Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-am

February 18, 2007 - November 28, 2007



      
      
      >So...was it the resistors?...was it a bad ground?...was it a gremlin? Personally,
      I don't care anymore...it's fixed!
      
      A flight instructor where I last did avionics for profit was also a personal boat
      enthusiast.
      
      His expressed belief was "ALL electric problems in boats and automobiles are CAUSED
      by bad grounds."
      
      After a couple of beers one night we agreed that airplanes should be included in
      the ALL part of that.
      
      -- 
      -->  The best programming tool is a soldering iron <--
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2007
From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Com issues - resolved
All, Ain't that (almost) the truth. If you look around the supply houses, on eBay from time to time, etc., you will find a set of the answers to clean contacts, including cleaning ring terminals. They are a shaft that goes in a drill, the shank comes in #30, 40 etc., and has an abrasive bundle around the shank. The abrasive surfaces are arranged so that they scour the contact area. Haven't has a problem with a high resistance contact since I bought a set. Sorry, no name on them. Cheers, Bill Hamilton ---------- At 05:27 AM 18/02/2007, you wrote: > > >So...was it the resistors?...was it a bad ground?...was it a > gremlin? Personally, I don't care anymore...it's fixed! > >A flight instructor where I last did avionics for profit was also a >personal boat enthusiast. > >His expressed belief was "ALL electric problems in boats and >automobiles are CAUSED by bad grounds." > >After a couple of beers one night we agreed that airplanes should be >included in the ALL part of that. > >-- >--> The best programming tool is a soldering iron <-- > CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net. & This message is intended for and should only be used by the addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information.If you are not the intended recipient any use distribution,disclosure or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this communication are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately to: Australia 61 (0)408 876 526 Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Navaid AP1 with Smart Coupler II build in
From: "alex_001" <alex@midland-f3.com>
Date: Feb 21, 2007
can someone help me trying to install Navaid AP1 with smart coulper II looking for wiring diagramm for 12pin plug how to install GPS signal (GARMIN 295) Thank you for your help Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'454#96454 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 22, 2007
Subject: Val Avionics glideslope comments?
Any comments on the Val Avionics self contained vor/loc/gs/mb INS 422? New retail list is $1999, do you know anywhere they are sold at discount? Same idea as Narco Nav 122 (all in one box), I see these go used for @$1500. Thank you, Skip Simpson


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Navaid AP1 with Smart Coupler II build in
Date: Feb 24, 2007
Sorry for the delay, was on a business trip. Here ya go: http://www.berkut13.com/dloads/diagram.jpg James Redmon Berkut #013 N97TX http://www.berkut13.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "alex_001" <alex@midland-f3.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:53 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Navaid AP1 with Smart Coupler II build in > > can someone help me trying to install Navaid AP1 with smart coulper II > looking for wiring diagramm for 12pin plug how to install GPS signal > (GARMIN 295) > > Thank you for your help ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Navaid AP1 with Smart Coupler II build in
From: "alex_001" <alex@midland-f3.com>
Date: Feb 25, 2007
thank you, great help Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97344#97344 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug Dodson" <douglas.dodson(at)pobox.com>
Subject: Navaid Autopilot For Sale
Date: Feb 26, 2007
From: "Douglas Dodson" <douglas.dodson(at)pobox.com> I have a Navaid Devices autopilot for sale. I have upgraded to a two axis autopilot so no longer need this one. The controller was never installed. It is brand new. The servo was installed but never used, so there are some minor scratches on the servo. It sells new for $1300 (http://www.navaid-devices.com/). I'm asking $750. I have photographs of the one for sale upon request. Doug Dodson Glasair II-S FT Flight Test Engineer, CFI-A/I/G ________________________________________________________________________________
From: NYTerminat(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 26, 2007
Subject: Re: Navaid Autopilot For Sale
Doug I would be interested, please send photos to _NYTERMINAT(at)aol.com_ (mailto:NYTERMINAT(at)aol.com) Thanks Bob Spudis In a message dated 2/26/2007 2:22:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, douglas.dodson(at)pobox.com writes: I have a Navaid Devices autopilot for sale. I have upgraded to a two axis autopilot so no longer need this one. The controller was never installed. It is brand new. The servo was installed but never used, so there are some minor scratches on the servo. It sells new for $1300 (http://www.navaid-devices.com/). I'm asking $750. I have photographs of the one for sale upon request. Doug Dodson Glasair II-S FT Flight Test Engineer, CFI-A/I/G


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2007
From: Ben Burbridge <benburb(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Navaid Autopilot For Sale
Doug- I would be interested. Please e-mail particulars to benburb(at)comcast.net. Thanks. Ben ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Navaid Autopilot For Sale
Date: Feb 27, 2007
Ben, I'm about to remove my S-Tec 30 Altitude hold replacing with a Trios EZ-3. The S-Tec cost me $3500 3 years ago and holds altitude +-10 ft. I will sell for $500. If you're interested, please email me. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Burbridge" <benburb(at)comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:42 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Navaid Autopilot For Sale > > Doug- I would be interested. Please e-mail particulars to > benburb(at)comcast.net. Thanks. Ben > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: GPS Antenna?
Date: Mar 01, 2007
3/1/2006 Hello Fellow Listers, I am trying to identify an object on the bottom of the fuselage of a Beech Sierra airplane. It is black plastic about the size of a cigar box. Embossed on the bottom of the box is an arrow pointing forward and the letters 3M. It was described at one time as a GPS antenna, but that does not make much sense to me. Why would a GPS antenna be on the bottom of the fuselage? I also am not able to locate any antenna created by 3M. Any good ideas? Many thanks. OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: GPS Antenna?
Date: Mar 02, 2007
How about RadAlt? Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of bakerocb(at)cox.net > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:41 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? > > > > 3/1/2006 > > Hello Fellow Listers, I am trying to identify an object on > the bottom of the > fuselage of a Beech Sierra airplane. It is black plastic > about the size of a > cigar box. Embossed on the bottom of the box is an arrow > pointing forward > and the letters 3M. > > It was described at one time as a GPS antenna, but that does > not make much > sense to me. Why would a GPS antenna be on the bottom of the > fuselage? I > also am not able to locate any antenna created by 3M. > > Any good ideas? Many thanks. > > OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather > and understand > knowledge. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: GPS Antenna?
Date: Mar 02, 2007
The size of a cigar box... With an arrow. That puts a different wheel on the cart. That would be a loop antenna for an ADF. The long wire antenna, porobably on the top, would be the sense antenna also for the ADF. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of bakerocb(at)cox.net > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:41 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? > > > > 3/1/2006 > > Hello Fellow Listers, I am trying to identify an object on > the bottom of the > fuselage of a Beech Sierra airplane. It is black plastic > about the size of a > cigar box. Embossed on the bottom of the box is an arrow > pointing forward > and the letters 3M. > > It was described at one time as a GPS antenna, but that does > not make much > sense to me. Why would a GPS antenna be on the bottom of the > fuselage? I > also am not able to locate any antenna created by 3M. > > Any good ideas? Many thanks. > > OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather > and understand > knowledge. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug Dodson" <douglas.dodson(at)pobox.com>
Subject: GPS Antenna?
Date: Mar 02, 2007
That is likely a stormscope antenna. Douglas L. Dodson, Jr. Glasair II-S FT Flight Test Engineer, CFI-A,G -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of bakerocb(at)cox.net Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:11 PM Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? 3/1/2006 Hello Fellow Listers, I am trying to identify an object on the bottom of the fuselage of a Beech Sierra airplane. It is black plastic about the size of a cigar box. Embossed on the bottom of the box is an arrow pointing forward and the letters 3M. It was described at one time as a GPS antenna, but that does not make much sense to me. Why would a GPS antenna be on the bottom of the fuselage? I also am not able to locate any antenna created by 3M. Any good ideas? Many thanks. OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2007
From: "kensmith(at)springnet1.com" <kensmith(at)springnet1.com>
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna?
Stormscope Antenna - 3M corporation Noel Loveys wrote: > >How about RadAlt? > >Noel > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com >>[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf >>Of bakerocb(at)cox.net >>Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:41 AM >>To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >>Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? >> >> >> >>3/1/2006 >> >>Hello Fellow Listers, I am trying to identify an object on >>the bottom of the >>fuselage of a Beech Sierra airplane. It is black plastic >>about the size of a >>cigar box. Embossed on the bottom of the box is an arrow >>pointing forward >>and the letters 3M. >> >>It was described at one time as a GPS antenna, but that does >>not make much >>sense to me. Why would a GPS antenna be on the bottom of the >>fuselage? I >>also am not able to locate any antenna created by 3M. >> >>Any good ideas? Many thanks. >> >>OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather >>and understand >>knowledge. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: GPS Antenna?
Date: Mar 02, 2007
Storm scope antennas are similar to radar dishes and are mounted in the nose of the plane. ( assuming it isn't single engine prop) Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Doug Dodson > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:01 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? > > > > > That is likely a stormscope antenna. > > Douglas L. Dodson, Jr. > Glasair II-S FT > Flight Test Engineer, CFI-A,G > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of > bakerocb(at)cox.net > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:11 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? > > > > 3/1/2006 > > Hello Fellow Listers, I am trying to identify an object on > the bottom of the > fuselage of a Beech Sierra airplane. It is black plastic > about the size of a > cigar box. Embossed on the bottom of the box is an arrow > pointing forward > and the letters 3M. > > It was described at one time as a GPS antenna, but that does > not make much > sense to me. Why would a GPS antenna be on the bottom of the > fuselage? I > also am not able to locate any antenna created by 3M. > > Any good ideas? Many thanks. > > OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather > and understand > knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: GPS Antenna?
Date: Mar 02, 2007
Just did a Google check on 3M Stormscope and you are absolutely right. That makes me wrong... Twice! The antenna does look a lot like the ADF loop. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Doug Dodson > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:01 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? > > > > > That is likely a stormscope antenna. > > Douglas L. Dodson, Jr. > Glasair II-S FT > Flight Test Engineer, CFI-A,G > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of > bakerocb(at)cox.net > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:11 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? > > > > 3/1/2006 > > Hello Fellow Listers, I am trying to identify an object on > the bottom of the > fuselage of a Beech Sierra airplane. It is black plastic > about the size of a > cigar box. Embossed on the bottom of the box is an arrow > pointing forward > and the letters 3M. > > It was described at one time as a GPS antenna, but that does > not make much > sense to me. Why would a GPS antenna be on the bottom of the > fuselage? I > also am not able to locate any antenna created by 3M. > > Any good ideas? Many thanks. > > OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather > and understand > knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: GPS Antenna?
Date: Mar 02, 2007
Storm scopes work by receiving the radio energy produced by the lightning. Their antennas emit no energy and thus can be mounted at any RFI quite location on the airframe. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:49 PM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? Storm scope antennas are similar to radar dishes and are mounted in the nose of the plane. ( assuming it isn't single engine prop) Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Doug Dodson > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:01 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? > > > > > That is likely a stormscope antenna. > > Douglas L. Dodson, Jr. > Glasair II-S FT > Flight Test Engineer, CFI-A,G > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of > bakerocb(at)cox.net > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:11 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? > > > > 3/1/2006 > > Hello Fellow Listers, I am trying to identify an object on > the bottom of the > fuselage of a Beech Sierra airplane. It is black plastic > about the size of a > cigar box. Embossed on the bottom of the box is an arrow > pointing forward > and the letters 3M. > > It was described at one time as a GPS antenna, but that does > not make much > sense to me. Why would a GPS antenna be on the bottom of the > fuselage? I > also am not able to locate any antenna created by 3M. > > Any good ideas? Many thanks. > > OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather > and understand > knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: GPS Antenna?
Date: Mar 03, 2007
Thanks Bruce. I had it crossed with WX radar. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Bruce Gray > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:37 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? > > > > Storm scopes work by receiving the radio energy produced by > the lightning. > Their antennas emit no energy and thus can be mounted at any RFI quite > location on the airframe. > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Noel Loveys > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:49 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? > > > > > Storm scope antennas are similar to radar dishes and are > mounted in the nose > of the plane. ( assuming it isn't single engine prop) > > Noel > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > > Of Doug Dodson > > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:01 AM > > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? > > > > > > > > > > That is likely a stormscope antenna. > > > > Douglas L. Dodson, Jr. > > Glasair II-S FT > > Flight Test Engineer, CFI-A,G > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of > > bakerocb(at)cox.net > > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:11 PM > > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? > > > > > > > > 3/1/2006 > > > > Hello Fellow Listers, I am trying to identify an object on > > the bottom of the > > fuselage of a Beech Sierra airplane. It is black plastic > > about the size of a > > cigar box. Embossed on the bottom of the box is an arrow > > pointing forward > > and the letters 3M. > > > > It was described at one time as a GPS antenna, but that does > > not make much > > sense to me. Why would a GPS antenna be on the bottom of the > > fuselage? I > > also am not able to locate any antenna created by 3M. > > > > Any good ideas? Many thanks. > > > > OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather > > and understand > > knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna?
Date: Mar 03, 2007
I think that needs just a little qualification. Apart from being in a quiet RFI location it must also be unscreened from a low frequency RF point of view. John From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> > > Storm scopes work by receiving the radio energy produced by the lightning. > Their antennas emit no energy and thus can be mounted at any RFI quite > location on the airframe. > > Bruce > www.glasair.org ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna?
Date: Mar 03, 2007
3/3/2007 Thanks to all that responded. It is indeed a Stormscope antenna made by 3M back in the days when they were replacing Ryan as the manufacturer of that equipment. OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge. ----- Original Message ----- From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:11 PM Subject: GPS Antenna? > 3/1/2006 > > Hello Fellow Listers, I am trying to identify an object on the bottom of > the fuselage of a Beech Sierra airplane. It is black plastic about the > size of a cigar box. Embossed on the bottom of the box is an arrow > pointing forward and the letters 3M. > > It was described at one time as a GPS antenna, but that does not make much > sense to me. Why would a GPS antenna be on the bottom of the fuselage? I > also am not able to locate any antenna created by 3M. > > Any good ideas? Many thanks. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2007
From: "kensmith(at)springnet1.com" <kensmith(at)springnet1.com>
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna?
Could be, Both are about the same physical size. kensmith(at)springnet1.com wrote: > Stormscope Antenna - 3M corporation > > Noel Loveys wrote: > >> >>How about RadAlt? >> >>Noel >> >> >> >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com >>>[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf >>>Of bakerocb(at)cox.net >>>Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:41 AM >>>To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >>>Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? >>> >>> >>> >>>3/1/2006 >>> >>>Hello Fellow Listers, I am trying to identify an object on >>>the bottom of the >>>fuselage of a Beech Sierra airplane. It is black plastic >>>about the size of a >>>cigar box. Embossed on the bottom of the box is an arrow >>>pointing forward >>>and the letters 3M. >>> >>>It was described at one time as a GPS antenna, but that does >>>not make much >>>sense to me. Why would a GPS antenna be on the bottom of the >>>fuselage? I >>>also am not able to locate any antenna created by 3M. >>> >>>Any good ideas? Many thanks. >>> >>>OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather >>>and understand >>>knowledge. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: GPS Antenna?
Date: Mar 03, 2007
I would guess that it is a storm scope antenna (lighting detector). Mike Larkin -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Rippengal Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:32 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna? I think that needs just a little qualification. Apart from being in a quiet RFI location it must also be unscreened from a low frequency RF point of view. John From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> > > Storm scopes work by receiving the radio energy produced by the lightning. > Their antennas emit no energy and thus can be mounted at any RFI quite > location on the airframe. > > Bruce > www.glasair.org -- 2/8/2007 -- 2/8/2007 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2007
From: Bill Bradburry <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com>
Subject: GNS480/TruTrak compatibility
I was considering combining the GNS480 with the Trutrak Digiflight II VSGV which has vertical GPS steering. I was told that the GNS480 could not support the vertical GPS steering. Can someone set me straight on this matter? I do not want to purchase the more expensive autopilot and not be able to use the additional feature. Thanks, Bill B ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements
Date: Mar 09, 2007
3/9/2007 Hello List Experts, It is fairly well documented that Garmin wants high quality antenna cable (RGU 142 or 400) to be used for the GNS 430W and it must be between 13 and 35 feet long. I can understand a maximum limit. I cannot understand the physics or electronic principles behind the minimum length requirement. Can someone please educate me? Thanks. OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug Dodson" <douglas.dodson(at)pobox.com>
Subject: VM 1000 for IO-360
Date: Mar 17, 2007
I have a VM 1000 system for an IO-360 for sale. I decided to include a dual screen EFIS in my panel, and that system replaced the VM 1000 I was planning to use. The VM 1000 is brand new, most of the components have not been removed from the original packaging. A few of the senders were installed but never used. It sells new for about $3000. I'm asking $2200. Included is the DPU, display, all senders including fuel flow, wiring, and the manual. I have photographs of the one for sale upon request. I also have the fuel level system which is a separate display capable of indicating for 3 tanks, and one 8' probe. This can be yours for $350 (probe retail new is $500 all by itself). Douglas L. Dodson, Jr. Glasair II-S FT Flight Test Engineer, CFI-A,G ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2007
From: Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com>
Subject: Skymap IIIC internal battery replacement
Does anyone have the instructions for replacing the internal data backup battery in a Skymap IIIC? My battery died on a trip back from Reno today and all the user way points and flight plans are gone. Guess I'll have to fly to all those places again to rebuild the way points. ;) - Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 26, 2007
From: "peter.rees01(at)tiscali.co.uk" <peter.rees01(at)tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Skymap IIIC internal battery replacement
Hi Bill I did ours a few years ago (if the 3C you have is the one in an avionics tray, not the slim one). didn' t have any instreuctions just took the lid off and I think the top PCB (there are about 4 boards in there) - unsoldered the old battery and fitted the new one - only took about an hour. If you're not good at soldering, I'd find someone who is - the PCB tracks will lift etc if you overheat them. happy landings Peter ___________________________________________________________ Tiscali Broadband only 9.99 a month for your first 3 months! http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 27, 2007
From: Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com>
Subject: Re: Skymap IIIC internal battery replacement
Peter, Thanks, I did get it apart to confirm the battery configuration. I found a place here in California that has the same battery configuration with the same chemistry as the one Skyforce used. It's about $3.25 plus Shipping. You have to request they weld on solderable tabs but that only costs and $0.25. I've been soldering for about 50 years but every once in a while I do lift a trace. I hate those 50W wire wound resisters soldered into a .020" trace. Easy to put in and hard to get out. http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=1617 - Bill peter.rees01(at)tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Hi Bill > > I did ours a few years ago (if the 3C you have is the one in an > avionics tray, not the slim one). didn' t have any instreuctions just > took the lid off and I think the top PCB (there are about 4 boards in > there) - unsoldered the old battery and fitted the new one - only took > about an hour. If you're not good at soldering, I'd find someone who is > - the PCB tracks will lift etc if you overheat them. > > happy landings > > Peter > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > > Tiscali Broadband only 9.99 a month for your first 3 months! http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/ > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Skymap IIIC internal battery replacement
Date: Mar 28, 2007
Thats why they make side cuts and chain saws :-) Seriously... that's one spot where it's easy to lift a trace. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Bill Putney > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:28 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Skymap IIIC internal battery replacement > > > > Peter, > > Thanks, I did get it apart to confirm the battery > configuration. I found > a place here in California that has the same battery configuration > with the same chemistry as the one Skyforce used. It's about > $3.25 plus > Shipping. You have to request they weld on solderable tabs > but that only > costs and $0.25. I've been soldering for about 50 years but > every once > in a while I do lift a trace. I hate those 50W wire wound resisters > soldered into a .020" trace. Easy to put in and hard to get out. > > http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=1617 > > - Bill > > peter.rees01(at)tiscali.co.uk wrote: > "peter.rees01(at)tiscali.co.uk" > > > > Hi Bill > > > > I did ours a few years ago (if the 3C you have is the one in an > > avionics tray, not the slim one). didn' t have any > instreuctions just > > took the lid off and I think the top PCB (there are about 4 > boards in > > there) - unsoldered the old battery and fitted the new one > - only took > > about an hour. If you're not good at soldering, I'd find > someone who is > > - the PCB tracks will lift etc if you overheat them. > > > > happy landings > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > > > > Tiscali Broadband only 9.99 a month for your first 3 > months! http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Avionics Mounting
Date: Mar 29, 2007
Hi All, I am hoping to get some info on mounting a stack of Garmin equipment in my RV-7A. I just received a GMA-340, GNS-430W, SL-30, and GTX-327 with mounting trays. I'm told that the rest of the mounting hardware such as screws, brackets, etc. are not included. I can start looking for low profile screws and fabricate brackets, but I don't want to re-invent the wheel if it's not necessary. Are there reasonably priced installation kits out there? How have others handled this? Thanks in advance, Greg gvouga(at)gmail.com _________________________________________________________________ 5.5%* 30 year fixed mortgage rate. Good credit refinance. Up to 5 free quotes - *Terms https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h2a5d&s=4056&p=5117&disc=y&vers=910 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Avionics Mounting
Date: Mar 30, 2007
3/30/2007 Hello Greg, Check out a not-so-cheap solution here http://www.radiorax.com/ and also to get some idea of what is involved in installing a stack of avionics. OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge. PS: That is a great selection of equipment. From: "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com> Subject: Avionics-List: Avionics Mounting Hi All, I am hoping to get some info on mounting a stack of Garmin equipment in my RV-7A. I just received a GMA-340, GNS-430W, SL-30, and GTX-327 with mounting trays. I'm told that the rest of the mounting hardware such as screws, brackets, etc. are not included. I can start looking for low profile screws and fabricate brackets, but I don't want to re-invent the wheel if it's not necessary. Are there reasonably priced installation kits out there? How have others handled this? Thanks in advance, Greg gvouga(at)gmail.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 30, 2007
Subject: Re: Avionics Mounting
Greg, I used some leftover .062 inch aluminum angle riveted behind (actually forward of) the panel, and also the sub panel for additional support. These were placed vertically on the left and right of the panel opening. I then used 6-32 flat head screws and ny-lock nuts to fasten the trays to these angles. These are never seen and about as easy to install as the expensive kind. Cost? About nothing. Dan Hopper RV-7A From: "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com> Subject: Avionics-List: Avionics Mounting Hi All, I am hoping to get some info on mounting a stack of Garmin equipment in my RV-7A. I just received a GMA-340, GNS-430W, SL-30, and GTX-327 with mounting trays. I'm told that the rest of the mounting hardware such as screws, brackets, etc. are not included. I can start looking for low profile screws and fabricate brackets, but I don't want to re-invent the wheel if it's not necessary. Are there reasonably priced installation kits out there? How have others handled this? Thanks in advance, Greg gvouga(at)gmail.com ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 30, 2007
From: Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com>
Subject: Re: Skymap IIIC internal battery replacement
Turns out lifting a trace is less of a problem than it could have been. The new battery came with solderable tabs with holes in them. I just clipped the leads off the old battery and used the old leads to connect the new battery. So I was soldering to the leads and not the circuit board. - Bill Noel Loveys wrote: > > Thats why they make side cuts and chain saws :-) Seriously... that's one > spot where it's easy to lift a trace. > > Noel > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf >> Of Bill Putney >> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:28 AM >> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Skymap IIIC internal battery replacement >> >> >> >> Peter, >> >> Thanks, I did get it apart to confirm the battery >> configuration. I found >> a place here in California that has the same battery configuration >> with the same chemistry as the one Skyforce used. It's about >> $3.25 plus >> Shipping. You have to request they weld on solderable tabs >> but that only >> costs and $0.25. I've been soldering for about 50 years but >> every once >> in a while I do lift a trace. I hate those 50W wire wound resisters >> soldered into a .020" trace. Easy to put in and hard to get out. >> >> http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=1617 >> >> - Bill >> >> peter.rees01(at)tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> "peter.rees01(at)tiscali.co.uk" >>> Hi Bill >>> >>> I did ours a few years ago (if the 3C you have is the one in an >>> avionics tray, not the slim one). didn' t have any >> instreuctions just >>> took the lid off and I think the top PCB (there are about 4 >> boards in >>> there) - unsoldered the old battery and fitted the new one >> - only took >>> about an hour. If you're not good at soldering, I'd find >> someone who is >>> - the PCB tracks will lift etc if you overheat them. >>> >>> happy landings >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ___________________________________________________________ >>> >>> Tiscali Broadband only 9.99 a month for your first 3 >> months! http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Avionics Mounting
Date: Mar 30, 2007
Probably a lot stronger than needed for newer equipment... The last one I did was in school and I think we used .032. We made our own angle in a brake it's a bit lighter than extruded stock. For the mere ounces I like the idea of extra strength. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Hopperdhh(at)aol.com > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:06 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Avionics Mounting > > > > > Greg, > > I used some leftover .062 inch aluminum angle riveted behind > (actually > forward of) the panel, and also the sub panel for additional > support. These were > placed vertically on the left and right of the panel opening. > I then used 6-32 > flat head screws and ny-lock nuts to fasten the trays to > these angles. These > are never seen and about as easy to install as the expensive > kind. Cost? > About nothing. > > Dan Hopper > RV-7A > > > > From: "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com> > Subject: Avionics-List: Avionics Mounting > > Hi All, I am hoping to get some info on mounting a stack of > Garmin equipment > in my > RV-7A. I just received a GMA-340, GNS-430W, SL-30, and GTX-327 with > mounting trays. I'm told that the rest of the mounting > hardware such as > screws, brackets, etc. are not included. > > I can start looking for low profile screws and fabricate > brackets, but I > don't want to re-invent the wheel if it's not necessary. Are there > reasonably priced installation kits out there? How have > others handled > this? > > Thanks in advance, > > Greg > gvouga(at)gmail.com > > > > ************************************** See what's free at > http://www.aol.com. > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Mounting
Date: Mar 30, 2007
All, Due to the large amount of responses, I can't respond to everyone individually. However, rest assured that all of the responses were read and very much appreciated. What did people do 20 years ago wthout a resource such as this? Anyways, i've decided to move forward with the simple Aluminum angle technique. It's cheap and i have the stuff to complete it tomorrow. Thanks again to everyone that responded. Greg _________________________________________________________________ Interest Rates near 39yr lows! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate new payment ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics Mounting
Date: Mar 31, 2007
Hi Greg, I have nearly the exact stack as you except I have the 330S transponder. I went to my local Aircraft Component and Equipment store (ACE hardware) and picked up some 6-32 countersink screws and self locking nuts. I made some diagonal mounting braces and secured the trays as one unit. Pretty easy. Darwin N. Barrie Chandler AZ RV7 N717EE ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI" <jessevli(at)zeelandnet.nl>
Subject: Re: Avionics Mounting
Date: Apr 01, 2007
Hello, Why not use these clip on nuts, which are also used in most certified aircraft? When you rivit or bolt all brackets together it's will take more time to do upgrades or make changes to your wiring, and it will be harder. The only expemtion is for aircraft that have a removable glareshield, or a panel just in front of the windscreen (socata uses that on their aircraft). Bendix/King will supply their mode S transponder with these kind of clip on nuts, and I also think Garmin, but not sure about that. Jesse > From: "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Avionics Mounting > > Hi Greg, > > I have nearly the exact stack as you except I have the 330S transponder. > I went to my local Aircraft Component and Equipment store (ACE hardware) > and picked up some 6-32 countersink screws and self locking nuts. I made > some diagonal mounting braces and secured the trays as one unit. Pretty > easy. > > Darwin N. Barrie > Chandler AZ > RV7 N717EE > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rick Pearce" <rap(at)isp.com>
Subject: STS hand held (help)
Date: Apr 07, 2007
I'm a regular on the Matronics Kolb web sight. I have a STS hand held and a Flight Tech ITC-2001-ENRI intercom with Flightcom Blackhawk 50x head sets. I could not find a patch cord to hook up the radio. So I took it to a local aircraft radio repair shop to have one made. The tech. is telling the two are not compatible, all he got was a squeal. Can any one tell me if this is true? I came away with the attuide that he just didn't want to screw with it. If they are compatible does any one have a schematic? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve" <sham(at)indy.rr.com>
Subject: Re: STS hand held (help)
Date: Apr 08, 2007
I am trying to find a Terra tray (long one for a 760D or 200D). I have the backplate...just need the tray. Anyone have one or know of a source?? Thanks Steve Ham ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve" <sham(at)indy.rr.com>
Subject: Diagram
Date: Apr 12, 2007
I am new to the list. I was trying to find help on wiring a MD41 to a Trimble 2000 approach and a Terra tri nav C, Terra TN 200D w/glideslope. I have the pinouts. Just needed A to B to C. If no one can help maybe steer me in the right direction. Thanks Steve Ham ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements
From: "reichec" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Date: Apr 23, 2007
The input signal to the 430w must be at a maximum XdB (some number) the antenna has a gain factor of like 25dB and therefore there must be some loss to get it down to XdB thus 13 feet.. I beleive the magic number at the reciever is 20dB signal strength but not sure. Got it? Charles Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=108788#108788 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 23, 2007
From: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements
I doubt that it's to attenuate the signal as suggested? More like it's to avoid having the feedline (coax) be susceptible to picking interference (acting like an antenna) at certain frequencies? I wouldn't worry so much why but I'd follow there suggestions. Regards, Bob in SE Iowa RV-8 Finishing - Slowly On 3/9/07, bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote: > > 3/9/2007 > > Hello List Experts, It is fairly well documented that Garmin wants high > quality antenna cable (RGU 142 or 400) to be used for the GNS 430W and it > must be between 13 and 35 feet long. > > I can understand a maximum limit. I cannot understand the physics or > electronic principles behind the minimum length requirement. > > Can someone please educate me? Thanks. > > OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand > knowledge. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements
Date: Apr 23, 2007
I have my GNS430W installed with the antenna mounted on the aft of the canopy (BUSHBY MustangII); the RG400 coax is about 8 feet in length. No noticeable difference from the same location prior to the WAAS update. BTW, I'm having a ball flying GPS approached with ILS like display. In fact the needles are much calmer than on a ILS approach, and no worry about false lobes. :-))) Only problem (small), from the approach plate can't tell if there will be an active GS till I get on the approach and get the LNAV+V indication. The GS comes active on the waypoint just outside the FAF. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:51 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements > > I doubt that it's to attenuate the signal as suggested? More like > it's to avoid having the feedline (coax) be susceptible to picking > interference (acting like an antenna) at certain frequencies? I > wouldn't worry so much why but I'd follow there suggestions. > > Regards, > Bob in SE Iowa > RV-8 Finishing - Slowly > > On 3/9/07, bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote: >> >> 3/9/2007 >> >> Hello List Experts, It is fairly well documented that Garmin wants high >> quality antenna cable (RGU 142 or 400) to be used for the GNS 430W and it >> must be between 13 and 35 feet long. >> >> I can understand a maximum limit. I cannot understand the physics or >> electronic principles behind the minimum length requirement. >> >> Can someone please educate me? Thanks. >> >> OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and >> understand >> knowledge. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements
Date: Apr 24, 2007
4/24/2007 Hello Wayne, Thanks for your input. One more question if I may. I have read that the connector on the end of the coax cable that connects to the antenna must be a male TNC connector. Can you please confirm that? Also I'd appreciate it if you can shed any light on what additional equipment, antenna, black box, or...........? would be needed if one wanted to have XM weather appear on their GNS 430W. Thanks. OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge. From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements I have my GNS430W installed with the antenna mounted on the aft of the canopy (BUSHBY MustangII); the RG400 coax is about 8 feet in length. No noticeable difference from the same location prior to the WAAS update. BTW, I'm having a ball flying GPS approached with ILS like display. In fact the needles are much calmer than on a ILS approach, and no worry about false lobes. :-))) Only problem (small), from the approach plate can't tell if there will be an active GS till I get on the approach and get the LNAV+V indication. The GS comes active on the waypoint just outside the FAF. Wayne ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements
Date: Apr 24, 2007
Yes, it does need a TNC connector at the antenna; the dealer that sent mine in to Garmin for the WAAS upgrade made a pigtail TNC to BNC for me ( $10.00 :-))) ) . Don't know about what additional boxes needed for XM. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net> Cc: Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 3:19 AM Subject: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements > 4/24/2007 > > Hello Wayne, Thanks for your input. One more question if I may. > > I have read that the connector on the end of the coax cable that connects > to the antenna must be a male TNC connector. Can you please confirm that? > > Also I'd appreciate it if you can shed any light on what additional > equipment, antenna, black box, or...........? would be needed if one > wanted to have XM weather appear on their GNS 430W. > > Thanks. > > OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge. > > From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements > > > I have my GNS430W installed with the antenna mounted on the aft of the > canopy (BUSHBY MustangII); the RG400 coax is about 8 feet in length. No > noticeable difference from the same location prior to the WAAS update. > BTW, I'm having a ball flying GPS approached with ILS like display. In > fact > the needles are much calmer than on a ILS approach, and no worry about > false > lobes. :-))) Only problem (small), from the approach plate can't tell > if > there will be an active GS till I get on the approach and get the LNAV+V > indication. The GS comes active on the waypoint just outside the FAF. > Wayne > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements
Date: Apr 24, 2007
The impedance the receiver wants to have is achieved with the stated cable at the stated lengths. Too short or too long and the sensitivity of the receiver will suffer. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob C. > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:22 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements > > > > I doubt that it's to attenuate the signal as suggested? More like > it's to avoid having the feedline (coax) be susceptible to picking > interference (acting like an antenna) at certain frequencies? I > wouldn't worry so much why but I'd follow there suggestions. > > Regards, > Bob in SE Iowa > RV-8 Finishing - Slowly > > On 3/9/07, bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote: > > > > 3/9/2007 > > > > Hello List Experts, It is fairly well documented that > Garmin wants high > > quality antenna cable (RGU 142 or 400) to be used for the > GNS 430W and it > > must be between 13 and 35 feet long. > > > > I can understand a maximum limit. I cannot understand the physics or > > electronic principles behind the minimum length requirement. > > > > Can someone please educate me? Thanks. > > > > OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to > gather and understand > > knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements
Date: Apr 25, 2007
The wavelength of the GPS signal is around 8 inches so the advice from Garmin to use coax feeder of anywhere between 13ft and 35 ft length can have nothing whatsoever to do with the impedance seen by the receiver. The 35ft is almost certainly the maximum to use without attenuating the signal too much. I don't understand the 8ft minimum like 'bakerocb' but it may possibly be to avoid overloading with too high a signal as he suggests but anyway it's surprising. Also the minimum length secures the maximum freedom from pickup. Those suggesting specific lengths aid impedance matching or minimising pickup are thinking in terms of HF radio techniques where it is not uncommon, at least in HAM circles to use coax feeder with large standing waves on them (high VSWR). It involves cutting the feeder to a fraction of a quarter wavelength. (in this case within - say a quarter of and inch). You wouldn't do that at 1500Mhz. As has already been advised - if Garmin says so, just do it. John Rippengal From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> > > The impedance the receiver wants to have is achieved with the stated cable > at the stated lengths. Too short or too long and the sensitivity of the > receiver will suffer. > > Noel > >> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com >> >> >> I doubt that it's to attenuate the signal as suggested? More like >> it's to avoid having the feedline (coax) be susceptible to picking >> interference (acting like an antenna) at certain frequencies? I >> wouldn't worry so much why but I'd follow there suggestions. >> >> Regards, >> Bob in SE Iowa >> RV-8 Finishing - Slowly >> >> On 3/9/07, bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote: >> > >> > 3/9/2007 >> > >> > Hello List Experts, It is fairly well documented that >> Garmin wants high >> > quality antenna cable (RGU 142 or 400) to be used for the >> GNS 430W and it >> > must be between 13 and 35 feet long. >> > >> > I can understand a maximum limit. I cannot understand the physics or >> > electronic principles behind the minimum length requirement. >> > >> > Can someone please educate me? Thanks. >> > >> > OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to >> gather and understand >> > knowledge. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LClark6372(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 25, 2007
Subject: re: relacing ky 97 with ky 197
i am replacing my ky97 with a ky 197 are there any problems inherit with this exchange? there appears to be no dim circuit in the 197 is this automatic in the 197?......also i am not sure of the pinouts i have on the 197 thanks jim ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "yahoo mail" <nihlc(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: EFIS
Date: Apr 25, 2007
Dynon D10A for sale. Parting out plane w/25 flight hours.Everything is low hrs low use.contact nihlc(at)sbcglobal.net or call 517 617 1388 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 25, 2007
Subject: Re: re: relacing ky 97 with ky 197
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
At 10:43 4/25/2007, you wrote: >i am replacing my ky97 with a ky 197 are there any problems inherit >with this exchange? >there appears to be no dim circuit in the 197 is this automatic in >the 197?......also i am not sure of the pinouts i have on the 197 I think I've got that info, but not right at hand. My recall is there are subtle differences. Most definitely differences between the A and non-A types. You are replacing a 97 with a 197? Neither has an A suffix? Please confirm and I'll dig for the details. Ron Q. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: EFIS
Date: Apr 25, 2007
What other items do you have for sale? Thanks, Tim Andres _____ From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of yahoo mail Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:29 PM Subject: Avionics-List: EFIS Dynon D10A for sale. Parting out plane w/25 flight hours.Everything is low hrs low use.contact nihlc(at)sbcglobal.net or call 517 617 1388 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 25, 2007
From: "James Clark" <jclarkmail(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: EFIS
I will provide the list after I go out and take a look. Just curious ... what are you asking for the SeaRey "parts"? James 803-238-2113 On 4/25/07, Tim Andres wrote: > > What other items do you have for sale? > > Thanks, Tim Andres > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: > owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *yahoo mail > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:29 PM > *To:* avionics-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Avionics-List: EFIS > > > *Dynon D10A for sale. Parting out plane w/25 flight hours.Everything is > low hrs low use.contact nihlc(at)sbcglobal.net or call 517 617 1388* > > * * > > * * > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > * * > > * > > > * > > -- This is an alternate email. Please continue to email me at james(at)nextupventures.com . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LClark6372(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 27, 2007
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 04/25/07
ROB I AM REPLACING A KY 97A WITH A 197( NO SUFFIX) THANKS FOR THE HELP JIM ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 27, 2007
Subject: Re: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements
In a message dated 4/25/2007 1:57:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy writes: The wavelength of the GPS signal is around 8 inches so the advice from Garmin to use coax feeder of anywhere between 13ft and 35 ft length can have nothing whatsoever to do with the impedance seen by the receiver. The 35ft is almost certainly the maximum to use without attenuating the signal too much. I don't understand the 8ft minimum like 'bakerocb' but it may possibly be to avoid overloading with too high a signal as he suggests but anyway it's surprising. The 13 ft minimum may be because the loss in the coax tends to make the impedance seen by the receiver closer to the characteristic impedance of the coax, regardless of the impedance of the antenna. This has the effect of moderating the impedance variation due to the mismatch. When the line is too short the loss is not enough to have this effect. Dan Hopper K9WEK ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements
Date: Apr 27, 2007
I understand what you are saying Dan but the impedance the receiver sees is not a big deal unless it is quite violently wrong, like a near dead short for instance, especially in the case of a short feeder when the signal will be strong. In any case I believe that pretty well all the antennas supplied are active and supplied with DC power via the feeder. I don't see it as any difficulty at all to design the amplifier with the right output impedance to as close a limit as necessary, so the length of the feeder will be immaterial so far as the impedance the receiver sees is concerned. John From: <Hopperdhh(at)aol.com> > > In a message dated 4/25/2007 1:57:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, > j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy writes: > > > The wavelength of the GPS signal is around 8 inches so the advice from > Garmin to use coax feeder of anywhere between 13ft and 35 ft length can > have > nothing whatsoever to do with the impedance seen by the receiver. The 35ft > is almost certainly the maximum to use without attenuating the signal too > much. I don't understand the 8ft minimum like 'bakerocb' but it may > possibly > be to avoid overloading with too high a signal as he suggests but anyway > it's surprising. > > > The 13 ft minimum may be because the loss in the coax tends to make the > impedance seen by the receiver closer to the characteristic impedance of > the coax, > regardless of the impedance of the antenna. This has the effect of > moderating > the impedance variation due to the mismatch. When the line is too short > the > loss is not enough to have this effect. > > Dan Hopper > K9WEK ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements
Date: Apr 27, 2007
On further thoughts, Dan, it seems you are saying that if you shorten the cable the signal can actually be weaker ie if you start with 8 ft and reduce it to 6ft then the signal is lower. I don't think so unless the impedance conditions are so extreme as to be very unlikely in any practical situation. Even then I have my doubts but have not worked it all through. It is not a simple problem. John From: <Hopperdhh(at)aol.com> > j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy writes: > > The wavelength of the GPS signal is around 8 inches so the advice from > Garmin to use coax feeder of anywhere between 13ft and 35 ft length can > have > nothing whatsoever to do with the impedance seen by the receiver. The 35ft > is almost certainly the maximum to use without attenuating the signal too > much. I don't understand the 8ft minimum like 'bakerocb' but it may > possibly > be to avoid overloading with too high a signal as he suggests but anyway > it's surprising. > > > The 13 ft minimum may be because the loss in the coax tends to make the > impedance seen by the receiver closer to the characteristic impedance of > the coax, > regardless of the impedance of the antenna. This has the effect of > moderating > the impedance variation due to the mismatch. When the line is too short > the > loss is not enough to have this effect. > > Dan Hopper > K9WEK ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 27, 2007
Subject: Re: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
At 08:11 4/27/2007, you wrote: >The wavelength of the GPS signal is around 8 inches so the advice from >Garmin to use coax feeder of anywhere between 13ft and 35 ft length can have >nothing whatsoever to do with the impedance seen by the receiver. The 35ft >is almost certainly the maximum to use without attenuating the signal too >much. I don't understand the 8ft minimum like 'bakerocb' but it may possibly >be to avoid overloading with too high a signal as he suggests but anyway >it's surprising. As mentioned, 1.5gHz is just under 20 cm; ~ 8 inches. While the length of the transmission line will have little to do with the input Z seen by the receiver, it's (the coax) impedance, and those of the connectors and terminations, most certainly will affect the overall performance of the system. Were the coax and connectors not closely matched to the expected source and load impedances a mismatch will occur, possibly creating an unacceptably high signal loss. Even with correct connectors and proper terminations, losses in excess of 1dB are to be expected. Additionally standing waves, reflections, will occur in the line causing additional losses and time delays of reflected signals. The antennas we use are active devices, they include a fixed gain amplifier, and they do receive their power via the coax. The power for the unit will be DC coupled to the coax. The signal output will be AC coupled, and likely designed for maximum (signal) power transfer; matched impedances. *IF* the X30W boxes are at all similar to the CNX-80/GNS-480, the receiver front end is designed to accept a signal within certain limits. The antenna/transmission line signal presented to the input of the receiver must be high enough to provide an acceptable S/N ratio for the receiver to acquire and track signals; however it cannot be so strong as to create additional unwanted signals in the front end due to overloads from excessive input level. The IM for the 80/480 units provides input gain calibration to compensate for feed line length losses. The specified minimum length may be to insure excessive signal does not reach the input stage of the receiver. However, considering line reflections, it may also be to insure any reflections are sufficiently delayed by cable length to be outside some time windowing function in the receiver to reject obviously invalid signals. For RG-400, with a propagation delay of 69.4%, that eight feet works out to about 23.5 ns or about 35 times longer than our signal of interest and pretty easy to ignore. Just another possibility. Ron Q. NJ9W ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 27, 2007
Subject: Re: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
At 10:39 4/27/2007, you wrote: >I wondered if indeed the same situation >would apply to that installation as well, even though they don't >mention cable length requirements. Actually there is mention of maximum, but no minimum, cable length, but only so the total loss does not exceed 10dB. Garmin however with the GDL series receivers, unlike WSI and Sandia, is very specific with regard to antenna gain and cable loss to the receiver, and does use TSO'd antennas. Purely a WAG here. Satellite weather has little impact on immediate safety of flight, navigation, as far as the FAA is concerned. Since weather is advisory only, and currently there are no TSO requirements, receivers don't have to meet the requirements of TSO C146a as do receivers used for navigation. It may only be logical, lacking any guaranteed reception requirements, there may not be motivation from the manufacturer to insure or guarantee a specific quality level of reception and therefore require a minimum line length to meet those requirements. Ron Q. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 27, 2007
Subject: Re: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements
John, No, I was not saying that the signal would be weaker if you shorten the cable. I'm really not sure how important the match is. But, Ron brings out a good point. Any mismatch would cause reflections on the line and confuse the decoding of the data stream. The time delay explanation is probably more correct. The loss in 13 feet of RG-400 (from a quick search for the characteristics and some interpolation) comes out to about 3 dB, which could be necessay to weaken any reflections. The reflections would travel down and back which would make them 6 dB weaker. Reflections only occur if there is a mismatch, and I agree that there shouldn't be very much of a mismatch, but there will be some given the tolerance of production parts -- meaning the amplifier chips. I'll admit that I'm in over my head here! So, who knows the real answer? Dan K9WEK (mailto:rjquillin(at)gmail.com) > At 08:11 4/27/2007, you wrote: >The wavelength of the GPS signal is around 8 inches so the advice from >Garmin to use coax feeder of anywhere between 13ft and 35 ft length can have >nothing whatsoever to do with the impedance seen by the receiver. The 35ft >is almost certainly the maximum to use without attenuating the signal too >much. I don't understand the 8ft minimum like 'bakerocb' but it may possibly >be to avoid overloading with too high a signal as he suggests but anyway >it's surprising. As mentioned, 1.5gHz is just under 20 cm; ~ 8 inches. While the length of the transmission line will have little to do with the input Z seen by the receiver, it's (the coax) impedance, and those of the connectors and terminations, most certainly will affect the overall performance of the system. Were the coax and connectors not closely matched to the expected source and load impedances a mismatch will occur, possibly creating an unacceptably high signal loss. Even with correct connectors and proper terminations, losses in excess of 1dB are to be expected. Additionally standing waves, reflections, will occur in the line causing additional losses and time delays of reflected signals. <_j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy_ (mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy) > I understand what you are saying Dan but the impedance the receiver sees is not a big deal unless it is quite violently wrong, like a near dead short for instance, especially in the case of a short feeder when the signal will be strong. In any case I believe that pretty well all the antennas supplied are active and supplied with DC power via the feeder. I don't see it as any difficulty at all to design the amplifier with the right output impedance to as close a limit as necessary, so the length of the feeder will be immaterial so far as the impedance the receiver sees is concerned. John In a message dated 4/27/2007 11:41:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy writes: On further thoughts, Dan, it seems you are saying that if you shorten the cable the signal can actually be weaker ie if you start with 8 ft and reduce it to 6ft then the signal is lower. I don't think so unless the impedance conditions are so extreme as to be very unlikely in any practical situation. Even then I have my doubts but have not worked it all through. It is not a simple problem. John ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements
Date: Apr 27, 2007
Don't forget Dan that the level of any delayed signal that reaches the receiver due to coax relection/mismatch is reduced by the reflection coefficient at the receiver itself plus the attenuation of the coax plus the reflection coefficient at the antenna plus the attenuation of the cable again. Once again this would result in rather a low level unless the impedances were grossly wrong. Then again the effect of such a reflection on the rather complex spread spectrum coding which GPS uses is far beyond me to figure out. However such modulation methods do protect particularly against multipath reception. John From: <Hopperdhh(at)aol.com> > > John, > > No, I was not saying that the signal would be weaker if you shorten the > cable. I'm really not sure how important the match is. But, Ron brings > out a good > point. Any mismatch would cause reflections on the line and confuse the > decoding of the data stream. The time delay explanation is probably more > correct. > The loss in 13 feet of RG-400 (from a quick search for the characteristics > and some interpolation) comes out to about 3 dB, which could be necessay > to > weaken any reflections. The reflections would travel down and back which > would > make them 6 dB weaker. Reflections only occur if there is a mismatch, and > I > agree that there shouldn't be very much of a mismatch, but there will be > some > given the tolerance of production parts -- meaning the amplifier chips. > I'll > admit that I'm in over my head here! So, who knows the real answer? > > Dan K9WEK > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Deems Herring <dsleepy47(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements
Date: Apr 28, 2007
I am not an avionics guy but here: http://www.pennavionics.com/WAAS_UPGRADE .html is a place that gives an explination of what Garmin is trying to mee t with their coax requirements. Decide for yourself what their explination is worth. Deems > From: noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com> Subject: RE: Avionics-List: GNS 430W Antenna Requirements> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:28: yahoo.ca>> > I agree with you... The whys and wherefores are interesting re ading but when> it comes to the actual installation do what the documentati on says! _________________________________________________________________ Discover the new Windows Vista E ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 10, 2007
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AFS lead times
I just ordered an AF3400EM. Any reports on the lead time between order and arrival from Advanced Flight Systems? Thanks, Ralph ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: AFS lead times
Date: May 11, 2007
Ordered last november(3400) for delivery in january, was delivered at sun&fun! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:31 PM Subject: Avionics-List: AFS lead times > > > I just ordered an AF3400EM. > > Any reports on the lead time between order and arrival from Advanced > Flight Systems? > > Thanks, > Ralph > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Don Morrisey <donmorrisey(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760???
Date: May 12, 2007
Hello Listers: Can anyone compare these two radios. I am trying to finalize a decision. Even if you know only about one of them I would like to hear back. Things like quality of reception and transmission, distance on reception and trans mission and just general overall quality of the hardware. If I went with the Microair I would probably also get their transponder. I f I went with The Icom I would probably go with a Garmin GTX 327 transponde r. Thanks for the help. Don.... www.donsbushcaddy.comDon Morrisey's Skunkwork s _________________________________________________________________ Change is good. See what=92s different about Windows Live Hotmail. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us&oc id=RMT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760???
Date: May 12, 2007
I sure can...I've installed and used both in the same aircraft. Stay AWAY from the Microair transponder, they do not work well in the US. The Microair radio is fine, but the A200 is a superior unit. I love that A200. I have since parted with both Microair products and replaced them with Becker units - the best equipment available for a 2.25 hole. James Redmon Berkut #013 N97TX http://www.berkut13.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Morrisey To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 11:25 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760??? Hello Listers: Can anyone compare these two radios. I am trying to finalize a decision. Even if you know only about one of them I would like to hear back. Things like quality of reception and transmission, distance on reception and transmission and just general overall quality of the hardware. If I went with the Microair I would probably also get their transponder. If I went with The Icom I would probably go with a Garmin GTX 327 transponder. Thanks for the help. Don.... www.donsbushcaddy.com Don Morrisey's Skunkworks ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Change is good. See what=92s different about Windows Live Hotmail. Check it out! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: NYTerminat(at)aol.com
Date: May 13, 2007
Subject: Re: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760???
Don, I love the ICom radio. Clear crisp and powerful. I also have the Garmin 320A Transponder, no problems. Bob Spudis N701ZX CH701/107 HRS In a message dated 5/12/2007 7:58:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, berkut13(at)berkut13.com writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: _Don Morrisey_ (mailto:donmorrisey(at)hotmail.com) Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 11:25 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760??? Hello Listers: Can anyone compare these two radios. I am trying to finalize a decision. Even if you know only about one of them I would like to hear back. Things like quality of reception and transmission, distance on reception and transmission and just general overall quality of the hardware. If I went with the Microair I would probably also get their transponder. If I went with The Icom I would probably go with a Garmin GTX 327 transponder. Thanks for the help. Don.... _www.donsbushcaddy.com_ (http://www.donsbushcaddy.com/) Don Morrisey's Skunkworks ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58
Date: May 13, 2007
5/13/2007 Hello Dean, You wrote: "Anyone using RG-142 for your antenna runs? Is it for transponder or GPS? Or both?" I used either RG 400 or RG 142 for all of my coax installations. RG 400 and RG 142 are both superior to RG 58 in performance and material. RG 400 has a multistranded core and RG 142 has a solid core. Some people favor RG 400 over RG 142 because of the greater flexibility and resistance to flexing fatigue failure. RG 142 is a bit easier to work with when installing connections such as BNC. There are avionics shops that will refuse to install RG 58 in your airplane -- with good reason I think. Look at RG 58 here: http://www.belden.com/pdfs/MasterCatalogPDF/PDFS_links%20to%20docs/06_Coax/6.72_6.77.pdf RG 400 here: http://wireandcable.thermaxcdt.com/item/aerospace-wire-and-cable/mil-c-17-coaxial-and-twinaxial-cables/m17-128-rg400-id-74-?&plpver=10&origin=keyword&by=prod&filter=0 And Rg 142 here: http://wireandcable.thermaxcdt.com/item/aerospace-wire-and-cable/mil-c-17-coaxial-and-twinaxial-cables/m17-060-rg142-id-64-?&plpver=10&origin=keyword&by=prod&filter=0 OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge. ----------------------------------------------- From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG-142 Coax When I was at Gulf Coast Avionics getting a bunch of stuff a couple years ago I ended up with a roll of RG-58 coax and a small amount of RG-142 coax. I don't remember whether the RG-142 was for my GPS antenna or the transponder. RG-142 looks very much like RG-400 and if you didn't look at the markings you would easily mistake it for RG-400. Anyone using RG-142 for your antenna runs? Is it for transponder or GPS? Or both? Thanks. Dean Psiropoulos RV-6A N197DM Final wiring tasks. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760???
From: "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: May 13, 2007
The Icom is a KY97a internally and is what I use. An excellent radio if you have the panel space. I have worked on Icom, Microair, Becker and Xcom installations lately. In NZ the transponder system has been changed to better accomodate mode S and this has caused a recall of all Microair transponders for "upgrade". Shades of the 'Terra vanishing problem'? that blighted a perfectly compliant transponder at the time and pretty much set up the demise of Terra. I corresponded with Microair about this problem but they dont seem to agree that they've been shafted (maybe they havent - perhaps they never studied the Terra problem) so they are on their own. Upgrades are at owners expense. Therefore for the transponder I would fit Becker or Garmin. If, like myself, its preferred to keep with one brand suite, consider the Garmin SL40 as your com. Its got the weather channel receive capability and VOX intercom built in that some of the others lack. Regards, Ralph -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112655#112655 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58
Date: May 13, 2007
FWIW (a lot if a 430W is involved), Garmin requires RG400 coax when upgrading to a GNS430/530W along with a new (different) antenna. And, a gotcha, the connectors for the RG400 are NOT the same as those for the RG58. Also if one is contemplating upgrading their 430/530, the antenna's come with a TNC connector vice a BNC, another gotcha. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: Avionics-List: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 > > 5/13/2007 > > Hello Dean, > > You wrote: "Anyone using RG-142 for your antenna runs? Is it for > transponder or GPS? Or both?" > > I used either RG 400 or RG 142 for all of my coax installations. > > RG 400 and RG 142 are both superior to RG 58 in performance and material. > RG 400 has a multistranded core and RG 142 has a solid core. Some people > favor RG 400 over RG 142 because of the greater flexibility and resistance > to flexing fatigue failure. > > RG 142 is a bit easier to work with when installing connections such as > BNC. There are avionics shops that will refuse to install RG 58 in your > airplane -- with good reason I think. > > Look at RG 58 here: > > http://www.belden.com/pdfs/MasterCatalogPDF/PDFS_links%20to%20docs/06_Coax/6.72_6.77.pdf > > RG 400 here: > > http://wireandcable.thermaxcdt.com/item/aerospace-wire-and-cable/mil-c-17-coaxial-and-twinaxial-cables/m17-128-rg400-id-74-?&plpver=10&origin=keyword&by=prod&filter=0 > > And Rg 142 here: > > http://wireandcable.thermaxcdt.com/item/aerospace-wire-and-cable/mil-c-17-coaxial-and-twinaxial-cables/m17-060-rg142-id-64-?&plpver=10&origin=keyword&by=prod&filter=0 > > > OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge. > > ----------------------------------------------- > > From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG-142 Coax > > > When I was at Gulf Coast Avionics getting a bunch of stuff a couple years > ago I ended up with a roll of RG-58 coax and a small amount of RG-142 > coax. > I don't remember whether the RG-142 was for my GPS antenna or the > transponder. RG-142 looks very much like RG-400 and if you didn't look at > the markings you would easily mistake it for RG-400. Anyone using RG-142 > for your antenna runs? Is it for transponder or GPS? Or both? Thanks. > > Dean Psiropoulos > RV-6A N197DM > Final wiring tasks. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com>
Subject: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760???
Date: May 13, 2007
Hi James, Can you elaborate on the Becker unit a bit? I have both the radio and transponder from Microair but I am not happy with the radio and was actually trying to decide if I should buy a Becker as I would like to use the existing panel space. \ Thanks Franz RV7A-60h -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of berkut13(at)berkut13.com Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760??? I sure can...I've installed and used both in the same aircraft. Stay AWAY from the Microair transponder, they do not work well in the US. The Microair radio is fine, but the A200 is a superior unit. I love that A200. I have since parted with both Microair products and replaced them with Becker units - the best equipment available for a 2.25 hole. James Redmon Berkut #013 N97TX http://www.berkut13.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Don <mailto:donmorrisey(at)hotmail.com> Morrisey Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 11:25 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760??? Hello Listers: Can anyone compare these two radios. I am trying to finalize a decision. Even if you know only about one of them I would like to hear back. Things like quality of reception and transmission, distance on reception and transmission and just general overall quality of the hardware. If I went with the Microair I would probably also get their transponder. If I went with The Icom I would probably go with a Garmin GTX 327 transponder. Thanks for the help. Don.... www.donsbushcaddy.com <http://www.donsbushcaddy.com/> Don Morrisey's Skunkworks _____ Change is good. See what's different about Windows Live Hotmail. Check it out! <http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us& ocid=RMT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List">http://www.matro nics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 14, 2007
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" > the connectors for the RG400 are NOT the same as those for the RG58. Wayne, I installed a Garmin 400 series in our project with RG400 and regular "RG58" connectors. Works great. And yes, the connector at the unit end is a TNC, but the installation technique is the same as a BNC. Best regards, Gilles http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 14, 2007
From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760???
Don, Having had very good experience with both, it almost comes down to how you want the mount them. Local avionics shops complain about the ICOM --- they don't make any money out of them, once fitted, they never see them again. Microair will shortly have a Mode S version of their transponder, it will probably be only a few hundred $$ more than the A/C version. Cheers, Bill Hamilton At 02:25 AM 13/05/2007, you wrote: >Hello Listers: > >Can anyone compare these two radios. I am trying to finalize a >decision. Even if you know only about one of them I would like to >hear back. Things like quality of reception and transmission, >distance on reception and transmission and just general overall >quality of the hardware. > >If I went with the Microair I would probably also get their >transponder. If I went with The Icom I would probably go with a >Garmin GTX 327 transponder. > >Thanks for the help. Don.... > ><http://www.donsbushcaddy.com/>www.donsbushcaddy.com >Don Morrisey's Skunkworks > > >---------- >Change is good. See what's different about Windows Live Hotmail. ><http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us&ocid=RMT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507>Check >it out! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58
Date: May 14, 2007
I found when trying to install a RG58 connector to the thicker RG400 center insulated conductor, the connector had to be jammed on, slightly stripping some insulation. I tried several different connectors, thinking one batch was faulty. Finally, I found connectors specifically made for RG400; slipped on without a forcing. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 11:34 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 > <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" > >> the connectors for the RG400 are NOT the same as those for the RG58. > > Wayne, > > I installed a Garmin 400 series in our project with RG400 and regular > "RG58" connectors. Works great. > And yes, the connector at the unit end is a TNC, but the installation > technique is the same as a BNC. > > Best regards, > Gilles > http://contrails.free.fr > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760???
Date: May 14, 2007
Well, I even had some issues with the MicroAir radio I had in the plane. It would receive just fine, but transmit was always garbled and barely readable. I finally got tired of troubleshooting it and replaced it with a Becker unit. Poof, my problems went away and the Becker works great. Now I use the second radio all the time. The Becker is just about the same size, and certainly fits the same hole. The connector is different and will need to be re-wired, but that's it. I now have both the Becker transponder and radio...I love them both. I still like the A200 the best...but getting it to fit a 2.25 hole might be a challenge. ;-) James Redmon Berkut #013 N97TX http://www.berkut13.com ----- Original Message ----- From: franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 11:41 PM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Compare Icom IC-A200 and Microair 760??? Hi James, Can you elaborate on the Becker unit a bit? I have both the radio and transponder from Microair but I am not happy with the radio and was actually trying to decide if I should buy a Becker as I would like to use the existing panel space. \ Thanks Franz RV7A-60h ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim" <jimscjs(at)mbay.net>
Subject: Becker
Date: May 14, 2007
I have used the Micro Air and had several problems with it, I have been using the Becker Radios and Transponders in several Aircraft we have worked on with no trouble, and they are very easy to mount and wire, and i have had no problems with any of them. Jim Selby ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 14, 2007
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58
Wayne Sweet a crit : > > I found when trying to install a RG58 connector to the thicker RG400 > center insulated conductor, the connector had to be jammed on, > slightly stripping some insulation. I tried several different > connectors, thinking one batch was faulty. Finally, I found connectors > specifically made for RG400; slipped on without a forcing. Wayne, I used a Telegaertner connector angled TNC connector. Works great with my standard crimp tool. Don't remember any problem inserting the coax into the shell. Best regards, Gilles http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Avionics Master
Date: May 14, 2007
All, I'm working on my panel and I'm trying to decide if I should put an Avionics Master switch. In my experience with rental planes this was nice to have since there was one switch to turn everything on or off during engine start or shutdown. Is there any reason not to add this feature? I'm planning an E-Bus and Main Bus configuration similar to the Z-13/8 design. Thanks _________________________________________________________________ Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the im Initiative now. Its free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_MAY07 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 15, 2007
From: "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics Master
Some people will say "Oh but the switch will break!!!" or " what if the relay fails" So here are two easy solutions... 1. Use two circuit breaker switches rated for 40 amps in parallel. if one craps out, turn the other on. 2. hook up a heavy rated normally closed relay, so when you have the avionics "off" you are actually powering the relay open and when you want to turn the stuff on, you take power off the relay. When you turn the master on, the avionics will get a little power until the relay powers open. This is the way Beech has been doing it for a while.... also if your switch fails, that breaks the power to the relay (wont open up) you can pull the avionics power breaker to remove power to the relay , thus causing the contacts to close and put power on the bus. Some ideas Charles Reiche ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:28 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Avionics Master > > All, > > I'm working on my panel and I'm trying to decide if I should put an > Avionics Master switch. In my experience with rental planes this was nice > to have since there was one switch to turn everything on or off during > engine start or shutdown. > > Is there any reason not to add this feature? I'm planning an E-Bus and > Main Bus configuration similar to the Z-13/8 design. > > Thanks > > _________________________________________________________________ > Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i'm Initiative now. > It's free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_MAY07 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics Master
Date: May 15, 2007
Another solution is to put each main device such as radio xponder etc on a W31 breaker type switch. Kill 2 birds with one stone, each needs their own fuse anyway. And if the design was for panel mount klixons you would not be taking up any extra panel room. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:37 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Avionics Master > > > Some people will say "Oh but the switch will break!!!" or " what if the > relay fails" So here are two easy solutions... > > 1. Use two circuit breaker switches rated for 40 amps in parallel. if one > craps out, turn the other on. > > 2. hook up a heavy rated normally closed relay, so when you have the > avionics "off" you are actually powering the relay open and when you want > to turn the stuff on, you take power off the relay. When you turn the > master on, the avionics will get a little power until the relay powers > open. This is the way Beech has been doing it for a while.... also if > your switch fails, that breaks the power to the relay (wont open up) you > can pull the avionics power breaker to remove power to the relay , thus > causing the contacts to close and put power on the bus. > > Some ideas > > Charles Reiche > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com> > To: ; > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:28 PM > Subject: Avionics-List: Avionics Master > > >> >> All, >> >> I'm working on my panel and I'm trying to decide if I should put an >> Avionics Master switch. In my experience with rental planes this was >> nice to have since there was one switch to turn everything on or off >> during engine start or shutdown. >> >> Is there any reason not to add this feature? I'm planning an E-Bus and >> Main Bus configuration similar to the Z-13/8 design. >> >> Thanks >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i'm Initiative now. >> It's free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_MAY07 >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Avionics Master
Date: May 16, 2007
It is also nice to be able to shut down avionics as a block in the case of a short circuit and make troubleshooting a lot easier if all your avionics are on a dedicated buss. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Greg Vouga > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:58 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: Avionics Master > > > > > All, > > I'm working on my panel and I'm trying to decide if I should > put an Avionics > Master switch. In my experience with rental planes this was > nice to have > since there was one switch to turn everything on or off > during engine start > or shutdown. > > Is there any reason not to add this feature? I'm planning an > E-Bus and Main > Bus configuration similar to the Z-13/8 design. > > Thanks > > _________________________________________________________________ > Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i'm > Initiative now. > It's free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_MAY07 > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug Dodson" <douglas.dodson(at)pobox.com>
Subject: IO-360 Engine, Instruments, Ignition
Date: May 22, 2007
My Glasair has reached a new stage of construction, I have dis-assembled it for final work in the interior of the fuselage and painting. I have taken so long to build this thing, I can now afford different choices for certain components I could not afford when I started. What that means to all of you is the opportunity to get some bargains on components I will not use when I do the final assembly on my airplane. E-mail me at douglas.dodson(at)pobox.com for more information or photos of any of the equipment. IO-360-B1E: assembled engine, overhauled several years ago but never run, most but not all accessories included (most would suffice for core value) Lycoming core value on this engine is $10,500. I'm asking $12,000. Elector-Air electronic ignition system w/ hall effect pickup. Included is the full system and instruction manual. Never used. $400 Buy the engine and you can have this. VM 1000 system for an IO-360. This is brand new, most of the components have not been removed from the original packaging. A few of the senders were installed but never used. It sells new for about $3000. I'm asking $1900. Included is the DPU, display, all senders including fuel flow, wiring, and the manual. I also have the fuel level system which is a separate display capable of indicating for 3 tanks, and one 8' probe. This can be yours for $350 (probe retail new is $500 all by itself). I also have an ACK A-30 altitude encoder and a Rapco vacuum pump cooling kit. Buy something else and you can have these for a beer and the cost of shipping. Douglas L. Dodson, Jr. Glasair II-S FT Flight Test Engineer, CFI-A,G ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV_10" <john_rv10(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Advanced Flight Systems firmware upgrade problem
Date: May 29, 2007
Hi All, We recently purchased an RV 7 with an ACS 2002 engine monitor. It had v3.0.0 A04 firmware on it, and we updated it with the most recent version, 3.2.2 When we started it after the upgrade we had lost reference to CHTs for cylinders 1 and 4 Has anybody else had the same experience? If so, how did you fix it? Thank you, John Cleary ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: Advanced Flight Systems firmware upgrade problem
Date: May 29, 2007
John, I have not had that problem, as a matter of fact the only problem I have ever had with the AC2002 (now know as AC2500) is when you short a sensor you loose the other sensors that have the same power supply driver. I have installed over a dozen of these unites over the years and I have one in my plane. The Best solution is to call the boy over at Advanced Flight, they will work through the problem with you directly. I have always thought their tech. support as being one of the best. Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV_10 Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:40 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Advanced Flight Systems firmware upgrade problem Hi All, We recently purchased an RV 7 with an ACS 2002 engine monitor. It had v3.0.0 A04 firmware on it, and we updated it with the most recent version, 3.2.2 When we started it after the upgrade we had lost reference to CHTs for cylinders 1 and 4 Has anybody else had the same experience? If so, how did you fix it? Thank you, John Cleary -- 11:52 AM -- 11:52 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV_10" <john_rv10(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Advanced Flight Systems firmware upgrade problem
Date: May 30, 2007
Thanks Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Wednesday, 30 May 2007 12:28 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Advanced Flight Systems firmware upgrade problem John, I have not had that problem, as a matter of fact the only problem I have ever had with the AC2002 (now know as AC2500) is when you short a sensor you loose the other sensors that have the same power supply driver. I have installed over a dozen of these unites over the years and I have one in my plane. The Best solution is to call the boy over at Advanced Flight, they will work through the problem with you directly. I have always thought their tech. support as being one of the best. Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV_10 Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:40 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Advanced Flight Systems firmware upgrade problem Hi All, We recently purchased an RV 7 with an ACS 2002 engine monitor. It had v3.0.0 A04 firmware on it, and we updated it with the most recent version, 3.2.2 When we started it after the upgrade we had lost reference to CHTs for cylinders 1 and 4 Has anybody else had the same experience? If so, how did you fix it? Thank you, John Cleary -- 11:52 AM -- 11:52 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV_10" <john_rv10(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Advanced Flight Systems firmware upgrade problem
Date: May 30, 2007
For anybody else caught with this it seems the fix is simple. When the firmware upgrade is initialized, the unit automatically sets itself up for a Rotax engine. You just need to go to calibration mode and tell the unit it has 4 cylinders to monitor. The steps to follow are:- Go to the calibration menu (hold button 4 down on power up) Select 10. CHT from the menu Set Item 12. Instrument ON/OFF to ON Set Item 13. Number of Cylinders to 4. Press the return button 2 or 3 times to return to the main screen. Cheers, John -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV_10 Sent: Wednesday, 30 May 2007 4:49 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Advanced Flight Systems firmware upgrade problem Thanks Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Wednesday, 30 May 2007 12:28 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Advanced Flight Systems firmware upgrade problem John, I have not had that problem, as a matter of fact the only problem I have ever had with the AC2002 (now know as AC2500) is when you short a sensor you loose the other sensors that have the same power supply driver. I have installed over a dozen of these unites over the years and I have one in my plane. The Best solution is to call the boy over at Advanced Flight, they will work through the problem with you directly. I have always thought their tech. support as being one of the best. Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV_10 Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:40 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Advanced Flight Systems firmware upgrade problem Hi All, We recently purchased an RV 7 with an ACS 2002 engine monitor. It had v3.0.0 A04 firmware on it, and we updated it with the most recent version, 3.2.2 When we started it after the upgrade we had lost reference to CHTs for cylinders 1 and 4 Has anybody else had the same experience? If so, how did you fix it? Thank you, John Cleary -- 11:52 AM -- 11:52 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Becker
From: "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com>
Date: May 31, 2007
Going to take a shot at posting a wireing digram. -------- Paul Petty Kolbra #12 Ms Dixie Final assembly! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=115855#115855 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/_mequal0andmidequal1446andpequal2andardsiequala260081a5c35bb1744228a60a4eeda94_189.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 01, 2007
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Becker
Paul Petty a crit : > > Going to take a shot at posting a wireing digram. > > FWIW, The Install Manuals and wiring diagrams are available on Becker's website. Regards, -- Gilles Thesee http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Becker
From: "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: Jun 01, 2007
Jim, could you say what the Microair problems were? With the run of complaints I've been getting about the Xcom lately, it looks like the Aussie designs are not up to it. They have added a requirement to the manual for external power switch and capacitor, this is probably to stop them getting scrambled up from normal voltages and transients on the DC supply. Also theres been a lot of "receiver dead' complaints that come back as a "no fault fond" and noisy transmissions due to PAX mic being live during transmissions. I understand that these issues will be fixed in software revision. Unfortunately, this is a factory fix. We can buy dual Xcom or Microairs for the price of one Becker or Garmin SL40. So its a bit of a challenge for deciding. Ralph -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=115895#115895 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Becker
From: "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: Jun 02, 2007
Thanks Bob, my 701 ZK-ZAR has the same radio in the BendixKing KY97a version and it works well, easy to operate. My question back to Jim was to find out what problems the Microair exhibits, as the homebuilders around here are looking for that type of radio. I met with some of them today whom are pretty much done with waiting for a fix. Its been mentioned that Microair is bringing out a model that incorporates a VOX intercom too, like the Becker. If they are still the same cost then the best installation would be a pair of Microairs - only one would need the intercom, the other could be an older model. Ralph -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=116024#116024 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 04, 2007
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Heated pitot tube electrical connector
Folks, I am looking for a replacement connector for my AN5814 heated pitot/static tube. The connector has a part number of AN3115-1. Any help would be appreciated, Ralph Capen ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Vandegrift <citabriapilot(at)comcast.net>
Subject: SPA-400 intercom
Date: Jun 10, 2007
I have fried several resistors/diodes (don't ask, lets just say the previous professional approved installation choice of protection had something to do with it) in the unit to the point I can not tell what they are or their values. There is a cluster of 4 passives, a diode, capacitor, ? and ? located just behind the on/off switch on the board. Anyone out there have access to a schematic or and old unit to help me determine what they are. They will be easy to replace and repair the unit. Thanks Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2007
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: Re: SPA-400 intercom
> I have fried several resistors/diodes (don't ask, lets just say the previous professional approved installation choice of protection had something to do with it) in the unit to the point I can not tell what they are or their values. There is a cluster of 4 passives, a diode, capacitor, ? and ? located just behind the on/off switch on the board. Anyone out there have access to a schematic or and old unit to help me determine what they are. They will be easy to replace and repair the unit. >Thanks >Bob I have a schematic and installation sheet for a Sigtronics SPA-400. It's pretty old - earlier than 1885 or so. I'll see if I can scan it in the morning but it's not going to be a work of art. There is no parts layout drawing in the stack. If you can identify some part numbers on the PC board I might be able to come up with values. -- --> The best programming tool is a soldering iron <-- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 11, 2007
Subject: Garmin Foretrex 101 -- great cheap GPS
I hesitate to post this to these sophisticated lists, but I can't resist! Last week I bought a Garmin Foretrex 101 GPS at ALDI (a grocery store) for $59.95. It will operate about 15 hours on two AAA batteries and weighs about 3 ounces, and has a 12 channel receiver with WAAS. It has NEMA out which means it could conceivably send data to an autopilot -- I don't have the serial cable to try this yet. Yesterday I tried it out in my RV-7A on a 50 mile trip. Wow! It worked perfectly. You have to program the airports manually out of the Airport Directory, but you can assign an airplane icon and name them with the identifiers, etc. It will hold up to 500 waypoints. You can set the units to NAUTICAL for speed and distance. It may be possible to download a data base from a PC since it has the serial interface. This is an amazing little GPS. Dan Hopper Walton, IN ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2007
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: Re: SPA-400 intercom
Have a look at: <http://www.macnauchtan.com/citabriapilot/SPA-400_scm.png> > I have fried several resistors/diodes (don't ask, lets just say the previous professional approved installation choice of protection had something to do with it) in the unit to the point I can not tell what they are or their values. There is a cluster of 4 passives, a diode, capacitor, ? and ? located just behind the on/off switch on the board. Anyone out there have access to a schematic or and old unit to help me determine what they are. They will be easy to replace and repair the unit. -- --> From the U S of A, the only socialist country that refuses to admit it. <-- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DENNCO2(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 11, 2007
Subject: Re: Garmin Foretrex 101 -- great cheap GPS
In a message dated 6/11/2007 4:25:11 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Hopperdhh(at)aol.com writes: Last week I bought a Garmin Foretrex 101 GPS at ALDI (a grocery store) for $59.95 ================================ My brief search for this product shows $129.00 retail. $60 only at ALDI? ~Den~ Bothell, WA ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 13, 2007
Subject: Narco DME LED OUT
From: "Peter Langlois" <pete(at)wort.org>
Here's my question: After doing a battery charge, I discovered to my dissapointment that the DME head serving my Narco MK 12D is not working. The VOR tracking is working, but the DME LEDs seem to be out. Of course, I can't tell if the DME is functional, but not displaying. Anyone have a similar experience? I know that some Narco elements have a sacrificial part that is supposed to prevent unit damage in the event of a voltage spike. Please, no Narco-negative comments. The Garmin Fairy has not come to my home, and it's not in his/her flight path (that I know of). I left the DME on during the charging event. It's my fault. Any suggestions/Help are welcome. Any recommendations on a radio shop in Md. or Northern VA are also welcome. PETE Peter Langlois Tiger N45319 (with relatively antique radios) Leesburg, VA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stan Bearup" <bearup(at)ida.net>
Subject: KT-79 Transponder Tray Wanted
Date: Jun 13, 2007
I am looking for a tray and connector for a KT-79 Transponder. Any leads would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Stan Bearup 208-226-5531 bearup(at)ida.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 13, 2007
Subject: DME LED OUT (Narco)
From: "Peter Langlois" <pete(at)wort.org>
Here's my question: After doing a battery charge, I discovered to my dissapointment that the DME head serving my Narco MK 12D is not working. The VOR tracking is working, but the DME LEDs seem to be out. Of course, I can't tell if the DME is functional, but not displaying. Anyone have a similar experience? I know that some Narco elements have a sacrificial part (diode??) that is supposed to prevent unit damage in the event of a voltage spike. Please, no Narco-negative comments. The Garmin Fairy has not come to my home, and it's not in his/her flight path (that I know of). I left the DME on during the charging event. It's my fault. Any suggestions/Help are welcome. Any recommendations on a radio shop in Md. or Northern VA are also welcome. PETE Peter Langlois Tiger N45319 (with relatively antique radios) Leesburg, VA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 13, 2007
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: Re: DME LED OUT (Narco)
>After doing a battery charge, I discovered to my dissapointment that the >DME head serving my Narco MK 12D is not working. The VOR tracking is >working, but the DME LEDs seem to be out. Of course, I can't tell if the >DME is functional, but not displaying. It would help to have a part number or two. I think the last DME that Narco made was the DME195 which is a fairly large blue box hidden somewhere. I have seen those beasts channeled by a MK12D but they have a readout that is a rectangle about 1 inch high and 3 inches wide. The lamps are not LED's but rather seven-segment incandescent lamps. Can you listen to the DME code that is sent out every minute? That will tell you something about what's working and what is not. -- --> From the U S of A, the only socialist country that refuses to admit it. <-- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: DME LED OUT (Narco)
Date: Jun 14, 2007
6/14/2007 Hello Pete, Give Ben Travis at Smart Avionics a call. http://www.smart-avionics.com/indexeee4.html?page=Contact-Us He is located right on the nice little country airport in the middle of the cornfields at Deck PA (9D4). Not too far from JYO. http://www.airnav.com/airport/9D4 You will be very pleased with his service. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." Subject: Avionics-List: DME LED OUT (Narco) From: "Peter Langlois" <pete(at)wort.org> Here's my question: After doing a battery charge, I discovered to my dissapointment that the DME head serving my Narco MK 12D is not working. The VOR tracking is working, but the DME LEDs seem to be out. Of course, I can't tell if the DME is functional, but not displaying. Anyone have a similar experience? I know that some Narco elements have a sacrificial part (diode??) that is supposed to prevent unit damage in the event of a voltage spike. Please, no Narco-negative comments. The Garmin Fairy has not come to my home, and it's not in his/her flight path (that I know of). I left the DME on during the charging event. It's my fault. Any suggestions/Help are welcome. Any recommendations on a radio shop in Md. or Northern VA are also welcome. PETE Peter Langlois Tiger N45319 (with relatively antique radios) Leesburg, VA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Antenna doubler plate - prime or not
Date: Jun 17, 2007
Fellow tron chasers, I'm putting a comant bent whip on the underside of my RV6A. I have a good doubler plate (derived from the AC43.13) - pictures if anyone wants to see. My question is should I prime it? My initial thoughts are that the existence of the metal structure will provide the ground plane even if it is not bonded electrically to the structure - meaning prime on...... Otherwise, how is bonding effected as there is a cork gasket that is to be installed? Do the four antenna mounting screws provide sufficient bonding? Thanks, Ralph ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [ExperimentalAvionics] Antenna doubler plate - prime
or not
Date: Jun 17, 2007
Do not use the cork gasket. Use RTV around the antenna base AFTER installation. Also, the doubler will need to be riveted, and if solid rivets (not blind rivets) are used, the doulber will be have a solid connection to the aircraft skin. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 5:55 PM Subject: [ExperimentalAvionics] Antenna doubler plate - prime or not > Fellow tron chasers, > > I'm putting a comant bent whip on the underside of my RV6A. I have a good > doubler plate (derived from the AC43.13) - pictures if anyone wants to > see. > My question is should I prime it? > > My initial thoughts are that the existence of the metal structure will > provide the ground plane even if it is not bonded electrically to the > structure - meaning prime on...... > Otherwise, how is bonding effected as there is a cork gasket that is to be > installed? Do the four antenna mounting screws provide sufficient > bonding? > > Thanks, > Ralph > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ExperimentalAvionics/ > > <*> Your email settings: > Individual Email | Traditional > > <*> To change settings online go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ExperimentalAvionics/join > (Yahoo! ID required) > > <*> To change settings via email: > mailto:ExperimentalAvionics-digest(at)yahoogroups.com > mailto:ExperimentalAvionics-fullfeatured(at)yahoogroups.com > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > ExperimentalAvionics-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 17, 2007
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: Re: Antenna doubler plate - prime or not
>I'm putting a comant bent whip on the underside of my RV6A. I have a good doubler plate (derived from the AC43.13) - pictures if anyone wants to see. >My question is should I prime it? > >My initial thoughts are that the existence of the metal structure will provide the ground plane even if it is not bonded electrically to the structure - meaning prime on...... >Otherwise, how is bonding effected as there is a cork gasket that is to be installed? Do the four antenna mounting screws provide sufficient bonding? Back in ancient history - about 1980 - Narco put out an installation note that said not to use those cork gaskets but rather to assure conductive contact of the metal of the antenna base with the skin of the aircraft. They said to seal, after torquing the screws, with silicone rubber from a tube - bathtub caulk. As for the doubler, I doubt if it makes any electrical difference and priming would be good if corrosion is a consideration. You do want the BNC connector to be well grounded to the aircraft skin at the antenna site. Oh oh. . . RV6A? Is that fiberglass? If so I may be all wet. -- --> From the U S of A, the only socialist country that refuses to admit it. <-- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Antenna doubler plate - prime or not
Date: Jun 17, 2007
The 6A is aluminum....thanks... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug McNutt" <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 11:16 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Antenna doubler plate - prime or not > > >>I'm putting a comant bent whip on the underside of my RV6A. I have a good >>doubler plate (derived from the AC43.13) - pictures if anyone wants to >>see. >>My question is should I prime it? >> >>My initial thoughts are that the existence of the metal structure will >>provide the ground plane even if it is not bonded electrically to the >>structure - meaning prime on...... >>Otherwise, how is bonding effected as there is a cork gasket that is to be >>installed? Do the four antenna mounting screws provide sufficient >>bonding? > > Back in ancient history - about 1980 - Narco put out an installation note > that said not to use those cork gaskets but rather to assure conductive > contact of the metal of the antenna base with the skin of the aircraft. > They said to seal, after torquing the screws, with silicone rubber from a > tube - bathtub caulk. > > As for the doubler, I doubt if it makes any electrical difference and > priming would be good if corrosion is a consideration. You do want the BNC > connector to be well grounded to the aircraft skin at the antenna site. > > Oh oh. . . RV6A? Is that fiberglass? If so I may be all wet. > -- > > --> From the U S of A, the only socialist country that refuses to admit > it. <-- > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 18, 2007
From: "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Antenna doubler plate - prime or not
You can prime it but I would spot face the holes where they pass thru the doubler on both sides and on the external skin from the inside, use the cork gasket. Comant wouldnt include it if they didnt want you to use it. The screws passing thru the antenna provide the connection to the ground plane thru the double and back to the skin if you use a spot facing brush. Make sure to seal the antenna with fuel sealant (if you want a long lasting seal that wont be affected by most anything) or use some RTV type bath caulk. The secret to smooth lines for taping the sealant line is to use 1/2" electrical tape of a good grade and leave 1/8" gap or greater. Tape down around using one hand to unroll it and your index finger on the other hand to get the spacing right as you bend the tape around the curve of the antenna, around the base your tape should look like a fish when you are done looking down... and at the back point, I just cut a 1" piece and square off the pointy part. This whole procedure takes some practice, work quickly with the glue as the 1/2 hour working time fuel sealant or RTV really cures fast in the summer heat. Have paper towel on hand or a helper with some to hand to you, use your fingertip to make the glue fillet, the edges should end at the edge of the tape lines so you make it pretty. As soon as the fillet looks good, peel off the tape so you dont get rtv curing to the tape. If you get ribbons of glue that fall down back onto the paint, its easiest to let them stay and cut them off after it cures. If you have not yet painted your airplane, DO NOT USE SILICONE RTV!!! Use fuel sealant, it can be painted over and up onto the antenna for a professional looking finish like the OEMs do. Good luck, Charles Reiche ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 8:55 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Antenna doubler plate - prime or not > > I'm putting a comant bent whip on the underside of my RV6A. I have a good > doubler plate (derived from the AC43.13) - pictures if anyone wants to > see. > My question is should I prime it? > > My initial thoughts are that the existence of the metal structure will > provide the ground plane even if it is not bonded electrically to the > structure - meaning prime on...... > Otherwise, how is bonding effected as there is a cork gasket that is to be > installed? Do the four antenna mounting screws provide sufficient > bonding? > > Thanks, > Ralph ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Soldering to copper foil tape
Date: Jun 30, 2007
Was there an article on a recommended way to do this? I vaguely remember a discussion on this topic. I'd rather do it right than again! Thanks ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "springcanyon" <springcanyon(at)methow.com>
Subject: Soldering to copper foil tape
Date: Jul 01, 2007
Hi Ralph, I don't know about the article, but I have soldered a lot of copper foil tape. Actually that is what the stuff is made for. It's used for soldering leaded glass window pieces together - stained glass work. I once put a spider-web of copper foil tape on a plastic fuel tank (to collect static electricity) and soldered ground wires to it. Anyway, it is the easiest stuff there is to solder. Don Owens Was there an article on a recommended way to do this? I vaguely remember a discussion on this topic. I'd rather do it right than again! Thanks 5:32 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Soldering to copper foil tape
Date: Jul 01, 2007
You want to use the 63/37 (60/40 is ok) rosin core stuff, heat the work not the solder. The finished joint should be shinny, one or two practice runs and you will be an expert. Tim Andres -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of springcanyon Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 9:05 AM Subject: RE: [Spam] Avionics-List: Soldering to copper foil tape Hi Ralph, I don't know about the article, but I have soldered a lot of copper foil tape. Actually that is what the stuff is made for. It's used for soldering leaded glass window pieces together - stained glass work. I once put a spider-web of copper foil tape on a plastic fuel tank (to collect static electricity) and soldered ground wires to it. Anyway, it is the easiest stuff there is to solder. Don Owens Was there an article on a recommended way to do this? I vaguely remember a discussion on this topic. I'd rather do it right than again! Thanks 5:32 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: Soldering to copper foil tape
Date: Jul 01, 2007
Ralph, Before you get down to actually soldering the wire or whatever to the tape think about how you will anchor the whole lot so that it cannot be torn apart easily. Copper tape is very delicate stuff. When you have cleaned (very important, no grease or oxidation) and anchored the tape and the bit you are going to solder to it place the end of a coil of resin cored 60/40 solder (the stuff amateur electronics - Radio Shack - people use) on top of the junction and then place a hot soldering iron on top of the solder. Make sure the solder flows quickly and evenly leaving a shiny surface (not matt or grainy). If you use a standard electric soldering iron and leave it on for at least five minutes it will be at the correct temperature. If it is a big fat tape with a big fat wire to be joined to it then use a big fat soldering iron. John. > > > > Was there an article on a recommended way to do this? > > I vaguely remember a discussion on this topic. > > I'd rather do it right than again! > > Thanks ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174(at)msn.com>
Subject: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice
Date: Jul 02, 2007
The aircraft in question is a Grumman American AA-1B Trainer. I have recently upgraded my avionics which consists of a PM501 Intercom, King/Bendix KY-134 Audio Panel, KX-125 Comm Nav, KY-96A Comm and a KT-76A Transponder with an Encoder. New Comm antennae and coax were also added and had a harness made and tested by a reputable Avionics shop. Aircraft engine not running, Battery power at 12V. The units powers up fine but both Comms are broken and weak in the transmit mode but receive OK but very weak, volume set at max. I'm leaning toward antenna/cable problems, but any other ideas that steer me in the right direction would be appreciated. The aircraft is not flyable at this time so getting it to a repair shop is not an option, thank. RJ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice
Date: Jul 02, 2007
Roger, What are the battery volts when you switch the equipment on?? The fault is common to both comms so suspect something common like the battery. You should check the equipment with the battery on charge and a battery voltage of about 14v WITH the equipment switched on. John The aircraft in question is a Grumman American AA-1B Trainer. I have recently upgraded my avionics which consists of a PM501 Intercom, King/Bendix KY-134 Audio Panel, KX-125 Comm Nav, KY-96A Comm and a KT-76A Transponder with an Encoder. New Comm antennae and coax were also added and had a harness made and tested by a reputable Avionics shop. Aircraft engine not running, Battery power at 12V. The units powers up fine but both Comms are broken and weak in the transmit mode but receive OK but very weak, volume set at max. I'm leaning toward antenna/cable problems, but any other ideas that steer me in the right direction would be appreciated. The aircraft is not flyable at this time so getting it to a repair shop is not an option, thank. RJ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice
Date: Jul 02, 2007
Hi John, You might have hit the nail on the head. When I initially powered up I had just slightly over 12 volts and after 30 min of fooling around trouble shooting I had about 10 volts when power down. I'll give your recommendation a try Wednesday when I'll be back troubleshootng the system, I'll let you know how it all turns out, thanks again for your help RJ ----- Original Message ----- From: John Rippengal<mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 10:31 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice Roger, What are the battery volts when you switch the equipment on?? The fault is common to both comms so suspect something common like the battery. You should check the equipment with the battery on charge and a battery voltage of about 14v with the equipment switched on. John The aircraft in question is a Grumman American AA-1B Trainer. I have recently upgraded my avionics which consists of a PM501 Intercom, King/Bendix KY-134 Audio Panel, KX-125 Comm Nav, KY-96A Comm and a KT-76A Transponder with an Encoder. New Comm antennae and coax were also added and had a harness made and tested by a reputable Avionics shop. Aircraft engine not running, Battery power at 12V. The units powers up fine but both Comms are broken and weak in the transmit mode but receive OK but very weak, volume set at max. I'm leaning toward antenna/cable problems, but any other ideas that steer me in the right direction would be appreciated. The aircraft is not flyable at this time so getting it to a repair shop is not an option, thank. RJ http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List /Navigator?Avionics-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice
Date: Jul 03, 2007
If you have a Ham radio operator, especially one who specializes in two meter VHF in your area he/she should be able to test your antenna system with a special machine called a Bird Watt meter. I doubt anyone who happens to have one of these beauties would lend it out but they may be more than happy to check out your antenna systems and check out the power output of your transceivers. Another place you could try would be your local telco... If VHF telephone is still available in your area. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Roy Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 10:06 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice The aircraft in question is a Grumman American AA-1B Trainer. I have recently upgraded my avionics which consists of a PM501 Intercom, King/Bendix KY-134 Audio Panel, KX-125 Comm Nav, KY-96A Comm and a KT-76A Transponder with an Encoder. New Comm antennae and coax were also added and had a harness made and tested by a reputable Avionics shop. Aircraft engine not running, Battery power at 12V. The units powers up fine but both Comms are broken and weak in the transmit mode but receive OK but very weak, volume set at max. I'm leaning toward antenna/cable problems, but any other ideas that steer me in the right direction would be appreciated. The aircraft is not flyable at this time so getting it to a repair shop is not an option, thank. RJ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice
Date: Jul 03, 2007
MessageHi Noel, Hey, thanks for the reply but as of an hour ago the problem was solved. Low battery voltage was the culprit in this case. The low TX and RX volumes is because when your in a steel hangar radios don't seem to work well. Again thank you RJ----- Original Message ----- From: Noel Loveys<mailto:noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 11:37 PM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice If you have a Ham radio operator, especially one who specializes in two meter VHF in your area he/she should be able to test your antenna system with a special machine called a Bird Watt meter. I doubt anyone who happens to have one of these beauties would lend it out but they may be more than happy to check out your antenna systems and check out the power output of your transceivers. Another place you could try would be your local telco... If VHF telephone is still available in your area. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Roy Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 10:06 AM To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Avionics-List: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice The aircraft in question is a Grumman American AA-1B Trainer. I have recently upgraded my avionics which consists of a PM501 Intercom, King/Bendix KY-134 Audio Panel, KX-125 Comm Nav, KY-96A Comm and a KT-76A Transponder with an Encoder. New Comm antennae and coax were also added and had a harness made and tested by a reputable Avionics shop. Aircraft engine not running, Battery power at 12V. The units powers up fine but both Comms are broken and weak in the transmit mode but receive OK but very weak, volume set at max. I'm leaning toward antenna/cable problems, but any other ideas that steer me in the right direction would be appreciated. The aircraft is not flyable at this time so getting it to a repair shop is not an option, thank. RJ href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List">http://www.matr onics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List /Navigator?Avionics-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice
Date: Jul 03, 2007
Hi John, How's the avionics guru? I did as you suggested and put my battery charger on the battery and all seem to workload and clear. I was unable to had another person TX with the portable I will check this out tomorrow, again thank you, Cheers RJ ----- Original Message ----- From: John Rippengal<mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 10:31 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice Roger, What are the battery volts when you switch the equipment on?? The fault is common to both comms so suspect something common like the battery. You should check the equipment with the battery on charge and a battery voltage of about 14v WITH the equipment switched on. John The aircraft in question is a Grumman American AA-1B Trainer. I have recently upgraded my avionics which consists of a PM501 Intercom, King/Bendix KY-134 Audio Panel, KX-125 Comm Nav, KY-96A Comm and a KT-76A Transponder with an Encoder. New Comm antennae and coax were also added and had a harness made and tested by a reputable Avionics shop. Aircraft engine not running, Battery power at 12V. The units powers up fine but both Comms are broken and weak in the transmit mode but receive OK but very weak, volume set at max. I'm leaning toward antenna/cable problems, but any other ideas that steer me in the right direction would be appreciated. The aircraft is not flyable at this time so getting it to a repair shop is not an option, thank. RJ
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List /Navigator?Avionics-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice
Date: Jul 03, 2007
Glad it seems to be ok now Roger. An aircraft standing around for quite a time while a new avionics pack is being fitted is a good clue to there being a flat battery. However the other advice given to you to check with a VSWR meter is a good one. The Bird Thru' Line meter is a sort of Rolls Royce professional type and you really don't need that for a good check on your antenna/coax/connector setup. Try Radio Shack or similar for a cheap VSWR meter that covers the 2 metre amateur band. Should only cost about $20 or less and every home installer of avionics should have one. It will give you confidence in the antenna installation together with the feeders and connectors. John From: Roger Roy Hi John, How's the avionics guru? I did as you suggested and put my battery charger on the battery and all seem to workload and clear. I was unable to had another person TX with the portable I will check this out tomorrow, again thank you, Cheers RJ From: John Rippengal Roger, What are the battery volts when you switch the equipment on?? The fault is common to both comms so suspect something common like the battery. You should check the equipment with the battery on charge and a battery voltage of about 14v WITH the equipment switched on. John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice
Date: Jul 03, 2007
That's more good advice John, thanks RJ ----- Original Message ----- From: John Rippengal<mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:59 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice Glad it seems to be ok now Roger. An aircraft standing around for quite a time while a new avionics pack is being fitted is a good clue to there being a flat battery. However the other advice given to you to check with a VSWR meter is a good one. The Bird Thru' Line meter is a sort of Rolls Royce professional type and you really don't need that for a good check on your antenna/coax/connector setup. Try Radio Shack or similar for a cheap VSWR meter that covers the 2 metre amateur band. Should only cost about $20 or less and every home installer of avionics should have one. It will give you confidence in the antenna installation together with the feeders and connectors. John From: Roger Roy<mailto:Savannah174(at)msn.com> Hi John, How's the avionics guru? I did as you suggested and put my battery charger on the battery and all seem to workload and clear. I was unable to had another person TX with the portable I will check this out tomorrow, again thank you, Cheers RJ From: John Rippengal<mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> Roger, What are the battery volts when you switch the equipment on?? The fault is common to both comms so suspect something common like the battery. You should check the equipment with the battery on charge and a battery voltage of about 14v WITH the equipment switched on. John
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List /Navigator?Avionics-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Crossbow NAV425EX Service Bulletin
From: "Mike@Crossbow" <msmith(at)xbow.com>
Date: Jul 03, 2007
Due to a recent firmware update from our GPS manufacturer, Crossbow has published a service bulletin for the NAV425EX which contains details about a possible software update that may affect customers that are currently flying the NAV425EX. The software update provided by the GPS subsystem manufacturer contains improvements that eliminate the possibility of erroneous data during very specific satellite configurations. In addition, we have made some improvements to the magnetometer performance and BIT (built in test) status inside the NAV425EX. You can find the full details of this service bulletin, including the units affected using the link below. Sincerely, Michael Smith Application Engineer Crossbow Technology msmith(at)xbow.com [url][/url] -------- Michael Smith Application Engineer Inertial Systems Crossbow Technology msmith(at)xbow.com Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122053#122053 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 08, 2007
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: PMA'd relays?
I'm looking for a source of approved relays for a project I'm working on that will need a field approval. The airplane is a Cessna 207 with a 12 volt system and it's getting a 200 amp alternator and a 60 Hz 2.5 kW 60 Hz inverter. What I need are a DPDT 14 volt relay and a DPDT 120 VAC relay that I can use to get the switching logic I need to switch between ground and flight operations. Actually I have space-qualified relays from Potter & Brumfield and Filtors Inc. but they are no longer made and never had any kind of FAA certification - only NASA and perhaps the USAF. They'll work fine but I can't document them for the feds. The transmit/receive relay from an old Narco COM11 is one option but they come from the likes of Digi-Key and don't carry a PMA sticker unless you're Narco or King. Any ideas? -- --> Evolution made it possible for mankind to invent religion. <-- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 09, 2007
Subject: Source for LED's
I want to get a real basis annunciator field approved, using LED's. The ones from Radio Shack work fine and fit. My ap mechanic is ok with the setup, except for no documentation on the LED's. What would anyone suggest as far as sourcing and documentation on the LED's? Are there any reasonable sources for a Mil-spec LED, or even a SAE LED bulb? Thanks, Skip ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice
Date: Jul 10, 2007
From: "Perry, Phil" <Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com>
I agree with John. The bird meters are great but they're just a company who built the watt/swr meters. They've been around for years and are not manufactured any more. and are more of a novelty for hard-core radio operators to own. There are certainly many modern meters out there that are less expensive and more available. The $20 radio shack model is fine. Here's some a few tips that you can squirrel away for the next time you need to do some tuning. First, make sure the antenna is properly grounded to the aircraft. Several people will ground the antenna to a painted surface, this is a bad idea! The paint/primer acts as an insulator and the antenna won't be able to balance the ground plane (aircraft) with the transmitting element (antenna). If you don't have a good ground, you will pull your hair out trying to tune the antenna and it won't work very well anyway. Checking grounding is always a great place to start. Next, you'll need to tune your antenna to the appropriate length. The frequency range determines the length of the antenna. The lower the frequency; the longer the antenna. The higher the frequency; the shorter the antenna. This is because low frequencies have longer wave lengths and higher frequencies have shorter wave lengths. Since we're dealing with frequencies in the VHF band (108Mhz - 137Mhz), we're dealing with fairly short antenna lengths. Keep in mind that an antenna is tuned EXACTLY for only one frequency. As you deviate (up or down) from that frequency, the antenna becomes out of tune. The further your deviation, the less in-tune the antenna will be. So you will want to tune for a frequency that is in the middle of your transmit range. Since 108Mhz - 112Mhz are receive-only NAV frequencies, we aren't too concerned in tuning for those frequencies. Since 112Mhz - 136Mhz is the range of communication frequencies that we transmit on, you want to tune for those. So pick a frequency in the middle and make that the frequency you tune for. In this case, 124Mhz is exactly in the middle of 108Mhz and 136Mhz. If you tune for 124Mhz, the antenna will be a perfect match at 124Mhz and only slightly off at the extreme edges of your transmitting frequency range 112Mhz and 136Mhz. Let's stop right here for a minute and talk about Standing Wave Ratios or SWR. When a transmitter is keyed, a signal is obviously transmitted down the coax and ultimately destined for the antenna to broadcast. In a perfect world (or a perfectly tuned antenna) all of the signal power from the transmitter is radiated by the antenna. So if you have a transmitter that is radiating 25watts of signal power, all 25 watts exit the antenna and is radiated out in space for others to hear. But what happens if the antenna isn't tuned perfectly? Actually the signal will traverse the coax and reach the antenna. But since the antenna isn't the appropriate length only a portion of the wave (signal) will be radiated. The portion that isn't radiated is reflected back down the coax and toward the transmitter. (YIKES!) Transmitters are made to transmit 25 watt signals, not have them blasted back down the coax like a fire hose. The ratio of signal that is radiated by the transmitter vs the amount reflected by the antenna is referred to as the Standing Wave Ratio (SWR). In the perfect situation your standing wave ratio should be 1 to 1 (presented as 1:1). This means that all of your power is being radiated and there is no reflective wave coming back to the transmitter. So it's important to tune for the best SWR because: 1) You want as much of your signal to leave the antenna and be radiated for the rest of the world to receive and 2) Excessive reflected waves WILL RUIN your transmitter. So lets tune our antenna. Install it like the manufacture suggests and put a SWR/Watt meter inline with the coax. (The closer to the transmitter, the better) If you have a low-power option on your radio, select it. The least amount of power you can use, the better. This will keep the reflected signals to a minimum, while the antenna still isn't correctly tuned. Not to mention you'll be less likely to interrupt a frequency that's in use. Dial up 124Mhz and make sure the frequency isn't in use! If it is, just change to another unused frequency nearby. Now it's time to check the SWR. Key the transmitter and check your reading on the meter. (You'll need to follow the directions that came with your meter on how to set it up. I can't go through the setup procedure for your meter, but I promise. It's not complicated!) Measure your SWR. If you see 1:1, you're lucky! More than likely, you won't. You might see something like 1.7:1 or 2:1 or worse. So how do you figure out if you have to lengthen or shorten your antenna? It's pretty simple, trial and error. Most antennas have a set screw that you can loose and adjust then antenna length. First try lengthening the antenna by 1/4 inch and re-checking your SWR. Did it improve or did it get worse? If it got worse, try the other direction and shorten the antenna by 1/4 inch. If it got better, try lengthening it a hair more. It's a good idea to keep track of each adjustment on a piece of paper, so you can get an idea of how each change is affecting your SWR. This will help you zero in on that perfect length. As you get closer and closer to 1:1, you're adjustments need to be refined with smaller increments. Don't be surprised is you can't get exactly 1:1. The transmitted waves can be reflected back toward the antenna by metal (such as your empennage). So when you tune your antenna, get it away from metal buildings or other structures and tune for the best available SWR at 124Mhz. You want the signal to be as unaffected as possible. If you can get it down to 1.1:1 or 1.2:1, you're doing great! I wouldn't be happy with anything over 1.5:1. 1.5 is my personal minimum and it's easy to obtain. Once you think you've tuned your antenna for 124 Mhz, you need to check the extreme edges of your transmit range. Dial down to 112 Mhz. Once again, make sure you won't be interrupting anyone. Check your SWR. It will be higher than it was at 124 Mhz, because at 112Mhz the antenna is slightly out of tune. But if your inside 1.5:1, you're good. I'd be okay with 1.7:1 on the extreme edges. Next dial up 136Mhz and give it a shot. Once again, make sure no one is using the frequency. I'm okay with 1.7ish:1 up there too. Antenna problems really aren't that complex or difficult to tune. A little practice and you'll have it in no time. A couple of other things. 1) Make sure you use the correct coax. Usually 50 Ohm and don't buy the cheap stuff!! Radio shack and other retailers have cheap coax. I am a fan of Belden RG58-A/U coax. It has relatively low loss at the cable lengths required for an airplane, the center conductor is braided (important for high vibration installations), it has a very good braided external conductor (Most cheap cables will skimp here), and it has a solid inner-core insulator. Nearly any Amateur Radio (Ham) store will carry Belden Cable. If you can't find it, I know aesham.com carries it. The coax is the only thing between your transmitter and your antenna, make sure you use good cable! It's worth a couple of extra dollars. 2) If you suspect a cable issue or short in the cable, disconnect the cable from both the transmitter and the antenna. Use a continuity meter and check to make sure you have continuity through the center conductor. Same thing for the external braided conductor, check it. If you've got continuity all the way through, you've eliminated the possibility of a broken wire. Next check and see if you have continuity from the center conductor to the external conductor. If you do, there's a problem. Either your cable has a short or you've got a connector that isn't soldered on properly. Check the connectors first be re-soldering them. If that doesn't fix it, you need a new cable. Finally, if you're still having problems, check your connectors. Make sure the solder joints are good. Your continuity can be fine, but if you've got a cold solder joint, that can cause problems. Please don't use the cheap retail connectors, they're junk. Get good quality connectors. If you can find silver connectors, they are the best and are the easiest for solder to stick to. I use the ones made by Amphenol. If you're gonna get the good coax, make sure you get the good connectors too! Most places that sell Belden also sells Amphenol connectors. I know aesham.com has them too, but it's been several years since I've had to place and order with them. I'm sure they still carry both brands. Anyway, that's all I can think of. Hopefully you'll tuck this stuff away somewhere and use it one day. Otherwise,the delete button looks like a red "X" at the top of the screen. :) Take care, Phil ________________________________ From: John Rippengal [mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:00 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice Glad it seems to be ok now Roger. An aircraft standing around for quite a time while a new avionics pack is being fitted is a good clue to there being a flat battery. However the other advice given to you to check with a VSWR meter is a good one. The Bird Thru' Line meter is a sort of Rolls Royce professional type and you really don't need that for a good check on your antenna/coax/connector setup. Try Radio Shack or similar for a cheap VSWR meter that covers the 2 metre amateur band. Should only cost about $20 or less and every home installer of avionics should have one. It will give you confidence in the antenna installation together with the feeders and connectors. John From: Roger Roy <mailto:Savannah174(at)msn.com> Hi John, How's the avionics guru? I did as you suggested and put my battery charger on the battery and all seem to workload and clear. I was unable to had another person TX with the portable I will check this out tomorrow, again thank you, Cheers RJ From: John Rippengal <mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> Roger, What are the battery volts when you switch the equipment on?? The fault is common to both comms so suspect something common like the battery. You should check the equipment with the battery on charge and a battery voltage of about 14v WITH the equipment switched on. John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice
Date: Jul 10, 2007
Hi Phil, Thanks for the step by step use of the SWR meter. I would like to check my VHF antenna and the RG-400 cable installed in my aircraft but was wondering how I would accomplish this task, I at least have a guide, Cheers Regards, RJ Roy ----- Original Message ----- From: Perry, Phil<mailto:Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 2:34 PM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice I agree with John. The bird meters are great but they're just a company who built the watt/swr meters. They've been around for years and are not manufactured any more. and are more of a novelty for hard-core radio operators to own. There are certainly many modern meters out there that are less expensive and more available. The $20 radio shack model is fine. Here's some a few tips that you can squirrel away for the next time you need to do some tuning. First, make sure the antenna is properly grounded to the aircraft. Several people will ground the antenna to a painted surface, this is a bad idea! The paint/primer acts as an insulator and the antenna won't be able to balance the ground plane (aircraft) with the transmitting element (antenna). If you don't have a good ground, you will pull your hair out trying to tune the antenna and it won't work very well anyway. Checking grounding is always a great place to start. Next, you'll need to tune your antenna to the appropriate length. The frequency range determines the length of the antenna. The lower the frequency; the longer the antenna. The higher the frequency; the shorter the antenna. This is because low frequencies have longer wave lengths and higher frequencies have shorter wave lengths. Since we're dealing with frequencies in the VHF band (108Mhz - 137Mhz), we're dealing with fairly short antenna lengths. Keep in mind that an antenna is tuned EXACTLY for only one frequency. As you deviate (up or down) from that frequency, the antenna becomes out of tune. The further your deviation, the less in-tune the antenna will be. So you will want to tune for a frequency that is in the middle of your transmit range. Since 108Mhz - 112Mhz are receive-only NAV frequencies, we aren't too concerned in tuning for those frequencies. Since 112Mhz - 136Mhz is the range of communication frequencies that we transmit on, you want to tune for those. So pick a frequency in the middle and make that the frequency you tune for. In this case, 124Mhz is exactly in the middle of 108Mhz and 136Mhz. If you tune for 124Mhz, the antenna will be a perfect match at 124Mhz and only slightly off at the extreme edges of your transmitting frequency range 112Mhz and 136Mhz. Let's stop right here for a minute and talk about Standing Wave Ratios or SWR. When a transmitter is keyed, a signal is obviously transmitted down the coax and ultimately destined for the antenna to broadcast. In a perfect world (or a perfectly tuned antenna) all of the signal power from the transmitter is radiated by the antenna. So if you have a transmitter that is radiating 25watts of signal power, all 25 watts exit the antenna and is radiated out in space for others to hear. But what happens if the antenna isn't tuned perfectly? Actually the signal will traverse the coax and reach the antenna. But since the antenna isn't the appropriate length only a portion of the wave (signal) will be radiated. The portion that isn't radiated is reflected back down the coax and toward the transmitter. (YIKES!) Transmitters are made to transmit 25 watt signals, not have them blasted back down the coax like a fire hose. The ratio of signal that is radiated by the transmitter vs the amount reflected by the antenna is referred to as the Standing Wave Ratio (SWR). In the perfect situation your standing wave ratio should be 1 to 1 (presented as 1:1). This means that all of your power is being radiated and there is no reflective wave coming back to the transmitter. So it's important to tune for the best SWR because: 1) You want as much of your signal to leave the antenna and be radiated for the rest of the world to receive and 2) Excessive reflected waves WILL RUIN your transmitter. So lets tune our antenna. Install it like the manufacture suggests and put a SWR/Watt meter inline with the coax. (The closer to the transmitter, the better) If you have a low-power option on your radio, select it. The least amount of power you can use, the better. This will keep the reflected signals to a minimum, while the antenna still isn't correctly tuned. Not to mention you'll be less likely to interrupt a frequency that's in use. Dial up 124Mhz and make sure the frequency isn't in use! If it is, just change to another unused frequency nearby. Now it's time to check the SWR. Key the transmitter and check your reading on the meter. (You'll need to follow the directions that came with your meter on how to set it up. I can't go through the setup procedure for your meter, but I promise. It's not complicated!) Measure your SWR. If you see 1:1, you're lucky! More than likely, you won't. You might see something like 1.7:1 or 2:1 or worse. So how do you figure out if you have to lengthen or shorten your antenna? It's pretty simple, trial and error. Most antennas have a set screw that you can loose and adjust then antenna length. First try lengthening the antenna by 1/4 inch and re-checking your SWR. Did it improve or did it get worse? If it got worse, try the other direction and shorten the antenna by 1/4 inch. If it got better, try lengthening it a hair more. It's a good idea to keep track of each adjustment on a piece of paper, so you can get an idea of how each change is affecting your SWR. This will help you zero in on that perfect length. As you get closer and closer to 1:1, you're adjustments need to be refined with smaller increments. Don't be surprised is you can't get exactly 1:1. The transmitted waves can be reflected back toward the antenna by metal (such as your empennage). So when you tune your antenna, get it away from metal buildings or other structures and tune for the best available SWR at 124Mhz. You want the signal to be as unaffected as possible. If you can get it down to 1.1:1 or 1.2:1, you're doing great! I wouldn't be happy with anything over 1.5:1. 1.5 is my personal minimum and it's easy to obtain. Once you think you've tuned your antenna for 124 Mhz, you need to check the extreme edges of your transmit range. Dial down to 112 Mhz. Once again, make sure you won't be interrupting anyone. Check your SWR. It will be higher than it was at 124 Mhz, because at 112Mhz the antenna is slightly out of tune. But if your inside 1.5:1, you're good. I'd be okay with 1.7:1 on the extreme edges. Next dial up 136Mhz and give it a shot. Once again, make sure no one is using the frequency. I'm okay with 1.7ish:1 up there too. Antenna problems really aren't that complex or difficult to tune. A little practice and you'll have it in no time. A couple of other things. 1) Make sure you use the correct coax. Usually 50 Ohm and don't buy the cheap stuff!! Radio shack and other retailers have cheap coax. I am a fan of Belden RG58-A/U coax. It has relatively low loss at the cable lengths required for an airplane, the center conductor is braided (important for high vibration installations), it has a very good braided external conductor (Most cheap cables will skimp here), and it has a solid inner-core insulator. Nearly any Amateur Radio (Ham) store will carry Belden Cable. If you can't find it, I know aesham.com carries it. The coax is the only thing between your transmitter and your antenna, make sure you use good cable! It's worth a couple of extra dollars. 2) If you suspect a cable issue or short in the cable, disconnect the cable from both the transmitter and the antenna. Use a continuity meter and check to make sure you have continuity through the center conductor. Same thing for the external braided conductor, check it. If you've got continuity all the way through, you've eliminated the possibility of a broken wire. Next check and see if you have continuity from the center conductor to the external conductor. If you do, there's a problem. Either your cable has a short or you've got a connector that isn't soldered on properly. Check the connectors first be re-soldering them. If that doesn't fix it, you need a new cable. Finally, if you're still having problems, check your connectors. Make sure the solder joints are good. Your continuity can be fine, but if you've got a cold solder joint, that can cause problems. Please don't use the cheap retail connectors, they're junk. Get good quality connectors. If you can find silver connectors, they are the best and are the easiest for solder to stick to. I use the ones made by Amphenol. If you're gonna get the good coax, make sure you get the good connectors too! Most places that sell Belden also sells Amphenol connectors. I know aesham.com has them too, but it's been several years since I've had to place and order with them. I'm sure they still carry both brands. Anyway, that's all I can think of. Hopefully you'll tuck this stuff away somewhere and use it one day. Otherwise,the delete button looks like a red "X" at the top of the screen. :) Take care, Phil ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: John Rippengal [mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:00 PM To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice Glad it seems to be ok now Roger. An aircraft standing around for quite a time while a new avionics pack is being fitted is a good clue to there being a flat battery. However the other advice given to you to check with a VSWR meter is a good one. The Bird Thru' Line meter is a sort of Rolls Royce professional type and you really don't need that for a good check on your antenna/coax/connector setup. Try Radio Shack or similar for a cheap VSWR meter that covers the 2 metre amateur band. Should only cost about $20 or less and every home installer of avionics should have one. It will give you confidence in the antenna installation together with the feeders and connectors. John From: Roger Roy<mailto:Savannah174(at)msn.com> Hi John, How's the avionics guru? I did as you suggested and put my battery charger on the battery and all seem to workload and clear. I was unable to had another person TX with the portable I will check this out tomorrow, again thank you, Cheers RJ From: John Rippengal<mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> Roger, What are the battery volts when you switch the equipment on?? The fault is common to both comms so suspect something common like the battery. You should check the equipment with the battery on charge and a battery voltage of about 14v WITH the equipment switched on. John href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List">http://www.matr onics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List /Navigator?Avionics-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice
Date: Jul 11, 2007
Yes but Phil the low edge of the band is 118Mhz NOT 112 Mhz so the centre frequrency is 127 not 124. Second I would most certainly not bother tuning a broadband antenna. Assuming it is a professionally made antenna or something like Jim Weir's tape antenna then there is no point whatever in tuning it. Just check that the VSWR stays between 2:1 max over the range - it should be closer to 1:1.5 over most of the band - but the main idea is to check that there is no fault in the coax or connectors in which case you would see figures way over the 2:1. John From: Perry, Phil I agree with John. The bird meters are great but they're just a company who built the watt/swr meters. They've been around for years and are not manufactured any more. and are more of a novelty for hard-core radio operators to own. There are certainly many modern meters out there that are less expensive and more available. The $20 radio shack model is fine. Here's some a few tips that you can squirrel away for the next time you need to do some tuning. First, make sure the antenna is properly grounded to the aircraft. Several people will ground the antenna to a painted surface, this is a bad idea! The paint/primer acts as an insulator and the antenna won't be able to balance the ground plane (aircraft) with the transmitting element (antenna). If you don't have a good ground, you will pull your hair out trying to tune the antenna and it won't work very well anyway. Checking grounding is always a great place to start. Next, you'll need to tune your antenna to the appropriate length. The frequency range determines the length of the antenna. The lower the frequency; the longer the antenna. The higher the frequency; the shorter the antenna. This is because low frequencies have longer wave lengths and higher frequencies have shorter wave lengths. Since we're dealing with frequencies in the VHF band (108Mhz - 137Mhz), we're dealing with fairly short antenna lengths. Keep in mind that an antenna is tuned EXACTLY for only one frequency. As you deviate (up or down) from that frequency, the antenna becomes out of tune. The further your deviation, the less in-tune the antenna will be. So you will want to tune for a frequency that is in the middle of your transmit range. Since 108Mhz - 112Mhz are receive-only NAV frequencies, we aren't too concerned in tuning for those frequencies. Since 112Mhz - 136Mhz is the range of communication frequencies that we transmit on, you want to tune for those. So pick a frequency in the middle and make that the frequency you tune for. In this case, 124Mhz is exactly in the middle of 108Mhz and 136Mhz. If you tune for 124Mhz, the antenna will be a perfect match at 124Mhz and only slightly off at the extreme edges of your transmitting frequency range 112Mhz and 136Mhz. Let's stop right here for a minute and talk about Standing Wave Ratios or SWR. When a transmitter is keyed, a signal is obviously transmitted down the coax and ultimately destined for the antenna to broadcast. In a perfect world (or a perfectly tuned antenna) all of the signal power from the transmitter is radiated by the antenna. So if you have a transmitter that is radiating 25watts of signal power, all 25 watts exit the antenna and is radiated out in space for others to hear. But what happens if the antenna isn't tuned perfectly? Actually the signal will traverse the coax and reach the antenna. But since the antenna isn't the appropriate length only a portion of the wave (signal) will be radiated. The portion that isn't radiated is reflected back down the coax and toward the transmitter. (YIKES!) Transmitters are made to transmit 25 watt signals, not have them blasted back down the coax like a fire hose. The ratio of signal that is radiated by the transmitter vs the amount reflected by the antenna is referred to as the Standing Wave Ratio (SWR). In the perfect situation your standing wave ratio should be 1 to 1 (presented as 1:1). This means that all of your power is being radiated and there is no reflective wave coming back to the transmitter. So it's important to tune for the best SWR because: 1) You want as much of your signal to leave the antenna and be radiated for the rest of the world to receive and 2) Excessive reflected waves WILL RUIN your transmitter. So lets tune our antenna. Install it like the manufacture suggests and put a SWR/Watt meter inline with the coax. (The closer to the transmitter, the better) If you have a low-power option on your radio, select it. The least amount of power you can use, the better. This will keep the reflected signals to a minimum, while the antenna still isn't correctly tuned. Not to mention you'll be less likely to interrupt a frequency that's in use. Dial up 124Mhz and make sure the frequency isn't in use! If it is, just change to another unused frequency nearby. Now it's time to check the SWR. Key the transmitter and check your reading on the meter. (You'll need to follow the directions that came with your meter on how to set it up. I can't go through the setup procedure for your meter, but I promise. It's not complicated!) Measure your SWR. If you see 1:1, you're lucky! More than likely, you won't. You might see something like 1.7:1 or 2:1 or worse. So how do you figure out if you have to lengthen or shorten your antenna? It's pretty simple, trial and error. Most antennas have a set screw that you can loose and adjust then antenna length. First try lengthening the antenna by 1/4 inch and re-checking your SWR. Did it improve or did it get worse? If it got worse, try the other direction and shorten the antenna by 1/4 inch. If it got better, try lengthening it a hair more. It's a good idea to keep track of each adjustment on a piece of paper, so you can get an idea of how each change is affecting your SWR. This will help you zero in on that perfect length. As you get closer and closer to 1:1, you're adjustments need to be refined with smaller increments. Don't be surprised is you can't get exactly 1:1. The transmitted waves can be reflected back toward the antenna by metal (such as your empennage). So when you tune your antenna, get it away from metal buildings or other structures and tune for the best available SWR at 124Mhz. You want the signal to be as unaffected as possible. If you can get it down to 1.1:1 or 1.2:1, you're doing great! I wouldn't be happy with anything over 1.5:1. 1.5 is my personal minimum and it's easy to obtain. Once you think you've tuned your antenna for 124 Mhz, you need to check the extreme edges of your transmit range. Dial down to 112 Mhz. Once again, make sure you won't be interrupting anyone. Check your SWR. It will be higher than it was at 124 Mhz, because at 112Mhz the antenna is slightly out of tune. But if your inside 1.5:1, you're good. I'd be okay with 1.7:1 on the extreme edges. Next dial up 136Mhz and give it a shot. Once again, make sure no one is using the frequency. I'm okay with 1.7ish:1 up there too. Antenna problems really aren't that complex or difficult to tune. A little practice and you'll have it in no time. A couple of other things. 1) Make sure you use the correct coax. Usually 50 Ohm and don't buy the cheap stuff!! Radio shack and other retailers have cheap coax. I am a fan of Belden RG58-A/U coax. It has relatively low loss at the cable lengths required for an airplane, the center conductor is braided (important for high vibration installations), it has a very good braided external conductor (Most cheap cables will skimp here), and it has a solid inner-core insulator. Nearly any Amateur Radio (Ham) store will carry Belden Cable. If you can't find it, I know aesham.com carries it. The coax is the only thing between your transmitter and your antenna, make sure you use good cable! It's worth a couple of extra dollars. 2) If you suspect a cable issue or short in the cable, disconnect the cable from both the transmitter and the antenna. Use a continuity meter and check to make sure you have continuity through the center conductor. Same thing for the external braided conductor, check it. If you've got continuity all the way through, you've eliminated the possibility of a broken wire. Next check and see if you have continuity from the center conductor to the external conductor. If you do, there's a problem. Either your cable has a short or you've got a connector that isn't soldered on properly. Check the connectors first be re-soldering them. If that doesn't fix it, you need a new cable. Finally, if you're still having problems, check your connectors. Make sure the solder joints are good. Your continuity can be fine, but if you've got a cold solder joint, that can cause problems. Please don't use the cheap retail connectors, they're junk. Get good quality connectors. If you can find silver connectors, they are the best and are the easiest for solder to stick to. I use the ones made by Amphenol. If you're gonna get the good coax, make sure you get the good connectors too! Most places that sell Belden also sells Amphenol connectors. I know aesham.com has them too, but it's been several years since I've had to place and order with them. I'm sure they still carry both brands. Anyway, that's all I can think of. Hopefully you'll tuck this stuff away somewhere and use it one day. Otherwise,the delete button looks like a red "X" at the top of the screen. :) Take care, Phil ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: John Rippengal [mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:00 PM To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice Glad it seems to be ok now Roger. An aircraft standing around for quite a time while a new avionics pack is being fitted is a good clue to there being a flat battery. However the other advice given to you to check with a VSWR meter is a good one. The Bird Thru' Line meter is a sort of Rolls Royce professional type and you really don't need that for a good check on your antenna/coax/connector setup. Try Radio Shack or similar for a cheap VSWR meter that covers the 2 metre amateur band. Should only cost about $20 or less and every home installer of avionics should have one. It will give you confidence in the antenna installation together with the feeders and connectors. John From: Roger Roy Hi John, How's the avionics guru? I did as you suggested and put my battery charger on the battery and all seem to workload and clear. I was unable to had another person TX with the portable I will check this out tomorrow, again thank you, Cheers RJ From: John Rippengal Roger, What are the battery volts when you switch the equipment on?? The fault is common to both comms so suspect something common like the battery. You should check the equipment with the battery on charge and a battery voltage of about 14v WITH the equipment switched on. John href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List">http://www.matr onics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 11, 2007
Subject: Re: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice
A very good instrument for checking antenna SWR is the MFJ-259B. Many hams have this instrument. It has a signal generator, frequency counter, and SWR bridge in one compact battery operated unit. Dan Hopper K9WEK RV-7A ************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice
Date: Jul 11, 2007
From: "Perry, Phil" <Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com>
You're correct, John. 118 is the bottom and my mistake. No clue where I got 112 from! Thanks for pointing that out. Phil ________________________________ From: John Rippengal [mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:38 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice Yes but Phil the low edge of the band is 118Mhz NOT 112 Mhz so the centre frequrency is 127 not 124. Second I would most certainly not bother tuning a broadband antenna. Assuming it is a professionally made antenna or something like Jim Weir's tape antenna then there is no point whatever in tuning it. Just check that the VSWR stays between 2:1 max over the range - it should be closer to 1:1.5 over most of the band - but the main idea is to check that there is no fault in the coax or connectors in which case you would see figures way over the 2:1. John From: Perry, Phil <mailto:Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com> I agree with John. The bird meters are great but they're just a company who built the watt/swr meters. They've been around for years and are not manufactured any more. and are more of a novelty for hard-core radio operators to own. There are certainly many modern meters out there that are less expensive and more available. The $20 radio shack model is fine. Here's some a few tips that you can squirrel away for the next time you need to do some tuning. First, make sure the antenna is properly grounded to the aircraft. Several people will ground the antenna to a painted surface, this is a bad idea! The paint/primer acts as an insulator and the antenna won't be able to balance the ground plane (aircraft) with the transmitting element (antenna). If you don't have a good ground, you will pull your hair out trying to tune the antenna and it won't work very well anyway. Checking grounding is always a great place to start. Next, you'll need to tune your antenna to the appropriate length. The frequency range determines the length of the antenna. The lower the frequency; the longer the antenna. The higher the frequency; the shorter the antenna. This is because low frequencies have longer wave lengths and higher frequencies have shorter wave lengths. Since we're dealing with frequencies in the VHF band (108Mhz - 137Mhz), we're dealing with fairly short antenna lengths. Keep in mind that an antenna is tuned EXACTLY for only one frequency. As you deviate (up or down) from that frequency, the antenna becomes out of tune. The further your deviation, the less in-tune the antenna will be. So you will want to tune for a frequency that is in the middle of your transmit range. Since 108Mhz - 112Mhz are receive-only NAV frequencies, we aren't too concerned in tuning for those frequencies. Since 112Mhz - 136Mhz is the range of communication frequencies that we transmit on, you want to tune for those. So pick a frequency in the middle and make that the frequency you tune for. In this case, 124Mhz is exactly in the middle of 108Mhz and 136Mhz. If you tune for 124Mhz, the antenna will be a perfect match at 124Mhz and only slightly off at the extreme edges of your transmitting frequency range 112Mhz and 136Mhz. Let's stop right here for a minute and talk about Standing Wave Ratios or SWR. When a transmitter is keyed, a signal is obviously transmitted down the coax and ultimately destined for the antenna to broadcast. In a perfect world (or a perfectly tuned antenna) all of the signal power from the transmitter is radiated by the antenna. So if you have a transmitter that is radiating 25watts of signal power, all 25 watts exit the antenna and is radiated out in space for others to hear. But what happens if the antenna isn't tuned perfectly? Actually the signal will traverse the coax and reach the antenna. But since the antenna isn't the appropriate length only a portion of the wave (signal) will be radiated. The portion that isn't radiated is reflected back down the coax and toward the transmitter. (YIKES!) Transmitters are made to transmit 25 watt signals, not have them blasted back down the coax like a fire hose. The ratio of signal that is radiated by the transmitter vs the amount reflected by the antenna is referred to as the Standing Wave Ratio (SWR). In the perfect situation your standing wave ratio should be 1 to 1 (presented as 1:1). This means that all of your power is being radiated and there is no reflective wave coming back to the transmitter. So it's important to tune for the best SWR because: 1) You want as much of your signal to leave the antenna and be radiated for the rest of the world to receive and 2) Excessive reflected waves WILL RUIN your transmitter. So lets tune our antenna. Install it like the manufacture suggests and put a SWR/Watt meter inline with the coax. (The closer to the transmitter, the better) If you have a low-power option on your radio, select it. The least amount of power you can use, the better. This will keep the reflected signals to a minimum, while the antenna still isn't correctly tuned. Not to mention you'll be less likely to interrupt a frequency that's in use. Dial up 124Mhz and make sure the frequency isn't in use! If it is, just change to another unused frequency nearby. Now it's time to check the SWR. Key the transmitter and check your reading on the meter. (You'll need to follow the directions that came with your meter on how to set it up. I can't go through the setup procedure for your meter, but I promise. It's not complicated!) Measure your SWR. If you see 1:1, you're lucky! More than likely, you won't. You might see something like 1.7:1 or 2:1 or worse. So how do you figure out if you have to lengthen or shorten your antenna? It's pretty simple, trial and error. Most antennas have a set screw that you can loose and adjust then antenna length. First try lengthening the antenna by 1/4 inch and re-checking your SWR. Did it improve or did it get worse? If it got worse, try the other direction and shorten the antenna by 1/4 inch. If it got better, try lengthening it a hair more. It's a good idea to keep track of each adjustment on a piece of paper, so you can get an idea of how each change is affecting your SWR. This will help you zero in on that perfect length. As you get closer and closer to 1:1, you're adjustments need to be refined with smaller increments. Don't be surprised is you can't get exactly 1:1. The transmitted waves can be reflected back toward the antenna by metal (such as your empennage). So when you tune your antenna, get it away from metal buildings or other structures and tune for the best available SWR at 124Mhz. You want the signal to be as unaffected as possible. If you can get it down to 1.1:1 or 1.2:1, you're doing great! I wouldn't be happy with anything over 1.5:1. 1.5 is my personal minimum and it's easy to obtain. Once you think you've tuned your antenna for 124 Mhz, you need to check the extreme edges of your transmit range. Dial down to 112 Mhz. Once again, make sure you won't be interrupting anyone. Check your SWR. It will be higher than it was at 124 Mhz, because at 112Mhz the antenna is slightly out of tune. But if your inside 1.5:1, you're good. I'd be okay with 1.7:1 on the extreme edges. Next dial up 136Mhz and give it a shot. Once again, make sure no one is using the frequency. I'm okay with 1.7ish:1 up there too. Antenna problems really aren't that complex or difficult to tune. A little practice and you'll have it in no time. A couple of other things. 1) Make sure you use the correct coax. Usually 50 Ohm and don't buy the cheap stuff!! Radio shack and other retailers have cheap coax. I am a fan of Belden RG58-A/U coax. It has relatively low loss at the cable lengths required for an airplane, the center conductor is braided (important for high vibration installations), it has a very good braided external conductor (Most cheap cables will skimp here), and it has a solid inner-core insulator. Nearly any Amateur Radio (Ham) store will carry Belden Cable. If you can't find it, I know aesham.com carries it. The coax is the only thing between your transmitter and your antenna, make sure you use good cable! It's worth a couple of extra dollars. 2) If you suspect a cable issue or short in the cable, disconnect the cable from both the transmitter and the antenna. Use a continuity meter and check to make sure you have continuity through the center conductor. Same thing for the external braided conductor, check it. If you've got continuity all the way through, you've eliminated the possibility of a broken wire. Next check and see if you have continuity from the center conductor to the external conductor. If you do, there's a problem. Either your cable has a short or you've got a connector that isn't soldered on properly. Check the connectors first be re-soldering them. If that doesn't fix it, you need a new cable. Finally, if you're still having problems, check your connectors. Make sure the solder joints are good. Your continuity can be fine, but if you've got a cold solder joint, that can cause problems. Please don't use the cheap retail connectors, they're junk. Get good quality connectors. If you can find silver connectors, they are the best and are the easiest for solder to stick to. I use the ones made by Amphenol. If you're gonna get the good coax, make sure you get the good connectors too! Most places that sell Belden also sells Amphenol connectors. I know aesham.com has them too, but it's been several years since I've had to place and order with them. I'm sure they still carry both brands. Anyway, that's all I can think of. Hopefully you'll tuck this stuff away somewhere and use it one day. Otherwise,the delete button looks like a red "X" at the top of the screen. :) Take care, Phil ________________________________ From: John Rippengal [mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:00 PM To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice Glad it seems to be ok now Roger. An aircraft standing around for quite a time while a new avionics pack is being fitted is a good clue to there being a flat battery. However the other advice given to you to check with a VSWR meter is a good one. The Bird Thru' Line meter is a sort of Rolls Royce professional type and you really don't need that for a good check on your antenna/coax/connector setup. Try Radio Shack or similar for a cheap VSWR meter that covers the 2 metre amateur band. Should only cost about $20 or less and every home installer of avionics should have one. It will give you confidence in the antenna installation together with the feeders and connectors. John From: Roger Roy <mailto:Savannah174(at)msn.com> Hi John, How's the avionics guru? I did as you suggested and put my battery charger on the battery and all seem to workload and clear. I was unable to had another person TX with the portable I will check this out tomorrow, again thank you, Cheers RJ From: John Rippengal Roger, What are the battery volts when you switch the equipment on?? The fault is common to both comms so suspect something common like the battery. You should check the equipment with the battery on charge and a battery voltage of about 14v WITH the equipment switched on. John href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List">http://www.matr o nics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List">http://www.matr o nics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice
Date: Jul 11, 2007
Well written Phil. Two additions for the totally uninitiated. 1 The grounding Phil was talking about is not the centre radiator of the antenna but the ground from the coaxial braid. Even a small bit of corrosion under that connection can drive your SWR into the stratosphere. 2 Under an antenna mounted on a cloth plane ( on one of the frame tubes ) it is a good idea to install a nice foil ground plane. I like to see a circle of foil where the radius is equal to the height of the radiator ( centre radiating post ) I don't have a Bird but if any one is going to junk one...... They are a lot lighter than lugging around a Cushman ;-) Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Perry, Phil Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 4:04 PM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice I agree with John. The bird meters are great but they're just a company who built the watt/swr meters. They've been around for years and are not manufactured any more. and are more of a novelty for hard-core radio operators to own. There are certainly many modern meters out there that are less expensive and more available. The $20 radio shack model is fine. Here's some a few tips that you can squirrel away for the next time you need to do some tuning. First, make sure the antenna is properly grounded to the aircraft. Several people will ground the antenna to a painted surface, this is a bad idea! The paint/primer acts as an insulator and the antenna won't be able to balance the ground plane (aircraft) with the transmitting element (antenna). If you don't have a good ground, you will pull your hair out trying to tune the antenna and it won't work very well anyway. Checking grounding is always a great place to start. Next, you'll need to tune your antenna to the appropriate length. The frequency range determines the length of the antenna. The lower the frequency; the longer the antenna. The higher the frequency; the shorter the antenna. This is because low frequencies have longer wave lengths and higher frequencies have shorter wave lengths. Since we're dealing with frequencies in the VHF band (108Mhz - 137Mhz), we're dealing with fairly short antenna lengths. Keep in mind that an antenna is tuned EXACTLY for only one frequency. As you deviate (up or down) from that frequency, the antenna becomes out of tune. The further your deviation, the less in-tune the antenna will be. So you will want to tune for a frequency that is in the middle of your transmit range. Since 108Mhz - 112Mhz are receive-only NAV frequencies, we aren't too concerned in tuning for those frequencies. Since 112Mhz - 136Mhz is the range of communication frequencies that we transmit on, you want to tune for those. So pick a frequency in the middle and make that the frequency you tune for. In this case, 124Mhz is exactly in the middle of 108Mhz and 136Mhz. If you tune for 124Mhz, the antenna will be a perfect match at 124Mhz and only slightly off at the extreme edges of your transmitting frequency range 112Mhz and 136Mhz. Let's stop right here for a minute and talk about Standing Wave Ratios or SWR. When a transmitter is keyed, a signal is obviously transmitted down the coax and ultimately destined for the antenna to broadcast. In a perfect world (or a perfectly tuned antenna) all of the signal power from the transmitter is radiated by the antenna. So if you have a transmitter that is radiating 25watts of signal power, all 25 watts exit the antenna and is radiated out in space for others to hear. But what happens if the antenna isn't tuned perfectly? Actually the signal will traverse the coax and reach the antenna. But since the antenna isn't the appropriate length only a portion of the wave (signal) will be radiated. The portion that isn't radiated is reflected back down the coax and toward the transmitter. (YIKES!) Transmitters are made to transmit 25 watt signals, not have them blasted back down the coax like a fire hose. The ratio of signal that is radiated by the transmitter vs the amount reflected by the antenna is referred to as the Standing Wave Ratio (SWR). In the perfect situation your standing wave ratio should be 1 to 1 (presented as 1:1). This means that all of your power is being radiated and there is no reflective wave coming back to the transmitter. So it's important to tune for the best SWR because: 1) You want as much of your signal to leave the antenna and be radiated for the rest of the world to receive and 2) Excessive reflected waves WILL RUIN your transmitter. So lets tune our antenna. Install it like the manufacture suggests and put a SWR/Watt meter inline with the coax. (The closer to the transmitter, the better) If you have a low-power option on your radio, select it. The least amount of power you can use, the better. This will keep the reflected signals to a minimum, while the antenna still isn't correctly tuned. Not to mention you'll be less likely to interrupt a frequency that's in use. Dial up 124Mhz and make sure the frequency isn't in use! If it is, just change to another unused frequency nearby. Now it's time to check the SWR. Key the transmitter and check your reading on the meter. (You'll need to follow the directions that came with your meter on how to set it up. I can't go through the setup procedure for your meter, but I promise. It's not complicated!) Measure your SWR. If you see 1:1, you're lucky! More than likely, you won't. You might see something like 1.7:1 or 2:1 or worse. So how do you figure out if you have to lengthen or shorten your antenna? It's pretty simple, trial and error. Most antennas have a set screw that you can loose and adjust then antenna length. First try lengthening the antenna by 1/4 inch and re-checking your SWR. Did it improve or did it get worse? If it got worse, try the other direction and shorten the antenna by 1/4 inch. If it got better, try lengthening it a hair more. It's a good idea to keep track of each adjustment on a piece of paper, so you can get an idea of how each change is affecting your SWR. This will help you zero in on that perfect length. As you get closer and closer to 1:1, you're adjustments need to be refined with smaller increments. Don't be surprised is you can't get exactly 1:1. The transmitted waves can be reflected back toward the antenna by metal (such as your empennage). So when you tune your antenna, get it away from metal buildings or other structures and tune for the best available SWR at 124Mhz. You want the signal to be as unaffected as possible. If you can get it down to 1.1:1 or 1.2:1, you're doing great! I wouldn't be happy with anything over 1.5:1. 1.5 is my personal minimum and it's easy to obtain. Once you think you've tuned your antenna for 124 Mhz, you need to check the extreme edges of your transmit range. Dial down to 112 Mhz. Once again, make sure you won't be interrupting anyone. Check your SWR. It will be higher than it was at 124 Mhz, because at 112Mhz the antenna is slightly out of tune. But if your inside 1.5:1, you're good. I'd be okay with 1.7:1 on the extreme edges. Next dial up 136Mhz and give it a shot. Once again, make sure no one is using the frequency. I'm okay with 1.7ish:1 up there too. Antenna problems really aren't that complex or difficult to tune. A little practice and you'll have it in no time. A couple of other things. 1) Make sure you use the correct coax. Usually 50 Ohm and don't buy the cheap stuff!! Radio shack and other retailers have cheap coax. I am a fan of Belden RG58-A/U coax. It has relatively low loss at the cable lengths required for an airplane, the center conductor is braided (important for high vibration installations), it has a very good braided external conductor (Most cheap cables will skimp here), and it has a solid inner-core insulator. Nearly any Amateur Radio (Ham) store will carry Belden Cable. If you can't find it, I know aesham.com carries it. The coax is the only thing between your transmitter and your antenna, make sure you use good cable! It's worth a couple of extra dollars. 2) If you suspect a cable issue or short in the cable, disconnect the cable from both the transmitter and the antenna. Use a continuity meter and check to make sure you have continuity through the center conductor. Same thing for the external braided conductor, check it. If you've got continuity all the way through, you've eliminated the possibility of a broken wire. Next check and see if you have continuity from the center conductor to the external conductor. If you do, there's a problem. Either your cable has a short or you've got a connector that isn't soldered on properly. Check the connectors first be re-soldering them. If that doesn't fix it, you need a new cable. Finally, if you're still having problems, check your connectors. Make sure the solder joints are good. Your continuity can be fine, but if you've got a cold solder joint, that can cause problems. Please don't use the cheap retail connectors, they're junk. Get good quality connectors. If you can find silver connectors, they are the best and are the easiest for solder to stick to. I use the ones made by Amphenol. If you're gonna get the good coax, make sure you get the good connectors too! Most places that sell Belden also sells Amphenol connectors. I know aesham.com has them too, but it's been several years since I've had to place and order with them. I'm sure they still carry both brands. Anyway, that's all I can think of. Hopefully you'll tuck this stuff away somewhere and use it one day. Otherwise,the delete button looks like a red "X" at the top of the screen. :) Take care, Phil _____ From: John Rippengal [mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:00 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice Glad it seems to be ok now Roger. An aircraft standing around for quite a time while a new avionics pack is being fitted is a good clue to there being a flat battery. However the other advice given to you to check with a VSWR meter is a good one. The Bird Thru' Line meter is a sort of Rolls Royce professional type and you really don't need that for a good check on your antenna/coax/connector setup. Try Radio Shack or similar for a cheap VSWR meter that covers the 2 metre amateur band. Should only cost about $20 or less and every home installer of avionics should have one. It will give you confidence in the antenna installation together with the feeders and connectors. John From: Roger Roy <mailto:Savannah174(at)msn.com> Hi John, How's the avionics guru? I did as you suggested and put my battery charger on the battery and all seem to workload and clear. I was unable to had another person TX with the portable I will check this out tomorrow, again thank you, Cheers RJ From: John Rippengal <mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> Roger, What are the battery volts when you switch the equipment on?? The fault is common to both comms so suspect something common like the battery. You should check the equipment with the battery on charge and a battery voltage of about 14v WITH the equipment switched on. John href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List">http://www.matr onics .com/Navigator?Avionics-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice
Date: Jul 11, 2007
you also check the VSWR for corrosion at the ground plane. All things being equal a new antenna should be almost flat across the band. Generally aircraft coming in with TX problems are well corroded at the antenna and radio ends of the Coax. Depending on the condition of the coax ( its wet and salt here) the connectors are cleaned and the coax may be replaced. The VSWR meter will tell all. BTW I never tune for the centre of the band ( older wire antennas ) I always tune for .39 the band (.61 top down). = 125.5mHz. Some antennas are used for the full VHF band (e.g. small nav/com) there fore the antenna should cover the whole band, nav and com, 108 to 137 MHz. for that I tune for 119.5mHz. centre. Here in Canada the amateurs are allowed to run a full Kw on all bands, Exception is some 160Meters in maritime locations, One learns very fast that line of site 5W is more than enough power for aircraft..... in many instances 1W is more than enough. Still waiting for somebody to donate a nice Bird to the cause. :-) Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Rippengal Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 3:08 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice Yes but Phil the low edge of the band is 118Mhz NOT 112 Mhz so the centre frequrency is 127 not 124. Second I would most certainly not bother tuning a broadband antenna. Assuming it is a professionally made antenna or something like Jim Weir's tape antenna then there is no point whatever in tuning it. Just check that the VSWR stays between 2:1 max over the range - it should be closer to 1:1.5 over most of the band - but the main idea is to check that there is no fault in the coax or connectors in which case you would see figures way over the 2:1. John From: Perry, <mailto:Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com> Phil I agree with John. The bird meters are great but they're just a company who built the watt/swr meters. They've been around for years and are not manufactured any more. and are more of a novelty for hard-core radio operators to own. There are certainly many modern meters out there that are less expensive and more available. The $20 radio shack model is fine. Here's some a few tips that you can squirrel away for the next time you need to do some tuning. First, make sure the antenna is properly grounded to the aircraft. Several people will ground the antenna to a painted surface, this is a bad idea! The paint/primer acts as an insulator and the antenna won't be able to balance the ground plane (aircraft) with the transmitting element (antenna). If you don't have a good ground, you will pull your hair out trying to tune the antenna and it won't work very well anyway. Checking grounding is always a great place to start. Next, you'll need to tune your antenna to the appropriate length. The frequency range determines the length of the antenna. The lower the frequency; the longer the antenna. The higher the frequency; the shorter the antenna. This is because low frequencies have longer wave lengths and higher frequencies have shorter wave lengths. Since we're dealing with frequencies in the VHF band (108Mhz - 137Mhz), we're dealing with fairly short antenna lengths. Keep in mind that an antenna is tuned EXACTLY for only one frequency. As you deviate (up or down) from that frequency, the antenna becomes out of tune. The further your deviation, the less in-tune the antenna will be. So you will want to tune for a frequency that is in the middle of your transmit range. Since 108Mhz - 112Mhz are receive-only NAV frequencies, we aren't too concerned in tuning for those frequencies. Since 112Mhz - 136Mhz is the range of communication frequencies that we transmit on, you want to tune for those. So pick a frequency in the middle and make that the frequency you tune for. In this case, 124Mhz is exactly in the middle of 108Mhz and 136Mhz. If you tune for 124Mhz, the antenna will be a perfect match at 124Mhz and only slightly off at the extreme edges of your transmitting frequency range 112Mhz and 136Mhz. Let's stop right here for a minute and talk about Standing Wave Ratios or SWR. When a transmitter is keyed, a signal is obviously transmitted down the coax and ultimately destined for the antenna to broadcast. In a perfect world (or a perfectly tuned antenna) all of the signal power from the transmitter is radiated by the antenna. So if you have a transmitter that is radiating 25watts of signal power, all 25 watts exit the antenna and is radiated out in space for others to hear. But what happens if the antenna isn't tuned perfectly? Actually the signal will traverse the coax and reach the antenna. But since the antenna isn't the appropriate length only a portion of the wave (signal) will be radiated. The portion that isn't radiated is reflected back down the coax and toward the transmitter. (YIKES!) Transmitters are made to transmit 25 watt signals, not have them blasted back down the coax like a fire hose. The ratio of signal that is radiated by the transmitter vs the amount reflected by the antenna is referred to as the Standing Wave Ratio (SWR). In the perfect situation your standing wave ratio should be 1 to 1 (presented as 1:1). This means that all of your power is being radiated and there is no reflective wave coming back to the transmitter. So it's important to tune for the best SWR because: 1) You want as much of your signal to leave the antenna and be radiated for the rest of the world to receive and 2) Excessive reflected waves WILL RUIN your transmitter. So lets tune our antenna. Install it like the manufacture suggests and put a SWR/Watt meter inline with the coax. (The closer to the transmitter, the better) If you have a low-power option on your radio, select it. The least amount of power you can use, the better. This will keep the reflected signals to a minimum, while the antenna still isn't correctly tuned. Not to mention you'll be less likely to interrupt a frequency that's in use. Dial up 124Mhz and make sure the frequency isn't in use! If it is, just change to another unused frequency nearby. Now it's time to check the SWR. Key the transmitter and check your reading on the meter. (You'll need to follow the directions that came with your meter on how to set it up. I can't go through the setup procedure for your meter, but I promise. It's not complicated!) Measure your SWR. If you see 1:1, you're lucky! More than likely, you won't. You might see something like 1.7:1 or 2:1 or worse. So how do you figure out if you have to lengthen or shorten your antenna? It's pretty simple, trial and error. Most antennas have a set screw that you can loose and adjust then antenna length. First try lengthening the antenna by 1/4 inch and re-checking your SWR. Did it improve or did it get worse? If it got worse, try the other direction and shorten the antenna by 1/4 inch. If it got better, try lengthening it a hair more. It's a good idea to keep track of each adjustment on a piece of paper, so you can get an idea of how each change is affecting your SWR. This will help you zero in on that perfect length. As you get closer and closer to 1:1, you're adjustments need to be refined with smaller increments. Don't be surprised is you can't get exactly 1:1. The transmitted waves can be reflected back toward the antenna by metal (such as your empennage). So when you tune your antenna, get it away from metal buildings or other structures and tune for the best available SWR at 124Mhz. You want the signal to be as unaffected as possible. If you can get it down to 1.1:1 or 1.2:1, you're doing great! I wouldn't be happy with anything over 1.5:1. 1.5 is my personal minimum and it's easy to obtain. Once you think you've tuned your antenna for 124 Mhz, you need to check the extreme edges of your transmit range. Dial down to 112 Mhz. Once again, make sure you won't be interrupting anyone. Check your SWR. It will be higher than it was at 124 Mhz, because at 112Mhz the antenna is slightly out of tune. But if your inside 1.5:1, you're good. I'd be okay with 1.7:1 on the extreme edges. Next dial up 136Mhz and give it a shot. Once again, make sure no one is using the frequency. I'm okay with 1.7ish:1 up there too. Antenna problems really aren't that complex or difficult to tune. A little practice and you'll have it in no time. A couple of other things. 1) Make sure you use the correct coax. Usually 50 Ohm and don't buy the cheap stuff!! Radio shack and other retailers have cheap coax. I am a fan of Belden RG58-A/U coax. It has relatively low loss at the cable lengths required for an airplane, the center conductor is braided (important for high vibration installations), it has a very good braided external conductor (Most cheap cables will skimp here), and it has a solid inner-core insulator. Nearly any Amateur Radio (Ham) store will carry Belden Cable. If you can't find it, I know aesham.com carries it. The coax is the only thing between your transmitter and your antenna, make sure you use good cable! It's worth a couple of extra dollars. 2) If you suspect a cable issue or short in the cable, disconnect the cable from both the transmitter and the antenna. Use a continuity meter and check to make sure you have continuity through the center conductor. Same thing for the external braided conductor, check it. If you've got continuity all the way through, you've eliminated the possibility of a broken wire. Next check and see if you have continuity from the center conductor to the external conductor. If you do, there's a problem. Either your cable has a short or you've got a connector that isn't soldered on properly. Check the connectors first be re-soldering them. If that doesn't fix it, you need a new cable. Finally, if you're still having problems, check your connectors. Make sure the solder joints are good. Your continuity can be fine, but if you've got a cold solder joint, that can cause problems. Please don't use the cheap retail connectors, they're junk. Get good quality connectors. If you can find silver connectors, they are the best and are the easiest for solder to stick to. I use the ones made by Amphenol. If you're gonna get the good coax, make sure you get the good connectors too! Most places that sell Belden also sells Amphenol connectors. I know aesham.com has them too, but it's been several years since I've had to place and order with them. I'm sure they still carry both brands. Anyway, that's all I can think of. Hopefully you'll tuck this stuff away somewhere and use it one day. Otherwise,the delete button looks like a red "X" at the top of the screen. :) Take care, Phil _____ From: John Rippengal [mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:00 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Need Comm Troubleshooting Advice Glad it seems to be ok now Roger. An aircraft standing around for quite a time while a new avionics pack is being fitted is a good clue to there being a flat battery. However the other advice given to you to check with a VSWR meter is a good one. The Bird Thru' Line meter is a sort of Rolls Royce professional type and you really don't need that for a good check on your antenna/coax/connector setup. Try Radio Shack or similar for a cheap VSWR meter that covers the 2 metre amateur band. Should only cost about $20 or less and every home installer of avionics should have one. It will give you confidence in the antenna installation together with the feeders and connectors. John From: Roger <mailto:Savannah174(at)msn.com> Roy Hi John, How's the avionics guru? I did as you suggested and put my battery charger on the battery and all seem to workload and clear. I was unable to had another person TX with the portable I will check this out tomorrow, again thank you, Cheers RJ From: John Rippengal <mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> Roger, What are the battery volts when you switch the equipment on?? The fault is common to both comms so suspect something common like the battery. You should check the equipment with the battery on charge and a battery voltage of about 14v WITH the equipment switched on. John href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List">http://www.matr onics .com/Navigator?Avionics-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List">http://www.matr onics .com/Navigator?Avionics-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Curry" <currydon(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: MD41-248 Wanted
Date: Jul 20, 2007
I'm gathering parts for an avionics project and still need at least two (possibly as many as five) MD41-248 relays. I understand these items are nearly indestructible, so I'd prefer to buy used (for cost reasons). Would anybody out there have a couple of these items in serviceable condition? Thanks in advance, Don ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Curry" <currydon(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: WANTED: Comant CI-222 AM/FM Antenna
Date: Jul 25, 2007
If anyone has a CI-222 or equivalent they'd like to sell, please let me know. Thanks, Don ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Flight Cheetah FL190 GPS?
Date: Jul 26, 2007
Does anyone on the list have any personal experience with owning/using the Flight Cheetah FL190 GPS? If so, what is your general overall impression and would you recommend it. Thanks Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Looking for external 14v vac.pump to drive artif. horizon
From: "alex_01" <zoechling(at)gmx.de>
Date: Aug 13, 2007
Hallo, maybe some can help? I am looking for an 14Volt vacuum pump to drive artificial horizon If anyone has some ideas or suggestion or any idea to find a suitible pump? thank you for your help Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=128894#128894 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2007
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Looking for external 14v vac.pump to drive artif.
horizon alex_01 a crit : > maybe some can help? I am looking for an 14Volt vacuum pump to drive artificial horizon > If anyone has some ideas or suggestion or any idea to find a suitible pump? > Alex, The vacuum pump is the weak link. Since you go for electric, why not dispense with vacuum, and direct run an electric gyro ? Best regards, -- Gilles http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Looking for external 14v vac.pump to drive artif. horizon
From: "alex_01" <zoechling(at)gmx.de>
Date: Aug 13, 2007
it is just for a back up as i still have a vac. horizon and i reallydont want to spend $1000+ for an elc.horizon Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=128897#128897 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2007
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Looking for external 14v vac.pump to drive artif.
horizon alex_01 a crit : > > it is just for a back up as i still have a vac. horizon and i reallydont want to spend $1000+ for an elc.horizon > Understand. However, what are the cost and weight of a vacuum pump plus electric vacuum pump ? About $350 + 1500. Vacuum pumps, electric and mechanical, have a really poor service life record. So one must add the cost of pump refurbishing. Best regards, -- Gilles http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2007
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: Re: Looking for external 14v vac.pump to drive artif. horizon
>maybe some can help? I am looking for an 14Volt vacuum pump to drive artificial horizon >If anyone has some ideas or suggestion or any idea to find a suitible pump? Have you ruled out a venturi? <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=venturi+gyro&btnG=Google+Search> -- --> From the U S of A, the only socialist country that refuses to admit it. <-- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 22, 2007
From: Tim Coldenhoff <rvlist(at)rv9a.deru.com>
Subject: Need pinouts for Cessna ARC IN-386A
Howdy all - Anybody have pinouts or a pointer to a manual for a Cessna ARC IN-386A VOR/LOC/Glideslope indicator? Thank you, - Tim. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Source for LED's
From: "Papa Foxtrot" <papa.foxtrot1955(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 28, 2007
Components sold on jameco.com have spec' sheets available. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131379#131379 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Need pinouts for Cessna ARC IN-386A
From: "Rhino" <bsimmons(at)rainbowdata.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2007
rvlist(at)rv9a.deru.com wrote: > Howdy all - > > Anybody have pinouts or a pointer to a manual for a Cessna ARC IN-386A > VOR/LOC/Glideslope indicator? > > Thank you, > - Tim. This was asked some time ago by squiggles(at)yahoo.com. You might contact him to see if he got an answer. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131591#131591 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 08, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: New Realtime Spell Checker Added To Matronics Forums!
Dear Listers, Today 9/8/2007 I have added a new real-time spell checker function to all of the BBS Forums at Matronics. When you reply or create a new message on the Forums, you will notice that misspelled words will be high-lighted in yellow. If you left-click on the word, you will be prompted with a drop-down list of suggested spellings. http://forums.matronics.com Enjoy! Matt Dralle Matornics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: New Realtime Spell Checker Added To Matronics Forums!
Date: Sep 12, 2007
----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Dralle<mailto:dralle(at)matronics.com> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 4:46 PM Subject: Avionics-List: New Realtime Spell Checker Added To Matronics Forums! > Dear Listers, Today 9/8/2007 I have added a new real-time spell checker function to all of the BBS Forums at Matronics. When you reply or create a new message on the Forums, you will notice that misspelled words will be high-lighted in yellow. If you left-click on the word, you will be prompted with a drop-down list of suggested spellings. http://forums.matronics.com> Enjoy! Matt Dralle Matornics Email List and Forum Administrator http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List /Navigator?Avionics-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174(at)msn.com>
Subject: Unknown component
Date: Sep 13, 2007
While removing my avionics attached to the comm. tray is a unit measuring 2.5L X 2.2W X 1.3H. It has a 7 wire harness. the wires are coiled and secured with a ty-rap. The unit was not installed into the avionics system. The label reads AIRMARC a product of multitech, model 108, S/N 00558. Anyone on the list have any idea what this is? RJ Roy ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Don Morrisey <donmorrisey(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Blue Mountain Gen 4 Lite Plus For Sale
Date: Sep 13, 2007
Hello Listers. I have for sale, new in the box, never installed, but bench tested in perfe ct working order a Blue Mountain EFIS, Gen 4, Lite Plus. This mounts in a standard 3 1/8 " instrument hole and has a 5" screen. Inc luded in the sale price is the cost of the first year's Blue Mountain suppo rt fee. This retails thru Blue Mountain for $4595 plus the $395 support fe e. I will be listing it on ebay this weekend unless someone gets me before hand. My id on ebay is "chevyflyboy", go there and you can check my feedba ck, which is 100% positive with over 250 transactions. So rest assured tha t when I say this unit is brand new and tests perfectly on the bench test d escribed in the Blue Mountain manual...that it does. If you have interest make me a reasonable offer. These units are hard to get. It took well ove r a year from the point I ordered it to actually get it so you can not only save a lot of cash you can more importantly save a lot of time. Don _________________________________________________________________ Gear up for Halo=AE 3 with free downloads and an exclusive offer. It=92s ou r way of saying thanks for using Windows Live=99.
http://gethalo3gear.com?ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_WLHMTxt_2 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Blue Mountain Gen 4 Lite Plus For Sale
Date: Sep 13, 2007
And why are you selling it ? Carlos _____ From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Morrisey Sent: quinta-feira, 13 de Setembro de 2007 17:38 Subject: Avionics-List: Blue Mountain Gen 4 Lite Plus For Sale Hello Listers. I have for sale, new in the box, never installed, but bench tested in perfect working order a Blue Mountain EFIS, <http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/products.html> Gen 4, Lite Plus. This mounts in a standard 3 1/8 " instrument hole and has a 5" screen. Included in the sale price is the cost of the first year's Blue Mountain support fee. This retails thru Blue Mountain for $4595 plus the $395 support fee. I will be listing it on ebay this weekend unless someone gets me beforehand. My id on ebay is "chevyflyboy", go there and you can check my feedback, which is 100% positive with over 250 transactions. So rest assured that when I say this unit is brand new and tests perfectly on the bench test described in the Blue Mountain manual...that it does. If you have interest make me a reasonable offer. These units are hard to get. It took well over a year from the point I ordered it to actually get it so you can not only save a lot of cash you can more importantly save a lot of time. Don _____ Gear up for HaloR 3 and get a $25 Best Buy gift card. It's our way of saying thanks for using Windows LiveT. Get <http://gethalo3gear.com?ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_WLHMTxt_1> it now! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 2007
From: Tim Shankland <tshankland(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Unknown component
Roger, I did a Google on it and got the impression that it might be a marker beacon receiver. Tim Roger Roy wrote: > While removing my avionics attached to the comm. tray is a unit > measuring 2.5L X 2.2W X 1.3H. It has a 7 wire harness. the wires are > coiled and secured with a ty-rap. The unit was not installed into the > avionics system. The label reads AIRMARC a product of multitech, model > 108, S/N 00558. Anyone on the list have any idea what this is? > > RJ Roy > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Unknown component
Date: Sep 13, 2007
Hi Tim, I believe you have it right because a couple of other people responded with the same. I originally thought that but talked to Gulf Coast in FL and they didn't have a clue what it might be but they did try to sell me a Nav/Com do you get the picture? Thanks again Cheers, RJ ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Shankland<mailto:tshankland(at)sbcglobal.net> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:01 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Unknown component Roger, I did a Google on it and got the impression that it might be a marker beacon receiver. Tim Roger Roy wrote: While removing my avionics attached to the comm. tray is a unit measuring 2.5L X 2.2W X 1.3H. It has a 7 wire harness. the wires are coiled and secured with a ty-rap. The unit was not installed into the avionics system. The label reads AIRMARC a product of multitech, model 108, S/N 00558. Anyone on the list have any idea what this is? RJ Roy http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List /Navigator?Avionics-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 2007
From: "Paul Millner [OAK]" <paulmillner(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Airmarc
Airmarc is Aviation Marine Radio Corporation. Not sure what the 108 is, but you can buy a manual for it! Paul
http://www.esscoaircraft.com/Airmarc_Models_128_Manual_p/411.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 2007
From: Tim Shankland <tshankland(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: AOA for your Dynon
For all of you who have or are thinking of buying the Dynon and think you would like to be able to use the angle of attack indicator it doesn't have to cost another $200. I bought my Dynon for the attitude display and everything else was gravy. It wasn't until after I was flying with it I even realized that it have the AOA option. Being a builder oh and cheap too, I though $200 was a lot to pay so I looked into Dynon's and other AOA devices. Well anyway I made my own probe, cost nothing time about an hour or so and I can report it works great. Attached are a couple of pictures of the installation. The trick to ease of fabrication is that I used copper tubing, easier to solder together. The pitot tube is at a right angle to the support tube and the additional tube is angled 45 degrees down. To hold it I made a slot in the circular piece of 1/8 inch aluminum, I used my mill but it can be done with a drill and careful file work.. Mine as a snug fit to which I added epoxy. By the way don't start on how that copper is going to corrode with the aluminum I keep my plane inside and dry and I haven't seen any at other interfaces in the past year. Tim Shankland ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Goddard" <tomgoddard(at)ns.sympatico.ca>
Subject: comm tx causing avionics fluctuations
Date: Oct 08, 2007
Does any one have experience with comm tx causing transient changes in their engine analyzers egt/cht and voltages in glasairs or other fiberglass airframes? As we continue to debug our panel this problem is now up for a solution. I have heard that it may be "antenna standing wave reflections"? Our vert servo on the TruTrak is affected during Tx as well. We assumed that the other systems being affected were due to the close proximity of the comm antenna coax and the aircraft charging system as they all run through the center console of our Glasair III for a short distance in close proximity. Maybe I am wrong and it is more to do with the Standing Wave Reflection? Our other bugs caused by the comm. Tx are: 1. transient voltage rise on both buses from 14.1 to 14.6 (this is a real voltage change measured by and external meter) 2. egt and cht values decrease by 300 and 100 degrees F respectively (these are obviously not real temp changes) 3. Ray Allan trim and flap indicators flicker (the trim and flaps don't actually move) The following is something Tim Hedding of B&C alternators sent me: 1. Check the transmitting antenna systems for SWR. Check that the antenna, transmission line and transmitter output are of the same impedance and that the connections and ground planes are good. Use an SWR bridge or antenna analyzer to check the antenna system matching / efficiency. There must be some other glass airplanes out there that have seen some of these quirks. Tom Tom Goddard 100 Miner Lane Grand Pre, N.S. B0P 1M0 9026702511 Cell 9025427315 Fax 9:04 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 08, 2007
From: "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: comm tx causing avionics fluctuations
As impossible as it sounds I once installed a noise free wx-1000+ system into a glassair that was already well thought out and had a single point ground very close to the battery negative lead. Try and find someone with a MJF or other make antenna analyzer and check that the ground plane and antenna connections out of the back of the radio case look like a good low SWR antenna. Also if this is transmitting into rg-58 antenna coaxes, you might think of upgrading the whole ship with rg-142 or rg-400 double shielded coax. This would help greatly if the real problem is RF power leaking out of a poorly shielded coax. You could try shielding the EGT box with MU metal if thats where it is being affected. It might be coming into the box on the lead wires themselves. Check your engine mount to grounding system resistance. Everyone will tell you that idea numbers are 3 Milliohms but thats really hard to achieve in the amateur built community, crap even the production stuff with foberglass and mesh ground planes like cirrus or socata (the roof). Good luck Charles Reiche ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Goddard To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 8:38 PM Subject: Avionics-List: comm tx causing avionics fluctuations Does any one have experience with comm tx causing transient changes in their engine analyzers egt/cht and voltages in glasairs or other fiberglass airframes? As we continue to debug our panel this problem is now up for a solution. I have heard that it may be "antenna standing wave reflections"? Our vert servo on the TruTrak is affected during Tx as well. We assumed that the other systems being affected were due to the close proximity of the comm antenna coax and the aircraft charging system as they all run through the center console of our Glasair III for a short distance in close proximity. Maybe I am wrong and it is more to do with the Standing Wave Reflection? Our other bugs caused by the comm. Tx are: 1. transient voltage rise on both buses from 14.1 to 14.6 (this is a real voltage change measured by and external meter) 2. egt and cht values decrease by 300 and 100 degrees F respectively (these are obviously not real temp changes) 3. Ray Allan trim and flap indicators flicker (the trim and flaps don't actually move) The following is something Tim Hedding of B&C alternators sent me: 1. Check the transmitting antenna systems for SWR. Check that the antenna, transmission line and transmitter output are of the same impedance and that the connections and ground planes are good. Use an SWR bridge or antenna analyzer to check the antenna system matching / efficiency. There must be some other glass airplanes out there that have seen some of these quirks. Tom Tom Goddard 100 Miner Lane Grand Pre, N.S. B0P 1M0 9026702511 Cell 9025427315 Fax 08/10/2007 9:04 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 08, 2007
Subject: Re: comm tx causing avionics fluctuations
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
At 17:38 10/8/2007, you wrote: >Our other bugs caused by the comm. Tx are: > > 1. transient voltage rise on both buses from 14.1 to 14.6 > (this is a real voltage change measured by and external meter) This still may not be a real change. Meters, especially inexpensive ones, in an RF field can rectify the RF energy and add it to actual DC voltage as displayed. One would not expect to see a rise in bus with additional load applied, unless perhaps there was some disturbance to the regulator. Same observed change with engine/alternator/generator off? Do you have a 'scope available you could use to monitor the bus(s) and see if you observe a change? Ron Q. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: comm tx causing avionics fluctuations
Date: Oct 09, 2007
You have been given good advice by Tim Hedding; why don't you follow it? Anyone installing their own radios should have a cheap 2 metre band VSWR meter and use it. The other remote possibility is that you have your antenna in the wrong place. The only place for a comm antenna in a plastic aeroplane is in or near the tail or in the winglet in canards. I take it also that all your negative power grounds are separate wires from each instrument and they go back to a single ground buss near and connected with a heavy lead to the battery/alternator ground. Similarly the positive 12/14v leads are run (via a breaker) from one central positive buss also near the battery/alternator. And finally that the positive and ground leads to each instrument run together. John Does any one have experience with comm tx causing transient changes in their engine analyzers egt/cht and voltages in glasairs or other fiberglass airframes? As we continue to debug our panel this problem is now up for a solution. I have heard that it may be "antenna standing wave reflections"? Our vert servo on the TruTrak is affected during Tx as well. We assumed that the other systems being affected were due to the close proximity of the comm antenna coax and the aircraft charging system as they all run through the center console of our Glasair III for a short distance in close proximity. Maybe I am wrong and it is more to do with the Standing Wave Reflection? Our other bugs caused by the comm. Tx are: 1. transient voltage rise on both buses from 14.1 to 14.6 (this is a real voltage change measured by and external meter) 2. egt and cht values decrease by 300 and 100 degrees F respectively (these are obviously not real temp changes) 3. Ray Allan trim and flap indicators flicker (the trim and flaps don't actually move) The following is something Tim Hedding of B&C alternators sent me: 1. Check the transmitting antenna systems for SWR. Check that the antenna, transmission line and transmitter output are of the same impedance and that the connections and ground planes are good. Use an SWR bridge or antenna analyzer to check the antenna system matching / efficiency. There must be some other glass airplanes out there that have seen some of these quirks. Tom Tom Goddard 100 Miner Lane Grand Pre, N.S. B0P 1M0 9026702511 Cell 9025427315 Fax 08/10/2007 9:04 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: comm tx causing avionics fluctuations
From: "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: Oct 09, 2007
Apart from the previous advice: antenna far away and SWR checked, you may need to fit ferrite beads to some of your instrument wiring. Try the clip over style from electronics parts stores, particularly around temp. sensor cable at instrument end and far end. Also better to stay with normal grade coax, the greater loss actually helps the VSWR match and lowers the power radiated into your instruments. A similar method is used in many certified com antennas, a 12.5 ohm resistor is built inside the base so you loose about 2 watts power ( not significant in radio terms) but get a good 50 ohm match over the relatively wide com range. Ralph -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138927#138927 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: comm tx causing avionics fluctuations
Date: Oct 09, 2007
Tom: Just a few Ideas. Just as the radiating element of your antenna should be 1/4 wave length the ground plane should also be at least that size. If it isn't don't worry you can stick a ground plane inside your fuselage with contact cement using aluminium foil for the ground plane itself. Make sure it is connected to the braid side of the coax at the antenna end. The ground plane should also be as close as reasonably possible to perpendicular to the radiating element. The advice you got to check out your antenna system sounds good to me. Transmitters aren't too bright and when you feed their output to a miss-matched antenna system the fool transmitter works harder to get the signal out. This means it draws a lot more current and of course heats up. The end result can be a burned out final amplifier (expensive) or a popped circuit breaker. (Cheap if you don't reset it) Most of the other things you mentioned can be easily attributed to the same antenna problem. High current draw by the transmitter will cause the voltage regulator to cut in possibly to the point before an over voltage indication.... BTW you generally get that OV indication after the alternator has been shut down to protect it. It just crossed my mind that I have seen high draw on a transmitter. It occurred when there was a crack in the centre conductor inside the coax to the antenna. Do a continuity test on the centre conductor of the coax. When you do that continuity test try wiggling the connectors while hooked up to the VOM. Your problem can also be caused by a cold solder joint or a bad crimp in a connector. Finally my pet peeve is bad grounds. Aircraft electrical systems need to have as close to perfect ground as possible. You would be surprised the effect of a bit of black corrosion under the grounding strap that connects your engine to the frame across the engine mount will have on your whole system. Make sure any grounding straps are clean under the nuts/bolts that connect them to the various parts of the frame. Make sure there is good continuity from the grounding posts behind your instrument panel to the engine block. Also make sure the voltage regulator is mounted on a clean surface. Many newer solid state regulators require the case have a good ground. You may want to borrow another transmitter and temporarily connect it to your antenna system and the AC power. If you get the same effect on transmit then you will know for sure it is your installation and not the transmitter itself. The advice to get your antenna system checked out is capitol. Avionics techs have equipment that can do amazing things. Ten minutes on a Cushman could end up saving many $$ chasing a problem. To recap: *Put your antenna system under the microscope. That's probably where your problem is located. *Check the continuity of all grounding straps. a good idea to check on an annual basis. *If possible try another transmitter (not a hand held) in your plane You only need to connect the antenna and aircraft power and see if you get the same problem. If this doesn't fix the problem then you are going to have to get some local expertise... Preferably with equipment. Good places to look for help are Telco, Amateur radio, Television stations. Only certified avionics shops should open avionics cases or make modifications to avionics systems. You should keep that in mind if you have a certified plane. Where do you keep your plane?? if at YHZ you may want to contact Uli Huber at Atlantic AV in Springfield he has technicians who should be able to get you going in short order...... Bring money ;-) Hope this helps. Noel Loveys, RPP, AME intern Campbellton, Newfoundland, Canada Tel: 709-261-2705 noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Goddard Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 10:09 PM Subject: Avionics-List: comm tx causing avionics fluctuations Does any one have experience with comm tx causing transient changes in their engine analyzers egt/cht and voltages in glasairs or other fiberglass airframes? As we continue to debug our panel this problem is now up for a solution. I have heard that it may be "antenna standing wave reflections"? Our vert servo on the TruTrak is affected during Tx as well. We assumed that the other systems being affected were due to the close proximity of the comm antenna coax and the aircraft charging system as they all run through the center console of our Glasair III for a short distance in close proximity. Maybe I am wrong and it is more to do with the Standing Wave Reflection? Our other bugs caused by the comm. Tx are: 1. transient voltage rise on both buses from 14.1 to 14.6 (this is a real voltage change measured by and external meter) 2. egt and cht values decrease by 300 and 100 degrees F respectively (these are obviously not real temp changes) 3. Ray Allan trim and flap indicators flicker (the trim and flaps don't actually move) The following is something Tim Hedding of B&C alternators sent me: 1. Check the transmitting antenna systems for SWR. Check that the antenna, transmission line and transmitter output are of the same impedance and that the connections and ground planes are good. Use an SWR bridge or antenna analyzer to check the antenna system matching / efficiency. There must be some other glass airplanes out there that have seen some of these quirks. Tom Tom Goddard 100 Miner Lane Grand Pre, N.S. B0P 1M0 9026702511 Cell 9025427315 Fax 08/10/2007 9:04 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: comm tx causing avionics fluctuations
Date: Oct 09, 2007
Tom, Not only did you not say where your antenna was mounted , you also did not say what type of antenna you were using. I note some various advice tweaking this and that but you have to realise before you do anything that you have a gross error in your installation. This could be be the antenna mounted right near the instrument panel or using completely the wrong type of antenna, or trying to use a monopole antenna in a plastic aeroplane without using a metal ground plane of at least 2 or 3 feet diameter, or failing to connect the coax plugs correctly so there was no proper connection etc etc. Your whole panel seems to be alive with RF energy so don't try tweaking this and that until you have found out where the really gross error is. John Does any one have experience with comm tx causing transient changes in their engine analyzers egt/cht and voltages in glasairs or other fiberglass airframes? As we continue to debug our panel this problem is now up for a solution. I have heard that it may be "antenna standing wave reflections"? Our vert servo on the TruTrak is affected during Tx as well. We assumed that the other systems being affected were due to the close proximity of the comm antenna coax and the aircraft charging system as they all run through the center console of our Glasair III for a short distance in close proximity. Maybe I am wrong and it is more to do with the Standing Wave Reflection? Our other bugs caused by the comm. Tx are: 1. transient voltage rise on both buses from 14.1 to 14.6 (this is a real voltage change measured by and external meter) 2. egt and cht values decrease by 300 and 100 degrees F respectively (these are obviously not real temp changes) 3. Ray Allan trim and flap indicators flicker (the trim and flaps don't actually move) The following is something Tim Hedding of B&C alternators sent me: 1. Check the transmitting antenna systems for SWR. Check that the antenna, transmission line and transmitter output are of the same impedance and that the connections and ground planes are good. Use an SWR bridge or antenna analyzer to check the antenna system matching / efficiency. There must be some other glass airplanes out there that have seen some of these quirks. Tom Tom Goddard 100 Miner Lane Grand Pre, N.S. B0P 1M0 9026702511 Cell 9025427315 Fax 08/10/2007 9:04 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: comm tx causing avionics fluctuations
Date: Oct 10, 2007
John I'll sing that praise forever. I was having a lot of problems same as a lot of what's being talked about with a MicroAir M-760 I went on Ebay and got a brand new one for $14.00 and was able to trouble shoot my faulty BNC at the antenna in minutes, that saved me hours of troubleshooting the system, so a SWR meter should be in every homebuilder tool box. RJ ----- Original Message ----- From: John Rippengal<mailto:j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:05 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: comm tx causing avionics fluctuations You have been given good advice by Tim Hedding; why don't you follow it? Anyone installing their own radios should have a cheap 2 metre band VSWR meter and use it. The other remote possibility is that you have your antenna in the wrong place. The only place for a comm antenna in a plastic aeroplane is in or near the tail or in the winglet in canards. I take it also that all your negative power grounds are separate wires from each instrument and they go back to a single ground buss near and connected with a heavy lead to the battery/alternator ground. Similarly the positive 12/14v leads are run (via a breaker) from one central positive buss also near the battery/alternator. And finally that the positive and ground leads to each instrument run together. John Does any one have experience with comm tx causing transient changes in their engine analyzers egt/cht and voltages in glasairs or other fiberglass airframes? As we continue to debug our panel this problem is now up for a solution. I have heard that it may be "antenna standing wave reflections"? Our vert servo on the TruTrak is affected during Tx as well. We assumed that the other systems being affected were due to the close proximity of the comm antenna coax and the aircraft charging system as they all run through the center console of our Glasair III for a short distance in close proximity. Maybe I am wrong and it is more to do with the Standing Wave Reflection? Our other bugs caused by the comm. Tx are: 1. transient voltage rise on both buses from 14.1 to 14.6 (this is a real voltage change measured by and external meter) 2. egt and cht values decrease by 300 and 100 degrees F respectively (these are obviously not real temp changes) 3. Ray Allan trim and flap indicators flicker (the trim and flaps don't actually move) The following is something Tim Hedding of B&C alternators sent me: 1. Check the transmitting antenna systems for SWR. Check that the antenna, transmission line and transmitter output are of the same impedance and that the connections and ground planes are good. Use an SWR bridge or antenna analyzer to check the antenna system matching / efficiency. There must be some other glass airplanes out there that have seen some of these quirks. Tom Tom Goddard 100 Miner Lane Grand Pre, N.S. B0P 1M0 9026702511 Cell 9025427315 Fax 08/10/2007 9:04 AM http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List /Navigator?Avionics-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave" <daberti(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Garmin GI106
Date: Oct 15, 2007
I upgraded my 430 to a 430W and now my GI106 has a 6 degree error indicated by the start up test page. How do you realign it with the 430? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Garmin GI106
Date: Oct 16, 2007
From: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr(at)sprint.com>
Go into the config menu by holding the Enter key while turning on the power. Then go to the menu where you calibrate the CDI by setting it to 150 degrees and then hit enter. That should do it. I had the same issue when I got both of mine upgraded to WAAS. Thank You Ray Doerr ________________________________ From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:42 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Garmin GI106 I upgraded my 430 to a 430W and now my GI106 has a 6 degree error indicated by the start up test page. How do you realign it with the 430? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 16, 2007
From: "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Garmin GI106
there is a cal to 150 degrees option in the setup mode this is best done at full voltage(engine running) Charles Reiche ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:42 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Garmin GI106 I upgraded my 430 to a 430W and now my GI106 has a 6 degree error indicated by the start up test page. How do you realign it with the 430? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave" <daberti(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Garmin GI106
Date: Oct 16, 2007
Thanks for the replies! Constantly being off that much was was a real pain! Dave -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charles Reiche Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:35 PM To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Garmin GI106 there is a cal to 150 degrees option in the setup mode this is best done at full voltage(engine running) Charles Reiche ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:42 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Garmin GI106 I upgraded my 430 to a 430W and now my GI106 has a 6 degree error indicated by the start up test page. How do you realign it with the 430? href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List">http://www.matronics .com/Navigator?Avionics-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: KLX-135A FOR SALE
From: "nihlcstorey" <nihlc(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Oct 18, 2007
KLX-135A W/TRAY FOR SALE $1500.00 Guranteed to work Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=140630#140630 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Curry" <currydon(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Altimeter Question
Date: Oct 28, 2007
I'm considering replacing the standard, 3-pointer altimeter in my single-engine aircraft with a counter-pointer type. The candidates are an AeroMech 8141B, an ARC EA-801, and an ARC EA-401. Does anybody know these altimeters and/or have any advice on making this change? Since all three counter-pointer altimeters are the encoding type, I would have to remove my Transcal SSD-120-30K encoder. Is that a wise move? Does anybody have the pin-outs for the cannon-plug on the backs of these altimeters? Thanks in advance, Don ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 28, 2007
From: "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Altimeter Question
Encoding altimeters are VERY EXPENSIVE to maintain as a altimeter/encoder system. It is much cheaper in the long run to keep these separate. Call up Kelley Instruments and ask how much an overhual is on one of those units... you can buy alot of regular altimeters and encoders for the price of 1 encoding altimeter overhaul. That Trans cal ssd-120 should last a long life for you. As an avionics tech and installer, I emplore you to keep your 3 pointer system with separate encoder. Save yourself the heartache of failed pitot static inspections and costly overhaul bills down the road. Charles Reiche ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Curry To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Altimeter Question I'm considering replacing the standard, 3-pointer altimeter in my single-engine aircraft with a counter-pointer type. The candidates are an AeroMech 8141B, an ARC EA-801, and an ARC EA-401. Does anybody know these altimeters and/or have any advice on making this change? Since all three counter-pointer altimeters are the encoding type, I would have to remove my Transcal SSD-120-30K encoder. Is that a wise move? Does anybody have the pin-outs for the cannon-plug on the backs of these altimeters? Thanks in advance, Don ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Curry" <currydon(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Altimeter Question
Date: Oct 29, 2007
Would it be possible (or legal) to bypass the new altimeter's internal encoder and retain the Transcal encoder? -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charles Reiche Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 7:39 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Altimeter Question Encoding altimeters are VERY EXPENSIVE to maintain as a altimeter/encoder system. It is much cheaper in the long run to keep these separate. Call up Kelley Instruments and ask how much an overhual is on one of those units... you can buy alot of regular altimeters and encoders for the price of 1 encoding altimeter overhaul. That Trans cal ssd-120 should last a long life for you. As an avionics tech and installer, I emplore you to keep your 3 pointer system with separate encoder. Save yourself the heartache of failed pitot static inspections and costly overhaul bills down the road. Charles Reiche ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Curry <mailto:currydon(at)bellsouth.net> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Altimeter Question I'm considering replacing the standard, 3-pointer altimeter in my single-engine aircraft with a counter-pointer type. The candidates are an AeroMech 8141B, an ARC EA-801, and an ARC EA-401. Does anybody know these altimeters and/or have any advice on making this change? Since all three counter-pointer altimeters are the encoding type, I would have to remove my Transcal SSD-120-30K encoder. Is that a wise move? Does anybody have the pin-outs for the cannon-plug on the backs of these altimeters? Thanks in advance, Don href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List">http://www.matr onics .com/Navigator?Avionics-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2007
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: GX-60 - simulating speed on the ground
Fellow tron-chasers, I'm doing some autopilot testing in the hangar to make sure that things are commanded as designed. One of the tests involves GPS steering (S-Tec System 30 with GPSS) and requires velocity to a destination in order to send proper signals to the steering converter. Has anyone been able to get their GX60 to think it's moving in order to output roll signals? Thanks, Ralph Capen ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2007
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: SL-70 issues
Fellow tron chasers, I'm having trouble with my SL-70 transponder. When I turn it on it immediately says FAIL. When I turn the little knob it displays the individual test results which all say PASS except SYN, RECV, and TRAN; which I'm taking to mean that at least the radio portion has issues. It still reports the correct altitude to the GPS which I'm taking to mean that the external encoder is OK and the serial connection to the GX60 is OK too. The attached antenna appears to be intact. Any recommendations on things to try before I send it in for repair? Thanks, Ralph Capen ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: GX-60 - simulating speed on the ground
Date: Oct 29, 2007
I don't know if it will do what you need but there is a simulator mode. It's controlled by a jumper on the connector. Pin 7 on the 37 pin connector goes to ground (pin 25) for normal operation. If open it's in simulator mode. Regards, Greg Young > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Ralph E. Capen > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 7:48 AM > To: Avionics List; EXP-AVIONICS > Subject: Avionics-List: GX-60 - simulating speed on the ground > > --> > > Fellow tron-chasers, > > I'm doing some autopilot testing in the hangar to make sure > that things are commanded as designed. > > One of the tests involves GPS steering (S-Tec System 30 with > GPSS) and requires velocity to a destination in order to send > proper signals to the steering converter. > > Has anyone been able to get their GX60 to think it's moving > in order to output roll signals? > > Thanks, > Ralph Capen > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2007
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: GX-60 - simulating speed on the ground
I'll look it up and try it - thanks -----Original Message----- >From: Greg Young <gyoung@cs-sol.com> >Sent: Oct 29, 2007 10:03 AM >To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: Avionics-List: GX-60 - simulating speed on the ground > > >I don't know if it will do what you need but there is a simulator mode. It's >controlled by a jumper on the connector. Pin 7 on the 37 pin connector goes >to ground (pin 25) for normal operation. If open it's in simulator mode. > >Regards, >Greg Young > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf >> Of Ralph E. Capen >> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 7:48 AM >> To: Avionics List; EXP-AVIONICS >> Subject: Avionics-List: GX-60 - simulating speed on the ground >> >> --> >> >> Fellow tron-chasers, >> >> I'm doing some autopilot testing in the hangar to make sure >> that things are commanded as designed. >> >> One of the tests involves GPS steering (S-Tec System 30 with >> GPSS) and requires velocity to a destination in order to send >> proper signals to the steering converter. >> >> Has anyone been able to get their GX60 to think it's moving >> in order to output roll signals? >> >> Thanks, >> Ralph Capen >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: November is Matronics Email List Fund Raiser Month!
Dear Listers, You've probably noticed that there are no banner ads or pop-up windows or spam from any of the List and Forum services at Matronics. These include, for example: The Email List Postings - http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse The Email List Forum Site - http://forums.matronics.com The List Wiki - http://wiki.matronics.com The List Search Engine - http://www.matronics.com/search This is because I have always enjoyed a List experience that was completely about the sport we enjoy - airplanes - and not about advertising! But running a high performance, highly available service like this isn't free and a fair amount of money in terms of computer upgrades, business-class Internet connectivity, and electricity. Consequently, many similar sites turn to advertising to support these costs. Advertising that you have to look at each and every time you read an email message or browse the their web site. Rather than subject my List community to another constant commercial bombardment, I have chosen to hold a PBS-like fund raiser each year in November to support the continued operation and upgrade of the List services. It's solely through the Contributions of List members that the Lists and Forums continue to be possible! During the month, I will be sending out a Fund Raiser reminder message every few days and I ask for your patience and understanding during the month throughout these regular messages. Think of them as PBS' Pledge Breaks... :-) To minimize the impact of the Fund Raiser on the List community, I implemented a new feature late last year specifically related to making Contributions. If you are an Email List subscriber, once you make a Contribution using the online web site, you will no longer receive the email from me regarding the Fund Raiser! There are a couple of exceptions to this, however. If someone replies to a Contribution message I've sent, you might receive that. Additionally, the messages will always be posted to the Forums site. To a first order, however, once you make a Contribution, you won't get my email messages about the Fund Raiser for the rest of the month. For Contributions by check, the squelch will take effect once the check is received. There is a whole new line up of really great Contribution gifts this year! When you make a qualifying Contribution, you can select one of the many free gifts that are available during the Fund Raiser. These gifts are provided through the generous support of a number of our industry's leading supporters including: Bob Nuckolls - AeroElectric - http://www.aeroelectric.com Andy Gold - Builder's Bookstore - http://www.buildersbooks.com Jon Croke - HomebuiltHELP - http://www.homebuilthelp.com Please visit these guy's respective sites, as they have some great products to offer and are generously supporting the Matronics List Fund Raiser. You can make your List Contribution using any one of three secure methods this year including using a credit card, PayPal, or by personal check. From the Contribution site, you can select any one of this year's free gifts with a qualifying Contribution amount. The Contribution page is pretty loooonnnnng this year in order to list great selection of great gifts available so be sure to scroll all the way to the bottom of the web page to see everything that's available! Please make a List Support Contribution: http://www.matronics.com/contribution I would like to thank everyone in advance for their generous support! Your Contributions truely keep this operation afloat! Thank you, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: List Fund Raiser
Dear Listers, Just a reminder that November is the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser month. I've got a bunch of really nice incentive gifts this year. There's really something for everyone! Please make a Contribution today: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2007
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: SL-70 findings
Thanks to the folks on these lists for the help so far. Here's what I've done/found: Upon start-up the SL-70 says TEST and FAIL in the two display windows. If I turn the little knob on the right - it goes to the specific tests individually - all PASS except for SYN, RECV, and TRAN Took antenna direct to the back of the unit (down to the first piece of coax. No change Measured continuity of the first piece of coax Open from center to shield Initial resistance of center conductor goes to zero shortly Initial resistance of shield does not go to zero but remains very low The Transponder did not come alive - although it still continues to pass encoder info to the GPS Here's what I think: The radio portion of the unit is hosed and the box needs to go in for repair - off to call GarminAT repair. The first antenna coupling (in the back of the unit's tray) and the first chunk of cable attached thereto is where I'll start troubleshooting the resistance problem. Here's where I need comments: RG400 shield resistance - I think it should go to zero just like the center conductor. The first pair of connectors appear to be silver plated - and the plating appears to be oxidized - I would think that inserting and reseating the connector should (but shouldn't need to) renew the connection. Thanks in advance, Ralph Capen ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2007
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: S-Tec 30 Testing findings
I was able to put the GX60 in the simulator mode and get it to drive the autopilot (sorta). I pressed the OBS button and entered in the course - nothing happened when I moved the bugs or the card and didn't know what to do after that so I tried a GPS flightplan course. The simulator mode moves the flight path so quickly that the roll signals were very short in duration. They were correct relative to the flight plan changes programmed, so I think that part is OK. Then the GPSS interface unit quit completely. Here's what I'm thinking: I was able to get the unit to work with both the Century NSD1000 and the GX60 at different times through the GPSS box so I'm pretty confident that I don't have any major wiring issues. I'll do continuity checks on the interfaces to make sure that the wiring is correct. At a minimum, I need to send in the GPSS interface for a bench-check Your opinions, please: The OBS thing - how's that work? What's it used for? I'm not instrument rated (but am setting this plane up for the training) so forgive my lack of training based ignorance. Thanks, Ralph ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: What Listers Are Saying...
November is Matronics List Fund Raiser month and a number people been sending some really nice comments regarding the Lists. I thought I'd share a few below. The Lists are completely supported by your Contributions. All of the bills for new hardware, connectivity, and electricity are paid by the generous support of the List members. Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation of the List and Forums: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ================= What Listers Are Saying ================ Flying and building is much safer with this List!! Robert D. Thanks for having and maintaining such a great resource to all of us builders and flyers. Wayne E. Love the fact that you haven't caved to advertising! Peter J. ..a great resource!! Robert C. Not building at the moment, but the Lists keeps me right up to date with what's going on. Chris D. The web forum has been running great. James O. I enjoy this [List] site very much... Paul C. This is a great list! Albert G. ..a valuable resource! Roger C. I am deployed to Pakistan right now, and being able to go on-line and keep up with the aircraft discussions helps keep the aircraft building dream alive in my mind! Gregory C. ..fantastic service! Roger M. ..clearly a work of passion! Mike C. It is a great service to us! Kevin C. The list is a wonderful resource... Ralph O. [The Lists] have been the single greatest resource in building my RV-9A and now my RV-10. Albert G. ..a valuable and always improving service. Dick S. STILL THE BEST BARGAIN AROUND!! Owen B. ..such a valuable tool. Jon M. [The Lists] have been an invaluable resource for me as a Zenith homebuilder. David G. The opportunity to meet (on line at least) many other interesting builders and to make some new friends is truly appreciated. Albert G. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: If You Got This Email, You Haven't Made A Contribution
Yet! :-) Dear Listers, If you received this particular Matronics List Email message, its because you haven't yet made a Contribution to support your Lists! Implemented for the first time last year, the Matronics system selectively sends out the Contribution messages to those that forgot to whip out the 'ol credit card this year to support the continued operation and upgrade of the Matronics Email Lists! Don't you wish PBS worked that way? :-) You heard that right. Once you make your Contribution, these support requests messages during November will suddenly stop coming to your personal email inbox! I wanted to implement something like this for a number of years, but it was always such a daunting task to modify the back-end List processing code, that I just kept putting it off. Finally last year, I just decided to bite the bullet and put the code-pounding time it to make it work. A few days later, bam! A working system! I really do appreciate each and every one of your individual Contributions to support the Lists. It is your support that enables me to upgrade the hardware and software that are required to run a List Site like this. It also goes to pay for the commercial-grade Internet connection and to pay the rather huge electric bill to keep the computer gear running and the air conditioner powered up. I run ALL of the Matronics Email List and Forums sites here locally which allows me to control and monitor every aspect of the system for the utmost in reliably and performance. Your personal Contribution matters because when combined with other Listers such as yourself, it pays the bills to keep this site up and running. I accept exactly ZERO advertising dollars for the Matronics Lists sites. I can't stand the pop-up ads and all other commercialism that is so prevalent on the Internet these days and I particularly don't want to have it on my Email List site. If you appreciate the ad-free, grass-roots, down-home feel of the Matronics Email Lists, please make a Contribution to keep it that way!! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator [Please note the following regarding the selective posting system. There are certain circumstances where you might still see a Contribution related message. These situations include if someone replies to one of the messages, or when using the List Browse feature, or when accessing List message via the Forum. Since most of these are anonymous public access methods, there is no simple way to filter them.] ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2007
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Avionics-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 11/05/07
Functional checkout of my electrical system has gone well so far with no smoked wiring or equipment. I bought an equivalent of an Odyssey 680 a couple years ago and trickle charged it occasionally hoping it would at least be good enough to do electrical checkout, first engine start and maybe a few times around the pattern. But it appears that is not the case. Voltmeter says there is 12.5 volts at the terminals but it can't produce enough amps to fire the battery contactor or even make some sparks when shorted, pretty pathetic. I substituted a Panasonic 4.5 amp hour sealed lead acid battery that I bought second hand about 6 years ago. It's got enough oomph for the checkout but I'll need a new 680 for 1st engine start. I did a test on my magneto P-leads (one mag on left side, electronic on right side)with an ohm meter. Thinking that when the key switch is in the off position, the resistance across the p-lead should measure close to dead short and, it does. By the same logic, I thought that when the mag was ungrounded the resistance across the p-leads (I used a shielded wire with the shield grounded at the magneto through the key switch, no local grounding). But when I measured across the p-leads at the magneto the resistance only went from 0.2 ohms to 0.4 ohms when I turned the key. Not an appreciable increase in resistance but it was consistent (happens every time) and measurable. I thought maybe I had a faulty key switch but not so, I removed one p-lead from the mag and made the same measurement and the resistance with the key in that mag's position read infinite. I suspect that there is some thing about magnetos I don't know and that this is not a problem but would like to be sure. Anybody ever done this test? Did you get the same results? Also checked out the VM-1000 and it seems to work fine except for dimming. I used one of the B&C dimmers connected to the VM-1000 dimming input but I don't seem to get any dimming action (backlight works ok). Anyone else experience this? Have I missed something in the VM manual and it doesn't use an external dimming input? Any thoughts? Thanks. Dean RV-6A N197DM closer to 1st flight. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Post Mortem - Matronics List Pummeled By Spam...
Dear Listers, Over a 3-day period, Thursday 11/8 though Saturday 11/10, the Matronics Lists were pummeled with over 450,000 spam emails causing posting delays and a few duplicate messages. Yeah, I really said nearly half a million spams! The good news is that I don't believe a single one of them actually made it to the Lists thanks to the aggressive List filtering code and the Barracuda spam filter. The bad news was that it caused quite a back log of email messages starting Friday and continuing until late Saturday when I noticed that delivery seemed a bit sluggish. By about 11pm on Saturday night, I had managed to get the backlog cleared out of the spam filter by temporarily adjusting some of the filtering. A check of the queues this morning, and everything looks like its working great and there are no incoming filtering delays and spam levels appear to be back to "normal". There were a number of people asking what was going on, so I thought that I'd send out a follow up post mortem on the event... November is the annual List Fund Raiser. Your contribution directly enables me to buy systems like the Barracuda spam filter that keep the List free of that garbage. Please make a contribution to support your Lists! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: List of Contributors
Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its sort of my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. Won't you take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors (LOC)? As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems at least - if not a whole lot more - valuable as a building/flying/recreating/entertainment tool as your typical magazine subscription! Please take minute and assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by popping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics PO Box 347 Livermore CA 94551-0347 I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Value of the List...
If you look forward to checking your List email everyday (and a lot of you have written to say that you do!), then you're probably getting at least 0 or 0 worth of Entertainment from the Lists each year. You'd pay twice that for a subscription to some lame magazine or even a dinner out. Isn't the List worth at least that much to you? Wouldn't it be great if you could pay that amount and get a well-managed media source free of advertising, SPAM, and viruses? Come to think of it, you do... :-) Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support the Lists? Contribution Page: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Again, I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that has made a Contribution thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser!! These Lists are made possible exclusively through YOUR generosity!! Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists...
Just a reminder that November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these great List services!! And pick up a really nice free gift with your qualifying Contribution too! The Contribution Site is fast and easy: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: [Please Read] Why I Have A Fund Raiser...
Dear Listers, Each year I like to explain why I have a Fund Raiser and also take the opportunity to express why I think the List Services here provide a superior experience over the commercial equivalents. I use the List Fund Raiser each year to offset the costs involved with running a high performance email list site such as this one. With the annual support from the List members through the PBS-like Fund Raiser, I have found I can run the entire site without having to inflect any of the members with those annoying banner ads flashing up all the time trying to sell little-blue-pills or other garbage nobody wants or needs. From the comments I've received over the years regarding the Lists, the great majority of the members really appreciate the non-commercialism of my List systems and don't mind my 'go-team-go' banter once a year during November to encourage members to support the Lists. I believe that the Lists services that I provide here offer many benefits over the commercial equivalents in a number of ways. The first feature I believe to be significant is that you cannot receive a computer v*rus from any of these Lists directly. Each incoming message is filtered and dangerous attachments stripped off prior to posting. I also provide a Photo and File Share feature that allows members to share files and bitmaps with other members and everyone can be assured that these files will be prescanned for any sort of v*rus before they are posted. More recently, I have enabled limited posting of a number of file formats including pictures and PDFs. Another very important feature of this system in my opinion is the extensive List Archives that are available for download, browsing, and searching. The Archives go all the way back to the very beginning of each List and with the very fast Search Engine, the huge size of some of the Archives is a non-issue in quickly finding the data you're looking for. And added just a couple of years ago is the new Email List Forum that allows members who prefer the Web BBS-style of List interaction. The beauty of the new List Forums is that they contain the exact same content that is distributed via email. Messages posted via email are cross-posted to the respective Forum and vice versa. The Forums also allow for another convenient method of sharing pictures and other files (http://forums.matronics.com ). Additionally, added recently is the List Wiki that allows members to build their own "Online List Encyclopedia" of sorts, documenting various aspects of their project for all to share ( http://wiki.matronics.com ). I've been running email Lists and services under the matronics.com domain since about 1989 starting with RV-List and 30 guys I knew and who where also building RVs. It has grown into nearly 70 different aviation-related Email Lists and an associated web site that receives over 34,000,000 hits each year!! Additionally, the List Email system forwarded well over 77,000 postings last year, accounting for an unbelievable 33,000,000 (yes, that's 33 MILLION) email messages delivered to Matronics List subscribers! I think there's a lot of value in supporting a service that has gone the long haul and is still providing and improving a high quality service all _without any advertising budget_! I have to admit running these Lists is a labor of love and I hope it shows in the quality of the experience that you receive when you get a List Email Message, Search the Archives, use the List Browser, or surf the Forums and Wiki sites. The Lists will be here for a long time to come. If you just want to lurk a while for free, that's great and I encourage you to do so. If you use, appreciate, and receive value from these Lists, then please support them during the Annual List Fund Raiser! List Contribution Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ted scott" <teds532(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [Please Read] Why I Have A Fund Raiser...
Date: Nov 20, 2007
REMOVE ME FROM LIST.I NO LONGER FLY.THANK YOU ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:09 AM Subject: Avionics-List: [Please Read] Why I Have A Fund Raiser... > > Dear Listers, > > Each year I like to explain why I have a Fund Raiser and also take the > opportunity to express why I think the List Services here provide a > superior experience over the commercial equivalents. > > I use the List Fund Raiser each year to offset the costs involved with > running a high performance email list site such as this one. With the > annual support from the List members through the PBS-like Fund Raiser, I > have found I can run the entire site without having to inflect any of the > members with those annoying banner ads flashing up all the time trying to > sell little-blue-pills or other garbage nobody wants or needs. From the > comments I've received over the years regarding the Lists, the great > majority of the members really appreciate the non-commercialism of my List > systems and don't mind my 'go-team-go' banter once a year during November > to encourage members to support the Lists. > > I believe that the Lists services that I provide here offer many benefits > over the commercial equivalents in a number of ways. The first feature I > believe to be significant is that you cannot receive a computer v*rus from > any of these Lists directly. Each incoming message is filtered and > dangerous attachments stripped off prior to posting. I also provide a > Photo and File Share feature that allows members to share files and > bitmaps with other members and everyone can be assured that these files > will be prescanned for any sort of v*rus before they are posted. More > recently, I have enabled limited posting of a number of file formats > including pictures and PDFs. > > Another very important feature of this system in my opinion is the > extensive List Archives that are available for download, browsing, and > searching. The Archives go all the way back to the very beginning of each > List and with the very fast Search Engine, the huge size of some of the > Archives is a non-issue in quickly finding the data you're looking for. > > And added just a couple of years ago is the new Email List Forum that > allows members who prefer the Web BBS-style of List interaction. The > beauty of the new List Forums is that they contain the exact same content > that is distributed via email. Messages posted via email are cross-posted > to the respective Forum and vice versa. The Forums also allow for another > convenient method of sharing pictures and other files > (http://forums.matronics.com ). Additionally, added recently is the List > Wiki that allows members to build their own "Online List Encyclopedia" of > sorts, documenting various aspects of their project for all to share ( > http://wiki.matronics.com ). > > I've been running email Lists and services under the matronics.com domain > since about 1989 starting with RV-List and 30 guys I knew and who where > also building RVs. It has grown into nearly 70 different aviation-related > Email Lists and an associated web site that receives over 34,000,000 hits > each year!! Additionally, the List Email system forwarded well over 77,000 > postings last year, accounting for an unbelievable 33,000,000 (yes, that's > 33 MILLION) email messages delivered to Matronics List subscribers! I > think there's a lot of value in supporting a service that has gone the > long haul and is still providing and improving a high quality service all > _without any advertising budget_! > > I have to admit running these Lists is a labor of love and I hope it shows > in the quality of the experience that you receive when you get a List > Email Message, Search the Archives, use the List Browser, or surf the > Forums and Wiki sites. The Lists will be here for a long time to come. If > you just want to lurk a while for free, that's great and I encourage you > to do so. If you use, appreciate, and receive value from these Lists, then > please support them during the Annual List Fund Raiser! > > List Contribution Web Site: > > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > Thank you, > > Matt Dralle > Matronics Email List Administrator > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2007
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Running avionics on power supply
No replies to my initial post, so trying again.... Should there be any issues in running my electrical system with a power supply instead of the alternater/engine running? I have a battery in the circuit (PC680). Do I need to connect the power supply directly to the battery or can I hook it to my shunt to simulate the power coming from the alternator? Just want to make sure that I don't fry anything..... Ralph Capen ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2007
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Running avionics on power supply
> Should there be any issues in running my electrical system with a power supply instead of the alternater/engine running? I have a battery in the circuit (PC680). No problem at all. We do that anytime some checks or maintenance are necessary. > > Do I need to connect the power supply directly to the battery Yes > or can I hook it to my shunt to simulate the power coming from the alternator? > > > Depends on how your circuit is wired. Be careful not to toast the supply by turning too much loads at a time. Best regards, -- Gilles http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2007
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Running avionics on power supply
Gilles, Connecting it to the shunt in my case bypasses the master relay and energizes the aircraft's electrical system. It allows me to see the loads of each of the devices as I bring them on-line. My fear is that any electrical anomalies would find a quicker path through my avionics than through the battery which would absorb them better. I think I have just convinced myself that connecting it to the battery is the safer way to go....someone else can tell me if it is not necessary...... Thanks, Ralph -----Original Message----- >From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> >Sent: Nov 21, 2007 8:07 AM >To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Running avionics on power supply > > > >> Should there be any issues in running my electrical system with a power supply instead of the alternater/engine running? I have a battery in the circuit (PC680). > >No problem at all. We do that anytime some checks or maintenance are >necessary. > >> >> Do I need to connect the power supply directly to the battery > >Yes >> or can I hook it to my shunt to simulate the power coming from the alternator? >> >> >> >Depends on how your circuit is wired. >Be careful not to toast the supply by turning too much loads at a time. > >Best regards, >-- >Gilles >http://contrails.free.fr > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: What Are You Thankful For...?
Dear Listers, Here in the United States, Thursday is our National day of Thanksgiving. Many of us will be traveling to be with our families and friends to share in generous feasts of plenty and giving thanks for many blessings that have been bestowed upon us. Many Listers have expressed over the last couple of weeks how thankful they are for the Email Lists and Forums here on the Matronics servers and for all of the assistance and comradery they have experienced being a part of the Lists. One of my favorite kind of comments is when write to me and says something like, "Its the first thing I do in the morning while I'm having my morning coffee!". That's a wonderful tribute to the purpose and function of these Lists. Its always great to hear I'm not the only one that jumps out of bed each morning to check my List email!! Won't you take a minute today and show your appreciation for these Lists and for their continued operation and upgrade? The List Contribution Site is: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you in advance for your kind consideration, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Running avionics on power supply
Date: Nov 22, 2007
Hook up PS from alternator side of shunt to ground 13.8V. Diodes in the alternator should protect the alternator. Pay particular attention to polarity as you would if you were boosting a car. Check one buss at a time. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Ralph E. Capen > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:26 AM > To: Aeroelectric-list; Avionics List > Subject: Avionics-List: Running avionics on power supply > > > > > No replies to my initial post, so trying again.... > > Should there be any issues in running my electrical system > with a power supply instead of the alternater/engine running? > I have a battery in the circuit (PC680). > Do I need to connect the power supply directly to the battery > or can I hook it to my shunt to simulate the power coming > from the alternator? > > Just want to make sure that I don't fry anything..... > > Ralph Capen > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 24, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Comments
Dear Listers, Below are a few more of the nice comments Listers have been making along with their Contributions in support of the Lists this year. Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these services. Remember, there is _no advertising budget_ to keep these Lists funded. It is solely through your generosity that they continue. Please make a Contribution: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ------------------------------What Listers Are Saying------------------------------ The list has been invaluable in the building of my Zenith CH701. George R Thanks for keeping the lists a non-commercial venue for us to gather and share knowledge. Neal G What a fantastic resource! Ralph C It's a pretty cheep troubleshooting tool with and unlimited resource of personal knowledge. Bruce G A full house of Info & Ideas... Ellery B I really enjoy the Piet list. Steven D The Lists are an indispensable resource for those of us building OBAM aircraft. Bret S ..a great service. Frank D ..all in all it is a great resource if you ask specific questions. Richard S Your list has really helped me in my first build. Michael W Always a pleasure to support this great resource... Richard W I enjoy the lists very much, they are very beneficial. Bob L Great place to chat with other builders and Flyers. Ellery B Your lists are a great service to builders and owners! Richard D A real good place for someone that is starting to get interested into flying without investing any money at first. Ellery B The list has been an great help to my building process. David B I'm close to finishing my Zenith 601 thanks to you and the Zenith List. Jeff D ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Autopliot & GPS Dilemma
From: "FlyboyTR" <flyboytr(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Nov 25, 2007
I am wanting to add an autopilot to my plane. All the current units for experimental aircraft require a GPS to drive the system (so it knows where it's at). I use the AnywhereMap system with a Fujitsu tablet which has no output (NMEA). I read on the TruTrack web page that for non-GPS equipped aircraft they can supply a Garmin 35-HVA GPS receiver to drive the system. The 35-HVA works on 6-40 volts and has three wire leads (to be hardwired)...a positive, negative and the data line. TruTrack gets $175.00 for this receiver. I am looking for a less expensive alternative. I can purchase any number of GPS receivers for less than $50...and actually already run two Bluetooth units in the plane (running two AnywhereMap systems). Does anyone have any suggestions on how one would tie in a generic GPS receiver? Thanks! -------- Travis Rayner Mobile, AL Skystar Vixen N-789DF Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=148443#148443 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2007
From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Autopliot & GPS Dilemma
Seem like a lot of work to save $25, but if you want to tie something else in, I'd think the TruTrack people would be the ones you'd want to talk to. John Grosse FlyboyTR wrote: > >I am wanting to add an autopilot to my plane. All the current units for experimental aircraft require a GPS to drive the system (so it knows where it's at). I use the AnywhereMap system with a Fujitsu tablet which has no output (NMEA). I read on the TruTrack web page that for non-GPS equipped aircraft they can supply a Garmin 35-HVA GPS receiver to drive the system. The 35-HVA works on 6-40 volts and has three wire leads (to be hardwired)...a positive, negative and the data line. TruTrack gets $175.00 for this receiver. I am looking for a less expensive alternative. > >I can purchase any number of GPS receivers for less than $50...and actually already run two Bluetooth units in the plane (running two AnywhereMap systems). Does anyone have any suggestions on how one would tie in a generic GPS receiver? Thanks! > >-------- >Travis Rayner >Mobile, AL >Skystar Vixen >N-789DF > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=148443#148443 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2007
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Autopliot & GPS Dilemma
FlyboyTR wrote: > > > I am wanting to add an autopilot to my plane. All the current units > for experimental aircraft require a GPS to drive the system (so it > knows where it's at). I use the AnywhereMap system with a Fujitsu > tablet which has no output (NMEA). I read on the TruTrack web page > that for non-GPS equipped aircraft they can supply a Garmin 35-HVA > GPS receiver to drive the system. The 35-HVA works on 6-40 volts and > has three wire leads (to be hardwired)...a positive, negative and the > data line. TruTrack gets $175.00 for this receiver. I am looking > for a less expensive alternative. > > I can purchase any number of GPS receivers for less than $50...and > actually already run two Bluetooth units in the plane (running two > AnywhereMap systems). Does anyone have any suggestions on how one > would tie in a generic GPS receiver? Thanks! > > -------- Travis Rayner Mobile, AL Skystar Vixen N-789DF > Is that supposed to be 35-HVS? The TruTrak install manuals seem to indicate that they just need RS-232 level serial data at 4800 or 9600 baud, depending on TruTrak model. Garmin's site https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?pID=62 says the 35's are discontinued, but I'll bet that whatever is the current model Garmin with those specs will work fine. I'll also bet that if you call TruTrak, they will tell you what will work if you want to buy your own from another source. They are expecting you to hook up your existing GPS, anyway. You might want to ask if it will accept USB level signals. If it will, there are many, many possible self-contained GPS hockey-pucks that would work. Charlie Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: Autopliot & GPS Dilemma
Date: Nov 25, 2007
just get one with a serial port. most of those gps's have nmea output. ----- Original Message ----- From: "FlyboyTR" <flyboytr(at)bellsouth.net> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 4:20 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Autopliot & GPS Dilemma > > I am wanting to add an autopilot to my plane. All the current units for > experimental aircraft require a GPS to drive the system (so it knows where > it's at). I use the AnywhereMap system with a Fujitsu tablet which has no > output (NMEA). I read on the TruTrack web page that for non-GPS equipped > aircraft they can supply a Garmin 35-HVA GPS receiver to drive the system. > The 35-HVA works on 6-40 volts and has three wire leads (to be > hardwired)...a positive, negative and the data line. TruTrack gets > $175.00 for this receiver. I am looking for a less expensive alternative. > > I can purchase any number of GPS receivers for less than $50...and > actually already run two Bluetooth units in the plane (running two > AnywhereMap systems). Does anyone have any suggestions on how one would > tie in a generic GPS receiver? Thanks! > > -------- > Travis Rayner > Mobile, AL > Skystar Vixen > N-789DF > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=148443#148443 > > > -- > 11/24/2007 5:58 PM > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Published
Dec 1! Dear Listers, The List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! On December 1st I post a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. As a number of people have pointed out in their Contribution comments, these Lists seems at least as valuable of a building/flying/recreating tool as a typical your magazine subscription! And how interactive is a magazine, after all? Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matronics / Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore CA 94551-0347 USA (Please include your email address on the check!) I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: GPS Antenna
Date: Nov 26, 2007
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
I've been trying to find an acceptable answer as to why Garmin wants to have the coax cable for the=C2- GPS antenna to be between 13 and 15 feet. If I can mount an antenna just 15 inches away from the=C2- unit itself, why do I need to mount the antenna 15 feet away? One explanation I got was the 430/530 needed a 3 db loss in the cable. Now, it seems to me that the stronger the signal at the unit is, the better. For what it's worth, I mounted my antenna (Garmin 430) on the glareshield on my Tiger. That was 4 years ago. I've never had any problems with losing the signal. I'm installing another 430 and was told the 430 won't work with a 15 inch cable. Any ideas? ________________________________________________________________________ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http ://mail.aol.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2007
From: "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna
If you need a short cable run, install a 3db attenuator inline and make the cable as short as you want. Otherwise you can excpect to burn up the front end of the gps reciever due to overload, a $900+ flat rate repair follows. ----- Original Message ----- From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 3:32 AM Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna I've been trying to find an acceptable answer as to why Garmin wants to have the coax cable for the GPS antenna to be between 13 and 15 feet. If I can mount an antenna just 15 inches away from the unit itself, why do I need to mount the antenna 15 feet away? One explanation I got was the 430/530 needed a 3 db loss in the cable. Now, it seems to me that the stronger the signal at the unit is, the better.For what it's worth, I mounted my antenna (Garmin 430) on the glareshield on my Tiger.That was 4 years ago. I've never had any problems with losing the signal. I'm installing another 430 and was told the 430 won't work with a 15 inch cable. Any ideas? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel R. C. Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: GPS Antenna
Date: Nov 26, 2007
The received signal is digital. This means it only receives 1s and 0s. If the signal is too strong (cable shortened) everything looks like a 1. If the signal is too low ( cable lengthened) everything looks like a 0. Either way no data is received. I guess the folks at Garmin knew what they were doing when they wrote the installation instructions. Loop the excess wire in as large a loop as practicably possible. Try to avoid bundling with Xmtr. Coax. Noel From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of teamgrumman(at)aol.com Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 5:02 AM Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna I've been trying to find an acceptable answer as to why Garmin wants to have the coax cable for the GPS antenna to be between 13 and 15 feet. If I can mount an antenna just 15 inches away from the unit itself, why do I need to mount the antenna 15 feet away? One explanation I got was the 430/530 needed a 3 db loss in the cable. Now, it seems to me that the stronger the signal at the unit is, the better. For what it's worth, I mounted my antenna (Garmin 430) on the glareshield on my Tiger. That was 4 years ago. I've never had any problems with losing the signal. I'm installing another 430 and was told the 430 won't work with a 15 inch cable. Any ideas? _____ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?nci d=AOLAOF00020000000970> ! ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna
Date: Nov 27, 2007
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
So, how long does it take to burn up? =C2-4 years and going strong. -----Original Message----- From: Charles Reiche <reichec(at)verizon.net> Sent: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 3:46 am Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna If you need a short cable run, install a 3db attenuator inline and make the cable as short as you want. Otherwise you can excpect to burn up the front end of the gps reciever due to overload, a $900 + flat rate repair follows. ----- Original Message ----- From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 3:32 AM Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna I've been trying to find an acceptable answer as to why Garmin wants to have the coax cable for the=C2- GPS antenna to be between 13 and 15 feet. If I can mount an antenna just 15 inches away from the=C2- unit itself, why do I need to mount the antenna 15 feet away? One explanation I got was the 430/530 needed a 3 db loss in the cable. Now, it seems to me that the stronger the signal at the unit is, the better. For what it's worth, I mounted my antenna (Garmin 430) on the glareshield on my Tiger. That was 4 years ago. I've never had any problems with losing the signal. I'm installing another 430 and was told the 430 won't work with a 15 inch cable. Any ideas? Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chre f="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List">http://www.matronics. com/Navigator?Avionics-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http ://mail.aol.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna
Date: Nov 27, 2007
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
I have both a Garmin 430 and an Apollo SL-60 with antennas mounted about 12 to 15 inches away. =C2-Both work fine with no signal loss. =C2-I've flow n all over the country with them. =C2-Maybe I'm getting a 3db loss through the plexiglass windshield. -----Original Message----- From: Noel R. C. Loveys <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> Sent: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 9:53 am Subject: RE: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna The received signal is digital.=C2- This means it only receives 1s and 0s. =C2-If the signal is too strong (cable shortened) everything looks like a 1.=C2- If the signal is too low ( cable lengthened) everything looks like a 0.=C2- Either way no data is received. =C2- I guess the folks at Garmin knew what they were doing when they wrote the installation instructions.=C2 - Loop the excess wire in as large a loop as practicably possible.=C2- Try to avo id bundling with Xmtr. Coax. =C2- Noel =C2- =C2- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@ matronics.com] On Behalf Of teamgrumman(at)aol.com Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 5:02 AM Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna =C2- I've been trying to find an acceptable answer as to why Garmin wants to have the coax cable for the=C2- GPS antenna to be between 13 and 15 feet.=C2- If I can mount an antenna ju st 15 inches away from the=C2- unit itself, why do I need to mount the antenna 15 feet away?=C2- =C2- One explanation I got was the 430/530 needed a 3 db loss in the cable.=C2 - Now, it seems to me that the stronger the signal at the unit is, the better. =C2- For what it's worth, I mounted my antenna (Garmin 430) on the glareshield on my Tiger. That was 4 years ago.=C2- I've never had any problems with losing the sign al.=C2- I'm installing another 430 and was told the 430 won't work with a 15 inch cable.=C2- =C2- Any ideas? Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! =C2- =C2- http://www.matronics.com/contribution http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List http://forums.matronics.com =C2- ________________________________________________________________________ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http ://mail.aol.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 27, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: [Please Read] What are "The Lists" and Who's This Matt
Dralle? Dear Listers, Who is Matt Dralle and what exactly are these Lists? Well, I've been working in the information technology industry for nearly 25 years primarily in computer networking design and implementation. I have also done extensive work in web development and CGI design during that time, along with some embedded system development as well. I started the Matronics Email Lists back in 1990 with about 30 fellow RV builders from around the world. Since that time, I have added 63 other kinds of aircraft related Lists to the line up and numerous other List related services such as the Forums, Wiki, Archives and Search Engine just to name a few. For flexibility and reliability, I have chosen to run all of my own servers here locally. Other List-related systems include a 1 Gigabit, fully switched network infrastructure, a commercial-grade Netscreen firewall, a Barracuda spam filter, a local T1 Internet router, and a commercial-grade business T1 Internet connection with full static addressing. The computer servers found here include a quad-processor Xeon Linux server for List web services, a dual-processor Xeon Linux system dedicated to the email processing List functions, and another P4 Linux system serving as a remote storage disk farm for the archives, databases, and for an on-line hard drive-based backup system with 3.2 Terra Bytes of storage! This entire system is protected by three large, commercial-grade uninterrupted power supply (UPS) systems that assure the Lists are available even during a local power outage! Speaking of power, imagine how much electricity it takes to run all of these systems. One month last Summer, I had a staggering $1368 bill for electricity alone! I recently upgraded all of the computer racking infrastructure including new power feeds and dedicated air conditioning for the room that serves as the Computer Center for the Matronics Email Lists. Last year I added another rack to house the MONSTER quad-processor web system that didn't quite fit into the first rack! Here's a composite photo of the List Computer Center before the addition of the second rack: http://www.matronics.com/MattDralle-ListComputerCenter.jpg As you can see, I take running these Lists very seriously and I am dedicated to providing an always-on, 24x7x365 experience for each and every Lister. But building and running this system isn't cheap. As I've stated before, I don't support any of these systems with commercial advertising on the Lists. It is supported 100% through List member Contributions! That means you... and you... and YOU! To that end, I hold a List Fund Raiser each November and ask that members make a small Contribution to support the continued operation and upgrade of this ever-expanding system. Its solely YOUR Contributions that keeps it running! Won't you please take a moment to make a Contribution to support these Lists! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matronics / Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore CA 94551-0347 USA (Please include your email address on the check!) There are some great gifts available with qualifying Contribution levels too! Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vincent Palermo <vpalermo(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna
Date: Nov 27, 2007
I believe that Garmin is referring to the waas upgrades for the 430/530 series. It also requires that you use double shielded wire, RG-142 or Rg-400. You are right about the short cable length for the 430 and the sl-60, it will work, and so will the gps map series work with a short antenna cable. Also Garmin specs are between -3 and -7 db loss, I wonder if they would approve some kind of impedance matching device in the line??????? Vincent Palermo vpalermo(at)tampabay.rr.com On Nov 27, 2007, at 12:55 AM, teamgrumman(at)aol.com wrote: > I have both a Garmin 430 and an Apollo SL-60 with antennas mounted > about 12 to 15 inches away. Both work fine with no signal loss. > I've flown all over the country with them. Maybe I'm getting a 3db > loss through the plexiglass windshield. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Noel R. C. Loveys <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 9:53 am > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna > > The received signal is digital. This means it only receives 1s and > 0s. > If the signal is too strong (cable shortened) everything looks like > a 1. If the signal is too low ( cable lengthened) everything looks > like a 0. Either way no data is received. > > I guess the folks at Garmin knew what they were doing when they > wrote the installation instructions. Loop the excess wire in as > large a loop as practicably possible. Try to avoid bundling with > Xmtr. Coax. > > Noel > > > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > ] On Behalf Of teamgrumman(at)aol.com > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 5:02 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna > > I've been trying to find an acceptable answer as to why Garmin wants > to have the coax cable for the > GPS antenna to be between 13 and 15 feet. If I can mount an antenna > just 15 inches away from the > unit itself, why do I need to mount the antenna 15 feet away? > > > One explanation I got was the 430/530 needed a 3 db loss in the > cable. Now, it seems to me that the > stronger the signal at the unit is, the better. > > For what it's worth, I mounted my antenna (Garmin 430) on the > glareshield on my Tiger. > That was 4 years ago. I've never had any problems with losing the > signal. I'm installing > another 430 and was told the 430 won't work with a 15 inch cable. > > Any ideas? > Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! > > > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List > http://forums.matronics.com > > ution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > or?Avionics-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List > p://forums.matronics.com > > Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel R. C. Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: GPS Antenna
Date: Nov 27, 2007
With the Gallium Arsenide RF preamplifiers most of these units have there is a real chance that you can overload the pre amp and burn it out Perhaps your GPS doesn=99t have one of those amps. If it does have one and it burns out the whole unit will just stop operating. It is possible that your units have preamp protection. I maintain the best thing to do is to follow the installation manual to the letter. Then if you can afford to replace the unit, play with things like shortening cables. If it still works, great. If it stops working, nothing ventured nothing gained. Noel From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of teamgrumman(at)aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:25 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna I have both a Garmin 430 and an Apollo SL-60 with antennas mounted about 12 to 15 inches away. Both work fine with no signal loss. I've flown all over the country with them. Maybe I'm getting a 3db loss through the plexiglass windshield. -----Original Message----- From: Noel R. C. Loveys <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> Sent: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 9:53 am Subject: RE: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna The received signal is digital. This means it only receives 1s and 0s. If the signal is too strong (cable shortened) everything looks like a 1. If the signal is too low ( cable lengthened) everything looks like a 0. Either way no data is received. I guess the folks at Garmin knew what they were doing when they wrote the installation instructions. Loop the excess wire in as large a loop as practicably possible. Try to avoid bundling with Xmtr. Coax. Noel From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com ] On Behalf Of teamgrumman(at)aol.com Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 5:02 AM Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna I've been trying to find an acceptable answer as to why Garmin wants to have the coax cable for the GPS antenna to be between 13 and 15 feet. If I can mount an antenna just 15 inches away from the unit itself, why do I need to mount the antenna 15 feet away? One explanation I got was the 430/530 needed a 3 db loss in the cable. Now, it seems to me that the stronger the signal at the unit is, the better. For what it's worth, I mounted my antenna (Garmin 430) on the glareshield on my Tiger. That was 4 years ago. I've never had any problems with losing the signal. I'm installing another 430 and was told the 430 won't work with a 15 inch cable. Any ideas? _____ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?nci d=AOLAOF00020000000970> ! http://www.matronics.com/contribution http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List http://forums.matronics.com ution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution or?Avionics-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List p://forums.matronics.com _____ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?nci d=AOLAOF00020000000970> ! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Curry" <currydon(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Truax Corporation in Florida
Date: Nov 27, 2007
I'm looking for info on Truax Corporation in Florida. Apparently, this company manufactures static wicks for aircraft. I can't find them on the web; if someone has heard of them and knows how to contact them, please let me know. Thanks, Don ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 27, 2007
From: Harley <harley(at)agelesswings.com>
Subject: Re: Truax Corporation in Florida
Don... >>Im looking for info on Truax Corporation in Florida<< I'm in a "searching" mood this morning, so.... Found this reference to static discharge wicks designed by Robert Truax, but the company mentioned is TCO: "The technique used to electrostatically charge the aircraft was developed by Robert Truax of TCO, Inc. TCO is a manufacturer of aircraft static discharge wicks and works with various aircraft manufacturers to determine the location and type of discharger required for a specific aircraft." A little further searching produced this: "A purchase order was issued by ISTI to TCO, Inc. of Nogales, AZ and Ft. Myers, FL to obtain high-voltage systems fabrication and testing expertise" And following that lead came up with this: *TCO MANUFACTURING CORP, TRUAX* 604 DANLEY DR FORT MYERS, FL 33901 No web sites found, and not sure if that's what you are looking for, but it's a start! Harley Dixon ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don Curry wrote: > > Im looking for info on Truax Corporation in Florida. Apparently, this > company manufactures static wicks for aircraft. I cant find them on > the web; if someone has heard of them and knows how to contact them, > please let me know. > > Thanks, > > Don > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re-GPS Antenna Coax Length
Date: Nov 27, 2007
When in doubt, go to the front end of the horse. Straight from the "horse's mouth" (Garmin installation tech rep 913-397-8200); there is no requirement for either the GNS430 or GNS530W minimum or maximum coax cable length. Wayne ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard T. Schaefer" <schaefer@rts-services.com>
Subject: Re-GPS Antenna Coax Length
Date: Nov 27, 2007
There is a required DB loss between the WAAS receiver and the antennae, with good connectors and good coax that works out to a nominal coax length. I am sure you might be able to meet it with a short cable and poor workmanship . But how long will it stay in specs. _____ From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Sweet Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:13 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Re-GPS Antenna Coax Length When in doubt, go to the front end of the horse. Straight from the "horse's mouth" (Garmin installation tech rep 913-397-8200); there is no requirement for either the GNS430 or GNS530W minimum or maximum coax cable length. Wayne ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Wow! A Ton of Comments!
Dear Listers, I've been getting a ton of great comments from Listers along with their List Support Contributions lately! I've shared a bunch more below. Please read over some of them and see what your fellow Listers think of the Lists and Forums. There are just a couple more days left before the official end of this year's Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution today to support the continued upgrade and operation of these services. There are still lots of awesome gifts available, so browse the extensive selection and pickup a nice item along with your qualifying Contribution. http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you in advance for your generous support! It is very much appreciated! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ----------- What Listers Are Saying About The Lists ----------- In the big picture, you are most certainly saving lives. The fact that you do it at a very good level of service,


February 18, 2007 - November 28, 2007

Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-am