AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fs
June 02, 2006 - June 13, 2006
Thanks
Jonsey
-----Original Message-----
| From: | owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com |
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:33 PM
| Subject: | Chapter 8 Update |
Hmm, works ok for me right now. Do you have the latest version of Acrobat?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
| From: | owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com |
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis
Jones
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Chapter 8 Update
-->
Bob
The reply claims the file is damaged and cannot be repaired. Something
special that needs to be done?
Jonesy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:09 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Chapter 8 Update
Chapter 8 of the Connection has been updated with the corrected temperature
rise data in the figures. For a limited time, folks on the List can download
and print a complete replacement for Chapter 8 at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/CH_8/Ch8_R12.pdf
Print odd pages only in reverse order, turn stack over in printer and print
even pages only to get fronts and backs.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Chapter 8 Update |
> The reply claims the file is damaged and cannot be repaired. Something
> special that needs to be done?
>
> Jonesy
Sometimes a file can get corrupted between the server and your
PC for a variety of reasons. The thing to do is to flush your
browser cache. This is different depending on the browser you
use, but since there is an 80% chance you are using Microsoft
Internet Explorer, here's how you do it:
Tools/Internet Options/General/Delete Files
Also, if you are using MSIE, you may want to consider upgrading
to Mozilla's Firefox. http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/
After flushing the cache (or installing Firefox) the transfer
will hopefully work. If not, let me know and I'll be happy to
send it to you.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How do I hook up EIS4000 to the shunts on |
You don't, the EIS-4000 does not accept shunts. The
EIS-4000 can use 0 to 5 volt input to the aux inputs. Any
attempt at directly connecting the shunt to the EIS-4000
will likely cause permanent damage to the instrument.
With that said as I mentioned on VAF forum you need a
hall effect. If you want multiple current measurements you
need an additional hall effect current sensor. The hall effect
is connected to one of the AUX inputs. I can help you setting
the EIS-4000 up when you get your hall effect. You will need
to set the scale factor and off-set. If you purchase a hall
effect from GRT they provide instructions. If you have a Q email me.
Cheers George
>posted by: Duane Wilson
>
>I am building and RV9A using the Z-14 diagram as a start.
>Also installing EIS-4000. How do I go about getting a load
>reading from the shunts into the EIS?
>
>Make your reply really detailed, I am a newbie!!!
>
>Thanks, Duane
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | david2005 <david2005(at)abrahamson.net> |
| Subject: | 16AWG fusible link |
I am building an RV7 electrical system according to the Z-12
architecture and want to make the fusible link from the aux
alternator to the starter contactor depicted in the diagram. Bob's
online article about fabricating a fusible link and the B&C kit say
that it only applies to 22 and 24AWG fusible links, whereas the Z-12
diagrams lists a 16AWG fusible link. Can't find a resource that
explains how to do this. Help?
Thanks all
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Firewall penetration |
I followed the trail to the site of the penetration kits at EPM wherein the
sealant is referred to as "Biotherm 100 silicone fireblock sealant."
Since I wanted to use a similar material for other penetrations, I attempted
to further search the net for the subject sealant. there is no source other
than EPM, so am not sure of its specifications.
Any clues out there?
Ferg Kyle
Europa A064 914 Classic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetration |
>
>I followed the trail to the site of the penetration kits at EPM wherein the
>sealant is referred to as "Biotherm 100 silicone fireblock sealant."
>Since I wanted to use a similar material for other penetrations, I attempted
>to further search the net for the subject sealant. there is no source other
>than EPM, so am not sure of its specifications.
>Any clues out there?
This putty is used in a VERY thin interface between firewall
and the flange of the fitting. Any fire-retarding material
(from plumbing and/or electrical supplies section of well
stocked hardware store) will do.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Chapter 8 Update |
>
>
>Bob
>
>The reply claims the file is damaged and cannot be repaired. Something
>special that needs to be done?
Most of the time, no . . .
However, most operating systems have an embedded list of
file extensions intended to tell the system what application
is used to open which type of file. In this case, the file
is a .pdf extension and is opened with one of Adobe's several
viewing/editing applications for .pdf files.
The problem arises when the combination of applications running
in your system get the cart in front of the horse (a hazard
of systems designed for multitasking). I believe folks are getting
the error message you've noted because Acrobat is being prompted
to open the file while it's still being downloaded . . . hence,
Acrobat sees a truncated file and assumes that it's damaged.
The 100% sure method for downloading large data files of
any type from any site is to right-click the link and tell
your browser where to STORE the file on your hard-drive.
Wait until the download is complete and THEN open the
file with the appropriate application.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Firewall penetration |
I have some of their kits but have not installed them yet. So I went out to
look at the tubes of sealant. Unfortunately they are blank white tubes. In
searching with Google I found this in the Aeroelectric archives in a message
from David Carter on Dec 4th, 2003:
"Wonderful product (epm.av's) that mimicks Bob's home grown grab bar
solution
and adds the 2000 degree "Biotherm 100 silicone fireblock sealant" to dress
the end of "fire sleeve stuffed sleeve of fire sleeve".
I just called and they buy the VERY expensive sealant and repackage into 1.5
oz doses to sell with the kits."
Me, I would just use RTV - I have turned a blowtorch on it for minutes and
seen no effect.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fergus
Kyle
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 7:08 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetration
I followed the trail to the site of the penetration kits at EPM wherein the
sealant is referred to as "Biotherm 100 silicone fireblock sealant."
Since I wanted to use a similar material for other penetrations, I attempted
to further search the net for the subject sealant. there is no source other
than EPM, so am not sure of its specifications.
Any clues out there?
Ferg Kyle
Europa A064 914 Classic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How do I hook up EIS4000 to the shunts on |
I wondered about this so off I went to the GRT site. At:
www.grtavionics.com/model_4000&6000.htm
I found:
"Functions :
...
* 6 Auxiliary Inputs user configurable can provide:
...
* Ampmeter" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
To monitor the voltage drop across a shunt you need a differential
(double-ended) input to the analog/digital converter. Since the manuals for
the EIS 4000 are not on-line I don't know if it has any.
I'm using a Honeywell CSLA1CE Hall effect sensor. I believe both Blue
Mountain Avionics and Advanced Flight Systems use a part from the same
family.
http://www.honeywell-sensor.com.cn/prodinfo/sensor_current/catalog/c20058.pd
f
Or as a Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/pfkz8
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 3:58 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: How do I hook up EIS4000 to the shunts on
You don't, the EIS-4000 does not accept shunts. The EIS-4000 can use 0 to 5
volt input to the aux inputs. Any attempt at directly connecting the shunt
to the EIS-4000 will likely cause permanent damage to the instrument.
With that said as I mentioned on VAF forum you need a hall effect. If you
want multiple current measurements you need an additional hall effect
current sensor. The hall effect is connected to one of the AUX inputs. I can
help you setting the EIS-4000 up when you get your hall effect. You will
need to set the scale factor and off-set. If you purchase a hall effect from
GRT they provide instructions. If you have a Q email me.
Cheers George
>posted by: Duane Wilson
>
>I am building and RV9A using the Z-14 diagram as a start.
>Also installing EIS-4000. How do I go about getting a load reading
>from the shunts into the EIS?
>
>Make your reply really detailed, I am a newbie!!!
>
>Thanks, Duane
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How do I hook up EIS4000 to the shunts on |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
That's the best solution: send $60 to GRT and get their current sensor,
which also comes with some instructions. Then just change your diagram
from showing shunts to showing the current-carrying wire passing through
the GRT "loop" current sensor. In some ways, it's easier to install
than a shunt . . .
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 1:29 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: How do I hook up EIS4000 to the
shunts on
I wondered about this so off I went to the GRT site. At:
www.grtavionics.com/model_4000&6000.htm
I found:
"Functions :
...
* 6 Auxiliary Inputs user configurable can provide:
...
* Ampmeter" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
To monitor the voltage drop across a shunt you need a differential
(double-ended) input to the analog/digital converter. Since the manuals
for
the EIS 4000 are not on-line I don't know if it has any.
I'm using a Honeywell CSLA1CE Hall effect sensor. I believe both Blue
Mountain Avionics and Advanced Flight Systems use a part from the same
family.
http://www.honeywell-sensor.com.cn/prodinfo/sensor_current/catalog/c2005
8.pd
f
Or as a Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/pfkz8
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 3:58 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: How do I hook up EIS4000 to the shunts
on
You don't, the EIS-4000 does not accept shunts. The EIS-4000 can use 0
to 5
volt input to the aux inputs. Any attempt at directly connecting the
shunt
to the EIS-4000 will likely cause permanent damage to the instrument.
With that said as I mentioned on VAF forum you need a hall effect. If
you
want multiple current measurements you need an additional hall effect
current sensor. The hall effect is connected to one of the AUX inputs. I
can
help you setting the EIS-4000 up when you get your hall effect. You will
need to set the scale factor and off-set. If you purchase a hall effect
from
GRT they provide instructions. If you have a Q email me.
Cheers George
>posted by: Duane Wilson
>
>I am building and RV9A using the Z-14 diagram as a start.
>Also installing EIS-4000. How do I go about getting a load reading
>from the shunts into the EIS?
>
>Make your reply really detailed, I am a newbie!!!
>
>Thanks, Duane
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetration |
Hi all,
I've used 3M Fire Barrier 2000 with success.
Concerning firewall penetration :
http://contrails.free.fr/engine_cpf.php
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetration |
Sorry I don't read French and too lazy to use Babelfish. But I do
enjoy looking at pictures and if I am understanding your pic's correctly it
looks as though you are using industrial type electrical connectors for the
penetration and just sealing with high temp 3m and a fire sleeve. Which I
don't see why it would not work. Even if the connectors are just galvanized
steel and not stainless.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetration
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've used 3M Fire Barrier 2000 with success.
>
> Concerning firewall penetration :
> http://contrails.free.fr/engine_cpf.php
>
> Regards,
> Gilles Thesee
> Grenoble, France
> http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetration |
> if I am understanding your pic's correctly it
> looks as though you are using industrial type electrical connectors for the
> penetration and just sealing with high temp 3m and a fire sleeve. Which I
> don't see why it would not work. Even if the connectors are just galvanized
> steel and not stainless.
>
Randy,
My web page is divided into 4 parts :
- Roles of the firewall
- What's NOT to be done (IMHO) : rubber grommet, putty patch...
- What I did : home made STAINLESS steel penetrations
- What others do : brass fittings, Bob's method, grommet shields, EPM.AV
Corp' fittings
You may really wish to use Google translator, after all ;-))
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetration |
> I've used 3M Fire Barrier 2000 with success.
>
> Concerning firewall penetration :
> http://contrails.free.fr/engine_cpf.php
>
Hi all,
Just updated the "Firewall" page with some compound examples and pictures :
http://contrails.free.fr/engine_cpf.php
Only in French for some time, I'm afraid ;-(
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 16AWG fusible link |
>
>I am building an RV7 electrical system according to the Z-12
>architecture and want to make the fusible link from the aux
>alternator to the starter contactor depicted in the diagram. Bob's
>online article about fabricating a fusible link and the B&C kit say
>that it only applies to 22 and 24AWG fusible links, whereas the Z-12
>diagrams lists a 16AWG fusible link. Can't find a resource that
>explains how to do this. Help?
>Thanks all
The "resources" are limited to the few postings I've
made on the topic. I've often suggested that while fusible
links are attractive for their simplicity and robustness
leading to a very low cost of ownership. However, they are NOT
a general replacement for fuses/breakers and should
not be considered for any applications beyond those suggested
in the Z-figures without some discussion.
Fusible links have fusing constants on a par with ANL style
current limiters. I.e. they'll carry many times their
"normal" rated current for many seconds and in this case,
the link WILL emit smoke and WILL require some over-sleeve
capable of preventing it's high energy operation from
damaging adjacent wires.
Therefore, fusible links in the z-figures are noteworthy
for their scarcity. Every place they've been shown has
been considered for the failure mode effects that might
cause the link to open along with probability that they'll
EVER be required to operate. The note on the fusible link kit
was not intended to limit their fabrication to the
smaller sizes. The kit is supplied with red-PIDG splices
which won't accept the 12AWG/16AWG combination cited in
figure Z-16 and elsewhere. I think the fiberglas/silicone
sleeving will work over the 16AWG link but you'll need a
yellow-PIDG (10-12AWG) splice. The sleeving will have to
go inside the insulation grip on the splice as opposed to
over the outside. I think the sleeving will stretch to
cover the outside of a blue-PIDG at the other end.
I'll use them wherever it seems to make sense but
suggest caution for expanding their use beyond those
applications cited in the drawings.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetration |
Could not get Google translator to work on your website, it could
not find it (: Although Babelfish came through for me the translation leaves
somewhat to be desired. Nice site though and informative. Thanks for the
info.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetration
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>
>> if I am understanding your pic's correctly it
>> looks as though you are using industrial type electrical connectors for
>> the
>> penetration and just sealing with high temp 3m and a fire sleeve. Which I
>> don't see why it would not work. Even if the connectors are just
>> galvanized
>> steel and not stainless.
>>
> Randy,
>
> My web page is divided into 4 parts :
>
> - Roles of the firewall
> - What's NOT to be done (IMHO) : rubber grommet, putty patch...
> - What I did : home made STAINLESS steel penetrations
> - What others do : brass fittings, Bob's method, grommet shields, EPM.AV
> Corp' fittings
>
> You may really wish to use Google translator, after all ;-))
>
> Regards,
> Gilles Thesee
> Grenoble, France
> http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Second battery in a TC aircraft |
>Bob,
>
>Please note the two attached drawings (and also please excuse my style).
>
>I have a Republic Seabee, and I want a dual battery system with the
second battery being always hot, feeding the Hot Battery Bus through a
circuit breaker. The purpose of this battery is to provide power for
things like bilge pumps, anchor light, clocks, and occasionally a GPS
(which has an anchor dragging alarm) without creating the possibility of
discharging the main starting battery.
>
>I have a single alternator (B&S) that I would like to use to charge both
batteries through a battery charging isolator.
>
>I might also add a battery parallel switch to allow the hot battery to
serve as a backup battery, but since it is the one that is most likely to
run down, I may eliminate that concept, at least until I gain some experience.
>
>My question for you is: Do you see any regulatory, operational, or
electrical problems with this arrangement? I think it should work well,
though I don't know if the FAA has any opinions on battery isolator diodes.
>
>Both batteries are Odyssey PC 1200s of about 40 AH rating.
Don't make this any more complicated than it needs to be. You'll have
to get a 337 approval for the installation of the second battery. FAA
will have no heartburn about the second battery but you'll want your
337 to touch on structural, and crash safety issues.
I don't recommend diodes. Just add a second battery to the system
with it's own battery contactor. You can use either or both batteries
for cranking. The battery bus for the second battery can run gizmos
cited in your note as long as each gizmo is under 5A. This is the
largest always-hot wire the FAA blesses under their rule-of-thumb
for max size of protected wire for crash safety. If you can get
a fuse-block blessed . . . so much the better. Fuses are MUCH faster
and therefore safer than breakers.
Battery bus for second battery needs to be mounted right at the
battery . . . so fuse-blocks work out well.
Here's a Shop Note on dual battery installation in all metal
airplanes.
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Battery_Grounds/Battery_Grounds.html
Second battery is wired per Z-30 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11G.pdf
I've helped a half dozen or so folks install this same system in
things like C-206 on floats. We put the second battery right on
the aircraft CG inside one of the floats. Kept the battery from
using up fuselage volume and simplified crash safety issues.
I wish I could point you to a completed 337 for guidance
but all the installations I worked were for missionaries
and other bush operations in S. America. One pretty much
accomplishes what's necessary to their airplane without
government impediments.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Hall effect replacement for shunts . . . |
Comments/Questions: Bob,
When you were at the Chesapeake VA seminar you mentioned that a Hall effect
sensor could be used with your load meter in stead of the shunt. What hall
effect sensor do you recommend?
You might also offer them on you web site along with the loadmeter as you
do with the shunts.
Mark,
There's a little more to it than simply hooking the sensor assembly
to the instrument . . . there's some calibration to be done.
One sensor of choice would be the Honeywell CSNX25 described
in the data package at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Misc/Honeywell/CSXN_Series_Current_Transducers.pdf
It needs a power supply and an etched circuit board along with
some calibration circuitry to mate it to the instrument I have.
Your suggestion is interesting. I have some plans for incorporating
the instrument into another OBAM aircraft product and it would be
an interesting added feature to include a current display with
a hall-effect sensor.
I'm meeting with some partners next Monday and will add this idea
to the list of projects to be considered. Thanks!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Jabiru 3300 Engine Grounds |
I'm helping a friend by wiring his Zenith Zenair 601 with a Jabiru 3300
engine using a variation of Bob's Z-20 architecture. The documentation,
at least what I've seen of it, is very sketchy on the electrical systems
and I'm unable to find any reference to grounding the engine.
Where have other builders connected the heavy ground braid (that carries
the return current for the starter)? I know where to connect it on a
Lycoming but this Jabiru is *very* different :-)
And where have others connected the braids of the magnetos' P-leads?
Again, I know where to connect them on Slick magnetos but what did other
builders use for convenient, nearby ground studs?
Thanks,
Joe
Joe Dubner
Long-EZ 821RP
Lewiston, ID
http://users.lewiston.com/hth/jd/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List Enclosure Support |
Dear Listers,
Over the years, I have resisted the urge to enable enclosure support on the Matronics
Lists for a number of reasons relating to performance, capacity, capability,
and security. However, its now 2006 and most everyone using email these
days is on an email client that, at some level, supports the viewing and handling
of enclosures. I get a fair amount of email each month from people on the
various Lists asking why their posts of this or that picture didn't go through.
Back quite a while ago by popular request, I enabled enclosure support for a few
Lists such as the RV10-List, Kolb-List, and the Tailwind-List. Contrary to
my fears, there really hasn't been any significant issues on these Lists relating
to the advent of enclosure support and for the most part, members have policed
themselves well with respect to the size of things they have posted.
Having enclosures enabled on some Lists and not others has given me a fair amount
of headaches with respect to filtering messages and content since the formats
are often quite different between a typical MIME encoded message and a generic
plain-text message. The spammers are getting more cleaver all the time and
are constantly trying to thwart my best efforts at keeping them from posting
to the Lists.
So, for these reasons, I've have decided to go ahead and enable limited enclosure
posting on all of the email Lists at Matronics. This will not only increase
the utility of the Lists, but will afford me a better opportunity to filter
out the chaff.
Here are some of the features and limits of enclosures on the Matronics Lists:
1) Enclosures will only be posted to the Real Time version of the
Lists.
2) Enclosures will NOT be included in the Daily Digest version of
the Lists.
3) Enclosures WILL BE forwarded on to the BBS Forum Web site.
4) Enclosures will NOT be appended to the Archives.
5) Enclosures will NOT be available in the List Browse feature.
6) Only the following file types and extensions will be allowed:
jpg, bmp, gif, txt, xls, pdf, and doc
All other enclosures types will be rejected and email returned to
sender. The enclosure types listed above are relatively safe from
a virus standpoint and don't pose a particularly large security risk.
7) !! All incoming enclosures will be scanned for viruses prior to posting
to the List. This is done in real time and will not slow down
the process of posting the message !!
Here are some rules for posting enclosures. Failure to abide by these rules could
result in the removal of a subscriber's email address from the Lists.
1) Pay attention to what you are posting!! Make sure that the files
you are enclosing aren't HUGE (greater that 1MB). Remember that there
are still people checking they're email via dial up modem. If you post
30MB worth of pictures, you are placing an unnecessary burden on these
folks and the rest of us, for that matter.
2) SCALE YOUR PICTURES DOWN!!! I don't want to see huge 3000 x 2000
pictures getting posted that are 3 or 4MB each. This is just
unacceptable. Use a program such as Photoshop to scale the picture
down to something on the order of 800 x 600 and try to keep the
file size to less-than 200KB, preferably much less.
Microsoft has a really awesome utility available for free that allows
you to Right-Click on a picture in Explorer and automatically
scale it down and resave it. This is a great utility - get it, use it!
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Look for the link "Image Resizer"
3) !! This would seem to go without saying, but I'll say it anyway. Do not
post anything that would be considered offensive by your grandmother.
And you know what I'm saying; I don't want to see anything even
questionable. !!
4) REMEMBER THIS: If you post a 1MB enclosure to a List with 1000 members
subscribed, your 1MB enclosure must be resent 1000 times amounting
to 1MB X 1000 = 1 Gigabyte of network traffic!! BE CAREFUL and BE COURTEOUS!
I hope everyone will enjoy the added functionality of enclosures. Please police
yourself and use good judgement when posting messages with enclosures using
the guidelines I've outlined above.
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Jabiru 3300 Engine Grounds |
The braid ensures a good ground across the engine mount. I feel you are
right that it is important to have the good ground for the best operation of
the starter motor and lets not forget the ground for the charging system.
The best place to run the braid is from any convenient stud on the engine
block (one of the popular places seems to be the engine half studs) to the
frame of the plane. Make sure the areas around where the braids connect to
the block and the frame are electrically clean.
I've seen many that use one of the engine mount bolts for the frame side of
the ground. I've also seen at least one installation where there was two
braids... One on each side of the engine... Probably a bit of overkill.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Joe Dubner
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 9:05 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Jabiru 3300 Engine Grounds
>
>
>
>
> I'm helping a friend by wiring his Zenith Zenair 601 with a
> Jabiru 3300
> engine using a variation of Bob's Z-20 architecture. The
> documentation,
> at least what I've seen of it, is very sketchy on the
> electrical systems
> and I'm unable to find any reference to grounding the engine.
>
> Where have other builders connected the heavy ground braid
> (that carries
> the return current for the starter)? I know where to connect it on a
> Lycoming but this Jabiru is *very* different :-)
>
> And where have others connected the braids of the magnetos' P-leads?
> Again, I know where to connect them on Slick magnetos but
> what did other
> builders use for convenient, nearby ground studs?
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
> Joe Dubner
> Long-EZ 821RP
> Lewiston, ID
> http://users.lewiston.com/hth/jd/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 16AWG fusible link (better idea?) |
WHY a fusible link at ALL???
Why not an in-line fuse. Bussman has several in-line fuse holders
for larger *MAX* fuses up to 70 amps. The *MAX* are just larger ATC
blade types. The standard ATC fuses are only good to about 30A.
In-line fuse holders are sealed an very cool
Just a thought?
http://www.bussmann.com/shared/library/catalogs/Buss_Auto-Fuse_Cat.pdf
(big file / look @ pdf page# 5, 8 & 14 / subtract 2 for printed pg # )
>posted by: david2005
>
>I am building an RV7 electrical system according to the Z-12
>architecture and want to make the fusible link from the aux
>alternator to the starter contactor depicted in the diagram. Bob's
>online article about fabricating a fusible link and the B&C kit say
>that it only applies to 22 and 24AWG fusible links, whereas the Z-12
>diagrams lists a 16AWG fusible link. Can't find a resource that
>explains how to do this. Help?
>Thanks all
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 16AWG fusible link (better idea?) |
>WHY a fusible link at ALL???
>
>Why not an in-line fuse. Bussman has several in-line fuse holders
>for larger *MAX* fuses up to 70 amps. The *MAX* are just larger ATC
>blade types. The standard ATC fuses are only good to about 30A.
>
>In-line fuse holders are sealed an very cool
>
>Just a thought?
Fusible links are attractive for their robustness. No
vulnerable connections. Fabricated from wire, splices
and terminals for longevity and durability approaching that
of wire. They have fusing constants on a par with ANL
current limiters
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ANL.pdf
and much slower than the ANN series limiters.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ANN.pdf
Fusing constants for the MAX series fuses can be
seen here . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/MAX.pdf
Inline fuse holders for the plastic plug-in fuses
can be seen at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/IN-Line_Fuse_Holders.jpg
The fusible link was suggested for uses in areas where
the robustness can be exploited but limited to situations
where probability of needing to operate as a protective
device was exceedingly low.
I've done anecdotal surveys during my presentations to
ask how many individuals present have had the fusible link
in an automobile open up. In over ten years of asking
the question, I think I've had two positive responses.
The MAX or ATC series fuses (or even breakers) can always
be considered to replace any fusible link shown in the
z-figures . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>Comments/Questions: Hi Bob
>
>Sorry to have to resort to taking your time,but I have not been able to
>find any directions on making a balun for a nav antenna installation for
>my RV8. I was told that it was in AC43-13, but I haven't been able to find
>it anywhere. Can you point me in the right direction?
No, AC43-13 wouldn't cover such a device. Here are a couple
of links you can look over:
http://n-lemma.com/calcs/dipole/balun.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna
We used to wire our VOR cat-whiskers on the
single engined Cessnas with a balun back in the
60' but gave it up after a series of experiments
showed no perceivable difference between antennas
with baluns and antennas that simply attached
the center conductor to one leg of the dipole
and coax braid to the other leg.
Some folks believe in slipping ferrite toroidal
cores over the coax like this figure from the
AeroElectric Connection:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Dipole_Antenna.pdf
However, subsequent to publishing that figure I've
done some testing in the lab and found that the
ferrite cores offer no observable improvement in
VOR receiver or GS receiver performance by their
use.
Therefore, it's my recommendation that you forgo
the use of either balun or ferrite cores and simply
attach the legs of your dipole to the center conductor
and shield of the coax.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lee Logan" <leeloganster(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/03/06 |
Your input on the site is often very informative, Gilles. Thanks very
much...
"Just updated the "Firewall" page with some compound examples and pictures :
http://contrails.free.fr/engine_cpf.php Only in French for some time, I'm
afraid ;-(
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
The Amateur radio operators handbook has several of them. I think it also
has equations to help design your own.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 5:10 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List:
>
>
> III"
>
>
> >Comments/Questions: Hi Bob
> >
> >Sorry to have to resort to taking your time,but I have not
> been able to
> >find any directions on making a balun for a nav antenna
> installation for
> >my RV8. I was told that it was in AC43-13, but I haven't
> been able to find
> >it anywhere. Can you point me in the right direction?
>
> No, AC43-13 wouldn't cover such a device. Here are a couple
> of links you can look over:
>
> http://n-lemma.com/calcs/dipole/balun.htm
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna
>
> We used to wire our VOR cat-whiskers on the
> single engined Cessnas with a balun back in the
> 60' but gave it up after a series of experiments
> showed no perceivable difference between antennas
> with baluns and antennas that simply attached
> the center conductor to one leg of the dipole
> and coax braid to the other leg.
>
> Some folks believe in slipping ferrite toroidal
> cores over the coax like this figure from the
> AeroElectric Connection:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Dipole_Antenna.pdf
>
> However, subsequent to publishing that figure I've
> done some testing in the lab and found that the
> ferrite cores offer no observable improvement in
> VOR receiver or GS receiver performance by their
> use.
>
> Therefore, it's my recommendation that you forgo
> the use of either balun or ferrite cores and simply
> attach the legs of your dipole to the center conductor
> and shield of the coax.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chapter 8 Update |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Comments on Chapter 8: Wire Selection and Installation.
General comments on materials.
The periodic table does not hide any magic conductors. Copper is the second best
by volume, it is 94% as good as the bestSilver. Surprisingly, gold is not particularly
good. Its magic lies elsewhere.
I have to disagree with several statements. I think these were not critically examined
in the writing:
Weight will not be greatly improved upon; the copper conductor is already the major
proportion of the weight and there is simply no practical way to do with
less copper with current technology---Oh? How about higher voltages, single wire
busses, fiberoptics, Copper-Clad Aluminum, etc. I am sure you meant something
slightly different here.
There is no material more economical than copper for any given wiring task. Simply
not so. I am sure you do not quite mean it Bob. Throw a couple more modifiers
in there please.
Bob, you just plain ignore Copper Clad Aluminum, so I suggest taking a look at
the link:
http://www.periheliondesign.com/fatwires_files/Copper%20cables.pdf (I will still send free samples to interested Aeroelectric list fans) Boeing and Airbus buy kilotons of the stuff. Its advantages may or may not be attractive to you, but ignoring it is not serving your readers.
Flexibility: The discussion of flexibility is not clear on a couple points and
draws some suspect conclusions. Certainly, flexibility in an electric drill is
handy, but this does not mean that the general use of finely-stranded wire is
generally advantageous in DC circuits.
Simply putthere is scant evidence that using stranded wire instead of solid gains
you much except in some special cases---e.g.
1) Flexibility, as in an electric drill cord or a welding cable.
2) Attachment to resonant or vibrating structures. Thats why the ground strap to
an engine is braided. NOT because fine stranding is more reliable.
3) Convenience in spooling, handling, and installation. A solid wire always has
bias, but it mostlydisappears in stranding.
Note also that stranded wire has a huge surface area relative to solid. For the
same cross-section, lets say a one square inch solid conductor would have a surface
area of four square inches per inch, while if it were separated into 1/12
X 144 strands would have a surface area of 48 square inches per inch. This
is why stranded wire is the cats meow for higher frequencies that depend on skin
effect for transmission. Complicated subject.
Solid wire is easier to use in DC circuitsit terminates better, is smaller and
lighter for equivalent AWG size.
To simplifyI think your thinking on stranded versus solid need rethinking a bit.
Bob saysCopper is a very active metal. No it isnt. Copper, like many other useful
metals forms a protective coating on its exposed surface. You can drop a copper
penny in the dirt and dig it up in a thousand years and still read the date
on it. Roman soldiers did the first half of this experiment for us. Stainless
steel and copper are remarkably similar in corrosion resistance except that
stainless steel forms a transparent coating that is NON-conductive, and looks
great. Copper forms a conductive coating but looks like hell. At least if I remember
my chemistry correctly.
Your description of voltage drop etc., would be improved by some nice drawings.
Note: Rivnuts were developed by B. F. Goodrich.
More later. Keep up the good work.
No one traveling on a business trip would be missed if he failed to arrive.
- Thorstein Veblen
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=38580#38580
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Air Speed Switch |
Bob,
Is a RPM switch something I could find "on the shelf"? or would it be a
custom device. Do you have any plans? I like the idea of one with a timer
built in. I will be running P-mags so I have a tach output. Please let me
know what is available or if you feel like designing something. Thanks in
advance. Don VS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 8:29 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Air Speed Switch
>
>Bob,
>The switch is recomended by Avidyne for use with their TCAS systems. It is
>to take the device out of ground mode and into airborne mode. I used to
fly
>a piper twin that had the same type of switch to start the "air hobbs"
>meter. BTW Avidyne does not have a source, that is why I am hoping that
you
>had one. Thanks. Don
Hmmmm . . . Frank knows of some devices with that sensitivity.
As one might expect, it's pretty big. How about an RPM switch
set at something like 1500 rpm. You could even put a timer
in the loop so that the air mode happens after say 30 seconds
above 1500. This would let you do mag-chex, etc without triggering
the air mode. Signal would come from the tach output on an ignition
or p-lead on mag.
Have you called Avidyne?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | david2005 <david2005(at)abrahamson.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 16AWG fusible link (better idea?) |
Yes, for instance the HHX fuseholder on p.15 goes up to 60A with 6AWG
leads. There is also a line of fusible links on p.9. Thanks Bob et
al for your help.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Roe <roester(at)cybermesa.com> |
Thanks Bob. I appreciate the help.
David
On Jun 4, 2006, at 1:39 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> Comments/Questions: Hi Bob
>>
>> Sorry to have to resort to taking your time,but I have not been able
>> to find any directions on making a balun for a nav antenna
>> installation for my RV8. I was told that it was in AC43-13, but I
>> haven't been able to find it anywhere. Can you point me in the right
>> direction?
>
> No, AC43-13 wouldn't cover such a device. Here are a couple
> of links you can look over:
>
> http://n-lemma.com/calcs/dipole/balun.htm
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna
>
> We used to wire our VOR cat-whiskers on the
> single engined Cessnas with a balun back in the
> 60' but gave it up after a series of experiments
> showed no perceivable difference between antennas
> with baluns and antennas that simply attached
> the center conductor to one leg of the dipole
> and coax braid to the other leg.
>
> Some folks believe in slipping ferrite toroidal
> cores over the coax like this figure from the
> AeroElectric Connection:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Dipole_Antenna.pdf
>
> However, subsequent to publishing that figure I've
> done some testing in the lab and found that the
> ferrite cores offer no observable improvement in
> VOR receiver or GS receiver performance by their
> use.
>
> Therefore, it's my recommendation that you forgo
> the use of either balun or ferrite cores and simply
> attach the legs of your dipole to the center conductor
> and shield of the coax.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | strobe power/autopilot interference? |
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
Greetings
My TruTrak autopilot roll servo is mounted inside the right wing of my
RV-7A. Will the high voltage strobe power line (shielded) interfere with
the autopilot if the wires are run together for about 5 feet inside the
wing? I dont see any way of getting them very far apart, but if a few
inches makes a difference I might be able to drill a new set of holes in
the ribs for a separate wire run.
Separate issue: Per the AeroElectric Connection, I have a single ground
point on the plane, with the standard exceptions where a local ground is
used (landing lights, strobe power supply). Would it be ok to use a local
ground for my resistive fuel level senders as well?
thanks
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Chapter 8 Update |
>
>Comments on Chapter 8: Wire Selection and Installation.
>
>General comments on materials.
>
>The periodic table does not hide any magic conductors. Copper is the
>second best by volume, it is 94% as good as the bestSilver.
>Surprisingly, gold is not particularly good. Its magic lies elsewhere.
>
>I have to disagree with several statements. I think these were not
>critically examined in the writing:
>
>Weight will not be greatly improved upon; the copper conductor is
>already the major proportion of the weight and there is simply no
>practical way to do with less copper with current technology---Oh? How
>about higher voltages,
> single wire busses, fiberoptics,
??? We're wiring landing lights and pitot heaters here . . .
and the topic is DC power generation and distribution,
not data handling.
> Copper-Clad Aluminum, etc. I am sure you meant something slightly
> different here.
I meant exactly what I wrote . . .
>There is no material more economical than copper for any given wiring
>task. Simply not so. I am sure you do not quite mean it Bob. Throw a
>couple more modifiers in there please.
How so? Economics is the study of scarce resources for which
there are alternative uses. In this case, I'm speaking of $time$
which one spends to acquire cash to buy wire when one also needs
to spend $time$ to do many other things on the project. Except for
the specialize case where CuC-Al offers some weight savings,
it's still more expensive in $time$, is not as pleasant to work with
and occupies more volume in a bundle.
Further, opportunities for CuC-Al might be as much as 20' of
wiring out of a total of hundreds of feet where a weight savings
of a few pounds is possible. For all other applications expense,
less than friendly flexibility, and miniscule weight savings are
not, in my personal opinion, a good trade off . . . even if the
wire was available in the smaller gages.
>Bob, you just plain ignore Copper Clad Aluminum, so I suggest taking a
>look at the link:
>http://www.periheliondesign.com/fatwires_files/Copper%20cables.pdf (I
>will still send free samples to interested Aeroelectric list fans) Boeing
>and Airbus buy kilotons of the stuff. Its advantages may or may not be
>attractive to you, but ignoring it is not serving your readers.
Eric, you're getting your shorts in a bunch over nothing. I
DO talk about the copper clad aluminum. I have samples you sent
me and I show them in my seminars along with examples of soldered-
on terminals. The attendees also get to handle a piece of CuC-Al,
22759/16-2,
and 2AWG welding cable. We discuss insulations, flexibility and
a few cautions about bolting fat-wires to the lead posts on
a small RG battery (4AWG welding cable recommended).
Chapter 8 was updated to correct errors in the wire tables, not
update it to the latest-and-greatest technologies. Those things will
will be added to the text in due course. All I need is a 36-hour
day.
>Flexibility: The discussion of flexibility is not clear on a couple points
>and draws some suspect conclusions. Certainly, flexibility in an electric
>drill is handy, but this does not mean that the general use of
>finely-stranded wire is generally advantageous in DC circuits.
The preference for 19+ stranding has nothing to do with DC circuits.
19 or more strands in small wires has been the process of choice for
resistance to vibration and flexing from other sources for a very long
time.
>Simply putthere is scant evidence that using stranded wire instead of
>solid gains you much except in some special cases---e.g.
>
>1) Flexibility, as in an electric drill cord or a welding cable.
You are free to preach any gospel you wish. Are you suggesting that
it's a rational decision to wire one's airplane with solid conductor
stuff? I'm only repeating what has been practice and policy in
aircraft for many, many years. I've worked with wire in many venues
for a long time and the ONLY place I'd use solid wire is in my house .
. .
>2) Attachment to resonant or vibrating structures. Thats why the ground
>strap to an engine is braided. NOT because fine stranding is more reliable.
??? lost you. Does not resistance to breakage due to persistent
motion translate into increased service life, hence 'reliability'
for that component? And does not the whole airplane have a vibration
signature that is greater than automobiles?
>3) Convenience in spooling, handling, and installation. A solid wire
>always has bias, but it mostlydisappears in stranding.
>
>Note also that stranded wire has a huge surface area relative to solid.
>For the same cross-section, lets say a one square inch solid conductor
>would have a surface area of four square inches per inch, while if it were
>separated into 1/12 X 144 strands would have a surface area of 48
>square inches per inch. This is why stranded wire is the cats meow for
>higher frequencies that depend on skin effect for transmission.
>Complicated subject.
Why even bring it up? Skin effect was never a consideration for
wire selection in airframes. Adoption of relatively fine stranded
wire in aircraft (and as far as I know, all military products)
was for resistance to failure under vibration due to decreased
stresses under vibration and higher reliability - a nick on a stranded
wire puts a few strands at-risk, a nick on a solid wire puts the
whole conductor at risk.
>Solid wire is easier to use in DC circuitsit terminates better, is
>smaller and lighter for equivalent AWG size.
You're splitting hairs (or strands) here. The weight differences
between stranded/solid for any given gage is miniscule. Does your
reference to "DC circuits" suggest an alternative philosophy is
appropriate for AC circuits? Are you suggesting that readers of this
List consider making the switch to solid wire?
>To simplifyI think your thinking on stranded versus solid need
>rethinking a bit.
>
>Bob saysCopper is a very active metal. No it isnt. Copper,
>like many other useful metals forms a protective coating on its exposed
>surface. You can drop a copper penny in the dirt and dig it up in a
>thousand years and still read the date on it. Roman soldiers did the first
>half of this experiment for us. Stainless steel and copper are remarkably
>similar in corrosion resistance except that stainless steel forms a
>transparent coating that is NON-conductive, and looks great. Copper forms
>a conductive coating but looks like hell. At least if I remember my
>chemistry correctly.
Forgive my imprecise speech with respect to reactivity. Keep in mind
that we tin-coat copper to reduce effects of corrosion that folks
fine objectionable at any level however small. Yes, copper is less
reactive than say lithium, iron or zinc but a whole lot more reactive
than chrome . . . I guess we need to put some numbers to "less" and
a "whole lot more" . . .
>Your description of voltage drop etc., would be improved by some nice
>drawings.
Send me some sketches of what you propose. Figure 2-3 has an exemplar
voltage drop analysis and I was assuming that the reader would recall
the discussion when he/she advanced to Chapter 8.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Cc: sarg314(at)comcast.net
| Subject: | Re: princeton capactive fuel probe |
| From: | Mark E Navratil <czechsix(at)juno.com> |
Hi Tom,
I bought the capacitive Princeton probes through Grand Rapids to use with
my EIS-4000 and the probes came already bent and ready to install in the
RV
tanks. I have an -8A but as far as I know the same bend profile will
work
in the -6 series too. Might not hurt to double-check before ordering.
As far as using them "successfully" goes, I've had decent results with
mine. You go through a calibration setup procedure where you turn power
on, push a button on the probe with the tank empty for the empty set
point,
then fill the tank and push the button again for the full set point. The
first time I did this it worked fine on one tank but the other tank was
reading 0.0 and the LED on the probe was flashing an error code.
Instructions said to try the calibration procedure again before calling
Princeton. This is a bit of a pain because you have to empty the tank
completely....it worked out ok for me because I was flight testing and
figured what the heck, I should run the tank dry in the air anyway just
to
make sure I can really use all the fuel in flight. After resetting it
the
probe has worked fine.
My only complaint--and it's a minor one--is that with the tanks full, the
reading from the senders varies by about a gallon. You can program the
EIS
to show whatever quantity you want when the sender is at the full
level...I
measured about 11 gals in my tank when the fuel is at the top of the
sender
so that's what I programmed into the EIS. But the actual reading after
refueling is anywhere from 10.0 to 10.9, and it varies from day to day.
I
didn't expect capacitive probes to wander in their readings like this.
Anyway, the important part is that they do seem to read accurately when
near empty. I have an alarm on my EIS set up to warn me when fuel level
is
reading 1.0 gals in either tank. It will start to flash at me a few
minutes before the engine quits. So I'm satisfied with that aspect of
it.
One other note of interest, I originally installed Vans float sensors in
my
tanks but decided to change to capacitive in hopes that I'd never have to
yank them out and change them (time will tell...). I made the swap
before
mounting my wings so it was easy. The curious thing is that in order to
install the Princeton probes, I had to install both the probe and the
tank
access plate at the same time, with a series of twists and turns. If you
install the probe in the access plate first, or install the plate and
then
try to put in the probe, it won't work. I just mention this because it
may
be a lot harder to retrofit a flying airplane than it was with the wings
off....
Hope this helps,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D getting ready for 50 hr oil change..
------------------------------------------------------------
From: sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: princeton capactive fuel probe
--> RV-List message posted by: sarg314
I'm looking for a capacitive fuel probe/gauge to use in my old (circa
1999) RV-6A kit (tanks already built). The princeton probes look
interesting because they could probably be used in this tank. You can
specify a bendable section which I think would make it useable with the
standard RV-6A tank configuration.
Has any one used these probes successfully?
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Ashura" <ashuramj(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box Misfit |
I just received my new Panasonic battery from Digi-Key per the Nuckolls
seminar, and "fit" it into my Firewall Vans Battery Box. It is now
jammed half-way in and half-way out. Soaking with Boe-lube has not
helped. What is the story on this? Anyone else have a misfit problem
like this? I now have two expensive pieces of soon-to-be trash.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box Misfit |
The Van's battery box is made to fit the PC 680. You may need to switch
batteries or make your own box. Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Michael
Ashura
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:59 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box
Misfit
I just received my new Panasonic battery from Digi-Key per the Nuckolls
seminar, and "fit" it into my Firewall Vans Battery Box. It is now jammed
half-way in and half-way out. Soaking with Boe-lube has not helped. What
is the story on this? Anyone else have a misfit problem like this? I now
have two expensive pieces of soon-to-be trash.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: princeton capactive fuel probe |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
Skysports will create custome-length bendable capacitive probes for
about $75-80 each, too. They'll even tweak the electrical output
characteristics (within reason) to match whatever gauge/engine system
you're using . ..
TDT
RV-10 40025
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Mark E
Navratil
Sent: Mon 6/5/2006 10:57 PM
Cc: sarg314(at)comcast.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: princeton capactive fuel probe
Hi Tom,
I bought the capacitive Princeton probes through Grand Rapids to use
with
my EIS-4000 and the probes came already bent and ready to install in the
RV
tanks. I have an -8A but as far as I know the same bend profile will
work
in the -6 series too. Might not hurt to double-check before ordering.
As far as using them "successfully" goes, I've had decent results with
mine. You go through a calibration setup procedure where you turn power
on, push a button on the probe with the tank empty for the empty set
point,
then fill the tank and push the button again for the full set point.
The
first time I did this it worked fine on one tank but the other tank was
reading 0.0 and the LED on the probe was flashing an error code.
Instructions said to try the calibration procedure again before calling
Princeton. This is a bit of a pain because you have to empty the tank
completely....it worked out ok for me because I was flight testing and
figured what the heck, I should run the tank dry in the air anyway just
to
make sure I can really use all the fuel in flight. After resetting it
the
probe has worked fine.
My only complaint--and it's a minor one--is that with the tanks full,
the
reading from the senders varies by about a gallon. You can program the
EIS
to show whatever quantity you want when the sender is at the full
level...I
measured about 11 gals in my tank when the fuel is at the top of the
sender
so that's what I programmed into the EIS. But the actual reading after
refueling is anywhere from 10.0 to 10.9, and it varies from day to day.
I
didn't expect capacitive probes to wander in their readings like this.
Anyway, the important part is that they do seem to read accurately when
near empty. I have an alarm on my EIS set up to warn me when fuel level
is
reading 1.0 gals in either tank. It will start to flash at me a few
minutes before the engine quits. So I'm satisfied with that aspect of
it.
One other note of interest, I originally installed Vans float sensors in
my
tanks but decided to change to capacitive in hopes that I'd never have
to
yank them out and change them (time will tell...). I made the swap
before
mounting my wings so it was easy. The curious thing is that in order to
install the Princeton probes, I had to install both the probe and the
tank
access plate at the same time, with a series of twists and turns. If
you
install the probe in the access plate first, or install the plate and
then
try to put in the probe, it won't work. I just mention this because it
may
be a lot harder to retrofit a flying airplane than it was with the wings
off....
Hope this helps,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D getting ready for 50 hr oil change..
------------------------------------------------------------
From: sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: princeton capactive fuel probe
--> RV-List message posted by: sarg314
I'm looking for a capacitive fuel probe/gauge to use in my old (circa
1999) RV-6A kit (tanks already built). The princeton probes look
interesting because they could probably be used in this tank. You can
specify a bendable section which I think would make it useable with the
standard RV-6A tank configuration.
Has any one used these probes successfully?
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Freeman <flyeyes(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box Misfit |
Ouch.
I'm guessing that the coefficient of thermal expansive is greater for
the box than for the battery. You might try (gently) heating the
assembly.
On Jun 5, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Michael Ashura wrote:
> I just received my new Panasonic battery from Digi-Key per the
> Nuckolls seminar, and "fit" it into my Firewall Vans Battery Box.
> It is now jammed half-way in and half-way out. Soaking with Boe-
> lube has not helped. What is the story on this? Anyone else have
> a misfit problem like this? I now have two expensive pieces of
> soon-to-be trash.
> Mike
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mitchell Faatz <mitch(at)skybound.com> |
Bob,
What is the easiest way to test the iso amp project on the bench? I'd
like to try it out before mounting it in the plane, and I don't have the
radios and audio sources all hooked up in the panel yet.
Thanks - Mitch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | MGL Avionics "Enigma" glass panel, engine monitor and |
moving map
They have been hinting at this for a while and just released more data.
Based on their previous products (one of which I own) I expect this will be
competitively priced:
http://www.mglavionics.co.za/enigma.html
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box Misfit |
----- Original Message -----
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box
Misfit
I just received my new Panasonic battery from Digi-Key per the
Nuckolls seminar, and "fit" it into my Firewall Vans Battery Box. It is
now jammed half-way in and half-way out. Soaking with Boe-lube has not
helped. What is the story on this? Anyone else have a misfit problem
like this? I now have two expensive pieces of soon-to-be trash.
Mike
(((((((((()))))))))))
I got the first Panosonic battery to fit into the Van's box by
carefully sanding the sides of the battery to reduce its size so it
would slid in and back out. Flew with it for about a year. When it was
time, I purchased another battery buying the PC680 for which the box was
designed and saved lots of work. I found the Panasonic battery had
plenty of power to do the job but it just is about 1/16" larger in both
width and length than the PC680. You could shim on the box mounts but
some sanding would still be needed on the width. My concern was sanding
no more than what was needed to not cause the battery case to weaken to
the point it would fail. Therefore, sand evenly on each side. Larry
in Indiana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
Bob and others on the list,
It is my understanding that the purpose of the balun is mainly to prevent
the feed line from distorting the pattern of the antenna. That is, to keep the
antenna purely horizontal so that it will be less receptive to reflections
from mountains and large buildings for example. When waves reflect off of
things they tend to lose the original polarity (horizontal or vertical). The
balun isolates the antenna from the feed line and makes it more like a pure
horizontal dipole.
Having said all of that, I have a dipole attached to the canopy of my RV-7A
with NO balun (because I didn't have one handy) and it appears to work just
fine. Perhaps it would work even better with the balun!
By the way, I experimented with the length using my MFJ-259B Antenna
Analyzer looking for the lowest SWR across the 108 to 118 MHz nav band. Start
with
the antenna long, say cut for 100 MHz and trim to move the SWR higher in
frequency. The reason it is necessary to experiment here is that the antenna
is
not in the clear, and also it is not running straight.
The length of an ideal dipole antenna (in feet) is approximately
468/Freq(MHz) from any of the ARRL Handbooks.
Hope this helps,
Dan Hopper K9WEK
In a message dated 6/4/2006 3:48:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
http://n-lemma.com/calcs/dipole/balun.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna
We used to wire our VOR cat-whiskers on the
single engined Cessnas with a balun back in the
60' but gave it up after a series of experiments
showed no perceivable difference between antennas
with baluns and antennas that simply attached
the center conductor to one leg of the dipole
and coax braid to the other leg.
Some folks believe in slipping ferrite toroidal
cores over the coax like this figure from the
AeroElectric Connection:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Dipole_Antenna.pdf
However, subsequent to publishing that figure I've
done some testing in the lab and found that the
ferrite cores offer no observable improvement in
VOR receiver or GS receiver performance by their
use.
Therefore, it's my recommendation that you forgo
the use of either balun or ferrite cores and simply
attach the legs of your dipole to the center conductor
and shield of the coax.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box Misfit |
Probably the other way around - plastics thermally expand and contract much
more than aluminum. Try the freezer (although if it is mounted to the
plane, it might take a large one).
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 758 hours
Maple Grove, MN
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James
Freeman
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box
Misfit
Ouch.
I'm guessing that the coefficient of thermal expansive is greater for the
box than for the battery. You might try (gently) heating the assembly.
On Jun 5, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Michael Ashura wrote:
I just received my new Panasonic battery from Digi-Key per the Nuckolls
seminar, and "fit" it into my Firewall Vans Battery Box. It is now jammed
half-way in and half-way out. Soaking with Boe-lube has not helped. What is
the story on this? Anyone else have a misfit problem like this? I now have
two expensive pieces of soon-to-be trash.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | princeton capactive fuel probe |
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: Mark E
Navratil
6/6/2006
Hello Mark, You wrote:
<<...... skip...... My only complaint--and it's a minor one--is that with
the tanks full, the
reading from the senders varies by about a gallon. You can program the
EIS to show whatever quantity you want when the sender is at the full
level...I measured about 11 gals in my tank when the fuel is at the top of
the
sender so that's what I programmed into the EIS. But the actual reading
after
refueling is anywhere from 10.0 to 10.9, and it varies from day to day.
I didn't expect capacitive probes to wander in their readings like this.
Anyway, the important part is that they do seem to read accurately when
near empty.......skip....... --Mark Navratil>>
I am reluctant to dip my toe into any electrical waters, but my
understanding is that the capacitance probes measure the changing
capacitance between the center rod and the outer tube of the probe as the
level of fuel changes inside the tube. Fuel and air have different
capacitive characteristics. Through electrical magic the system displays
this capacitance as fuel quantity.
But also the density of fuel can change with changing temperature and this
changing density can change the capacitance characteristics of the fuel. So
with exactly the same amount of fuel in your tank on two different occasion
you could read different fuel quantity depending upon the temperature
difference between those two occasions.
This could explain the variations in your fuel quantity readings.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box Misfit |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Mike,
I have the Panasonic battery also and it did the same thing.
However, I did not let it get far enough in to not get it out. I am
doing the mod that someone on the web to their battery box. They removed
the front portion of the box and put steel hinges on each side. By
removing the hinge pins, you remove the front cover and remove the
battery towards the front. I bought the steel hinge from McMaster Carr
(about 3') and cut off what I needed and took what pin length I needed.
The pin is about an inch and half longer than the hinge. I flattened the
top 1/4" so I can drill it for a safety wire to keep it from moving.
Problem solved.
Jim Nelson
FWF RV9-A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: strobe power/autopilot interference? |
| From: | "Jekyll" <rcitjh(at)aol.com> |
Erich:
I asked TruTrak that very question. Thier email responce was to run the servo wires
through the same conduit as all other wing wires, including the strobe. No
bad juju will be incurred.
Jekyll
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=38943#38943
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box Misfit |
>
>Mike,
> I have the Panasonic battery also and it did the same thing.
>However, I did not let it get far enough in to not get it out. I am
>doing the mod that someone on the web to their battery box. They removed
>the front portion of the box and put steel hinges on each side. By
>removing the hinge pins, you remove the front cover and remove the
>battery towards the front. I bought the steel hinge from McMaster Carr
>(about 3') and cut off what I needed and took what pin length I needed.
>The pin is about an inch and half longer than the hinge. I flattened the
>top 1/4" so I can drill it for a safety wire to keep it from moving.
>Problem solved.
Jim, could take a picture of your 'mod' next time you have
access to it? It would be helpful to publish it on
our website.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Iso Amp Testing |
>
>Bob,
>
>What is the easiest way to test the iso amp project on the bench? I'd
>like to try it out before mounting it in the plane, and I don't have the
>radios and audio sources all hooked up in the panel yet.
>
>Thanks - Mitch
I used a bench power supply, audio signal generator, load
resistors to simulate headphone and a 'scope. The minimum-equipment
method would call for wiring your headphones to the output and
use some audio device with a headphone output (portable radio,
cd player, etc) to give you a test signal source. You should
hear each stereo channel in one headphone only, and the three
mono channels in both headphones.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Butcher" <europa(at)triton.net> |
| Subject: | Re: princeton capactive fuel probe |
We fitted a Princeton capactive probe in our Europa. We are using premiun
auto gas. What we have learned is that
ethanol changes the dielectric value a lot which results in gross errors
(inaccurate readings). The amount of ethanol added by the gasoline
distributors seems to vary depending on season of the year (we are in
Michigan).
Other Europa owners have noted that aviation gas (100 LL) and auto fuel have
different dielectric values which results in about a 5% error in reading.
What some have done instead of using a capactive probe, is to fit a gage
pressure sensor at the bottom of the tank (or in a line coming from the
bottom) and measure the weight of fuel which is more constant and isn't
affected by the addition of ethanol. See Level Master at www.msiusa.com or
http://catalog.sensing.honeywell.com and look for 26PCAFB6G for examples of
sensors.
Jim & Heather Butcher
Europa XS N241BW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: princeton capactive fuel probe |
I would highly NOT recommend the MSI part. The pressure fitting is made
of PVC! Not a good thing to expose to gasoline unless you want a large
hole in the bottom of your gas tank (where the sensor was)!
The Honeywell part might work, but the gasoline would definitely affect
some of the internal materials - causing inaccuracies if you are lucky
or failure if you are not.
While the idea is a good one, I would not install either of these parts
on my airplane!
Dick Tasker
Jim Butcher wrote:
>Other Europa owners have noted that aviation gas (100 LL) and auto fuel have
>different dielectric values which results in about a 5% error in reading.
>What some have done instead of using a capactive probe, is to fit a gage
>pressure sensor at the bottom of the tank (or in a line coming from the
>bottom) and measure the weight of fuel which is more constant and isn't
>affected by the addition of ethanol. See Level Master at www.msiusa.com or
>http://catalog.sensing.honeywell.com and look for 26PCAFB6G for examples of
>sensors.
>
>Jim & Heather Butcher
>Europa XS N241BW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
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.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
Balun.... Balanced to unbalanced.. Coax is unbalanced line the dipole
antennas are in fact balanced antennas. The balun is a device which allows
you to use an unbalanced line to feed a balanced antenna.
Will your dipole work better with a balun ???? The only thing I could say
is try it. You won't need a very big or heavy balun because the transmit
power on an aircraft is usually pretty low.... On the receive side of things
I doubt you will see any difference at all.
Don't forget that a horizontal dipole antenna has a directional factor to
it. This is the reason that most com radios have vertical antennas.
We used 300/F(mhz) to give an answer in metric.... A little easier to
remember.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 9:14 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: -- Baluns
>
>
>
>
> Bob and others on the list,
>
> It is my understanding that the purpose of the balun is
> mainly to prevent
> the feed line from distorting the pattern of the antenna.
> That is, to keep the
> antenna purely horizontal so that it will be less receptive
> to reflections
> from mountains and large buildings for example. When waves
> reflect off of
> things they tend to lose the original polarity (horizontal or
> vertical). The
> balun isolates the antenna from the feed line and makes it
> more like a pure
> horizontal dipole.
>
> Having said all of that, I have a dipole attached to the
> canopy of my RV-7A
> with NO balun (because I didn't have one handy) and it
> appears to work just
> fine. Perhaps it would work even better with the balun!
>
> By the way, I experimented with the length using my MFJ-259B Antenna
> Analyzer looking for the lowest SWR across the 108 to 118 MHz
> nav band. Start with
> the antenna long, say cut for 100 MHz and trim to move the
> SWR higher in
> frequency. The reason it is necessary to experiment here is
> that the antenna is
> not in the clear, and also it is not running straight.
>
> The length of an ideal dipole antenna (in feet) is approximately
> 468/Freq(MHz) from any of the ARRL Handbooks.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Dan Hopper K9WEK
>
>
> In a message dated 6/4/2006 3:48:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
> http://n-lemma.com/calcs/dipole/balun.htm
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna
>
> We used to wire our VOR cat-whiskers on the
> single engined Cessnas with a balun back in the
> 60' but gave it up after a series of experiments
> showed no perceivable difference between antennas
> with baluns and antennas that simply attached
> the center conductor to one leg of the dipole
> and coax braid to the other leg.
>
> Some folks believe in slipping ferrite toroidal
> cores over the coax like this figure from the
> AeroElectric Connection:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Dipole_Antenna.pdf
>
> However, subsequent to publishing that figure I've
> done some testing in the lab and found that the
> ferrite cores offer no observable improvement in
> VOR receiver or GS receiver performance by their
> use.
>
> Therefore, it's my recommendation that you forgo
> the use of either balun or ferrite cores and simply
> attach the legs of your dipole to the center conductor
> and shield of the coax.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | princeton capactive fuel probe |
Capacitive fuel gauges also require a "wet probe" This is a small probe
that is at the bottom of your tank and is always covered with fuel. It
actually does tow jobs ... First it allows the fuel gauge to be accurate
when the tanks are close to empty and it will do a good job as a water
detector. A little water on the wet probe will lower the capacitance to a
point where a logic circuit can turn on a "Water in the gas" light.
Most tanks will have more than one probe in them. Most transport cat planes
will have several in each tank so the fuel quantity will be pretty accurate
even when the plane is in a turn, climbing or descending. The probes
themselves are not usually uniform in shape or diameter. These odd shapes
are another way of correcting the gauges for the shape of the fuel tanks.
Sound confusing??? It is a bit.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of bakerocb(at)cox.net
> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 9:38 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; czechsix(at)juno.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: princeton capactive fuel probe
>
>
>
>
> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted
> by: Mark E
> Navratil
>
> 6/6/2006
>
> Hello Mark, You wrote:
>
> <<...... skip...... My only complaint--and it's a minor
> one--is that with
> the tanks full, the
> reading from the senders varies by about a gallon. You can
> program the
> EIS to show whatever quantity you want when the sender is at the full
> level...I measured about 11 gals in my tank when the fuel is
> at the top of
> the
> sender so that's what I programmed into the EIS. But the
> actual reading
> after
> refueling is anywhere from 10.0 to 10.9, and it varies from
> day to day.
> I didn't expect capacitive probes to wander in their readings
> like this.
> Anyway, the important part is that they do seem to read
> accurately when
> near empty.......skip....... --Mark Navratil>>
>
> I am reluctant to dip my toe into any electrical waters, but my
> understanding is that the capacitance probes measure the changing
> capacitance between the center rod and the outer tube of the
> probe as the
> level of fuel changes inside the tube. Fuel and air have different
> capacitive characteristics. Through electrical magic the
> system displays
> this capacitance as fuel quantity.
>
> But also the density of fuel can change with changing
> temperature and this
> changing density can change the capacitance characteristics
> of the fuel. So
> with exactly the same amount of fuel in your tank on two
> different occasion
> you could read different fuel quantity depending upon the temperature
> difference between those two occasions.
>
> This could explain the variations in your fuel quantity readings.
>
> OC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: epanelbuilder.com difficulties |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
> Suggestions for alternatives welcome- maybe I'll just go back to AutoCAD
> and my previous excellent panel cutting service....
Mark -
Are you pining again to build another panel? If you know AutoCAD like I
think you know it, why try something new? :-))
How is it going with the flying?
Cheers,
John
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: princeton capactive fuel probe |
Just another reason to fight the booze!
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Jim Butcher
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:08 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: princeton capactive fuel probe
>
>
>
>
> We fitted a Princeton capactive probe in our Europa. We are
> using premiun
> auto gas. What we have learned is that
> ethanol changes the dielectric value a lot which results in
> gross errors
> (inaccurate readings). The amount of ethanol added by the gasoline
> distributors seems to vary depending on season of the year (we are in
> Michigan).
>
> Other Europa owners have noted that aviation gas (100 LL) and
> auto fuel have
> different dielectric values which results in about a 5% error
> in reading.
> What some have done instead of using a capactive probe, is to
> fit a gage
> pressure sensor at the bottom of the tank (or in a line
> coming from the
> bottom) and measure the weight of fuel which is more constant
> and isn't
> affected by the addition of ethanol. See Level Master at
> www.msiusa.com or
> http://catalog.sensing.honeywell.com and look for 26PCAFB6G
> for examples of
> sensors.
>
> Jim & Heather Butcher
> Europa XS N241BW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Butcher" <europa(at)triton.net> |
| Subject: | Re: princeton capactive fuel probe |
Dick,
Thanks for your comments. I agree the MSI PVC housing is a problem. I was
thinking about disassembling the sensor and machining a brass housing. The
nice thing about the MSI is that it already has an amplifier so the output
voltage can go directly into my BMA EFIS.
I think the materials in the Honeywell are OK for gasoline. I know several
Europa drivers who have had this installed for over two years with no
problems.
I'm still trying to decide which way to go.
Jim Butcher
Europa XS N241BW
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 28 V dynamo question |
Hi Bob and all,
A buddy is asking about the Scintilla 28 V 300 W dynamo on his LOM engine.
Does anyone know of a suitable voltage regulator at a reasonable price ?
He says the one on the Moravia website is much too expensive.
Some builders have suggested connecting the dynamo to the battery direct
via a diode, and devise a simple regulator with a transistor and some
simple components.
I recall intricate devices with vibrating coils, shunt and series
coils, cutout adjustment, etc.
Have things become so simple today ?
Any input appreciated,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 28 V dynamo question |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi Bob and all,
>
>A buddy is asking about the Scintilla 28 V 300 W dynamo on his LOM engine.
>Does anyone know of a suitable voltage regulator at a reasonable price ?
>He says the one on the Moravia website is much too expensive.
>Some builders have suggested connecting the dynamo to the battery direct
>via a diode, and devise a simple regulator with a transistor and some
>simple components.
>
>I recall intricate devices with vibrating coils, shunt and series coils,
>cutout adjustment, etc.
>Have things become so simple today ?
The last data I had on the LOM power generation of choice
showed a classic, wound field generator wired per Figure Z-18
An electro-mechanical regulator for this generator would
look something like this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/GenReg_2A.jpg
There ARE solid state replacements for generators but these
are much more difficult to build than for alternators.
Generator regulators need reverse current cutout relay
or diode, current sense and limiting in addition to the
voltage regulating duties. See chapter 3.
This cannot be done with simple circuitry. Further, the
generators are generally slower in their response to
changes in applied field voltage. Regulators tend
to be more specific to the type of generator while
alternator regulators generally work with a wide range
of alternator sizes and brands.
Short answer is that one can PROBABLY craft a suitable
regulator from pieces and parts but the $time$ invested
would most certainly exceed the $time$ required to
purchase the off-the-shelf part. I doubt that any of
my clients of past years would even consider
bringing a modern generator regulator to the market.
The market is too narrow and expenses are breathtaking.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 28 V dynamo question |
Bob,
Thank you for your quick reply.
>
> An electro-mechanical regulator for this generator would
> look something like this:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/GenReg_2A.jpg
That's the beast I encountered years ago on British motorcycles and old
Cessna or Piper twins.
>
> Short answer is that one can PROBABLY craft a suitable
> regulator from pieces and parts but the $time$ invested
> would most certainly exceed the $time$ required to
> purchase the off-the-shelf part.
I'll pass on the info to my buddy.
Thanks again,
Regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dsvs(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Air Speed Switch |
Bob,
I have asked you for assistance regarding where to get a rpm based switch with
a timer, as you recomended that I use instead of an airspeed switch. I noticed
that you have not been as active on the list as usual so I am asking if you
got my request, and if you have any information about where to acquire such a
switch. Thanks in advance. Please do not take this as a complaint, just wondering
about the lack of response. Don VS
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 28 V dynamo question |
Kelly McMullen a crit :
>
> Zephtronics makes a very nice generator controller. G1500N off the top
> of my head. I have one on my Mooney. Rock solid 14.1 V from about 1100
> rpm up.
Kelly,
Thank you for your reply.
Please pardon my previous empty message. Must have hit the wrong key.
Would you care to give some further info on your aircraft model, or type
of engine, as they are required to search their website ?
Thanks,
Regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 28 V dynamo question |
Well, I typoed...
it is www.zeftronics.com
my aircraft ia '65 Mooney M20E with Lycoming IO360. However it is a
14V application.
The link I sent a few minutes ago has the 28V version, found at
Aircraft Spruce.
Quoting Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>:
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Kelly McMullen a crit :
>>
>> Zephtronics makes a very nice generator controller. G1500N off the
>> top of my head. I have one on my Mooney. Rock solid 14.1 V from
>> about 1100 rpm up.
> Kelly,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
> Please pardon my previous empty message. Must have hit the wrong key.
>
> Would you care to give some further info on your aircraft model, or
> type of engine, as they are required to search their website ?
>
> Thanks,
> Regards,
> Gilles
> http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 28 V dynamo question |
Kelly McMullen a crit :
>
>
> Well, I typoed...
> it is www.zeftronics.com
> my aircraft ia '65 Mooney M20E with Lycoming IO360. However it is a
> 14V application.
> The link I sent a few minutes ago has the 28V version, found at
> Aircraft Spruce.
>
Kelly,
Thanks for the info.
Regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Air Speed Switch |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
Aircraft Extras will sell you an airspeed switch separately from their
Flap protection system if you want:
http://www.aircraftextras.com/RelaySpeedCont1.htm
I bought one for my TCAD . . .
TDT
RV-10 40025
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
dsvs(at)comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:29 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Air Speed Switch
Bob,
I have asked you for assistance regarding where to get a rpm based
switch with a timer, as you recomended that I use instead of an airspeed
switch. I noticed that you have not been as active on the list as usual
so I am asking if you got my request, and if you have any information
about where to acquire such a switch. Thanks in advance. Please do not
take this as a complaint, just wondering about the lack of response.
Don VS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dsvs(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Air Speed Switch |
Thanks Tim,
I am looking for a much lower set point. Bob suggested an RPM switch and I am
trying to find out if he knows where to buy the device that he recommended
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com>
>
>
>
> Aircraft Extras will sell you an airspeed switch separately from their
> Flap protection system if you want:
> http://www.aircraftextras.com/RelaySpeedCont1.htm
>
> I bought one for my TCAD . . .
>
> TDT
> RV-10 40025
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> dsvs(at)comcast.net
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:29 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Air Speed Switch
>
>
> Bob,
> I have asked you for assistance regarding where to get a rpm based
> switch with a timer, as you recomended that I use instead of an airspeed
> switch. I noticed that you have not been as active on the list as usual
> so I am asking if you got my request, and if you have any information
> about where to acquire such a switch. Thanks in advance. Please do not
> take this as a complaint, just wondering about the lack of response.
> Don VS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Air Speed Switch |
>
>Bob,
>I have asked you for assistance regarding where to get a rpm based switch
>with a timer, as you recomended that I use instead of an airspeed
>switch. I noticed that you have not been as active on the list as usual
>so I am asking if you got my request, and if you have any
>information about where to acquire such a switch. Thanks in
>advance. Please do not take this as a complaint, just wondering about the
>lack of response. Don VS \
Sorry for the delay. I've been tied up with a big
certification fire-fight. It's really limited the time
I can spend doing fun things. Should be over this weekend.
I don't know of any commercial devices. I have a kind of
generic etched circuit board that carries a little 8-pin
micro-controller and some general purpose input-output
pins.
My program guy could teach a chip to do a tach signal interpretation
and close a circuit when the signal stays above 1500 rpm
for 30 seconds. There are probably others on the List who
could do this too.
I'm wondering how much interest there would be for such
a device. It would take quite a bit of high-talent time
for a one-of-a-kind project.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dsvs(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Air Speed Switch |
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>
>
>
> >
> >Bob,
> >I have asked you for assistance regarding where to get a rpm based switch
> >with a timer, as you recomended that I use instead of an airspeed
> >switch. I noticed that you have not been as active on the list as usual
> >so I am asking if you got my request, and if you have any
> >information about where to acquire such a switch. Thanks in
> >advance. Please do not take this as a complaint, just wondering about the
> >lack of response. Don VS \
>
> Sorry for the delay. I've been tied up with a big
> certification fire-fight. It's really limited the time
> I can spend doing fun things. Should be over this weekend.
>
> I don't know of any commercial devices. I have a kind of
> generic etched circuit board that carries a little 8-pin
> micro-controller and some general purpose input-output
> pins.
>
> My program guy could teach a chip to do a tach signal interpretation
> and close a circuit when the signal stays above 1500 rpm
> for 30 seconds. There are probably others on the List who
> could do this too.
>
> I'm wondering how much interest there would be for such
> a device. It would take quite a bit of high-talent time
> for a one-of-a-kind project.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Bob,
Thanks for the response. I can't venture a guess as to the desire for such a device.
In rv's the only use I can think of is to turn on/off avionics that are
normally switched by sqat switches or the like in the certified world. With
the decreased price of tcad units there may be more demand soon?? I am not in
a rush, but, I am interested in an electronic version of this switch. Please
let me know if you get a chance to look at this a little deeper. Thanks. Don
VS
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
> < the authority which determines whether there can be >
> < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
> < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
> < with experiment. >
> < --Lawrence M. Krauss >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box Misfit |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Hi Bob,
I took a few pix of the mod to the battery box. This should give
you the idea on how it goes together. My first attempt tried to get the
whole "other" battery into the box. However, the Panasonic does not have
the little ridge around the top which holds the battery about 1/4" up
from the bottom. I will file that ridge off the generic battery so it
will go all the way to the bottom. Then again, I might put a spacer in
the bottom to take up that space. I'm not in favor of trimming the
little flange around the top of the "other" battery. It seems to be
where the top and bottom come together. What is your thought on trimming
or spacing for that little protrusion?
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dissimilar metal corrosion chart? |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
I had a chart a while back (can't find) that showed in detail what could
be put together and what not to put together if you wanted to have a good
chance at not creating dissimilar metal corrosion.
Anyone have one or know where to get one?
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box Misfit |
Please reduce the size of the pictures you attach. Thank you.
Dale
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Power and audio input jacks |
I'm taking a poll:
What it the most popular power jack used in portable electronics today? I
am planning on putting two power outlets in, one is the cigarette lighter
plug. I thought I'd use one of the smaller common power jacks for a second
source as well. Good idea or should I just put in another cigarette lighter
plug?
Audio input jacks for my stereo audio panel...again what is the most popular
style of stereo plug used in portable electronics today? I'm guessing it's
the mini plug like that used on computer speakers but not sure.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Still a few holes needed in panel.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power and audio input jacks |
Dean Hi! From UK
I have standard Cigarette Lighter type 12V Auxiliary. May put another in or
with care use dual input adapter occasionally. The people I know who have
fitted the very neat 12V socket have always had to make up an adapter to the
12V auxiliary type! I've limited my in-line fuse to 3 Amps.
For audio into Intercom I using the mini plug and socket. Works really well
into my PS 500.
Regards
Gerry
G-FIZY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Power and audio input jacks |
DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
> What it the most popular power jack used in portable electronics today? I
> am planning on putting two power outlets in, one is the cigarette lighter
> plug. I thought I'd use one of the smaller common power jacks for a second
> source as well. Good idea or should I just put in another cigarette lighter
> plug?
I'm not sure about popularity, but I'm installing some of
these in my RV8:
http://www.powerletproducts.com/
They seem to be used on millions of motorcycles, and
are of much higher quality than the cigar lighter type.
The powerlet products people are also very good folks.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Power and audio input jacks |
>> What it the most popular power jack used in portable electronics today?
I worried about the same problem as I designed my panel. The funny thing
about the small DC coaxial power jacks (like Radio Shack's 274-1563) is that
they are designed for the device receiving the power, not sourcing it. There
is the center post, a gap and the surrounding metal ring. There is not much
to prevent a stray piece of metal bridging the two contacts. What you want
is something like a panel-mounted version of the plugs at the end of the
cords on your typical AC adapter/brick. But then you would still need a cord
to go from the panel to the accessory. And there are a lot of different
outside and inside diameters: 3.5/1.1mm, 5mm/2.1mm, 5/2.5mm, 5.5/2.1mm,
5.5/2.5mm, etc.
The biggest problem with the cigarette lighter outlet is their size. So you
could consider placing a smaller connector on the panel whose plug would run
off to an in-line (cord-mounted) lighter outlet. But some of the things that
plug into a lighter outlet are relatively heavy. So the panel connector you
choose had better be fairly robust and lock the plug in - something like a
female version of Radio Shack's 274-002 (if it existed).
In the end I bit the bullet and just found room for two lighter outlets. If
you want a pair of very high quality, locking lighter outlet and plugs take
a look at the SEALINK 12VRC and 12VPG:
http://www.marinco.com/docs/specs/12VRC.pdf
The whole product line is at http://tinyurl.com/pcxl4
You can buy these at Del City (www.delcity.net) as PN 73540 and 73542:
http://www.delcity.net/delcity/servlet/catalog?parentid=789160&page=1
(tiny URL http://tinyurl.com/mdfxc)
Or just Google on "sealink 12vrc"
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power and audio input jacks |
Where'd you find a bulkhead-style plug? I"m having trouble locating one.
Brett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerry Holland" <gholland@gemini-resourcing.com>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Power and audio input jacks
> <gholland@gemini-resourcing.com>
>
> Dean Hi! From UK
>
> I have standard Cigarette Lighter type 12V Auxiliary. May put another in
> or
> with care use dual input adapter occasionally. The people I know who have
> fitted the very neat 12V socket have always had to make up an adapter to
> the
> 12V auxiliary type! I've limited my in-line fuse to 3 Amps.
>
> For audio into Intercom I using the mini plug and socket. Works really
> well
> into my PS 500.
>
> Regards
>
> Gerry
>
> G-FIZY
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dissimilar metal corrosion chart? |
>
>I had a chart a while back (can't find) that showed in detail what could
>be put together and what not to put together if you wanted to have a good
>chance at not creating dissimilar metal corrosion.
>
>Anyone have one or know where to get one?
>
>Ron Parigoris
See http://www.reliability.com/articles/guest_article03.htm
In the table about half way down is a list of various materials.
The further apart on the list, the stronger the galvanic
potential between the materials that encourages corrosion.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power and audio input jacks |
On Jun 9, 2006, at 12:26 AM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>
>
> I'm taking a poll:
>
> What it the most popular power jack used in portable electronics
> today?
The most popular and generally available is the cigarette lighter
plug but it is big and bulky, a real waste of real estate. But if you
go away from that you are no longer standard.
But if that doesn't concern you then you can pick and choose. In the
ham radio world there are some ideas. Take a look at the power
distribution stuff from West Mountain Radio. Very nicely done for
being able to plug and unplug 12VDC devices. They fit well with Bob's
view of power distribution. They even have a neat little module for
cycle testing batteries for capacity.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Power and audio input jacks |
Consider these parts also available from Radio Shack . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/274-010.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/274-013.jpg
and
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/hh_pwr.jpg
Bob . . .
>
>
> >> What it the most popular power jack used in portable electronics today?
>
>I worried about the same problem as I designed my panel. The funny thing
>about the small DC coaxial power jacks (like Radio Shack's 274-1563) is that
>they are designed for the device receiving the power, not sourcing it. There
>is the center post, a gap and the surrounding metal ring. There is not much
>to prevent a stray piece of metal bridging the two contacts. What you want
>is something like a panel-mounted version of the plugs at the end of the
>cords on your typical AC adapter/brick. But then you would still need a cord
>to go from the panel to the accessory. And there are a lot of different
>outside and inside diameters: 3.5/1.1mm, 5mm/2.1mm, 5/2.5mm, 5.5/2.1mm,
>5.5/2.5mm, etc.
>
>The biggest problem with the cigarette lighter outlet is their size. So you
>could consider placing a smaller connector on the panel whose plug would run
>off to an in-line (cord-mounted) lighter outlet. But some of the things that
>plug into a lighter outlet are relatively heavy. So the panel connector you
>choose had better be fairly robust and lock the plug in - something like a
>female version of Radio Shack's 274-002 (if it existed).
>
>In the end I bit the bullet and just found room for two lighter outlets. If
>you want a pair of very high quality, locking lighter outlet and plugs take
>a look at the SEALINK 12VRC and 12VPG:
>
>http://www.marinco.com/docs/specs/12VRC.pdf
>
>The whole product line is at http://tinyurl.com/pcxl4
>
>You can buy these at Del City (www.delcity.net) as PN 73540 and 73542:
>
>http://www.delcity.net/delcity/servlet/catalog?parentid=789160&page=1
>
>(tiny URL http://tinyurl.com/mdfxc)
>
>Or just Google on "sealink 12vrc"
>
>-- Craig
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power and audio input jacks |
Thanks, for the link, Mickey...
Now that's what I'm talking about! Not quite like the RX-8s, but I like
'em! I knew there had to be something out there I liked.
They are smaller than the traditional cigarette socket/plug (which is a
good thing for our aircraft, no?), but they also have adapters so you
can plug your cigarette lighter plug accessories into their power plugs
and not have to wire one of their plugs onto the accessory and then not
be able to use it elsewhere!
They also have these that are all aluminum for $30:
Looks like they are my choice.
And you can buy just replacement caps of the one you showed below for $3
if needed|!
Go to this page and click on the items in the picture to see all the
possible hookups and combinations.
www.powerletproducts.com/products/ptb.php
Again, nice find, Mickey...These guys think the way I do!
Harley Dixon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mickey Coggins wrote:
> DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>> What it the most popular power jack used in portable electronics
>> today? I
>> am planning on putting two power outlets in, one is the cigarette
>> lighter
>> plug. I thought I'd use one of the smaller common power jacks for a
>> second
>> source as well. Good idea or should I just put in another cigarette
>> lighter
>> plug?
>
> I'm not sure about popularity, but I'm installing some of
> these in my RV8:
>
> http://www.powerletproducts.com/
>
> They seem to be used on millions of motorcycles, and
> are of much higher quality than the cigar lighter type.
>
> The powerlet products people are also very good folks.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEASABIAAD/2wBDAAUDBAQEAwUEBAQFBQUGBwwIBwcHBw8LCwkMEQ8S
EhEPERETFhwXExQaFRERGCEYGh0dHx8fExciJCIeJBweHx7/2wBDAQUFBQcGBw4ICA4eFBEU
Hh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh7/wAAR
CAC7ASwDASIAAhEBAxEB/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAA
AgEDAwIEAwUFBAQAAAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1FhByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkK
FhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZWmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWG
h4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWmp6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXGx8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl
5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/8QAHwEAAwEBAQEBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtREA
AgECBAQDBAcFBAQAAQJ3AAECAxEEBSExBhJBUQdhcRMiMoEIFEKRobHBCSMzUvAVYnLRChYk
NOEl8RcYGRomJygpKjU2Nzg5OkNERUZHSElKU1RVVldYWVpjZGVmZ2hpanN0dXZ3eHl6goOE
hYaHiImKkpOUlZaXmJmaoqOkpaanqKmqsrO0tba3uLm6wsPExcbHyMnK0tPU1dbX2Nna4uPk
5ebn6Onq8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwD7LooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKM03eB1oA
dkVm61r2jaPGW1TU7S0wu/EsoU49cda8k+OXx20jwZbzaXoUkF/rK/KzZzFbH/aPdv8AZ/Ov
jHxF4z13X/EUms6jqE9zcyNl5ZDnI9AOgHbAoA/SPw14l0LxDC8ujanb3ix8P5bcr9RWwOa+
A/hV49vfC3iG21GwuS68ebGx4Zf4kb/PvX3F4O8Sab4n0G31bTZQ8cq/MueY27qfcUCRtUUU
UDCiiigAopCQKjmuYYULyyKiDqzHAFAEtFZdh4h0LUJmhsdYsLqVfvJDcI5H1ANaQdSeOaAT
uOooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiqurajZaVY
S32oXMdtbQqWkkkOAooAfe3UFnbyXN1KkMESl5JHbCqAOSTXzN8cvjnLcxSaR4VnltrOQFGu
o/8AX3B9Ix/CnI+Y8ntXG/tB/F7UPGWoJo2hSSw6Qk3ywjg3JU8M/wDs9wDWd4H8P2kQN/fT
re6nLyXcZCcdF/Pr78UDR5Zqel38yG41BWQsdwj6/nXPXcZjfHQDtXuHijRGELsUYkHkn/61
eW6zYpHM4JGScAAck/1oE0ZmkTypcKqKWLHAUda+yv2TvD3iazsp9Zvpng0q4TbDA3PnHs+O
wH61wX7O/wABbvUhD4i8VW7WlicNFbMMSTD1b0HSvrbTrG1sLOKzs4UhgiUIiKMAAUCLI6UU
CigYUGimStjHNAFHXdVtNJ02e/vZlht4ULOxOOAK+APjN8WfEfjjxBc5vp7fSQxW2tInKpsy
QCwHUn3r6J/av8UfZ9MGiQzFSyEyAHuRjFfGU0Z2vC2TLEcfVaVwaOgstM1bTrSXWLLVYobm
0dcxx3BWcZGcqO/Tkivqr9k74x3ni4P4U8RyiXVLaLzLe5JwZ4x1De4yOe4r5OvfFP2jTLaB
dNs7e6ihMLXUaEPMvT5u2fen/C/xVdeC/HGl+I7T5jaShpE/56Rnh1/FSamk5v4wqKO8T9N8
8UorN8OavZa7olpq1hMJbW7iWWJx3BGfzrR+lWJO4tFIDS0DCiiigAoopM460ALRUQuIjMIh
KhfGdu4Z/KpaACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKhvbmCztJbm5lWOGJSzu3QAUAUfE+v
aX4b0a41fV7tLa1gUszMevsB3J9K+Gvj98ZdY8f6k1nbySWOhW75ht1ODIf7z+p46dq6/wDa
F8ZXXjLWWWyuGOjQ8Wyg8Nxyx9814Pqdpgk46UrhYfpd+7sZcfvB971xXofhHxBskjD4IyOc
ZxivJEZ4LgMo5+nars+ry2URED4kYfgv1Pr7UwvY9k8e+OdGsNHlQsst6+PJgQZOe5J7cf5F
Sfsd6baeKviZc3PiDSDfiC3M8ErKTFBIGGAR0z/hXz1NJPdOzM7ux6yMeT/n0r2r9lf4pwfD
fXbuz1dZZNIv0/eGNMtHIo4YD0PINCRMn1PvtFVQFUAADAA7U4Y7V43J+0R4HitYrqS31ZYJ
ej+QpH/oVbfhv42/DjXJlhg8QRW8rdEuVMfP1PFOzDmR6TRUNvPDcQrNbzJLG4yrowII9iKl
FIoU1Q1i9h0+xnvbhwsMKF2JPYVfNedftCQ35+GWovp4YshV5AvUoD836Uho+S/jF4ll8ReK
Lu7ZiVMhYD0GeBXmusxbSt7Ev3Rh/cVszM0lxMsvLbiagWMNmJgCp7GkI5W6UJIXB+VgCKWz
ilnmVIVJyepHFad7pDRKZLcbgOdp6iq1rfvECoQAjj6U7geq+Cfi745+HmhWukW11FdaZAxZ
FCBmQE5K4bqPpivWtL/ant7vR4lXQ0l1MjkibbEffHJB9q+TbjUJJAQWJB7Vmhnt5TcxEqFb
JAP6iiWqsEWk9T9FPg58WdP8b2z2t6IbDV4gS0O7CSL/AHkz+orubzxBp1vnE/mkdk5H51+e
vg3xBPII9Qs5mt7y3cfMpwQ3qPb/AOvXrcHjybVrIG4Zll27ZAHIH4e38qwhVfwy3OidFW5o
7H0xP8QfD1tMI7q6WFicDLA0zUvHNjEmYZYsEZB3bv5V8rX9ylyxyx3E468HPB/M/kcetVBr
t3DZyWwnc+XypLdvT/PvWvMZcp9C6l8TpYZjtmBA9gKbp3i9PE2qwWk+uXVpHK2wxxuqKT9Q
M18tyeKkM4DXG4k4ODnFbNnLq0qi4tYpV7q38qqzaE7H2nonhvTdLnE8EZabGPMdtzH8a2xX
zevxz1+w0HSVbSbd5THsnllZtzOhwRjsen517f8AD/xLbeLPDVtrFuvlmTKyR5yY3HBH9fxo
SsRe50NFFFMYUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFYvjXR217wvqGkrJ5bXMLIrA9D2rapMZGKAPgG/
sL/wp4gufC3iOIw7ZCIpGHAJ7g/3T/OsbxBpjRO3y4FfZHx7+F1l4+8PySW6rFrFuhNtKBjd
/sn2rwO0+EXj4+F4Z9Y0tnCOYxFGczFf4Sy+nWoWhbs1c+eNbZ4CREDxwzgjr6CsdQzYabIT
sO5r0rxf8P8AWfDlhdpq0ZhvIJC7wsvPlnoc9+3SvN7l2aQ85B6fSrRmWYjKy5jiXC8A9v8A
65rW0LR9U1GYfZ7K5uST/wAs0OPz6V75+zd+z9Lr1pD4j8WedBYSDMFuBhnHrz0r6y8O+EvD
vh+1S30nSbW3VBgERgsfqetA7HxF4k0/xLdfD7TdGt/D18Pszu7gx8c46H868k1O11TTZz9p
tbq1Yf31OBX6pFFI2kAj0xXM+LvAHhPxRZyW2raNbSbxjzEQK4+hFDbB6nwR8LfjJ4u8D3sY
sdSkks92ZLOdi0Mn4fwn3GK+4vg/8TtB+I+i/atOfyL6EAXdk5+eI+v+0p7EV8jftGfAe78B
lta0TzLrR2OW45i+ted/Cjxtq3grxVa65pkpE9sf3keTieLPzRkdwRk/UCmnfclrl1R+nIOT
UN/bxXVrJbzoskMilXVhkMCORWd4P12y8S+G9O17TpPMtb6BZoz6A9j7jp+Fa5GaTGj4K+OH
g2bwZ42urRUP2N28y2f+9Een5dPyri1+YhvWvsn9qPwdFr/gGbVYU/07SwZVIH3oj99fy5H0
r4yTdH8nTD4qSmSurff/AIelY2s2Kgm9iUcf6wD+dbSvkkZ471GEUFkblGGD7igLHKajaGLZ
KmfLcdfeqWwlhntXbWOktqGlXtgq5mtMyxnuU6n+lco0WPl70xWE8OXTadrCc/unIRvTBPB/
A16ZojudQSEEL5p2Lu6Bj0/w+hNeeada2dxqMMczmGKQFSx5AO3j8z/Ou70traS2iuIZTKqc
Bj1JGOa5cQrNTR2YeXNFwO90/Q7+6mCxW8koKhlj2jMnByn1O2WL/ejTua1B8P5knSW8u7e1
hZc+dO2MjKhiR15DRSAe7e9TX3j658kT2fl2zPbi5QIuPnSMOx/GW2Y/VzXOeINYlvluYTM7
FsGM5PABljxn/daL8q7E42ucbvexlXeg+BfDty7X99cXs+WIgt4wgTvy56+nSvQPCvj3RbPR
k/sjRbWKRA0e+TMrcdPvcdD6V5jqHhrWvEk9rNp9lLM0y5dlHC7iJOf+/leg+BfhFrVvahNT
cQ7m3bRz2AqnUVtBKPUoz6hdavpGtyXkRmCXELwOR/q92Q2PTPHAr1P9l28v4tQv9NWGQ2Lx
+aWP3VcHHH1H8q63wH4C0WCzNhc2izxHDybxncRjGfpXpGn6fZafEIrK2igTGMIgH8qzvdja
LVFFFMAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKAAjNJtFLRQB8j/t3alG/iLw1oaKFYxPLK4HJUnAB
Ppwa8N/Z88Ix+Nfi3pGjXC7rZHM8/psQZI/lXrn7dUElv8TvD9+4PlSWe0E9OHOf51yv7Hd9
b6d8e7S3ugsRuLOa3iPTL4z+fBprck+87aCG3t44IECRxqFRR0AHSpaKKRQUUUUAUNe0uz1r
SbnS7+JZbe4jKOrDPBr8yvHegSeEPiPqnh9x8tleMin1TOVP5EV+oZxivzl/aFuodX+P3iKW
1ZWhju/LLD1RQp/UH8qBM+lf2F9dkvfh3qegSuW/si/YRZP3Y5Mtj/vrcfxr6Gr5Z/YCjd7H
xdd4/dyXUKg+pAY/1FfU1NhEz/EFimpaReWEgDJcwPEwPoVIr89fEOmy6bq95ZyKVa3uChB6
8HFfow+Mc18eftI+HP7G+JdzOI8W2ooLhCOmTkMPzz+dSUjxzyyOMd6a6H8q0TGGwcfX2Peo
5YeSTwMUhkehXIsfEVndMf3cmYpR2II4zXMeIYRaazdQKRgSnaAe2a2b5SLN2B5jYMPXg1he
IJPPvDIp5YdaaEzPkdvLIU4YDKn0P/6xXS/D66aeC8hz8qsHA9M//qrm/LbaCTz1ra+Gsf8A
plzkEAxZ574b/wCvWWIX7tmmHdqiPZfBng++8R2EV3FLEltDIY5DI3YZYj8nP516Ho3w30q1
ZPtt0bmVRt4GAehP6oD+NP8AgNon2vwjLPcXQgt/tbg/MFONoycn/PFev6DpmmFytggmbHzS
opZP++zwe/APc0qV3BDq6SZQ8GeHbLT9OEVlaLDEWPG3B44/kB+FbDwxGXykPmv/AHIxuP6d
PxrYh0eHaBczTXA7Rk7UH/AVxn8c1o28MMMYWGJI19FUCteUzuVdJtTbwgugV26gHOKv0YFF
USFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFAHz5+294Ol134f2+vWcRkuNIl3OB18psA/
418a6Jqt7p2qWOv6ZN5OpafMsqN6MvQ/Q9DX6h6rY2+pafcWF3EstvcRmORW6EGvgL9oH4S6
t8PfE817YQPJpFwxeGRRkKM9D/hS2YrH2h8IPiBpfxB8LW+q2bLFeBF+2WhbLwORyP8AdPY1
2wNfmJ4O8Va14Z1mHWPD+pz6bfINvyvhXXP3SOjL7GvpXwR+1ROII7fxX4beeQDDXFg4Bb32
N/Q1Vrhqj6nzSZFePQftB+D57H7XHpPiMR9ObSMDP18zFedeP/2ndQaGS18KaAtkzAgXV7IH
ZfcIvH5k0WC5618fPijpnw58KXE6yxTa1OhjsbUNlt5HDsOyjr71+fly88fnXN1I0t9eMzEk
5Yljyx9zk/nWh4n8R3+s65PrGsX82q6nMfmeRs49B7D0Ar1b9mP4Qaj4y8TReI9ft3j0i1cP
84/1rDoopBY+jf2S/B8nhH4QWC3UXl32ou15OCORuPyj8FAr12o4IkhiWKNQqIAqgdABUlAx
CM15R+0p4SbxD4LOoW0e680wmUYHJjP3h+gP4V6xUc0ayoyOoZWBBBGQQe1Jgfnm42P5hB2N
98eh9aklCFONpxxxXonxx8BzeDvEzy2sJOlXjF7dh0X1Q+4/lXnKqmTgUijPmtgwdCOHBFc3
4ltws8VzGAqzJhkA4R1+Vh+Y49sV2ckXQ1k63ZiVWt96rvZJYgf4mJCsB74IP4GgRyJRRGT6
Cuy+FmmT6ggSxtZJpmVQdq8EsTgZ6VSufCOpymDT7WFnu7k/KgH3V7sfavsn9nT4VWXhPwjB
PrOnQyarM/m5kGTGuAFGOgOOfxqZx51YcJckro6H4N+CoNC8EafFqumxjUzvknEnzbSXJHtk
Ltr0NFCjAAAHYCgDFLVxXKrITbbuwooopiCiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigA
ooooAKz9e0XTNd06XT9VtI7q2lGGRx+oPY1oUUAfKHxP/ZbJuJNQ8GXKkE7vs0hAI9vQ/pXh
+s/DPxtoNw0Wo6Pdoqn73lsFP44wa/R7aKCqngjNKw7nwBbaIv8Awhgg/eLelzlNzZHHB6Yr
I0f4SeO/Ec6R2WmXUsb/APLTYdgHuTwK/RAWVoG3i2hDeuwZqYKAMYpiPl/4T/sv2unTxaj4
vuBK6NuFtGc/me34c19LaXptlpdlFZafbx29vEMJGi4AFWsCloAKKKKACiiigDD8X+G9M8T6
LNpWqw+ZDJyrDho27Mp7EV8h/Ff4fap4I1NY5186ymY+RcoPlfHYjs2O35V9sEZrnfiB4VsP
F3hi60a+GBKuYpAOYpMfKwpWGj4Z25A9Kn8HeHbjxh8SdD8OWrGMvL5ksoXPlIo3FiPoMfiK
0PEnh/VNC1y50W+tmS9hfaFCnEg7MvqDXvv7Mvwtn8KxTeLNdA/tfUI9sceP9RCcHH1OB+VI
Z2HgT4UaJ4amF3LPNqN4SCZZVVRn6Dn8CSK9DCgHNKOlFOxIUUUUwCiijNABRSAk0tABRRRQ
AUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUhIz1oAWis+91vRrI4vdWsLb/AK63CJ/M1Xtf
E/h27l8q01qwupME7IJ1kP5LmlcLM2KKwx4v8LeYYj4h0tXHBVrpFI/M1es9W0u8YC01KzuC
eginVv5Gi6Y7MvUUmRjIOaWmIKKKKACiiigAoIB60ZHrRketAEMtpayzLNJbQvKv3XZAWH0N
SgKOwqOaaKJdzyKo9Sa53XvGej6RCZJ51wO5OBn/APXxQB0/FISMV4J4s+OkMLFNOj39cMMg
ce/X1B69M4rhI/iX44vrqWNtTkis5lAIixlMjIIOTz+OCPQ0rjSPqTVtd0nS03X9/BB7M3J/
CuVvfidocUpW3WacD+LBUfl1/Svme4vtSS7d9RvXmmODnfncCMg5POCKgu9YnWNf3mxO3NK7
K5Uj6bf4m2E9pu0yxnu7jOCmdir6Ek84+grPXUvGviOdoLa5gsFXBeOBgHUH1J5H5CvnXSPF
N9YXaXVpcPvhbOSMg/h6V9IfD34heELvwgmrzXVjp1wXKXUOcOZByeOpBzkfWk1Ji2O48O2U
thpsVvNPLM6gbmkkLnPfk81p9681l+LmhC+EVva3U8IODLgD8QOtehafdQ3tpFdW7h4pUDoR
3BqloSWKKKKYBRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFACE4NeNftH/EqDwvpy+H7KZjqd6mX
EZ+aOP8AoTzXo3xC8T2Pg/wnf6/fuBHbR5Rc8u54VR7k18deDtK1/wCKHxAm1C5cz3l5IZGd
vuwx+vsAMYrGrKysjSnG7uxnhvw5d67fiW7YrG/KxRDn8q+jPhP4L03Qwlz/AGVeiUrjfInG
COeO/wCVdl4I8D6J4Wso4rS3WW4wPMuJBlmP9B9K6jaBUQoSWrZU6ieiR4X8R/hzYXclxcW+
mzxqQXVkBHP5V4ZrFjrHhq6WWzuHdY33BXyHUj0Nfc5UEcjNcJ8TPh5pvibTZmt4UhvgNyMO
Ax/ofeolQktYsuNZWs0U/gT8Rrbx54a2yvs1azAS7ibq3o49j/MV6TXwxBqOs/Cz4hQ6vBG6
S277Ly3PyiaLOCMdPX6Gvtfw9q9jrujWmrabOs1pdxCWJx3BH8/auinPmRlUjys0KKKK0Mwq
ve3cVpCZJT06AdT7CrFcn4n3N4ssY5WbyBYzyAA8Fwyf+yk0gOY8UfFGbSLkxrpuCpwBIfvf
Q1UufjNpf2VZPs00DshyrYO1h2J75xwayPHB0XXr688PwzpHrtpbi58g/eZD3Hr2zj1FeSXl
k91aywmMiVRnBHQ+/tnihMuyOm8W/Ge9v38nS1kRX/jfuPp6dQfQ9q8+1GfWNYvGe/uZWZx1
c5JB9vpwR079ah8hrdBIsRw3BbHQ+/vkGtOytriaeJrMyswC7cLtJzxjPPuBRqwKNtZxWz78
tnjkjpg8H6jP5VpWkUjKyIGQqp2qBkHHUfh147V1/h/wVf6rGjpA3mbguJPuEH7ufZuVP0B6
mu703wFY2W2W6nVDhdhYjdkg+WT75BjI9celFgPFNe0vUWtYzCrrtbYT/dJ6jPYZyR7GtPwp
8OtT1QMDbTS8fMSPT3PHr+VeuajqfhfT9NeztLKKaT5Xikl56jfGD9Mlfw964HVfifqBkkje
YRImSIIlCLkHpiqSEzd/4V3oej2LDVtQtowR86RndJ0Py+np3rzi9j0W18WLFpsbi3dDHJv5
YsDweOPbn0rP1nxZe3czKsrusmevzfjWx8NvCeseINTeQwusMkZjEjKQN3BBHqciiTSJOt8S
Q6FaSW39iXkdzGUy5Qtkf7wboa9R+BWrz3FlcaS6s8NuBJFJ2UMeV/OqPhz4P2UDLLqkrTnu
hJC/kD/WvS9B0ax0W0+z2MKxoTk4UDP5VCA0aKKKoAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKAA0hJ
FLTJVDRlckZBGR1FDA+Sf2sfHR1zxCvhiylzY6fLtlKnh5Qfm/Lp+delfsj6FDbeB7nXCo86
+uWiRsdI48DH/fW78hXhnx08F3XhnxJPMyMbaaYuJDzgk56+/X86+hP2U9QhufhetkrDzbG7
kRx3w53g/wDjxH4Vzwd56m8laGh69iiiiugwCkIBpaKAPmP9sfQ4ba703WoYwDdBoZcd2AyD
+P8ASmfsfePCkjeCdQkwkm6SxLdnH3k/Ecj6H1rW/bQv4k0rRNO3jzTJJcEeigbR+prmP2SP
BM97qNv4pvIisFqxa3yPvNyN30H9faudO1SyN0rw1Pq/vS0nU0tdBggrn/FtuTPY3Y/gkaJv
YOpH88V0FVdTt/tVlLACAzDKk9mHIP5gUmCPjT4t6xe6V8bJtd0oAT2vlAu3AOEAYZ9D0/Gv
VdH0G18U3UOqaWF8jUIBdRDsDnDr+B/UGsT4xeDNPfXZ9b1PU4tPt5drFMF5GyOcKPQjHJA5
qT9njxFb6bYaro9k008WkzG4hMwAdoXPzjHbkZwO5NJGh3y/C3TX0+c3oSHMpkyBkBCvzfjn
n6ismWPwd4e3+fDHNPH8sqH5QDkRSY9QCA4Ppk5GateP/Hzi086zkwsRKyhf442xkH8K+fde
1S/v9UmihZirgL1+/wAbQf8Ax1fyqkhJ2R7JqfxHAV7a0VLZZchdqj5WIwcf8DVW+rVxGv8A
jq9uZWcTkb93HYMcSAf99Kw/E1geH/CXijWkiMNu8aE7leTjk7Tz34P869G0T4VW6/vL+QsN
25Y16AAOQP1x+dNtLYHc84kvdQuroxxLJIWJ27RnI3Bl/wDQiPoBW9a/CjWtevIb0sttbsi7
zJ1LDg8e+BXtmg+F9N00AW1nCoVgA23nA2nr+n4V0NkI0i8iOGWeUHmOJM4+pOFH4kVDYjzn
w18JdB08I1yhvJVxy4wMj2r0bQtJgt5oYreFI1jIICgDAFaMOn38wAlaK0Q/wp87/meB+RrT
sbKCzQiJCWb7zscs31NCVwbRbwKKKKokKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKAOE+
Mng+18VeFrmJ4gZVj4IHP1HuP8a+cfg14uvPhp44n0vVg4s5SIrlT3UE7ZB9P5E19kMM5HrX
zr+0V8PozcrrlrEQAPmZByBnP6H9PpWFVcr5kbUnf3WfQOm31nqNnFeWVxHcQSgMkkbZDCrO
a+P/AIf+J/GPhMg6fK1zZn70a/OPxTqD7ivavC3xYk1KaGzutKiS4chTidkGT/slTj86I14v
cJ0ZRPVSR61neItZ07QtLm1LU7qO3t4lyWY9T2AHcnsK888ffE3UtDu30200y0+1dOZWlI/4
CAv8zXiPjCfxj4zuTPq9zNFACSvmDaAPRU7USrxWwo0m9zK8b6jqfxd+Kcdpaq6wyOIl4yIY
Qf58k/U19e+DNAtPDegWmlWMIihgjCKo9hXmH7OvgS10mwk1qWHE0rYjLD5tvr+J/pXtWDTp
R05mFR/ZQoooorYyCiiigDyH9ojwnNrXhl57FCbu2bzowB99f4l/kfwrwT9nq/uI/iqunTlY
xd2s8LxEfMSF3DPfjaa+ztTtftNoyYBYcjP8q4TT/Anh8eI4fE0NhEl7brIElT5SCQQQwHUj
JqNmUnoeRano99N4guLB4naEuEPHG08ZruvCvgfSbCNWa0SSYfxuM9jXVPp6PdlxH8zHsOa1
9Ltbx4kNvZiDcuTJdHlfl7IpyeeCCVp3uNsq2emhQoWHaqkDge4pYhAzCKBXupVzlIRuAOD1
b7q8HoTW6mjRuQ15PJcnOdp+VB/wEdfxrQghjhjWOJFjRRhVUYAHpQkTcx7KwvWYF0hto85I
++55/IZGPWtmJAgwowKfRTSEFFFFMAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKA
DvWb4i0uDWNLmsZ1UiQYBI6GtI9KSkwR4pbfCnXLadntJrGBSxKgOxwM5H8PpWkvgHxksgYa
3bja2QQxB/QV6xS1l7GJq602eV3HgXxjO7GbX1bd1zIxz+lQW3wz1g30L3t9bTQAjzFyckZG
e31r1sUYo9jEXtZFbTrOGxsorWBQqRrgADFWqTsKWtUrGYUUUUwCiiigBGGQRWNq2l3pna60
m7S3lk/10Ui7o5fcgdG7ZFbVBpNAY2j6XcwSedeTxO46RxJhR+J5Na4XinUUWC4UUUUwCiii
gAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKAP//Z
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box Misfit |
>Hi Bob,
> I took a few pix of the mod to the battery box. This should give
>you the idea on how it goes together. My first attempt tried to get the
>whole "other" battery into the box. However, the Panasonic does not have
>the little ridge around the top which holds the battery about 1/4" up
>from the bottom. I will file that ridge off the generic battery so it
>will go all the way to the bottom. Then again, I might put a spacer in
>the bottom to take up that space. I'm not in favor of trimming the
>little flange around the top of the "other" battery. It seems to be
>where the top and bottom come together. What is your thought on trimming
>or spacing for that little protrusion?
I've posted your pictures at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/RV_Battery_Box
It's unfortunate that the original sizing of this box
was so tight as to be brand specific as to what would
fit inside. There's nothing wrong with allowing generous
clearance around the sides and then slipping a corrugated
cardboard "shims" in to take out the rattle.
Trimming the battery case as you've described is
probably going to be okay too.
For others who have yet to fabricate battery installation
provisions, keep in mind that RG batteries don't need
a box. You can capture the battery's footprint in a
shallow tray . . . sides perhaps 1/2" deep and strap
the battery into the tray with some simple retention
of sheet metal or even nylon webbing.
I note further that your battery of choice is not
Panasonic. The treaded posts for attaching fat wires
offers some challenges. Certainly go to these posts
with 4AWG welding cable fitted with terminals that
are close fit to the screw threads. Torque pretty snug
and safety wire screw head if possible.
These are pretty dinky posts and fastener sizes for
this application. They can be made to work but I'd
suggest some extra attention to make-up for joint
integrity.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)agelesswings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power and audio input jacks |
A little further research on their site shows they also have right angle
plugs...another good idea!
And if you ABSOLUTELY want to have a device usable in both types of
sockets, there is a plug that fits both the cigarette lighter and theirs
for $15:
Looks like they can supply a means to hook up or adapt anything you
want. Good site!
(And, no.,..I don't have an association with them...just like the ideas!)
Harley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harley wrote:
> Thanks, for the link, Mickey...
>
> Now that's what I'm talking about! Not quite like the RX-8s, but I
> like 'em! I knew there had to be something out there I liked.
>
> They are smaller than the traditional cigarette socket/plug (which is
> a good thing for our aircraft, no?), but they also have adapters so
> you can plug your cigarette lighter plug accessories into their power
> plugs and not have to wire one of their plugs onto the accessory and
> then not be able to use it elsewhere!
>
> Looks like they are my choice.
>
> Go to this page and click on the items in the picture to see all the
> possible hookups and combinations.
>
> www.powerletproducts.com/products/ptb.php
>
> Again, nice find, Mickey...These guys think the way I do!
>
> Harley Dixon
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power and audio input jacks |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Dean -
Based on a whole bunch of wall-warts, cables, and power supplies I have
around here - and after wiring our airplane, I would recommend using the
"cigar lighter" type for your power jacks. All cars have them and most
electronics that have DC sources and made for cars use this type. You can
always get them. I know, they look like hell and are too big, but until
the auto/electronics industry start producing another kind, I'd stick with
those. There is a standard being used on most new airliners these days but
the jacks and plugs are harder to find. Again, when the electronics
industry starts producing the plugs and/or adaptors in quantity ... .
Cheers,
John
wrote:
>
>
> I'm taking a poll:
>
> What it the most popular power jack used in portable electronics today?
> I
> am planning on putting two power outlets in, one is the cigarette lighter
> plug. I thought I'd use one of the smaller common power jacks for a
> second
> source as well. Good idea or should I just put in another cigarette
> lighter
> plug?
>
> Audio input jacks for my stereo audio panel...again what is the most
> popular
> style of stereo plug used in portable electronics today? I'm guessing
> it's
> the mini plug like that used on computer speakers but not sure.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> Still a few holes needed in panel.
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dissimilar metal corrosion chart? |
...but don't forget that the anode still corrodes.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dissimilar metal corrosion chart?
>
>I had a chart a while back (can't find) that showed in detail what could
>be put together and what not to put together if you wanted to have a good
>chance at not creating dissimilar metal corrosion.
>
>Anyone have one or know where to get one?
>
>Ron Parigoris
See http://www.reliability.com/articles/guest_article03.htm
In the table about half way down is a list of various materials.
The further apart on the list, the stronger the galvanic
potential between the materials that encourages corrosion.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PWilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power and audio input jacks |
Be aware that the auto store cig lighter receptacles come in various
non standard sizes. Expect to buy several brands to fit your gadget
securely. The bad ones are oversized so small vibrations cause the
thing to become disconnected. Some gadgets came with a plastic sleeve
to allow fit for an oversized receptacle you might buy. The sometimes
work, but not always. Sometimes just buying a new end for your gadget
will allow a better fit. Lots of pitfalls using these things.
Regards, Paul
============================
At 07:05 AM 6/9/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>Dean -
>
>Based on a whole bunch of wall-warts, cables, and power supplies I have
>around here - and after wiring our airplane, I would recommend using the
>"cigar lighter" type for your power jacks. All cars have them and most
>electronics that have DC sources and made for cars use this type. You can
>always get them. I know, they look like hell and are too big, but until
>the auto/electronics industry start producing another kind, I'd stick with
>those. There is a standard being used on most new airliners these days but
>the jacks and plugs are harder to find. Again, when the electronics
>industry starts producing the plugs and/or adaptors in quantity ... .
>
>Cheers,
>
>John
>
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I'm taking a poll:
>>
>>What it the most popular power jack used in portable electronics today?
>>I
>>am planning on putting two power outlets in, one is the cigarette lighter
>>plug. I thought I'd use one of the smaller common power jacks for a
>>second
>>source as well. Good idea or should I just put in another cigarette
>>lighter
>>plug?
>>
>>Audio input jacks for my stereo audio panel...again what is the most
>>popular
>>style of stereo plug used in portable electronics today? I'm guessing
>>it's
>>the mini plug like that used on computer speakers but not sure.
>>
>>Dean Psiropoulos
>>RV-6A N197DM
>>Still a few holes needed in panel.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna for hand-held transceiver on panel |
Like a lot of people I'm saving space on my panel to hang a hand-held
transceiver as a back-up radio. The question is what to do about the
antenna. The simple approach would be to just mount it such that the rubber
ducky antenna sits almost entirely above the glare shield. How well does
that work in terms of transmission and receiving performance?
Alternatively I'd wire the antenna to the main radio such that the lead
could be switched to the BNC on the top of the hand-held. So far the
simplest design (and the one with the least RF loss) that I can think of
would be a female BNC bulkhead connector which leads to the panel radio. The
lead from the antenna would end in a short pigtail of coax with a male BNC
connector. To switch radios you would move the pigtail from the BNC bulkhead
to the BNC on the top of the hand-held. Note that to minimize losses the
bulkhead connector would not be the type with a BNC female on both sides of
the panel. Instead the side inside of the panel crimps directly on to the
coax (Digikey ACX1032-ND, Amphenol 112505).
Most of these ideas come from
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/commtap/commtap.html
Comments? What other approaches have others taken?
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Carey" <markacarey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Second battery in a TC aircraft |
Bob:
I installed a single No. 2 positive wire from the firewall to the tail in my
RV10. I have dual alternators (40 and 20 A B&C) and dual batteries. The
alternators both feed to the firewall connection with 40 amp in-line fuses.
I am using the No. 2 to charge both batteries and have installed a diode to
allow the standby battery to charge while not allowing it to discharge
unless the standby contactor is closed. You said you don't recommend diodes
but it appears you have one shown in Z-14. Your diode appears to allow the
standby alt. to charge the main battery whereas the diode I have in mind
charges the standby battery. Any thoughts??
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Second battery in a TC aircraft
>Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 12:02:03 -0500
>
>
>
>
> >Bob,
> >
> >Please note the two attached drawings (and also please excuse my style).
> >
> >I have a Republic Seabee, and I want a dual battery system with the
>second battery being always hot, feeding the Hot Battery Bus through a
>circuit breaker. The purpose of this battery is to provide power for
>things like bilge pumps, anchor light, clocks, and occasionally a GPS
>(which has an anchor dragging alarm) without creating the possibility of
>discharging the main starting battery.
> >
> >I have a single alternator (B&S) that I would like to use to charge both
>batteries through a battery charging isolator.
> >
> >I might also add a battery parallel switch to allow the hot battery to
>serve as a backup battery, but since it is the one that is most likely to
>run down, I may eliminate that concept, at least until I gain some
>experience.
> >
> >My question for you is: Do you see any regulatory, operational, or
>electrical problems with this arrangement? I think it should work well,
>though I don't know if the FAA has any opinions on battery isolator diodes.
> >
> >Both batteries are Odyssey PC 1200s of about 40 AH rating.
>
>
> Don't make this any more complicated than it needs to be. You'll have
> to get a 337 approval for the installation of the second battery. FAA
> will have no heartburn about the second battery but you'll want your
> 337 to touch on structural, and crash safety issues.
>
> I don't recommend diodes. Just add a second battery to the system
> with it's own battery contactor. You can use either or both batteries
> for cranking. The battery bus for the second battery can run gizmos
> cited in your note as long as each gizmo is under 5A. This is the
> largest always-hot wire the FAA blesses under their rule-of-thumb
> for max size of protected wire for crash safety. If you can get
> a fuse-block blessed . . . so much the better. Fuses are MUCH faster
> and therefore safer than breakers.
>
> Battery bus for second battery needs to be mounted right at the
> battery . . . so fuse-blocks work out well.
>
> Here's a Shop Note on dual battery installation in all metal
> airplanes.
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Battery_Grounds/Battery_Grounds.html
>
> Second battery is wired per Z-30 of
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11G.pdf
>
> I've helped a half dozen or so folks install this same system in
> things like C-206 on floats. We put the second battery right on
> the aircraft CG inside one of the floats. Kept the battery from
> using up fuselage volume and simplified crash safety issues.
>
> I wish I could point you to a completed 337 for guidance
> but all the installations I worked were for missionaries
> and other bush operations in S. America. One pretty much
> accomplishes what's necessary to their airplane without
> government impediments.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> -----------------------------------------
> ( Experience and common sense cannot be )
> ( replaced with policy and procedures. )
> ( R. L. Nuckolls III )
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernie & Margo" <ekells(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Power and audio input jacks |
Listers:
I have purchased three 12V Socketd from ACS Part# 30-12658. I am very
pleased. They seem to make a tight fit, won't corrrode (stainless steel) -
and they won't allow the insertion of a real cigarette lighter. They also
have a rubber plug to flip closed when not in use, for a flush mounting on
the pretty side of the panel. Looks good.
Ernie RV-9A C-GKEL
> Be aware that the auto store cig lighter receptacles come in various non
> standard sizes. Expect to buy several brands to fit your gadget securely.
> The bad ones are oversized so small vibrations cause the thing to become
> disconnected. Some gadgets came with a plastic sleeve to allow fit for an
> oversized receptacle you might buy. The sometimes work, but not always.
> Sometimes just buying a new end for your gadget will allow a better fit.
> Lots of pitfalls using these things.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Power and audio input jacks |
The correct (searchable) ACS part number is 11-01294
Best regards,
Rob Housman
A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ernie &
Margo
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Power and audio input jacks
Listers:
I have purchased three 12V Socketd from ACS Part# 30-12658. I am very
pleased. They seem to make a tight fit, won't corrrode (stainless steel) -
and they won't allow the insertion of a real cigarette lighter. They also
have a rubber plug to flip closed when not in use, for a flush mounting on
the pretty side of the panel. Looks good.
Ernie RV-9A C-GKEL
> Be aware that the auto store cig lighter receptacles come in various non
> standard sizes. Expect to buy several brands to fit your gadget securely.
> The bad ones are oversized so small vibrations cause the thing to become
> disconnected. Some gadgets came with a plastic sleeve to allow fit for an
> oversized receptacle you might buy. The sometimes work, but not always.
> Sometimes just buying a new end for your gadget will allow a better fit.
> Lots of pitfalls using these things.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Antenna for hand-held transceiver on panel |
Hi Craig-
>Comments? What other approaches have others taken?
I've got a permanently mounted socket / switch unit from iCom. The panel
mount radio and antenna coax are permanently mounted to it, and I have a
length of feedline for the handheld that terminates in a plug. If I should
need the handheld, all I do is plug it's feedline into the socket. The
panel mount is disconnected from the antenna, and the handheld is now on
line. Very neat and simple. No making or breaking of BNC connex while
flying the plane.
I got mine through Pacific coast avionics.
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna for hand-held transceiver on panel |
Glen
I think I didn't quite understand your setup. Let me ask.
>
> I've got a permanently mounted socket / switch unit from iCom.
You mean a power socket, right?
> The panel
> mount radio and antenna coax are permanently mounted to it, and I have
a
> length of feedline for the handheld that terminates in a plug. If I
should
> need the handheld, all I do is plug it's feedline into the socket.
The
> panel mount is disconnected from the antenna, and the handheld is now
on
> line. Very neat and simple. No making or breaking of BNC connex
while
> flying the plane.
>
You say "no making or breaking of BNC connex while flying the plane",
but you said " the panel mount (radio) is disconnected from the
antenna". Is it something like Bob has in the Aeroelectric connection, a
panel mounted antenna plug, or am I missing something?
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power and audio input jacks |
Thanks, but I was really looking for the audio jacks, for MP3 input in,
and/or cell-phone interfaces to my PMA8000. Thanks.
Brett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 8:12 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Power and audio input jacks
>
>
> Consider these parts also available from Radio Shack . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/274-010.jpg
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/274-013.jpg
>
>
> and
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/hh_pwr.jpg
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box Misfit |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Dale,
Sorry for the large file size on the pictures. I'm a bit
ignorant on how to reduce the size of the file by compressing it. I just
have a 4mp camera, shoot and download it in my saved pix file.
I just like to build and enjoy it as it removes the stresses of
the day. Especially any non standard mods like the battery box. I'm a
maintanence nut. The items I build must be easily repairable if possible
so things like the battery box mod become standard on my bird.
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna for hand-held transceiver on panel |
On Jun 9, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Craig Payne wrote:
>
> ...simplest design (and the one with the least RF loss) that I can
> think of
> would be a female BNC bulkhead connector which leads to the panel
> radio. The
> lead from the antenna would end in a short pigtail of coax with a
> male BNC
> connector. To switch radios you would move the pigtail from the BNC
> bulkhead
> to the BNC on the top of the hand-held. Note that to minimize
> losses the
> bulkhead connector would not be the type with a BNC female on both
> sides of
> the panel. Instead the side inside of the panel crimps directly on
> to the
> coax (Digikey ACX1032-ND, Amphenol 112505).
Don't worry about losses at 120MHz using multiple BNC connectors. You
won't be able to measure, let alone perceive, the loss. If it is more
convenient to terminate the coax in a male BNC and then use a dual-
female bulkhead 'barrel' connector, do so.
Case in point, I always put a pair of male BNC connectors with a
female barrel connector in-between in every coax to every radio,
usually someplace convenient to get to. That makes it easy to
temporarily insert test equipment in the line. The losses, even at
transponder, DME, and GPS frequencies, are inconsequential.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna for hand-held transceiver on panel |
....." a permanently mounted socket / switch unit from iCom..........a
length of feedline for the handheld that terminates in a plug.
Glen Matejcek
Glen,
Is there a Icom part number for this socket/switch/feedline? Checked their
web site and found nothing like your description.
Dale Ensing
do not achieve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box Misfit |
There are a couple of things you can do to control the size of your
pictures.
- If you know you are shooting an image for uploading dial down the image
size/resolution and maybe the "quality" (more compression).
- Start learning how to edit your pictures with a free image editor:
http://picasa.google.com/
http://www.freeserifsoftware.com/
Or just Google on "free image editing"
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James H
Nelson
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 6:56 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box
Misfit
-->
Dale,
Sorry for the large file size on the pictures. I'm a bit ignorant
on how to reduce the size of the file by compressing it. I just have a 4mp
camera, shoot and download it in my saved pix file.
I just like to build and enjoy it as it removes the stresses of the
day. Especially any non standard mods like the battery box. I'm a
maintanence nut. The items I build must be easily repairable if possible so
things like the battery box mod become standard on my bird.
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
With the version of Microsoft Outlook that I am using (Outlook 2003), it
asks what size of photo I want to send. For example, I just tried a 2807kb
photo, and Outlook asks me if I want to send it as the original or resize it
to small (448 x 336), medium (640 x 480) or large (1024 x 768).
Terry
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Panasonic LC-RD1217P and Van's Battery Box
Misfit
There are a couple of things you can do to control the size of your
pictures.
- If you know you are shooting an image for uploading dial down the image
size/resolution and maybe the "quality" (more compression).
- Start learning how to edit your pictures with a free image editor:
http://picasa.google.com/
http://www.freeserifsoftware.com/
Or just Google on "free image editing"
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
-->
Dale,
Sorry for the large file size on the pictures. I'm a bit ignorant
on how to reduce the size of the file by compressing it. I just have a 4mp
camera, shoot and download it in my saved pix file.
I just like to build and enjoy it as it removes the stresses of the
day. Especially any non standard mods like the battery box. I'm a
maintanence nut. The items I build must be easily repairable if possible so
things like the battery box mod become standard on my bird.
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Curt" <curtc(at)consolidated.net> |
| Subject: | Generator/regulator test |
I have a C90 with a 12v generator and electro-mechanical regulator (Delco).
They do not seem to work Where can I acquire a test procedure for these?
Any help greatly appreciated. N7733
Curt Crosby
CCA, Inc
269 N. 2700 East Road
Pana, Il 62557
Ofc: 217-562-2618
Cell: 217-827-1517
Pager: 217-562-7719
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
>> With the version of Microsoft Outlook that I am using (Outlook 2003), it
asks what size of photo I want to send. For example, I just tried a 2807kb
photo, and Outlook asks me if I want to send it as the original or resize it
to small (448 x 336), medium (640 x 480) or large (1024 x 768).
Neat! I'm using Outlook 2003 too but it doesn't automatically prompt me. But
on the line where the attachments are shown there is a button labeled
"Attachment Options". Under there is a pull-down list labeled "Picture
options".
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | one Main switch or 2 spst switches? Alt. field circuit |
breaker
Bob:
Your diagrams all show a 2-10 Main switch which is apparently hooked
up to give us OFF, Battery Only, and Battery+Alt field. I can see the
merits of this. But I happen to have a number of high quality, sealed,
mil spec. Cutler-Hammer SPST switches that I'm itching to use. Is there
any reason not to use one for the battery and one for the alt. field
coil instead of the 2-10?
This combination would allow having the alt. field ON while the battery
is OFF, which is likely to make the alternator unhappy, but is it
dangerous? I'm thinking that would come under the "don't do that"
heading, like so many other things about flying.
Also, you mention in chapter 10 of your book that you like to have a
circuit breaker on the alt. field rather than a fuse because of over
voltage situations, but you don't explain why it's actually handy to be
able to reset this one circuit.
Thanks,
--
Tom S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring |
Can anyone shed some light on a question about the use of two Ray Allen
Company control stick grips with trim switches, two RAC relay decks, and
RAC servos for aileron and elevator trim? The RAC "Wire schematic" is
attached.
Do both sets of trim switches (the corresponding switches from grip 1
and grip 2) connect to the points labeled Switch 1, Switch3, Switch4,
and Switch2? To me the diagram doesn't make this clear.
Does anyone have a schematic diagram of a complete RAC trim system that
includes relay deck(s) and indicator(s)? The RAC documentation spreads
out the applicable information between the stick grip and the servo
manuals and it is more of a pictorial than a schematic diagram. I'd
particularly like to see what's inside the "relay deck".
Thanks,
Joe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Dubner K7JD | 523 Cedar Avenue | users.lewiston.com/hth/jd/
Long-EZ 821RP | Lewiston, ID 83501 | +1 208 305-2688
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Van's gauges power consumption |
I have a few of van's gauges and their associated senders. I don't see
in the info that came with them what the power consumption of these is.
Does any one know? I'm guesssing it's pretty small.
Thanks,
---
Tom S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring |
I'm not certain what is inside RAC's relay deck but this is how Infinity
says to wire their dual sticks with relays:
www.infinityaerospace.com/Flap2.pdf
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Power and audio input jacks |
> They are smaller than the traditional cigarette socket/plug (which is a
> good thing for our aircraft, no?), but they also have adapters so you
> can plug your cigarette lighter plug accessories into their power plugs
> and not have to wire one of their plugs onto the accessory and then not
> be able to use it elsewhere!
>
> They also have these that are all aluminum for $30:
I originally bought the "military style" (PSO-003) connectors,
but I ended up sending them back. I think they would be fine
on something like a dune buggy or snowmobile or sand rail,
but are severe overkill for the inside of a cockpit. The
screws tops are hard to get off and on, and the chain
tends to bunch up when you spin the cap.
I sent them back to Powerlet, and they gave me full credit,
and shipped the other model with the flip caps (PSO-001) to
me in Switzerland at their expense. That's what I meant when
I said they were good people to deal with!
These connectors are small, and there are *tons* of accessories
that use this type of connector in the motorcycle world. They
have a lot of the same types of requirements we do. As you
mentioned, there are adapters to the cigar lighter connector,
and a lot of other connectors.
http://www.powerletproducts.com/products/cables.php
I bought a cigar lighter adapter, and one for the SAE type
cable, which works perfectly with the battery tender.
BTW, I think I learned about these on either this list or
one of the other fine lists I try to read regularly.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Allison <stevea(at)svpal.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Van's gauges power consumption |
sarg314 wrote:
> I have a few of van's gauges and their associated senders. I don't
> see in the info that came with them what the power consumption of
> these is. Does any one know? I'm guesssing it's pretty small.
>
> Thanks,
> ---
> Tom S.
Tom,
I measured one gage at 100 mA. (Don't remember which one it was.....and
I've made the assumption in my electrical system design they are all
about the same.) The light in the gage uses an additional 125 mA at
full intensity.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net> |
I know about circuit breaker/switches that have the amperage stamped in the
ball on the end of the switch. I heard today about switches that have a
push-pull CB mounted below the switch in the same housing. Anyone have a
reference for these so I can research? For the few CB's that Bob
recommends, why would I want a separate CB and switch (whether in the same
housing or not) when I can get the switch/CB in one smaller package? I know
there's a price difference.
Rob Wright
RV-10 Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking for |
a copy of RTCA/DO-229C
I recently read an article posted on Direct2. website
http://www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pd by a
Phd CFII that concludes that for EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, it was not
necessary for the aircraft to be equipped with a CERTIFIED GPS receiver
to legally file and fly IFR, PROVIDED that you, the pilot/mfg can
evaluate the GPS functionality, and find it provides all of the
necessary pilot input (as defined in the TSO) for IFR flight.
This sounded like it was worth looking into. I verified this opinion
with a competitor of Direct2. So off I go to study TSO-C146 the Standard
document for WAAS GPS, unfortunately there is nothing in the document
regarding functional requirements other than a reference to:
RTCA/DO-229B (which I learned has since been superceeded w/
RTCA/DO-229C). Another Google search reveals that this document is
available but with a cost which ranged from $108-370 per copy.
Does anyone know of a 'library' where this document could be 'rented' or
checked-out. a couple hundred bucks is a steep price for someone just
investigating an idea/thought.
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse
http://deemsrv10.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking |
for a copy of RTCA/DO-229C
On 11 Jun 2006, at 02:22, Deems Davis wrote:
>
>
> I recently read an article posted on Direct2. website http://
> www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pd by a Phd
> CFII that concludes that for EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, it was not
> necessary for the aircraft to be equipped with a CERTIFIED GPS
> receiver to legally file and fly IFR, PROVIDED that you, the pilot/
> mfg can evaluate the GPS functionality, and find it provides all of
> the necessary pilot input (as defined in the TSO) for IFR flight.
>
> This sounded like it was worth looking into. I verified this
> opinion with a competitor of Direct2. So off I go to study TSO-C146
> the Standard document for WAAS GPS, unfortunately there is nothing
> in the document regarding functional requirements other than a
> reference to:
> RTCA/DO-229B (which I learned has since been superceeded w/ RTCA/
> DO-229C). Another Google search reveals that this document is
> available but with a cost which ranged from $108-370 per copy.
> Does anyone know of a 'library' where this document could be
> 'rented' or checked-out. a couple hundred bucks is a steep price
> for someone just investigating an idea/thought.
1. For anyone else interested in reading the referenced article, the
link is missing the letter "f" at the end. It should be <http://
www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pdf>.
2. The referenced article uses some fuzzy wording. They say the GPS
receiver must provide all "necessary pilot input". What does that
mean? Later on they say that the receiver must provide the required
integrity monitoring. The gist of the article seems to be that the
receiver must meet the requirements of the TSO, which is different
than saying it must be TSO'd. I.e., in theory, you could solder
together your own design GPS receiver, and legally use it, as long as
it had all the functionality and performance required by the TSO.
3. They suggest that you can purchase a non-TSO'd GPS receiver that
meets all the requirements of the TSO, and legally use it. Sounds OK
in theory, but how do you determine whether or not this receiver
meets the TSO requirements? If it really does meet the TSO
requirements, why wouldn't the manufacturer put a TSO data plate on it?
4. I've read TSO C-129 (but not the later TSOs for WAAS receivers).
There is no way you can know whether the system meets the TSO unless
you can dig into the software to look for the required functionality,
and then perform some very difficult tests to see if the
functionality actually works. You would need to provide simulated
GPS signals, with one satellite that had an error, and see if the
system was able to detect it. You would need to measure the
navigation accuracy to very tight tolerances. Etc. The required
testing would probably cost several hundred thousand dollars or more
(cost of required equipment, engineering time, flight test time,
etc). It simply isn't practical for anyone at our level to determine
whether a GPS receiver meets the TSO requirements or not.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power and audio input jacks |
hi all, here is another twist to the plug thread. i have a program that
slaves my palm pilot to a cheap handheld gps. it turns the palm into a hsi
and has a 15000 point database. the program was $30. amyway, although there
are a lot of wiring harnesses out there that connect the gps to the palm and
to external power [cig lighter] i have only found one harness that supplies
power to both the palm and the gps. the others supply only the gps. the
''good one'' i found is $90!!. the others are $20. has anyone found a
harness that powers both the gps and the palm and is not made of GOLD?
bob noffs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Power and audio input jacks
>
>
>> They are smaller than the traditional cigarette socket/plug (which is a
>> good thing for our aircraft, no?), but they also have adapters so you can
>> plug your cigarette lighter plug accessories into their power plugs and
>> not have to wire one of their plugs onto the accessory and then not be
>> able to use it elsewhere!
>>
>> They also have these that are all aluminum for $30:
>
> I originally bought the "military style" (PSO-003) connectors,
> but I ended up sending them back. I think they would be fine
> on something like a dune buggy or snowmobile or sand rail,
> but are severe overkill for the inside of a cockpit. The
> screws tops are hard to get off and on, and the chain
> tends to bunch up when you spin the cap.
>
> I sent them back to Powerlet, and they gave me full credit,
> and shipped the other model with the flip caps (PSO-001) to
> me in Switzerland at their expense. That's what I meant when
> I said they were good people to deal with!
>
> These connectors are small, and there are *tons* of accessories
> that use this type of connector in the motorcycle world. They
> have a lot of the same types of requirements we do. As you
> mentioned, there are adapters to the cigar lighter connector,
> and a lot of other connectors.
>
> http://www.powerletproducts.com/products/cables.php
>
> I bought a cigar lighter adapter, and one for the SAE type
> cable, which works perfectly with the battery tender.
>
> BTW, I think I learned about these on either this list or
> one of the other fine lists I try to read regularly.
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern W." <highflight1(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking |
for a copy of RTCA/DO-229C
WAAS is not the important part of the TSO. Some TSO's GPS units are not WAAS
capable.
What IS the deal breaker for a GPS meeting TSO standards is RAIM. Sure, you
have to look at all the requirements, but if a GPS is not RAIM capable, then
you're never going to meet the TSO. If your GPS is RAIM enabled, you at
least have a shot at it if you want to test the rest of it's capabilities
yourself and compare it to the rest of the TSO standards.
Note that Grand Rapids just came out with an option for a RAIM enabled GPS
for their EFIS system which is pretty exciting in that you "might" be able
to put it through all the TSO paces and perhaps be able to self-certify it
for legal IFR GPS by documenting if it meets all the specs.
But being RAIM enabled, at least it's worth the effort of giving it a try
for IFR legality.
Vern W.
On 6/11/06, Deems Davis wrote:
>
>
> I recently read an article posted on Direct2. website
> http://www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pd by a
> Phd CFII that concludes that for EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, it was not
> necessary for the aircraft to be equipped with a CERTIFIED GPS receiver
> to legally file and fly IFR, PROVIDED that you, the pilot/mfg can
> evaluate the GPS functionality, and find it provides all of the
> necessary pilot input (as defined in the TSO) for IFR flight.
>
> This sounded like it was worth looking into. I verified this opinion
> with a competitor of Direct2. So off I go to study TSO-C146 the Standard
> document for WAAS GPS, unfortunately there is nothing in the document
> regarding functional requirements other than a reference to:
> RTCA/DO-229B (which I learned has since been superceeded w/
> RTCA/DO-229C). Another Google search reveals that this document is
> available but with a cost which ranged from $108-370 per copy.
> Does anyone know of a 'library' where this document could be 'rented' or
> checked-out. a couple hundred bucks is a steep price for someone just
> investigating an idea/thought.
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Fuse
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking |
for a...
Good Morning Kevin,
I do not feel at all qualified to evaluate all of the legalities involved,
but I tend to agree with your conclusions based on my general knowledge of what
the FAA has approved.
One major flaw that I see in the authors interpretation is in his ninth
paragraph where he discusses the need for an alternative method of navigation
when using TSO C-129 based GPS. He states that there is a requirement that any
VOR based checkpoint be operative and viable if that point is used on the
flight plan.
That is absolutely NOT true. Any such interpretation he has received is not
what the FAA intended the interpretation to be when the 129 set was approved.
He also has wording which could be construed as meaning that the receivers
he lists are the only ones approved under that TSO. There are several others
that are approved.
With such gross errors in the portions of document with which I am familiar,
I find it difficult to place much credence in the rest.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 6/11/2006 5:40:04 A.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01(at)rogers.com writes:
1. For anyone else interested in reading the referenced article, the
link is missing the letter "f" at the end. It should be <http://
www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pdf>.
2. The referenced article uses some fuzzy wording. They say the GPS
receiver must provide all "necessary pilot input". What does that
mean? Later on they say that the receiver must provide the required
integrity monitoring. The gist of the article seems to be that the
receiver must meet the requirements of the TSO, which is different
than saying it must be TSO'd. I.e., in theory, you could solder
together your own design GPS receiver, and legally use it, as long as
it had all the functionality and performance required by the TSO.
3. They suggest that you can purchase a non-TSO'd GPS receiver that
meets all the requirements of the TSO, and legally use it. Sounds OK
in theory, but how do you determine whether or not this receiver
meets the TSO requirements? If it really does meet the TSO
requirements, why wouldn't the manufacturer put a TSO data plate on it?
4. I've read TSO C-129 (but not the later TSOs for WAAS receivers).
There is no way you can know whether the system meets the TSO unless
you can dig into the software to look for the required functionality,
and then perform some very difficult tests to see if the
functionality actually works. You would need to provide simulated
GPS signals, with one satellite that had an error, and see if the
system was able to detect it. You would need to measure the
navigation accuracy to very tight tolerances. Etc. The required
testing would probably cost several hundred thousand dollars or more
(cost of required equipment, engineering time, flight test time,
etc). It simply isn't practical for anyone at our level to determine
whether a GPS receiver meets the TSO requirements or not.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Antenna switchbox for handheld, was Antenna for hand-held |
transceiver on panel
Howdy Carlos and Dale-
RE:
> I think I didn't quite understand your setup. Let me ask.
> > I've got a permanently mounted socket / switch unit from iCom.
> You mean a power socket, right?
Nope.
>
> > The panel
> > mount radio and antenna coax are permanently mounted to it, and I have
> a
> > length of feedline for the handheld that terminates in a plug. If I
> should
> > need the handheld, all I do is plug it's feedline into the socket.
> The
> > panel mount is disconnected from the antenna, and the handheld is now
> on
> > line. Very neat and simple. No making or breaking of BNC connex
> while
> > flying the plane.
> >
>
> You say "no making or breaking of BNC connex while flying the plane",
> but you said " the panel mount (radio) is disconnected from the
> antenna". Is it something like Bob has in the Aeroelectric connection, a
> panel mounted antenna plug, or am I missing something?
>
The antenna switchbox is approximately 1" x 2" x 4". It is mounted to the
back side of any convenient sheet metal. It has a socket on it's mounting
face as well as 2 BNC connectors on it's rear side. One BNC is for the
external fixed com antenna and one for the com radio. There is a separate
feedline that attaches to the handheld radio. The free end of the feedline
is fitted with a plug. When you insert this plug into the antenna
switchbox socket, the antenna is disconnected from the panel mount com and
connected to the handheld com.
> Is there a Icom part number for this socket/switch/feedline? Checked their
> web site and found nothing like your description.
It is curious that it doesn't show up there, but you can see it on the
Pacific Coast web site at:
http://www.pacific-coast-avionics.com/detail.asp?id=4024
The part # is ANT-SB.
Hope this helps-
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: one Main switch or 2 spst switches? Alt. field |
circuit breaker
>
>Bob:
> Your diagrams all show a 2-10 Main switch which is apparently hooked
> up to give us OFF, Battery Only, and Battery+Alt field. I can see the
> merits of this. But I happen to have a number of high quality, sealed,
> mil spec. Cutler-Hammer SPST switches that I'm itching to use. Is there
> any reason not to use one for the battery and one for the alt. field coil
> instead of the 2-10?
>This combination would allow having the alt. field ON while the battery is
>OFF, which is likely to make the alternator unhappy, but is it
>dangerous? I'm thinking that would come under the "don't do that"
>heading, like so many other things about flying.
You may use any switches you wish. It's your airplane. The rationale
for two poles in the DC power master switch of alternator-fitted aircraft
was to PREVENT alternator-only operations where the system's operating
characteristics under these conditions were not fully explored.
The Bonanza's and Barons have separate switches . . . in fact, those
alternators will come on line self-excited without a battery
(but that's another story). I was not privy to any testing Beech may
have done at the time this system was certified to demonstrate
performance. I do know that a regulator I designed for that system
was required not to degrade the alternator's ability to self-excite.
Special cases aside, the vast majority of aircraft have been produced
with variations on the infamous split-rocker switch. A device
designed to provide control of the battery-alternator combination
while specifically preventing alternator-only operations. Hence
the use of a 2-3 or 2-10 switch in my drawings.
>Also, you mention in chapter 10 of your book that you like to have a
>circuit breaker on the alt. field rather than a fuse because of over
>voltage situations, but you don't explain why it's actually handy to be
>able to reset this one circuit.
If you choose to incorporate crow-bar ov protection there
is an operational desire to be able to reset it one time.
There is also a chance of nuisance triping where being able
to reset is useful. Hence a breaker is used in lieu of fuses
and also located on the switch panel. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Switch_Panels/Switches.pdf
Other forms of ov protection may not benefit from this
configuration and could drive the field circuit directly
from the bus through a fuse.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!) |
Well the author of the article did not bother to check with the FAA.
You can NOT navigate IFR with sole ref to GPS without an IFR GPS,
period end of story.
Phd CFI? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. That is funny.
I suppose if you can go thru the process that proves to the FAA that
the unit meets the TSO than yes you can use it. Ask the rocket
scientist if he has done this. Fact is YOU can't meet the TSO spec
with any handheld GPS. Now if you are talking about panel mount
GPS, why not buy a used IFR GPS which are CHEAP.
Here is a short list of IFR GPS, most with both enroute and approach
capability I came up with. These are rebuilt/overhauled/reconditioned
prices from an avionics dealer. You will find these half the price used
from individuals.
I find these on eBay for less than $1000, some well under this price.
Now you going to deal with the FAA to TSO your non TSO'ed GPS?
Right.
UPS "AT" GX-50 $2,500
UPS GX-55R $2000; no approach/enroute-term only
UPS GX-60/COM $3,000
UPS GX-65/COM $2,000; no approach/enroute-term only
Honeywell Bendix/King KLN-89B $2,200
Honeywell Bendix/King KLN-90B $2,500
Honeywell Bendix/King KLN-94 $4,700
GARMIN GPS-155 TSO $2,000
GARMIN GPS-155XL TSO $2,400
GNC-300XLTSO$2,900 (IFR GPS Enroute/Appch/COM)
GNC-300 TSO $2,300 (same as above but XL has better LCD display)
II MORROW 2001GPS IFR $1,900 (lowest priced Enroute/Appch IFR GPS)
TRIMBLE TNL-2000 APPROACH "Plus"
NORTHSTAR M-3 APPROACH $1,900
This whole subject of short cuts and pinching pennies in IFR flight
makes no sense to me as an approach to flying, much less IFR. If
a few dollars is a big deal, are you going to pop for current nav
data bases? Personally if I was outfitting my RV-7 IFR, I would
have traditional gnd base nav, VOR/LOC/ILS and use a hand
held GPS for situational awareness. It's cheaper to buy approach
plates and enroute charts as needed than electronic nav data
renew subscriptions.
Deems: Don't waste your time; get an early generation IFR GPS and
CDI. You can certainly back it up with a handheld GPS with a color
display. You don't need to buy a $8,000 IFR GPS with a map and com.
They are nice but a early Gen IFR GPS with indicator can be had on
eBay for well under $2,000. FORGET FORGET EVER EVER
using a handheld GPS device for IFR, ever.
George M.
ATP-B737/B757/B767/RV-4/RV-7
CFI/CFII/MEI with a Masters, Mechanical Engineering
>posted by: Deems Davis
>
>I recently read an article posted on Direct2. website
>http://www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pd by a
>PhD CFII that concludes that for EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, it was not
>necessary for the aircraft to be equipped with a CERTIFIED GPS receiver
>to legally file and fly IFR, PROVIDED that you, the pilot/mfg can
>evaluate the GPS functionality, and find it provides all of the
>necessary pilot input (as defined in the TSO) for IFR flight.
>
>This sounded like it was worth looking into. I verified this opinion
>with a competitor of Direct2. So off I go to study TSO-C146 the
>Standard
>document for WAAS GPS, unfortunately there is nothing in the document
>regarding functional requirements other than a reference to:
>RTCA/DO-229B (which I learned has since been superceeded w/
>RTCA/DO-229C). Another Google search reveals that this document is
>available but with a cost which ranged from $108-370 per copy.
>Does anyone know of a 'library' where this document could be 'rented'
>or
>checked-out. a couple hundred bucks is a steep price for someone just
>investigating an idea/thought.
>
>Deems Davis # 406
>Fuse
>http://deemsrv10.com/
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: one Main switch or 2 spst switches? Alt. field |
circuit breaker
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Bob:
>> I happen to have a number of high quality, sealed, mil spec.
>> Cutler-Hammer SPST switches that I'm itching to use. Is there any
>> reason not to use one for the battery and one for the alt. field coil
>> instead of the 2-10?
>
> The rationale
> for two poles in the DC power master switch of alternator-fitted
> aircraft
> was to PREVENT alternator-only operations where the system's operating
> characteristics under these conditions were not fully explored.
>
> Special cases aside, the vast majority of aircraft have been produced
> with variations on the infamous split-rocker switch. A device
> designed to provide control of the battery-alternator combination
> while specifically preventing alternator-only operations. Hence
> the use of a 2-3 or 2-10 switch in my drawings.
>
> Bob . . .
Hmmm... Sounds safer to travel the well-worn path rather than use the
alternator in a configuration "not fully explored". I'll get a 2-10.
--
Tom. S.
RV-6A - electrical system.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Chamberlain" <mchamberlain(at)runbox.com> |
| Subject: | Resistors for Un-switched Audio Input |
Hi all,
I've read in the archives about using resistors to allow multiple
un-switched audio sources to be piped in to an intercom. It seems that
using resistors (220 1/2 watt seems to be one of the recommended
solutions) will do the trick so I took a trip to Radio Shack and bought
some. The question is; is there a certain orientation they should be
soldered in line? I'm not an electrical engineer so I'm not sure exactly
how they should be put in line, not dealt with them before. Does it
matter?
Thanks in advance for any help,
Mark
RV-7 234C (res)
Finishing up wiring
Engine being delivered TODAY!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!) |
Not only that, you can't fly IFR with a TSO 129 unit without
conventional nav equipment onboard and working. TSO129 units whether
enroute or approach certified, are NOT approved for sole means or even
primary means of navigation. They are secondary only.
Perhaps you could argue that you don't have to go through the STC/337
process that is required for TC aircraft, but that is about the extent
of it.
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> Well the author of the article did not bother to check with the FAA.
> You can NOT navigate IFR with sole ref to GPS without an IFR GPS,
> period end of story.
>
> Phd CFI? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. That is funny.
>
> I suppose if you can go thru the process that proves to the FAA that
> the unit meets the TSO than yes you can use it. Ask the rocket
> scientist if he has done this. Fact is YOU can't meet the TSO spec
> with any handheld GPS. Now if you are talking about panel mount
> GPS, why not buy a used IFR GPS which are CHEAP.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!) |
Good Morning Kelly,
I believe what you say is true, but the language used could be misleading.
There does have to be another source of navigation available.
It doesn't have to be VOR.
If you were in the far north of Canada back when TSO C-129 was first
approved, it could have been ADF.
I agree that in any part of the lower forty-eight that I am familiar with,
the VOR would be the system used. I am not sure how things are up in Canada
these days!
The GPS is supplementary, but it is only the aircraft component of the back
up navigation device that has to be operative. The ground stations can be
inoperative and the locations of those stations can be used for all GPS
functions.
You do not have to fly a route delineated by VOR stations. You can go direct
to any point and along any path that the FAA controller is willing to issue
a clearance to or for.
If the GPS fails, you must have the capability of switching over to another
source of navigation within a reasonable distance. You do not have to be using
it all the time.
Obviously, if all the VHF stations are inoperative, the system is not
available as a back up. But a VOR or two being inoperative along the route of
flight is no problem at all.
Any IFR GPS approved for at least enroute and terminal use can be used in
lieu of ADF or DME for any IFR purpose except to shoot an NDB approach.
To execute any approach via the GPS, the approach must be in the database,
retrievable by the set being used and the data verified as being current.
The waypoints in the database are the only ones that can be used for
navigation. You cannot navigate via GPS using a self loaded waypoint other than
in
the enroute phase and with the concurrence of the responsible controller.
Even that is a little fuzzy, but has been accepted by most regulators as being
legal via the controllers authority, not yours.
The old TSO C-129 sets do provide a LOT of capability for the money.
They can eliminate the need for a DME entirely and the ADF for almost all
purposes. Any of those approaches that have a note saying "ADF required" or "DME
required" or any approach that has DME in the title can be executed without
ADF or DME by using the IFR GPS in lieu of those boxes.
Don't sell those 129 units short!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 6/11/2006 10:46:39 A.M. Central Standard Time,
kellym(at)aviating.com writes:
Not only that, you can't fly IFR with a TSO 129 unit without
conventional nav equipment onboard and working. TSO129 units whether
enroute or approach certified, are NOT approved for sole means or even
primary means of navigation. They are secondary only.
Perhaps you could argue that you don't have to go through the STC/337
process that is required for TC aircraft, but that is about the extent
of it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Resistors for Un-switched Audio Input |
Mark Chamberlain wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've read in the archives about using resistors to allow multiple
> un-switched audio sources to be piped in to an intercom. It seems that
> using resistors (220 1/2 watt seems to be one of the recommended
> solutions) will do the trick so I took a trip to Radio Shack and
> bought some. The question is; is there a certain orientation they
> should be soldered in line? I'm not an electrical engineer so I'm not
> sure exactly how they should be put in line, not dealt with them
> before. Does it matter?
>
> Thanks in advance for any help,
>
> Mark
>
> RV-7 234C (res)
> Finishing up wiring
> Engine being delivered TODAY!
Resistors don't care about orientation.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking |
for a copy of RTCA/DO-229C
I am certainly No expert, but I'm inquizitive and like to learn, and
while the article may have some issues, the folks @ Direct2 thought
enough of it to put it on their website. The gist of Experimental
aircraft is that we CAN investigate LEGAL alternatives, The EFIS that
I'm buying is not Certified, But I'm certain that it can/will provide
all of the pilot information that is required, and for less $'s than a
certified unit. There is indeed a very large and growing market of
avionics based upon this notion for which the EAA has already weighed in on.
I was under the impression that WAAS has it's own fault detection
capabilities and therefore RAIM is not an issue (Set me straight if I'm
off base) . If WAAS GPS receivers can receive this fault info, (I'm sure
there are differences in the GPS receivers) then in theory it should be
a straight forward thing for it to be passed/picked up by an EFIS and
the appropriate indication provided to the pilot, perhaps this is what
Grand Rapids is pursing?
TSO-C146 - while it IS the standard document, does NOT specify the
functional requirements, That's why I was looking for a copy of
RTCA/DO-229C to better understand the Functional requirements, so I
could make a personal individual builder/pilot assessment of whether
this is worth pursuing. (Certification, goes WAY beyond functional
requirements, and involves, environmenl, packaging, labeling, and
numerous other documents and requirements). It may turn out that,
individual pilot/builder 'certification' is indeed an onerous task, but
let's not short circuit the discovery and learning.
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse
http://deemsrv10.com/
Vern W. wrote:
> WAAS is not the important part of the TSO. Some TSO's GPS units are
> not WAAS capable.
> What IS the deal breaker for a GPS meeting TSO standards is RAIM.
> Sure, you have to look at all the requirements, but if a GPS is not
> RAIM capable, then you're never going to meet the TSO. If your GPS is
> RAIM enabled, you at least have a shot at it if you want to test the
> rest of it's capabilities yourself and compare it to the rest of the
> TSO standards.
>
> Note that Grand Rapids just came out with an option for a RAIM enabled
> GPS for their EFIS system which is pretty exciting in that you "might"
> be able to put it through all the TSO paces and perhaps be able to
> self-certify it for legal IFR GPS by documenting if it meets all the
> specs.
> But being RAIM enabled, at least it's worth the effort of giving it a
> try for IFR legality.
>
> Vern W.
>
>
> On 6/11/06, *Deems Davis* > wrote:
>
> >
>
> I recently read an article posted on Direct2. website
> http://www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pd by a
> Phd CFII that concludes that for EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, it was not
> necessary for the aircraft to be equipped with a CERTIFIED GPS
> receiver
> to legally file and fly IFR, PROVIDED that you, the pilot/mfg can
> evaluate the GPS functionality, and find it provides all of the
> necessary pilot input (as defined in the TSO) for IFR flight.
>
> This sounded like it was worth looking into. I verified this opinion
> with a competitor of Direct2. So off I go to study TSO-C146 the
> Standard
> document for WAAS GPS, unfortunately there is nothing in the document
> regarding functional requirements other than a reference to:
> RTCA/DO-229B (which I learned has since been superceeded w/
> RTCA/DO-229C). Another Google search reveals that this document is
> available but with a cost which ranged from $108-370 per copy.
> Does anyone know of a 'library' where this document could be
> 'rented' or
> checked-out. a couple hundred bucks is a steep price for someone just
> investigating an idea/thought.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!) |
George,
I do not have a horse in this race, but I believe you've missed the point of
the original article.
1- The article does not refer to handhelds (but you mention those
multiple times).
2- I do not believe the point is about being cheep. (the article was
from the Direct-2 / Chelton folks - their equipment is at (and/or near) the
very top of the line (cost and function).
3- I do not believe just having a "$1000 ebay" TSO'd GPS unit on board
is enough. The installation itself is also of concern - especially for
approaches. For example, coupling to a CDI mounted within the pilots normal
scan vision.
Suppose you had a dual screen direct-2-avionics system (with a coupled
Freeflight WASS GPS). Most of these I've seen result in pretty impressive
panels (appearance and function). Suppose you had a panel full of other
similar high-end / high-quality avionics equipment (engine monitor, backup
gyro, aoa sensor, multi-function annunciator, etc).
Now to the point. Where would you put your old, used, monochrome, $1000
ebay TSO'd GPS unit? Do you really want it in the center of your panel?
What would you move off to the side/bottom to make room for it? Given that
the Direct2/Freeflight has the same features/functions (including RAIM,
WAAS, etc, do you even want the ebay unit in your plane at all? Are you
going to spend the $ to keep your "ebay GPS" database current - in addition
to the database in your Chelton/Direct-2 system? During flight, are you
going to "double program" your flight path into the ebay unit (assuming your
focus is on the Direct-2/Chelton PFD).
Outside of the advantage of having an independent backup, I might be able to
argue that the ebay unit is a workload distraction and thus perhaps not a
wise/safe decision (in this situation).
Thus, if your ebay unit's only/primary/true purpose was to satisfy FAA legal
requirements, it would be prudent to determine if those legal requirements
could be satisfied with the Direct-2 (and Free Flight) setup (in an
experimental aircraft).
Rick
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 11:07 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!)
Well the author of the article did not bother to check with the FAA.
You can NOT navigate IFR with sole ref to GPS without an IFR GPS,
period end of story.
Phd CFI? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. That is funny.
I suppose if you can go thru the process that proves to the FAA that
the unit meets the TSO than yes you can use it. Ask the rocket
scientist if he has done this. Fact is YOU can't meet the TSO spec
with any handheld GPS. Now if you are talking about panel mount
GPS, why not buy a used IFR GPS which are CHEAP.
Here is a short list of IFR GPS, most with both enroute and approach
capability I came up with. These are rebuilt/overhauled/reconditioned
prices from an avionics dealer. You will find these half the price used
from individuals.
I find these on eBay for less than $1000, some well under this price.
Now you going to deal with the FAA to TSO your non TSO'ed GPS?
Right.
UPS "AT" GX-50 $2,500
UPS GX-55R $2000; no approach/enroute-term only
UPS GX-60/COM $3,000
UPS GX-65/COM $2,000; no approach/enroute-term only
Honeywell Bendix/King KLN-89B $2,200
Honeywell Bendix/King KLN-90B $2,500
Honeywell Bendix/King KLN-94 $4,700
GARMIN GPS-155 TSO $2,000
GARMIN GPS-155XL TSO $2,400
GNC-300XLTSO$2,900 (IFR GPS Enroute/Appch/COM)
GNC-300 TSO $2,300 (same as above but XL has better LCD display)
II MORROW 2001GPS IFR $1,900 (lowest priced Enroute/Appch IFR GPS)
TRIMBLE TNL-2000 APPROACH "Plus"
NORTHSTAR M-3 APPROACH $1,900
This whole subject of short cuts and pinching pennies in IFR flight
makes no sense to me as an approach to flying, much less IFR. If
a few dollars is a big deal, are you going to pop for current nav
data bases? Personally if I was outfitting my RV-7 IFR, I would
have traditional gnd base nav, VOR/LOC/ILS and use a hand
held GPS for situational awareness. It's cheaper to buy approach
plates and enroute charts as needed than electronic nav data
renew subscriptions.
Deems: Don't waste your time; get an early generation IFR GPS and
CDI. You can certainly back it up with a handheld GPS with a color
display. You don't need to buy a $8,000 IFR GPS with a map and com.
They are nice but a early Gen IFR GPS with indicator can be had on
eBay for well under $2,000. FORGET FORGET EVER EVER
using a handheld GPS device for IFR, ever.
George M.
ATP-B737/B757/B767/RV-4/RV-7
CFI/CFII/MEI with a Masters, Mechanical Engineering
>posted by: Deems Davis
>
>I recently read an article posted on Direct2. website
>http://www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pd by a
>PhD CFII that concludes that for EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, it was not
>necessary for the aircraft to be equipped with a CERTIFIED GPS receiver
>to legally file and fly IFR, PROVIDED that you, the pilot/mfg can
>evaluate the GPS functionality, and find it provides all of the
>necessary pilot input (as defined in the TSO) for IFR flight.
>
>This sounded like it was worth looking into. I verified this opinion
>with a competitor of Direct2. So off I go to study TSO-C146 the
>Standard
>document for WAAS GPS, unfortunately there is nothing in the document
>regarding functional requirements other than a reference to:
>RTCA/DO-229B (which I learned has since been superceeded w/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | G McNutt <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RS232 Aviation Data Output |
My Garmin GNC300XL GPS/COM has one RS232 output port. Can the RS232
Aviation Data output be split to feed more than one receiving unit, I
want to send data to a (1) Trutrak autopilot (2) Grand Rapids Sport EFIS
(3) Garmin GTX 327 transponder.
Is this a simple split the output or is there more to it.
Thanks,
George in Langley BC
6A flying, 7A wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!) |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dissimilar metal corrosion chart? |
Ron
EAA Chapter 1000 has a nice one on their web site at
http://www.eaa1000.av.org/technicl/corrosion/galvanic.htm
Charlie Kuss
>
>I had a chart a while back (can't find) that showed in detail what could
>be put together and what not to put together if you wanted to have a good
>chance at not creating dissimilar metal corrosion.
>
>Anyone have one or know where to get one?
>
>Ron Parigoris
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>I know about circuit breaker/switches that have the amperage stamped in
>the ball on the end of the switch. I heard today about switches that have
>a push-pull CB mounted below the switch in the same housing. Anyone have
>a reference for these so I can research? For the few CB s that Bob
>recommends, why would I want a separate CB and switch (whether in the same
>housing or not) when I can get the switch/CB in one smaller package? I
>know there s a price difference.
>
>
What economy do you perceive for the use of switch-breakers? The
total number of protected branches from the busses generally
outnumber the total branches with switches by 2:1 or more.
This means that for every switch-breaker, you have at least one
circuit that needs only protection and no switch. This has the
effect of "doubling" the busses. You'll have a main bus with no
switches on it, and second one in front of the pilot with
switch-breakers. You'll perhaps have two e-busses. You can't
use switch-breakers on a battery bus . . . unless perhaps
your battery is right under your seat and the battery-bus
switch-breakers are on the front side of the seat under your
knees.
A switch breaker is always more expensive than a local switch,
remote breaker combination . . . which in turn is more expensive
than a local switch, remote fuse combination. Since you'll need
busses with both switched and non-switched protection, $time$
to install land cost of ownership is highest for the system
utilizing switch-breakers.
I'll suggest that switch-breakers in light aircraft are not
part of an elegant solution.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com> |
There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are
planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs
in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me.
Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
redundancy.
Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a
separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Patterson <scc_ron(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect |
Does anyone know how to properly make up a disconnect at the firewall for my GPS
antenna?
I have mounted the antenna for my Garmin 396 under the engine cowling. What I
don't know is how to splice into the antenna wire and make up a proper firewall
quick connect/disconnect that will enable me to take off the cowl without fishing
the antenna wire through the firewall every time.
Is it OK to splice the antenna wire? how? which connectors do I use?
Appreciate your ideas.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off.
You
need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, and
ASI.
Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam gauges. If
the
EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Beadle
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are
planning a
Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one
basket.
If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me.
Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
redundancy.
Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a
separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
"Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with
only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And
they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an
individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since
experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what
kind of backups you have.
TDT
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off.
You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter,
and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam
gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Beadle
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We
are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all
eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough
for me.
Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
redundancy.
Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent
AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't
want
another one. Do whatever floats your boat.
Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this issue for years and
mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS airliners going dark in IFR
where the only thing left was a flashlight and a vacuum ADI.
I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I wonder why?
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
"Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with
only
one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And they've
got
zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an
individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since
experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what
kind
of backups you have.
TDT
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off.
You
need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, and
ASI.
Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam gauges. If
the
EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Beadle
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are
planning a
Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one
basket.
If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me.
Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
redundancy.
Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a
separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
You won't find a vacuum ADI on anything rolling off the Boeing or Airbus
lines today. As they say, "The only vacuum on this plane runs the
toilet" . . .
TDT
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:56 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't
want another one. Do whatever floats your boat.
Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this issue for years and
mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS airliners going dark in IFR
where the only thing left was a flashlight and a vacuum ADI.
I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I wonder why?
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
"Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR
Cessnas with only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for
backup. And they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are
on an individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since
experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what
kind of backups you have.
TDT
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked
me off. You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum),
Altimeter, and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need
the steam gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Beadle
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS
age? We are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So
far, all eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe
enough for me.
Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam
gage for redundancy.
Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an
independent AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam
gages?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Erickson" <john.erickson(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
Dan,
A lot of people will respond with what they think or what they heard.
Here's
what I have in writing. Note that while most Experimental Operations
Limits
are fairly standardized, they may differ, so check the Ops Limits issued
for
the aircraft you're putting the EFIS in for specifics.
Here's what my Ops Limits say under the Phase II section.
"4. After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately
equipeed for night and/or instrument flist as listed in FAR 91.205 (b
through e), this aircraft is to be operated under day only VFR."
OK, pretty straightforward. On to what FAR 91.205 b through e says...
FAR 91.205
(b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the
following
instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Airspeed indicator.
(2) Altimeter.
(3) Magnetic direction indicator.
(4) Tachometer for each engine.
(5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine using pressure system.
(6) Temperature gauge for each liquid-cooled engine.
(7) Oil temperature gauge for each air-cooled engine.
(8) Manifold pressure gauge for each altitude engine.
(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank.
(10) Landing gear position indicator, if the aircraft has a retractable
landing gear.
(11) For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in
accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or
aviation white anticollision light system. In the event of failure of
any
light of the anticollision light system, operation of the aircraft may
continue to a location where repairs or replacement can be made.
(12) If the aircraft is operated for hire over water and beyond
power-off
gliding distance from shore, approved flotation gear readily available
to
each occupant and, unless the aircraft is operating under part 121 of
this
subchapter, at least one pyrotechnic signaling device. As used in this
section, =93shore=94 means that area of the land adjacent to the water
which is
above the high water mark and excludes land areas which are
intermittently
under water.
(13) An approved safety belt with an approved metal-to-metal latching
device
for each occupant 2 years of age or older.
(14) For small civil airplanes manufactured after July 18, 1978, an
approved
shoulder harness for each front seat. The shoulder harness must be
designed
to protect the occupant from serious head injury when the occupant
experiences the ultimate inertia forces specified in =A723.561(b)(2) of
this
chapter. Each shoulder harness installed at a flight crewmember station
must
permit the crewmember, when seated and with the safety belt and shoulder
harness fastened, to perform all functions necessary for flight
operations.
For purposes of this paragraph=97
(i) The date of manufacture of an airplane is the date the inspection
acceptance records reflect that the airplane is complete and meets the
FAA-approved type design data; and
(ii) A front seat is a seat located at a flight crewmember station or
any
seat located alongside such a seat.
(15) An emergency locator transmitter, if required by =A791.207.
(16) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes with a
seating
configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 9 or less, manufactured after
December 12, 1986, a shoulder harness for=97
(i) Each front seat that meets the requirements of =A723.785 (g) and (h)
of
this chapter in effect on December 12, 1985;
(ii) Each additional seat that meets the requirements of =A723.785(g) of
this
chapter in effect on December 12, 1985.
(17) For rotorcraft manufactured after September 16, 1992, a shoulder
harness for each seat that meets the requirements of =A727.2 or =A729.2
of this
chapter in effect on September 16, 1991.
(c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following
instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(2) Approved position lights.
(3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light
system on
all U.S.-registered civil aircraft. Anticollision light systems
initially
installed after August 11, 1971, on aircraft for which a type
certificate
was issued or applied for before August 11, 1971, must at least meet the
anticollision light standards of part 23, 25, 27, or 29 of this chapter,
as
applicable, that were in effect on August 10, 1971, except that the
color
may be either aviation red or aviation white. In the event of failure of
any
light of the anticollision light system, operations with the aircraft
may be
continued to a stop where repairs or replacement can be made.
(4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light.
(5) An adequate source of electrical energy for all installed electrical
and
radio equipment.
(6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required,
that
are accessible to the pilot in flight.
(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments
and
equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this
section,
and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph
(c)
of this section.
(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.
(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:
(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through
flight
attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance
with
the instrument requirements prescribed in =A7121.305(j) of this chapter;
and
(ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through
flight attitudes of =B180 degrees of pitch and =B1120 degrees of roll
and
installed in accordance with =A729.1303(g) of this chapter.
(4) Slip-skid indicator.
(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.
(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second
pointer or digital presentation.
(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.
(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).
(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).
(e) Flight at and above 24,000 ft. MSL (FL 240). If VOR navigational
equipment is required under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person
may
operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft within the 50 states and the
District of Columbia at or above FL 240 unless that aircraft is equipped
with approved distance measuring equipment (DME). When DME required by
this
paragraph fails at and above FL 240, the pilot in command of the
aircraft
shall notify ATC immediately, and then may continue operations at and
above
FL 240 to the next airport of intended landing at which repairs or
replacement of the equipment can be made.
Reading this again makes things pretty clear. Basic Day/VFR equipment is
listed first. Night VFR requires all the Day VFR equipment with some
additions. IFR requires Night/VFR with some more equipment. Here's
where
another question typically arises when discussing EFIS use in IFR
flight.
FAR 91.205 (d) specifies Gyroscopic rate of turn, pitch and bank, and
direction indicator. What is gyroscopic (especially since most (if not
all)
AHRS's do not have any moving parts at all. Here's what I copied off
EAA's
Homebuilt page (link is
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/1Equipping%20a%20Homebuilt%2
0fo
r%20IFR%20operations.html and does require membership)
"What is a gyro?
The often-asked question is, what constitutes a =93gyroscopic=94
instrument. Is
an instrument containing an actual rotating mass gyro required, or are
alternatives such as ring laser gyros or accelerometer-based instruments
acceptable? Unfortunately, there is no specific definition of a
gyroscopic
instrument to be found in any FAA regulation or guidance document.
In order to try to answer this question, the EAA contacted the FAA Small
Airplane Directorate in Kansas City, MO. The Small Airplane Directorate
confirmed that there is no published guidance on this subject, but
indicated
that the function of the instrument is the main consideration. Any
instrument that performs the function of the required gyroscopic
instrument
and presents info to the pilot in the same manner as the gyroscopic
instrument will meet the requirement of 91.205, regardless of what
mechanical or electronic means are used to generate the information and
display."
Bottomline, it seems pretty obvious from all this that all of the
popular
EFIS systems out there meet the definition of gyroscopic instruments
given
above, satisfy the equipment required by the FAR's, and the requirements
for
instrument flight specified in the Ops Limits. Note that nowhere in any
of
this is there any requirement for any backup of any sort (other than the
requirement in the Night/VFR section for spare fuses). I like your
statement of "If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me."
Remember the regs are a minimum. Lots of stuff to consider including
electrical system design, quality of EFIS hardware AND software,
installation, etc. However, once the regs are met, everything else is
really
personal preference. What one person feels is perfectly safe may seem to
someone else incredibly unsafe. To each his own. I'm going to have
backups
in my RV-10.
John Erickson
RV-10 #40208 Wings
(I think this is my longest post ever... :-) )
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Beadle
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 7:47 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are
planning a
Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one
basket.
If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me.
Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
redundancy.
Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a
separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Carey" <markacarey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect |
I placed my antenna in the baggage compartment with the thought that the
signal could transmit through the cabin since it is non-metallic. I bought
an extra length of cable in lieu of trying to make one up due to the
intricacy of the connections.
>From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect
>Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:17:21 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
>
>
>I did this with mine....got a bulkhead connector from Digi-key and a
>standard BNC end and built it up.
>
>Works fine - I'll look for pictures and part numbers.......
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron Patterson
>Sent: Jun 12, 2006 10:45 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect
>
>
>Does anyone know how to properly make up a disconnect at the firewall for
>my GPS antenna?
>
>I have mounted the antenna for my Garmin 396 under the engine cowling. What
>I don't know is how to splice into the antenna wire and make up a proper
>firewall quick connect/disconnect that will enable me to take off the cowl
>without fishing the antenna wire through the firewall every time.
>
>Is it OK to splice the antenna wire? how? which connectors do I use?
>
>Appreciate your ideas.
>
>Ron
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna switchbox for handheld, was Antenna for |
hand-held transceiver on panel
Robert shows how to build one of your own at:
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Glen
Matejcek
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:36 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Antenna switchbox for handheld, was Antenna for
hand-held transceiver on panel
-->
Howdy Carlos and Dale-
RE:
> I think I didn't quite understand your setup. Let me ask.
> > I've got a permanently mounted socket / switch unit from iCom.
> You mean a power socket, right?
Nope.
>
> > The panel
> > mount radio and antenna coax are permanently mounted to it, and I
> > have
> a
> > length of feedline for the handheld that terminates in a plug. If I
> should
> > need the handheld, all I do is plug it's feedline into the socket.
> The
> > panel mount is disconnected from the antenna, and the handheld is
> > now
> on
> > line. Very neat and simple. No making or breaking of BNC connex
> while
> > flying the plane.
> >
>
> You say "no making or breaking of BNC connex while flying the plane",
> but you said " the panel mount (radio) is disconnected from the
> antenna". Is it something like Bob has in the Aeroelectric connection,
> a panel mounted antenna plug, or am I missing something?
>
The antenna switchbox is approximately 1" x 2" x 4". It is mounted to the
back side of any convenient sheet metal. It has a socket on it's mounting
face as well as 2 BNC connectors on it's rear side. One BNC is for the
external fixed com antenna and one for the com radio. There is a separate
feedline that attaches to the handheld radio. The free end of the feedline
is fitted with a plug. When you insert this plug into the antenna switchbox
socket, the antenna is disconnected from the panel mount com and connected
to the handheld com.
> Is there a Icom part number for this socket/switch/feedline? Checked
> their web site and found nothing like your description.
It is curious that it doesn't show up there, but you can see it on the
Pacific Coast web site at:
http://www.pacific-coast-avionics.com/detail.asp?id=4024
The part # is ANT-SB.
Hope this helps-
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna switchbox for handheld, was Antenna for |
hand-held transceiver on panel
>> It is curious that it doesn't show up there, but you can see it on the
Pacific Coast web site at:
>> http://www.pacific-coast-avionics.com/detail.asp?id=4024
>> The part # is ANT-SB.
Robert shows how to build one of your own at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/commtap/commtap.html
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RS232 Aviation Data Output |
I expect it will work electrically (RS-232 is fairly forgiving) - just tie
the output wire to the three input wires. But are all three devices
expecting the same data format?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of G McNutt
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 4:28 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: RS232 Aviation Data Output
My Garmin GNC300XL GPS/COM has one RS232 output port. Can the RS232 Aviation
Data output be split to feed more than one receiving unit, I want to send
data to a (1) Trutrak autopilot (2) Grand Rapids Sport EFIS
(3) Garmin GTX 327 transponder.
Is this a simple split the output or is there more to it.
Thanks,
George in Langley BC
6A flying, 7A wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
Yes, they have that cute little battery operated Jet 2.25 ADI that costs
15k.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:19 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
You won't find a vacuum ADI on anything rolling off the Boeing or Airbus
lines today. As they say, "The only vacuum on this plane runs the
toilet" .
. .
TDT
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:56 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't
want
another one. Do whatever floats your boat.
Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this issue for years and
mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS airliners going dark in IFR
where the only thing left was a flashlight and a vacuum ADI.
I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I wonder why?
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
"Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with
only
one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And they've
got
zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an
individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since
experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what
kind
of backups you have.
TDT
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off.
You
need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, and
ASI.
Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam gauges. If
the
EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Beadle
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are
planning a
Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one
basket.
If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me.
Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
redundancy.
Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a
separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
Note however, that every TC aircraft with glass panel, whether G-1000,
Avidyne or other, all had to put in the basic steam gages for their TC.
I suspect that the FAA is more concerned with electrical/panel failure
than they are with a mechanical gage that needs no power or vac source
to operate.
Quoting Tim Dawson-Townsend :
> "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with
> only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And
> they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
>
>
> FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an
> individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since
> experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what
> kind of backups you have.
>
>
> TDT
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
> Gray
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
> I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off.
> You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter,
> and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam
> gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
>
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
> Beadle
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
> There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
>
>
> What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We
> are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all
> eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough
> for me.
>
>
> Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
> redundancy.
>
>
> Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent
> AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brett Ferrell <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
Dan -
And to add another datapoint, my FAA (Cincinnati) regional inspector who will do
my op limits stated that he had no concerns with my self-certifying that my dual
BMA EFIS system met these requirements (no vacuum system at all, no round
gauges). Folks need to do what they're comfortable with, and do so from a
position of knowledge, but I agree that it's pretty clearly established what is
"required".
Brett
Quoting John Erickson :
> Dan,
>
> Bottomline, it seems pretty obvious from all this that all of the popular
> EFIS systems out there meet the definition of gyroscopic instruments given
> above, satisfy the equipment required by the FAR's, and the requirements for
> instrument flight specified in the Ops Limits. Note that nowhere in any of
> this is there any requirement for any backup of any sort (other than the
> requirement in the Night/VFR section for spare fuses). I like your
> statement of "If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me."
> Remember the regs are a minimum. Lots of stuff to consider including
> electrical system design, quality of EFIS hardware AND software,
> installation, etc. However, once the regs are met, everything else is really
> personal preference. What one person feels is perfectly safe may seem to
> someone else incredibly unsafe. To each his own. I'm going to have backups
> in my RV-10.
>
>
> John Erickson
>
> RV-10 #40208 Wings
>
> (I think this is my longest post ever... :-) )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
Note that Garmin or Avidyne probably could have satisfied the FAA if
they installed two EFIS systems (with 2 ADAHRS) on separate buses, as
long as the aircraft had an appropriate electrical architecture. (note
Cirrus' backup ADI is electric) Then one could eliminate the "steam
gauges."
Of course, two EFISs starts to add up to $$ . . .
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
Note however, that every TC aircraft with glass panel, whether G-1000,
Avidyne or other, all had to put in the basic steam gages for their TC.
I suspect that the FAA is more concerned with electrical/panel failure
than they are with a mechanical gage that needs no power or vac source
to operate.
Quoting Tim Dawson-Townsend :
> "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with
> only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And
> they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
>
>
> FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an
> individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since
> experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what
> kind of backups you have.
>
>
> TDT
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Bruce
> Gray
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
> I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me
off.
> You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum),
Altimeter,
> and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam
> gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
>
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
> Beadle
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
> There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
>
>
> What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We
> are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all
> eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough
> for me.
>
>
> Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
> redundancy.
>
>
> Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent
> AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
Message I would like to read the reports. Not trying to be a
smart alex just out of curiosity.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Gray
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:55 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't
want another one. Do whatever floats your boat.
Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this issue for years and
mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS airliners going dark in IFR
where the only thing left was a flashlight and a vacuum ADI.
I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I wonder why?
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
"Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas
with only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup.
And they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on
an individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since
experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what
kind of backups you have.
TDT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me
off. You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum),
Altimeter, and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need
the steam gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Beadle
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are
planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs
in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me.
Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
redundancy.
Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS
on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
Accually GRT is now offering a dual ahrs system for $1500 extra. From
my understaning both ahrs's are in the same enclosure, but funtion
indipendently. for experimental use only of course.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:54 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
>
> Note that Garmin or Avidyne probably could have satisfied the FAA if
> they installed two EFIS systems (with 2 ADAHRS) on separate buses, as
> long as the aircraft had an appropriate electrical architecture. (note
> Cirrus' backup ADI is electric) Then one could eliminate the "steam
> gauges."
>
> Of course, two EFISs starts to add up to $$ . . .
>
> TDT
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
> McMullen
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:57 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
>
> Note however, that every TC aircraft with glass panel, whether G-1000,
> Avidyne or other, all had to put in the basic steam gages for their TC.
> I suspect that the FAA is more concerned with electrical/panel failure
> than they are with a mechanical gage that needs no power or vac source
> to operate.
>
> Quoting Tim Dawson-Townsend :
>
>> "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with
>> only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And
>> they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
>>
>>
>>
>> FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an
>> individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since
>> experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what
>> kind of backups you have.
>>
>>
>>
>> TDT
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Bruce
>> Gray
>> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>>
>>
>>
>> I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me
> off.
>> You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum),
> Altimeter,
>> and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam
>> gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruce
>> www.glasair.org
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
>> Beadle
>> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>>
>> There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
>>
>>
>>
>> What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We
>> are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all
>> eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough
>> for me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
>> redundancy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent
>> AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
Here's one.
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Mar
tin
Air/martinair-summary.html
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Brinker
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
I would like to read the reports. Not trying to be a smart alex
just
out of curiosity.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Gray <mailto:Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:55 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't
want
another one. Do whatever floats your boat.
Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this issue for years and
mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS airliners going dark in IFR
where the only thing left was a flashlight and a vacuum ADI.
I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I wonder why?
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
"Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with
only
one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And they've
got
zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an
individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since
experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what
kind
of backups you have.
TDT
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off.
You
need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, and
ASI.
Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam gauges. If
the
EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Beadle
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are
planning a
Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one
basket.
If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me.
Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
redundancy.
Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a
separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
Message I found this PROBABLE CAUSE: "Numerous electrical
anomalies as a result of a loose main battery shunt connection and
undetermined electrical system causes." at
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19960528-0
It would seem they had no control over their dc bus. I
would say this is a good reason for anyone building an airplane to go
with a pilot operated e-bus.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Gray
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:37 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
Here's one.
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Mar
tinAir/martinair-summary.html
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Brinker
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:01 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
I would like to read the reports. Not trying to be a smart
alex just out of curiosity.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Gray
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:55 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I
don't want another one. Do whatever floats your boat.
Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this issue for years
and mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS airliners going dark in
IFR where the only thing left was a flashlight and a vacuum ADI.
I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I wonder why?
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
"Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR
Cessnas with only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for
backup. And they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are
on an individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since
experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what
kind of backups you have.
TDT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked
me off. You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum),
Altimeter, and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need
the steam gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Beadle
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We
are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all
eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough
for me.
Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
redundancy.
Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent
AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B |
This has probably been answered before, so excuse me if so.
Just thought it may save me from digging thru miles of archives.
I was under the impression it to be no problem to put an Icom
handheld on com 2 of a PMA8000B audio panel. But I was informed by my
avionics wiring tech that it was unheard of to do so. Why is that ? Is
there a way ?
Thanks Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com> |
John,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
I had read the regs several times and had visited the EAA site. I just
didn't quite put it together as you have. I am comfortable with dual,
independent systems on separate battery busses. In the unlikely event
of a lightning strike, I might lose both, but I can live with that.
I probably will go with the dual battery, dual EFIS, dual AHRS system
and no gyros. I may have to educate the DAR for sign-off, but it should
be doable.
Thanks.
Dan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Erickson
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:19 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
Dan,
A lot of people will respond with what they think or what they heard.
Here's what I have in writing. Note that while most Experimental
Operations Limits are fairly standardized, they may differ, so check the
Ops Limits issued for the aircraft you're putting the EFIS in for
specifics.
Here's what my Ops Limits say under the Phase II section.
"4. After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately
equipeed for night and/or instrument flist as listed in FAR 91.205 (b
through e), this aircraft is to be operated under day only VFR."
OK, pretty straightforward. On to what FAR 91.205 b through e says...
FAR 91.205
(b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the
following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Airspeed indicator.
(2) Altimeter.
(3) Magnetic direction indicator.
(4) Tachometer for each engine.
(5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine using pressure system.
(6) Temperature gauge for each liquid-cooled engine.
(7) Oil temperature gauge for each air-cooled engine.
(8) Manifold pressure gauge for each altitude engine.
(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank.
(10) Landing gear position indicator, if the aircraft has a retractable
landing gear.
(11) For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in
accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or
aviation white anticollision light system. In the event of failure of
any light of the anticollision light system, operation of the aircraft
may continue to a location where repairs or replacement can be made.
(12) If the aircraft is operated for hire over water and beyond
power-off gliding distance from shore, approved flotation gear readily
available to each occupant and, unless the aircraft is operating under
part 121 of this subchapter, at least one pyrotechnic signaling device.
As used in this section, "shore" means that area of the land adjacent to
the water which is above the high water mark and excludes land areas
which are intermittently under water.
(13) An approved safety belt with an approved metal-to-metal latching
device for each occupant 2 years of age or older.
(14) For small civil airplanes manufactured after July 18, 1978, an
approved shoulder harness for each front seat. The shoulder harness must
be designed to protect the occupant from serious head injury when the
occupant experiences the ultimate inertia forces specified in
=A723.561(b)(2) of this chapter. Each shoulder harness installed at a
flight crewmember station must permit the crewmember, when seated and
with the safety belt and shoulder harness fastened, to perform all
functions necessary for flight operations. For purposes of this
paragraph-
(i) The date of manufacture of an airplane is the date the inspection
acceptance records reflect that the airplane is complete and meets the
FAA-approved type design data; and
(ii) A front seat is a seat located at a flight crewmember station or
any seat located alongside such a seat.
(15) An emergency locator transmitter, if required by =A791.207.
(16) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes with a
seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 9 or less, manufactured
after December 12, 1986, a shoulder harness for-
(i) Each front seat that meets the requirements of =A723.785 (g) and (h)
of this chapter in effect on December 12, 1985;
(ii) Each additional seat that meets the requirements of =A723.785(g) of
this chapter in effect on December 12, 1985.
(17) For rotorcraft manufactured after September 16, 1992, a shoulder
harness for each seat that meets the requirements of =A727.2 or =A729.2
of this chapter in effect on September 16, 1991.
(c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following
instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(2) Approved position lights.
(3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light
system on all U.S.-registered civil aircraft. Anticollision light
systems initially installed after August 11, 1971, on aircraft for which
a type certificate was issued or applied for before August 11, 1971,
must at least meet the anticollision light standards of part 23, 25, 27,
or 29 of this chapter, as applicable, that were in effect on August 10,
1971, except that the color may be either aviation red or aviation
white. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light
system, operations with the aircraft may be continued to a stop where
repairs or replacement can be made.
(4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light.
(5) An adequate source of electrical energy for all installed electrical
and radio equipment.
(6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required,
that are accessible to the pilot in flight.
(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments
and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.
(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:
(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through
flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in
accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in =A7121.305(j)
of this chapter; and
(ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through
flight attitudes of =B180 degrees of pitch and =B1120 degrees of roll
and installed in accordance with =A729.1303(g) of this chapter.
(4) Slip-skid indicator.
(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.
(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second
pointer or digital presentation.
(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.
(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).
(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).
(e) Flight at and above 24,000 ft. MSL (FL 240). If VOR navigational
equipment is required under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person
may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft within the 50 states and
the District of Columbia at or above FL 240 unless that aircraft is
equipped with approved distance measuring equipment (DME). When DME
required by this paragraph fails at and above FL 240, the pilot in
command of the aircraft shall notify ATC immediately, and then may
continue operations at and above FL 240 to the next airport of intended
landing at which repairs or replacement of the equipment can be made.
Reading this again makes things pretty clear. Basic Day/VFR equipment is
listed first. Night VFR requires all the Day VFR equipment with some
additions. IFR requires Night/VFR with some more equipment. Here's
where another question typically arises when discussing EFIS use in IFR
flight. FAR 91.205 (d) specifies Gyroscopic rate of turn, pitch and
bank, and direction indicator. What is gyroscopic (especially since most
(if not all) AHRS's do not have any moving parts at all. Here's what I
copied off EAA's Homebuilt page (link is
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/1Equipping%20a%20Homebuilt%2
0for%20IFR%20operations.html and does require membership)
"What is a gyro?
The often-asked question is, what constitutes a "gyroscopic" instrument.
Is an instrument containing an actual rotating mass gyro required, or
are alternatives such as ring laser gyros or accelerometer-based
instruments acceptable? Unfortunately, there is no specific definition
of a gyroscopic instrument to be found in any FAA regulation or guidance
document.
In order to try to answer this question, the EAA contacted the FAA Small
Airplane Directorate in Kansas City, MO. The Small Airplane Directorate
confirmed that there is no published guidance on this subject, but
indicated that the function of the instrument is the main consideration.
Any instrument that performs the function of the required gyroscopic
instrument and presents info to the pilot in the same manner as the
gyroscopic instrument will meet the requirement of 91.205, regardless of
what mechanical or electronic means are used to generate the information
and display."
Bottomline, it seems pretty obvious from all this that all of the
popular EFIS systems out there meet the definition of gyroscopic
instruments given above, satisfy the equipment required by the FAR's,
and the requirements for instrument flight specified in the Ops Limits.
Note that nowhere in any of this is there any requirement for any backup
of any sort (other than the requirement in the Night/VFR section for
spare fuses). I like your statement of "If not illegal, at least this
is not safe enough for me." Remember the regs are a minimum. Lots of
stuff to consider including electrical system design, quality of EFIS
hardware AND software, installation, etc. However, once the regs are
met, everything else is really personal preference. What one person
feels is perfectly safe may seem to someone else incredibly unsafe. To
each his own. I'm going to have backups in my RV-10.
John Erickson
RV-10 #40208 Wings
(I think this is my longest post ever... :-) )
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Beadle
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 7:47 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are
planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs
in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me.
Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
redundancy.
Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a
separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dustin Paulson" <dustinp(at)hughes.net> |
| Subject: | Organization of power bus |
I seem to recall reading a recommendation on this list of a particular
order in which various electrical loads should be placed on the power
bus in order to minimize interference / noise propagated to other
equipment whose power came from the same bus.
For instance locating the power lead for the strobes, with its pulsating
power requirement at one end of the bus or the other to lessen the
effect on other equipment with power leads located before or after it on
the bus.
I can't seem to find this info searching the archives, and wonder if
anyone could refresh this info if in fact it actually is true.
Thanks
Dustin Paulson
GlaStar builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B |
My Icom A-20 is wired to my Garmin 320 trough a little box for emulating
the MIC key.
So yes it can be done!
Werner
Brinker wrote:
> This has probably been answered before, so excuse me if so.
> Just thought it may save me from digging thru miles of archives.
> I was under the impression it to be no problem to put an
> Icom handheld on com 2 of a PMA8000B audio panel. But I was informed
> by my avionics wiring tech that it was unheard of to do so. Why is
> that ? Is there a way ?
>
> Thanks Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
Tim,
Just to throw another data point on the fire, it's my understanding that the
G1000 and Avidyne systems in certified aircraft are certified as secondary
flight instruments. The round steam gauges are considered the primary flight
instruments by the FAA.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
Note that Garmin or Avidyne probably could have satisfied the FAA if
they installed two EFIS systems (with 2 ADAHRS) on separate buses, as
long as the aircraft had an appropriate electrical architecture. (note
Cirrus' backup ADI is electric) Then one could eliminate the "steam
gauges."
Of course, two EFISs starts to add up to $$ . . .
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
Note however, that every TC aircraft with glass panel, whether G-1000,
Avidyne or other, all had to put in the basic steam gages for their TC.
I suspect that the FAA is more concerned with electrical/panel failure
than they are with a mechanical gage that needs no power or vac source
to operate.
Quoting Tim Dawson-Townsend :
> "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with
> only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And
> they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
>
>
> FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an
> individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since
> experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what
> kind of backups you have.
>
>
> TDT
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Bruce
> Gray
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
> I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me
off.
> You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum),
Altimeter,
> and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam
> gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
>
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
> Beadle
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
> There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
>
>
> What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We
> are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all
> eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough
> for me.
>
>
> Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
> redundancy.
>
>
> Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent
> AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B |
Thanks Werner, any idea what kind of box or where it came from ?
Thanks Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B
>
>
> My Icom A-20 is wired to my Garmin 320 trough a little box for emulating
> the MIC key.
>
> So yes it can be done!
>
> Werner
>
> Brinker wrote:
>
>> This has probably been answered before, so excuse me if so.
>> Just thought it may save me from digging thru miles of archives.
>> I was under the impression it to be no problem to put an Icom
>> handheld on com 2 of a PMA8000B audio panel. But I was informed by my
>> avionics wiring tech that it was unheard of to do so. Why is that ? Is
>> there a way ?
>> Thanks Randy
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
In a message dated 6/12/2006 12:57:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bferrell(at)123mail.net writes:
Dan -
And to add another datapoint, my FAA (Cincinnati) regional inspector who
will do
my op limits stated that he had no concerns with my self-certifying that my
dual
BMA EFIS system met these requirements (no vacuum system at all, no round
gauges). Folks need to do what they're comfortable with, and do so from a
position of knowledge, but I agree that it's pretty clearly established what
is
"required".
Brett
Good Evening All,
May I add another small comment?
The FAA has only recently started to interject a need for redundancy in IFR
aircraft. Anything approved before the FAA got on this kick is not required
to have ANY redundancy.
Personally, I don't think they should be able to make such a requirement.
It is my opinion that it is up to the operator to decide what level he/she
is comfortable with.
If you talked to ALPA they would tell you that no airplane should be allowed
in the sky unless it had a minimum of two engines and two pilots.
I think one engine, one pilot, one generator, one battery, one radio and one
gyro instrument is all the regulations should require. If I want more, I
will add it.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
Not true.
TDT
RV-10 40025
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Mon 6/12/2006 5:10 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
Tim,
Just to throw another data point on the fire, it's my understanding that
the
G1000 and Avidyne systems in certified aircraft are certified as
secondary
flight instruments. The round steam gauges are considered the primary
flight
instruments by the FAA.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
Note that Garmin or Avidyne probably could have satisfied the FAA if
they installed two EFIS systems (with 2 ADAHRS) on separate buses, as
long as the aircraft had an appropriate electrical architecture. (note
Cirrus' backup ADI is electric) Then one could eliminate the "steam
gauges."
Of course, two EFISs starts to add up to $$ . . .
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
Note however, that every TC aircraft with glass panel, whether G-1000,
Avidyne or other, all had to put in the basic steam gages for their TC.
I suspect that the FAA is more concerned with electrical/panel failure
than they are with a mechanical gage that needs no power or vac source
to operate.
Quoting Tim Dawson-Townsend :
> "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with
> only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And
> they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
>
>
> FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an
> individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since
> experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what
> kind of backups you have.
>
>
> TDT
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Bruce
> Gray
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
> I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me
off.
> You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum),
Altimeter,
> and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam
> gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
>
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
> Beadle
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
> There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
>
>
> What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We
> are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all
> eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough
> for me.
>
>
> Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
> redundancy.
>
>
> Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent
> AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
>
>
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Organization of power bus |
>I seem to recall reading a recommendation on this list of a particular
>order in which various electrical loads should be placed on the power bus
>in order to minimize interference / noise propagated to other equipment
>whose power came from the same bus.
>For instance locating the power lead for the strobes, with its pulsating
>power requirement at one end of the bus or the other to lessen the effect
>on other equipment with power leads located before or after it on the bus.
>I can't seem to find this info searching the archives, and wonder if
>anyone could refresh this info if in fact it actually is true.
Not true.
Order your systems in any way that pleases you.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect |
>
>I placed my antenna in the baggage compartment with the thought that the
>signal could transmit through the cabin since it is non-metallic. I
>bought an extra length of cable in lieu of trying to make one up due to
>the intricacy of the connections.
>
>
>>From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
>>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect
>>Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:17:21 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>I did this with mine....got a bulkhead connector from Digi-key and a
>>standard BNC end and built it up.
>>
>>Works fine - I'll look for pictures and part numbers.......
B&C also stocks the needed parts at:
http://bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?23X358218#s605bf
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | connecting coax to metal strip antenna |
| From: | "Jekyll" <rcitjh(at)aol.com> |
I have a wing tip nav antenna kit from Vans. This has a strip of copper foil and
a short coax to connect to the antenna. One end comes terminated with a BNC
connector but the other end must be connected to the foil but there is no guidance.
My thoughts are that I must strip back the covering and shielding and solder
the center wire to the end of the foil.
Is this the correct method? If so, how much of the shield should I trim back?
Jekyll
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40279#40279
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <kcorr(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
To take this thread in a little different direction, what is everyone's thoughts
on Sporty's electric backup attitude indicator?
Kent
---- Tim Dawson-Townsend wrote:
>
> Not true.
>
> TDT
> RV-10 40025
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Bruce Gray
> Sent: Mon 6/12/2006 5:10 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
> Tim,
>
> Just to throw another data point on the fire, it's my understanding that the
> G1000 and Avidyne systems in certified aircraft are certified as secondary
> flight instruments. The round steam gauges are considered the primary flight
> instruments by the FAA.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
> Dawson-Townsend
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:55 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
>
>
>
> Note that Garmin or Avidyne probably could have satisfied the FAA if
> they installed two EFIS systems (with 2 ADAHRS) on separate buses, as
> long as the aircraft had an appropriate electrical architecture. (note
> Cirrus' backup ADI is electric) Then one could eliminate the "steam
> gauges."
>
> Of course, two EFISs starts to add up to $$ . . .
>
> TDT
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
> McMullen
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:57 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
>
> Note however, that every TC aircraft with glass panel, whether G-1000,
> Avidyne or other, all had to put in the basic steam gages for their TC.
> I suspect that the FAA is more concerned with electrical/panel failure
> than they are with a mechanical gage that needs no power or vac source
> to operate.
>
> Quoting Tim Dawson-Townsend :
>
> > "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with
> > only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And
> > they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
> >
> >
> >
> > FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an
> > individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since
> > experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what
> > kind of backups you have.
> >
> >
> >
> > TDT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Bruce
> > Gray
> > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
> >
> >
> >
> > I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me
> off.
> > You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum),
> Altimeter,
> > and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam
> > gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Bruce
> > www.glasair.org
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
> > Beadle
> > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
> >
> > There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
> >
> >
> >
> > What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We
> > are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all
> > eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough
> > for me.
> >
> >
> >
> > Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for
> > redundancy.
> >
> >
> >
> > Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent
> > AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===================================
> ===================================
> ===================================
> ===================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
Bruce, I know of no airliner that has a vacuum
artificial horizon. If there is one you can point out
to me I am all ears. Bob Sultzbach
--- Bruce Gray wrote:
> OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this
> subject that I don't want
> another one. Do whatever floats your boat.
>
> Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this
> issue for years and
> mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS
> airliners going dark in IFR
> where the only thing left was a flashlight and a
> vacuum ADI.
>
> I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I
> wonder why?
>
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Tim
> Dawson-Townsend
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
>
> "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds
> of IFR Cessnas with only
> one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for
> backup. And they've got
> zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
>
>
>
> FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of
> any sort are on an
> individual aircraft model installation basis for TC
> or STC. Since
> experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you
> how many or what kind
> of backups you have.
>
>
>
> TDT
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Bruce
> Gray
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
>
> I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before
> they kicked me off. You
> need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably
> vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI.
> Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need
> the steam gauges. If the
> EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Dan
> Beadle
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
> There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
>
>
>
> What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS
> age? We are planning a
> Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far,
> all eggs in one basket.
> If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for
> me.
>
>
>
> Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP
> steam gage for redundancy.
>
>
>
> Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an
> independent AHRS on a
> separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
Hi Bruce, This was not an EFIS failure but an
electrical failure that you have quoted. Furthermore,
having over 6000 odd hours in this aircraft I can tell
you where to start looking for this kind of failure in
the DC buses. It is a "Fate IS the Hunter" scenario
but the DC buses have a row of circuit breakers just
to the aft and right side of the copilot's
seat...right where he slides his flight kit into
position next to his seat. I have seen this row of
breakers blown out by an errant flight kit and guess
what, all hell breaks loose in the DC buses when this
row of breakers is damaged. So to sum it up, if you
interrupt power to an efis it will cease to operate
but it did not fail. It was an electrical failure and
I'll bet a beer a copilot's flight kit caused it.
Cheers, Bob Sultzbach
--- Bruce Gray wrote:
> Here's one.
>
>
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Martin
> Air/martinair-summary.html
>
>
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Brinker
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:01 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
> I would like to read the reports. Not trying
> to be a smart alex just
> out of curiosity.
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruce Gray <mailto:Bruce(at)glasair.org>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:55 AM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
> OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this
> subject that I don't want
> another one. Do whatever floats your boat.
>
> Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this
> issue for years and
> mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS
> airliners going dark in IFR
> where the only thing left was a flashlight and a
> vacuum ADI.
>
> I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I
> wonder why?
>
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Tim
> Dawson-Townsend
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
>
> "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds
> of IFR Cessnas with only
> one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for
> backup. And they've got
> zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
>
>
>
> FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of
> any sort are on an
> individual aircraft model installation basis for TC
> or STC. Since
> experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you
> how many or what kind
> of backups you have.
>
>
>
> TDT
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Bruce
> Gray
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
>
> I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before
> they kicked me off. You
> need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably
> vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI.
> Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need
> the steam gauges. If the
> EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Dan
> Beadle
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
> There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
>
>
>
> What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS
> age? We are planning a
> Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far,
> all eggs in one basket.
> If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for
> me.
>
>
>
> Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP
> steam gage for redundancy.
>
>
>
> Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an
> independent AHRS on a
> separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
Randy, There are many DC buses in a 767. There is very
little in common here with what we are flying in RV's.
I will agree though, it is nice to have access to
your DC power when you need it. An E-bus is a nice
feature for truly essential items but if one gets
carried away, why have a master switch at all? The
more items you put on the E-bus, the less of an E-bus
it becomes. Fly safely, Bob Sultzbach
--- Brinker <brinker@cox-internet.com> wrote:
> Message I found this PROBABLE CAUSE:
> "Numerous electrical anomalies as a result of a
> loose main battery shunt connection and undetermined
> electrical system causes." at
>
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19960528-0
> It would seem they had no control over
> their dc bus. I would say this is a good reason for
> anyone building an airplane to go with a pilot
> operated e-bus.
>
> Randy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruce Gray
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:37 PM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
> Here's one.
>
>
>
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/MartinAir/martinair-summary.html
>
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Brinker
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:01 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>
>
> I would like to read the reports. Not
> trying to be a smart alex just out of curiosity.
>
> Randy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruce Gray
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:55 AM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR
> Requirements
>
>
> OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on
> this subject that I don't want another one. Do
> whatever floats your boat.
>
> Just remember, the big iron guys have studied
> this issue for years and mega-bucks. I've seen
> reports of 5 tube EFIS airliners going dark in IFR
> where the only thing left was a flashlight and a
> vacuum ADI.
>
> I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no
> EFIS. I wonder why?
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Tim Dawson-Townsend
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR
> Requirements
>
>
> "Need" is an interesting word. There are
> hundreds of IFR Cessnas with only one Attitude
> Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And
> they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
>
>
>
> FAA requirements for "backups" or
> "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an individual
> aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC.
> Since experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up
> to you how many or what kind of backups you have.
>
>
>
> TDT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Bruce Gray
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR
> Requirements
>
>
>
> I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum
> before they kicked me off. You need at least an
> Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter,
> and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll
> still need the steam gauges. If the EFIS's disagree,
> you'll need a tie breaker.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Dan Beadle
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR
> Requirements
>
> There has been a lot on TSO129. I get
> that.
>
>
>
> What are the requirements for IFR flight
> in the EFIS age? We are planning a Grand Rapids
> EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in
> one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not
> safe enough for me.
>
>
>
> Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter,
> Tach, MP steam gage for redundancy.
>
>
>
> Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS
> with an independent AHRS on a separate essential
> buss and delete the steam gages?
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Randy, I just reread your message about the
importance of the E-Bus. I agree 100%. It is
important. I went on to editorialize about the evils
of overdoing the E-Bus and I realize it was not a
valid response to the message you posted. Sorry about
that. I stand by the importance of keeping the E-Bus
limited to only items essential for endurance.
But that was a thought of my own separate from your
post. Safe flying, Bob Sultzbach
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B |
Hello Randy,
just checked my mail history, I bought it from flighttech
(www.flighttech.com) Joe Fisher made it for me for a reasonable price,
he's a very nice guy and it is a small box, I might have some pictures
which I can send to you if you're interested. Be aware, not each Icom
needs this box, just the older model once. But I was quite happy last
week when my main com had some overheating problems and my Icom kept me
on air!
Werner
Brinker wrote:
> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> Thanks Werner, any idea what kind of box or where it came from ?
>
> Thanks Randy
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 4:07 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B
>
>
>>
>>
>> My Icom A-20 is wired to my Garmin 320 trough a little box for
>> emulating the MIC key.
>>
>> So yes it can be done!
>>
>> Werner
>>
>> Brinker wrote:
>>
>>> This has probably been answered before, so excuse me if
>>> so. Just thought it may save me from digging thru miles of archives.
>>> I was under the impression it to be no problem to put an
>>> Icom handheld on com 2 of a PMA8000B audio panel. But I was informed
>>> by my avionics wiring tech that it was unheard of to do so. Why is
>>> that ? Is there a way ?
>>> Thanks Randy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
It doesn't matter why the EFIS fails - it could be EFIS failure, it
could be electrical failure. It could be a lightening strike, etc.
You have to assume it could fail someday, and you should have
sufficient other equipment to get back on the ground.
My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a turn and
bank and a wing leveler.
Kevin Horton
On 12 Jun 2006, at 23:10, Robert Sultzbach wrote:
>
>
> Hi Bruce, This was not an EFIS failure but an
> electrical failure that you have quoted. Furthermore,
> having over 6000 odd hours in this aircraft I can tell
> you where to start looking for this kind of failure in
> the DC buses. It is a "Fate IS the Hunter" scenario
> but the DC buses have a row of circuit breakers just
> to the aft and right side of the copilot's
> seat...right where he slides his flight kit into
> position next to his seat. I have seen this row of
> breakers blown out by an errant flight kit and guess
> what, all hell breaks loose in the DC buses when this
> row of breakers is damaged. So to sum it up, if you
> interrupt power to an efis it will cease to operate
> but it did not fail. It was an electrical failure and
> I'll bet a beer a copilot's flight kit caused it.
> Cheers, Bob Sultzbach
>
> --- Bruce Gray wrote:
>
>> Here's one.
>>
>>
> http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/
> ComAndRep/Martin
>> Air/martinair-summary.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruce
>> www.glasair.org
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
>> On Behalf Of Brinker
>> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:01 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>>
>>
>> I would like to read the reports. Not trying
>> to be a smart alex just
>> out of curiosity.
>>
>> Randy
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Bruce Gray <mailto:Bruce(at)glasair.org>
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:55 AM
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>>
>> OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this
>> subject that I don't want
>> another one. Do whatever floats your boat.
>>
>> Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this
>> issue for years and
>> mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS
>> airliners going dark in IFR
>> where the only thing left was a flashlight and a
>> vacuum ADI.
>>
>> I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I
>> wonder why?
>>
>>
>> Bruce
>> www.glasair.org
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
>> On Behalf Of Tim
>> Dawson-Townsend
>> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>>
>>
>>
>> "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds
>> of IFR Cessnas with only
>> one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for
>> backup. And they've got
>> zero backup altimeters or ASIs.
>>
>>
>>
>> FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of
>> any sort are on an
>> individual aircraft model installation basis for TC
>> or STC. Since
>> experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you
>> how many or what kind
>> of backups you have.
>>
>>
>>
>> TDT
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>>
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
>> On Behalf Of Bruce
>> Gray
>> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>>
>>
>>
>> I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before
>> they kicked me off. You
>> need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably
>> vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI.
>> Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need
>> the steam gauges. If the
>> EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruce
>> www.glasair.org
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
>> On Behalf Of Dan
>> Beadle
>> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
>>
>> There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that.
>>
>>
>>
>> What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS
>> age? We are planning a
>> Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far,
>> all eggs in one basket.
>> If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for
>> me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP
>> steam gage for redundancy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an
>> independent AHRS on a
>> separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com> |
| Subject: | BB Battery Company model BP17-12. |
The battery I'm looking at is the BB Battery Company model BP17-12.
Through Digikey www.digikey.com they are $24.69 each and weigh 13.56
lbs
Does anyone have any knowledge of this battery and battery company?
This seems really cheap, which always worries me. The battery is almost
a direct replacement of the Odyssey 680 that goes for about $100????
Bill Bradburry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 06/11/06 |
| From: | Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com> |
Paul,
You can go to "cnet" or direct to "openoffice.org"
and download open office for free. It's just like office for windows.
Why is it free ? Knowing that it's made by Sun micro systems helps answer
that.
Larry Mac Donald
lm4(at)juno.com
Rochester N.Y.
Do not achcive
writes:
>
>
> Rob,
>
> Eau Claire Noon Lions Club
> P.O. Box 42
> Eau Claire, Wi. 54702
>
> eclionsfoundation(at)yahoo.com
>
> Also, I can't open your spreadsheet file - I probably need to
> purchase
> Microsoft office or something like it. Could you possibly send the
> budget
> in Word format or PDF file?
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
Good Morning Kent,
It is built by a good company and is very low priced. Time will tell us if
it is a good buy or not. Reliability and durability are difficult to determine
since the product is so new. (I have one on order, so I may be prejudiced!)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 6/12/2006 9:54:48 P.M. Central Standard Time,
kcorr(at)charter.net writes:
To take this thread in a little different direction, what is everyone's
thoughts on Sporty's electric backup attitude indicator?
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
Good Morning Kent,
It is built by a good company and is very low priced. Time will tell us if
it is a good buy or not. Reliability and durability are difficult to determine
since the product is so new. (I have one on order, so I may be prejudiced!)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 6/12/2006 9:54:48 P.M. Central Standard Time,
kcorr(at)charter.net writes:
To take this thread in a little different direction, what is everyone's
thoughts on Sporty's electric backup attitude indicator?
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
In a message dated 6/13/2006 4:58:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01(at)rogers.com writes:
My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a turn and
bank and a wing leveler.
Kevin Horton
Good Morning Kevin,
You have precisely what I would want.
While my Stearman is NOT IFR legal, I have the same installed except that I
have two T&Bs, one electric and one venturi driven.
Just in case!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BB Battery Company model BP17-12. |
>
>
>The battery I'm looking at is the BB Battery Company model BP17-12.
>Through Digikey www.digikey.com they are $24.69 each and weigh 13.56
>lbs
>
>Does anyone have any knowledge of this battery and battery company?
>This seems really cheap, which always worries me. The battery is almost
>a direct replacement of the Odyssey 680 that goes for about $100????
>
>Bill Bradburry
Assuming anything about a battery based on brand and
marketing is not good science. As I noted in an article
several years ago . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf
. . . there didn't seem to be much one can do to
the recipe for a battery without severely altering
the capability of the product. In the article, I
found that no matter what price/brand AA-alkaline
you purchased, there was very little difference in
capabilities.
Digikey is a pretty upstanding supplier of stuff
to industry. They're not going to stock a battery
that's causing a lot of grief for their customers.
BB battery has a website and publishes a data
sheet for this product at:
http://www.bb-battery.com/bp17-12.pdf
The batteries appear to be made in China, hence
the lower than average cost. Cut corners? Yes,
many manufacturer's have tried to compete by
recipe/process adjustment on many products over
the years and they're all gone now.
Call the Hawker folks up and they'll give you
an extensive data dump on why you should favor their
product over the BB battery. But they're not prepared
to give you data on tests that show the return on
investment for purchasing the Odyssey over a BB
is there.
A battery can become unavailable for a number of
reasons other than absolutely quality of the battery.
I've suggested many times that one should be
both outfitted and skilled to fly any airplane
in the "J-3 mode". When I walk up to a rental airplane,
I have no knowledge of that airplane's electrical
system history and I'm not particularly inclined to go
research it before every rental. That's why the
flight bag has enough hardware in it to let me
continue flight to intended destination with
the panel completely black should the need arise.
Now, if for some reason you do have problems with
this battery, YOU can become the source of information
that will in answering future questions about
BB's product.
Bottom line is that the risks for trying the BB
product are low from square one. If you also sign
up to the philosophy of maintaining the battery so
that you KNOW what its capacity is -AND- you're
equally prepared to fly in the J-3 mode then
risks for trying this product are exceedingly
small.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
In a message dated 6/13/2006 4:58:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01(at)rogers.com writes:
My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a turn and
bank and a wing leveler.
Kevin Horton
Good Morning Kevin,
You have precisely what I would want.
While my Stearman is NOT IFR legal, I have the same installed except that I
have two T&Bs, one electric and one venturi driven.
Just in case!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
Hi Kevin, I agree. I would go even further to say we
should plan for redundant back up of ANY system that
is vital for flight safety. I.E. electric fuel pump
as a backup to the engine driven. The gist of my
prior post was to point out this was not an EFIS
failure since the incident was being used to vilify
EFIS systems. If you read the incident report, the
efis did not even stop working on the Captain's side.
Safe flying, Bob Sultzbach
P.S. As an aside, I have experienced two pitot static
system failures in my many years of flying so yes,
anything can fail, even steam gauges.
---
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | OldBob Siegfried <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com> |
| Subject: | ic-List:IFR Requirements |
In a message dated 6/13/2006 4:58:44 A.M. Central
Standard Time, khorton01(at)rogers.com writes:
My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and
VSI, a turn and
bank and a wing leveler.
Kevin Horton
Good Morning Kevin,
You have precisely what I would want.
While my Stearman is NOT IFR legal, I have the same
installed except that I have two T&Bs, one electric
and one venturi driven.
Just in case!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob there will be no flaming from me. I am sure you are much more
knowledgable than I on these matters. I only commented since it seems odd
there was no way for the pilot to go to a secondary dc power system and put
the essentials back on line. Also causing braking problems, which accually
looks like it was a bigger problem than loosing the efis. I would almost
wager that since this incidence there has been a change in the electrical
architechure. Also since this was back in 1996 I am almost certain that the
technology has advanced since then and also figure most airline pilots keep
a 396 or equivilent in their flight bag just in case these days. I am low
time pilot and have already had a vacuum pump go out on my 1968 cherokee
which put a sour taste in my mouth for steam gauges. It is interesting to
see the ideas and responses to redundancy. Opinions are like noses everybody
has one. My motto is "redundancy redundancy redundancy ohhhh my and more
redundancy" LOL. If ones loses the engine on a SEL all the gauges in the
world won't help. I am not making light of the situation but there has to be
a maximum point somewhere. Sorry for the rant.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Sultzbach" <endspeed(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:26 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: E-BUS
>
>
> Hi Randy, I just reread your message about the
> importance of the E-Bus. I agree 100%. It is
> important. I went on to editorialize about the evils
> of overdoing the E-Bus and I realize it was not a
> valid response to the message you posted. Sorry about
> that. I stand by the importance of keeping the E-Bus
> limited to only items essential for endurance.
> But that was a thought of my own separate from your
> post. Safe flying, Bob Sultzbach
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
Good Morning Kent,
It is built by a good company and is very low priced. Time will tell us if
it is a good buy or not. Reliability and durability are difficult to determine
since the product is so new. (I have one on order, so I may be prejudiced!)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 6/12/2006 9:54:48 P.M. Central Standard Time,
kcorr(at)charter.net writes:
To take this thread in a little different direction, what is everyone's
thoughts on Sporty's electric backup attitude indicator?
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
In a message dated 6/13/2006 4:58:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01(at)rogers.com writes:
My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a turn and
bank and a wing leveler.
Kevin Horton
Good Morning Kevin,
You have precisely what I would want.
While my Stearman is NOT IFR legal, I have the same installed except that I
have two T&Bs, one electric and one venturi driven.
Just in case!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B |
| From: | "N601RT" <N601RT(at)comcast.net> |
Randy,
The avionics shop that built my panel did not want to wire my iCom A23 to the Garmin
audio panel. I've since moved my panel mounted nav/com to com2 and wired
the A23 to com1. The A23 has a seperate antenna and works fine.
Why com1? If I have complete electrical failure (or if for some reasons I lose
power to the audio panel) com1 will default connect to the pilot headset with
the PTT working.
Additional, possibly useful information:
The connector for the A23 (and A5) is a 30-701 which I got from http://www.svideodotcom.com/. $2.55 each in 2003. Pictures of this at http://www.calrad.com/calrad/cat-59page2.html near the bottom of the page.
Using an ohm meter with the headset adapter cable I found:
- The tip end of the connector goes to the headset speaker
- The contact closest to the tip goes to the "Ring", mike audio. See http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/mj3.jpg from http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html.
- The contact two away from the tip goes to the "Tip" PTT. Again see http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/mj3.jpg from http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html.
- The contact closest to the black housing and wires (farthest from the end) is
ground (or common, or audio low)
Regards,
Roy
N601RT: CH601HDS, nose gear, Rotax 912ULS, Arplast PV-50, All electric, IFR equipped,
535hrs, 640 landings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40740#40740
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com> |
After a lot of thought, we seem close to deciding on this system:
Buss A
* GNS430 (Approach Certified)
* Transponder
* Autopilot (TruTrak DigiFlight with independent gyros)
June 02, 2006 - June 13, 2006
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fs