu develop a workaround. The knob must be moved and left alone for a second or two of actual reception before moving it again. If you have the knob full up and have left it there, then that issue is not your problem. It could be a bad impedance mismatch between the 430 and your intercom and/or headset. Also, try grounding the audio lo to the 430 or intercom rather than ships ground. Doug Dodson Glasair II-S FT Flight Test Engineer, CFI-A/S&MEL/I/G -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of slipstream(at)wavecable.com Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 10:30 AM Subject: Avionics-List: GNS 430 Volume After installing a used GNS-430 in my RV-7 project, I'm noticing that the volume knob doesn't seem to be working -- The output is only at one level, and can only be altered by the headset's own volume control. I doubt it'll be loud enough for flight, even with the headset turned up all the way. I've tried it through the intercom (Sigtronics), and also without. The audio Hi output is connected to the intercom (or directly to headset jack, during my trouble-shooting), and the audio Lo is grounded at the firewall. Any thoughts? Brooks Wolfe RV-7 details details details... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: mark vultaggio <mvultaggio(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: xm weather receiver
Date: Oct 30, 2010
Has anyone had a problem with an xm weather receiver causing an over-ride o f the squelch function of their com radios. When I have the xm box on and connected to an AVMap portable moving map/gps=2C much of the time there is a lot of noise (static) that sounds like the squelch button is pulled on my collins nav radio. The static continues throughout transmissions from atc . Occassionally everthing is quiet and works properly=2C but there are als o lots of times when there is static=2C even when radio transmissions are q uiet. As soon as I pull the breaker that controls power to the xm box=2C t he noise stops immediately. I have the box mounted in the rear of the airc raft on the hat shelf=2C the power and antenna run to the front of the plan e under the headliner=2C and the antenna for the xm box is sitting on a gla reshield mount=2C right next to the gps antenna for the avmap. This is in a beech sierra aircraft. I am going to go fly and have someone disconnect the antenna lead from the unit in flight to see if it is the antenna. I w ill also disconnect power at the unit to see if that has any effect. I wil l also pull the data transmission line out to see what that does. thanks ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: PLEASE READ - List Fund Raiser Kickoff!
Dear Listers, Each November I hold a PBS-like fund raiser to support the continued operation and upgrade of the List services at Matronics. It's solely through the Contributions of List members that these Matronics Lists are possible. There is NO advertising to support the Lists. You might have noticed the conspicuous lack of flashing banners and annoying pop-ups on the Matronics Email List email messages and web site pages including: * Matronics List Forums http://forums.matronics.com * Matronics List List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com * Matronics List Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search * Matronics List Browser http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse You don't find advertising on any of these pages because I believe in a List experience that is completely about the sport we all enjoy - namely Airplanes and not about annoying advertisements. During the month of November I will be sending out List messages every couple of days reminding everyone that the Fund Raiser is underway. I ask for your patience and understanding during the Fund Raiser and throughout these regular messages. The Fund Raiser is only financial support mechanism I have to pay all of the bills associated with running these Lists. Your personal Contribution counts! Once again, this year I've got a terrific line up of free gifts to go along with the various Contribution levels. Most all of these gifts have been provided by some of the vary members and vendors that you'll find on Matronics Lists and have been either donated or provided at substantially discounted rates. This year, these generous people include: * Bob Nuckolls of the AeroElectric Connection http://www.aeroelectric.com * Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore http://www.buildersbooks.com * Jon Croke of HomebuiltHELP http://www.homebuilthelp.com These are extremely generous guys and I encourage you to visit their respective web sites. Each one offers a unique and very useful aviation-related product line. I would like publicly to thank Bob, Andy, and Jon for their generous support of the Lists again this year!! You can make your List Contribution using any one of three secure methods including using a credit card, PayPal, or by personal check. All three methods afford you the opportunity to select one of this year's free gifts with a qualifying Contribution amount!! To make your Contribution, please visit the secure site below: http://www.matronics.com/contribution I would like to thank everyone in advance for their generous financial AND moral support over the years! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator RV-8 Builder and Flyer ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 03, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: November List Fund Raiser
There is an automatic "squelch button" of sorts for the Fund Raiser messages. Here's how it works... As soon as a List member makes a Contribution through the Matronics Fund Raiser web site, they will instantly cease to receive these Fund Raiser messages for the rest of the month! Its just that simple. I really do appreciate each and every one of your individual Contributions to support the Lists. It is your support that enables me to upgrade the hardware and software that are required to run a List Site such as this one. It also goes to pay for the commercial-grade Internet connection and to pay the huge electric bill to keep the computer gear running and the air conditioner powered on. I run all of the Matronics Email List and Forums sites here locally which allows me to control and monitor every aspect of the system for the utmost in reliably and performance. Your personal Contribution matters because, when combined with other Listers such as yourself, it pays the bills to keep this site up and running. I accept exactly ZERO advertising dollars for the Matronics Lists sites. I can't stand the pop-up ads and all other commercials that are so prevalent on the Internet these days and I particularly don't want to have it on my Email List sites. If you appreciate the ad-free, grass-roots, down-home feel of the Matronics Email Lists, please make a Contribution to keep it that way!! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator [Note that there are certain circumstances where you might still see a Contribution related message. For example, if someone replies to one of the messages, when using the List Browse feature, or when accessing List message via the Forum. The system keys on the given email address and since most of these are anonymous public access methods, there is no simple way to filter them.] ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Loram" <johnl(at)loram.org>
Subject: Avionics Enclosure
Date: Nov 04, 2010
Does anyone know of a source for avionics enclosures, complete with trays? thanks, -john- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Reminder
Dear Listers, A quick reminder that November is the annual List Fund Raiser. The Matronics Lists are 100% member supported and all of the operational costs are provided for my your Contributions during this time of the year. Your personal Contribution makes a big difference and keeps all of the Matronics Email Lists and Forums completely ad-free. Please make your Contribution today to keep these services up and running! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you in advance! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Please Make A Contribution To Support Your Lists
Dear Listers, There is no advertising income to support the Matronics Email Lists and Forums. The operation is supported 100% by your personal Contributions during the November Fund Raiser. Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these services. You can pick up a really nice gift for making your Contribution too! You may use a Credit Card or Paypal at the Matronics Contribution Site here: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or, you can send a personal check to the following address: Matronics / Matt Dralle 581 Jeannie Way Livermore, CA 94550 Thank you in advance for your generous support! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Coming Soon - The List of Contributors - Please Make A
Contribution Today! Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. Please take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors (LOC)! As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems at least as valuable a building / entertainment tool as your typical magazine subscription! Assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Please Support The Lists...
Dear Listers, Just a reminder that November is the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser month. There are some very nice incentive gifts to choose from as well! Please make your Contribution today at: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Please Make A Contribution...
Dear Listers, A quick reminder that November is the annual List Fund Raiser. The Matronics Lists are 100% member supported and all of the operational costs are provided for my your Contributions during this time of the year. Your personal Contribution makes a big difference and keeps all of the Matronics Email Lists and Forums completely ad-free. Please make your Contribution today to keep these services up and running! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you in advance! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: List Fund Raiser & Some Very Nice Comments...
Dear Listers, I've been getting some really nice comments from Listers along with their List Support Contributions. I've shared some of them below. Please read them over and see what your fellow Listers think of the Lists and Forums. Please make a Contribution today to support the continued upgrade and operation of these services. There are lots of sweet gifts available, so browse the extensive selection and pickup a nice item along with your qualifying Contribution. Contribution Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 Thank you in advance for your generous support! It is very much appreciated! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ------------------------------------------------------- You are providing a great service. Thanks so very much. David L Keep up the good work! A great website - wish I'd found it earlier! Bob S Thanks for providing a site for information. Jim S Thanks again for providing a great service to our community! Alex M Thanks and keep up the good work! Robert B. Great forum! David S Thanks for providing the Kolb List for the last 12 years. John H Long time lurker, it's a great resource...many thanks. Ian C Your work and effort are greatly appreciated. Nicolas L Thank you very much for keeping the list going! Svein J Thank you for your support to the community. Valin T I am a long time subscriber and a slow builder because of work and two moves, but still enjoy the process and your list. CL M Thanks for providing this service. It can't be beat! Thomas W I'm no longer a builder or flier but I like to keep in touch with the List - which is the best organised list I've seen on the Internet. Gerry C Matt, you are doing a GREAT service to the community of KOLB Builders and Flyers. John B I've been flying for almost two years and still find these Lists as a great resource for information.....now I get to answer a question once-in-a-while too. Ralph C Thanks for this great service. Dale E I couldn't keep on building without the support I get from this List. Thomas S This is a great service to all of us. Michael W I am no longer actively building, but I really like to keep up with what's going on, and I especially like to follow Bob Nuckolls - and your RV-8. Terrence W I really appreciate your work and consider the lists to be a great value. Christopher R Thanks Matt for a great resource! Geoff T Many thanks for providing this service. I love it. William V One of the best Internet Deals going... Owen B Thanks for the great site. Danny S A valuable resource. George A Thanks for running a great list. Ted P ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: What's My Contribution Used For?
Dear Listers, Some have asked, "What's my Contribution used for?" and that's a good question. Here are just a few examples of what your direct List support enables. It provides for the very expensive, commercial-grade T1 Internet connection used on the List insuring maximum performance and minimal contention when accessing List services. It pays for the regular system hardware and software upgrades enabling the highest performance possible for services such as the Archive Search Engine, List Browser, and Forums. It pays for narly 20 years (yeah, I really said *20* years) worth of online archive data available for instant random search and access. And, it offsets the many hours spent writing, developing, and maintaining the custom applications that power this List Service such as the List Browse, Search Engine, Forums, and Wiki. But most importantly, your List Contribution enables a forum where you and your peers can communicate freely in an environment that is free from moderation, censorship, advertising, commercialism, SPAM, and computer viruses. How many places on the Internet can you make all those statements these days? It is YOUR CONTRIBUTION that directly enables these many aspects of these valuable List services. Please support it today with your List Contribution. Its one of the best investments you can make in your Sport... List Contribution Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Just A Few Days Left; Well Behind Last Year...
Dear Listers, There are just a few more days left of this year's List Fund Raiser. Response has been good so far, but we're well behind last year at this point. If you've been waiting until the last minute to make your Contribution, now might be good time to show your support and maybe pick up a nice gift as well! Please remember that there is no commercial advertising on these Lists and the *only* means of keeping them running is through your Contributions during this Fund Raiser. If it weren't for your individual Contributions, these Lists could easily become economically infeasible and simply cease to exist. You probably can't even take the family out to dinner for $20 these days, but your individual Contribution of the same amount makes a huge difference in keeping the List services alive. Please make a Contribution today with a Credit Card or Paypal: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Published
in December! Dear Listers, The List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! In December I post a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 USA I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Contributions Down By 17%...
Dear Listers, As of today, Contributions to the Matronics List Fund Raiser are lagging behind last year at this time by roughly 17%. I have a Fund Raiser each year simply to cover my operating costs for the Lists. I *do not* accept any advertising income to support the Lists and rely solely on the Contributions of members to keep the expenses paid. I run all of my own servers and they are housed here locally, and the Internet connection is a commercial-grade, T1 connection with public address space. I also maintain a full backup system that does nightly backups of all List-related data so that in the event of a server crash or worse, all of the Lists and the many years of List archive data could be restored onto a new server in a matter of hours. All of this costs a fair amount of money, not to mention a significant amount of my personal time. I have a Fund Raiser each year to cover these costs and I ask that members that feel they receive a benefit from my investments make a modest Contribution each year to support the continued operation and upgrade of these services. If you enjoy the Lists, please make a Contribution today. I also offer some incentive gifts for larger Contribution levels. At the Contribution Web Wite, you can use a credit card, Paypal, or personal check to show your support for the continuation of these services: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 USA Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 24, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Just A Few More Days To Make Your List Contribution...
There is less than a week left in this year's List Fund Raiser and only a few short days to grab one of the great Contribution Gifts available this year. Support is still significantly lagging behind last year at this point but hopefully it will pick up here towards the end. Please remember that it is solely the Contributions of List members that keeps the Lists up and running as there is no commercialism or advertising on the Matronics Lists and Forums. The List Contribution web site is secure, fast, and easy and you can use a credit card, Paypal, or a personal check: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 USA I want to thank everyone that has already made a generous contribution to support the Lists! Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics EMail List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: What Are You Thankful For...?
Dear Listers, Here in the United States, Thursday is our National day of Thanksgiving. Many of us will be traveling to be with our families and friends to share in generous feasts of plenty and giving thanks for the many blessings that have been bestowed upon us. Many Listers have expressed over the last couple of weeks how thankful they are for the Email Lists and Forums here on the Matronics servers and for all of the assistance and comradery they have experienced being a part of the Lists. One of my favorite comments is when someone writes to me and says something like, "Its the first thing I do in the morning while I'm having my morning coffee!". That's a wonderful tribute to the purpose and function of these Lists. Its always great to hear I'm not the only one that jumps out of bed each morning to check my List email!! Won't you take a minute today and show your appreciation for these Lists and for their continued operation and upgrade? The List Contribution Site is: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 USA Thank you in advance for your kind consideration, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 27, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: No "Black Friday" For List Fund Raiser...
Dear Listers, Curiously, even though the number of List subscriptions are significantly up this year, support during this year's Fund Raiser is still substantially behind last year. There are only a couple more days left in November and the end of the Fund Raiser is quickly approaching. I have always preferred a non-commercial List experience as many, many members have also expressed that they do as well. However, if the yearly fund raiser cannot generate sufficient funds to keep the bills paid, other sources of income might be required including some sort of advertising. Please don't let that happen! Your personal Contribution of $20 or $30 goes a long ways to keeping the operation a float. Please make sure your name is on this year's List of Contributors published in December. The Contribution site is secure, quick, and easy: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 USA Thank you in advance for your support! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Just Three Days Left & Some Very Nice Comments...
Dear Listers, There are just three days left in this year's List Fund Raiser. Won't you take a monment and make a quick Contribution today to support the continued upgrade and operation of these Forum services. I've received some more really nice comments from Listers along with their List Support Contributions, and I've share a few below. There are some sweet gifts available this year, so browse the selections and pickup a nice item along with your qualifying Contribution. Contribution Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 USA Thank you in advance for your generous support! It is very much appreciated! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ------------------------------------------------------- Great resource, keep it coming... Marten V. Thanks for maintaining these essential lists! Rumen D. Great Service! Douglas D. Thanks for this great service! Peter T. Thanks for your enduring support of homebuilding communications! Daniel M. You do a great job and provide a valuable service. Mark B. It's really a great source I have used a lot. Robert K. Reading the RV-10 list is part of my morning routine... Perry C. Great job running these lists. Edward T. Thanks for doing a tough job. Mic T. Your List was such a great resource for me when I built in "98". Ron V. Its a very useful forum. Dave F. Really enjoy your list... William D. Great service, Gerald T. The list still is a valuable source of information and there are many worthwhile postings. Graham H. The list has seen me through an RV-9A, RV-10, and now an RV-12. Albert G. Thanks for a great resource! Barry H. Thank you for maintaining this excellent site. Bill W. The Matronics Email list are an invaluable service. William C. I appreciate the RV-10 list. Vijay P. Thanks for a great list and all of the work you do. Ian W. Thanks for keeping up this very useful list. George R. The list is excellent and I find it very handy for any problems I come up against during construction. Greg W. The lists are an important part of my day. I've met lots of people and made lots of friends. Dave S. It's really a great source I haved used a lot. Robert K. I read the Pietenpol List everyday. PF B. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Make Sure You're Listed!
Dear Listers, The List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner with just two more days in this year's Fund Raiser! Later in December I will post a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists this year. Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists running and improving! Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: [Please Read] - Last Official Day of List Fund Raiser!
Dear Listers, Its November 30th and that means at least two things. For better or worse, its my 47th birthday! But it also means that its that last official day of the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser! If you been drooling over one of the really nice gifts that are available this year with a qualifying Contribution, then now is the time to jump on one!! If you've been meaning to make a Contribution this month but have been putting it off for some reason, NOW is the time! I will be posting the List of Contributors in a few days, so you'll probably want to be known as a person that supported the Lists! I want to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution this year in support of our Lists. It is your generosity that keeps this operation running and I don't ever forget it. Hopefully everyone feels the same. The List Contribution Web Site is fast and easy. Please support our habit by making your Contribution right now: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 Thank you to all in advance! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 03, 2010
From: rsipp(at)earthlink.net
Subject: 9*Nice day!
ft/ Hi friend! How are you doing now? I have a friend working in a Korean company, they have a variety of good deals, all their things are at very nice prices, their web is zxoor.com, and you can go to their web to have a look, thanks! Best Regards y ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Encoder Certification
From: "vipin" <vvipin84(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2010
I agree, providing the word "under" is changed to the word "in" as "in" is a more inclusive word -------- Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=322416#322416 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?
From: "vipin" <vvipin84(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2010
As far as i know for certification the metals have to be consistant... If the plane is not certified that is not a requirement. -------- Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=322415#322415 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GTX330 TIS with DAC GDC34A/Chelton
From: "vipin" <vvipin84(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2010
I think I need those lines for position information to the GTX330. -------- Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=322417#322417 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Dec 06, 2010
12/6/2010 Hello vipin, On Jan 24, 2010 Angier Ames wrote: "And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or 135, as per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be certified/ TSO'd." On Jan 25, 2010 I wrote: "{Response} Not true because 14 CFR Section 215 (a) says exactly the opposite......" On Dec 05, 2010 8:05 pm you wrote: "I agree, providing the word "under" is changed to the word "in"....." {Response 1} Wow! I am both astounded and curious. Why are you responding to a Jan 25, 2010 posting to this thread almost a year later on Dec 5, 2010? {Response 2} It is not clear whether you are agreeing with what Angier wrote or what I wrote in response. {Response 3} I am reluctant to post again to this thread because some readers became a bit bored / disgusted with it, but your preference for the word "in" instead of the word "under" when it comes to which part of the regulations apply to a particular kind of operation does not change what the FARs actually say. Here is the quote that applies, directly extracted from 14 CFR 91.215 (a): "All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder equipment installed must meet ............." {Response 4} Perhaps you are thinking of operating "in" a particular kind of airspace instead of operating "under" a particular part of the regulations that apply to that operation. 'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to gather and understand knowledge." ========================================================== Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 8:05 pm Post subject: Re: Encoder Certification Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Encoder Certification From: "vipin" <vvipin84(at)hotmail.com> I agree, providing the word "under" is changed to the word "in" as "in" is a more inclusive word -------- Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=322416#322416 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2010
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 2010 List of Contributors
Dear Listers, The 2010 Matronics Email List and Forum Fund Raiser officially ended a couple of weeks ago and its time that I publish this year's List of Contributors. Its the people on this list that directly make the Email Lists and Forums possible. Their generous contributions keep the servers and Internet connection up and running. You can still show your support this year and pick up a great gift at the same time. The Contribution Web Site is fast, easy, and secure: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 I also want to thank Bob, Jon, and Andy for their generous support through the supply of great gifts this year!! These guys have some great products and I encourage you to visit their respective web sites: Bob Nucklolls - AeroElectric - www.aeroelectric.com Jon Croke - HomebuiltHELP - www.homebuilthelp.com Andy Gold - The Builder's Bookstore - www.buildersbooks.com And finally, I'm proud to present The 2010 Fund Raiser List of Contributors: http://www.matronics.com/loc/2010.html Thanks again to everyone that made a Contribution this year!! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2010
Subject: updating avionics
From: John Long <johnlong63(at)gmail.com>
I am finishing my RV-8. I have DYNON 180 plus HS-34 and SL-30, GTX-327. with a 696. All have capability to be up dated in the aircraft. My old PC based lap top died a couple of years ago and I now have a MacBook. Dynon says if I am running bootcamp with Windows 7 installed the updates should work fine. I have bootcamp and am debating purchasing Windows 7. Does anyone have experience using this set-up? Are there things I need to look out for or should I get a PC based laptop to take to the airport for the upgrades? John (fiberglas finishing) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Francis Herr <fherr(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: updating avionics
Date: Dec 27, 2010
John, I too own Mac computers and have the same upgrade issues. To solve them, I bought a $70 desktop from Craig's list for the airport. I can download files to a Mac and take them to the PC via thumb drive. I am not familiar with the Dynon upgrade process; however, my system uses an SD card for updates, which means the PC can be anywhere. Francis On Dec 27, 2010, at 9:07 AM, John Long wrote: I am finishing my RV-8. I have DYNON 180 plus HS-34 and SL-30, GTX-327. with a 696. All have capability to be up dated in the aircraft. My old PC based lap top died a couple of years ago and I now have a MacBook. Dynon says if I am running bootcamp with Windows 7 installed the updates should work fine. I have bootcamp and am debating purchasing Windows 7. Does anyone have experience using this set-up? Are there things I need to look out for or should I get a PC based laptop to take to the airport for the upgrades? John (fiberglas finishing) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: updating avionics
From: Georg Isenbuerger <gi(at)av8r.de>
Date: Dec 27, 2010
John, Do not use Bootcamp. You would have to reboot the MAC whenever switching Ope rating Systems. Better use virtualisation: Parallels for about 80 Dollars or Virtualbox for free. You install Win 7 in a so called virtual container. It allows you to run both at the same time without the hassle to partition the hard disk and rebooting all the time. Regards George Am 27.12.2010 um 15:07 schrieb John Long : > I am finishing my RV-8. I have DYNON 180 plus HS-34 and SL-30, GTX-327. w ith a 696. > > All have capability to be up dated in the aircraft. > > My old PC based lap top died a couple of years ago and I now have a MacBoo k. > > Dynon says if I am running bootcamp with Windows 7 installed the updates s hould work fine. I have bootcamp and am debating purchasing Windows 7. > > Does anyone have experience using this set-up? Are there things I need to look out for or should I get a PC based laptop to take to the airport for t he upgrades? > > John > (fiberglas finishing) > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: updating avionics
From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net>
Date: Dec 27, 2010
What is the method for updating the device? Is it a simple matter of transferring files or does Dynon require a proprietary software program to do it? I have Blue Mountain equipment and it uses a simple FTP procedure to update files. So, any computer with a good FTP client can do it. If Dynon uses proprietary software, all I can say is, "Shame on them." Having said that, running bootcamp on a Mac is the same thing as having a Windows based machine. In some early testing, Windows ran faster under bootcamp than it did on some Windows machines. I use Parallels on my Mac and that allows me to run Windows in a window on top of OS X. Much more convenient. I see no reason to buy a specialized machine. Steve Thomas ________________________________________________________________________ On Dec 27, 2010, at 6:07 AM, John Long wrote: > I am finishing my RV-8. I have DYNON 180 plus HS-34 and SL-30, GTX-327. with a 696. > > All have capability to be up dated in the aircraft. > > My old PC based lap top died a couple of years ago and I now have a MacBook. > > Dynon says if I am running bootcamp with Windows 7 installed the updates should work fine. I have bootcamp and am debating purchasing Windows 7. > > Does anyone have experience using this set-up? Are there things I need to look out for or should I get a PC based laptop to take to the airport for the upgrades? > > John > (fiberglas finishing) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William L. Paulin" <wpaulin(at)usa.net>
Subject: Re: updating avionics
Date: Dec 27, 2010
Agreed on the don't use Bootcamp. I use VMWare Fusion, instead of Parallels and it works fine too ... but I have not used it with avionics ... just several other PC based software. Bill ********************************* William L. Paulin, Ph.D. PaulinNeal Associates 1575 South Forest Drive Prescott, AZ 86303 Cell +1 858 722 2905 Office +1 760 720 2905 Europe +358 40 720 4047 wpaulin(at)paulinneal.com On Dec 27, 2010, at 6:36 AM, Georg Isenbuerger wrote: John, Do not use Bootcamp. You would have to reboot the MAC whenever switching Operating Systems. Better use virtualisation: Parallels for about 80 Dollars or Virtualbox for free. You install Win 7 in a so called virtual container. It allows you to run both at the same time without the hassle to partition the hard disk and rebooting all the time. Regards George Am 27.12.2010 um 15:07 schrieb John Long : > I am finishing my RV-8. I have DYNON 180 plus HS-34 and SL-30, GTX-327. with a 696. > > All have capability to be up dated in the aircraft. > > My old PC based lap top died a couple of years ago and I now have a MacBook. > > Dynon says if I am running bootcamp with Windows 7 installed the updates should work fine. I have bootcamp and am debating purchasing Windows 7. > > Does anyone have experience using this set-up? Are there things I need to look out for or should I get a PC based laptop to take to the airport for the upgrades? > > John > (fiberglas finishing) > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2010
Subject: Re: updating avionics
From: Larry Bowen <larry(at)bowenaero.com>
Virtualbox might work. http://virtualbox.org -- Larry Bowen Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 9:57 AM, William L. Paulin wrote: > Agreed on the don't use Bootcamp. > > I use VMWare Fusion, instead of Parallels and it works fine too ... but I > have not used it with avionics ... just several other PC based software. > > Bill > ********************************* > William L. Paulin, Ph.D. > PaulinNeal Associates > 1575 South Forest Drive > Prescott, AZ 86303 > > Cell +1 858 722 2905 > Office +1 760 720 2905 > Europe +358 40 720 4047 > > wpaulin(at)paulinneal.com > > On Dec 27, 2010, at 6:36 AM, Georg Isenbuerger wrote: > > John, > > Do not use Bootcamp. You would have to reboot the MAC whenever switching > Operating Systems. Better use virtualisation: Parallels for about 80 Dollars > or Virtualbox for free. You install Win 7 in a so called virtual container. > It allows you to run both at the same time without the hassle to partition > the hard disk and rebooting all the time. > > Regards > > George > > > Am 27.12.2010 um 15:07 schrieb John Long : > > I am finishing my RV-8. I have DYNON 180 plus HS-34 and SL-30, GTX-327. > with a 696. > > All have capability to be up dated in the aircraft. > > My old PC based lap top died a couple of years ago and I now have a > MacBook. > > Dynon says if I am running bootcamp with Windows 7 installed the updates > should work fine. I have bootcamp and am debating purchasing Windows 7. > > Does anyone have experience using this set-up? Are there things I need to > look out for or should I get a PC based laptop to take to the airport for > the upgrades? > > John > (fiberglas finishing) > > * > * > > * > > 3D============================================ > href="x-msg://5/3D%22http://www.aeroelectric.com%22">www.aeroelectric.com > href="x-msg://5/3D%22http://www.buildersbooks.com%22">www.buildersbooks.com > href="x-msg://5/3D%22http://www.homebuilthelp.com%22">www.homebuilthelp.com > href="x-msg://5/3D%22http://www.matronics.com/contribution%22">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > 3D============================================ > href="x-msg://5/3D%22http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List%22">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List > 3D============================================ > href="x-msg://5/3D%22http://forums.matronics.com%22">http://forums.matronics.com > 3D=============================================* > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2010
From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: updating avionics
I have a similar situation, and I used Bootcamp to set it up. You do have to reboot to load Windows, but I only do it once or twice a month so it's really no big deal. I bought a cheap copy of Windows on eBay and it works fine. I wouldn't waste my money on Win 7 unless I had to. The Mac is so much better that I really only use Windows for one program. Check with Dynon and see what version they require to do the upgrades. Good luck. John Grosse >> >> My old PC based lap top died a couple of years ago and I now have >> a MacBook. >> >> Dynon says if I am running bootcamp with Windows 7 installed the >> updates should work fine. I have bootcamp and am debating >> purchasing Windows 7. >> >> Does anyone have experience using this set-up? Are there things >> I need to look out for or should I get a PC based laptop to take >> to the airport for the upgrades? >> >> John >> (fiberglas finishing) >> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2010
From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: updating avionics
I have a similar situation, and I used Bootcamp to set it up. You do have to reboot to load Windows, but I only do it once or twice a month so it's really no big deal. I bought a cheap copy of Windows on eBay and it works fine. I wouldn't waste my money on Win 7 unless I had to. The Mac is so much better that I really only use Windows for one program. Check with Dynon and see what version they require to do the upgrades. Good luck. John Grosse Larry Bowen wrote: > Virtualbox might work. > > http://virtualbox.org > > -- > Larry Bowen > Larry(at)BowenAero.com > http://BowenAero.com > > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 9:57 AM, William L. Paulin > wrote: > > Agreed on the don't use Bootcamp. > > I use VMWare Fusion, instead of Parallels and it works fine too > ... but I have not used it with avionics ... just several other PC > based software. > > Bill > ********************************* > William L. Paulin, Ph.D. > PaulinNeal Associates > 1575 South Forest Drive > Prescott, AZ 86303 > > Cell +1 858 722 2905 > Office +1 760 720 2905 > Europe +358 40 720 4047 > > wpaulin(at)paulinneal.com > > On Dec 27, 2010, at 6:36 AM, Georg Isenbuerger wrote: > > John, > > Do not use Bootcamp. You would have to reboot the MAC whenever > switching Operating Systems. Better use virtualisation: Parallels > for about 80 Dollars or Virtualbox for free. You install Win 7 in > a so called virtual container. It allows you to run both at the > same time without the hassle to partition the hard disk and > rebooting all the time. > > Regards > > George > > > Am 27.12.2010 um 15:07 schrieb John Long >: > >> I am finishing my RV-8. I have DYNON 180 plus HS-34 and SL-30, >> GTX-327. with a 696. >> >> All have capability to be up dated in the aircraft. >> >> My old PC based lap top died a couple of years ago and I now have >> a MacBook. >> >> Dynon says if I am running bootcamp with Windows 7 installed the >> updates should work fine. I have bootcamp and am debating >> purchasing Windows 7. >> >> Does anyone have experience using this set-up? Are there things


October 02, 2009 - December 27, 2010

Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-ap